Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In recent days, the issue of an infinite temporal past as a step by step causal succession has come up at UD. For, it seems the evolutionary materialist faces the unwelcome choice of a cosmos from a true nothing — non-being or else an actually completed infinite past succession of finite causal steps.

Durston:

>>To  avoid  the  theological  and  philosophical  implications  of  a  beginning  for the  universe,  some  naturalists  such  as  Sean  Carroll  suggest  that  all  we  need  to  do  is  build  a  successful  mathematical  model  of  the  universe  where  time  t runs  from  minus  infinity  to  positive  infinity. Although  there  is  no  problem  in  having  t run  from  minus  infinity  to  plus  infinity with  a  mathematical  model,  the real past  history  of  the  universe  cannot  be  a  completed  infinity  of  seconds  that  elapsed,  one  second  at  a  time. There  are at  least  two  problems.  First,  an  infinite  real  past  requires  a  completed  infinity, which  is  a  single  object and  does  not  describe  how  history  actually  unfolds.  Second,  it  is  impossible  to  count  down  from  negative  infinity  without  encountering the  problem  of  a  potential infinity  that  never  actually  reaches  infinity. For  the  real  world,  therefore,  there  must  be  a  first  event  that  occurred  a  finite  amount  of  time  ago  in  the  past . . . [More] >>

Craig:

>Strictly speaking, I wouldn’t say, as you put it, that a “beginningless causal chain would be (or form) an actually infinite set.” Sets, if they exist, are abstract objects and so should not be identified with the series of events in time. Using what I would regard as the useful fiction of a set, I suppose we could say that the set of past events is an infinite set if the series of past events is beginningless. But I prefer simply to say that if the temporal series of events is beginningless, then the number of past events is infinite or that there has occurred an infinite number of past events . . . .

It might be said that at least there have been past events, and so they can be numbered. But by the same token there will be future events, so why can they not be numbered? Accordingly, one might be tempted to say that in an endless future there will be an actually infinite number of events, just as in a beginningless past there have been an actually infinite number of events. But in a sense that assertion is false; for there never will be an actually infinite number of events, since it is impossible to count to infinity. The only sense in which there will be an infinite number of events is that the series of events will go toward infinity as a limit.

But that is the concept of a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. Here the objectivity of temporal becoming makes itself felt. For as a result of the arrow of time, the series of events later than any arbitrarily selected past event is properly to be regarded as potentially infinite, that is to say, finite but indefinitely increasing toward infinity as a limit. The situation, significantly, is not symmetrical: as we have seen, the series of events earlier than any arbitrarily selected future event cannot properly be regarded as potentially infinite. So when we say that the number of past events is infinite, we mean that prior to today ℵ0 events have elapsed. But when we say that the number of future events is infinite, we do not mean that ℵ0 events will elapse, for that is false. [More]>>

Food for further thought. END

PS: As issues on numbers etc have become a major focus for discussion, HT DS here is a presentation of the overview:

unity

Where also, this continuum result is useful:

unified_continuum

PPS: As a blue vs pink punched paper tape example is used below, cf the real world machines

Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)

and the abstraction for mathematical operations:

punchtapes_1-1

Note as well a Turing Machine physical model:

Turing_Machine_Model_Davey_2012

and its abstracted operational form for Mathematical analysis:

turing_machine

F/N: HT BA77, let us try to embed a video: XXXX nope, fails XXXX so instead let us instead link the vid page.

Comments
KF, A "zone" transfinitely remote from the finite neighborhood of 0? You will have to give a proper definition of this. Every single room in the HH I am describing is finitely remote from the front desk, so you won't be able to do the above. Let me also address your use of ω. My HH has room numbers consisting of the opposites of the natural numbers only. In effect, you are working with an extended HH, say HH(ω) which has room numbers also including (some? all?) infinite ordinal room numbers (with a minus sign in front, if you will). That's fine, but that's not the HH I am describing a tour of. ω is not a successor ordinal. I cannot use my procedure of "backing up one room" from room -ω to get to an adjacent room closer to the front desk. Hence my procedure does not work to define a tour of HH(ω). But of course I never claimed I could. My tour traverses HH only.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
kf, you write, in three different posts, the following:
In effect I read that as, as one moves out in steps from 0, things get into a vast impassable wilderness but the sequence keeps going, and eventually it arrives at w and so forth onwards way out there in numbers Sahara territory.
raises issues of ordinals and of the traversing of a transfinite span when one moves off on the open ellipsis
DS, pardon but I said nothing of a starting point, I spoke to a starting zone. One that is transfinitely remote from the finite neighbourhood of 0. If the inspection arises at the transfinitely remote zone of the hotel,
All of these seem to say that if you examine the natural numbers N = {1, 2, 3 ...}, at some point you get "past the ellipsis" into a "transfinite zone" in which you get to the transfinite numbers and "eventually arrive at w and so forth onwards way out there in numbers" All of these things are not true. If you limit yourself to the natural numbers, you never get "past the ellispsis." The transfinite numbers are a different type of number, but they are not part of the natural numbers. I don't believe there is anything in standard mathematics about the natural numbers that corresponds to what you are calling a transfinite zone. So to say that " as one moves out in steps from 0, things get into a vast impassable wilderness but the sequence keeps going, and eventually it arrives at w" is wrong. If you move in steps out from 0 you just keep getting bigger and bigger natural numbers - you never get to some other "zone" and you never get to w.Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Aleta, analogies are not proofs but are often highly instructive and inductively strong. By analogy, if I see you are evidently a mammal, much can safely be inferred by analogy with type-cases, never mind cases such as whales or platypuses. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
DS, pardon but I said nothing of a starting point, I spoke to a starting zone. One that is transfinitely remote from the finite neighbourhood of 0. If the inspection arises at the transfinitely remote zone of the hotel, it has to traverse a transfinite span in single, finite steps if it is to reach a finite neighbourhood of 0, and then eventually rooms . . . -2, -1, 0. I chose a point in that zone, A, to begin a down-count of steps as the tour must pass each successive room. As he passes A, I start to count, to show why something based on an inherently finite stepwise incremental and cumulative process will not be able to traverse the intervening span onwards from A to reach a finite neighbourhood of 0. And nope, substituting a finitely remote zone relative to 0 does not answer the point. If you are inspecting an actual infinity of rooms in succession, you must start at the transfinitely remote zone. Such a tour will not complete as a stepwise process and will not ever reach a zone finitely remote from 0 as at every successive room past A the manager will only be a finite distance past A, never mind how that increments on and on. The implications for a claimed actually infinite in the past space-time world that proceeds in cumulative, finite causal steps, will be plain. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Hi Querius. You write, "Nevertheless, the clip also demonstrates the futility of using mathematical analogies to make an argument." I agree with you about analogies in general - they are useful in illuminating ideas, sometimes, but don't themselves ever prove anything. However, I don' think the clip is using mathematical analogies - it is just using mathematics that is wrong. IAleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
KF, Your post #90 echoes this statement you made earlier:
The room inspection tour must start in the transfinite zone and arrive at the finite one in order to inspect all rooms.
In the Hilbert Hotel model, the tour I described has no starting point. The hotel manager has been inspecting the rooms throughout the assumed infinite past. Furthermore, he has never been more than finitely many steps from the front desk.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Aleta, I have had a thought: if the point is, that there are unlimited numbers that can be set in finite counting sets, I can see that . . . just keep going in steps. However, that does not answer to another linked issue, the import of the ellipsis that the ordered sequence is unlimited in character. For that, setting the ordered numbers in line and applying a definition of a "border" as: if it is finite it is natural, and if it is beyond a transfinite span from 0, it is not a natural though it may be an ordinal starting from w, does not resolve the onward point on descent from the infinite past as claimed. Is that a step of progress? KF PS: In effect I read that as, as one moves out in steps from 0, things get into a vast impassable wilderness but the sequence keeps going, and eventually it arrives at w and so forth onwards way out there in numbers Sahara territory. Of course the y = 1/x wormhole near 0 allows one to catapult to that zone in one astonishing step. Once you are at the w zone, the same impassable Sahara faces s/he who would descend in steps to the zone near 0, so again, the catapult must be used. Now, somebody needs to go write a new Flatland.kairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Q, thanks, indeed the decimal, place value system has two formally equivalent expressions for a whole number, the [n-1] .999 . . . and the [n].000 . . . KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Here's one that I figured out in Junior High (as I'm sure lots of other kids did too). Let n = 0.999... (repeating) 10n = 9.999... 10n-n = 9.999... - 0.999... 9n = 9 n = 1 Therefore 0.999... = 1.000.... :-) -QQuerius
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Glad you watched the video, Aleta, The odd thing is, that this mathematics is used in quantum mechanics as he pointed out in the textbook! Nevertheless, the clip also demonstrates the futility of using mathematical analogies to make an argument. Analogies are great for explanation, but that's where it ends. -QQuerius
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
Aleta, I have no objections to or concerns regarding B. My problem, as described and explained, is how A can be compatible with B, given that we are in fact describing the counting numbers and how we get to the cardinality of "counting sets" as I spoke of for convenience. Where it looks to me like the claim that any counting number k is k = 1 + 1 + . . . + 1 k times over, and may be exceeded by k + 1 (showing it to be finite), raises issues of ordinals and of the traversing of a transfinite span when one moves off on the open ellipsis. Decreeing and declaring that oh, transfinite ordinals are not naturals, does not help my concern a lot, when at the same time, it is held that the naturals are endless and can be so arranged that proper subsets are in 1:1 mutually exhausting correspondence with the whole -- the very definition of being transfinite in cardinality. And, I am avoiding the standardised terminology but reverting to first steps as it seems there is a problem of how the standard terms will be understood/defined. KF PS: I have had occasion to complain of poof-magic mathematical hand waving by physicists on occasion; going all the way back to undergrad years.kairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
In his first step, with S = 1 - 1 + 1 -1 + ..., he correctly points out that you get different partial sums depending on the number of terms: 1 for an odd number of terms and 0 for an even number. He then says we should just average the two, and call the sum 1/2. That is balderdash! S oscillates between two sums, so it does not converge, which is the only legitimate sense in which we can say an infinite series has a sum. There is no legitimate mathematical justification for saying the sum is 1/2. Since everything else builds from there, the rest is all wrong also. See here for a longer explanation: https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112, which interesting enough shows a quantum physics use of some very much more advanced mathematics that would imply that S = -1/12. Quantum physics struggles often with quantities which compute as infinite but in fact, obviously in the real world, aren't: Feynman became famous for coming up with a way to get around this problem in certain kinds of situations. But I object to the guy using bad mathematics to make his point.Aleta
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
nmdaveS
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Aleta, See what happens to your sets of numbers when a physicist gets hold of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww First try to explain if and where there's any error other than you might illogically disagree with the conclusion. -QQuerius
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
On the set N, my concern is the claim every member is finite [thus subject to a finite count out to some k] when joined to the second claim that the cardinality of the whole is transfinite.
But what is your concern? (I am not claiming a completed infinite past, so that is not the current topic.) A: every element of the set of natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, … } is a finite number. B: the number of of numbers in the set N is a transfinite number aleph null. You are using language that is different than mine, and I can't tell whether we are saying the same thing. I'm saying "B: the number of of numbers in the set N is a transfinite number aleph null." Aleph null is the name of the order of infinity possessed by the natural numbers, and is considered a "transfinite number", which define different classes of numbers. But you write, "the cardinality of the whole is transfinite." By the whole, I assume you mean the set of natural numbers. Yes, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is the transfinite number aleph null. But if you are saying what I am saying, what is the concern. Are statements A and/or B above wrong, and if so why?Aleta
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Aleta, I am not at that time discussing a finite span but the transfinite one implicit in a claimed completed infinite past. On the set N, my concern is the claim every member is finite [thus subject to a finite count out to some k] when joined to the second claim that the cardinality of the whole is transfinite. KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
You have a concern about A: what is it? If we are just looking at the natural numbers, I don't see how "traversing the transfinite" is relevant. You write,
Now, let us go to such a succession that goes on through ellipsis to the zone where we pick up w and its successors, w being omega the number that is the “first” ordinal of cardinality aleph null: {} –> 0, to {0} –> 1, to {0,1} –> 2, . . . k, . . . [a transfinite span, as above with counting numbers in succession] . . . w, w + 1, w + 2, . . .
But in the set of natural numbers one would never "go through the ellipsis to the zone where we pick up w". w is not a number in the set N, so there is no way we could reach it in order to go through it. So, to repeat, every member of the set N is a finite number. Why do you have a concern about that?Aleta
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Aleta, on the narrow point, I can see that every number k we can actually complete a count to and make a complete k-set {1, 2 . . . k} will be finite, and will of course have cardinality k. When the indefinite or transfinite traverse ellipsis comes in, that is where my concerns begin; with an endless count, there is not going to be any upper limit count number like that. So, I do have a concern about claim A, especially in connexion with claim B, which I would like to see resolved. Simply listing k = 1 + 1 + . . . 1 k times and there is a successor k + 1 will not help as the ellipsis here is not a transfinite traverse if the claim is k is finite. Beyond, I simply say, the question is interesting but not the end of the story. The onward issue is traversing the transfinite. KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
KF: I'm only interested in part of what you are interested in, but I'm wondering, just to make it clear, if you agree with the two statements I wrote above: A: every element of the set of natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, … } is a finite number. B: the number of of numbers in the set N is a transfinite number aleph null. notice, I am NOT saying that aleph null is in the set somehow You do say that "notice, I am NOT saying that aleph null is in the set somehow," which does bear on your agreement with either A or B. In fact, I think you are saying that you agree with B, and that aleph null is not a member of N. What about A: every element of the set of natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, … } is a finite number. Do you agree with that?Aleta
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
Aleta I have been expressing some concerns and -- given the way there has been back-forth for some time -- it looks like I will need to go to start-points. So, to the construction of (basic sense) counting numbers: {} –> 0, to {0} –> 1, to {0,1} –> 2, . . . k [some finite value], . . . The ellipsis shows, continue to arbitrary length and it keeps going. Now, let us go to what I will for convenience call counting sets: {1}, of cardinality 1 {1, 2} of cardinality 2 . . . {1, 2, . . . k} of cardinality k. The idea being, that when something is to be counted, it can be matched 1:1 perfectly to the appropriate counting set. In general for k finite, the cardinality will implicate the presence of a member of that position, kth, in the stepwise sequence. This may then be exceeded by k + 1, by taking a succeeding step. This goes somewhere interesting and to where my concerns lie:
I note how k is a finite value, and there is an onward ellipsis, such that we then see an exceeding successor, k + 1, then: {} –> 0, then {0} –> 1, then {0,1} –> 2, . . . k, . . .
[a transfinite or endless onward span –> let’s add: for any specific finite k you please you can count on forever in here, k+1, k + 2 . . . and put the onward count in correspondence to 0, 1, 2 . . . or perhaps better 1, 3, 5 . . . having already put everything so far in correspondence with 2, 4, 6 . . . as 1 can here be identified by its being odd as strict successor to all evens (notice, use of the definition of a transfinite set as enfolding an endless strict subset) ]
. . .
So, we see here that the endless version of the ordered counting numbers, {1, 2, 3, . . . } can be such that we put a proper subset in one to one match with it with both being endless. So, to claim that the set is endless and thus of transfinite cardinanlity aleph null -- notice, I am NOT saying that aleph null is in the set somehow -- seems to be in direct irreconcilable conflict with claims that all its members are finite, when they are labelled the natural numbers. Be that as it may, I step aside from the matter. As my real interest lies in descent from the transfinite. We have been dealing with ordered numbers, with a first member and distinct succession, with a ranking/succession rule that is strictly applicable, continuing endlessly. So, let us deal with ordinal numbers as ordinal numbers in succession from 0 or 1 as first depending on interest. I usually start with 0. Now, let us go to such a succession that goes on through ellipsis to the zone where we pick up w and its successors, w being omega the number that is the "first" ordinal of cardinality aleph null:
{} –> 0, to {0} –> 1, to {0,1} –> 2, . . . k, . . . [a transfinite span, as above with counting numbers in succession] . . . w, w + 1, w + 2, . . .
As, from w there is an onward succession: w, w + 1, w + 2, …, w·2, w·2 + 1, …, w^2, …, w^3, …, w^w, …, w^[w^w], …, E_0, …. I then believe I may next reasonably identify one such successor to w that is of interest, w + g , which will be of the same cardinality aleph null, where I am viewing aleph null as in effect an index of order of scale being countably transfinite, with its successors being of higher order of scale and not being countably transfinite; whether the order of scale of the continuum c belongs to the sequence is of course notoriously undecidable: w, w + 1, w + 2, . . . w + g [g a large finite value], …, w·2, w·2 + 1, …, w^2, …, w^3, …, w^w, …, w^[w^w], …, E_0, …. Let us call w + g, A, where also given that [0, 1] is continuous, some infinitesimal m will be its multiplicative inverse: A = 1/m, similar -- note I claim no more than comparability -- to how the nonstandard analysis comes into play elsewhere. Now, given the endless succession from k on, I suggest that in up-counting from a given finite point in the span of numbers, k, we will never reach w in successive finite incremental steps. Likewise, it seems, we may reasonably list in reverse form: . . . A, A less 1 [i.e. W + (g-1)],. . . w, . . . 2, 1, 0 Thus -- without assuming that there is anything but an indefinitely large span beyond A to the left -- we can look at down-counting from A, symbolising [w + (g - 1) as A ~1, etc: A, A ~ 1, A ~ 2, . . . w + 1, w, . . . r, . . . 2, 1, 0 0#, 1#, 2# . . . Now, g is finite but very large, this allows us to establish an ordering down to w. My key concern is that the ellipsis beyond w is endless, so the stepwise down count sequence that begins at A will go on forever without bridging it to r, a finite neighbourhood of 0. Indeed, it seems that once the secondary count started at A hits w at g steps later, and goes on, we are in the position of trying to count across an endless span. Thus, a stepwise count process will not reach r, much less the interval [0,1]. To me, this seems to give some substance to the remark that an inherently finite stepwise counting process will not bridge a transfinite span, will not traverse a transfinite range. This is as distinct from that we may set in order a succession that as a set will define a transfinite span of ordered succession. Countable in principle, inexhaustible in practice. The gap between the potentially infinite process and the actually completed infinite process. To span the transfinite, it seems to me we need the sort of "catapult" that the multiplicative inverse acting on an infinitesimal will give. Applying to the cosmic space-time domain, we have a pattern of causal and temporal succession in finite stpes that are in principle countable. They come from the remote past of origins, and reach to the present. From, say, the singularity as 0 at 13.7 BYA or whatever, we have a finite span to the present, here n*. The issue is then beyond that horizon, where some claim completion of an actually infinite succession: . . . A, A ~ 1, A ~ 2, . . . r, . . . 2, 1, 0, 1*, 2*, . . . n* But the issue already identified is instantly applicable. The finite succession is complete-able, the transfinite is endless by definition, of different orders, aleph null being applied to counting numbers. And so, if we can already see that we have a problem bridging from A to r, there will be a problem bridging to A from the endless values beyond it. It seems to me that the best answer is, that there is some r a finite distance from 0, which is the terminus of the space time domain, i.e. it is inherently finite. As for handy-dandy cookie cutter definitions of sets and members, at this stage I am quite leery, so that is why I have reverted to speaking of ordered succession and counting numbers, with extensions to the zone of transfinite ordinals. Can you address my concerns? I extend appreciation in advance. KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Hi kf. I agree with you about not being to get here from an infinite past. But I am confused about some other issues under discussion. Would you be able to say you agree or disagree with the following statements, from a purely mathematical point of view. A: every element of the set of natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ... } is a finite number. B: the number of of numbers in the set N is a transfinite number aleph null.Aleta
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Aleta, I would add that some of the transfinite/infinite numbers KF refers to are hyperreals.daveS
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
JJ, The issue is, what does it mean to suggest an infinite descent in finite causal steps from an infinite past. And as I am about to discuss further, I have some serious points of concern with what is being given to us. KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Aleta,
to DaveS: transfinite numbers are not real numbers (or natural numbers). Transfinite numbers, which may be a misleading name, are “numbers” which represent different levels of infinity. The number of natural numbers, which is infinite, is called aleph null. This is the smallest order of infinity. The number of real numbers, aleph one, is also infinite, but a greater order of infinity: there are more reals than natural numbers. These are not numbers in the same sense that the reals are numbers.
Yes, I agree. KF claims to the contrary that the set {0, -1, -2, ... } does have transfinite elements. He has stated that if every element of {0, -1, -2, ... } were finite, then that set would have finite cardinality.daveS
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
JJ: Not only is it logically impossible to count back an infinite amount past number of natural events prior to this time Seems reasonable, I thought KF's argument was nothing can happen at all if time was infinite, that infinite time was like walking the wrong way on a moving sidewalk, every time you take a step you are further from your destination, the present. which shows that we could never have reached this moment in time if there were an infinite amount of past natural events, When an event occurs it happens in its present, an infinite number of events equal an infinite number of presents but the idea of “infinite finiteness” which the materialist would have to believe in, if he holds to never ending finite natural events, is a tautological oxymoron. An infinite set can be broken up into a infinite number of finite sets.velikovskys
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
to DaveS: transfinite numbers are not real numbers (or natural numbers). Transfinite numbers, which may be a misleading name, are "numbers" which represent different levels of infinity. The number of natural numbers, which is infinite, is called aleph null. This is the smallest order of infinity. The number of real numbers, aleph one, is also infinite, but a greater order of infinity: there are more reals than natural numbers. These are not numbers in the same sense that the reals are numbers. So Dave is correct when he says "There [are no] transfinite numbers in the set {0, -1, -2, …}. Saying, perhaps, that there is the transfinite number alpha null in the set because the set goes on forever, would be wrong: that would be mixing apples and oranges. The number of numbers in the set is aleph null, but aleph null is not in this set. Is this clear? Does kf agree, or not?Aleta
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Not only is it logically impossible to count back an infinite amount past number of natural events prior to this time which shows that we could never have reached this moment in time if there were an infinite amount of past natural events, but the idea of "infinite finiteness" which the materialist would have to believe in, if he holds to never ending finite natural events, is a tautological oxymoron. The Materialist would have to dump logic on both counts in order to hold to that particular idea.Jack Jones
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
KF, There is no proof there of the existence of any transfinite numbers in the set {0, -1, -2, ...}.daveS
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
DS Please notice what I did at 63, in context including:
Let me augment the list of ordinals of scale aleph null: w, w + 1, w + 2, . . . w + g [g a large finite value], …, w·2, w·2 + 1, …, w^2, …, w^3, …, w^w, …, w^[w^w], …, E_0, …. where of course, ordinals will go: {} –> 0, to {0} –> 1, to {0,1} –> 2, . . . k, . . . [a transfinite span –> let’s add: for any specific finite k you please you can count on forever in here, k+1, k + 2 . . . and put the onward count in correspondence to 0, 1, 2 . . . or perhaps better 1, 3, 5 . . . having already put everything so far in correspondence with 2, 4, 6 . . . as 1 can here be identified by its being odd as strict successor to all evens (notice, use of the definition of a transfinite set as enfolding an endless strict subset) ] . . . w, w + 1, w + 2, . . . [as above] with reminder: The finite ordinals (and the finite cardinals) are the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, …, since any two total orderings of a finite set are order isomorphic. The least infinite ordinal is w [–> omega], which is identified with the cardinal number aleph_0. However, in the transfinite case, beyond w, ordinals draw a finer distinction than cardinals on account of their order information. Whereas there is only one countably infinite cardinal, namely aleph_0 itself, there are uncountably many countably infinite ordinals My concern has been that for the finite counting numbers laid out in ordered sequence, 0, 1, 2 . . . , the cardinality of successive ranges will equal the value of the last listed member. So, a stepwise succession to k will hold cardinality k and this is then exceeded by k + 1 of cardinality k + 1. But in every case, the cardinality is therefore just as described, finite. As in not transfinite, not endless, not of order aleph null.
KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, the highlighted tells a long tale. When a set is presented as “the room numbers are 0, -1, -2, -3, … “ that ellipsis is very important, pointing to the transfinite character of the set. This means that at some scale one is transfinitely far away from the beginning.
Please prove this, including a rigorous definition of the phrase "at some scale". Things you can't do: * Use "real infinitesimals", which do not exist. * Use hyperreal infinitesimals, because their reciprocals are not real numbers. All the numbers in the set {0, -1, -2, -3, ... } are real.daveS
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
1 43 44 45 46 47 48

Leave a Reply