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
GG, of course you are familiar with the von Neumann type construction which starts at the empty set {} and then goes as I outlined at 63: {} –> 0, to {0} –> 1, to {0,1} –> 2, . . . k, . . . , thus getting to all whole numbers -- in principle. You may find my discussion here on (fairly lengthy because of many stages of issues; pick up after the pic and discussion of the flying spaghetti monster . . . ) how this can move to a virtual world interesting. Then, if you are a mind of adequate cosmos-forming power it's fiat lux and poof, we are in the province of a world of space-time, temporal-causal succession. KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Q & GG: Or, ponder how a universe spawns from the dreams of a rock [vs Divine, eternal contemplation], following Aristotle . . . on recognising that rocks have no dreams. Nothing, properly denoting non-being. KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
F/N: Wiki on the hotel:
Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel is a thought experiment which illustrates a counterintuitive property of infinite sets. It is demonstrated that a fully occupied hotel with infinitely many rooms may still accommodate additional guests, even infinitely many of them, and that this process may be repeated infinitely often . . . . The paradox Consider a hypothetical hotel with a countably infinite number of rooms, all of which are occupied. One might be tempted to think that the hotel would not be able to accommodate any newly arriving guests, as would be the case with a finite number of rooms, where the pigeonhole principle would apply. Finitely many new guests Suppose a new guest arrives and wishes to be accommodated in the hotel. We can (simultaneously) move the guest currently in room 1 to room 2, the guest currently in room 2 to room 3, and so on, moving every guest from his current room n to room n+1. After this, room 1 is empty and the new guest can be moved into that room. By repeating this procedure, it is possible to make room for any finite number of new guests. Infinitely many new guests It is also possible to accommodate a countably infinite number of new guests: just move the person occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 4, and, in general, the guest occupying room n to room 2n, and all the odd-numbered rooms (which are countably infinite) will be free for the new guests. Infinitely many coaches with infinitely many guests each For more details on this topic, see Pairing function. It is possible to accommodate countably infinitely many coachloads of countably infinite passengers each, by several different methods. Most methods depend on the seats in the coaches being already numbered (alternatively, the hotel manager must have the axiom of countable choice at his or her disposal). In general any pairing function can be used to solve this problem. For each of these methods, consider a passenger's seat number on a coach to be n, and their coach number to be c, and the numbers n and c are then fed into the two arguments of the pairing function . . . . Analysis Hilbert's paradox is a veridical paradox, it leads to a counter-intuitive result that is provably true. The statements "there is a guest to every room" and "no more guests can be accommodated" are not equivalent when there are infinitely many rooms. An analogous situation is presented in Cantor's diagonal proof.[3] Initially, this state of affairs might seem to be counter-intuitive. The properties of "infinite collections of things" are quite different from those of "finite collections of things". The paradox of Hilbert's Grand Hotel can be understood by using Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers. Thus, while in an ordinary (finite) hotel with more than one room, the number of odd-numbered rooms is obviously smaller than the total number of rooms. However, in Hilbert's aptly named Grand Hotel, the quantity of odd-numbered rooms is not smaller than the total "number" of rooms. In mathematical terms, the cardinality of the subset containing the odd-numbered rooms is the same as the cardinality of the set of all rooms. Indeed, infinite sets are characterized as sets that have proper subsets of the same cardinality. For countable sets (sets with the same cardinality as the natural numbers) this cardinality is aleph_0. Rephrased, for any countably infinite set, there exists a bijective function which maps the countably infinite set to the set of natural numbers, even if the countably infinite set contains the natural numbers. For example, the set of rational numbers—those numbers which can be written as a quotient of integers—contains the natural numbers as a subset, but is no bigger than the set of natural numbers since the rationals are countable: There is a bijection from the naturals to the rationals.
This of course raises many issues. The point being, the power of endlessness. Which requires transfinite character. Where also the situation of having an ordinal immediate successor or immediate predecessor does not mean that a number w + r, r finite, cannot be of transfinite cardinality. From this we see that an inherently finite stepwise cumulative process of in effect counting causal succession will not exhaust the transfinite span. If we hold 0, 1, 2, . . . k, k+1 to be inherently finite to k, the span will not be transfinite. Countable in principle does not mean that one can complete an endless counting process in praxis. As the very word "endless" suggests. If it is thus a supertask to attempt to count up endlessly to arrive at w etc of order of magnitude aleph null, by the same logic it is equally a supertask to try to count down from that scale across an endless span to a finite neighbourhood of 0, of "radius" n. In short there is a difference between in principle and in praxis. Much lurks beneath the ellipsis and we must be very clear as to whether it speaks of a finite and complete-able process or an endless span that cannot be completed by a finite succession of finite steps. Hence the significance of a more powerful process 1/m = A. KFkairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
DS, I notice:
There are infinitely many rooms, but each room number is finite. Please, no more ill-defined expressions such as “of scale little-omega”.
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. That is what gives the problem of completing the stepping down process from the endlessly high value zone to the finite neighbourhood of 0. As for "gibberish," I again point to what I noted at 56 in the previous thread:
Now, the count and successive establishment of counting numbers from {} –> 0, to {0} –> 1, to {0,1} –> 2 etc suggests looking at ordinal numbers as an approach. And such is obviously foundational. Where, for convenience let us refer Wiki (which in this context from my POV is inclined to be seen as testifying against its ideological interests) . . . and where I use w for omega and E for epsilon:
In set theory, an ordinal number, or ordinal, is one generalization of the concept of a natural number that is used to describe a way to arrange a collection of objects in order, one after another. Any finite collection of objects can be put in order just by labelling the objects with distinct whole numbers. Ordinal numbers are thus the “labels” needed to arrange infinite collections of objects in order. Ordinals are distinct from cardinal numbers, which are useful for saying how many objects are in a collection. Although the distinction between ordinals and cardinals is not always apparent in finite sets (one can go from one to the other just by counting labels), different infinite ordinals can describe the same cardinal (see Hilbert’s grand hotel). Ordinals were introduced by Georg Cantor in 1883[1] to accommodate infinite sequences and to classify derived sets, which he had previously introduced in 1872 while studying the uniqueness of trigonometric series.[2] Like other kinds of numbers, ordinals can be added, multiplied, and exponentiated. 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, namely w, w + 1, w + 2, …, w·2, w·2 + 1, …, w^2, …, w^3, …, w^w, …, w^[w^w], …, E_0, …. Here addition and multiplication are not commutative: in particular 1 + w is w rather than w + 1 and likewise, 2·w is w rather than w·2. The set of all countable ordinals constitutes the first uncountable ordinal w_1, which is identified with the cardinal aleph_1 (next cardinal after aleph_0). Well-ordered cardinals are identified with their initial ordinals, i.e. the smallest ordinal of that cardinality. The cardinality of an ordinal defines a many to one association from ordinals to cardinals . . .
This at least looks promising, as it clearly points to whole numbers of transfinite nature, and distinctly identifies increments by addition to the next ordinal. Where cardinality at transfinite scale is an index of order of magnitude expressed at aleph null level by one to one correspondence. The logical next step is to suggest some finite counting number g, to be added to w, and put up as a further construction of A: 1/m = A (That is A * m = 1, multiplicative inverse. Where, m is an infinitesimal.) A = w + g In this context A less 1 would be w + (g – 1) . . . let us symbolise as A ~ 1, and so forth. Under these circumstances, it seems to me for the moment that A would be a transfinite not actually reachable from 0 by an inherently finite step by step process but is a whole number in an identifiable sequence. Reversing the matter let us now look at: . . . A, A ~ 1, A ~ 2, . . . 2, 1, 0, 1*, 2*, . . . n* A is obviously not a first step, the leading ellipsis takes care of that. For all we know for the moment an indefinitely large descending sequence has arrived at A. At least, we must be open to it. But, now we go beyond A and can make a correspondence of onward steps trying to descend to 0, say to be tagged with the singularity: A, A ~ 1, A ~ 2, . . . 2, 1, 0 . . . n* 0#, 1#, 2# . . . We face an inherently finite state based descent that can only ever be completed to a finite extent. But the span to be traversed to 0 is transfinite.
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. But, we then see that the set of numbers -- including of room numbers [how can they be put on the doors?] -- we actually require needs to be of transfinite character, endless. That requires going to transfinite cardinals of order w. The room inspection tour must start in the transfinite zone and arrive at the finite one in order to inspect all rooms. This cannot be completed, no more than it can be completed to increment in steps to the transfinite while being finitely far from the start at each successive, cumulative step. In short, my concern is that the ellipsis does a lot of work, and may be implicitly covering over a supertask not feasible of completion. KF PS: The captcha pops up and goes white screen again.kairosfocus
February 2, 2016
February
02
Feb
2
02
2016
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Aleta, you might want to investigate why, starting with Einstein, physicists refer to something that they call space-time. Gary, the problem that a lot of people have is that they don't understand nothing. Nothing in this context is non-existence. For example, the Easter bunny is non-existent. So, imagine how a universe spawns out of the Easter bunny. -QQuerius
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
GG, nothingness in this context means non-being. Not matter, not energy, not time, not laws and forces, not mind.
KF, in a computer model like I described all of that including time(steps) have to somehow be coded into it or else absolutely nothing ever exists in the virtual world. The methodology forces everyone to start with a total nothingness (i.e. dimension an empty array to put things like forces into) then supply the coded math/logic that makes a world as close as possible to ours form inside.GaryGaulin
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
KF, Your quoted construction is gibberish, I'm sorry to say. Regarding your PPS, the room numbers are 0, -1, -2, -3, ... . There are infinitely many rooms, but each room number is finite. Please, no more ill-defined expressions such as "of scale little-omega". There are so many mathematicians involved with ID. Dembski, Sewell, Berlinski, probably quite a few posters here. Have you ever run any of this stuff by any of them?daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
DS, have you noticed the lead ellipsis in the series? That means the issue is onwards from A, for the sake of the argument. Note 7 above:
what is warranted is that step by step finite succession cannot bridge to the transfinite. This is easiest to see starting at 0 and counting up, but it is patent that bridging the transfinite the other way to appear at the present has to bridge the same span. That is why I went to lengths to identify a reasonable ordered succession 0, 1, 2 . . . [TRANSFINITE SPAN] . . . w, . . . w + g . . . and identify that A = W + g, a transfinite with w the first transfinite ordinal and g some large finite [so still of the scale aleph null] will be such that in a descent . . . A, A~1 [= w + (g – 1)], A ~ 2, . . . 2, 1, 0, 1*, 2* . . . n, n being now, we see A, A~1 [= w + (g – 1)], A ~ 2, . . . 0, 1#, 2#, . . . and so we run into a transfinite bridge and the count down will not reach from A to 0, no more than it can reach up from 0 to A. The causal, finite step by step succession of the past will inherently be finite, strongly grounding the conclusion that the past was finite.
If you cannot get a tansfinite span by incrementa steps after A, it matters not for the argument at this point what may lie beyond A. But then the same logic applies a second time and there is no indefinitely transfinite preceding span for any value. That is the sequence is finite, the past is finite. Time began a finite span ago. KF PS: I used the multiplicative inverse of m and linked mention of the hyper-reals to show how one can get to a transfinite. All it needs is recognising that the interval [0, 1] is continuous, and so there are values arbitrarily, infinitesimally close to 0. Closer than any epsilon neighbourhood of 0. PPS: Without room numbers in the ordered, numbered sequence of rooms that are of scale w [standing in symbolically for omega], of aleph null cardinality, there will not be an actual infinity of rooms. There is a difference between an unspecified large but finite value and an actual infinity, which is what the hotel is supposed to be.kairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Let me explain why all this hyperreal stuff is moot. The issue is whether the past could be infinite. If the past was infinite, then that would certainly mean that given any natural number n, the universe already existed n seconds ago. IOW, -n seconds is a valid time coordinate for our universe (assuming the origin is set at the present). This does not necessarily mean that given some infinite hyperreal integer A, then the universe already existed A seconds ago. I am not supposing such. If you present me with an infinite hyperreal integer A, I don't know if -A is a valid time coordinate for our universe. That's why you have to stick to arguing against the Hilbert Hotel example where the room numbers all come from N (or their opposites), and where each room is finitely many steps from the front desk.daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
nmdaveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, you have acknowledged that a step by step process is inherently finite (even citing with approval arguments based on it). The task in hand is to span the transfinite, and at some point the manager would have been transfinitely far from the last room no 1 and the front desk room 0.
I was just at the gym thinking that at least we are not talking about rooms infinitely far from the front desk anymore. Oh well. At no point was the manager at some transfinite distance from room 0. Every room number is finite, hence every room has finite distance to the front desk. Edit: In response to your PS, I am working with a Hilbert Hotel with room numbers equal to the opposites of the natural numbers. No transfinite room numbers allowed.daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
M62, Your card game example aptly shows the cumulative, causal transition of stages with time and the unidirectional flow. A fresh deck in order is disordered by shuffling and going back spontaneously is a rare event indeed. This reflects the point of trend to increased entropy through moving to config clusters of higher statistical weight. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
DS, you have acknowledged that a step by step process is inherently finite (even citing with approval arguments based on it). The task in hand is to span the transfinite, and at some point the manager would have been transfinitely far from the last room no 1 and the front desk room 0. Step by step successive descent at that level will never bridge down to a finite range from 0 as moving a finite set of steps away from a transfinite point say room w + g to w + (g - 1), w + (g - 2) etc will still be of the same cardinality aleph null away from the front desk; w being the first transfinite ordinal omega which holds cardinality aleph null. Counting up from 0 in steps will never surpass finite values and likewise trying the same span the other way around will not be any more successful. As, has been pointed out to you as a concern any number of times now. Notice, too, when the new guests come the message is broadcast so changes in rooms are all at once [old guests previously in rooms n to rooms 2n, new ones to 2n-1], i.e. in parallel. That is a clue on how action in successive individual steps would fail. KF PS: Notice how Robinson et al have worked in nonstandard analysis to bridge to the transfinite. They use the power of the hyperbolic function y = 1/x for x --> 0 to move in scale from the v small to the very large. Then put in an infinitesimal, to result with a hyper-real, sometimes a hyper-integer. I suggest a more modest "catapult" from some convenient infinitesimal m to y = 1/m = A = w + g, this being a transfinite whole number value of cardinality aleph null. Then, as the manager descends in order, at some juncture he inspects room A.kairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
KF, You're certainly welcome to show that the manager missed a room under my scheme.daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
DS, nope; the issue of stepwise traversal of a transfinite span remains. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
KF, I have told you how the manager traverses the Hilbert Hotel in a step-by-step fashion. That's analogous to my infinite clock example: The manager carries a pocket watch which ticks once per each room he inspects. That's what I said I could do.daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
DS, you have yet to tell us how a finite step by step process traverses the transfinite span of an actual infinity. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Mapou, time is causally connected. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
There is only the present, the NOW. But there are relational changes amongst the objects of the universe. And some of these objects have memory too, besides brains, such as computers, and decks of cards, that record the uni-directionality of these state changes. For example, take a BlackJack game. The deck of cards going from one relational state progressively to another. The odds of the game change due to these relational state changes. The system has memory, and it is based on a "direction" of the state changes. The flow of these state changes is called "time." Even though consciousness is always in the "now", consciousness can change its state as a result of the perception of the progressing state changes among objects. Close your eyes. Consciousness sees black. Open your eyes. Consciousness sees colors.mike1962
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
KF:
While time is evidently unidirectional
This, too, is an illusion created by the way the way our brain stores memory as a sequence that can be scanned as such by our consciousness. IOW, it's not even wrong. The idea of a unidirectional arrow of time is pure nonsense. There is only the present, the NOW. I have explained many times on UD why there can be no such thing as changing time or motion in time. It is a self-referential fallacy. I would do it again but I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears. So this is my last post in this thread. Have fun with your misconceptions.Mapou
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
KF, No, I have described how the manager could inspect every room in the Hilbert Hotel. If you disagree, name a room that he missed, or otherwise prove that one exists. Please note that every room number is finite. Edit:
PS: You have now added oh try two rooms and infinitely many cycles between the two. This still leaves on the table the issue of finiteness of stepwise process.
Obviously. That's the point.daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
DS, you have described how the manager could inspect finitely many rooms in an inherently finite process. The problem is the span in question is transfinite and endless in the first degree, of scale aleph null. KF PS: You have now added oh try two rooms and infinitely many cycles between the two. This still leaves on the table the issue of finiteness of stepwise process.kairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Aleta, the argument on the table -- in now a third current thread -- is in fact that the universe (taking in multiverse proposals etc) is infinitely old. Mathematical considerations are tied to the issue of there being a proposed endless causal stage by stage succession of events to the present. However, inherently a step by step countable process is inherently finite if completed. The span to be addressed is by contrast transfinite. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Aleta @41, Yes, just to clarify, I think it's very unlikely that our universe is infinitely old, not that my opinion means anything. I'm not trying to prove it is. I'm simply interested in analyzing KF's argument against an infinite past. While I don't think it succeeds, at least it's new (to me). Ultimately, I suppose we are discussing time in the universe, but we have been mostly focusing on the properties of number systems, the infinite, etc., as you said.daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
KF, Could you translate your mathematical objection about "spanning the transfinite with the inherently finite" to the Hilbert Hotel? I've described very simply how the manager could inspect each of the infinitely many rooms of the hotel, with each step simply moving to the next room over. What's the mathematical issue? Regarding the physical feasibility of the HH, of course that's true. The point is it's a concrete model which allows us to reason about the abstract more easily. You could make the hotel less spectacularly infeasible by requiring it to have only two rooms, with the manager going back and forth between rooms once per second, with this process having continued into an infinite past. I don't think it's been shown that a physical analog of this process is impossible (see the oscillating universe models which remain unrefuted at this point). But again, I'm interested in the mathematics here, not the physics.daveS
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
to Q at 33. I don't believe anyone in this discussion is arguing that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. They are arguing about the abstract nature of time as it might be stretching back before the start of the universe. If I'm wrong about this, kf and ds, please correct me - you haven't been discussing time within our universe, have you?Aleta
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
DS, the core issue seems to be conceptual. If we have had an infinite step by step temporally manifested causal succession to now, it has had to span a transfinite domain to reach the present or any finitely remote past point you care to identify. This is problematic given that any step k is succeeded by k + 1, etc, leading to an inherently finite successive pattern of cumulative steps -- something you and the sources you cite appeal to in claiming that all natural numbers are finite.* Substituting inherently finite spans of discrete cumulative steps across the finite past does not succeed in replacing or removing that challenge. You have acknowledged the inherent finitude of stepwise processes and thus by implication the impotence of same to span the transfinite range that is required. In short, the processes you accept do not have the power to address the challenge in hand, spanning the transfinite. KF PS: Hilbert's Hotel shows, spectacularly, why the abstract infinite would be utterly infeasible in the physical world. A full hotel [which means every room is occupied] that by reassigning rooms suddenly can hold a further infinity of guests? A manager able to inspect all the rooms in finite stepwise succession down to the reception hall and desk? [We call that room 0.] Workers able to build and complete it room by room? Where, physical feasibility is a constraint on physical actuality. * I agree that any number we actually reach or exceed by step by step counting is finite, but am concerned that the span of counting numbers is in principle unlimited in range thus transfinite. The ellipsis -- . . . -- may inadvertently disguise that a transfinite range thus a potential transfinite span rather than an actually traversed one, has been put into the discussion. The ordinals gives us a way to discuss this, and that is what I used above and previously. 1/m = A where A is also w + g, beyond the first transfinite ordinal and is of cardinality aleph null arises in that context as a way to put in symbolic terms the issue of concern.kairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
GG, nothingness in this context means non-being. Not matter, not energy, not time, not laws and forces, not mind. We may indeed profitably discuss levels in potential field and conservation but energy in physics is never in itself a negative. As one clue notice how kinetic energy is associated with a velocity squared term, the mass-energy relationship depends on speed of light squared, and in the force-displacement dot product formulation dW = F dot dx work signs do not split into something from nothing but into energy flows from one type to another. Ponder in this context energy conservation. KF Algebra: 0 = R - R, rearranged R = R. This is little more than the RHS restates the same value and kind as the LHS. This does not flash such into physical actuality. An equals sign has no power to create. Especially, something from nothing. (Perhaps, inadvertently, we should see that it is a thought, pointing to a mind reflecting on logical-quantitative and structural relationships. A mind is something creative and in theism God is the ultimate creative Mind!)kairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
Mapou, we are dependent on a past causal succession that has led to the present. While time is evidently unidirectional and so far as we see open ended to the future, we may and do profitably wish to ponder that past by moving backwards in analytical thought. Not least as the weight of that cumulative past informs us about underlying regularities of behaviour, trends and values of key parameters that can guide us in acting now to favourably shape the future. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2016
February
02
Feb
1
01
2016
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
Querius:
the sum allows us to move backward in time
Motion in time is an absurdity. It's not even wrong.Mapou
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
1 44 45 46 47 48

Leave a Reply