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
Let's see what a physicist at the University of Nottingham does with an infinite number series . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww Then, as you can clearly see from the math (which is used in string theory) that if we assign a billion years for each number, the sum allows us to move backward in time! o.O -QQuerius
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Infinity is a religion of cretins. Just saying.Mapou
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Uh, no. The part after the second “or” does not follow. You just went from -R to +R with no justification at all.
I admit to not being a math-wiz. And creating two opposites of something from nothing using the equation 0=R-R where (R is not equal to 0) is in a way oversimplifying. But then again in works in math so who knows? If you are good at showing all the possible ways to substitute the equation variables then please show me what you find. At least in computer logic it's the start of a very simple oscillation that (with no forever increasing Time variable) would go forever into infinity, if it were not for power blackouts and computers not being expected to be able to stay going that long.GaryGaulin
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
Lessee, what would it be like to live in a universe that's infinitely old? - Due to inflation, many stars would be infinitely far apart - There would be an infinite number of dead stars filling up space, blocking out the light from new stars - There would have to be a way that new stars would spontaneously appear, and at a rate consistent with cosmic inflation - The entropy of the universe would be maximized, just below the rate of new stars magically appearing from somewhere - Everything that could have happened happened already - Science would finalize its divorce from reality, and evolve into a system of whose sole purpose is to rationalize observations into a philosophically acceptable narrative for atheists - The Multiverse hypothesis could be abandoned as redundant - A lot of people would have to apologize for arguing that if God exists, who created God. It's turtles, gods, and stars all the way down. -QQuerius
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
JDH, Would you please point out my mathematical errors then?daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
daveS At this point in the debate with KF, you have had many people ( some with advanced degrees in math ) try to explain this to you. It is clear you don't understand the concept. It may be an assumption of mine, but I assume you are also a naturalist. You are not helping your cause by showing how dogmatically you can hold a position, even when others can see that your position is not true.JDH
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Gary writes,
0=R-R or: -R=0-R or: +R=0–R
Uh, no. The part after the second "or" does not follow. You just went from -R to +R with no justification at all. I have no idea what the point is, but that is wrong.Aleta
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
KF, I know my thoughts on this are an oversimplification but it makes sense math-wise, and might contain a clue for you to work on. Energy to achieve maximum Radius of universe is mathematically possible from nothing (zero) by separating the nothingness into equal positive and negative halves: 0=R-R or: -R=0-R or: +R=0--R = +R=0+R The phase Angle (one Radian or 0 to 360 degrees each) is analogous to time but only repeats itself in cycles, as opposed to a continuous timeline. In 1D is a sine wave: X=Cos(A)*R Adding Y for 2D makes a circle: Y=Sin(A)*R Adding Z for 3D makes a sphere. Calculate X,Y,Z using your favorite spherical coordinate formula or matrix math. The law of conservation of energy is not violated. Only thing required is that nothingness cannot exist without some wave forming imbalance that we in turn perceive as a universe containing matter and antimatter.GaryGaulin
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
KF, I have simply been saying that a clock ticking throughout an infinite past up to the present cannot be defeated using simple cardinal arithmetic. That's really in essence identical to this Hilbert Hotel example, which I have just explained. I don't know if that counts as "spanning the transfinite with the inherently finite", but it's all I have been asserting.daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
DS, how do you span the transfinite with the inherently finite? KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
KF, PA system?? Smart phone?? We don't need to get into that. Obviously this hotel is not physically realizable, but that's not the point. The manager was in room -n n seconds ago, for all natural numbers n. He completed the inspection of every single room just now. I don't know if that's what you call "spanning the transfinite", but it's quite parallel to the clock example. You can't show it's impossible just based on cardinalities.daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
DS, being in room n, n seconds past does not bridge to reaching the front desk at 0 when we deal with the transfinitely remote rooms; when also the inspection process is a finite step by step process. And that does not get into the problems of managing the suggested actual hotel as a whole that are independent of his inspection tour. Assume he has a smart phone and a PA system that reaches every room, with an assistant at front desk. Infinitely many new guests arrive and he is full but by asking guests in room -n to go to room 2n suddenly he can put the new ones into 2n - 1, and yet will have the same number of guests after such a move. And so forth. KF.kairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
KF, Gotta run. In the scenario I described above, the manager was in room -n n seconds ago, for each natural number n. Given any room in the hotel, I can tell you when he was there.daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
DS, Yes a manager can span the finite in finite time. But the issue is to span the proposed transfinite with an inherently finite stepwise process. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
DS, do you not see that a transfinite span to 0 then runs into a problem when it is to be spanned by an inherently finite process? KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
KF,
I point out that what holds a finite value cannot at the same time be a transfinite span from the origin, 0.
Yes, that's something I've been saying all along. Again, put all this together and run it by vjtorley, please. Edit: Re: your HH explanation: If the manager was in room number -100 one hundred seconds ago, he arrives at the desk now.daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
PPS: More reading, HT Niw: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmologykairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
DS, I note to you that if you wish to define "all" integers as finite -which then raises serious concerns on then claiming the cardinality of the set of integers is transfinite if such be applied -- a finite integer must needs be a finite span of "units" or steps from 0 -- that does not remove from the table the span of ordinal whole numbers suitable for counting sequences. That is why I have latterly stayed strictly away from appealing to "natural numbers" and "integers." I point out that what holds a finite value cannot at the same time be a transfinite span from the origin, 0. Likewise, no finite span of steps will be able to traverse the transfinite span. The challenge remains, to traverse the transfinite in a stepwise process that rests on finite stages. Assertions about at a given time it stands done do not answer the issue. Hence my use of A above. KF PS: For HH, simply revert to negatively numbered rooms, so the regression is open ended in the opposite to usual direction: . . . -2, -1, 0. Each room is now a second, say, and the tenant in it the events thereof. Has anything fundamental about the problems of actualising such a hotel changed? Try, the manager inspects each room in turn, and has been doing so forever at a rate of one per second. When does he arrive at the front desk, 0? Or imagine, builders are building the rooms at one per day forever, when will they get to building the front desk? (Can they reach room 0 from room w + g, aka room A, which is transfinitely remote from 0, given that a day by day sequence of room builds is inherently finite? Does building A, A~1, A~2, . . . in sequence [an inherently finite process] arrive at 0 by traversing the transfinite distance to 0? Where the span to 0 is endless?)kairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
See also my UD article: https://uncommondescent.com/?s=%22the+dissolution+of+today%22niwrad
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
The HH example involves a customer attempting to enter the full hotel, so there is a starting point. And recall:
And the point that from any moment in the infinite past there is only a finite temporal distance to the present may be dismissed as irrelevant.
WLC affirms that "from any moment in the infinite past there is only a finite temporal distance to the present". As I mentioned in the other thread, I'll step back and let others discuss. If vjtorley is interested in addressing these arguments involving transfinite natural numbers and finite numbers of "order aleph-null", then I for one would like to see it.daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
DS, nope he has not done so, but made a statement for sake of argument that shuts out a side discussion that we are now having. I repeat, I am quite concerned that any proposed bridging from a transfinitely remote point -- not the beginning of the whole, but a point that is ordinally subsequent (as illustrated) -- to the present that suggests that a finite and completed sequence attains the present is questionable or even contradictory. Is the zone bridged transfinite? If yes, no finite sequence of steps can completely bridge it to 0. Is the zone in question one that has been bridged by a FINITE and now completed sequence to now? If yes to this instead, obviously the bridged span is just as FINITE not transfinite. What looks very much like trying to have the cake and eat it too is to propose that a TRANSFINITE span has been bridged by a FINITE, completed step by step descent. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Yes, I read the HH discussion. It presumes a starting point, so it doesn't parallel my clock example, which has none.daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
KF, First notice this:
And the point that from any moment in the infinite past there is only a finite temporal distance to the present may be dismissed as irrelevant.
That may be irrelevant to their discussion, but is quite central to ours. WLC agrees with me in that any point in the infinite past is only finitely distant temporally to the present.
The question is not how any finite portion of the temporal series can be formed, but how the whole infinite series can be formed.
I assume that a deity who exists outside of time would be able to form such a series. Do you think that even God could not arrange this?daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
DS, have you actually read the discussion of HH? An infinite number of past seconds occupied in succession by events fits right in. And I have just put up a PS on spanning the transfinite. KF PS: Note, my point of concern has always been, that to count up to or down from infinity the transfinite would have to be spanned in step by step finite succession, leading to an impossibility.kairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
PS: Particularly observe:
Against (2.21), Mackie objects that the argument illicitly assumes an infinitely distant starting point in the past and then pronounces it impossible to travel from that point to today. But there would in an infinite past be no starting point, not even an infinitely distant one. Yet from any given point in the infinite past, there is only a finite distance to the present.[16] Now it seems to me that Mackie's allegation that the argument presupposes an infinitely distant starting point is entirely groundless. The beginningless character of the series only serves to accentuate the difficulty of its being formed by successive addition. The fact that there is no beginning at all, not even an infinitely distant one, makes the problem more, not less, nettlesome. And the point that from any moment in the infinite past there is only a finite temporal distance to the present may be dismissed as irrelevant. The question is not how any finite portion of the temporal series can be formed, but how the whole infinite series can be formed. If Mackie thinks that because every segment of the series can be formed by successive addition therefore the whole series can be so formed, then he is simply committing the fallacy of composition.
kairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
KF, It's not clear to me that he impossibility of the existence of Hilbert's Hotel implies the impossibility of the existence of an infinite past. "Things" is a pretty general term. But, at least WLC's argument is not based on mathematical misunderstandings, I will say.daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
DS, I suggest you read here http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html for an outline of Craig's Kalam argument and for some elaboration of the following skeleton outline, and notice how Hilbert's Hotel is applied:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. 2.21 A collection formed [--> note tense, denoting completion] by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. ________________ 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
PS: For further thought, Tim Holt, http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/maths-and-the-finitude-of-the-past/ :
three mathematical arguments for the finitude of the past will be outlined. The first argument draws on the idea that actual infinites cannot exist, the second on the idea that actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the third on the idea that actual infinites cannot be traversed. If any of these arguments is successful, then the second premise of the kalam arguments will have been proven. The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite The first mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that the existence of an infinite number of anything leads to logical contradictions. If the universe did not have a beginning, then the past would be infinite, i.e. there would be an infinite number of past times. There cannot, however, be an infinite number of anything, and so the past cannot be infinite, and so the universe must have had a beginning. Why think that there cannot be an infinite number of anything? There are two types of infinites, potential infinites and actual infinites. Potential infinites are purely conceptual, and clearly both can and do exist. Mathematicians employ the concept of infinity to solve equations. We can imagine things being infinite. Actual infinites, though, arguably, cannot exist. For an actual infinite to exist it is not sufficient that we can imagine an infinite number of things; for an actual infinite to exist there must be an infinite number of things. This, however, leads to certain logical problems. The most famous problem that arises from the existence of an actual infinite is the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox. Hilbert’s Hotel is a (hypothetical) hotel with an infinite number of rooms, each of which is occupied by a guest. As there are an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, every room is occupied; the hotel cannot accommodate another guest. However, if a new guest arrives, then it is possible to free up a room for them by moving the guest in room number 1 to room number 2, and the guest in room number 2 to room number 3, and so on. As for every room n there is a room n + 1, every guest can be moved into a different room, thus leaving room number 1 vacant. The new guest, then, can be accommodated after all. This is clearly paradoxical; it is not possible that a hotel both can and cannot accommodate a new guest. Hilbert’s Hotel, therefore, is not possible. A similar paradox arises if the past is infinite. If there exists an infinite past, then if we were to assign a number to each past moment then every [counting] number (i.e. every postive integer) would be assigned to some moment. There would therefore be no unassigned number to be assigned to the present moment as it passes into the past. However, by reassigning the numbers such that moment number one becomes moment number two, and moment number two becomes moment number three, and so on, we could free up moment number one to be assigned to the present. If the past is infinite, therefore, then there both is and is not a free number to be assigned to the present as it passes into the past. [--> notice the link to Hilbert's Hotel] That such a paradox results from the assumption that the past is infinite, it is claimed, demonstrates that it is not possible that that assumption is correct. The past, it seems, cannot be infinite, because it is not possible that there be an infinite number of past moments. If the past cannot be infinite, then the universe must have a beginning. This is the first mathematical argument for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument. The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite created by Successive Addition The second mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that an actual infinite cannot be created by successive addition. If one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. If one has a heap of sand, and repeatedly adds more sand to it, the heap will never become infinitely large. Taking something finite and repeatedly adding finite quantities to it will never make it infinite. Actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition. The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time. If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning. This is the second mathematical argument for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument. The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite that has been Traversed The third mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that actual infinites cannot be traversed. If I were to set out on a journey to an infinitely distant point in space, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been walking for, a part of the journey would still remain. I would never arrive at my destination. Infinite space cannot be traversed. Similarly, if I were to start counting to infinity, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been counting for, I would still only have counted to a finite number. It is impossible to traverse the infinite set of numbers between zero and infinity. This also applies to the past. If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. Clearly, though, the present has arrived, the past has been traversed. The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite. The universe has a beginning.
More points to ponder.kairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
KF, As I said, I am just noting that I agree with WLC on the issue of an infinite past. He does not claim anywhere in the quote that it is impossible. Certainly not based on cardinality grounds. Regarding your construction, there are no large finite numbers g "of the scale aleph null". I don't have to read any further after that error. Why don't you contact WLC and ask him to review your argument?daveS
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
DS, no step by step completed process of cause-effect [including a counting succession] can but be finite. It will therefore fail to span the transfinite. For many good reasons, reasons reflected in the assertion of those who form natural, counting succession numbers by incrementing, that all naturals are finite. (My concern is that an ordinal succession can be defined and if it is of transfinite scale -- endless -- not all members can actually be reached by completed counts. As opposed to, we can point out how to reach them in principle.) When Craig states "there never will be an actually infinite number of events, since it is impossible to count to infinity" he has elsewhere specifically identified a succession of seconds as relevant events for this. He is not in disagreement -- but per the Kalam cosmological is famously in agreement -- with Durston when the latter states:
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 . . .
But the issue is not so much who agrees/disagrees but what is warranted. And, 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. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2016
January
01
Jan
31
31
2016
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
1 45 46 47 48

Leave a Reply