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
Aleta! #1265
And how about the Sierpinski triangle, with an area of zero and an infinite perimeter.
Fabulous! I used that as an example in the sequences and series section once. The cube version is fun too!!. The whole idea of taking the limit to infinity runs so much through 100-level calculus I find it completely mundane! It's hard sometimes to see what could be misunderstood. Without that we'd have to throw out calculus and go back to mid-17th century mathematics.ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
And how about the Sierpinski triangle, with an area of zero and an infinite perimeter.Aleta
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Here is the Wikipedia page on Gabriel's Horn, a mathematical object which has a finite volume but an infinite surface area.. It was first studied in the 17th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn Like I said, lovely stuff. I first saw this as a freshman or sophomore at University. It's a very standard example in 100 level calculus courses. It was stuff like that which really got me thinking I'd like to study mathematics; I'd planned on being an engineer or doctor before that. Notice too how part way through the article it is proved that it's impossible for a 3D object to have a finite surface area and an infinite volume. Notice too how this was part of a dispute involving people such as Thomas Hobbes, John Wallis and Galileo. Like I said, all part of standard, non-controversial, even basic level mathematics. And we're a few centuries past that point now.ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
SA and KF Here's one of my favourite examples to use while teaching solids of rotation. Take the function 1/x from x = 1 on (out to infinity) and rotate it around the x-axis. You get an infinitely long horn-shaped thing. By using calculus you can show that its volume is finite but its surface area is infinite. Lovely stuff. Hard to deal with in Philosophy or logic though eh? Math has great explanatory power, especially dealing with mathematical infinities. It's beautiful stuff. And, again, this is non-controversial, standard undergraduate level mathematics.ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
KF #1260
That would imply ending the endless. It would also include a transfinite member of the set of counting sets. Which of course would not be a finite value.
No, that is not the case. You cannot count to the smallest infinite cardinal number but this is not a problem.
This instantly shows that there can be no infinite set of successively larger finites.
Also, incorrect. If you were correct then there would be a largest finite number which there clearly is not. You don't 'traverse' or 'span the endlessness'. Counting up from any finite integer never gets you to the end and it never gets you to the transfinite numbers.
We then extend our number concept to include w as representing succession to endlessness.
Sigh. Why not use standard mathematical vocabulary. I take it you're thinking that w is the cardinality of the positive integers, generally known as aleph-0 or aleph-nought or aleph-null. That's the smallest infinite cardinal number. Which is followed by aleph-1, aleph-2, etc. All of the cardinal numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3 . . . and aleph-0, aleph-1, etc) form a well-ordered set which means if you give me any two of them I can tell you which one is larger. But it doesn't mean you can 'traverse' them all by counting. That is not correct. Yet you keep addressing that issue over and over and over again. Your 'concern' is not a concern. It's been addressed over 100 years ago. And the mathematics dealing with that is now mainstream and non-controversial. And it has nothing to do with the existence (or not) of an infinite past or future. That's a physics question (in my opinion).ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
kf, yes you have used symbols to express your concern, but you have not explained mathematically what the concern is. You've never defined what the "far zone" is, nor what its "members" are. Without a mathematical formulation of the concern, your concerns are just informal and vague difficulties with accepting the mathematical concept of infinity, There is nothing in the definition of natural numbers that says that the stepwise process of adding 1 to the previous number ever "ends the endless". However, nevertheless, modern set theory postulates that the infinite set, as a whole, exists. And, as you point out, the extension of the number system to include w formalizes the existence of the infinite set - not as something which must be endlessly reaching towards completion but as something which is complete. I know this creates a sense of mystery in our minds, because we can't intuitively grasp the infinite, but that mystery doesn't override the fact that the math is solid. That is one of the beauties of math - that it can lead us to solid conclusions that are surprising and even puzzling. So let me repeat this: when you wrote,
Where w as limit ordinal has no specific, definable finite predecessor. All such definable finite counting numbers are behind a wall of endlessness so w is a limit ordinal. That seems to me to resolve concerns.
What concerns does accepting w resolve for you? It seems to me that you might be agreeing here with what I just wrote: that you realize the intuitive, subjective nature of your concerns, but that you also accept that mathematically they are resolved by the system of transfinite numbers and modern set theory. Is this what is resolved?Aleta
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
EZ, You exemplify my concern by attempted reversal of the order. Aleta: I have sufficiently shown -- including in symbols -- the basis of my concern, which can be boiled down to the at minimum paradox of an infinite succession of finite values from 0 in +1 increments where each successor is in effect the collection of counting sets so far. Were this to proceed to actual infinite extent [a collection of successive counting sets of infinite scope], this would include 0 +1 +1 +1 . . . to infinite extent, which cannot be finite, or would be a set that collects {0,1,2 . . . } endlessly. That would imply ending the endless. It would also include a transfinite member of the set of counting sets. Which of course would not be a finite value. Further, as the two tapes case shows, at any finite value k we are in effect only at the beginning of endlessness, we cannot successively by finite stage steps traverse the endless. This instantly shows that there can be no infinite set of successively larger finites. For, every successive finite is a fresh beginning to the whole process, it cannot span the endlessness. That is, k --> k+1, return this to the k register, repeat the assignment of a successor, do forever as was explicitly shown in 217 above. Finite, and forever facing the onward succession k, k+1, k+2 . . . that may be matched 1:1 with 0,1,2 . . . Instead, we may only represent -- notations such as scientific notation etc depend on finites and so face the same limits -- or reach by succession from 0 as specific counting numbers, finite values, and by ellipsis may see the process continues end-less-ly in principle. We then extend our number concept to include w as representing succession to endlessness.kairosfocus
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
SA #1253
The question is, can an infinite past actually exist? It can exist in poetry or math (which are about the same in this case). But could it exist in reality, in the universe?
I have no opinion on that matter. I don't see why not but I have no argument yeah or nay. I'm only interested in the mathematics. And I think that is independent of the universe as we experience it.ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: First, let me thank you for engaging in a civil discussion that has now gone on longer than anyone anticipated. hear hearMung
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
ellazimm
Where does freedom exist? Where does justice exist? Where do you exist?
Some attempt to answer these through a materialist understanding. But the concepts of rational choice, being, virtues and moral value are not-reducible to matter and also non-reducible to mathematics. They're metaphysical questions the come prior to mathematics and which also transcend physical matter. From metaphysics, it's easy to recognize scales of value, being, perfections -- and those are the basic proofs for the existence of God, thus theology. Mathematics and logical systems support and contribute to our understanding but they're not the foundation. For example, math assumes that truth is better than falsehood. Or even beyond that, math assumes that truth is different in significant ways that falsehood. But it's actually philosophy that determines that. Humans are oriented towards truth - we assign a positive value to truth. Logic is based on that - it's dependent on that philosophical principle. It didn't create or invent it. We choose truth as a value over false. Math couldn't exist without that. Although it's certainly possible in principle to create a system where truth and falsehood have equal value (Politics, communism, advertising, manipulation ... even some branches of religious belief assert that falsehood has higher value than truth in some situations). That's one of the beauties of math. It segments results into true or false. There is a lot less ambiguity and less tolerance for deceptive answers. It offers real proofs in many cases. But in the case of infinite entities, mathematics lacks explanatory power and can give illogical conclusions (like an infinite past being actually possible).Silver Asiatic
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Aleta: I really don’t know how seriously to take this question, because I can’t tell how serious Mung is in general, but I’ll give it a try. Thank you. :) I'm serious with a/an [un]healthy dose of levity tossed in to continually remind us to not get too serious. We're human, after all.Mung
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
KF,
PS: And it is quite clear that people like DS and Russell etc are talking about physically instantiated material and temporal infinities, arguing that such are not illogical and must be taken as serious possibilities.
Yes, I have talked about actual temporal infinities in the physical universe. My main point is that I don't believe you can show they are impossible using mathematics/logic/philosophy only.
That is the context in which issues of causal succession, stepwise finite stage traversal of the transfinite or endless and whether an actual infinity can be actualised quantitatively not just as a symbolic representation, abstract entity or useful fiction arise. The logic is telling us that endlessness has properties that make such claims highly dubious.
Well, I think WLC and others in this thread make a stronger claim, namely that an infinite past is logically impossible.
It seems we may readily see [quasi-]physical entities that are very large but not actually transfinite. For reasons connected to why we cannot build a square circle.
I don't think the problems with infinite ladders etc. are as severe as those with a square circle. The idea of a square circle is clearly contradictory, so such absolutely cannot exist. How would we know for certain that the universe does not contain an infinitely long ladder somewhere? At some point we have to rely on the empirical science to draw that conclusion, but of course all conclusions of empirical science are provisional.daveS
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
kf, you repeat a key "concern":
It may also toss out unexpected consequences, and one of these from what I have seen is that it may not be safe to extrapolate from a first case and a stepwise successor implication to properties of far zone members that would be influenced by endlessness. What ordinary mathematical induction establishes is that the members we can reach or represent are inherently finite cases and will hold the demonstrated properties. However this does not warrant us in drawing conclusions on things that pivot on endlessness. It is in this context that I have been concerned by conclusions drawn about an infinite actual number of FINITE natural numbers, succeeding one another in +1 increments from 0. In the far zone, there lies endlessness which cannot be plumbed or exhausted in stepwise succession.
But as I pointed out in my post about insights, you are completely unable to formalize your insights in a mathematical way that would allow others to evaluate them. What "unexpected consequences"? What is "not safe" about extrapolating "from a first case and a stepwise successor implication to properties of far zone members that would be influenced by endlessness." What is the world is the "far zone" and what "members" does it contain? You've never given any mathematical explanation of what any of these things might mean. However, you also say,
Where w as limit ordinal has no specific, definable finite predecessor. All such definable finite counting numbers are behind a wall of endlessness so w is a limit ordinal. That seems to me to resolve concerns.
Does it resolve your concerns that you mention in the first paragraph I quoted? Does the existence of w, which accepts and formalizes the infinite size of the set of natural numbers, resolve the problem you see with step-by-step accessibility by accepting the existence of the set as a whole. That is, are you saying that at this point, despite the strangeness and concerns you have, the issues are resolved mathematically by the acceptance of the set as a whole, as represented by it being defined to have a transfinite size?Aleta
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
ellazimm
You don’t have to write a number down to use it or show it exists.
A number is different than a formula that generates a hypothetical number. For something to exist is different than for something "to be hypothesized to exist". Mathematics can be correct but give false explanations about reality. Mathematics says that 10 hippos on my roof plus one is correctly 11 hippos on the roof. Math has no problem with that. Physics does though. Ten hippos cannot be on the roof. Nor can ten unicorns, although math has no problem with them either. Math is just the symbols of a logical language - it is independent of the physics of what actually can happen in reality.
I may be the first person to write down the number 3,456,777,112,890,543,023,111,467,902,222.45678901111111 but that doesn’t mean it didn’t ‘exist’ in principle before that.
Notice - you say "exist in principle". That is different than actually existing. The question is, can an infinite past actually exist? It can exist in poetry or math (which are about the same in this case). But could it exist in reality, in the universe? The concepts of "today" and "yesterday" are measures of reality. We can assign mathematics to them, but today exists outside of mathematics. That is, mathematics did not create or invent "today" or the reality we experience. Mathematics does not speed or slow the passage of time, even though it can measure it in different ways. Mathematics will not make your life one day or one minute longer or shorter than whatever it will be when you die. It's the same with the reality of the universe. An infinite past would require infinite time to reach today, and any string of time that has been extending infinitely cannot have a 'new future'. Any possible future had already been reached. So, an infinite past could not have existed, for reasons given. Even in principle, how do you add another day to the beginning of an infinite past? Over an infinite amount of time, anything that was possible already necessarily occured (in the definition of possible). If it was possible for the universe not to exist, then it would have already happened, because there already has been an infinite number of opportunities to realize that possibility. A new potential event cannot happen "all of a sudden" after an infinite amount of time. If it could have ever happened, in any possible way, at any possible time - it would have necessarily already happened. If it was one in a million chances - already an infinite million chances have occurred. It necessarily would have happened. That's how we calculate probabilities. If something would not have happened after an infinite number of chances, that's the definition of "not possible". After an infinite number of chances, tomorrow did not occur. Therefore, by definition, tomorrow is not possible. If tomorrow occurs, then there was not an infinite past - in reality, not in the imaginary world of mathematics.Silver Asiatic
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
KF #1250
I am always concerned when there is a divorcing of a province of learning from the parent discipline, philosophy. In the case of Mathematics, it in the end is the logical study of structure and quantity. Where, before we get to systems, logic is the study of good reasoning and is a main branch of philosophy.
I'm inclined to think it's the other way around: I'm more likely to assign mathematics as the parent topic with formal logic and philosophy growing out of it. But that is just my own personal, uninformed take on it. Which I can't support so I won't. I don't find the discussion all that interesting. I'm just interested in the mathematics. And whether or not there are an infinite number of primes. And a lot of other questions. Like the Goldbach conjecture. By the way, how do your rectify your philosophy with Euler's formula (e^(i x pi) = -1) which uses an imaginary number, i = sqrt(-1)? I know you find Euler's formula intriguing but how is it reflected in philosophy or logic?ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
SA #1249
As I said, the universe may not be big enough for that number. The bigger the number the more resources it requires to write it down (not to mention energy, time and mental capacity resources).
You don't have to write a number down to use it or show it exists. I may be the first person to write down the number 3,456,777,112,890,543,023,111,467,902,222.45678901111111 but that doesn't mean it didn't 'exist' in principle before that. There is no largest number. There just isn't. If you think you can conceive of one then I'll just add one to it. Or add it to itself. Or square it.
If the universe is finite — then it cannot express an infinite size of numbers. So, the number set would be finite by necessity. It would stop at a certain size number and nothing further could be expressed.
Do you think there are an infinite number of prime numbers? There's a famous proof showing that there are, if you think that is wrong then where is the mistake in the proof? Do you think that sqrt(2) has a finite decimal expansion? The Greeks proved that there is no way to represent the sqrt(2) as the ratio of two integers (which you could do if it had a finite decimal expansion). Where is the mistake in their proof?
Since the expression and comprehension of a number is not constrained to the physical attributes of the brain, an immaterial soul can express an infinitely large size of numbers (to itself, at least). This is good evidence against materialism.
I don't think that follows. Just because you can (or cannot) conceive of something says nothing about the physical world.
However, if you want to think that the expression (or comprehension) of numbers is tied to the activity of neurons in the brain — then we don’t know what the largest number that can be comprehended by a human being is.
Good thing there isn't one then eh?
In any case, where do numbers exist if they don’t take any space in the universe?
Where does freedom exist? Where does justice exist? Where do you exist? Where does 1 mile exist? 1, 2, pi, sqrt(2), 3+4i are not 'things'. (Note, if you actually tried to measure 1 mile on the ground you'd get a different result depending on what length of measuring stick you used. Think about that.) Digits were invented to make it easier to compare the size of sets. It was easier than always putting the sets into 1-to-1 correspondence to see which was bigger. A kind of shorthand. The rest is mucking about or trying to solve some practical problems using the representations of numbers/quantities as a short-hand. Remember we say 2x2 is 2 squared because the Greeks thought of 2x2 as an area of a square 2 units on a side. Later we decided that 2x2 was also just another number. The really amazing thing turned out to be that some very weird and abstract areas of mathematics turned out to have practical applications after they were developed. Like topology. Or number theory. Or non-Euclidean geometry. Or, my favourite example, imaginary numbers. That is just the weirdest thing and I didn't believe it until I took a complex analysis course. It was a real eye opener. As was the class where we studied fractional dimensions using stuff like the Mandelbrot set. Deeply strange and hard to get your head around. Anyway, math uses concepts like infinity all the time. Even sound engineering procedures like Fourier Analysis have it buried deep inside. It is true that some people have tried to construct a whole system of mathematics with a smallest number but it doesn't have the beauty or grandeur of the 'real' thing. (Disclaimer: there used to be anyway a big discussion amongst mathematicians about where the numbers come from. I clearly am taking a particular side in that debate. If you disagree or you want to explore the other arguments be my guest. It's not a pretty sight.)ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
EZ & Aleta: First, let me thank you for engaging in a civil discussion that has now gone on longer than anyone anticipated. I do, however, have some concerns. I am always concerned when there is a divorcing of a province of learning from the parent discipline, philosophy. In the case of Mathematics, it in the end is the logical study of structure and quantity. Where, before we get to systems, logic is the study of good reasoning and is a main branch of philosophy. Not theology, not physics, not personal feelings and idiosyncrasies. Especially in a time where there are indoctrinations and polarisations at work that warp ability to think straight when just even words such as just listed are introduced. Now, it seems that endlessness is being regarded as suspect, imprecise, undefined. End-less, without end or bound, going beyond the limits. Something that appears when one draws up an axis on a graph and puts an arrow head, and maybe plots a parabola increasing without bound or a hyperbola approaching the axis more and more but never reaching it at any finite level. Then, we see much the same in sequences, series and integration ranges. Pop over into complex frequency domain analysis and we see poles. So, going on without limit beyond any arbitrarily large but bounded value is inextricably entangled in a lot of mathematics and especially where it intersects with real world cases. Which are subject to the logic of structure and quantity. Which, is not quite the same as a "consensus" of the currently dominant schools of thought. Especially in a post Godel world in which no axiomatic system for a rich enough domain is complete and coherent and there is no constructive process for synthesising a known coherent axiomatic framework. In short, mathematics is an open ended, first plausibles -- axioms or whatever -- driven endeavour in which one provisionally but confidently trusts tested and reliable findings. (And yes, the often despised f-word, faith, is relevant.) Which brings the significance of test cases of various kinds to the fore. Which, let us not forget, is the immediate context of the current remarks. In this context, the pink vs blue punched tapes example draws out some significant aspects of endlessness, in particular highlighting why no finite stage stepwise cumulative process can traverse -- thus, end -- an endless succession or set. The three dot ellipsis of endlessness is highly significant. {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . or, {0,1,2 . . . } shows how this is embedded in our concept of natural, counting numbers, and is foundational. Succession in +1 steps continues without limit and any successor is a valid member. At the same time, as k, k+1, k+2 etc can be put in 1:1 correspondence endlessly with 0,1,2 . . . this highlights that no finite stage process can actually traverse the full range. This leads to establishing the potentially infinite and pointing across the ellipsis. We use this to define infinite sets, and so endlessness is embedded in the definition as a key property leading to the ability to match a proper subset with the full set. So, the property of end-less-ness is important and to be respected. It may also toss out unexpected consequences, and one of these from what I have seen is that it may not be safe to extrapolate from a first case and a stepwise successor implication to properties of far zone members that would be influenced by endlessness. What ordinary mathematical induction establishes is that the members we can reach or represent are inherently finite cases and will hold the demonstrated properties. However this does not warrant us in drawing conclusions on things that pivot on endlessness. It is in this context that I have been concerned by conclusions drawn about an infinite actual number of FINITE natural numbers, succeeding one another in +1 increments from 0. In the far zone, there lies endlessness which cannot be plumbed or exhausted in stepwise succession. I fully agree that we cannot traverse the ellipsis and so are warranted in recognising a new domain of quantities starting with w. But w embeds that endlessness, it is not invented out of whole cloth when we say: {0,1,2 . . . } --> w Where w as limit ordinal has no specific, definable finite predecessor. All such definable finite counting numbers are behind a wall of endlessness so w is a limit ordinal. That seems to me to resolve concerns. And of course, there are onward issues on understanding the continuum [0,1] as a closed interval without gaps and the link from infinitesimals to transfinites and transfinite hyperreals. The surreals seem to offer the best coherent picture of the jungle. Where of course the study of quantity and its structures is pivotal to anything that uses quantities. KF PS: And it is quite clear that people like DS and Russell etc are talking about physically instantiated material and temporal infinities, arguing that such are not illogical and must be taken as serious possibilities. That is the context in which issues of causal succession, stepwise finite stage traversal of the transfinite or endless and whether an actual infinity can be actualised quantitatively not just as a symbolic representation, abstract entity or useful fiction arise. The logic is telling us that endlessness has properties that make such claims highly dubious. Hilbert's hotel, the issue of ending an endless succession and the problem of building and labelling an infinite ladder then climbing down to the ground on it all speak to that. It seems we may readily see [quasi-]physical entities that are very large but not actually transfinite. For reasons connected to why we cannot build a square circle.kairosfocus
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Aleta
Mathematical infinity is actual infinity.
No, it's not. Mathematics is a symbolic language. The point at question is an "infinite past". Either that exists or doesn't - mathematics does not create it.
Infinity is a mathematical concept. All of us here have agreed, I think, that there is no physical instantiation of infinity in our universe.
No, daveS has been arguing that there could be an infinite past, in reality - not just in mathematical conjectures.
ellazimm: If there are a finite number of positive integers and if you wrote them all down you could always take the largest one and add 1 to it and get one that was not on your list.
That would be one way to experimentally test your theory that there is an infinite number of positive integers. Write down the largest positive integer. Then add one. Then display that number. Not the formula (where x is the biggest number ...), the actual number. As I said, the universe may not be big enough for that number. The bigger the number the more resources it requires to write it down (not to mention energy, time and mental capacity resources). If the universe is finite -- then it cannot express an infinite size of numbers. So, the number set would be finite by necessity. It would stop at a certain size number and nothing further could be expressed.
Aleta Numbers don’t take up space in the universe.
I might agree with you, since I believe in immaterial entities like the human soul. Since the expression and comprehension of a number is not constrained to the physical attributes of the brain, an immaterial soul can express an infinitely large size of numbers (to itself, at least). This is good evidence against materialism. However, if you want to think that the expression (or comprehension) of numbers is tied to the activity of neurons in the brain -- then we don't know what the largest number that can be comprehended by a human being is. In any case, where do numbers exist if they don't take any space in the universe?Silver Asiatic
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Mung
I’m not sure that the statement that there is an infinite number of ‘x’ is even coherent. Shouldn’t we say that ‘x’ is without number, that ‘x’ cannot be numbered?
That's right. A number is distinct from "a formula that generates a hypothetical number". Even calling an infinite entity a "set" reduces an infinte to a finite construct. ellazimm
Endlessness may be a problem for theology or physics or you personally but it’s not a problem for mathematics.
That's why mathematics cannot accurately model reality. Infinite entities are not a problem for people who have active imaginations - and there is imaginary mathematics as well. To generate a number it has to be expressed somehow. That's not the formula for the number using variables but the number itself.Silver Asiatic
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
KF I would like to reiterate that 'endlessness' is not a well defined mathematical concept. If by endlessness you just mean an aspect of infinity then remember that, mathematically, infinity is not a controversial or problematic issue. For more than 100 years mathematicians have had solid, coherent ways of working with infinities and the concept was introduced well before Cantor. You can read about some of the history of it all in Dr Belinski's book A Tour of the Calculus or any history of math text. (By the way, Dr Berlinski considers Cantor's insight to be an example of 'mathematical genius'.) Endlessness may be a problem for theology or physics or you personally but it's not a problem for mathematics. And no mathematician is trying to say a thing about theology or anything else except the mathematics. Non-controversial, established, well understood mathematics. How anyone chooses to attempt to apply it is their business and I won't offer any opinions on that. I have no agenda whatsoever except to help explain the math. In that light you should easily be able to answer Aleta's two questions from a strictly mathematical point of view with a simple true or false.ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
Mung writes,
How do you get from “therefore there is no largest integer” to “therefore there are an infinite number of integers.” I’m not sure that the statement that there is an infinite number of ‘x’ is even coherent. Shouldn’t we say that ‘x’ is without number, that ‘x’ cannot be numbered?"
I really don't know how seriously to take this question, because I can't tell how serious Mung is in general, but I'll give it a try. If Mung thinks that "an infinite number" is perhaps not coherent (his second sentence), I don't think there is any way I could answer his first question. "An infinite number" is a well defined mathematical concept, and kf has posted a definition a number of times.
Mathematics a. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value. b. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length. c. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.
The integers are an infinite set in sense a. above, and the proof I offered is essentially a definition of infinite. More formally any set that can be counted (put in a 1:1 correspondence) with a terminated subset of the natural numbers is finite. Any set that can, however, be put in a 1:1 correspondence with a proper subset of itself is infinite. (Definition c above) Cantor formalized this definition, and developed a great deal of further mathematics that starts with that definition. He also created a new kind of number, the transfinites, and named the first transfinite, aleph null, to represent the number of natural numbers. So, the phrase "an infinite number of somethings (where the somethings are discrete, like ladder rungs or steps or prime numbers)" is somewhat informal. It really means that the set of all the somethings is infinite to the same degree that the natural numbers are infinite. So if we know there is no largest number, then the numbers must be beyond any arbitrarily large value, and thus are infinite per a. above.Aleta
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
I agree with Ellazimm at 1243, but want to add my 2 cents. You write,
Theorems are proved from start points and already proved theorems, but the point of the process is what is in the axioms may well be surprising and hard to discover. Key cases, models, test examples etc are all also legitimate devices of insight.
Yes, studying examples and concrete cases can lead to insights. But insights can be wrong, so unless one can then formalize those insights back into mathematical language, they remain unverified and possibly wrong. A case in point: as related above someplace, I examined the expected value of choosing an upset out of four games in the NCAA tournament when q = probability of an upset was 30%. My insight, based on the result as well as experience with other types of situations, was that there would be a "tipping point" for a larger q for which it would be better to pick an upset. Then I worked out all the probabilities algebraically for the expected value as a function of q. And guess what! My insight was wrong. So kf, despite your concerns, insights, sense of strangeness, or whatever, you have never even attempted to formalize your concern in mathematical language. The tape example may give you reason to believe there is something at issue here, but it also may be misleading you. Unless you can formalize your ideas mathematically, all you have are unproven ideas: you really haven't supported, much less validated, your concerns.Aleta
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Aleta:
Therefore there is no largest integer Therefore there are an infinite number of integers.
How do you get from "therefore there is no largest integer" to "therefore there are an infinite number of integers." I'm not sure that the statement that there is an infinite number of 'x' is even coherent. Shouldn't we say that 'x' is without number, that 'x' cannot be numbered?Mung
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
KF #1239
my point is the implicit often surprises us and typically requires considerable effort to draw it out. Theorems are proved from start points and already proved theorems, but the point of the process is what is in the axioms may well be surprising and hard to discover. Key cases, models, test examples etc are all also legitimate devices of insight
Sometimes yes, but the mathematics is the key. Real world examples can be helpful but they are subsidiary. And you really need to answer Aleta's question from post #1218. The questions are very straight forward, they don't require any fancy speechifying to answer.ellazimm
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Since Aleta's questions about the prime numbers are still on the table, (post #1218), I thought I'd post a couple of interesting things I found on stackexchange today. Apparently Euclid gives a constructive proof of the infinitude of the set of primes, rather than a proof by contradiction, which is how I've always seen it presented. Of course the specifics of the proof look quite similar. Here's a very slick proof cited on this page:
N(N + 1) has a larger set of prime factors than does N.
Just a single declarative sentence, which is quite amazing.daveS
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Hello all, Just popping to say that I haven't abandoned this discussion. I've been busy and away for the past few days and will be out all day again today but I'll try to offer a few thoughts later tonight or at some point tomorrow. Have a good one HeKSHeKS
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
KF, Yes, of course. But inexact "models" can be confusing as well. Now I think the Turing machine tape model is helpful in thinking about an infinite past, but it's very misleading to someone trying to understand mathematical induction or the construction of N. I'm quite certain that it is still misleading you, in fact. The fact that you refer to mathematical induction as involving "do forever" loops where the law of detachment is applied over and over again illustrates this. Likewise with the construction of N. We (your persistent interlocutors), and virtually all working mathematicians, do not think of N as being constructed through "finite stage steps", so your post #1234 is really beside the point to us.daveS
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
DS & Aleta, my point is the implicit often surprises us and typically requires considerable effort to draw it out. Theorems are proved from start points and already proved theorems, but the point of the process is what is in the axioms may well be surprising and hard to discover. Key cases, models, test examples etc are all also legitimate devices of insight. KFkairosfocus
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Mung #1229
Would you like to try again?
You're just being nit-picky. See Aleta's post #1230.ellazimm
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
I find kf's position here about axioms and the failings of abstract symbolism strange, given the strong insistence he's placed on the "rules of right reason" and the fundamental laws of logic in other threads on this site.Aleta
April 2, 2016
April
04
Apr
2
02
2016
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 48

Leave a Reply