Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coyne Believes a Version of “Turtles all the Way Down”

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As our News Desk has noted, over at Mind Matters Michael Egnor engages with Jerry Coyne on whether, as a matter of logic, the cosmos can be self-existent. Egnor says no, and one reason he gives is the logical principle that any causal chain points to a first cause. He writes:

Imagine a chain hanging from the sky supporting a weight suspended in the air. Each link in the chain is a cause for the continued suspension of the links and the weight they hold up. However, the chain could not hold itself up alone. It can’t be “links all the way up.” Something at the beginning must be holding the chain up. And whatever holds the whole causal series up cannot just be another link in the chain. To be a “first cause,” whatever is holding up the chain must be something different from the chain itself.

Most of us are familiar with the amusing “turtles all the way down” story:

The following anecdote is told of William James. […] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.

“Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it’s wrong. I’ve got a better theory,” said the little old lady.

“And what is that, madam?” inquired James politely.

“That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle.”

Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.

“If your theory is correct, madam,” he asked, “what does this turtle stand on?”

“You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question,” replied the little old lady, “but I have an answer to it. And it’s this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him.”

“But what does this second turtle stand on?” persisted James patiently.

To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,

“It’s no use, Mr. James—it’s turtles all the way down.”— J. R. Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, 1967

Coyne would certainly howl in disdain and ridicule at the rube who believed in turtles all the way down. Isn’t it ironic, then, that he himself believes in a similar story except instead of “turtles all the way down” he believes in “links all the way up.”

Comments
VL states,
1b) There is no first moment of time 2b) No matter how far back you go, all points in time are a finite distance away, so getting from there to now is a finite traverse.
Apparently VL sees no problem with holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. :) Some people just can't be reasoned with I guess. Oh well, I'm off to do better things today.bornagain77
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
In response to my fairly straight forward, and obvious, observation that ‘growing large without measure’ is a lesser quality infinity than the infinity that occurs when 'a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero', (since obviously "to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is to force a finite object into a type of infinity that can have no discernible beginning in space or time"), JVL remarks that "Clearly you never took graduate level mathematics where things are defined and restricted to particular meanings and behaviours." Well, from what I read, the only reason it is mathematically verboten is because the infinity that crops up can't be 'limited', (i.e. the infinity can't be mathematically 'tamed'), which is a problem that exactly underscores my claim that dividing 1 by 0 is an actual infinity and not merely a potential infinity.
I would like a more mathematical way to say,,, As the value of n increases the closer 1/n gets to zero. To do this mathematicians use the idea of a limit, which is the fundamental concept of calculus, and say that the limit of 1/n as n approaches infinity is zero, http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.02.06/evan1.html
My entire point was to clarify that ‘growing large without measure’ is a lesser quality infinity than ‘a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero’, and nothing in how they mathematically 'limit' infinity when a denominator approaches zero contradicts my claim.bornagain77
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
BA, your selective quoting habit is astounding. Yes, I wrote, "There is no mathematical problem in stating that every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment”." I also explained why this did not involve an infinite traverse:
Suppose you propose Time t(n) as the first moment in time. It is a finite distance away, so a finite traverse would get to now. However, all negative numbers (moments in the past in this model) have a predecessor, so the moment t(n-1) came before t(n). This shows two things: 1a) t(n) was not really the first moment of time 2b) t(n-1) is also a finite distance away, so getting from t(n-1) to now is also a finite traverse. Continuing this process to t(n-2), t(n-3) and so on, we see that, 1b) There is no first moment of time 2b) No matter how far back you go, all points in time are a finite distance away, so getting from there to now is a finite traverse.
Here I clearly say exactly the opposite of what you are claiming I said. Can you address the whole argument? What line of the above argument is faulty?Viola Lee
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Marfin @ 60 Short answer: no. You're having a sequence of experiences caused by your observational state.William J Murray
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Viola Lee states, "I have said no such thing", in regards to believing it possible to mathematically traverse an infinite series with a finite number of steps” in order to get to 'now'. Yet, in her own words, “There is no mathematical problem in stating that every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment”, Besides suffering from the dilemma of trying to traverse an infinite number of steps with no beginning in time, (with no time zero), from which to start her 'potentially infinite' count to the present, VL is also suffering from the dilemma of thinking her previous words are basically meaningless in regards to he subsequent words. :)bornagain77
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
WJM- So if I fire a cruise missile and an hour later it hits a building and kills everyone inside did me firing the cruise missile cause those deaths, did my actions in the past cause the deaths in the future.Marfin
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Since VL is a math teacher who believes it is mathematically reasonable to traverse an infinite series with a finite number of steps I agree with Viola, they did not say that. Not at all. I suspect William J Murray might say: Just like when you start at zero on the number line and conceive of it extending in both directions infinitely far we perceive only NOW and didn't have to traipse through infinity to get here. Or maybe not. That was somewhat the view put forth in the Jane Robert's Set books. When I or Viola make a comment about the mathematics we are NOT saying it maps directly onto a real world or a real world experience. If we seem pedantic about being precise with the use of mathematical terms it's because we were taught to be that way; our professors made sure of that! I still tend to correct my spouse when she reals off a list of numbers and says 'oh' instead of 'zero'. Of note: I hold ‘growing large without measure’ to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The reason why ‘growing large without measure’ is a lesser quality infinity than ‘a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero’ is because something that begins to grow large without measure must necessarily have some sort of beginning in time and must also necessarily have some sort of infinite space to grow into. Whereas, on the other hand, to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is to force a finite object into a type of infinity that can have no discernible beginning in space or time. That is to say, to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is to force a finite object into a true infinity. In more technical terms, I view growing large without measure to be a potential infinite and I view a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero to be an actual infinite. Clearly you never took graduate level mathematics where things are defined and restricted to particular meanings and behaviours. Anyone want to have the different sizes of infinity conversation again? :-)JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
At 55, BA writes, "Since VL is a math teacher who believes it is mathematically reasonable to traverse an infinite series with a finite number of steps," I have said no such thing. BA appears to be incapable of understanding what I have written. Interestingly enough, instead of addressing any specific detail of my argument, he rattles off 1600 copy-and-paste words about quantum mechanics, relativity, and Jesus Christ. Amazing! :-)Viola Lee
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
KF @56 1. It only renders your particular conceptualization of how and where "the common world of experience" occurs "dubious." It doesn't render the "common world of experience" itself dubious. 2. Science has demonstrated that "actuality" (specified states and characteristics) is a quality of experience, not of the "things" we are supposedly having experiences of. The science is clear on this, whether it upsets your worldview or not. No attempt to salvage your worldview by an assorted, diverse barrage of conveniently-employed forms of logic, appeals to consequence, "common human experience" or "balance of worldviews" is going to change the actual evidence. There is no local reality "out there" causing our experiences. Time to do some serious conceptual remodeling.William J Murray
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
WJM, no, as we have seen, there is no good reason to imagine that the common world we experience is utterly dubious, an external reality "theory" rather than an actuality we observe and interact with through our conscious embodied actions. Such as, typing and uploading a comment that begins, ". . . This (your particular concept of “the past”) has been scientifically . . . " KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Since VL is a math teacher who believes it is mathematically reasonable to traverse an infinite series with a finite number of steps, in order to reach 'now', perhaps she can put her apparently unmatched mathematical talents of 'taming infinity' to good use and 'renormalize the "untamed infinity' that exists between General Relativity, (which is our best mathematical description of space-time), and Quantum Mechanics, (which blatantly flouts our concepts of space and time). In the following video Michio Kaku states the mathematical 'infinite' dilemma' between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as such,
“Here is the problem (with black holes), right there, when ‘r’ (radius) is equal to zero, The point at which physics itself breaks down. So 1 over ‘r’ equals 1 over 0 equals infinity. To a mathematician infinity is simply a number without limit. To a physicist it is a monstrosity. It means first of all that gravity is infinite at the center of a black hole. That time stops. And what does that mean? Space makes no sense. It means the collapse of everything we know about the physical universe. In the real world there is no such thing as infinity. Therefore there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein’s theory.” (And when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics) “In fact, you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).” Quantum Mechanics & Relativity – Michio Kaku - The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? - video Science vs God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - video https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x
And Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the current situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite. The theory is not renormalizable.”
Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018 Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite. The theory is not renormalizable. https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.
And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers. Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,, In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy. The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,, Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/
Of related interest, The main conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity conflict that crops up in different places of each theory:
THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
Of related interest, Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what a 'unification' between the infinite and the finite might look like for the Christian Theist.
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 ?William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
Of note: I hold 'growing large without measure' to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The reason why 'growing large without measure' is a lesser quality infinity than 'a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero' is because something that begins to grow large without measure must necessarily have some sort of beginning in time and must also necessarily have some sort of infinite space to grow into. Whereas, on the other hand, to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is to force a finite object into a type of infinity that can have no discernible beginning in space or time. That is to say, to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is to force a finite object into a true infinity. In more technical terms, I view growing large without measure to be a potential infinite and I view a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero to be an actual infinite.
Potential Infinity vs. Actual Infinity - June 7, 2012 by Ryan Excerpt: In a potential infinity, one can keep adding or subdividing without end, but one never actually reaches infinity. In a sense, a potential infinity is an endless process that at any point along the way is finite. By contrast, in an actual infinity, the infinite is viewed as a completed totality. http://www.numbersleuth.org/trends/potential-vs-actual-infinity/
Thus, in Christ's resurrection from the dead we apparently have a mathematically sound 'traversal of the infinite' in that "The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." People may claim that all this is just a bunch of theoretical posturing that has no relation to the real world, but the Shroud of Turin itself gives us evidence that both gravity and quantum mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christi's resurrection from the dead.
(February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178
Supplemental note:
Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8--eE
Verse
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Looks like maths doesn't work when we talk about past infinite and eating chips. Some math teachers have that predisposition to see everything through maths lens. Which can be comical. Or not.Sandy
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
The ACTUAL past has to have been just that, actual.
This (your particular concept of "the past") has been scientifically, experimentally disproved, inasmuch as science proves or disproves anything.William J Murray
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
VL et al, no. The ACTUAL past has to have been just that, actual. Where, for scaling, the hyperreals R* are just as "real" as were the negatives and zero which were hotly controversial in their day. We are just uncomfortable with making them explicit. What the actual past means is that for every stage p that actually happened [think years for convenience], it was once the present, then through causal-temporal stages of succession we had p --> p+1 --> p+2 --> k --> . . . --> n, the current now. Which is receding into the past as we speak. The claim, infinite or beginningless past means -- per logic of temporal - causal, successive being as just outlined -- that for any k in the past, there are unlimited further actual past stages beyond any particular p, i.e.: . . . --> p-2 --> p-1 --> p. That implies an actually transfinite, stepwise successive traverse whether we can count it out or not. Which, we know cannot be traversed as no suggested transfinitely remote K can succeed itself in finite, successive stages to a completed transfinite. And hiding in how any negative number n we represent has n-1. n-2 etc beyond simply makes the required transfiniteness implicit and lost in our verbiage. We are only warranted to speak of a finite, temporal causal succession to now. That is, there was a beginning to the temporal-causal order, which says nothing about the eternality of necessary world framework entities. Save, that a temporal causal order requires such a wider order of being, with capability to cause worlds such as ours, as its ground. Of course, that can be elaborated. And, one of the implications of this is that evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow traveller schemes of thought are compelled to imply or tacitly assume utterly bizarre and likely impossible theories of the past. KF PS: For conceptual help, start with infinitesimals as Robinson tamed in the 1960's, dx, dy, dt etc, only let's use Newton's h (see here). h is near to zero such that 1/n for any finite counting number exceeds h. So, we can infer a transfinite H such that 1/h --> H greater than any finite n in N. Many properties ensue, eg H-1, H-2 etc to any H-n, n finite are valid and will also be transfinite, i.e. there is a gulch to finite n in N that is of transfinite span. And so forth.kairosfocus
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Martin, Quantum physics experiments have conclusively shown that there is no such thing as "local reality," disproving the idea that the things we are observing have internal, inherent qualities and characteristics. These states occur as the result of current observation. Before that, what "exists" is informational potentials that have no innate qualities that cause our experience of them. Informational potential cannot "cause" anything to occur in and of itself. Delayed-choice, quantum-eraser and other such experiments have shown that past states and characteristics do not cause the results of the observation, rather that it is the observation that causes past states and characteristics. It has been shown that we can change past states by changing the nature of our observation, going back billions of years. Therefore, in terms of linear time regression, there are no "past states" causing "future states." There is no causal chain; conscious observation in the "now" is the necessary, proximate and sufficient cause of everything that occurs. Nothing exists external of that which can cause the observational experience. Thus, there is no "first cause" in the linear-time sense we normally think. Time and space are experiences in the now, the result of consciousness interacting with informational potentials, not inherent, binding features of the specified qualities of something we are observing, causing our observations. Quantum experiments have conclusively demonstrated this. Yet, people continue to argue and debate as if none of that happened, as if time, space and specified qualities are things causing our experience. They are aspects of experience, not the cause of that experience.William J Murray
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
WJM- Its great to see someone finally understands quantum physics , can you please explain how it does away with a" first cause in that sense".Marfin
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
Viola: if the past is a potential infinity, What does a "past potential infinity" mean? If it’s [an] actual infinity, then it’s something that must be taken as a whole, a la Cantor, so the idea of traversal doesn’t apply. But it also means that it's nonsense, since infinities don't apply to discrete actualities... The argument that the past can’t be infinite because that implies an infinite amount of time Um, the problem is when you try to map an infinite set to a set of real instantiations, such as discrete seconds of time. There is no isomorphic mapping possible. It is nonsense. Infinite sets have interesting properties, but isomorphism to real world instantiations is not one of them. One of the very reasons for infinite sets is that they are not isomorphic to real world sets. And by real world sets, i mean things, physical or abstract, instantiated or measurable in the real world. That would include, for example, atoms, stars, or seconds of time.Karen McMannus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
EDTA,
Well, I see a couple of things: [VL]>However, all negative numbers (moments in the past in this model) have a predecessor,… This right away equates time with an infinite series, which seems to bring in an infinite past right from the start. Perhaps time moments do not equate to an infinite negative series.
First, I already said to ET above that I don't think we know at all what the nature of time might be outside our universe. I'm just discussing this from a mathematical point of view. But more importantly, as I am trying to stress, a distinction needs to be made between a potential and an actual, completed infinity. Stating the every moment has a predecessor creates a potential infinity: a series that has no limit. That is different than the set of all negative integers, which is a completed infinity that only exists in the abstract. This is the distinction Cantor began with when he started his mathematics of infinity. My above remark about potential and actual, completed infinities applies to this remark also. Another way to say this is: 1. the set of negative integers is infinite, and 2. every member of the set is finite. You write, "Waters seems to be trying a different approach which adds some rigor to the argument above what Craig was attempting. I trudged through it, and it seems solid." Can you summarize? What exactly does Waters establish, and how? Did you think you understood the mathematical details of his argument? I didn't.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
(This was written before I saw 46. I'll post this now anyway.) OK, EDTA. I looked at the part of the paper, Methuselah’s Diary, where Waters offers an improvement. First, have you read and understood his mathematics? I am a math teacher, and could probably decipher that if I wished, but it would be a lot of work. However, I notice immediately that he says,
Finally, let DF represent the subcollection of all days in D that are finitely distant in the past so that DF only contains those days in D that are of the form (t ? m) for some positive integer m and not any possible days in D that are infinitely distant in the past.
But there are never any negative integers (of the form t - m in his notation) that are "infinitely distant in the past." For him to even mention this makes me suspect that he is falling prey to the same mistake that I said Craig was making. Skipping a lot of math, he concludes,
Hence, DF cannot be the aforementioned infinite collection so that it is a finite collection with an earliest day e. Now, if e is not also an earliest day of D then it hasa previous day (e ? 1) in DF, which contradicts the fact that e is the earliest day of DF. Hence, e is not only the earliest day of DF but also the earliest day of D. However, if D has an earliest day that is finitely distant in the past then it follows that D is finite so that (1) is established.
Now I'm not sure what he proved here. Earlier he said "Finally, let DF represent the subcollection of all days in D that are finitely distant in the past. By this defintion, DF is a finite collection, which he then proves. What did he prove if he defined DF as a finite collection? This is not clear to me. But I note that he, like me, points out that any purported earliest day e has a predecessor (e-1), so I don't think there is any earliest day. So I really don't understand what he thinks he's proved, but as I said, I don't think I want to do the work of deciphering his argument. (I'm already spending more time on this that might be reasonable) Jumping to his conclusion, he writes, "Moreover, this argument can be naturally generalized to demonstrate not only that the past is finite but also that it has a first moment." I am doubtful, but as I said, I'm not going to try to get a completely undertsand of the argument. However, I am inclined to agree with Conway, who is quoted in the article as saying,
“[other] arguments for the crucial premise that an infinite regress is impossible do little more than point out that infinite series have odd properties” but “[this argument] is supposed to show that the hypothesis of an infinite regress leads not just to ‘oddities’ but to real contradictions.
So let me repeat. Do you understand Waters argument? If so, could you explain it?Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
VL, Well, I see a couple of things: >However, all negative numbers (moments in the past in this model) have a predecessor,... This right away equates time with an infinite series, which seems to bring in an infinite past right from the start. Perhaps time moments do not equate to an infinite negative series. >No matter how far back you go, all points in time are a finite distance away, so getting from there to now is a finite traverse. But "no matter how far back you go" implies infinity, so this statement says that an infinite distance is also a finite distance. So that doesn't quite work either. Waters seems to be trying a different approach which adds some rigor to the argument above what Craig was attempting. I trudged through it, and it seems solid.EDTA
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
No, I haven't EDTA: it seemed pretty dense. Is he improving Craig's argument, or just embellishing it in a variety of ways? I'm inclined to think he's making the same mistake in a variety of different contexts, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. I'll try to look at it again. But, do you find a problem in the argument I present in #43?Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
VL, In the linked article, Waters is not defending Craig's argument, which is where the quote in the second paragraph comes from. Waters is making an improved argument. Have you read the entire linked paper?EDTA
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
No, BA, you never have to "traverse an infinite" Here is the mathematical argument Suppose you propose Time t(n) as the first moment in time. It is a finite distance away, so a finite traverse would get to now. However, all negative numbers (moments in the past in this model) have a predecessor, so the moment t(n-1) came before t(n). This shows two things: 1a) t(n) was not really the first moment of time 2b) t(n-1) is also a finite distance away, so getting from t(n-1) to now is also a finite traverse. Continuing this process to t(n-2), t(n-3) and so on, we see that, 1b) There is no first moment of time 2b) No matter how far back you go, all points in time are a finite distance away, so getting from there to now is a finite traverse.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
What are the turtles made of? What is the fundamental nature they are derived from? In other words, what is their fundamental ontology? Time is a creation. It's not part of the core ontology of reality. But consciousness is. These sorts of Koan-producing questions and ideas should be a clue for the philosophical nincompoops, but it's astonishing how little exposure or awareness they seem to have about such things. Jerry Coyne is a philosophical nitwit. Yawn.Karen McMannus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
ET writes, "The problem is thinking in terms of space-time (infinity) and applying it before space-time existed." I'm just talking about the mathematics of infinity. I agree with you that space-time as we know it in our universe can't be extrapolated back before or outside our universe, whatever that means.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
bornagain77:
i.e. ‘you can’t get here from an infinitely far away there’!
Right, except there isn't any "there". So it would be "you can't get here from there because there doesn't exist"ET
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Viola Lee:
But I’ll summarize: if the past is a potential infinity, than only a finite amount of steps have taken place.
From when and where? Starting from now and walking back, yes. But we cannot start at an infinite past because there isn't any start to an infinite past. So "turtles all the way down" is looking at it backwards. The problem is thinking in terms of space-time (infinity) and applying it before space-time existed.ET
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
If you are defending "There is no mathematical problem in stating that every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment", then you, directly contrary to what you claimed, have an irresolvable mathematical/logical dilemma. You have to traverse an infinite to get to now. Yet there is no 'first moment' in which you can start your traversal to now. As you yourself stated, "there was no first moment". i.e. ‘you can’t get here from an infinitely far away there’!bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Hi EDTA. I have seen that article before, and read others who make similar arguments. The flaw from which the whole argument flows is in the second paragraph, where it states "from 'eternity past'". That just restates BA objection in 26, where he wrote, "If you say that we live in a potential infinity with time stretching infinitely into the past, then it would be impossible to ever traverse that infinity in order to get to ‘now’." There is no moment in the past an infinite distance away. But that is different than saying there is no first moment. And that is what I addressed in 28 and 31, differentiating between a potential and actual, completed, infinity.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
BA, please quote, and read, accurately: I wrote
There is no mathematical problem in stating that every moment had a prior mo ment, and therefore there was no first moment.
When you omit the "There is no mathematical problem in stating that ... " part, and just quote "every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment", you make it sound like I am making a statement of fact which I am defending, which is a false attribution. You are cherry-picking a portion of what I wrote to inaccurately represent what I am saying.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply