
Register  Sign In 

QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details 

Thread Info



Author  Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design...  
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8614 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 
Thank you.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!


WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: 
Tangle writes:
You have a problem with language. You should probably go look up what "logic" is. Use AZPaul3's Oxford dictionary. I highly doubt though you will ever find a definition like: the "ability to simply think philosophically about a problem and hope to solve it".
Oh, please. Tell me, what's logical about quantum theory? By logic here I'm meaning our ability to simply think philosophically about a problem and hope to solve it. The universe is not something that makes normal, logical sense. Paulk writes: That was not in the post I replied to.. The post you replied to said: "Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible." Right there, I am asking a question assuming we're dealing with a proposed infinite time in reverse.
The integral calculus only works because adding an infinite number of terms  each greater than zero  can have a finite value. (That is first year stuff for university mathematics).
Yes, I understand the concept. It can be shown in a geometric series or a repeating decimal number, like 1/3. But that concept is also is using a very particular definition of an infinite sum: the value of the infinite sum to be that particular value if and only if its partial sums can be made arbitrarily close to that particular value. At any moment in time, your set is is not complete, and you will not truly have your finite number. So it might be an interesting mathematical concept, but it is not anything rooted in real spacetime. So you never have a complete instance of it.
However, in a similar discussion I have seen someone arguing that our universe was created assert that cause and effect can be simultaneous. Indeed, unless you assume that there was a time  or “temporal something” before our universe that assumption is necessary to claim that our universe DID have a cause. And of course it is a logical  and scientific  possibility that there was no time preceding our universe. It therefore seems that you must concede that it is possible that our universe did not have a cause. You seem to be proposing that there possibly was not a cause to the universe. But I'm afraid that violates the axioms put forward already by all the others (AZPAUL3 et al), who say: "Further, everything that has ever or does now exist was caused. Everything." If you are proposing a more strict definition of time, in that it only exists in our universe and “there was no time preceding our universe”, then that also is negating everyone else’s proposal that there is a "causal chain infinitely into the past". Nevertheless, even if there is no time before our universe, it doesn't mean there is no cause. First, that violates every observation we have (‘Everything that exists has a cause’ OR ‘Whatever begins to exist has a cause’). Secondly, the whole idea of a First Cause or more specifically “God” is that it exists outside of time.I actually have no problem with the idea of no time before the beginning of the universe. It resolves any issue with a regress and doesn’t obviate a (First) cause. WookieeB writes:
I agree. And that reasoning applies equally to the concept of a First Cause or God. Can anyone show an actualized infinity?
PaulK writes: First, a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence  let alone a logical proof. Nonetheless, presenting an actualized infinity should be an easy proof or refutation against my idea that there is no such thing as an actualized infinity. The lack of any such evidence is not a proof in support, but it certainly leans that way.
Second if you admit the possibility of an infinite past you accept that an actualised infinity may exist. I dont admit nor accept an infinite past. I was merely proposing that if the axiom of an infinite past is taken, the arguments that were proposed as a result were illogical.
Third for any continuous quantity any finite portion of that quantity can be infinitely subdivided. Therefore unless space is quantised, any length is an actualised infinity and unless time is quantised any duration is an actualised infinity. Nope. You seem to not realize that the concept of infinity has a time component weaved into it. If something is subdivided into infinity, it means it will be subdivided to no end. The ratios of subdividing (½..¼…1/8…) will keep getting smaller and smaller to no end. The amount of time to subdivide, no matter what time frame you assign to perform a division, will have no end. No end implies that the task will never be completed. You will never subdivide anything to completion, thus you can never show that anything was subdivided to infinity. In the ‘maths’, at any point in the chain of subdivision (assuming dividing all components by 2) you can stop and add up all the components to get a whole. But then you are dealing with a finite number of divisions, a number can be represented. You cannot represent infinity as any number, and infinite implies you never complete subdivisions. So you do not actually have anything you can present as a whole that has been subdivided X amount of times. And if you want to try this in this universe on anything real, other physics will prevent you from accomplishing it. Once you get down to the planck length you cannot realistically get any smaller. Or you cannot keep processing anything less than the planck time per division. Yes, dividing into infinity is a valid concept in mathematics, but it has no bearing to reality. You cannot actually do it, or represent it as done. So no, a length is not an actualized infinity, nor is a unit of time an actualized infinity.


nwr Member Posts: 6445 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.0

So it might be an interesting mathematical concept, but it is not anything rooted in real spacetime.
That it is possible in mathematical models shows that it is not ruled out by logic.Fundamentalism  the antiAmerican, antiChristian branch of American Christianity


PaulK Member Posts: 17856 Joined: Member Rating: 3.9

quote: That is not how I read it  and it makes even less sense in your interpretation. As I read it, it was only the chain of cause and effect that had to be infinite  which makes sense if you are arguing against an infinite regress.
quote: That is not a definition. That’s the case being considered  and it is certainly possible if there is no minimum value.
quote: That isn’t even true since it is durations we are summing. After the sum is reached the set is necessarily complete. Also I note that you are assuming that time is continuous and any duration consists of an infinite number of moments.
quote: That’s obvious nonsense for the reasons given above and even more obvious when you consider that integration is used in calculations dealing with things in real spacetime. Even worse for you you are making a claim of logical impossibility so such appeals  even if true  would be inadequate.
quote: So? It is a real possibility so far as we know.
quote: I am pointing out that there is a possibility that our universe includes all of time, but I am certainly not proposing a stricter definition.
quote: Both are possibilities.
quote: Then you must propose that causation may take no time at all. Which was the main point I was making in that part of the post.
quote: You assert that the former is false, and I do not think that something that has existed for all past time “begins to exist”  after all it has always existed.
quote: I won’t dwell on the problematic aspects of that because it is irrelevant.
quote: It didn’t seem that way when you were questioning if I was proposing that causation could take zero time.
quote: Funny how you’re using arguments you know to be bad.
quote: I would say “impossible” rather than “easy”. How can we observe that something is infinite?
quote: Well you disagreed above. Even if your argument was nuts.
quote: I don’t agree with that assertion because it is obvious nonsense.
quote: You seem not to realise that I was not proposing actually doing the subdivision. Rather I was pointing out a simple fact about continua. Accordingly your objection is irrelevant  and worse it assumes the very thing it was trying to disprove.
quote: Actually doing it is not relevant. It is a simple consequence of continuous quantities.
quote: Yet your whole argument for the impossibility of doing the subdivision assumes that they are actualised infinities.


WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: 
That’s the case being considered  and it is certainly possible if there is no minimum value.
Minimum value of what? That really doesn't matter. 1/3 = 0.333333..... to infinity. Which is 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + 0.0003.....But if you take any point along that string and add up everything, you will not ever have precisely 1/3. Even computers calculating that will have a limit (thus not infinite) to how far they will carry that out calculation based upon however precise their numbers will be (usually based on how many bits they will use to represent for any number). At some decimal place, the decimal number must be rounded or truncated. Simply put, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.
That isn’t even true since it is durations we are summing. After the sum is reached the set is necessarily complete. Also I note that you are assuming that time is continuous and any duration consists of an infinite number of moments. Please explain this. What do you mean by "durations". I suppose I would agree that time is continuous, but I am not assuming any duration is an infinite number of moments. Again, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.
Even worse for you you are making a claim of logical impossibility so such appeals  even if true  would be inadequate.
Again, I'm not really sure what you are saying here. How are you defining a "logical impossibility"? I get the feeling you have an odd view of warrant in a claim.
It is a real possibility so far as we know.
So then you are rejecting the axioms that everyone else is using. Fine. Then that also establishes that you are proposing no beginning to the universe. Space, time, matter, energy have all existed in some form. I will just point out that at this time, science and philosophy disagree with you there.
I am pointing out that there is a possibility that our universe includes all of time, but I am certainly not proposing a stricter definition.
A difference without a distinction from what I said.
Both are possibilities.
Nope. You misunderstand the context. The reference to a "causal chain infinitely into the past" is referring to causes that eventually lead to the creation of the universe. You cannot have that an an eternal universe at the same time.
Then you must propose that causation may take no time at all. Which was the main point I was making in that part of the post.
In context that is correct. But the context is also making a distinction between time of our universe and anything outside of it that could be categorized as a temporal state. So yes, as to our universe time, the implementation of the beginning of the universe would appear to happen instantly. But that doesn't have anything to say about a causal source being present outside of our universe spacetime.
You assert that the former is false, and I do not think that something that has existed for all past time “begins to exist”  after all it has always existed.
Yes. That is correct. Something that has always existed, or a necessary entity, is a big part in the definition of a First Cause, and probably applies to most persons concept of God.
It didn’t seem that way when you were questioning if I was proposing that causation could take zero time.
But you are missing the context of that statement. I laid it out initially in Message 402 when I first responded to you. That assumed that we were talking about something we are still calling "time" that is outside the time in our universe. The assumption was there was some temporal state outside of our universe. If that is still true, then the causation of the universe would not take zero "time". But if you are referring to time as just our universe experience of it, then yes, it would take effectively zero time. (Technically that probably would not be true either, because if time was only in our universe, then saying zero time is referring to something that doesnt exist yet. so you would have to refer to it as something else.)
Funny how you’re using arguments you know to be bad.
Classic! You do realize you are dinging your own side."a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence  let alone a logical proof" was YOUR argument, not mine. I do agree with that statement, but it is not part of my argument. And now you are saying it was a bad argument? Fine. You gave a bad argument. TeeHee! If you think not having an observed instance of an actualized infinity is not good evidence, let alone logical proof that an actualized infinity doesnt exist, that is fine. But then it can be said equally that not having an observed empirical observation of a First Cause (or God) is not good evidence, let alone logical proof that a First Cause (or God) doesnt exist.
I would say “impossible” rather than “easy”. How can we observe that something is infinite?
Yes! I would say the same thing, and have been saying that essentially. I do not think there is such a thing as an actualized infinity. The concept exists, but the reality of it doesnt. But do you forget what you said previously in other posts? "for any continuous quantity any finite portion of that quantity can be infinitely subdivided. Therefore unless space is quantised, any length is an actualised infinity and unless time is quantised any duration is an actualised infinity."
Yet your whole argument for the impossibility of doing the subdivision assumes that they are actualised infinities.
No, that was not my argument. My argument is that there are no actualized infinities. see above. That was your contention in response to my original question.


nwr Member Posts: 6445 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 
Simply put, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.
Nonsense.
How are you defining a "logical impossibility"?
It has nothing to do with how PaulK defines "logical impossibility". It was you who made the claim of logical impossibility.Fundamentalism  the antiAmerican, antiChristian branch of American Christianity


PaulK Member Posts: 17856 Joined: Member Rating: 3.9

quote: Whichever quantity is being used in the sum, of course. In the context of this discussion  which you should remember  that would be the time required for a cause to produce an effect.
quote: You have odd ideas of relevance. If an infinite series of causation took 1/3 of a second it would take 1/3 of a second regardless of the impossibility of us adding up the total by hand.
quote: Simply put that is a ridiculous falsehood. The impossibility of producing the sum by hand in no way makes the sum infinite. One third is finite, whether it is conceived of as a ratio or the result of an infinite summation.
quote: As I said above it is the time taken for the causes to produce their effects. I’m sorry you have difficulty remembering the context. I suggest you refer back to previous messages using the handy links that this forum provides.
quote: If you agree that time is continuous you are agreeing that any finitely small duration is an infinite number of moments. That is a logical truth, not an assumption.
quote: Again you are wrong and obviously so. One third is a finite number. It is easy to construct an infinite series which sums up to one third, therefore an infinite sum series can have a finite sum.
quote: I’m using the standard definition  which would be that the concept is selfcontradictory. Are you suggesting that everyone who accepts the normal ideas of logic has “an odd view of warrant in a claim” ?
quote: No, I am saying that a view that others here accept is not the only possibility, I am sure that they would all agree that it is not an axiom that there must be time prior to the existence of our universe.
quote: I am proposing that it is a possibility. And at this time science and philosophy agree with me.
quote: That’s because you don’t understand what a definition is.
quote: Again you are citing irrelevances to cover up your error. I was not in any way limiting time to our time in our universe. I simply pointed out that your statement could reasonably be read as meaning that the chain was infinite without making any assertion about the duration of past time.
quote: In context we are dealing with the case where there is no time at all prior to our universe  including other temporal dimensions. In that context my claim is true, and your response is just special pleading.
quote: Thank you for agreeing that if there is no time prior to our universe it did not “begin to exist”.
quote: And in that context the idea that time began with our universe would exclude the existence of such a thing. It seems then that you were the one who missed the context.
quote: That assumption was excluded by the scenario under discussion, so obviously it is not relevant.
quote: I wasn’t.
quote: By pointing out that your arguments are bad?
quote: Of course not. I am agreeing with it as a criticism of your argument. And since you agree, you admit that you made a bad argument.
quote: I am not aware of anyone using such an argument, so it would seem to be another completely irrelevance.
quote: No, you said that it should be easy to show an actualised infinity not that it would be impossible to show an actualised infinity even if it did exist.
quote: Of course not. Nor do I forget that you argued against it on the grounds that the subdivision would take an infinite time  which is a perfect example of my point.
quote: By which you mean “yes it is my argument that actualised infinites can’t exist”. Edited by PaulK, : Assorted minor corrections


WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: 
In the context of this discussion  which you should remember  that would be the time required for a cause to produce an effect.
Ok, understood, and that is fine. But in such a scenario I am not assuming a finite past that is somehow being subdivided infinitely. I was referring to the idea, that was put forth by the others, that the past was infinite back in time.
If an infinite series of causation took 1/3 of a second it would take 1/3 of a second regardless of the impossibility of us adding up the total by hand.
Of course. 1/3 was used just because it was easy enough to represent in decimal and show the flow of adding parts of it to infinity, but you would never get the whole 1.
Wookieeb writes: Simply put, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.Simply put that is a ridiculous falsehood. The impossibility of producing the sum by hand in no way makes the sum infinite. One third is finite, whether it is conceived of as a ratio or the result of an infinite summation. You misunderstand what I'm saying. Perhaps I could have said that statement a little clearer. If I could revisit it, I would say it as: "an infinite series of additions does not result in a finite sum". But that also does not mean I am saying that "an infinite series of additions results in an infinite sum". If anything, such a sum is undefined, or incomplete. So yes, "The impossibility of producing the sum by hand in no way makes the sum infinite." And yes, "One third is finite, whether it is conceived of as a ratio". But NO to "or the result of an infinite summation." An infinite summation would never produce a finite sum.
If you agree that time is continuous you are agreeing that any finitely small duration is an infinite number of moments. That is a logical truth, not an assumption.
Not exactly. You could take a finite length of something and, in concept, proceed to divide into it infinitely. But that is referred to as a potential infinity. It would never be actualized, because dividing into it infinitely means no end to dividing into it, and summing up all the parts you are dividing would never reach the finite length. But admitting the concept of a potential infinity of divisions within any length is not the same thing as saying that any length has been divided infinitely. That is two different claims. A length, say a line, is not a collection of points, but it logically exists before you identify any points on it. The possibility of a potentially infinite number of steps does not imply an actual infinite number of points. And if this argument is extended to the idea of infinite causes, it is putting the cart before the horse.
Again you are wrong and obviously so. One third is a finite number. It is easy to construct an infinite series which sums up to one third, therefore an infinite sum series can have a finite sum.
Not obviously so. Any infinite series adding up to one third will never complete. You will get close, but never actually get there. So you cannot say an infinite sum has a finite sum.
I’m using the standard definition  which would be that the concept is selfcontradictory. Are you suggesting that everyone who accepts the normal ideas of logic has “an odd view of warrant in a claim” ?
No. But I am saying that a logical impossibility of a claim is adequate to invalidate that claim. You apparently feel differently.
Thank you for agreeing that if there is no time prior to our universe it did not “begin to exist”.
Huh? What? That is not what I said. Time didnt exist. To speak of it prior makes no sense. But then as our universe began, time began to exist.
And in that context the idea that time began with our universe would exclude the existence of such a thing. It seems then that you were the one who missed the context.
No, I explicitly stated that in our experience time[1] is something that began with the universe. In context though, a proposed thing outside our universe that bears temporal properties (time[2]), that we do NOT have experience with, (and that I believe others were alluding to, but not you specically), was included in the parameters of the original discussion. That outsideouruniverse thing can be referred to with the same label: "time", and I was willing to use that label. But that other item time[2] is separate and distinct from time[1]. But you apparently were only referring to time[1] and ignored the other possibility. I can live with that. I was only making concessions to others to use the same label in case they felt there was more than time[1].
I am agreeing with it as a criticism of your argument. And since you agree, you admit that you made a bad argument.
No you made a statement in criticism of my argument. I held that your statement wasnt applicable to my argument, thus it could not be a criticism of it. I actually do agree with the statement, but my argument does not depend on that statement in any way. So I can agree with the statement, but it has no bearing to anything else I was saying. exampleMe: Chocolate tastes good. You: But steak tastes better. Me: That is true. You: See, you agree your argument is refuted. Me: Not really. I am not aware of anyone using such an argument, so it would seem to be another completely irrelevance.
Then you are not aware.
No, you said that it should be easy to show an actualised infinity not that it would be impossible to show an actualised infinity even if it did exist.
No, I didnt say that. Read more carefully. I said "presenting an actualized infinity should be an easy proof or refutation against my idea that there is no such thing as an actualized infinity." I didnt say presenting an actual infinity would be easy. I contended there are no actual infinities (not z), and the easiest way to disprove that would be to show an actual infinity (z). It's a basic, selfevident statement. How hard or easy it is to actually show an actual infinity is irrelavant to my statement.


PaulK Member Posts: 17856 Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 
quote: That seems irrelevant. If the series of causes and effects took 1/3 of a second  as they could in principle even if the series were infinite  the whole series would last 1/3 of a second.
quote: I think not. What you said was quite clear  and clearly wrong.
quote: Which means exactly the same thing.
quote: Then you were being unclear. You should have asserted that it does not have a sum. And you would still be wrong.
quote: And yet it does. The sum of the infinite series 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003… is 1/3. Just because we can’t do the addition by hand doesn’t mean that we can’t calculate the sum. Indeed, the integral calculus is built on the fact that we can. It’s like saying that an infinite decimal expansion doesn’t have a value since we can’t write it out by hand. Yet we can represent 1/3 in exactly that way.
quote: Your objection is irrelevant. The fact that we can’t measure the infinity (because it’s infinite) doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And if it is there it is actualised.
[quote]But admitting the concept of a potential infinity of divisions within any length is not the same thing as saying that any length has been divided infinitely.
[quote]Indeed, it I am not talking about doing the division. The point is that there are an infinite number of distinct moments whether we do the division or not. And your objection actually admits this.
quote: And yet I can because there are other ways of calculating the sum other than adding up by hand. For a simpler analogy you don’t do large multiplications by repeated addition  so are you arguing that a sufficiently large multiplication can’t be done in a human lifetime?Repeated addition is not the only way to calculate a sum. quote: I certainly do not. Where we disagree seems to be that I think that the claim must actually be shown to be logically impossible. You think you can make the assertion and then waffle on and on about practical difficulties without ever supporting the claim of logical impossibility. Since that is what you are doing.
quote: You misunderstand  i meant that our universe did not begin to exist.However the same point does apply to time. quote: We are discussing a scenario I proposed where there is no time (including other temporal dimensions) prior to our universe existing. What you said cannot override that.
quote: And yet it quite clearly does apply to your argument  and you never gave any reason to think otherwise.
quote: If it is impossible to present an actual infinity then presenting an actual infinity can’t be an “easy refutation” of your assertion. At least not in any way that helps your argument. Arguing that your assertion is technically true but incredibly misleading and actually irrelevant doesn’t really seem to be a very good objection.
quote: The ease of actually doing something is rather clearly relevant to the assertion that it is the easiest. More importantly if it is impossible to actually show an actualised infinity, even if one does exist the whole point is just sophistry. It tells us nothing relevant to the argument.


PaulK Member Posts: 17856 Joined: Member Rating: 3.9

Let us note that this “example” doesn’t come close to representing the actual conversation.
quote: This is closer: Wookie: “Brussels sprouts taste good”Me: “No, they’re horrid” Wookie: “I agree and broccoli is horrid too” Me: “so you said that something horrid tastes good” Wookie: “You admit that Brussels sprouts aren’t horrid! I win!” And just for reference here is the actual conversation. Me: First, a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence  let alone a logical proof. Wookie: I agree. And that reasoning applies equally to the concept of a First Cause or God. Nonetheless, presenting an actualized infinity should be an easy proof or refutation against my idea that there is no such thing as an actualized infinity. The lack of any such evidence is not a proof in support, but it certainly leans that way. Me: Funny how you’re using arguments you know to be bad. Wookie: Classic! You do realize you are dinging your own side."a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence  let alone a logical proof" was YOUR argument, not mine. I do agree with that statement, but it is not part of my argument. And now you are saying it was a bad argument? Fine. You gave a bad argument. TeeHee! Note that Wookie gave no reason to hint that the lack of observation was relevant to a claim of logical impossibility (because it isn’t  there’s no way to get from nonexistence to logical impossibility). He did not even dispute the point that it would be impossible to directly observe that something was actually infinite  which he would need to do for his points to have any validity at all. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8614 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 
Message 400
Wookie: Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths. Me: Show us. We are still waiting for you to show us how it's done. You can show us the math that proves why it's not possible, right? A causal chain infinitely into the past is not possible, you say. And you have the math to prove this. Please, we're waiting. Show us.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!


AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8614 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 
Message 382
Do you understand MrID and this IDv2.0? Don't turn tail and run. Please answer the question. A simple 'no' would do. Either that or a lengthy dissertation on what IDv2 is, how it works, that would be good, too.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!


Son Goku Inactive Member

nwr sorted this out above. There are several mathematical models that have infinite time and an infinite chain of cause and effect. All of classical mechanics and classical statistical mechanics is like this. So infinite time cannot be "logically" ruled out.
Also, again more for others than arguing with WookieeB, there isn't just one Logic. Research into logic since the 1930s has discovered that there are entire families of alternate logics with different rules of inference for combining propositions. Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.


WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: 
That seems irrelevant. If the series of causes and effects took 1/3 of a second  as they could in principle even if the series were infinite  the whole series would last 1/3 of a second.
But it is not irrelevant. Yes, 1/3 is 1/3, and 1/3 is a finite number. any series of causes and effects would take a finite 1/3. The series could not be infinite, because 1/3 is finite.
And yet it does. The sum of the infinite series 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003… is 1/3.
And yet it's not. In decimal, you need to keep adding forever smaller amounts, and yet you still never get 1/3 fully. You get close, but close is not 1/3. Not ever! Decimal representation is limited in how it displays 1/3. 1/3 is not representable exactly in decimal notation. Try using base3. 1/3 in base3 (ternary) is 0.1 . Done and wrapped up with a bow, no infinite representation needed. So 1/3 in reality is not the result of an infinite series.
Just because we can’t do the addition by hand doesn’t mean that we can’t calculate the sum.
Nobody can fully calculate the sum. Even if a person was immortal and all they did was add up the continuing chain of infinite terms would they come up with a final sum. That is inherent in the definition of infinite. It goes on to no end.
Indeed, the integral calculus is built on the fact that we can. It’s like saying that an infinite decimal expansion doesn’t have a value since we can’t write it out by hand. Yet we can represent 1/3 in exactly that way.
And yet is doesn't. The representation of a limit in calculus in such calculations implies that you never actually get to the end. So instead you just fudge it and say "close enough" at some point in the chain. For an infinity, no person can add it all up, no computer can add it all up. That is why numbering in computers has a concept called "precision" that limits how far down the rabbit hole you can go before your calculations start becoming inaccurate. You can represent 1/3 that way, but not exactly. It is a convention that is acceptable depending on a situation. And though in decimal you may need to represent it in an infinite expansion, that is actually because decimal cannot represent it exactly. Use another base numbering system and you can easily show it as finite.
Your objection is irrelevant. The fact that we can’t measure the infinity (because it’s infinite) doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And if it is there it is actualised.
No, the fact that we can't actually measure the infinity does mean that it isn't actually there. We cannot actually measure it...ever! It exists as a concept, just like numbers and math, but there isn't anything actually there. There is no actualized infinity.
The point is that there are an infinite number of distinct moments whether we do the division or not. And your objection actually admits this.
You cannot do the division infinitely and have any finite result, because the division cannot be exhausted or completed. To say it can is a contradiction. You cannot reach the end of something that has no end! And the fact that we do have finite (end of) measurement means that the measurement is not made of of something infinite (no end). It is simple definitions and logic. Frankly, you cannot treat infinity as a number or apply the usual mathematical functions (like division) to it and get something that holds to mathematical logic.1 + [infinity] = [infinity] [infinity] + [infinity] = [infinity] (not = 2[infinity]) 2 x [infinity] = [infinity] (not = 2[infinity]) [infinity] x [infinity] = [infinity] [infinity] / [infinity] = [infinity] In math representation, infinities are treated differently. They do not follow the normal number logic. So then, it doesn't make any logical sense for you to come and say that any sum of infinite terms = a finite number (which does operate withing normal math logic). Next, since we are talking about time, it makes no sense to say that a fixed amount of time can be divided up into an infinite division of time, and then expect that time was traversed. A finite amount of time would not take an infinite amount of time to do so. (Which alludes to why an actually infinite past is not logical) So I'm curious. What came first, the finite thing being measured or the infinite terms that supposedly sum up to the finite thing?
You misunderstand  i meant that our universe did not begin to exist. However the same point does apply to time.
Well then it is you against the current science thinking. Most cosmologists agree the universe began.
We are discussing a scenario I proposed where there is no time (including other temporal dimensions) prior to our universe existing. What you said cannot override that.
I didnt try to override anything. I acknoweledged your view just after the statement you quoted by saying: "But you apparently were only referring to time[1] and ignored the other possibility"
And just for reference here is the actual conversation.
And yet you never provide my opening argument or the question that led to your response. Figures.
Note that Wookie gave no reason to hint that the lack of observation was relevant to a claim of logical impossibility (because it isn’t  there’s no way to get from nonexistence to logical impossibility).
Pardon? I don't have to give such a reason, cause it should be selfevident. Something that is impossible to do would be something that doenst exist.
He did not even dispute the point that it would be impossible to directly observe that something was actually infinite  which he would need to do for his points to have any validity at all.
Huh? That it would be impossible for anyone to observe something that was actually infinite is the whole point. Of course a finite lived human would not observe an infinite time, but an eternally living being would also not ever observe it. It's not a matter of capability, it is a matter of definition. Infinite implies without end. So somebody observing something that had no end would not ever observe the end. The observation would not have any completion to it, so you would not have any observation to present.


Son Goku Inactive Member

Nobody can fully calculate the sum
People have known how to sum infinite series in special cases since the 3rd century BC in Greece, developed even more in India in the Middle Ages and fully developed between the 17th19th centuries. Today it's taught from around the age of 15 in many national curricula.Hardly some unknowable mystery.



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024