quote:
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.
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:
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.
That is not a definition. That’s the case being considered - and it is certainly possible if there is no minimum value.
quote:
At any moment in time, your set is is not complete, and you will not truly have your finite number
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:
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.
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:
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."
So? It is a real possibility so far as we know.
quote:
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”…
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:
… then that also is negating everyone else’s proposal that there is a "causal chain infinitely into the past".
Both are possibilities.
quote:
Nevertheless, even if there is no time before our universe, it doesn't mean there is no cause.
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:
First, that violates every observation we have (‘Everything that exists has a cause’ OR ‘Whatever begins to exist has a cause’).
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:
Secondly, the whole idea of a First Cause or more specifically “God” is that it exists outside of time.
I won’t dwell on the problematic aspects of that because it is irrelevant.
quote:
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.
It didn’t seem that way when you were questioning if I was proposing that causation could take zero time.
quote:
I agree. And that reasoning applies equally to the concept of a First Cause or God.
Funny how you’re using arguments you know to be bad.
quote:
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.
I would say “impossible” rather than “easy”. How can we observe that something is infinite?
quote:
Nope
Well you disagreed above. Even if your argument was nuts.
quote:
You seem to not realize that the concept of infinity has a time component weaved into it.
I don’t agree with that assertion because it is obvious nonsense.
quote:
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.
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:
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.
Actually doing it is not relevant. It is a simple consequence of continuous quantities.
quote:
So no, a length is not an actualized infinity, nor is a unit of time an actualized infinity.
Yet your whole argument for the impossibility of doing the subdivision assumes that they are actualised infinities.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
