Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 424 of 1197 (894055)
04-29-2022 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by AZPaul3
04-28-2022 7:30 PM


Re: Lest You Forget
why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible
We are still waiting for you to show us how it's done.
If some proposed, real entity (ie:causal chain, universe) never began to exist, then the number of past events in the history of such an entity is infinite. But having an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. If they could, various absurdities would result.
As an example, if I had an actually infinite number of CDs all with an infinite number of songs on them, if you listened to only one CD, you would hear the same number of songs as you would if you had listened to every CD in my collection.
Or take PaulK's example. Conceivably, a finite thing (time length) could be sub-divided an infinite number of times. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8....... And supposedly that is enough to demonstrate an actual infinity. Why would the same concept not apply within the same thing, as in fractions of fractions. Any fraction (any single sub-division) could further be subdivided an infinite number of times. So instead of one infinite chain, you potentially have an infinite chain with infinite subdivisions that themselves could be infinitely divided. So in PaulK's example, traversing an infinite chain to get a finite is the same as an traversing an infinite ^ infinite chain to get the same finite. So now infinity ^ infinity = infinity = something finite. Absurdity!
It is impossible to transverse an infinite. If the entity (universe) has existed for an infinite number of days, we could never arrive at today because that would mean infinity came to an end. But infinity can’t come to an end. That’s what it means to be infinity. Or think about it another way. Before we can arrive at today, yesterday would have to occur, and the day before that, and the day before that, and so on to infinity. But how does one know when we’ve reached infinity in the past? There’s no point at which we could start counting the days backward to today. That would be like counting all the negative numbers from infinity back to zero.
If an actual infinity is impossible, any entity (ie: the universe) could not exist for an infinite number of moments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2022 7:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2022 5:08 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 429 by nwr, posted 04-29-2022 5:28 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 431 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 5:56 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 425 of 1197 (894056)
04-29-2022 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by AZPaul3
04-28-2022 8:01 PM


Re: Unanswered
AZPaul3 writes:
Do you understand MrID and this IDv2.0?
I think my confusion with MrID's sayings has already been indicated. But if you need a formal answer-
No, I do not understand MrID or his IDv2.0. I do not think he even understands what he probably considers IDv1.0

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2022 8:01 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 426 of 1197 (894057)
04-29-2022 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Son Goku
04-29-2022 3:18 PM


People have known how to sum infinite series in special cases
Then please show an example. I have a feeling "special cases" means bending the normal rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Son Goku, posted 04-29-2022 3:18 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2022 5:12 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 430 by nwr, posted 04-29-2022 5:34 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 432 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 6:40 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 433 of 1197 (894064)
04-29-2022 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by PaulK
04-29-2022 5:08 PM


Re: Lest You Forget
if time is finite anything that existed at the first point of time will have always existed and have never begun to exist
You dont see the contradiction of this???? If this makes any sense, you have different meanings for the terms "exist", "time", and 'begin'.
Which simply means that infinities don’t behave like normal numbers. It certainly isn’t an argument for logical impossibility. It isn’t even a good argument for lesser degrees of impossiblity
Yes, I have been saying infinity is not like normal numbers. Not like in that, in at least one respect, a thing represented by infinity cannot be actualized. Whereas things represented by finite numbers can and are actualized.
And sorry? Degrees of impossiblity?
Given the assumption that time is a continuum - which you granted - it is in fact a proof. And therefore it is certainly enough.
No it is not. You continue to obfuscate. An actuality would be a snapshot of time, not the whole continuum of it. Or at the very least, a finite slice of time. At any time, in realspace, there is no such thing as a infinite anything in existence.
One could say that in the continuum of time, the future is infinite. The future is a potential infinity. But at no time though is it actually complete. The future is not actualized yet. It is ongoing, not ending.
The traversal is your addition however the truth isn’t wrong just because you think that it is absurd.
Yet you never get to the end in your addition. So how can you say you get your finite thing?
If a person in a race starts the race, but the track is infinite in length, the person will never finish the race. They will never cross the finish line.
In your addition, you have to cross the finish line to get your finite thing. Yet you will never do so in the infinite summation. That is not hard to understand. Only unless you bend the rules, which you apparently want to do, could someone finish the race.
That depends on a view of time that is controversial and largely rejected by physicists (due to relativity). The alternative view of time - treating it as a dimension has no such problem.
Now who is special pleading? Of course there would have to be an alternative view. What is it? Are you referrring to the differrence in a tensed or tenseless sense of time, or something else? You will have to explain your alternate view.
If time is continuous any finitely small portion of time contains an infinite number of moments. That’s an actual logical truth.
Explain please. I think you have a unique view of what it means as to "time is continuous".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2022 5:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 1:37 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 434 of 1197 (894065)
04-29-2022 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by PaulK
04-29-2022 5:12 PM


The sum of the series 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003…
Except you never have a final sum equaling 1/3. Any sum that results in a finite number would have to have a finite number of elements added up. The "sum" as a completion of all the additions, then NO, you never actually have a sum. There will always be more .....3's to add to the rolling sum. You cannot have additions to no end that results in a summation that is an end!
Sum of 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003 = .3333 which is not quite 1/3.
Sum of 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003,...(repeating the series out to a googolplex of digits ending in 3) will not quite equal 1/3.
Sum of 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003,... will not quite equal 1/3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2022 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 1:43 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 435 of 1197 (894066)
04-29-2022 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by AZPaul3
04-29-2022 5:56 PM


Re: Lest You Forget
Yes, infinity ^ infinity = infinity = something finite can be done and to posit otherwise is absurd.
You do realize that mathematically is infinity ^ infinity = infinity, makes no sense. So you have to apply a particular definition of infinity that does not work like any other number. That special definition may work in some mathematical senses (like in calculus with a well-behaved sum), but it has no representation in reality.
An absurdity is not a real thing. I'm only saying that an actual infinity is not a real thing. It is a conceptually mathematical thing, depending on how you are defining your infinity.
Just like a married bachelor is a concept, but not ever can be a real thing.
A square circle is a concept, One could write "square circle" an infinite number of times on a piece of paper if it gets infinitely smaller each time, yet a square circle is never real.
The problem you are all making is a category error (or more precisely a modal operation shift in logic) in how you are defining or using infinity. In one aspect, you use it like a number, but it is not a number. In the Zeno's paradox math, you have to treat your infinity sets distinctly and like numbers. Like the set of {2,3,4.5,.....) is an infinite set, but {1,2.3.4.5.6,....) is a separate infinite set, and the subtraction of one from the other will leave you with 1.
Yet to actualize either of those sets is not possible, but you could create either set to represent the points in between your two finite points. In one sense, they would represent the same thing, an infinite number of points between two points. Yet mathematically, they would not be the same thing. So you keep having to change your definitions and point of view each time you try to justify it.
You should also realize that when you are supposedly saying that the set of infinite points summing up equals the finite sum, you are begging the question of an actual infinite set of points before you can even begin to show this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 5:56 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by nwr, posted 04-29-2022 9:05 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 438 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 9:09 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 436 of 1197 (894067)
04-29-2022 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by AZPaul3
04-29-2022 6:40 PM


No first cause is required in an infinite universe with all causal chains extending infinitely back in time. No first cause necessary. You lose that justification for your god.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that I agreed with that statement. Fine. If there is an infinite causal chain going back in time, then there is no need for a god.
But as I have been stating, there is no such thing as an actual infinity, back in time. You've admitted the absurdity of it yourself. And if there is no infinite regress in time, then there has to be a First Cause.
if a first cause existed then a spark, an energy potential, is infinitely more probable as that cause than some old white guy from some far future planet Earth.
First, I am not saying, nor have ever said, that some "some old white guy from some far future planet Earth" is the First Cause. You project on me too much.
Secondly, though can appreciate the sarcastic (or maybe not *shrug*) tone, you have no warrant to apply probabilities to either scenario. So your statement is all hot air.
There is no justification, in logic or physics, to posit any god, especially the one you create and operate in your own mind, as a first cause of anything, ever.
There is no justification, in logic or physics, to deny a First Cause (or god), especially since you are scared of the implications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 6:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 10:02 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 440 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 11:15 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 443 of 1197 (894077)
04-30-2022 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by PaulK
04-30-2022 1:43 AM


f you mean that I would be breaking your arbitrary rule that I have to do the additions by hand then I have to ask what is the point?
But then you are not being consistent.
If you were an immortal being living in our spacetime, and you were able to add numbers at a googolplex (10^100^100) terms per second, and you did this for a googolplex number of years, you still would not have ended adding terms for an number with infinite terms.
You were the one that also wrote out the 1/3 series as adding 0.3, 0.03, 0.003,...., so you were alluding to the adding of terms in a singular series on to infinity...which means to no end. So just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it wouldn't occur that way.
I can’t write out the infinitely recurring decimal 0.33333…. either but everyone knows that is the same as 1/3
Of course you cannot write it out. And in decimal base10 numeration you cannot express 1/3 completely accurate by writing out 0.333333... no matter how many digits you use. base10 decimal cannot accurately represent 1/3, so it has to show it as an infinite series. use a base3 notation and write it as 0.1. No infinite progression needed.
The "...." is a convention. Everyone knows that it is the same as 1/3 because that is an accepted convention for it. The "...." has no numerical value in itself, otherwise 0.3333...... would be a different number than 0.3333333333333333333..... But people understand, because of the convention, that both of those statements are equivalent. Computers and (probably) other computation machines dont use the "....". If anything, they have a set number of digits (probably based on a binary level) that is a limit to their precision. So beyond calculating a limited series of .3's, the calculating devices will either truncate or round up the last digit and end the series. But it is understood that beyond that point, accuracy (a realistic representation of what is in the infinite series) goes out the window. But at that point, it usually doesn't matter to most folk, cause whatever is close is good enough, which is the convention.
The series has a sum, and I know what it is. That is all that matters. I don’t have to follow rules that you made up.
I suspect you have a definition of "sum" that doesn't care about accuracy to the infinite level. The rules are logic and what is real. If you don't want to follow them, that is your business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 1:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 3:40 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 445 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 04-30-2022 4:37 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 447 of 1197 (894261)
05-08-2022 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by PaulK
04-30-2022 3:40 AM


There's part of your problem. You are thinking of infinity as a number. But it isn't. It's a concept, but it isn't a number.
Yes, infinity is an abstract concept, not a number. As an abstract concept, it is not something concrete...ever. It is actually never a real thing. It is an abstract thing. Abstract thing does not equal real thing. As an abstract thing may work in an abstract system like mathematics, which is just fine. I am not negating anything that occurs in mathematics.
Mathematics can model real, concrete things. But the parts in math have to properly represent a real thing, and infinity does not do that. When parts in math represent real things, normal arithmetic still works. With infinity, it does not.
With adding up sums to get a finite number, you need a finite amount of numbers. Since infinity is neither, it doesn't work. You need a number to represent the actual. That is why infinity wont work as a representation of an actuality.
AZPaul3 writes:
if you understand the 'concept' of infinity and not try to treat it like a number.
Yes, and if you understand that infinity is a concept then is not an actual thing
You have no logic, no evidence, no reasoning, creationist twisted as you may be, to insist that a first cause is required to make anything.
The universe had a beginning. Most scientists today agree with that. As such, space, time and matter/energy all had a beginning. So the reasoning is that whatever creates the universe would be, among other things, spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
If there were justification in logic and physics for your ape/man god then it would have had a part, we would have accounted for it, in our theories.
There is plenty of justification in logic. There is no justification in physics because physics wasn’t a thing when the universe was created. So, you have no theories accounting for it because your theories are incapable to account for it because they deal with something that is unrelated to the subject.
PaulK writes:
However you are using arguments that treat infinity like a normal number to make that case. Saying that you know that your arguments are invalid because you are using them is hardly a defence,
No I’m not treating like a number. You are. To do the arithmetic in a way that makes sense in an actualized manner, your sums have to be finite and of a finite amount. You are trying to throw infinity into a scenario where a number is required. Thus infinity doesnt work in an actualized way.
I’m talking about small portions of time - say 1 second. Are you saying that a single second of time cannot be “actual”?
….
Which is exactly what I am talking about, because each finite slice of time contains an infinite amount of moments. As I have shown.
No, the second is finite. The second is not made of a sum of numbers without end.
To repeat the point it is because I don’t get the sum by doing all the additions by hand.
But you should be able to. Since the numbers being added are without end, then it cannot be a finite end to the sum. At some point, you are saying that 1 = ½ + ¼ + ⅛ +.... But at any point, if the sum equals 1, then there is another number being added, because the numbers being added never end. And any sum cannot equal the sum plus anything else (that is not zero). Simple logic.
I use other means to work out what it is. As I said before, nobody uses repeated addition to do large multiplications, so there is no need to restrict ourselves to adding by hand.
..
There is no rule that says that we have to add everything up by hand. But please go tell everyone using the integral calculus that they are doing it wrong, breaking your rules and must stop.
You are using a convention that is accepted in calculus, but that convention has no representation in reality. You can use it in math all you want, but it doesnt map to a real thing. Computers use a convention like this too when they reach the limit of their math precision. If the level of precision is not a problem for the user/programmer, the convention is just fine for them to rely on. But they can accept that level of not being precise cause it doesn't matter for them down to that level.
The rules that would be broken are the rules of reality, actual things. And that is all I have been saying. If someone is saying in math that a series approaches close enough to a finite number that is is ok to treat it as that finite number, fine. But math is an abstract idea.
Scientifically, it would never work. For one, at this time you could not provide any evidence of it (can’t look that deep yet), and secondly, once you hit the Planck length (if referring to a spacial measurement) or Planck time (if measuring the time of an event) you would not be able to go any further without your basis (physics) breaking down. There is a limit there.
indeed your position seems to be that mathematics is wrong because you don’t like it. Because you are disagreeing with mathematics and you don’t give any valid reasons.
No, my position is mathematics is mathematics, and not reality, not an actual thing. There is a difference. It works in math. It doesn't work in actuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 3:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2022 8:47 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 449 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2022 9:17 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 450 by nwr, posted 05-08-2022 10:00 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2022 1:01 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 453 by ringo, posted 05-09-2022 11:47 AM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 464 by Stile, posted 05-25-2022 9:48 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 455 of 1197 (894511)
05-18-2022 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by AZPaul3
05-08-2022 8:47 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
Except the universe may not have had a beginning. The big bang may not have been the beginning. We/you don't know.
Except the universe probably had a beginning. The big bang likely was the beginning. We/you don't know that it wasn't.
Most scientists today agree the universe may indeed be infinite. In both time directions. We/you don't know.
You base your conclusions on unfounded speculations. Your reasoning is faulty.
Ahh, but here you are incorrect. If you want to call it a consensus of any sort, most scientists that hold to the Big Bang as the start of our universe point to it being the start of time, space and matter/energy, at least from our perspective.
Perhaps it stems from Einstein's initial equations of general relativity pointing to a start of space and time.
Or perhaps it’s due to Stephen Hawking’s view that time definitely had a beginning with the Big Bang, shown with his work with George Ellis and Roger Penrose.
Or maybe some are persuaded by physicist Paul Davies, who when commenting on Hawking’s work said:
quote
“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space-time itself.”
Paul Davies - "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology"
Or perhaps it is due to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem that is essentially a proof for the beginning of the universe that holds whether or not inflationary cosmology turns out to be correct.
If you insist on speculating a first cause, think something more realistic like an energy differential, a spark, not some ape-man god floating in nirvanah beyond the reach of reality.
But why would a spark or an energy differential be any better of an idea than an ape-man god (which I never mentioned anyways). There are no physics ‘before’ the beginning to rely on, so you cannot appeal to that.
Of course there is justification for our present understanding of the universe through physics. Physics has developed into the sole method of accurately determining the past, present and future state of this universe. Nothing else even competes.
You can appeal to physics after the beginning of the universe when physics comes into play. But you cannot do so before, or even at the moment of beginning. With Big Bang theories, even after time=0 and up to a very short time later, physics doesn't apply.
Philosophically, if one is stating that space, time, and matter/energy began at time=0, and if you still hold to those items needing a cause, then whatever causes them would have the properties of space, time or matter/energy…or in other words the cause would have to be, at least, spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2022 8:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-18-2022 5:39 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 460 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2022 7:27 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 456 of 1197 (894512)
05-18-2022 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by nwr
05-08-2022 10:00 PM


WookieeB writes:
Yes, infinity is an abstract concept, not a number.
nwr writes:
Great. And in case you don't know, numbers are also abstract.
Ya, I know. So what.
As I have said, numbers and math can be used to reference reality, as some models do. But unlike some finite numbers or terms, infinity as an abstract concept does not represent an actualized reality. So at any point in time, or any finite measurement, is not representable as an actualized infinity.
What doesn't work?
Using infinity to represent an actuality doesn't work. A finite sum cannot be made up of a non-ending string of numbers being added together. A finite sum would only be able to made up of a finite number of numbers. At any point in adding up infinite sums, you could not claim to have reached the goal of a finite number, because the adding of numbers would never end, thus the sum would never be consistent.
When we talk of the sum of an infinite series, we are following the conventions of mathematics.
Yes, I understand that. But what you do not seem to understand is what those conventions of mathematics actually mean.
As for limits in calculus, which still is an abstract concept that all math is, they don’t actually mean that the equal sign actually means exactly equal. I know that sounds funny saying it bluntly like that, but look at the following videos that explains the basic Calculus idea of limits. -
Introduction to Limits (NancyPi)
Note particularly at time: 4:30 where the presenter talking about limits in general says:
quote
“And one thing that confuses people is the equal sign. Some people wonder, you know, why can you use an equal sign? How can you say it's equal if you were just saying that it's approaching a number or getting really close and not actually touching exactly the number?....It's just the limit notation. It's just the limit language. We can say that the limit equals a number and it just means that that number is what the function is approaching. And notice that I'm not saying that the function equals 2 at x = 1.It's not that. We don't even know what the function equals. It's not defined. It's indeterminate.”
Also speaking about limits to infinity look to the 10:30 spot.
3 Paradoxes That Gave Us Calculus
Includesa reference of Zeno’s paradox, which directly relates to our discussion. (Also at time 4:30)
quote
“And that logic is exactly what it means to take the mathematical limit. It never actually solves what happens at infinity, it just takes you arbitrarily close to infinity. Or another way to think of it is asking what happens on the threshold of infinity just before we actually reach it. This idea is extremely useful in a lot of mathematics where we need to resolve what happens as a sum approaches a number but never actually reaches it. This idea of approaching something but never actually reaching it is the big idea at the heart of calculus.”
Nobody claims to actually add them step by step. Mathematics has well established conventions for discussion of infinite series. And those conventions work very well.
Yes, nobody, including I, is claiming that they are being added step by step. The basic explanation of the process of what is being proposed is to have a number being added to another number to another number to no end of adding. Of course nobody could actually do that. And that is to an extent the heart of my point. Because nobody (including an immortal being) can actually do it, it cannot be done. Thus something that cannot be done or has never been done is not an actualized thing.
Yes, Math has conventions that discuss infinity that work well in the context of abstract mathematics, and none of those conventions ever say that it is something that is actualized.
If you don't like the conventions, then don't use them. There's no point about repeatedly getting red in the face with anger at people doing things that they don't actually do.
I have no problem with the conventions. Keep them in mathematics and pull whatever useful information they provide. Just don’t say that the particular convention of infinity represents anything actualized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by nwr, posted 05-08-2022 10:00 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by nwr, posted 05-18-2022 7:48 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 457 of 1197 (894513)
05-18-2022 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by PaulK
05-09-2022 1:01 AM


PaulK writes:
Ah, the usual creationist habit of attributing their faults to their opponents. None the less your argument is that infinity does not act like a number therefore no infinity can exist. I on the other hand make no such argument.
Ahh, the usual evolutionist habit of straw-manning any argument that disagrees with them. My argument is NOT that since infinity does not act like a number therefore no infinity can exist. It is that any finite sum needs to be the result of adding two or more (but a finite count) of numbers. And that something that has no end cannot end (infinity cannot be actualized).
The second is a finite time consisting of an infinite number of moments. Or it is if time is continuous, as you agreed that it is. That is a simple matter of logic. If you want to say that logic is wrong you need to do better than confused misrepresentations of the point,
No, the second is a finite time…period.
And to echo my point that you are the one using infinity as a number…. You just said it there-” infinite number of moments”
No, any finite measure (a number) of time is not made up of a non-ending number of moments, because a non-ending amount of anything is not a number of anything. I question now what you actually think infinity is! Because to you, any time measure is made of an ‘infinite number’ of divisions, which themselves can be infinitely divided. Then there are an infinite number of time measures. So infinity times infinity times infinity would encompass everything. You have basically made the term infinity meaningless.
I should be able to do an infinite number of additions? Really? It’s not even practical to multiply large numbers by repeated addition - that’s one reason we use multiplication - and why logarithms were invented.
No, you should be able to do however many additions is needed to get a finite sum, because the amount of things being added is finite. Nobody can actually do an infinite number of additions, because they would be adding to no end.
Whether or not it is practical to show multiplication of large numbers by repeated addition is irrelevant. The issue is it can be done if the numbers involved are finite. You cannot do either if the amount of numbers is an infinite chain.
“Mathematics is wrong because Wookie says so” is not a convincing argument,
Strawmanning my arguments is not a convincing argument.
X = 1 + 2 + 3 + ….
If there is no end to the numbers being added on the right side, then the value of X on the left side will never be finite.
By definition the sum of the series is what you get if you add up all the terms. In this series you won’t have got to 1 if you stop before the end. And that really is obvious - you can even work out how far short it is of 1 without adding up the terms by hand.
But you never have all the terms, because the terms being added never end. So there is no end to adding, and thus you never get a sum of 1. You cannot take a snapshot at any point and have a finite 1, because a snapshot can never show the sum complete, because the adding never ends. In limit-speak, you never actually equal the end.
No, it’s been the basis of the integral calculus since Newton and Leibniz invented it.
So what. I never disputed it is part of calculus. I dispute that it represents an actuality. You cannot seem to understand the difference.
Let me just suggest that a guy who seems to think multiplication is forbidden isn’t really in a position to disagree.
Which I said never. I never indicated that multiplication is forbidden.
Except, of course, that none of the arguments here involve making such measurements. So nobody is breaking that rule either.
So then you are referring to just something that is presented in abstract math, and not in reality. If that is the case, then I agree. Such measurements can be done in the imagination of abstract math, yet you could not in actuality subdivide any measurement to infinity.
Trying to deny that you are arguing that mathematics is wrong when you repeat those very arguments in this post is hardly sensible.

Unfortunately the points raised are relevant to reality. If time and space are continuous then the relevant mathematics does describe them - it is not just an abstraction.
No, I am not saying mathematics is wrong. I am saying that mathematics itself is an abstract thing, and itself is not anything actual. In its own realm, you can say that infinity can be reached if you want. Math can be used to represent certain properties of reality, but there is never anything actually there that is "math". You have to be very careful, and very specific on how you want math to represent reality. Infinity is a concept in math, but you can never represent infinity as an actual thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2022 1:01 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2022 5:06 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024