C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Im sorry, what do i not understand? Point out one thing regarding infinity that i have don’t understand, quote me please.
- Status
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I think you should look as the scientific history of our understanding of the universe. Every single time we have thought we knew the full extent of the universe it has gotten larger. Are you trying to say that at this point in time we have a full understanding of the universe?
I’ll put this as simply as i can for you. I am not convinced that we have uncovered the full extent of the universe. As general relativity, and in turn space-time, breaks down at high enough energies, where quantum gravity theory takes over it is pointless to talk about infinite and finite time.
F
Fran65
Guest
CD,
You don’t need to simplify any of your points for me.
I pointed out the definition and that your assertion made no sense.
If you meant that we will enlarge our understanding of the universe then you needed to say so, rather than make an illogical statement. BTW, enlarging our understanding of the universe means uncovering more of what is in the universe, not what is outside it. If it was outside the universe it wouldn’t be part of it!
As for evidence and quotes of the lack of understanding I refer you back to MoM’s, JD’s and Whim’s posts, all of whom have pointed these out in detail. There is no point in repeating them, they are all there.
I’ve nothing more to add to this.
You don’t need to simplify any of your points for me.
I pointed out the definition and that your assertion made no sense.
If you meant that we will enlarge our understanding of the universe then you needed to say so, rather than make an illogical statement. BTW, enlarging our understanding of the universe means uncovering more of what is in the universe, not what is outside it. If it was outside the universe it wouldn’t be part of it!
As for evidence and quotes of the lack of understanding I refer you back to MoM’s, JD’s and Whim’s posts, all of whom have pointed these out in detail. There is no point in repeating them, they are all there.
I’ve nothing more to add to this.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Actually it transpired that we agreed. I’m sure you don’t.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Quantified things = things that have NUMBER PREDICATED of them. NUMBER does not exist. NUMBER is predicated of things, events, stars, atoms, you name it. No matter how big the number of these quantum things is or becomes, the system of them is either a whole number infinity, or a potential infinity, which is not an independent and separate whole number. You are continuing to confuse the two kinds of infinity. (I know; it’s tough. I had a tough time with it, too.
)DISCRETE QUANTITY:
(1.) ACTUAL “INFINITY” = does not exist in any PHYSICALLY REAL form, but only exists conceptually. (Otherwise, you should be able to show me an ACTUAL “INFINITY” of something.) (Otherwise you should be able to tell me whether INFINITY is an odd number or an even number.)
(2.) CONCEPTUAL existence = non-physical, non-material, non-events, non-anything real. CONCEPTS only exist in a mind, as IDEAS.
(3.) ACTUAL 'INFINITY" = CONCEPTUAL “INFINITY”.
(4.) POTENTIAL “INFINITY” = physical things, material things, events, real things, in the process of GAINING, or GROWING, in number, towards the NUMBER that we call, “INFINITY.” If we take a gander at any point along the line of GAIN or GROWTH, we have only a finite quantity of whatever.
(5.) If we can continue to put more things into a PLACE that already has an “INFINITE” quantity of things in it, there will be no more room for the additional thing, or things. If there is room for more things, then the things in said PLACE make up a POTENTIALLY infinite quantity NOT an ACTUALLY infinite quantity. If we can add one or more things to a NUMBER of things, the original, or starting, whole number was NOT “INFINITE”.
If you understand it any other way, you do not understand the concept. INFINITY can only be predicated of REAL stuff, and ONLY in our minds as a CONCEPT. Real stuff is divided into discrete quantity, i.e., NUMBER, or continuous quantity, i.e., LINES, PLANES and SOLIDS (or semi-solids).
NUMBER is MULTITUDE measured by a UNIT. MULTITUDE is therefore the genus of NUMBER, and the specific difference, determining the genus into this kind of NUMBER rather than that kind of NUMBER, is the final UNIT of the NUMBER in question.
Thus the specific difference that determined or measured multitude into, for instance, the number 5 is the final unit in this number. Varying the unit varies the species of number. Adding an additional unit to those in 5, would make it 6. This type of quantity is called discrete since two numbers, unlike two parts of a line which are continuous with one another, have separate and independent existences.
EVENTS = EVENTS. It does not matter whether they are labeled past, present or future.
FINITE (number of) EVENTS = FINITE (number of) EVENTS ONLY. FINITE (number of) EVENTS cannot = INFINITE (number of) EVENTS, past, present or future.
FINITE (number of) EVENTS = discrete number of events.
INFINITE (number of) EVENTS = discrete number of events. Therefore, an INFINITE NUMBER of EVENTS = a separate and independently existing NUMBER - which, of course, it is not.
INFINITY must have its own separate and independent existence - as a NUMBER. It does not blurr into anything else (such as “events”) OR any other number. ACTUAL infinity and POTENTIAL infinity cannot be used interchangeably. They must not be confused with one another.
I must leave for work now. Later, I will define CONTINUOUS quantity, or magnitude. CONTINUOUS quantity has to do with geometric figures, such as lines, planes and solids. I think, when I’m done with the next part, your understanding will become clearer.
(I love ya Evil one, but, your killing me here!)
jd
F
Fran65
Guest
I’m pleased that you agree with MoM, JD & Whim. Its been quite a discussion
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Well i agree with JD and Whims take on infinity.I’m pleased that you agree with MoM, JD & Whim. Its been quite a discussion
I would also like to clear something up.
You quoted me as saying…
"Anything outside the universe is still technically past (part?) of the the universe? "
You then went on to say…
“If you meant that we will enlarge our understanding of the universe then you needed to say so, rather than make an illogical statement.”
However, in actual fact heres what i did say…
Also as the cosmos/universe includes all, then anything outside the universe as we perceive it is still technically past (yep i ment part) of the cosmos.
Next time you quote me can you do me a favour and actually quote what i said. Instead of making up what i said, then to all effect have a debate with yourself.
F
Fran65
Guest
I apologise if I misunderstood what you posted. It was a genuine mistake on my part.
As for debating with myself - well, that would not be half as much fun. I will read your posts far more closely in future.
As for debating with myself - well, that would not be half as much fun. I will read your posts far more closely in future.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I am trying to find a term to express the idea that we can all agree on so that we can actually address the possibility of an infinite past.
My point was that you actually have to show that an infinite past isn’t possible, not just criticize the words used to express the concept. At least people like William Lane Craig try to justify their position instead of just saying that an “infinite number of things” cannot exist because infinity is not a number. If infinity is not a number you must still recognize that it has some meaning to say that there have been infinite past events. We would then need to discuss whether this could have happened in reality.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
No, I’m pretty sure I get the difference.Quantified things = things that have NUMBER PREDICATED of them. NUMBER does not exist. NUMBER is predicated of things, events, stars, atoms, you name it. No matter how big the number of these quantum things is or becomes, the system of them is either a whole number infinity, or a potential infinity, which is not an independent and separate whole number. You are continuing to confuse the two kinds of infinity. (I know; it’s tough. I had a tough time with it, too.
Even if an actual infinity did exist, I don’t know how I could possibly demonstrate it. How would you prove that there are an infinite number of things? No matter how many of the objects you looked at, you couldn’t be sure that there were infinitely many of them instead of just an absurdly large number. I think our ability to experience an infinite is limited even if one exists since humans are spatially and temporally finite creatures. Furthermore, I do not assume that there must be a lot of actual infinities. Past events may be the only one.
You say that infinity is only a concept because otherwise I should be able to show you an example. I think that is a little silly for the reasons described above. But I could also similarly say that a spiritual entity creating physical matter is only a concept and cannot actually happen, or else you could produce an example of it. It could have happened in the past, just as an infinite number of events could have transpired, but we can’t actually show either one.
It is neither an odd nor an even number. If you want to classify it as a number, it’s definitely not the same type of number. By the way, is 1 prime or composite? Just because it’s neither doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist.
Are they really equal? Couldn’t you have a concept of a potential infinity too?
More seriously, you would need to show that actual infinities are merely conceptual, not just assert it.
This is merely an assertion on your part. Consider boxes numbered with all the integers. If there is something in each negatively numbered box, you can still put in more things despite infinite filled boxes. Are you saying there are not infinite negative numbers?
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
This doesn’t show that there could not have been infinite past events, just that an existent infinity is inconsistent with how you define things.
How are you defining “a separate and independently existing NUMBER”? I’m not trying to nitpick, but if you try to define something out of existence, you have to be very clear about what the words you use mean and why those words apply.
I think we’re on the same page with this stuff.
(I love ya Evil one, but, your killing me here!)
jd
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
My apologies, i often tar people with the same brush, it is a major downfall of mine. Im sorry that i have been snappy.I apologise if I misunderstood what you posted. It was a genuine mistake on my part.
As for debating with myself - well, that would not be half as much fun. I will read your posts far more closely in future.
J
JDaniel
Guest
You Bum! You can be Evil! You’ve been shilling me this whole time! (Be careful, I did write “s h i l l i n g”, as in Las Vegas style shilling.
jd
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Huh?You Bum! You can be Evil! You’ve been shilling me this whole time! (Be careful, I did write “s h i l l i n g”, as in Las Vegas style shilling.
jd
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Are you saying that there is such a thing as an objective integer?
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Thanks for your non-helpful private opinion.
However, i think you can do better then just express your private opinion. I am looking for a vigorous and logical reason why.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
What do you mean by an objective integer? When you say objective, do you mean “of or having to do with a material object”, “having actual existence or reality”, or “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.”
Also, I have no idea what this has to do with my post.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Calling all posters, concerning the Question of an Infinite past. I think we have come to a point where we can move on no further, simply because a few posters refuse to acknowledge the legitimate meanings of an actual-Infinite and a potential infinite and their relationship to numbers. People are refusing to admit the boundaries and the legitimacy of logic and how such logic applies to objective reality. Some people are claiming that i haven’t shown this to be the case to a sufficient degree. Personally, i agree with J.Daniel when he says that people are confusing the 3 levels of abstraction. In any case, I am no longer interested in proving my case, suffice to say that according to my understanding of an actual infinite i have shown to a sufficient degree why such a thing is impossible in principle and why it cannot be applied to past events.This, by the way, turns out to be another thread where MindOverMatter entirely disregards my objection. Like hell. Perhaps I should change my nick-name. I really believe it’s all about my nick-name.
Now i think it would be more productive and interesting if we move on to some of the other Question in the OP, such as this one here…
I can fairly say that this is difficult to understand since you must first comprehend being as being. Perhaps, my friend J Daniel will help with this. He is far more patient with people then me!!
It would be helpful if you understood proof number 3., in fact all the previous proofs. But I will now state proof 4 in more simpler terms.
4. If there is an infinite chain of dependent causes, then one is admitting that none of the causes are truly the “cause” of the “change” which is occurring within that chain. In reality all the causes are effects because of there dependency on either their existential-environment or a previous cause. If the cause of change is none of the effects, this would mean that change is the cause of the effects, which makes no sense, since change in itself does not exist outside of that which is changing. We are trying to explain why there is that which is changing.
Remember 1. Out of nothing comes nothing. Since “potentiality” must be first founded upon being.
Conclusion: Change cannot give cause to itself, neither can it exist outside of a preceding existential-environment or cause, just like potentiality. Therefore there must be an unmoved-mover or an uncaused cause, in order to explain that which is changing. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which changes.
Change is not itself a being, but is the product of beings. Beings are changing. If change is a product of being, then one must admit that being precedes change.
Step 9: One could put it in another way. Anything that begins to exist, needs a existential-cause, since out of nothing comes nothing. If every being is dependent on the existence of a previous being ad infinitum, then none of the beings are the givers of that which is being, because they are all dependent. Therefore the chain ought not to exist.
The chain does exist, therefore there must be a being that is being by nature of its being, and not by a cause. Such a being would be a necessary, perfect, and absolute being, and thus would transcend the imperfections of change and potentiality, and would in effect transcend the nature of any being that changes; all space/time and energy.
J
j1akey
Guest
Well, objective integer doesn’t exactly show up in any dictionary I can find so I really have no idea what that is, just like the rest of this topic.
I haven’t posted here because I still have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I’m starting to think that you purposely wrote this thing up in such a way that makes it so confusing with terms and phrases that make as little sense as possible as to prevent people from mounting any kind of actual counter argument. Even if they do you can simply say that they don’t don’t understand.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Tell that to people who keep using it under the mistaken impression that it is actually a refutation of my position!
I’m sorry that you don’t understand, but its good that you at least tried to.
- Status