Does an actual infinte exist?

[itinerant1]

I would suspect that it does as a logical concept. Example, take a non zero number and divide it by 2, and continue until you reach absolute 0. This process will run infinitely long. Using the same technique but with matter, we would get as far as the atom and have to stop due to constraints on scientific knowledge. Can you partition an electron/proton/neutron?

A logical or mathematical division is only potentially infinite, as one can always divide by 2 again, and again, ad infinitum. It is never a realized infinite.

Whether matter is infinitely divisible is answered from two different perspectives. Practically, it is not technologically possible. Theoretically, there seems to be no logical contradiction to its infinite divisibility.

Another consideration about the “infinite” is this: Is an actually realized infinite quantity possible? I will say “no” because the concept involves a contradiction in terms.

The implication of the contradiction indicated above is that the universe, which is made up of things that are quantifiable, i.e. physical matter and energy, is therefore finite.

 

[ManOnFire]

Itinerant said it. Any counting or measurement that attempts to quantify the “beginning” or “end” is referencing a Finite set, not an Infinite one, which is not an appropriate comparison. This is an inconvenient Truth that some minds refuse to see because it does not reinforce their position.

 

[coolduude]

A logical or mathematical division is only potentially infinite, as one can always divide by 2 again, and again, ad infinitum. It is never a realized infinite.

Whether matter is infinitely divisible is answered from two different perspectives. Practically, it is not technologically possible. Theoretically, there seems to be no logical contradiction to its infinite divisibility.

Another consideration about the “infinite” is this: Is an actually realized infinite quantity possible? I will say “no” because the concept involves a contradiction in terms.

The implication of the contradiction indicated above is that the universe, which is made up of things that are quantifiable, i.e. physical matter and energy, is therefore finite.

Emphasis mine. I don’t get that part. The universe is finite because the matter in it is quantifiable?

Itinerant said it. Any counting or measurement that attempts to quantify the “beginning” or “end” is referencing a Finite set, not an Infinite one, which is not an appropriate comparison. This is an inconvenient Truth that some minds refuse to see because it does not reinforce their position.

Somewhat understand this (forgive me. I’m a young philosopher ) Sounds good to me though

 

[itinerant1]

Emphasis mine. I don’t get that part. The universe is finite because the matter in it is quantifiable?

Actually, I have no idea what I meant.

I think I will try to explain this from an angle I have not used before. Lucky you!

First, I will define “universe” according to Fr. Stanley Jaki’s definition as “the totality of consistently interacting things.” Now, to speak of an actually realized infinite number of finite physical things is as contradictory as speaking of an actually infinite number. Number is only potentially infinite, in that we never have a realized infinite integer, because we can always add one more number to the series.

So too regarding physical things. This is a thought experiment: We can (theoretically) number each physical thing in the universe but we can never rationally claim to have numbered an infinite amount of things (as an actual infinite number or integer does not exist), because like the number series, we can always potentially add one more thing to be numbered.

So, the most we can assert is that the universe is “potentially” infinite, which is tantamount to saying that it is at any particular instant an actual “finite” universe.

Clear as mud??

 

[ManOnFire]

Somewhat understand this (forgive me. I’m a young philosopher ) Sounds good to me though

The atheists selectively believe that time and space simply appeared one day and that time started counting forward spontaneously, without outside influence (Big Bang, etc.). Einstein’s Theory of Relativity negates any beginning or ending of time because time stands still as an object (or the entire universe) gets closer to the speed of light (black holes are black because light cannot escape). Time travels in reverse, according to the Theory of Relativity, once the speed of light is exceeded. That’s why it is theoretically possible to travel back to the beginning of time, making it’s definition null and void, along with their selective belief in a godless beginning of time. Any belief in the existence of a godless Actual Infinity means science is permanently and inherently flawed since non-finite measurement of time and space is impossible by definition, so they must abandon their belief that they are academically superior to the religious since no logical person could believe that something so inherently flawed (science) could be superior unless they are selectively closing their minds to arguments like mine and THEY HAVE BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE WHICH IS PERMANENTLY AND INHERENTLY FLAWED.

Hmmm. Blind Faith. Sounds familiar. Where’s the moral superiority over us religious people now? Perhaps they should ask for a tuition refund.

Dude, does that make sense? It helps to have been a science major.

 

[itinerant1]

Albert Einstein once said, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

 

[ManOnFire]

Here’s what bugs me about some atheists: If some parts of a godless universe are expanding near the speed of light, and it is impossible to REACH the speed of light, then one will NEVER reach the end of the universe. It is impossible to MEASURE the infinity of itme and space for the godless. So, logically, it must be infinite to the godless. Some cosmologists conveniently choose to believe it is Finite (Big Bang) because most of their scientific beliefs are based on that which can be MEASURED. Once it cannot be measured, one should no longer believe in it. That’s the rub. NO ONE can measure the Infinity of time and space, that’s why I doubt some atheists’ sincerity, and therefore, faith, in science. It is, dare I say, a hypocrisy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Explain gravity. How fast is it? Where does it originate? Describe gravity in detail.

If explaining gravity is difficult to do, then how can people/beings who are extremely finite be successful in discussing infinite / infinity?

Our vocabulary is not up to the task of explaining infinity.

And our understanding of advanced concepts is pathetically inadequate.

So, it is safe to say that an actual infinite exists.

Although our human/ finite natures preclude us from doing very much to prove it.

 

[itinerant1]

So, it is safe to say that an actual infinite exists.

To say that “an actual infinite exists” is to say not much of anything at all. One may feel safe asserting what has almost no meaning in itself. But there can be no merit to the proposition.

My point is that when asserting an actual infinite exists, or does not exists, one must specify a subject – an actual infinite “what” exists, or not?

If a subject of actual infinite is not designated, then the statement “an actual infinite exists” is both ambiguous and useless. So one feels safe saying nothing at all.

 

[coolduude]

To say that “an actual infinite exists” is to say not much of anything at all. One may feel safe asserting what has almost no meaning in itself. But there can be no merit to the proposition.

My point is that when asserting an actual infinite exists, or does not exists, one must specify a subject – an actual infinite “what” exists, or not?

If a subject of actual infinite is not designated, then the statement “an actual infinite exists” is both ambiguous and useless. So one feels safe saying nothing at all.

So in this case I think an adequate question would be “could time be infinite?” I ask that question because it seems that many a Christian apologist uses the argument that an actual infinite can’t exist, therefore time had a beginning. Get it?

 

[itinerant1]

So in this case I think an adequate question would be “could time be infinite?” I ask that question because it seems that many a Christian apologist uses the argument that an actual infinite can’t exist, therefore time had a beginning. Get it?

Sorry to say, but the argument that you allude to does not sound reasonable, though I can’t make a definitive judgment on it without seeing the entire argument.

The problem is that even though an “actual” infinite time cannot exist, as that would seem to be a contradiction, it does not address the possibility of a “potentially” infinite time.

And this is where I think the aforementioned argument fails. There is nothing logically contradictory about the idea of the universe having always existed, though it would still be dependent on God for its existence. The briefest way I can indicate what this means is that it is reasonable to assume that the universe was created from all eternity, or, that there was an eternal creation of the universe, and time in such a universe would be potentially infinite. (Don’t expect to understand this idea the first time you hear it. It is a difficult concept to grasp.)

Note that Thomas Aquinas’ philosophical arguments for the existence of God presuppose, for the sake of argument, a universe that has always existed. Such a universe would still require an Un-caused Cause, First Mover, and so on.

That the universe was in fact created in time is a fact we know only from Revelation and not from human reasoning. We may be able to prove from reason that the universe had a beginning, but we cannot prove that it had a beginning in time. Only Revelation tell us the universe has a beginning in time. And we can certainly prove that the universe is dependent for its existence on a Necessary Being that transcends both space and time.

However, the argument from the impossibility of an “actual” infinite time does not seem like it is capable of proving the universe had a beginning because it fails to address the possibility of a “potentially” infinite time.

 

[itinerant1]

Here’s what bugs me about some atheists: If some parts of a godless universe are expanding near the speed of light, and it is impossible to REACH the speed of light, then one will NEVER reach the end of the universe. It is impossible to MEASURE the infinity of itme and space for the godless. So, logically, it must be infinite to the godless. Some cosmologists conveniently choose to believe it is Finite (Big Bang) because most of their scientific beliefs are based on that which can be MEASURED. Once it cannot be measured, one should no longer believe in it. That’s the rub. NO ONE can measure the Infinity of time and space, that’s why I doubt some atheists’ sincerity, and therefore, faith, in science. It is, dare I say, a hypocrisy.

I think you are confused about cosmological theories. Space expands along with everything else. This does not mean the universe is actually infinite. Good science does not say that the universe is infinite, potentially or actually. Some atheists like to think of the universe as infinite, however scientific evidence points to an age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, and in accordance with the laws of entropy, the universe will run down, and die a heat death. Even black holes will eventually go out of existence.

Modern science definitely points to a finite universe, and those so-called inflationary or bounce theories of the universe, do not allow one to escape the finitude of it all.

By the way, if you are driving your car at the speed of light, and you turn on your headlights, does anything happen?

 

[lemondiesel]

Imagine a blank sheet of paper. Think of it sitting on a desk with no outside influences on it- no light, no ink, nothing. Just a blank paper on a desk. Now that blank paper will not spontaneously produce a work of art. No, an artist must be present with a pen or paintbrush to create that work of art. Why? Because from nothing, comes nothing.

The same goes for the universe- there must have been a cause to it. It could not have created itself, that’s impossible.

You can’t imagine a blank sheet of paper because there would be no paper! “From nothing comes nothing,” so there would be no light, no ink, nothing, not even paper. Now when you say an artist must be present, why? Do you personally know what happened before the Big Bang? How does one even begin to act like they know the true past haha It is people like you sir that are the reason I have no belief in any deity what so ever.
I will play along though, so back to this piece of paper. Doesn’t matter if an artist is present or not, there is still potential for art. What is art when there is no conscious like ours to interpret art? Maybe our universe has always been and we are here because the universe in a sense has found a way to discover its existence. You can’t prove it wrong so do not even try.

The same goes for the universe? Why, because many people believe there HAD to be a creator behind it all?
Imagine this, what if humans were not here. What if “we” and we never existed. All the other life is here but not us. Now, what is the universe? We are not special, life would still exist without us. But we are here, and we have evolved into a way to know the existence of the universe. Humans discovered the universe and now the universe knows it exists.

 

[itinerant1]

You can’t imagine a blank sheet of paper because there would be no paper! “From nothing comes nothing,” so there would be no light, no ink, nothing, not even paper. Now when you say an artist must be present, why? Do you personally know what happened before the Big Bang? How does one even begin to act like they know the true past haha It is people like you sir that are the reason I have no belief in any deity what so ever.
I will play along though, so back to this piece of paper. Doesn’t matter if an artist is present or not, there is still potential for art. What is art when there is no conscious like ours to interpret art? Maybe our universe has always been and we are here because the universe in a sense has found a way to discover its existence. You can’t prove it wrong so do not even try.

The same goes for the universe? Why, because many people believe there HAD to be a creator behind it all?
Imagine this, what if humans were not here. What if “we” and we never existed. All the other life is here but not us. Now, what is the universe? We are not special, life would still exist without us. But we are here, and we have evolved into a way to know the existence of the universe. Humans discovered the universe and now the universe knows it exists.

You make a number of ungrounded assumptions on what can or cannot be proven.

Also, you have presumed that non-conscious matter can some how generate reflective consciousness. Would you like to provide a supporting argument for your assumed belief?

The rest of us could benefit from seeing what justification, if any, there is for your position.

 

[RPV2017]

You must thinik in two different realms. The natural laws and order created by God and the Supernatural order. God has no beginning and no end. God is the Alpha and the Omega. Existing in a place without time. Time has no meaning for one who can exists in the past, present and future. The laws of physics do not apply in the supernatural world.

The new ceation is going to be that of a supernatural existence within the supernatural order. God has brought man into existence to share in his infinite love.

 

[lemondiesel]

You make a number of ungrounded assumptions on what can or cannot be proven.

Also, you have presumed that non-conscious matter can some how generate reflective consciousness. Would you like to provide a supporting argument for your assumed belief?

The rest of us could benefit from seeing what justification, if any, there is for your position.

i believe there is a limit to our knowledge. We will never know what is in our vast universe because our lives are too short to make that travel.

interesting way of putting it. Just think about it though, without “us” how do we know about us. Without “us” how would we have known creatures like dinosaurs existed? With our consciousness gathering experiences through our senses, we have the knowledge of existence of the universe. That is without doubt pretty rational.

I guess i could agree with that statement, however i think this non-conscious matter had many influences in the way it evolved over time. Without light to see, sound to hear, things to touch, food to taste, and **** to smell, our consciousness would not have had experiences to reflect on.

 

[ManOnFire]

I think you are confused about cosmological theories. Space expands along with everything else. This does not mean the universe is actually infinite. Good science does not say that the universe is infinite, potentially or actually. Some atheists like to think of the universe as infinite, however scientific evidence points to an age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, and in accordance with the laws of entropy, the universe will run down, and die a heat death. Even black holes will eventually go out of existence.

Modern science definitely points to a finite universe, and those so-called inflationary or bounce theories of the universe, do not allow one to escape the finitude of it all.

By the way, if you are driving your car at the speed of light, and you turn on your headlights, does anything happen?

I believe in God. I’m arguing from the standpoint of a doubter atheist. Theories are just theories. If you read the defintion of “Singularity,” which says that the universe came from a single timespace event of infinite mass and zero volume. It sounds completely implausible, yet this is apparently where the mathematical formulae took them.

 

[ManOnFire]

THIS will totally blow your mind:

The best anyone can do to explain the beginning of the space of the universe is to quote “singularity,” which, when you read the definition, sounds like someone made it up despite the mathematical formulae lead to it. Assuming God exists, then he might be laughing at how all the mathematical formulae lead to it. Too many people can’t get past it, won’t get past it, and refuse to see it.

I think some of you are uncomfortable with opening your minds to this enlightened information that the media and some academics have hidden.

Think about how ironic this is: Science answers the questions of WHY by believing there must be some, any, many, one, REASON for something. If there is a reason why, then there can be an answer. Many atheist scientists exist in the world. Yet, ironically, for those who believe there is no God, they “magically” claim THERE IS NO REASON, or “the reason isn’t important” for the beginning and end of time and space! An admission of actual infinity negates the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and negates the theory of Singularity. If time and space are infinite and have always been infinite, then THERE IS NO REASON for our existence, and a REASON CAN NOT EVER be assigned to answer the basic question: WHY do we exist?

Or, they claim that “we just haven’t learned it yet,” which we know is false, because if time and space had a beginning, then a Supreme Being outside the realms of time and space must be the REASON that time and space had a beginning.

 

[RPV2017]

If you have a telescope at the end of the universe and it looks back at the earth and you are able to see what is actually happening now, it would not see what is happening today but what happened billions of years ago. God is at the end of the telescope and knows the past and how it unfolded. At the same time he is present and witnesses what is unfolding today. Tomorrow, God has already seen it and knows what has occurred. In Revelation he declares again I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. At the creation of the world the names of those who are in the book of the living have already been written. He already knows who has been accepted and judged worthy to enter into the Kingdom. We are a part of the time that once was, is and will be, in the natural order. Do the dead realize time in their netherworld existence? If there is a resurrection, do they not immediately awaken to the day of judgement in the blink of an eye and stand before God for judgement. Why debate what has no purpose. Infinite is only for immortals and only those found worthy to enter into the Kingdom of God. Non beleivers are excluded in the infinite world. Death and the netherworld are cast into the enternal fire prepared for Satan and his devils. In simple terms rewind a movie and see what happened or fast forward and see what happens or go to the end and see how it ends.

 

[itinerant1]

I believe in God. I’m arguing from the standpoint of a doubter atheist. Theories are just theories. If you read the defintion of “Singularity,” which says that the universe came from a single timespace event of infinite mass and zero volume. It sounds completely implausible, yet this is apparently where the mathematical formulae took them.

I did not question your belief God. I have no doubt that you believe in God. Perhaps we were not understanding each other at some points.

Scientists often use the word “infinite” to describe something. However, their use of language, like everyone else, can be ambiguous. The English “infinite” comes from the Latin “infinitus”, boundless. The English “infinite” is used a either an adjective or a noun, and has various meanings, such as are given in this dictionary definition:

–adjective1. immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2. indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God’s infinite mercy.
5. Mathematics. a. not finite.
b. (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.

–noun6. something that is infinite.
7. Mathematics. an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8. the boundless regions of space.
9. the Infinite (Being), God.

Now, when someone says the universe was generated from an infinitely dense mass, perhaps the size of an atom, I do not take the use of “infinite” here to be a literal and actual limitless quantity, regardless of how the speaker intended it.

It seems to me that the infinitely dense mass can only be a mass that has a density far, far beyond what we are capable of conceiving. Asserting an actual infinite density may involve a limitation needing to be imposed on how far we should apply a mathematical analysis to the situation. Numbers are potentially infinite, but matter cannot in any of its properties be an actual infinite, whether it be in extension, density, weight, and so on.