J
juggernaut
Guest
Can someone tell me really quick why infinite causality is absurd?
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What do you mean by an infinite causality?
C
coolduude
Guest
Great question, as it confuses many people.
Here’s an excellent link (it’s a relatively short article so please read it):
johncwright.livejournal.com/264192.html
Here’s an excellent link (it’s a relatively short article so please read it):
johncwright.livejournal.com/264192.html
J
JohnDamian
Guest
We can never acheive infinity with finite parts.
We cannot get infinity with 1+1+1… etc forever; or 100x100x100… etc forever.
Thus; with finite numbers we cannot get an infinite.
A causal chain involves interaction between finite objects; A causes B; B causes C etc. and so on – at no point do we ever reach a point where an infinity of causes exists.
Some people use the (ambiguous) term “potential” infinite; for an unbounded finite chain. But it is the case that this will never reach an infinite number (because that is a contradiction in terms).
D
DOShea
Guest
No? Then what happens when you make a decimal out of the fraction 22/7? Does it end, or does it continue infinitely?
B
Barbkw
Guest
From the webpage posted above:
“In reference to the Scholastic argument about an uncaused first cause, I have heard it claimed that infinite regression (while it may offend the laws of physics) does not violate the laws of logic.”
Hilarious.
What God must think of us. Forever running, getting nowhere.
“In reference to the Scholastic argument about an uncaused first cause, I have heard it claimed that infinite regression (while it may offend the laws of physics) does not violate the laws of logic.”
Hilarious.
What God must think of us. Forever running, getting nowhere.
J
juggernaut
Guest
awesome, ty ty
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
That’s a potential infinity. You do understand the difference between a potential infinity and an actual infinity, don’t you?
J
JohnDamian
Guest
Firstly; the number 22/7 can be shown as 3 1/7.
It is only because our decimal figure for representing this numerical object is flawed that we cannot represent it concisely in decimal.
That aside; I take it you mean if there is an unboundaried sequence is that an infinite? The answer is no.
To explain further for DOShea; look at it this way;
If I was going to continue to recite 22/7 in decimals for the rest of eternity I would never have counted an infinite amount of numbers; even if I was here on some life support machine for a hundred trillion^trillion years…
Another example;
If I repeat the alphabet over and over again; abcdefg… etc
At what point have I counted an ACTUAL infinite number of letters?
The answer is never.
However; if I were to do this forever; it would be a POTENTIAL infinite; because it continues forever; even though I will NEVER have counted an infinite number of letters.
Of course; if you disagree feel free to tell me exactly how many letters I must count before I am 1 away from infinity.
Incidentally; Barbkw
Some Scholastic Philosophers believed it is possible to have an infinite amount of accidentally ordered causal series; (not essentially ordered). But when they are talking of this it is clear they mean a potential infinite; because they imply it will continue forever - rather than a numerical infinite. So it would be a mere equivocal fallacy to misunderstand them.
- Status