There Are No Part To Whole Actual Infinities

[GordonP]

The rest is up to you.

Exactly. I did my job, now it’s up to him to do his.

 

[IWantGod]

I did.

No you didn’t

You argued that there is no such thing as an actually infinite number. How does this effect my argument (apart from agree with me)

 

[PetraG]

Then i can only conclude that your being dishonest.

Thanks for the discussion.

Thanks for the insult (and for quoting me with the context deliberately removed, speaking of honesty).
Good luck on your quest.

 

[GordonP]

ou argued that there is no such thing as an actually infinite number. How does this effect my argument ( apart from agree with me )

Do your work, and then come back and we can discuss it further.

 

[IWantGod]

Do your work, and then come back and we can discuss it further.

You made a mistake. You made a straw-man of my argument.

 

[TechieGuy]

If you stop anywhere in an infinite series, it’s regress remains actually infinite, and you can continue to a number greater than an actual infinite

Are you saying something like this:

if you start from zero and count upwards by one, then that is an infinite number of integers.

However, if you start from ten and count upwards by one, than that is ten less than the number of integers that you would count had you started at zero.

But since counting from ten leads to an infinite number, this is a contradiction because that does not include the part of the series one through nine.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[IWantGod]

if you start from zero and count upwards by one, then that is an infinite number of integers.

No. I don’t see how Integers have anything to do with states, at least not in the sense of one state being distinct from another objectively. This is to say that an infinite number of states is not in my mind an infinite number of real objective integers. It’s just an infinite number of irreducible states or objects.

 

[Dovekin]

I don’t see how Integers have anything to do with states, at least not in the sense of one state being distinct from another objectively.

One and another are integers. The name integer is about the distinctiveness of what is counted. If one state is distinct from another state, they can be counted.

This is to say that an infinite number of states is not in my mind an infinite number of real objective integers. It’s just an infinite number of irreducible states or objects.

If you are saying infinity is not a number that can be applied to any set of real objects, no one disagrees. Distinguishing one state from another is counting, and infinity cannot be reached by counting. If you are saying something else, I do not understand it.

 

[IWantGod]

One and another are integers.

There is not a - 1 in objective reality

If you are saying infinity is not a number that can be applied to any set of real objects, no one disagrees. Distinguishing one state from another is counting, and infinity cannot be reached by counting. If you are saying something else, I do not understand it.

I didn’t argue otherwise. I simply said that a regress (into the past) that is an actually infinite number is not possible, because if you take one state away, it is still an infinite past. The problem with this is that an actually infinite number is dependent on every single part that it is comprised in order to be an actually infinite number, so if you take one part away it ought to cease being infinite. Therefore the concept of an actually infinite number existing in the real world is meaningless.

Therefore there cannot be an infinite regress

I personally don’t understand why the others have been behaving as they have, but i have not said anything that is contrary to reason, and if i have it is not for the reasons they claim.

Here is my argument again

If you stop anywhere in an infinite series, it’s regress remains actually infinite, and you can continue to a number greater than an actual infinite, which is a contradiction because the very notion of an infinite series is dependent on the idea that it’s parts altogether comprise an actually infinite number. This is to say that each part of the series is intrinsic to it being an actual infinite. In other-words you should be able to take one part away from the series and it should cease to be infinite, but it doesn’t. Therefore what makes the series infinite cannot be due to how many parts it is comprised of ( the very thing that defines it as an actually infinite number in the first place ); which is incoherent, making the idea of an actually infinite series meaningless.

 

[Dovekin]

The problem with this is that an actually infinite number is dependent on every single part that it is comprised in order to be an actually infinite number, so if you take one part away it ought to cease being infinite.

Infinity is not a number you can reach by counting. “Taking one part away” is a form of counting, and so does not affect infinity. That is why I asked “why?” about this in my original post. Why should taking one part away affect infinity? (Hilbert’s Hotel is an exploration of this idea)

This does not say anything about an “infinite regress.” We can imagine worlds where they are possible, and worlds where they are impossible. (The past is imaginary, existing in our memory as an image, and the image is subject to our rules about it.) Current thinking is that the universe is between 6000 and 14 billion years old, which precludes a direct infinite regress. But that is a completely different set of rules.

 

[IWantGod]

Infinity is not a number you can reach by counting.

Agreed

“Taking one part away” is a form of counting, and so does not affect infinity.

Clearly i was not talking about that kind of infinity. If something is defined only by the number of parts it has like an infinite regress then clearly taking a part away from it ought to affect it’s status as an infinite number of events. But that leads to a contradiction. And like you say an infinite number is meaningless and so there cannot possibly be an infinite regress.

This does not say anything about an “infinite regress.” We can imagine worlds where they are possible,

I’m talking about this world, and clearly since an infinite regress is defined by the number of it’s parts, it cannot happen.

 

[po18guy]

You are insisting on assigning a finite to the infinite. That is a logical and foundational problem as has already been pointed out.

 

[tafan2]

I am a little bored, so I will try:

1. provide a precise definition of an infinite series
2. there is no such thing as an infinite number.
3. if I have a set of infinite size, no single element is “intrinsic” to it’s being infinite (based on your definition) where do you get that idea from?

 

[Dovekin]

If something is defined only by the number of parts it has like an infinite regress then clearly taking a part away from it ought to affect it’s status as an infinite number of events.

That is not at all clear. Infinity is not defined that way.

Four “is defined by the number of parts it has.” Add or take away a part and you get five or three. Infinity is not that kind of number. Infinity is defined as being more than all its defined parts; it has undefined parts. In Hilbert’s Hotel, you can take away all the odd numbered rooms, and still have an infinite number of rooms. Its definition is usually a series without a defined end.

There are reasons for using this kind of infinity in place of a defined specified number. Calculus is a way of working with infinities and infinitesimals instead of precisely defined numbers. It can even be more precise than using defined qualities, reflecting the relation of curves to straight lines.

But I do not know of that is relevant because I cannot grasp what point you are trying to make.

 

[tafan2]

Clearly i was not talking about that kind of infinity. If something is defined only by the number of parts it has like an infinite regress then clearly taking a part away from it ought to affect it’s status as an infinite number of events.

None of this is clear at all. What type of infinity are you discussing? If anything is of infinite size, a regress or series or whatever, taking away one element does NOT affect its size!!! It is still of infinite size. You say it clearly should not be infinite, that is absurd. It’s not clear, it’s not even true.

 

[IWantGod]

You are insisting on assigning a finite to the infinite. That is a logical and foundational problem as has already been pointed out.

I understand this but your missing the point. I am not arguing in principle for an actually infinite number of something. The whole point of the argument is to show that an actually infinite number is meaningless and that therefore an actually infinite regress of distinct irreducible states is meaningless.

 

[IWantGod]

That is not at all clear. Infinity is not defined that way.

It’s irrelevant to the argument, because that is what an actually infinite regress of distinct states is. It is an infinite number of something, and that is precisely why it isn’t possible.

 

[IWantGod]

None of this is clear at all. What type of infinity are you discussing?

Not the type that you are discussing.

If anything is of infinite size, a regress or series or whatever, taking away one element does NOT affect its size!!!

When somebody argues for the existence of an infinite regress of irreducible distinct states, they are in fact arguing for an infinite number that can only be defined by the quantity of its parts. They are in fact saying that it is infinite because of the number of distinct irreducible states. Otherwise it’s infinity has nothing to do with the number of distinct irreducible states and it is therefore meaningless to describe it as an actually infinite number of something.

The whole point of the OP is to show that an actually infinite regress of states cannot exist and is in fact meaningless precisely because an infinite number of states is meaningless.

I don’t know why you are having difficulty understanding my position, but i have explained it as best as i could.

 

[tafan2]

Not the type that you are discussing.

That is not an answer. Give us your definition of an infinite regression or an infinite series, both of which you have reference. Then we can perhaps move forwatd

 

[IWantGod]

Give us your definition of an infinite regression or an infinite series, both of which you have reference. Then we can perhaps move forward

I think i already did.

When somebody argues for the existence of an infinite regress of irreducible distinct states, they are in fact arguing for an infinite number that can only be defined by the quantity of its parts. They are in fact saying that it is infinite because of the number of distinct irreducible states. Otherwise it’s infinity has nothing to do with the number of distinct irreducible states and it is therefore meaningless to describe it as an actually infinite number of something.

The whole point of the OP is to show that an actually infinite regress of states cannot exist and is in fact meaningless precisely because an infinite number of states is meaningless.