|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9191 total) |
| |
edwest325 | |
Total: 919,058 Year: 6,315/9,624 Month: 163/240 Week: 10/96 Day: 6/4 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins | |||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
smith, in the link you gave, didn't really touch on craig's argument... here's the relevant quote:
"The collection of past events at r is a proper subset of the collection of past events at 12. Craig feels that the equivalence between an infinite set and a proper subset of that set as applied to real things and events is just not believable (p. 86). It is only unbelievable, however, if one presupposes erroneously that the definition of an infinite set of real things or events is the same as the definition of a finite set of real things or events; namely, that a set necessarily has more things or events belonging to it than any proper subset of itself. if one does not make this false presupposition, then the equivalence in question is perfectly believable." the truth is, craig's argument is not based on the above, but on the impossibility of actually traversing an actual infinite... by offering "...a set necessarily has more things or events belonging to it than any proper subset of itself.." as a definition craig uses in support of his argument, smith misstates the case... craig, in many places and in numerous ways, has said in fact the opposite... in a library containing an actually infinite number of books, any subset of such books (being equally infinite in number), when added together, would equal not only any other subset but also the totality of all books in all subsets if you have an infinite number of science books, of coloring books, of westerns, of mysteries, the sumtotal of each individual "subset" is the same as the sumtotal of all subsets... this is simply the nature of an actually infinite number of things translating that to the argument smith is making re: time, craig and others have put it simply... if the universe is actually infinite, time itself is actually infinite... if time is actually infinite, the set of past events is actually infinite... however, subsequent subtraction of past events is impossible in an actual infinite to go from the signing of the declaration of independence, backwards, traversing every noteworthy occurance in past history, and arriving at the signing of the magna carta, would prove that past events *can* be traversed... if that can be shown, it follows that actual infinity has no place in the real world, else we'd never have arrived at *this* place in *this* time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This seems to be based on the idea that every subset of an infinite set is also infinite. It is possible to have finite subsets of infinite sets. Take the infinite set of books. It is possible to traverse the subset of {book1,book2,book3} There also appears to me a contradiction in the argument. It assumes that time itself is infinite. This means that we have an infinite amount of time to traverse infinite time. I'm sticking my neck out here but, ∞ / ∞ = 1. One isn't all that hard to traverse. It seems in fact to be right now. As the man said, Be Here Now. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: don't think so john... not only are the members of each subset infinite, the sumtotal of every subset itself is infinite... not only does the sumtotal of all mystery books equal the sumtotal of all cook books, the sumtotal of both those sets equals the sumtotal of all sets... now we can equivocate on the terms, we can say "an infinite number of sets of books exist in which a finite number of cookbooks make up a subset," which is what i think you're doing here... what that would mean is, we find ourselves in a universe of space/time in which a potentially infinte series of past events exist, and this potentially infinite series is itself a subset of an actually infinite etc etc etc... where does potential infinity end and actual begin? our universe is a closed system of space/time in which all past events can be traversed by subsequent subtraction, making it ~actually infinite by definition
quote: smith attempts a similar line, but his arguments have always been unconvincing to me... but imagine you are inside this library with the actually infinite number of books... you happen to be looking for one specific book, probably plantinga's 3 volume set *grin*... you know it's in the philosophy section (subset) of the library... you have an infinite (actually) amount of time to both find and read the books, so you start your journey.... not only would you never reach those books, you'd never reach the subset that contained them, nor would you ever traverse each point inside whatever subset you happen to start... that isn't a really good analogy, hilbert's hotel, aristotle's stadium, and the guy who takes a year to write about each day of his life are better (tho smith attempts to show this one is wrong, his argument has been rebutted in several places)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Or even that at any particular point in time that dt/dt = 1.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Look while all this whittering on about infinity is interesting enough why is it relevant given that time started with the big bang?
I mean something can hardly infinitely regress if it has a start, and given that before that start there was no time there was no causality.... Sure there are an infinite amount of points that have elapsed in time but the time interval is still finite.... (Am I right that this is what is being billed as a potential infinity?) (So does that mean that actual infinty means something of an infinite duration on a given axis?) (If so I think its use in this context is mistaken, time started with the big bang and theoretically could extend over an infinte interval in the positive direction. Ergo it is an actual infinity and it just happens to be possible to go from a given point to another further along the axis because the duration between them is finite (by definition its the difference in their values). Note that I`m fairly sure that you can`t travel from one point in time to an earlier one.) I think I`m going to rename "forgiven" as "Buddy boy the confusion monkey" (no intent to impugn his evolutionary development, friends and I used to jest about having run ins with beer monkeys that stole all your money hit you on the head and left you asleep in ditches, thats where the "monkey" comes from.) as everytime we get into a discussion some sort of surreal positional flip flop seems to take place (i.e the exceptions proving rules exchange over on "knowledge")..... Anyhow with no time there can be no cause and effect, not that its valid on the quantum scale that a (cassimir effect style?) singularity exsists on anyway......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What you are telling me is that it is impossible to walk up and pick one book. This is absurd. You cannot claim that every subset of size 1 is infinite in number. And if I can pick one, I can pick a set of 2 or 3 or 4 or 5.
quote: Not sure about this one.
quote: Not sure about this either. The quantum nature of sub-atomic particles make this impossible even in theory. At small enough sizes things become unpredictable-- meaning we cannot connect causes to effects. The connections don't exist. Well, the universe itself was at one time for a tiny fraction of a second below that size threshold.
quote: I think Joz mentioned this, but I doubt anyone is going to argue that as the observable universe is actually infinite. As things look now, it had a beginning.
quote: If can take an infinite number of steps, if you have an infinite amount of time in which to take them.
quote: But you are not looking for a particular book. Just reach out and grap one then you're off. Whatever book your hand is on is the present, those behind are the past and those ahead are the fuure. History consists of only those books you've touched (in series) It is a finite set, until you have touched ∞ which won't happen practically speaking. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: no, the question revolves around traversing an actually infinite number of points... or better stated, adding to an actually infinite set by subsequent addition... can't be done in the real world
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Why? Why must one traverse an actually infinite set in order to traverse A set? We are traversing A set. I don't see why one would have to start at the beginning or end at the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Hi forgiven,
Something just occurred to me while thinking about actual infinites. If heaven and hell are eternal, and eternity is an actual infinite, which cannot be traversed, then there will never be a point at which you can say "I am in heaven" or "ouch, that hurts!" Which seems to defeat the purpose. PE ------------------Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hi p.e. i just saw this... i think you might not be far off... not sure if this makes sense, but let me give it a shot... my beliefs being as they are, i fully expect to spend eternity in God's heaven... now, to me that means when i die i'll "step" into eternity... but as i do so i believe i'll see (for example) the apolstle paul "stepping" in also... hmmm let's see if i can make it sound more understandable... i see eternity as one unfathomable "now"... imagine a milisecond stretched out into infinity in all directions... there is no time as we know it, tho the dimension of time exists within eternity... if that's even close to so, when we step out of time into eternity, it will simply be "now" whew that makes no sense eh? oh well, i can conceive it i just can't put it into words... and what i wrote above (whatever that might be lol) would be the same for "hell" (which i don't define as what you probably think i define it as.. heaven is just "in God's presence" and hell is simply "outside God's presence")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 683 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
A weird view of heaven. If heaven is timeless, so that all events are current, then whatever one does in heaven, one will do it/is doing it/has done it all at once! Nothing ever "happens" because there is no before or after. Must get boring.
But I thought God was supposed to be omnipresent. How can one be out of his presence? Mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
It seems being in God's presence could be a very terrible thing if you were under his wrath, as opposed to abiding in his wonderful grace.
------------------Saved by an incredible Grace. [This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
hi forgiven
quote: If it is all one elongated "now" and yet one can never experience a "present" (tantamount to traversing an actual infinite - you can never say "I am feeling X", as it relates to the present), then how can you have the sensation of happiness in heaven / unhappiness in hell? PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i knew i wouldn't be able to put it into words... the "now" thingy is a new dimension... but all that is in *this* dimension is encompassed by "now" (eternity)... how things work in that dimension i don't know...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: How was it originally described to you? PE
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024