Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 94 (24402)
11-26-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by John
11-26-2002 12:33 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by John, posted 11-26-2002 12:33 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by John, posted 11-26-2002 11:23 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 94 (24412)
11-26-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by forgiven
11-26-2002 10:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 10:09 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 2:09 PM John has replied
 Message 80 by joz, posted 11-26-2002 6:09 PM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 94 (24439)
11-26-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by John
11-26-2002 11:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
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}
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:
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by John, posted 11-26-2002 11:23 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by John, posted 11-26-2002 7:57 PM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 94 (24484)
11-26-2002 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by John
11-26-2002 11:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
I'm sticking my neck out here but, ∞ / ∞ = 1...
Or even that at any particular point in time that dt/dt = 1.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by John, posted 11-26-2002 11:23 AM John has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 94 (24491)
11-26-2002 6:36 PM


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


Message 82 of 94 (24514)
11-26-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by forgiven
11-26-2002 2:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
don't think so john... not only are the members of each subset infinite, the sumtotal of every subset itself is infinite...
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:
our universe is a closed system of space/time
Not sure about this one.
quote:
in which all past events can be traversed by subsequent subtraction
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:
making it ~actually infinite by definition
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:
smith attempts a similar line, but his arguments have always been unconvincing to me...
If can take an infinite number of steps, if you have an infinite amount of time in which to take them.
quote:
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....
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 2:09 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 2:20 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 94 (25064)
11-30-2002 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by John
11-26-2002 7:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
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, 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by John, posted 11-26-2002 7:57 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by John, posted 12-04-2002 9:57 AM forgiven has not replied
 Message 85 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 9:42 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 94 (25421)
12-04-2002 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by forgiven
11-30-2002 2:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
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
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 2:20 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 94 (26409)
12-12-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by forgiven
11-30-2002 2:20 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 2:20 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 7:00 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 94 (26483)
12-13-2002 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Primordial Egg
12-12-2002 9:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
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

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")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 9:42 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-16-2002 11:56 AM forgiven has replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 561 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 87 of 94 (26713)
12-16-2002 7:33 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 8:30 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 94 (26716)
12-16-2002 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Mike Holland
12-16-2002 7:33 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Mike Holland, posted 12-16-2002 7:33 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 94 (26761)
12-16-2002 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by forgiven
12-13-2002 7:00 AM


hi forgiven
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"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 7:00 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by forgiven, posted 12-16-2002 8:03 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 94 (26894)
12-16-2002 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Primordial Egg
12-16-2002 11:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
hi forgiven
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"
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

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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-16-2002 11:56 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-17-2002 5:20 AM forgiven has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 94 (26948)
12-17-2002 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by forgiven
12-16-2002 8:03 PM


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...
How was it originally described to you?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by forgiven, posted 12-16-2002 8:03 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by forgiven, posted 12-17-2002 7:09 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024