Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 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
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 94 (24097)
11-24-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by forgiven
11-24-2002 4:41 PM


I'm with you now - you were talking about actual infinities (should have noticed). I do know about Hilbert's Hotel, but never come across potential vs actual before (prob. because I never had to ). Still a novel concept for me.
But can't you use actual infinities to prove mathematically that ALL integers contain the number 3? If so, I'd be very mistrusting of any conclusions drawn from the properties of these beasts.
PE
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 4:41 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 4:53 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 94 (24098)
11-24-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by John
11-24-2002 3:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
It is very confusing. I can't get a bead on what you are actually arguing. My best guess at the moment, taken from the above paragraph, is that you do not like the use of imaginary numbers because it leads to a description of the universe as an actual infinite, which is impossible in your view?
yes, impossible since we're here and now and we've obviously traversed time events by subsequent addition... i guess i'm saying that using imaginary numbers to create imaginary time to show an actual infinite isn't an application of the use of such numbers that has any merit in the real world, since we end up in the same quandry we began with... that being, we're still in a universe in which a potential, but not actual, infinite exists
all it does is push everything away from that point in non-time when bb occurred by making all preceding non-times into actual infinites, yet at some point we magically cross over from imaginary time into real time... at this point, we leave infinity and are able to traverse time events by subsequent addition... so no matter how we do it, at some point in the chain we're in an actual infinite from which we should never even reach bb, much less now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John, posted 11-24-2002 3:17 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by John, posted 11-24-2002 11:17 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 94 (24099)
11-24-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Primordial Egg
11-24-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
I'm with you now - you were talking about actual infinities (should have noticed). I do know about Hilbert's Hotel, but never come across potential vs actual before (prob. because I never had to ). Still a novel concept for me.
But can't you use actual infinities to prove mathematically that ALL integers contain the number 3? If so, I'd be very mistrusting of any conclusions drawn from the properties of these beasts.
PE

i don't know... also, i'm not sure if proving the existence of the number 3 is the same time as *traversing* it... see what i mean? even if we can prove the existence of the domino with the red 'X' on it, we'd still have the problem of ever reaching it while playing some cosmic game of knock over the dominoes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-24-2002 4:49 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-24-2002 5:03 PM forgiven has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 94 (24102)
11-24-2002 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by forgiven
11-24-2002 4:53 PM


quote:
i don't know... also, i'm not sure if proving the existence of the number 3 is the same time as *traversing* it... see what i mean? even if we can prove the existence of the domino with the red 'X' on it, we'd still have the problem of ever reaching it while playing some cosmic game of knock over the dominoes
No my point is that I'd be very cautious of using infinities in proofs - its no different from dividing by zero. I'm still not clear on why you bring up actual infinities other than as a speculative tool btw.
In your past events line of reasoning - is time a steady flowing river "happening" in the background or is it an active player, which is itself embedded in the events themselves? ie do you allow for time itself to be created?
PE
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 4:53 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 7:17 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 94 (24115)
11-24-2002 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Primordial Egg
11-24-2002 5:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
In your past events line of reasoning - is time a steady flowing river "happening" in the background or is it an active player, which is itself embedded in the events themselves? ie do you allow for time itself to be created?
PE
eventually i hope to reach that, yes... in the other thread i'm trying to show that, given the existence of *something*, some thing has always existed... once that's established or granted or intuited or whatever, i want to move on to whether or not this always existent thing is (or can be) the universe (which includes time as well as space)... so the (at least to my mind) logical impossibility of an actual infinity existing plays a big role
to my thinking, it doesn't really matter whether one says the universe has always existed or whether one says an infinite series of inflation/deflation has occurred... the same problems present themselves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-24-2002 5:03 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 94 (24133)
11-24-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by forgiven
11-24-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
yes, impossible since we're here and now and we've obviously traversed time events by subsequent addition...
Move your arm an inch to the right. It just traversed an infinite number of points, or moved though an infinite number of moments of time. However hard you wish to argue that you can't get from point a to point b because you'd have to traverse an infinite number of points, the fact is that you do it all the time-- at least, according to how I understand your logic.
I've got to check up on Hawking's arguments before preceeding.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 4:49 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 12:38 PM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 94 (24228)
11-25-2002 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by John
11-24-2002 11:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
yes, impossible since we're here and now and we've obviously traversed time events by subsequent addition...
Move your arm an inch to the right. It just traversed an infinite number of points, or moved though an infinite number of moments of time. However hard you wish to argue that you can't get from point a to point b because you'd have to traverse an infinite number of points, the fact is that you do it all the time-- at least, according to how I understand your logic.
I've got to check up on Hawking's arguments before preceeding.

no john, you haven't... your arm traversed a potentially infinite number of points but not an actually infinite number... the fact that it arrived at *this* point proves that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by John, posted 11-24-2002 11:17 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 12:44 PM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 94 (24229)
11-25-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by forgiven
11-25-2002 12:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
no john, you haven't... your arm traversed a potentially infinite number of points but not an actually infinite number... the fact that it arrived at *this* point proves that
A point by definition has no length, breadth or width....
So to find the number of points that lie between 2 given points you divide the distance between them by 0 (the spatial length of the point in that direction) and you get......
Infinity....
So your wrong there bud.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 12:38 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 1:24 PM joz has replied
 Message 72 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-25-2002 1:43 PM joz has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 94 (24243)
11-25-2002 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by joz
11-25-2002 12:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
no john, you haven't... your arm traversed a potentially infinite number of points but not an actually infinite number... the fact that it arrived at *this* point proves that
A point by definition has no length, breadth or width....
So to find the number of points that lie between 2 given points you divide the distance between them by 0 (the spatial length of the point in that direction) and you get......
Infinity....
So your wrong there bud.....

ummmm no actually i'm not wrong... your post concerns actual infinity, and to show i'm wrong you have to show how any one point can be traversed in an actual infinity... i take it you understand hilbert's hotel? if you do, where is it in error?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 12:44 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 1:43 PM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 94 (24244)
11-25-2002 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by forgiven
11-25-2002 1:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ummmm no actually i'm not wrong... your post concerns actual infinity, and to show i'm wrong you have to show how any one point can be traversed in an actual infinity... i take it you understand hilbert's hotel? if you do, where is it in error?

The point (no pun intended) of Hilberts hotel is to show that an infinite set can have a one to one correlation with an infinite subset of itself....
How do you think this is relevant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 1:24 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 94 (24245)
11-25-2002 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by joz
11-25-2002 12:44 PM


Joz (& John),
What I believe forgiven is getting at is that its impossible to traverse an actual infinite rather than a potential one, both of which are defined terms.
Potential infinity is the infinity we all know and love - thats the one you were talking about.
Actual infinity is a strange creature - think of infinity as a number and you've pretty much got actual infinity, as far as I can make out. You can't add to it or traverse it, by definition. Its more of a metaphysical concept than anything else - certainly can't exist in the real world.
What was puzzling me was why forgiven was making this distinction, and what this had to do with the price of fish. Do a google on "actual potential infinity" and you'll soon see why.
Actual infinities are used in the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, as I suspect is favoured by forgiven (interestingly enough, devised by Islamic scholars). It goes something like this:
1) The universe had to have had a beginning, else time would be an actual infinite, meaning it would be a philosophical impossibilty to be here now. (I'd like to see a proof of this btw, this guy thinks different http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm).
2)All things which begin to exist have a cause (you see where this is going now don't you?)
3) Hence universe had first cause, hence God.
Roughly
Where the argument falls down is the second clause in (3), as you've no doubt spotted (oh, and there's also the problem of observational evidence). There's a non sequitur into a supernatural explanation.
Also, the universe could have had many first causes - multiple demons coming together to create it.
Also (2) fails as causation cannot be taken either as an a priori principle, or is even observed in everyday reality (well, quantum reality).
Just wanted to avoid pointless debates about infinity. Of course, if I've got it all wrong, I'm sure forgiven will correct me
PE
PS forgiven - I agree with (1) anyway because it fits in with what is observed - is there a need to bring actual infinity into this?
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 12:44 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 2:24 PM Primordial Egg has not replied
 Message 74 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 4:45 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 94 (24255)
11-25-2002 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Primordial Egg
11-25-2002 1:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
PS forgiven - I agree with (1) anyway because it fits in with what is observed - is there a need to bring actual infinity into this?
you're pretty much right on p.e. except i wasn't anywhere near anything past (1)... i know and don't argue the conclusion you posted (God being the cause) for the simple reason that someone *might* say "well i agree with everything but i think instead of God it was a pink unicorn" *grin*
the actual infinite is important insofar as it at least stops irrational arguments as to some eternal nature of the universe... however, i'm attempting to show in another thread that *something* is in fact eternal... whether or not that leads to the k.c.a. remains to be seen... it's enough for me, at this time, to have a rational discussion on the things i'm posting, one step at a time
as for your objection to #2, you'll have to help me here... when you say 'quantum reality' are you in fact assuming quantum particles "popping" into space/time uncaused and previously non-existent? if so, i don't see how that alone defeats premiss #2.. it rests on a supposition that's simply unproven (maybe even unproveable)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-25-2002 1:43 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by John, posted 11-26-2002 12:33 AM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 94 (24277)
11-25-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Primordial Egg
11-25-2002 1:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Joz (& John),
What I believe forgiven is getting at is that its impossible to traverse an actual infinite rather than a potential one, both of which are defined terms.

I can see how it would be impossible to traverse a set of infinite duration, however if each points duration is 0 it doesn`t matter that there are an infinite number, the interval that they occupy can still be finite....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-25-2002 1:43 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 94 (24347)
11-26-2002 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by forgiven
11-25-2002 2:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
you're pretty much right on p.e. except i wasn't anywhere near anything past (1)...'
I'm researching my 'rythmatic but chew on this in the meantime.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 2:24 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 9:46 AM John has not replied
 Message 77 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 10:09 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 94 (24400)
11-26-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by John
11-26-2002 12:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
you're pretty much right on p.e. except i wasn't anywhere near anything past (1)...'
I'm researching my 'rythmatic but chew on this in the meantime.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm

reading it now john, if i see anything to comment on i'll get back to you... in the meantime, quentin smith is one of my favorite whipping boys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by John, posted 11-26-2002 12:33 AM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024