No realizable infinity

[Sparko]

Your assuming if something is created it must have begun to exist. It is true that if something began to exist, it must be created but the reverse is not true. I think that's where you are getting confused :)

If something was created it DID begin to exist, because logically prior to it being created it did not exist. Your sentence is nothing but a nonsense string of words.

[Sparko]

Rudy Rucker's credentials for education

http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/~rucker/biography.htm

I went to Swarthmore College from 1963 - 1967, majoring in Mathematics and getting a Bachelor's degree. I had a lot of fun there, and was sorry to graduate. At this point, my choices were the draft or grad school, so I had no hesitation in going to Rutgers University: from 1967 - 1972. I got my Master's and my Ph.D. in Mathematics. My area of specialization was Mathematical Logic, with my thesis on Transfinite Set Theory. In 1967, I married my college sweetheart Sylvia, and not too long after that we had our three children: Georgia, Rudy, Jr., and Isabel.

© source where applicable

Yes, he is also a cartoonist and a science fiction writer. He's my kind of Guy for science and math.

What are your's to criticize?

well then my only conclusion is that you have no clue about what you were reading, shuny, since you can't tell the difference between an actual infinity and a potential one.

[shunyadragon]

well then my only conclusion is that you have no clue about what you were reading, shuny, since you can't tell the difference between an actual infinity and a potential one.

Your playing the three stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave and not responding to the posts I have written. You gave a foolish one sentence blip of a review to ridicule a book you obviously do not understand, nor are willing to read. You have not read the post where I acknowledged the confusion and why. If you wish to continue the discussion address the issues and concepts intelligently, and do not continue to respond with obfuscations.

[Sparko]

Your playing the three stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave and not responding to the posts I have written. You gave a foolish one sentence blip of a review to ridicule a book you obviously do not understand, nor are willing to read. You have not read the post where I acknowledged the confusion and why. If you wish to continue the discussion address the issues and concepts intelligently, and do not continue to respond with obfuscations.

I already responded to your nonsense by trying to explain to you how you were wrong about potential infinities. Your only response has been to name drop some book and pooh-pooh Aristotle after trying to unsuccessfully using him as your own example.. and going on about "modern infinities" as if that term had any meaning at all.

You sir, are a loon.

[shunyadragon]

I already responded to your nonsense by trying to explain to you how you were wrong about potential infinities. Your only response has been to name drop some book and pooh-pooh Aristotle after trying to unsuccessfully using him as your own example.. and going on about "modern infinities" as if that term had any meaning at all.

You sir, are a loon.

NO, you have not responded in any meaningful way at all, you continue with meaningless obfuscations, ridicule a book and modern concepts you do not understand nor make any attempt to understand. Your living in Plato's cave and cursing the light.

Please explain your ridicule of the book in the face of my posts and references concerning the book.

[Sparko]

NO, you have not responded in any meaningful way at all, you continue with meaningless obfuscations, ridicule a book and modern concepts you do not understand nor make any attempt to understand. Your living in Plato's cave and cursing the light.

now I am relying on Plato?? I haven't mentioned Plato or Aristotle. keep burning straw.

Please explain your ridicule of the book in the face of my posts and references concerning the book.

I did. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...13#post3247613

[shunyadragon]

now I am relying on Plato?? I haven't mentioned Plato or Aristotle. keep burning straw.

I was referring to you hiding in Plato's cave which is appropriate. Do you know the story?

I did. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...13#post3247613

No response here. just obfuscation. No indication that you read the book or have any knowledge of the contents.

'Air Balls.'

[shunyadragon]

And why is a set of objects rather than a single entity considered to be the best way to describe an actual infinity?

Because, actual infinities are defined as sets, not one object being infinite, unless you put a unit value on the space within the object, but in reality an infinite object like the greater cosmos has no numbers attached to it.

A simple example of modern infinite concept would be an eternal time line with two arrows, one end pointing into the past and one end into the future.There are no numbers on the line. Any point you pick as a starting point is arbitrary, and any numbering system you use on the line would a human convention.

It would seem to me that a set of objects being that they are distinguished one from the other would be a discription of finite things, or a set of finite things.

No, a set of actual infinities would not usually be sets of infinite things, but I guess it is possible to construct a set of infinities by combining infinite sets of things as subsets into on set if they have something in common,

But again..."one more object beyond" seems to me to be defining of a set of finite things, not an infinite thing in itself.

These would be number sets. psif goes in to some detail of the modern view of sets in post #82.

Perhaps, but what is a "modern infinity" ?

It is more the 'modern concept of infinities.' Old views like those held by Aristotle did not deal with the possibility of infinities that are not objects and events that would not be 'sets' of infinities (actual) or infinities from starting points (potential). Sort of an old mechanistic Newtonian view.

See post #82 for a modern view of infinite set theory also covered in Rucker's book.

The idea that time and space being boundless infinities not definable by sets or numbers are part of what are 'modern concepts of infinity.'

The concepts of modern infinities is addressed in Rucker's book.

[JimL]

Because, actual infinities are defined as sets, not one object being infinite, unless you put a unit value on the space within the object, but in reality an infinite object like the greater cosmos has no numbers attached to it.

A simple example of modern infinite concept would be an eternal time line with two arrows, one end pointing into the past and one end into the future.There are no numbers on the line. Any point you pick as a starting point is arbitrary, and any numbering system you use on the line would a human convention.

Exactly, an actual infinity is indivisible, no? so only the eternal line itself would be an actual infinity, so what is all this about sets and numbers?

No, a set of actual infinities would not usually be sets of infinite things, but I guess it is possible to construct a set of infinities by combining infinite sets of things as subsets into on set if they have something in common,

Perhaps you misunderstood. What I'm saying is that by defining infinity by a set of finite things such as numbers 0 1 2 3 etc., well, that doesn't really define what infinity means, does it? Infinity is not a set of finite things, but like your eternal time line it is one and indivisible.

These would be number sets. psif goes in to some detail of the modern view of sets in post #82.

Yes, I understand the general idea, an infinite set of finite things, but an infinite set of finite things(numbers), is not an infinite thing, but a set of finite things that go on to infinity.

It is more the 'modern concept of infinities.' Old views like those held by Aristotle did not deal with the possibility of infinities that are not objects and events that would not be 'sets' of infinities (actual) or infinities from starting points (potential). Sort of an old mechanistic Newtonian view.

Well that is probably because Aristotle wasn't considering imaginary infinities but real ones.

See post #82 for a modern view of infinite set theory also covered in Rucker's book.

The idea that time and space being boundless infinities not definable by sets or numbers are part of what are 'modern concepts of infinity.'

The concepts of modern infinities is addressed in Rucker's book.

Well I am probably missing something, but what is the point of the concept of modern infinities if they are just numerical concepts that don't amount to anything real?

[nickcopernicus]

I can imagine a infinite number of events going forward, but can't imagine and infinite number of past events (or universes) leading up to this one. How could one traverse an infinite number of past events to reach this specific moment? Look at it this way A<------------------>B there are a infinite number of miles or steps between A and B. You start at A - could you ever get to B? No, because after every step you take you still have an infinite number of steps ahead. Just play that backwards and try to imagine how we could have ever traversed an infinite number of past events to get to this moment.

It is one thing to hold infinite possibilities or mathematical theories in our minds, but quite different to logically imagine it in actuality.

Nick:
The above is a variation of Xeno's paradoxes which of course, have been solved. IOW, your just because you can't imagine an infinite number of past events doesn't mean that it's not possible.

Cheers,

Nick

[seer]

Nick:
The above is a variation of Xeno's paradoxes which of course, have been solved. IOW, your just because you can't imagine an infinite number of past events doesn't mean that it's not possible.

Cheers,

Nick

I can't imagine it because, like I explained, I believe it is physically impossible. The only possible reference we could have would be the idea of starting in this universe and moving backward - everyone here so far agrees that we could never reach all past universes. I don't see why anyone would consider it any more rational to suggest that we could reach this present universe via an infinite number of past events.To me both seem equally impossible.

[psif]

I can't imagine it because, like I explained, I believe it is physically impossible. The only possible reference we could have would be the idea of starting in this universe and moving backward - everyone here so far agrees that we could never reach all past universes. I don't see why anyone would consider it any more rational to suggest that we could reach this present universe via an infinite number of past events.To me both seem equally impossible.

I can understand the force of the objection under presentism or the growing universe theory; but, I'm essentially an eternalist.

[seer]

I can understand the force of the objection under presentism or the growing universe theory; but, I'm essentially an eternalist.

Why are you an eternalist? Based on what?

[psif]

Why are you an eternalist? Based on what?

My intuition is the past is infinite but that's only compatible it would seem with eternalism on time, so I conclude eternalism is true. Just kidding.

I'm eternalist because to me the present is a subjective, albeit inter-subjective-woven reality, not an objective reality. Subjects progress through time together; the universe just is in all space and time. I don't understand the physics yet, but I understand there are good arguments for eternalism based on the theory of relativity.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/

The advocates of the block universe counter that only the block universe can make sense of relativity’s implication that, if people are in certain relative motions, an event in person A’s present can be in person B’s future. Presentism and the growing-past theories must suppose that this event is both real and unreal because it is real for A but not real for B. Surely that conclusion is unacceptable, they claim. Their two key assumptions here are that relativity does provide an accurate account of the spatiotemporal relations among events, and that if there is some frame of reference in which two events are simultaneous, then if one of the events is real, so is the other.
Opponents of the block universe charge that it does not provide an accurate account of the way things are because it leaves out “the now” or “the present.” This metaphysical dispute about a spatially extended present was fueled by Einstein who said:

Since there exists in the four dimensional structure no longer any slices which represent “now” objectively…it appears more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Many philosophers, however, do not agree with Einstein.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

Although some B Theorists deny that time really passes as a result of considering McTaggart's argument, many B Theorists have different reasons for saying that time doesn't really pass. Two other arguments against The A Theory (besides McTaggart's argument, that is) have been especially influential. The first of these is an argument from the special theory of relativity in physics. According to that theory (the argument goes), there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. But if there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity, then there cannot be objective facts of the form “t is present” or “t is 12 seconds past”. Thus, according to this line of argument, there cannot be objective facts about A properties, and so the passage of time cannot be an objective feature of the world.
It looks as if the A Theorist must choose between two possible responses to the argument from relativity: (1) deny the theory of relativity, or (2) deny that the theory of relativity actually entails that there can be no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Option (1) has had its proponents (including Arthur Prior), but in general has not proven to be widely popular. This may be on account of the enormous respect philosophers typically have for leading theories in the empirical sciences. Option (2) seems like a promising approach for A Theorists, but A Theorists who opt for this line are faced with the task of giving some account of just what the theory of relativity does entail with respect to absolute simultaneity. (Perhaps it can be plausibly argued that while relativity entails that it is physically impossible to observe whether two events are absolutely simultaneous, the theory nevertheless has no bearing on whether there is such a phenomenon as absolute simultaneity.)

[psif]

here's an article specifically dealing with special relativity and time

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sp...bebecome/#Spec

Ironically, Rudy Rucker is quoted