Physics and the contemplation of nothing

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 10, 2017

Culture, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a review of Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing by James Owen Weatherall, Steven Poole writes at Spectator (UK):

In an action-packed epilogue, the author describes how the contested field of string theory posits a bogglingly large number of possible kinds of nothingness, and impresses upon the reader how much of physics still depends on intuition and battling ‘interpretations’. The book is not an exhaustive typology of scientific nothings: not directly addressed, for example, is the nothingness that supposedly obtained before the Big Bang. But to regret this is just to emphasise the success of this stylishly written and admirably concise book, at the end of which you will be inclined to agree, along with the author and Freddie Mercury both, that ‘Nothing really matters.’More.

String theory leads physics down the bramble patch of unacknowledged metaphysics.

See also: Multiverse explains why progress in fundamental physics is slow?

and

Must we understand “nothing” to understand physics?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

KF,
DS, you cannot assume an infinite past, you have to dynamically get there. KF
By phrases such as "assuming an infinite past, must there exist an infinitely remote stage?", I simply mean "if the past is infinite, must there exist an infinitely remote stage?".daveS_{March 28, 2017
March
03
Mar
28
28
2017
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

DS, you cannot assume an infinite past, you have to dynamically get there. KFkairosfocus_{March 27, 2017
March
03
Mar
27
27
2017
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, we are not dealing with the abstraction, natural numbers. We are dealing with the dynamics of temporal succession of stages.
Sure. I've never claimed that the stages are actually abstract entities themselves, to be clear.
To assert that before any stage I there are endlessly more stages evades and begs the point.
The question is, assuming an infinite past, in which case there must have been infinitely many stages before any given stage, whether there must exist an infintely remote stage. No questions are being begged.
Every actual past stage s had to have once been the present then succeeded by s+1 a causally connected successor, then so on to now. That process is inherently stepwise with finite scale steps in this context. (We are not dealing with infinitesimals.)
Yes.
That stepwise process for reasons repeatedly gone through, inherently generates a finite number of successors to any stage I*. Looking back [f]rom now, no stage I* — a general symbol — can be greater than a finite number of steps of succession “down” in the push-down stack.
Yes, and I have repeatedly agreed with this. Every past stage has finitely many successor stages. Always.
That is the problem, to get to an I that is infinitely remote we would have to have traversed the transfinite in stepwise stages.
Now you're invoking the conditional statement I gave in my #84. And once again, you do not provide any argument which shows this statement is true. Do you understand that I'm asking specifically for such an argument? And that that's all I'm asking for at this point?daveS_{March 27, 2017
March
03
Mar
27
27
2017
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

DS, we are not dealing with the abstraction, natural numbers. We are dealing with the dynamics of temporal succession of stages. To assert that before any stage I there are endlessly more stages evades and begs the point. Every actual past stage s had to have once been the present then succeeded by s+1 a causally connected successor, then so on to now. That process is inherently stepwise with finite scale steps in this context. (We are not dealing with infinitesimals.) That stepwise process for reasons repeatedly gone through, inherently generates a finite number of successors to any stage I*. Looking back grom now, no stage I* -- a general symbol -- can be greater than a finite number of steps of succession "down" in the push-down stack. That is the problem, to get to an I that is infinitely remote we would have to have traversed the transfinite in stepwise stages. We can imagine an infinite past but lack a generation process to get there. What we can get to is a potentially infinite past but which will always only be actually finite but with successors keeping on coming up. KFkairosfocus_{March 27, 2017
March
03
Mar
27
27
2017
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

KF, If you think you can prove the following statement, which is logically equivalent to your premise quoted in #82:
For every natural number n, there exists a stage I such that I occurred more than n steps before the present. implies: There exists a stage I such that, given any natural number n, I occurred more than n stages before the present.
then I'd like to read it, and will definitely respond. You haven't done this so far, IMHO because it's impossible in the context of the assumptions we are making regarding the nature of time. It's less likely that I'll respond to red herrings concerning my motives, "evolutionary materialism", etc.daveS_{March 26, 2017
March
03
Mar
26
26
2017
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

DS, the warrant is there, long since, based on the process by which temporal succession obtains. No stepwise, finite stage process can span a transfinite traverse. Readily shown, long since repeatedly shown, and just plain common sense. The most we can say of the past is it is potentially infinite but finite at any given moment, as the next step comes along and exceeds then also bounds the last. As a direct result, all durations between steps are finite and there are thus no transfinite durations to actual past stages that were once the present but have been succeeded step by step since. At this stage, I have no belief you are going to accept that reasoning, but I again state it to show that there is a reason that I have consistently maintained that is accessible to the inquirer and which would help him/her see why it is that I have challenged the notion of an infinite actual past. the burden of proof you need to meet is to provide a credible means by which we can get a transfinite actual past. That you have not done so and instead try the tactic of oh you have not proved this to my satisfaction (while seeming to essentially assert this as a default assumption . . . as, required for an evolutionary materialistic world picture to obtain any credibility? [sounds a lot like that . . . ]), speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus_{March 26, 2017
March
03
Mar
26
26
2017
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

KF, The challenge to you is to prove (yes, persuasively!) the conditional statement in #84.daveS_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

DS, I am not trying to be persuasive at all, I am pointing to the implication of all inter-temporal stage durations being finite. All means all in that connexion. The process of generating successive stages as a given present triggers its successor and automatically adds yet another stage to the past so that all previous stages are one further back [having been repeatedly pushed down in the stack stepwise from when they were once the present], is stepwise as discussed above, and cannot traverse the transfinite. KF PS: Notice much the same happening with this thread!kairosfocus_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Well, that's certainly persuasive. >_<daveS_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

DS, all means all, the rest plays out as above. KFkairosfocus_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

KF, Thanks, I know what the word "all" means. Once again, I'm asking for an explicit argument supporting the quoted statement in #82. To prove the contrapositive of #82, you would need to show that if the duration of the past is infinite, there is some transfinite duration between stages, i.e., that:
For every natural number n, there exists a stage I such that I occurred more than n steps before the present.
implies:
There exists a stage I such that, given any natural number n, I occurred more than n stages before the present.
daveS_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

DS, all means all (as in, no exceptions), that's all. There is nothing left over to get a transfinite duration snuck in under the back door. KFkairosfocus_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

KF,
If there are no transfinite durations between stages, all durations are finite ... .
This is exactly the issue in question. I have tried several times to encourage you to tell us in detail why we should accept this premise (see my post #80). If I continue to see no substantial response, I will be forced to infer (provisionally of course :-) ) that you do not have any reasons why we should accept this premise.daveS_{March 22, 2017
March
03
Mar
22
22
2017
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

DS, I am pointing to observable dynamics of causally linked temporal succession in our world; A/B theories of time are secondary to such and must answer to it. If there are no transfinite durations between stages, all durations are finite, thus there is no warrant for claiming an infinite duration on the set of stages. Then, the step by step sequencing involved shows itself inherently finite though it may progress ever onward. Stepwise finite stage processes do not span transfinite traverses, as has been repeatedly discussed. KFkairosfocus_{March 21, 2017
March
03
Mar
21
21
2017
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

KF, Just to clarify, do you adhere to the A-theory or B-theory of time? (Or perhaps something different, if that is possible). I would agree that if you consider the collection of all "stages" that have ever occurred, if the past is indeed finite, then this collection of all stages could be called a potential infinite. But that's not what I'm talking about. I am discussing the past relative some fixed stage, and whether or not that could be infinite, and whether it would then be a potential or actual infinite.
The present moment is an ephemeral reality that arises from a chain of cause-effect stages, each giving rise to its successor as it fades into the past. that strep by step chaining inherently implies a stepwise, finite stage process, and no such process can traverse a transfinite span. So, the number of past stages (by whatever yardstick is appropriate) will be finite.
No, this does not follow from any argument you have presented. The closest you have come is in post #68. Let me try to rephrase that here, dispensing with the "what part of..." motif:
1. Between any two stages, there is a duration. 2. If X and Y are two stages and there are only finitely many stages between them, then the duration of the interval from X to Y is finite. 3. If every past stage is only finitely remote, then there are no infinite durations between specific stages. 4. If there are no infinite durations between specific stages, then the duration of the past cannot be infinite.
I think #2 is unnecessary, but there's no harm in leaving it. Premises #1--#3 are "obviously true" in my opinion. I have pointed out that #4 is problematic, in view of the dictionary definition, which says nothing about a requirement for infinite durations between specific stages (in this context). If you think I have misstated or missed anything in your list of premises, please post an edited version, keeping each one to one sentence if possible, and please number them.daveS_{March 21, 2017
March
03
Mar
21
21
2017
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

DS, the particular point from the stream of actualised nows is not like some fixed point along a road, an address that is always there more or less, like I can in principle go back to every house I have lived in. The present moment is an ephemeral reality that arises from a chain of cause-effect stages, each giving rise to its successor as it fades into the past. that strep by step chaining inherently implies a stepwise, finite stage process, and no such process can traverse a transfinite span. So, the number of past stages (by whatever yardstick is appropriate) will be finite. And once the particular case is more or less frozen like a certain moment on Sunday July 20, 1969 when Armstrong first stepped unto the Moon's surface, the number prior to that will be finite. Potential infinite-ness comes from the onward march of "now" that keeps on stretching forward. The actual infinite on such a process would require a completion of a transfinite span in steps of finite stage and that will not happen, inherently. Every step in the chain will be finite and bounded by the next. KFkairosfocus_{March 21, 2017
March
03
Mar
21
21
2017
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, picking an arbitrary time and saying that there is a fixed past to that point does not change the nature of the process that generates the past, causally driven emergence of the next present, which at the same time pushes each past step back one in the stack. KF
I'm speaking strictly to the question of whether the fixed past to a particular point, assuming it is in fact infinite, is potentially or actually infinite. If you don't want to discuss that issue, then I can't stop you. :-PdaveS_{March 20, 2017
March
03
Mar
20
20
2017
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

DS, picking an arbitrary time and saying that there is a fixed past to that point does not change the nature of the process that generates the past, causally driven emergence of the next present, which at the same time pushes each past step back one in the stack. KFkairosfocus_{March 20, 2017
March
03
Mar
20
20
2017
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

KF, There is a very clear difference between the character of the collection of stages occurring before noon on March 17 (denoted P0) and those occurring after noon March 17 (let's call it F0) As of noon, March 17, no stages can be added to P0, but stages can be added to F0 in perpetuity.daveS_{March 20, 2017
March
03
Mar
20
20
2017
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

DS, it would seem that as the past is inseparably generated by the same causal chain that generates the next stage of the future [which thus becomes the next present] it is of like character, in principle potentially infinite so long as stepwise causation of a next stage continues. KFkairosfocus_{March 20, 2017
March
03
Mar
20
20
2017
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

KF, I see I misread the last part of your post, so strike my last question above for the moment. My question is then, would an infinite past be a potential or an actual infinite?daveS_{March 19, 2017
March
03
Mar
19
19
2017
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, your problem is not what an infinite duration looks like but getting to it dynamically by what is essentially a push down, one stage at a time stacking process. The process continues at least potentially indefinitely future-wise (causation being the was the next stage emerges from the present) but that push-down effect is inherently stepwise, finite stage by finite stage. Consequently the two cannot be separated.
Two? What are the two things that cannot be separated again?
Also, at no point will we have an actual transition to the counted out transfinite.
If you're saying that there is no stage at which the past (relative that stage) will transition from finite to infinite, that's correct. I think we discussed that long ago. In fact the past will always have been infinite at any stage. I can't parse the next portion, but in reply to:
So, inherently the process that creates a past through causally linked succession of stages is finite but potentially infinite.
Consider the past P0 I described above, the past from the perspective of noon on St Patrick's day. If that is potentially infinite, that means it's a finite collection together with some process by which any finite number of additional stages can be added to it. Does this make any sense to you? How can you possibly add more stages to it now?daveS_{March 19, 2017
March
03
Mar
19
19
2017
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

DS, your problem is not what an infinite duration looks like but getting to it dynamically by what is essentially a push down, one stage at a time stacking process. The process continues at least potentially indefinitely future-wise (causation being the was the next stage emerges from the present) but that push-down effect is inherently stepwise, finite stage by finite stage. Consequently the two cannot be separated. Also, at no point will we have an actual transition to the counted out transfinite. Notice, we get to W of cardinality aleph null without ever actually completing a stepwise count beyond the naturals, we revert to the ellipsis, and the pink/blue tapes thought exercise readily shows why. So, inherently the process that creates a past through causally linked succession of stages is finite but potentially infinite. This ends up where I have pointed over and over again. So, what we are actually seeing is the addition of the unjustified claim of a past infinite, joined to failure to resolve how the past-generating process proceeds to do just that, leading to inherent inability to traverse a transfinite span. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2017
March
03
Mar
19
19
2017
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, if you can only ever find finite durations and imposing a claimed transfinite one leads to the impossibility of traversing the infinite in finite stage steps, enough has been shown. KF
That's not quite right. The duration of the past (in total) can be infinite without causing any problems. The duration of the past is infinite if, given any finite value n, there exists an interval between two particular stages whose duration exceeds n. (Guess where I got that :P). And that's exactly what I am positing (see below after the ***). There is then no problem of the type presented by particular infinitely remote stages.
PS: It is patent that now at any point is succeeded by a following stage, then this repeats etc so that the first referenced recedes into the past stage by stage.
Yes, a particular once-present moment recedes more and more deeply into the past when viewed from the perspective of a sequence of "present" points advancing into the future.
I refer to finite steps for the obvious reason. Such a process of recession can indicate a potential infinity but it never actually does so between any one past stage and now.
Question: Exactly what is this potential infinity? In other words, how would you fill in the blank: "This is a potentially infinite collection of ______". To specify more clearly what sort of answer I am asking for, I will borrow this definition of potential infinity from wikipedia. If you have a better citation, please post it:
This is contrasted with potential infinity, in which a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces an unending "infinite" sequence of results, but each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps.
Referring to my bolded question above, what precisely is the "infinite" sequence of results that your process generates? *** Begin Parenthetical Statement To be very explicit, here is what I posit as an infinite past, from the perspective of a particular stage (the "present").
Fix stage_0 to be that which occurred at t_0 = 12:00:00 UTC March 17, 2017, say. The past, P0, from the perspective of stage_0, is the collection of all stages which were once but no longer are present. Assumption: Given any finite value n, there exists a stage_0 in P0 which occurred more than n stages before stage_0.
Note that P0 would clearly be infinite, by definition. Also note that there is no process for producing elements in P0 involved here. The collection of past stages in P0 are assumed to already exist. Therefore the collection of past stages in P0 comprise an actual infinity. This is not a finite collection that can be extended to any finite size, one element at a time. So, P0 is an actually infinite collection of past stages. Now contrast P0 with whatever the results of your "recession" process are. Your potentially infinite collection is a collection of what? *** End Parenthetical Statement Back to your post:
Are there any stages of the actual past arrived at other than in this way? I put it to you, not; so all durations to the actual past’s stages will be finite, as they all got to the past through an inherently finite though potentially infinite process.
Well, the stages were "arrived at" by time flowing in the forward direction. Any particular stage followed the stage immediately preceding it. So yes, all the stages were "arrived at" in a different way than how you described. I will acknowledge that every past stage (from the perspective of stage_0, say) is finitely remote from stage_0, of course.daveS_{March 19, 2017
March
03
Mar
19
19
2017
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

DS, if you can only ever find finite durations and imposing a claimed transfinite one leads to the impossibility of traversing the infinite in finite stage steps, enough has been shown. KF PS: It is patent that now at any point is succeeded by a following stage, then this repeats etc so that the first referenced recedes into the past stage by stage. I refer to finite steps for the obvious reason. Such a process of recession can indicate a potential infinity but it never actually does so between any one past stage and now. Now, extend to all such stages in the past that came about that way. Are there any stages of the actual past arrived at other than in this way? I put it to you, not; so all durations to the actual past's stages will be finite, as they all got to the past through an inherently finite though potentially infinite process. (That is, there is no limit imposed on further succeeding stages; although at any particular now, we have only finitely many stages so far.)kairosfocus_{March 19, 2017
March
03
Mar
19
19
2017
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, On fair comment I have repeatedly shown why I concluded as above. You obviously disagree but instead of explaining why and showing what an infinite actual past means other than that there was at least one [and in fact indefinitely many] once present moments that are now after successive stages transfinitely remote, you have tried to suggest that I have failed to show why I have concluded as above.
The only explanation I've seen is a series of observations about the nature of time (present moments recede into the past, stages in causal chains succeed one another, etc). After reading through these observations many times, I still do not see how we can conclude, "hence, infinitely remote stages must exist".
What part of durations in time are between specific stages is hard to understand?
That's very easy to understand.
What part of, if stages X and Y have only finitely many stages between them, the duration is necessarily finite, is hard to acknowledge?
Also very easy.
What part of, if EVERY past time we can identify or even symbolise as having occurred will be finitely remote, then there are no such identifiable transfinite durations, is so hard to see?
Obviously true. Edit---One qualification: I interpret this to mean there are no intervals of infinite length between particular stages.
What part of, just proceeding with ever more finitely remote cases and suggesting ever more FINITELY remote cases can be added does not get us to an infinite duration, is so hard to then recognise?
This is where some issues arise. I would not use the word "added" here. No finitely remote stages are being "added" to the supposed infinite past. They already exist in the past. Nevermind this if you didn't mean to imply otherwise. In any case, here's how I would describe the situation: Given any preassigned finite value (that is, any natural number n), there exist stages which occurred more than n steps before the present stage. If that's synonymous with what you intended above, then that's fine. But my formulation makes it clear how an infinite duration arises. I have no problem with your very last "what part of ... is hard to recognize".daveS_{March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

DS, On fair comment I have repeatedly shown why I concluded as above. You obviously disagree but instead of explaining why and showing what an infinite actual past means other than that there was at least one [and in fact indefinitely many] once present moments that are now after successive stages transfinitely remote, you have tried to suggest that I have failed to show why I have concluded as above. What part of durations in time are between specific stages is hard to understand? What part of, if stages X and Y have only finitely many stages between them, the duration is necessarily finite, is hard to acknowledge? What part of, if EVERY past time we can identify or even symbolise as having occurred will be finitely remote, then there are no such identifiable transfinite durations, is so hard to see? What part of, just proceeding with ever more finitely remote cases and suggesting ever more FINITELY remote cases can be added does not get us to an infinite duration, is so hard to then recognise? Going on, what part of, if even so there were an actually transfinitely remote stage I, then its step by step successors I+1, I+2 etc will face the impossibility of traversing an endless transfinite span in finite-stage steps, is so hard to acknowledge? KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

KF,
The steady state cosmos theory received a lot of widespread support in that context. The big bang perspective, which arose from the shocking discovery of the red shift phenomenon, spent forty years as under-dog. So, clearly the point of the steady state cosmology is, it has no beginning and has an infinite past.
Thank you.
Beyond this, I am astonished to see you belabouring and trying to push a burden of proof on me regarding my understanding that an actually infinite past of the physical world will require stages that are transfinitely remote, endlessly remote beyond any conceivable particular stage. Thus, that an infinite past requires that there has been some I that is transfinitely many stages from now.
Well, it's your claim, so the burden is yours, no?
As for WLC, he is not there addressing whether an actual infinite is physically feasible, he is speaking in the context of those whose thought implies that.
Well, obviously not, since another one of his premises is that an actual infinity cannot exist in the world. He does say, however, that an infinite past would have to comprise an actual infinite rather than a potential infinite.
If you doubt this, or imagine I impose arbitrary definitions, simply explain to us how this endless descent of actual stages can amount to traversing the transfinite to reach us today. (As in, spell out the dynamics, please.) Over to you: ______________ .
I didn't say I could explain anything. I simply said I don't believe you can show that an infinite past is impossible using these mathematical/logical arguments. I also don't believe you can prove the existence of the hypothesized infinitely remote points you refer to. That's all. I can't do these things either.daveS_{March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

DS, the logic of being shows that something is a necessary and beginningless being. The steady state cosmos theory received a lot of widespread support in that context. The big bang perspective, which arose from the shocking discovery of the red shift phenomenon, spent forty years as under-dog. So, clearly the point of the steady state cosmology is, it has no beginning and has an infinite past. Likewise with other models that have been put up, oscillating [turns out this does not work] budding-off sub cosmi etc. Beyond this, I am astonished to see you belabouring and trying to push a burden of proof on me regarding my understanding that an actually infinite past of the physical world will require stages that are transfinitely remote, endlessly remote beyond any conceivable particular stage. Thus, that an infinite past requires that there has been some I that is transfinitely many stages from now. As for WLC, he is not there addressing whether an actual infinite is physically feasible, he is speaking in the context of those whose thought implies that. Aquinas has a smith hammering away till a hammer breaks, then getting a new one and so forth. If that series could be completed it would have an infinite collection of broken hammers. We can think about it but cannot actually physically do it, even were he to recycle the actual hammers endlessly. The problem I highlight is, he cannot complete the chain from an infinite past. No successive collection of hammers like this can attain to aleph-null cardinality, or as a counting order, achieve the order type of the naturals, W. I repeat, if every stage in the cosmos' history was only finitely remote by count of stages, none of them will be at infinite remove and the chain as a whole will be finite, though perhaps indefinitely large. For duration is from one point to the next. Further to this, in going stage to stage, a transfinite span cannot be completed step by step. We can only go to an indefinitely large but finite value and point beyond. But the history of the cosmos requires actual stage by stage temporal succession to reach here and we can be confident if it has it has not traversed a transfinite span. If you doubt this, or imagine I impose arbitrary definitions, simply explain to us how this endless descent of actual stages can amount to traversing the transfinite to reach us today. (As in, spell out the dynamics, please.) Over to you: ______________ . KFkairosfocus_{March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, Hoyle did not originate the steady state view. The core idea is an undetectably low spontaneous creation of fresh matter, leading to a “very long term” steady state; as I was taught back in the 70’s. Hence, the name. It failed the prediction test by the 1960’s and was gradually abandoned in the face of the cosmic microwave background, where oscillatory models also failed.
I'm aware of that, just wondering if you consider "beginningless" steady state theories to include an infinite past or not.
The issue of a cosmos with no beginning is that, again, it faces an infinite descent from the past, stage by causally connected stage — and I am not talking about any beginning point without earlier stages, just that there has to be a descent “forever” from earlier and earlier stages.
Yes, it's clear that you are not referring to any beginning point. The point I in particular is not assumed to be a beginning of the cosmos.
This wets up the problem of a stage at transfinite remove, if the past was actually of infinite prior duration.
My goal in these last questions was to determine why you believe an infinite past entails the existence of these infinitely remote points. I can think of only two possible reasons, given our discussion:
1) It's true by definition, in which case one needs only to read the definition of "infinite" to determine this. 2) It's true because it follows logically from the definition, but it's not explicitly stated in the definition. In this case, some argument would be required.
Is it #1, #2, or something else?
PS: durations are between particular, present or once present stages of the world, Unless you can get beyond finitely remote ones, you are not going beyond the potentially infinite but only actually finite.
How can a collection of already existing things (past moments/stages) be a potential infinite? WLC states in his discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, referring to one of the premises (emphasis added)
The second premise states that an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. The point seems obvious enough, for if there has been a sequence composed of an infinite number of events stretching back into the past, then the set of all events in the series would be an actually infinite set.
He then goes on to describe how this view has not always been dominant, but that now most hold it. Some more discussion from WLC:
... So in a beginningless series of past events of equal duration, the number of past events must be infinite, for it is larger than any natural number. But then the number of past events must be ℵ0, for ∞ is not a number but an ideal limit. Aquinas’ own example of a blacksmith working from eternity who uses one hammer after another as each one breaks furnishes a good example of an actual infinite, for the collection of all the hammers employed by the smith is an actual infinite. The fact that the broken hammers still exist is incidental to the story; even if they had all been destroyed after being broken, the number of hammers broken by the smith is the same. Similarly, if we consider all the events in an infinite temporal regress of events, they constitute an actual infinite.
daveS_{March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply