Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Terrapin Station]

Something that's not there can't even have a beginning ontically, because it's not there.

Exactly, no beginning or ending = infinite

"Can't even have a beginning"--in other words, because it doesn't exist. Not because it's infnite.

[psyreporter]

I think an alternative question, such as "is there an infinite amount of time?" (and an analogous question for space) arguably avoids that particular category error.

Actual infinites are possible.

Infinity cannot be counted. Infinite amount or multiple infinites is not possible.

Infinity is oneness and knows no distance or amount.

[psyreporter]

I wonder if "spooky action at a distance" may be evidence that true infinity is applicable to reality. It would make it apparent that the Universe is "it" and that philosophy may be able to provide answers.

If quantum entanglement is valid, then a pair of entangled particles can exist billions of light-years apart from one another and actions affecting the properties of one particle will affect the properties of the other particle instantly.

True infinity may provide an explanation for 'instant' connectivity across the galaxy. Infinity has no beginning and thereby knows no distance.

[creation]

I noticed the following article in a news feed:

Philosopher Wes Morriston and I have coauthored a paper on the Kalam cosmological argument, and it has been accepted publication in the journal Philosophical Quarterly. Once it is actually available on their page access will probably be limited, unless you have an institutional subscription. However, for now you can download it (for free) via this link.

Endless and Infinite

Abstract: It is often said that time must have a beginning because otherwise the series of past events would have the paradoxical features of an actual infinite. In the present paper, we show that, even given a dynamic theory of time, the cardinality of an endless series of events, each of which will occur, is the same as that of a beginningless series of events, each of which has occurred. Both are denumerably infinite. So if (as we believe) an endless series of events is possible, then the possibility of a beginningless series of past events should not be rejected merely on the ground that it would be an actual infinite.

Proponents of the Kalam cosmological argument seek to establish that any temporally ordered series of discrete events must have a beginning. One of their principal arguments for this conclusion is that a beginningless series of discrete events would have the paradoxical features of an actual infinite – features that could not be instantiated ‘in the real world’. In particular, they point out that an actually infinite series has a distinctive property, which we shall call the ‘Cantorian Property’. A series has the Cantorian Property when it can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with infinitely many of its proper parts, so that the whole has the ‘same number’ of elements as its parts. For instance, there are just as many natural numbers as there are even numbers, etc. But in the ‘real world’, they say, the whole must always be greater than any of its proper parts. So, in the real world (as opposed to the world of mathematics), an actually infinite series is impossible; nothing real can have the Cantorian Property (See Craig & Sinclair 2011: 110). And this is said to establish the first premise of the following argument:

• An actual infinite cannot exist.
• An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
• Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. (Craig & Sinclair 2011: 103)

Now one might have thought that if these considerations were sufficient to show that a beginningless (and therefore infinite) series of past events is impossible, they would apply with equal force to an endless (and therefore infinite) series of future events.1 After all, one could make a seemingly symmetrical argument as follows:

• An actual infinite cannot exist.
• An infinite temporal progress2 of events is an actual infinite.
• Therefore, an infinite temporal progress of events cannot exist.

If this second argument were equally as sound as the original one, this would be bad news for the proponents of the Kalam. For one thing, it is implausible to claim that the future could not be endless. For example, one can easily imagine a series of future events, each of which is causally sufficient for another. Again, one can imagine an endless series of events, each of which is fore-ordained by an all-powerful God. As far as we can see, these are genuine metaphysical possibilities.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/

The questions:

1) is it possible for true infinity to exist?

Of course.

This, to me, is very easy to observer and see.

In fact, I do not observe and thus have not seen how a finite Universe could exist.

For example, when they say; the whole must always be greater than any of its proper parts.

Who says this?

And why do they say this?

What evidence is there for the whole must always be greater than any of its proper parts?

And, what does this actually mean?

If, for example, the whole human body is greater than any of its proper parts, then what does this actually mean?

2) is it plausible to assume that time must have had a beginning?

It is plausible to assume absolutely anything one wants to assume. What the accuracy of any assumption is however is another matter.

I prefer to not assume anything at all.

To me, the word 'time' is just an abstract concept that refers to the measurements taken in relation to duration of change between agreed upon different events.

Now, to me, from what I have observed so far change has occurred eternally.

Is there anyone who could even suggest how change could just begin?

To me, the whole Universe's "proper" parts are matter and space between matter.

So, the whole Universe is greater than Its parts.

The Universe is infinite in size, as no logical nor rational boundary could exist. (Of course unless shown otherwise).

The Universe is eternal, as no logical nor rational beginning could have begun. (Of course unless shown otherwise).

[Sculptor1]

1) is it possible for true infinity to exist?
2) is it plausible to assume that time must have had a beginning?

Things in the universe are modified by being divided. This is not the case with infinity.
If time is infinite then it is not meaningful to divide it. A day could not exist.

[creation]

What's intuitively implausible about time extending infinitely into the past isn't simply that it posits an actual infinity. It's rather that "we'd never get to point Tn," because there's an infinity of previous times that need to arrive first.

Is there some need for some people to get to point Tn?

If there is, then what is this need for exactly?

Of course, a beginning of time seems just as intuitively implausible to us, because it would have to happen acausally.

So there's no way around the fact that our options are intuitively implausible.

At any rate, is it possible for something to be an actually infinity? Sure.

Re the second question, I wouldn't say that time must have a beginning, but it's possible that it does.

[creation]

Abstract: It is often said that time must have a beginning because otherwise the series of past events would have the paradoxical features of an actual infinite.

Assuming that reality is logical (which might not be the case): the above is a false dicohotomy based on illogical linear thinking, a mistake almost everyone makes.
Actual infinites are possible. However we can rule out both time with a beginning, and an endless series of past events as illogical.

Why exactly is an endless series of past events supposedly illogical?

[Terrapin Station]

Is there some need for some people to get to point Tn?

If you want to exist, sure.

[creation]

In what sense could the proposition "reality is not logical" ever be meaningful?

You might as easily ask what is logical about reality. Doesn't logic imply fairness? Wouldn't a logical reality reward effort and punish laziness, and give all of us the same skill set to work with? What is logical about the way the universe randomly doles out good fortune or misfortune, life and death? Logic makes sense; the reality does not.

To me, reality makes pure logical sense.

There is also a limit where logic and science break down, as in discussions of infinity. The universe is clearly absurd, at least from our current level of understanding.

The Universe, Itself, makes perfect sense to me.

What the Universe is, is simply very rational, and how the Universe works, is logically very simply.

Life, and living, is very simple and easy indeed. Only human beings make living appear complicated and hard.

It does not provide us with any guidance as to what we should be doing, what might make us happy.

It actually does. But this takes a very special type of listening and understanding, which most human beings have not evolved into doing, just yet.

It presents us with irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas, like a choice between free will and cause and effect.

Just because free will AND determinism play an equal part in Life and living, this does not at all mean there are irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas. (Unless of course you can show otherwise). If any examples are provided, then we can look at them, and then discuss them to see if there is actually any irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas, or not.

Reality is what it is. Logic is a device we have constructed to try to understand reality.

In fact, if we looked at what the word 'reality' could actually refer to, and in relation to what other words refer to, then what 'reality' actually is understood to be in, and from, another perspective may be different than what it is perceived to be now, in the days of when this is written.

Considering the device known as 'logic' has not worked to well in unifying all of the contradictions and inconsistencies in our views and theories, then just maybe when we evolve further we may start looking at things from a different perspective, from where the device of 'logic' might actually reveal what 'reality' truly is.

It does a good job sometimes, and sometimes it breaks down, or we lack the knowledge to use the next level up of logic.

When using that 'next level up of logic', then this is where and when Life and living is seen for what they really are, which is just pure simplicity and easiness.

There literally is nothing hard nor complex in relation to Life and living.

The simplicity of the Universe Itself, and the ease in how It works, endlessly and infinitely, is just pure beauty and magical in the truest sense.

Perhaps, if we had perfect knowledge, the universe would be seen to be perfectly aligned with our logic.

I would not use the words "perfect knowledge", but, to me, the Universe is perfectly aligned. What needs to change is our "logic".

Logic is not a device that can be used from the personal subjective perspective.

Logic is only available from the truly objective perspective.

But, when we lack the knowledge, and there appear to be contradictions, we must concede the possibility that our logic might never explain it all.

When any apparent contradiction appears, then only when they are put forward, like here in a forum, then only then they can be looked at, and only then they can be discussed, so that what is actually true can come to light.

[creation]

Is there some need for some people to get to point Tn?

If you want to exist, sure.

Well that certainly does not make sense to me.

I exist now and I never had a need to get to point Tn.

What is Tn to you exactly?

[chewybrian]

There is also a limit where logic and science break down, as in discussions of infinity. The universe is clearly absurd, at least from our current level of understanding.

The Universe, Itself, makes perfect sense to me.

What the Universe is, is simply very rational, and how the Universe works, is logically very simply.

Life, and living, is very simple and easy indeed. Only human beings make living appear complicated and hard.

Humans bear the heavy burden of understanding. They can form desires beyond their capacity, beyond the limits imposed by reality. They can imagine things in perfect forms, but are imprisoned in an imperfect wold. They wish for their lives to have meaning, but they can see that they do not. They want to live forever, but they know they will die. They can communicate, yet never completely share their subjective experience. They wish for freedom, yet fear the responsibility that comes with it.

The world is perhaps simple and makes sense if you are a goldfish. You would not see your own capacity to change things, or how the world might somehow be different and therefore better for you, or more just. But, the world simply does not make sense, is not logical, from a human perspective. You might work to accept things as they are, and this will no doubt benefit your peace of mind. But, it does not come naturally, and it is not easy. Contrary to this attitude, many people put a lot more effort into escaping, avoiding or denying reality than accepting it. They see things the way they are, and they don't like things the way they are, but they can't change them. So they are reduced to trying to fool themselves into thinking things are better than they are.

It presents us with irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas, like a choice between free will and cause and effect.

Just because free will AND determinism play an equal part in Life and living, this does not at all mean there are irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas. (Unless of course you can show otherwise). If any examples are provided, then we can look at them, and then discuss them to see if there is actually any irreconcilable contradictions or dilemmas, or not.

Every waking moment is choice for us; it is the essence of being human. In each moment, with every action, there is a true dichotomy. Either you could have acted differently of your own accord, as an agent, or your 'choice' was fully determined by the events that came before. These two options are irreconcilable by definition, and, in the words of Bertrand Russel, saying otherwise like calling a man a married bachelor. Determinism is a theory which says that there is no free will, period. It is not a matter of noting the possible weight of influence of past events on your decisions, but ceding total control to them, effectively eliminating the agent, the soul or any possibility of free will.

I don't think you really need me to work this out for you. If I am an independent agent, if my will is free, then for any choice, I could have chosen otherwise under identical circumstances. At that exact moment in time that I could have decided differently. If determinism is true, then only the effects of the causes of the past were responsible for my decision, There was no chance that I would have taken another path at that moment.

The burden is squarely on you to show that these two mutually exclusive ideas can both be true. I've never seen so much as a theory of how they could be so, but only people who call themselves 'compatibilists' without explaining how their position could be right, much less how it must be.

[Terrapin Station]

If you want to exist, sure.

Well that certainly does not make sense to me.

I exist now and I never had a need to get to point Tn.

What is Tn to you exactly?

Ah--I guess that you didn't know what Tn referred to? "T" is conventionally used to denote time. "n" is conventionally used to denote an integer variable. We usually talk about time as T1, T2, etc., with the convention that T2 is a later time than T1. Tn would be any arbitrary later time. So maybe T579 or T1,000,000,000 or whatever.

If time extends back infinitely, then in order to get to T-whatever, we need to pass through an infinity of previous times. But you can never get through an infinity, because there's no end to it. There's always an infinity to go through before you arrive at any particular point, and you can't complete an infinity. So any arbitrary later time would be impossible to arrive at. It's basically a Zenoan paradox--one that extends "infinitely backwards."

[Steve3007]

So far reality seems to make sense, everything seems to be ordered, logical, so we can make laws about it. It's even possible to explain QM in a logical way, it's just extremely difficult. But we don't observe things happening that are patently illogical or a-logical, that just can't make sense to us in any way.

I may be misinterpreting you, but I think you're making the widespread mistake of conflating logic with what is often called common sense. If we regard something as violating common sense we usually mean that it violates a set of basic inductively derived laws which we hold in our minds as a result of our many years of day-to-day observations. An example might be the idea that every event has a cause or that objects can't spontaneously appear or disappear. But those things aren't violations of logic. A violation of logic is a linguistic contradiction. A proposition like "objects can appear from nothing" is not a violation of logic. It is a violation of inductively derived laws which are based on empirical observations. There's a difference.

In your example of QM: If it was not possible to explain it in a logical way then it would not be a theory at all. It would be gibberish. Any problems that there might be with something like QM are nothing to do with potential violations of logic. They are to do with violations of common sense, as I've described it above.

[Steve3007]

But it's also possible that, say on a larger scale, reality does in fact behave in ways that patently make no sense to us, and can never make sense to us. We just haven't observed such behaviour yet. Maybe reality is patently illogical or a-logical, and in a way that would be the end of the road for philosophy there.

Again, I may be misinterpreting you, but I think that if reality does behave in ways that patently make no sense to us then that would mean that it behaves in ways that do not fit the pattern that we have extrapolated, using induction, from our experiences. It would not mean that reality is illogical. Logic is not a property of reality. It is a property of our propositions.

[Atla]

So far reality seems to make sense, everything seems to be ordered, logical, so we can make laws about it. It's even possible to explain QM in a logical way, it's just extremely difficult. But we don't observe things happening that are patently illogical or a-logical, that just can't make sense to us in any way.

I may be misinterpreting you, but I think you're making the widespread mistake of conflating logic with what is often called common sense. If we regard something as violating common sense we usually mean that it violates a set of basic inductively derived laws which we hold in our minds as a result of our many years of day-to-day observations. An example might be the idea that every event has a cause or that objects can't spontaneously appear or disappear. But those things aren't violations of logic. A violation of logic is a linguistic contradiction. A proposition like "objects can appear from nothing" is not a violation of logic. It is a violation of inductively derived laws which are based on empirical observations. There's a difference.

In your example of QM: If it was not possible to explain it in a logical way then it would not be a theory at all. It would be gibberish. Any problems that there might be with something like QM are nothing to do with potential violations of logic. They are to do with violations of common sense, as I've described it above.

Umm no, it's impossible to explain QM using common sense. And the standard interpretation of QM IS illogical gibberish.