God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

First off, by "universe", I mean all physical reality govern by natural law. This would include universes that we know/don’t know about.

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is past eternal.

Justification: We know that the universe exist, and if there is no transcendent supernatural cause, then either

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

I think we can safely remove posit A from the equation (unless there is someone who thinks it is a plausible explanation).

Let’s focus on posit B.

Based on posit B, we need not provide any naturalistic explanation as to the cause of our universe, considering the fact that the term “universe” applies (as mentioned earlier) to all physical reality, which means that any naturalistic explanation one provides is already accounted for as “eternal”.

And if God does not exist, then physical reality (the universe) is all there is, and thus must be eternal.

2. If the universe is not past eternal, then God exists.

Justification: If the universe (all physical reality) is NOT eternal, then it had a beginning.

Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary.

If “nature” had a beginning, one cannot logically use nature to explain the origin of nature, and to do so is fallacious.

So, where nature stops, supernatural begins.

3. The universe is not past eternal.

Justification: If the universe is past eternal, then the causal chain of events (cause and effect) within the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because infinity cannot be traversed or “reached”.

If the past is eternal, that would mean that there are an infinite amount of “days” which lead to today. But in order for us to have “arrived” to today, an infinite amount of days would have to be traversed (one by one), which is impossible, because infinite cannot be “reached”.

Consider thought analogy..

Sandman analogy: Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole. By “bottomless”, of course if one was to fall into the hole, he would fall forever and ever and ever.

Now, imagine the man is surrounded by an infinite amount of sand, which is at his disposal.

Imagine if the man has been shoveling sand into this hole for an infinite amount of time (he never began shoveling, or he never stopped shoveling, he has been shoveling forever).

Imagine if the man’s plan was to shovel sand into the hole until he successfully filled the sand from the bottom, all the way to the top of the hole.

How long will it take him to accomplish this? Will he ever accomplish this task? No. Why? Because the sand is bottomless, so no matter how fast he shoveled, or how long he shoveled, the sand will never reach the top.

So lets put it all together…

The sand falling: Represents time travel, and the trajectory of the sand falling south of the top represents time traveling into the past, which is synonymous with past eternity.

The man shoveling: Represents the “present”, as the man is presently shoveling without halt. This is synonymous with our present causal reality. We are presently in a state of constant change, without halt.

Conclusion: If the sand cannot reach the bottom of the hole (because of no boundary/foundation) and it can’t be filled from the bottom-up to the present (man), then how, if there is no past boundary to precedent days, how could we have possibly reached the present day…if there is/was no beginning foundation (day).

However, lets say a gazillion miles down the hole, there is a foundation…then the hole will be filled in a finite amount of time, and it will be filled from the bottom-up.

But ONLY if there is a foundation.

Likewise, we can only reach today if and ONLY IF there is a beginning point of reference, a foundation in the distant past.

4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist: As explained, infinite regression is impossible, so an uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

This UCC cannot logically be a product of any precedent cause or conditions, thus, it exists necessarily (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC cannot logically depend on any external entity for it’s existence (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC is the foundation for any/everything which began to exist, which included by not limited to all physical reality…but mainly, the universe an everything in it.

This UCC would also have to have free will, which explains why the universe began at X point instead of Y point...and the reason is; it began at that point because that is when the UCC decided it should begin...and only a being with free will can decide to do anything.

This UCC would have to have the power to create from nothing (as there was no preexisting physical matter to create from, before it was created).

So, based on the truth value of the argument, what can we conclude of the UCC?

1. It is a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being
2. A being of whom has existed for eternity and can never cease existing
3. A being with the greatest power imaginable (being able to create from nothing)
4. A being with free will, thus, a being with a mind

This being in question is what theists have traditionally recognized as God. God exists.

In closing, I predict the whole "well, based on your argument, God cannot be infinite".

My response to that for now is; first admit the validity of the presented argument, and THEN we will discuss why the objection raised doesn't apply to God.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #651

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #648]
We do not say that matter was created from some other substance which was not of GOD. We say matter is an additional, brand new substance created by God.
GOD cannot create 'something extra' if GOD is already perfect and complete.
If GOD is eternally growing and changing, the yes - you would make a good point re brand new substances [additions] able to be created.
I didn't watch the video.


Please watch the video. My words project the gist, whereas with the addition of the visuals the video gives, that gist becomes more understandable.

The visual shows what use of words alone, make hard to describe.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #652

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:16 pm No one knows.
So why are you so confident in declaring that time does not physically exist in the universe?
Are you aware that physicists are now saying that spacetime is doomed as it is not fundamental?
No idea what you are talking about here.
It means that possibilities, probabilities are acknowledged by the scientific community as being valid enough to invest vast amounts of funding and resources into investigating.
That's fine, the question is, why are you so sure when the scientific community is still trying to figure things out?
My statement re infinity must logically having no start to it, has to do with the whole, rather than the start-finish of the parts therein.
So formulate your thesis as a logical proof, tell me what premises you are working from and the logical steps that took you to your conclusion.
Or for that matter, why would there be a time when there were no objects?
Because it took time for energy to turn into matter. Either way, why did you think there would be a time where there would no longer be objects?
Why should all infinities be conceptually separated from each other and not seen to be all part of the same, one infinity?
Because we know can identify at least 2 types of infinities: those with a one-to-one match with natural numbers, and those that doesn't, like the set of real numbers between 0 and 1.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #653

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:15 am It seems I was misunderstanding you. Yes, I agree that very common intuitions are rational to side with unless some stronger reason changes the picture. I still don’t agree with you that enough people’s intuitions of infinity are that it’s an amount to fit that principle.
Common enough to be in dictionary isn't common enough for you?
I wasn’t discussing whether the article contradicted itself in how it used its terms. My claim was that something cannot be an actual infinite and expanding in size (with the concepts I attach to those terms). My claim regarding the article has been that if the scientists are disagreeing with that (with the concepts I attach to those terms), then they are being irrational. If they attach different concepts to those terms than I did, then I wasn’t disagreeing with the article on that point. So, I think we were misunderstanding each other a little and have cleared that up now?
Okay...
That means we can get back to why you think the article shows that the current scientific thought is that the universe is actually infinite. That article says that the simplest version of the inflationary theory predicts that the density of the universe is “very close” to the critical density, so it’s geometry is flat, like a sheet of paper but it also earlier said that the density of the universe must “exactly equal” the critical density for the geometry to be “flat like a sheet of paper, and infinite in extent.” “Very close” and “exactly equal” are not, well, exactly equal concepts. So, even assuming the simplest version of inflationary theory to be true, the universe does not seem to meet the requirements of truly being infinite in extent, according to the wording of the article. It’s close, but not quite there from that data.

The article then talks about the WMAP measurements and is worded in a way that seems very close to requiring an infinite universe but then ends with this statement “All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe” rather than that the Universe is infinite.
That's all fine, but I think it's worth pointing out that the article is not saying the universe is curved.
There are a lot more non-mathematicians in the world than mathematicians.
There are, but it's common sense to use the mathematicians version when trying to make sense of mathematical concept like the size of a set or how infinity + 1 = infinity.
(14) is that certain individual parts have the property P. (15) is that the series contains all of these parts that have the property P. (16) is the conclusion that the whole series has the property P.
That's not correct. Read it again, 16) does not say the whole series has the property P. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts. Here is 14-16 again for your examination:

14) an integer that can be counted to from 0, is an integer that can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} (from 15)

Replaying some elements but keep the form would instead get you:

14) certain individual parts [bricks] have the property P [of being 4x2x8 in size]
15) a series [brick wall] contains only these certain individual parts [bricks] that have the property P [of being 4x2x8 in size]
16) all the parts of the series [brick wall] have the property P [of being 4x2x8 in size]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #654

Post by William »

Even given that the human brain is interpreting time space rather than seeing it as it fundamentally is...
What is it fundamentally then?
No one knows.
[Replying to Bust Nak in post #652]
So why are you so confident in declaring that time does not physically exist in the universe?
For the same reasons as numbers do not physically exist. They don't physically exist.
Are you aware that physicists are now saying that spacetime is doomed as it is not fundamental?
No idea what you are talking about here.
I am talking about Spacetime.
Search "Spacetime is doomed"
"The union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggests that “space-time is doomed”, and there are related indications of fundamental limitations to quantum mechanics in both the early and late universe."
"Time is an emergent phenomenon for internal observers but absent for external observers of the universe."
"Developments in physics suggest the non-existence of time is an open possibility, and one that we should take seriously."
"The union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggests that spacetime as a basic concept is doomed."
That's fine, the question is, why are you so sure when the scientific community is still trying to figure things out?
Logic.

It may not be that 'the scientific community' doesn't understand the logic and cannot figure it out, so much as they are required to provide physical evidence, and are trying to figure out how to do that.
My statement re infinity must logically having no start to it, has to do with the whole, rather than the start-finish of the parts therein.
So formulate your thesis as a logical proof, tell me what premises you are working from and the logical steps that took you to your conclusion.
Logically, some thing cannot derive from no thing.
Since this infers infinite regression [as well as infinite progression], there is no logical justification to refer to such as "fallacy". [re "Turtles all the way down."]
Explanation of apparent beginnings [such as with our universe] therefore has to be seen as points within infinity.
The Mandelbrot Set gives us a physical representation of this.
Infinity must logically having no start to it. Infinity therefore, has always existed.
Or for that matter, why would there be a time when there were no objects?
Because it took time for energy to turn into matter. Either way, why did you think there would be a time where there would no longer be objects?
The idea is based on the theory of entropy.
Search "the theory of entropy"
"In classical physics, the entropy of a physical system is proportional to the quantity of energy no longer available to do physical work. Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system any activity increases the entropy."

Are you sure the use of the word 'time' is appropriate in the sentence "it took time for energy to turn into matter"
Could it be that there is a state where size and time are unmeasurable? Roger Penrose believes it is possibly the state of singularity. No size and no time as with the singularity, there is no thing to compare that with.
Is energy separate from matter, or just another manifestation of matter?
Why should all infinities be conceptually separated from each other and not seen to be all part of the same, one infinity?
Because we know can identify at least 2 types of infinities: those with a one-to-one match with natural numbers, and those that doesn't, like the set of real numbers between 0 and 1.
There are also the imaginary numbers.
Even so, just because we identify these as 'types' does not mean these types exist in their own infinity separate from each other and outside of an Overall Infinity.
Conceptually separating them appears counter-productive, even working against the theory of everything.

Sure, we can identify the compartments re these different realities, but I think it is an overstep to treat them as all fundamentally different, implying different sources.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #655

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:01 pm For the same reasons as numbers do not physically exist. They don't physically exist.
But how could you know that, when you don't know what time is fundamentally?
I am talking about Spacetime.
Search "Spacetime is doomed"
"The union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggests that “space-time is doomed”, and there are related indications of fundamental limitations to quantum mechanics in both the early and late universe."
"Time is an emergent phenomenon for internal observers but absent for external observers of the universe."
"Developments in physics suggest the non-existence of time is an open possibility, and one that we should take seriously."
"The union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggests that spacetime as a basic concept is doomed."
So what made you think a newer, deeper understanding of the universe wouldn't include a newer, deeper version of spacetime? After all, we didn't abandon gravity when general relativity came along.
Logically, some thing cannot derive from no thing.
Since this infers infinite regression [as well as infinite progression], there is no logical justification to refer to such as "fallacy". [re "Turtles all the way down."]
Explanation of apparent beginnings [such as with our universe] therefore has to be seen as points within infinity...
That does not seem to follow, can you break that down into further steps? Seems like there is some unstated premise hidden in there, perhaps something like "all things are derived from something else?"
The idea is based on the theory of entropy.
Search "the theory of entropy"
"In classical physics, the entropy of a physical system is proportional to the quantity of energy no longer available to do physical work. Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system any activity increases the entropy."
That doesn't answer my question, why would that imply there would be a time when there would be no objects?
Are you sure the use of the word 'time' is appropriate in the sentence "it took time for energy to turn into matter"
Pretty sure, yes. It took the existence of time itself, and the passage of time.
Could it be that there is a state where size and time are unmeasurable? Roger Penrose believes it is possibly the state of singularity. No size and no time as with the singularity, there is no thing to compare that with.
And that's why we say time itself had a beginning: no time with the singularity, now there is time.
Is energy separate from matter, or just another manifestation of matter?
That's just semantics, if energy counts as object, then your earlier question become invalid, the premise that the was a time when there were no objects, would be false.
There are also the imaginary numbers.
Even so, just because we identify these as 'types' does not mean these types exist in their own infinity separate from each other and outside of an Overall Infinity.
Conceptually separating them appears counter-productive, even working against the theory of everything.

Sure, we can identify the compartments re these different realities, but I think it is an overstep to treat them as all fundamentally different, implying different sources.
Why would they have to be fundamentally different though, for some infinities to have a beginning and some not to? Why can't infinites with beginnings and those without be part of an overall infinity?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #656

Post by William »

So why are you so confident in declaring that time does not physically exist in the universe?
For the same reasons as numbers do not physically exist. They don't physically exist.
[Replying to Bust Nak in post #655]

But how could you know that, when you don't know what time is fundamentally?
The same way as I know that the mind does not physically exist. I do not know if the mind is fundamental to the physical universe but I suspect [strongly] that the physical universe would be useless without it.

So the mind wouldn't be so useful without mathematics and time [the obvious Daughter [subset] of numbers] and therefore - while not obvious in any way - it is possible that Mind is a fundamental property of our universe...and that Mathematics is a Son [subset] of said Mind.

Point being - all known conceptual properties of the mind are known to exist only in the mind, and are not physically real and can only be represented physically as "unreal but existing anyway" or some such other appropriate entitlement...
So what made you think a newer, deeper understanding of the universe wouldn't include a newer, deeper version of spacetime? After all, we didn't abandon gravity when general relativity came along.
It may indeed be the case that Physicists are not being careful with their heading and wording. "Doomed" does imply the certainty of death...I am only relaying the basic information. I do my own digging and for now, accept the verdict being pronounced upon spacetime by physicists themselves. If you have contrary information, I am keen to view it.
Logically, some thing cannot derive from no thing.
Since this infers infinite regression [as well as infinite progression], there is no logical justification to refer to such as "fallacy". [re "Turtles all the way down."]
Explanation of apparent beginnings [such as with our universe] therefore has to be seen as points within infinity...
That does not seem to follow, can you break that down into further steps?
Someone already has. Please watch the video I posted earlier on in this thread...the one with the visuals of a flyover of the Mandelbrot Set.
Seems like there is some unstated premise hidden in there, perhaps something like "all things are derived from something else?"
And "something else" is "all things".
The idea is based on the theory of entropy.
Search "the theory of entropy"
"In classical physics, the entropy of a physical system is proportional to the quantity of energy no longer available to do physical work. Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system any activity increases the entropy."
That doesn't answer my question, why would that imply there would be a time when there would be no objects?
Without energy, what is left to construct and maintain shapeform from the field of quantum particles?
Are you sure the use of the word 'time' is appropriate in the sentence "it took time for energy to turn into matter"
Pretty sure, yes. It took the existence of time itself, and the passage of time.
Just checking.

I think the more appropriate word to use in that sentence would have to be;

"it took a false premise for energy to turn into matter" as energy does not turn into matter. Energy holds the shape of matter. Matter already existed. The theory of entropy has it that energy is passing through quantum field and creating form as it does so. As "time" marches on, the past becomes a "wake" like footprints in the snow and eventually disappear as if energy had simply been a Ghost in passing.

So. Do you think that "Time" = "Energy"? Or do you think are separate entities, doing their own separate thing?
Could it be that there is a state where size and time are unmeasurable? Roger Penrose believes it is possibly the state of singularity. No size and no time as with the singularity, there is no thing to compare that with.
And that's why we say time itself had a beginning: no time with the singularity, now there is time.
"We" also say that time will keep going on forever...yet the past is fading into black...in order for time to last forever, energy has to also exist forever.

Energy cannot have simply farted itself into existence. Therefore logic informs us that it is likely that energy has existed forever...has always existed. Has never - not existed.
Is energy separate from matter, or just another manifestation of matter?
That's just semantics, if energy counts as object, then your earlier question become invalid, the premise that the was a time when there were no objects, would be false.
That depends entirely on the plain of the Quantum field.
For example, if the field is spherical, the energy moving over it and stirring it up into objects of matter, may be no more than a blip on the plain of the Quantum field. Once the energy moves on, the effect on that region diminishes until - once more - the deep silence returns.
Sure, we can identify the compartments re these different realities, but I think it is an overstep to treat them as all fundamentally different, implying different sources.
Why would they have to be fundamentally different though, for some infinities to have a beginning and some not to? Why can't infinites with beginnings and those without be part of an overall infinity?
I am fine with that idea as long as it is agreed there is only - fundamentally - the one Source. The apparent differences are not denoting "many sources".

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #657

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:25 pmGOD cannot create 'something extra' if GOD is already perfect and complete.

You seem to be saying the alternative is logically impossible. What is your positive argument for that?

On the flip side, an opponent simply needs to present a logically possible situation that, if true, shows that your ‘principal’ is not logically necessary. I feel like orthodox Christianity provides a logically possible alternative, where God is seen to be Love prior to creation. God is perfect and complete. But, because God is Love, God creates other beings to experience love as well. Love is so perfect and complete that it naturally desires new substances to broaden those who can find their completeness in this Love.
William wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:25 pmIf GOD is eternally growing and changing, the yes - you would make a good point re brand new substances [additions] able to be created.

God, as Love, remains the same throughout the whole process.
William wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:25 pmPlease watch the video. My words project the gist, whereas with the addition of the visuals the video gives, that gist becomes more understandable.

The visual shows what use of words alone, make hard to describe.

I watched the video. I wasn’t expecting just the imagery or I would have watched that before. Still, I’m not understanding why you think that the equation and video show an actually infinite series has start and end points, that an infinite regression is logically possible, or that an infinite regression would show that GOD is possible.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #658

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:12 amCommon enough to be in dictionary isn't common enough for you?

Not when the other meaning is also there.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:12 amThat's all fine, but I think it's worth pointing out that the article is not saying the universe is curved.

Okay. But you brought it up to support that the current scientific thinking is that the universe is an actual infinite in extent. It doesn’t claim that.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:12 amThere are, but it's common sense to use the mathematicians version when trying to make sense of mathematical concept like the size of a set or how infinity + 1 = infinity.

There are two mathematical meanings, though. Infinity as a boundary and infinity as a number. We are asking the question if infinity can be a number. In support of saying “yes, it can” you bring up the meaning that says “assuming it can be a number these are the things that would follow.” We can’t assume the answer to the question we are asking.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:12 amThat's not correct. Read it again, 16) does not say the whole series has the property P. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts.
So, you are claiming that:

(15) The series only has members that can be moved through and
(16) The series' members all can be moved through.

Those seem to be two ways to say the same thing, then. Regardless of that, this argument has nothing to do with our discussion. We've been talking about moving through the entire series, not how parts of the series can all be moved through.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #659

Post by William »

GOD cannot create 'something extra' if GOD is already perfect and complete.
[Replying to The Tanager in post #657]
You seem to be saying the alternative is logically impossible.
Can we agree that attributes re GOD are "perfect and complete", or do you have issue with that?
God is perfect and complete. But, because God is Love, God creates other beings to experience love as well. Love is so perfect and complete that it naturally desires new substances to broaden those who can find their completeness in this Love.
That in itself is not evidence of 'something extra.' This is because such can be done within the perfect completeness of GOD, but cannot be done outside of the perfect completeness of GOD.
I watched the video. I wasn’t expecting just the imagery or I would have watched that before. Still, I’m not understanding why you think that the equation and video show an actually infinite series has start and end points, that an infinite regression is logically possible, or that an infinite regression would show that GOD is possible.
You do not understand what the video imagery is implying?
You could not relate the replicated black shape speckled infinitely throughout the imagery as indicative of begin/end points?
Image
You could not relate to the fractal arms going off these points as examples of infinite paths developing off of these points?
Image

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #660

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:26 pm Not when the other meaning is also there.
What other meaning of infinity implies that it is not a quantity?
Okay. But you brought it up to support that the current scientific thinking is that the universe is an actual infinite in extent. It doesn’t claim that.
Okay, so scientists can't definitely conclude that it is infinite, but that doesn't mean current scientific thinking isn't that the universe is an actual infinite. Either way, the observation is consistent with an universe actual infinite in extent, is that better? Scientists are seriously considering it so actual infinities should not be ruled out as self-contradictory. Also note that I've been very careful with qualifying my claims with "given an infinite universe."
There are two mathematical meanings, though. Infinity as a boundary and infinity as a number. We are asking the question if infinity can be a number. In support of saying “yes, it can” you bring up the meaning that says “assuming it can be a number these are the things that would follow.” We can’t assume the answer to the question we are asking.
In support of saying "yes, it can" I bring up the definition that says "yes, it is." There is no assuming it can at all. (Also, better to say quantity rather than number here, infinity is definitely not a number like the number 5 is a number.)
(15) The series only has members that can be moved through and
(16) The series' members all can be moved through.

Those seem to be two ways to say the same thing, then. Regardless of that, this argument has nothing to do with our discussion.
You do remember stating that the question we are discussing is whether one can move through all members of an infinite series, right? Earlier you accepted that a series can be completed if each element can be moved through. So here you have a deductive proof that an infinite process can be completed. Seems to have everything to do with our discussion.
We've been talking about moving through the entire series, not how parts of the series can all be moved through.
I fail to see the difference between moving through the entire series, and moving through each and every single last one parts of a series. What difference is there?

Post Reply