tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post291517149296851102..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: The Kalam and the InfiniteRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-58706334144147379282011-05-25T22:21:12.072-04:002011-05-25T22:21:12.072-04:00Hi Evan thanks so much for your comment! To be hon...Hi Evan thanks so much for your comment! To be honest, I don't do much with set theory myself. Are you referring to work done by or based on Cantor's set theory? As I understand it, it is quite intuitively faulty. It works in theory, <i>given its own axioms</i>, but what's to say these axioms would work in reality? They are not logically necessary. Hence, these axioms, which we can employ to stop absurdities like Hilbert's Hotel, or the orbits of two planets rotating at differing speeds from all eternity equaling each other, cannot <b>in reality</b> be utilized. There's just no stopping the absurdities an actual infinite in reality engenders.<br /><br />AS to the infinite divisibility of time (or indeed, anything else for that matter), I think we can use both intuition and a thought experiment or two. First, the intuitive: with an object, such as the handle on a baseball bat, we would not say that it is made up of an actually infinite number of, say, wood particles. We wouldn't say this even if an objector responded that for any and every wood particle we produce, we may simply divide it in half and have another. The reason? It would then follow <i>everything</i> was actually infinite! Similarly, with time, it seems absurdly counterintuitive that any second that passes is actually infinite, even though that second can be divided over and over, <i>ad infinitum</i>. <br /><br />Second, the thought experiment. Really, it is simply analysis. Infinite divisibility does not get one to traverse an actually infinite number of moments. For in order to do this, the intervals themselves must be progressively smaller as they approach an absolute zero (or Planck time, if you wish). But when added they can only form a distinct and whole interval of time that is not actually infinite! <br /><br />Further, let us suppose we grant them an actual infinite in this way (that is, even given what is above, we admit it is an infinite). In this case, however, it does not at all follow the universe did not have a beginning; for in this case an actually infinite number of divided moments passed to form the whole traversed sequence, which, as far as anyone can tell from scientific models, had an absolute beginning! It won't do to claim the argument above as still demonstrating an actual infinite and then abandon the argument when it comes to the beginning of the universe. Great question my friend and brother!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-38725368577376697692011-05-24T21:04:42.542-04:002011-05-24T21:04:42.542-04:00Hey Randy,
What do you make of objections from Su...Hey Randy, <br />What do you make of objections from Supersets? I've looked around on the internet and haven't been able to find much material on philosophical debate about supersets disproving the conception of the impossibility of an actual infinite. Though the argument from supersets seems intuitively faulty to me, since when one speaks about "added events" in time, he speaks of equal intervals being added, not each interval being half the other. <br /><br />Also, what is your opinion about the infinite divisibility of time? <br /><br />Thank you brother!<br />EvanEvan G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02869771323426128506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-21312856071962467362011-04-03T07:44:45.023-04:002011-04-03T07:44:45.023-04:00I have only had the opportunity of perusing those ...I have only had the opportunity of perusing those articles. I find Wes to be quite interesting, as it seems he is always working on another objection to the kalam. For the life of me, I can never figure out why. :) Thanks for commenting!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-80879355707826064132011-04-02T20:58:42.209-04:002011-04-02T20:58:42.209-04:00Have you seen the articles on the Kalam and the in...Have you seen the articles on the Kalam and the infinite in the last issue of Faith and Philosophy by Craig and Wes Morriston? Very interesting.blogGNOSIShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04439857308152710097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-59674611978320017002011-04-02T12:25:36.687-04:002011-04-02T12:25:36.687-04:00Thanks for commenting Rk! Typically, what is meant...Thanks for commenting Rk! Typically, what is meant just is space and time in reality when we say "the universe." Because of how time is construed both philosophically and physically, "space" as such could not exist without time; space just being that physical material reality we're discussing. But yes, there is always "wiggle room" in any argument of which we're not 100% certain; but certainty is largely a red herring. If anyone is looking for "wiggle room" while accepting the basic idea of premises, they're typically trying to avoid the conclusion more than anything else! :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-2215852606881374582011-04-02T12:11:23.843-04:002011-04-02T12:11:23.843-04:00Thanks for this!
I think when discussing this i...Thanks for this! <br /><br />I think when discussing this issue it is important to define what we mean by "the universe". Do we mean this, i.e., our universe? Do we mean The Universe of universes, encompassing multiverses (if they exist)? Or, do we mean, "physical reality"? If we mean the latter, then isn't there some wiggle room where the anti-theist can argue, "well, time as such may not have existed, but something physical may well have, which at some point begat time?". Just a thought. <br /><br />In my experience, all arguments for theism, while reasonable and persuasive even to the reasonable person, leave some wiggle room for the atheist.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.com