So it would not exist, how can something have no size and exist?. A point is purely in our minds. How many things do you know that exist and have length zero? — Devans99

you are arguing against the factual mathematical definition of a point - If you have a problem conceptualizing this I can't help you.

Well I can understand not wanting to depart from the Presentist view point; it is after all our gut feeling for the way the world works. But presentism is logically impossible by the reasonable axiom 'events are caused by events'. And it causes paradoxes, some of which I pointed out earlier. It is fair to say I can't make my mind up between the two. — Devans99

Presentism as in only the present exists? I don't see how that's what I've implied. Or how that's made impossible by the axiom that events are caused by events.

I don't see how else you can make sense of prior events other than to trace them backwards. It's already implied by the wording, isn't it? If you were to depict a prior event, then wouldn't you put it behind another event? And if you kept doing that over and over again, you'll be depicting a backwards movement, or in the case of a circle, you'd be reversing around the perimeter of the circle. And if there's no end to that then that's an infinite regress, isn't it?

But on a fixed set of finite co-ordinates. So it could depending on how time works perhaps be a potential rather than actual infinity. It would also be more logically consistent that a linear infinite regress (which fails mathematically). — Devans99

All that matters in terms of the success or failure of your argument is whether it is an infinite regress, as I am arguing it is. So long as you have as part of your argument that an infinite regress is impossible, and so long as your model constitutes an infinite regress of a kind, as you now appear to be conceding, then it logically follows that your model is impossible, hence your argument fails.

I disagree with the conventional definition. It leads to a divide by zero error.

it logically follows that your model is impossible. — S

I would say it's a work in progress. All models of this nature have problems. This model has less problems than most IMO.

you have a creative mind

A continuous circle is only possible in the mind. — Devans99

A real circle is truly continuous, and its mere possibility is sufficient for its reality.

In reality circles are made of molecules of material which are discrete all the way down. — Devans99

You mean in actuality, which is only one subset of reality. Real circles are not "made of" anything.

A real circle is truly continuous, and its mere possibility is sufficient for its reality. — aletheist

But just because we can imagine something it does not mean it is possible. I can imagine squaring the circle all I like but its still impossible.

But just because we can imagine something it does not mean it is possible. — Devans99

Please give me an example of something that you can imagine, yet is logically (not just actually) impossible.

I can imagine squaring the circle all I like but its still impossible. — Devans99

Please tell me exactly how you can imagine squaring the circle.

I would say it's a work in progress. — Devans99

I would say that that's optimistic. I seem to have thrown a spanner in the works. But I wish you the best of luck in that endeavour. It has certainly been interesting so far to examine what you've been coming up with and to subject it to scrutiny.

Please give me an example of something that you can imagine, yet is logically (not just actually) impossible. — aletheist

A magician pulling a rabbit from a hat without using a trick of some sort.

Please tell me exactly how you can imagine squaring the circle. — aletheist

Well the square is similar to a circle but an octagon is more similar but I can construct an octagon so maybe I can get there. So superficially it seems possible but logically it is in fact impossible. So many things we can conceive of can never be in reality. An infinite regress in time for example as demonstrated earlier cannot exist in reality.

I would say that that's optimistic. I seem to have thrown a spanner in the works. But I wish you the best of luck in that endeavour. It has certainly been interesting so far to examine what you've been coming up and to subject it to scrutiny. — S

Not sure I entirely agree but thank you for your time also... very thought provoking.

A magician pulling a rabbit from a hat without using a trick of some sort. — Devans99

That is actually impossible, but not logically impossible.

Well the square is similar to a circle but an octagon is more similar but I can construct an octagon so maybe I can get there. So superficially it seems possible — Devans99

Similar ... more similar ... maybe ... superficially ... but I asked you to tell me exactly how you can imagine squaring the circle. You cannot, precisely because it is logically impossible.

An infinite regress in time for example as demonstrated earlier cannot exist in reality. — Devans99

Again, that is indeed actually impossible; but it is not logically impossible, because we can imagine it.

That is actually impossible, but not logically impossible. — aletheist

I agree. I would've said that although it may be physically impossible, it's not logically impossible.

"A magician pulling a rabbit from a hat without using a trick of some sort.
— Devans99
That is actually impossible, but not logically impossible. — aletheist

Then your axiom system contains magic. I'm trying to stay on the scientific side by avoiding magic.

Again, that is indeed actually impossible; but it is not logically impossible, because we can imagine it. — aletheist

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)
4. There must be a first event.

So just because we can imagine an mathematical infinite regress; it does exist mathematically.

I'm trying to stay on the scientific side by avoiding magic. — Devans99

No, you are obstinately ignoring the difference between actual impossibility and logical impossibility. I suggest that you study up on that distinction, since it is quite important in philosophy, as this discussion has shown.

The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number — Devans99

Literally no one agrees with that statement. We could correct it to say instead, "The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any finite number," but that is not self-contradictory at all; in fact, it is trivially true.

So just because we can imagine an mathematical infinite regress; it does[n't?] exist mathematically. — Devans99

Who said anything about "existing mathematically"? Because we can imagine an infinite regress, it is logically possible, even though it is actually impossible. See, there is that important distinction again!

"The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any finite number," but that is not self-contradictory at all; in fact, it is trivially true. — aletheist

But there are only finite numbers:

1. If actual infinity is a number, there must be a number larger than any given number.
2. But that’s contradictory.
3. Can’t be a number AND larger than any number.
4. So actual infinity is not a number
5. Invention of magic numbers runs contrary to the spirit of science.

Or

Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:
There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

But there are only finite numbers — Devans99

Says who? Not any actual mathematician (pun intended).

If actual infinity is a number, there must be a number larger than any given number — Devans99

First of all, who said anything about "actual infinity"? Secondly, it begs the question to insist up-front that "there must be a number larger than any given number"; that is not how numbers work.

Potential infinity I will leave to one side.

You can view actual infinity as the set of natural numbers { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }. The '...' indicates it is not completely defined in a logical sense. If it's not completely defined, it's not defined at all and it does not exist logically or mathematically.

Potential infinity I will leave to one side. — Devans99

Then why are we still having this conversation? I have never been arguing for actual infinity.

You can view actual infinity as the set of natural numbers { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }. — Devans99

If the set of natural numbers is actual, then where can I find it? Again, numbers are real, but not actual.

If it's not completely defined, it's not defined at all and it does not exist logically or mathematically. — Devans99

Again, says who? Not any actual logician or mathematician, I suspect.