But X+1>X — Devans99

Small point: not true for (at least) transfinite cardinal numbers.

Small point: not true for (at least) transfinite cardinal numbers — tim wood

The definition of the first transfinite number is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. No way is that a number. It's a conception of a mad man.

I should point out that there is only one kind of infinity; by definition it is the largest thing, so it's not possible to have two of the largest things; one of them would not be infinity. If you want to take a look at what sort of nonsense the opposite assumption produces, then bijection is the term to google. You will find that the procedure produces plainly laughable results such as the set of natural numbers being the same size as the set of rational numbers (the 2nd is clearly infinitely larger than the first).

What are we to make of the rules for working with transfinite cardinals:

∞+1=∞.

If you buy the first point about a single type of infinity, then the above expression immediately leads to 1=0. Even if you don't, there is something deeply wrong with it. In english, it's saying that 'there exists something, that when you change it, it does not change'. What sort of object behaves like that? No objects behalf like that, so does it deserve to be enshrined at the heart of a supposedly logical discipline (maths)?

With eternalism, isn't it the case that we experience a series of "nows"?

You could think of it like that, but physics makes no distinction between now and past/present and in relativity, there is no preferred reference frame.

Fantasy land. Learn some admittedly not-quite-but-almost basic maths.

I've learnt it. I reject the parts of it associated with Actual Infinity (set theory).

I've no time for stuff like this - philosophical incantations that purport to tell the world how it has to be. It's magical thinking and it doesn't work.

physics makes no distinction between now and past/present and in relativity, there is no preferred reference frame. — Devans99

And when exactly does physics do this? If physics don't realise that I am quoting you after you have posted and not before, physics is a dick. Obviously there is no reference frame in which there is no preferred reference frame.

I've no time for stuff like this - philosophical incantations that purport to tell the world how it has to be. It's magical thinking and it doesn't work — unenlightened

It's logical thinking. Why don't you try to find a problem with it rather than posting rants.

And when exactly does physics do this? If physics don't realise that I am quoting you after you have posted and not before, physics is a dick. Obviously there is no reference frame in which there is no preferred reference frame — unenlightened

Nowhere in physics is the concept of now enshrined... so I can't point you to where, it's nowhere.

Nowhere in physics is the concept of now enshrined... — Devans99

So much the worse for physics. You are doing the same magical thinking again. Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have. Actually, physics works the other way around. Look at what's around and let that guide your thoughts. The reason the particularity of the present of 'here' and 'now' does not appear in physics is that physics is abstract; so it is general and not particular. You are looking at a map, and declaring that because you and I do not appear on the map, we must not exist.

You are doing the same magical thinking again. Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have — unenlightened

I think you will find that 'Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have' is part of philosophy and science.

I've learnt it. I reject the parts of it associated with Actual Infinity (set theory). — Devans99

It's not a la carte, it's prix fixe, no choice. Eat, or starve, or live - starve - in fantasy land.

It's not a la carte, it's prix fixe, no choice. Eat, or starve, or live - starve - in fantasy land — tim wood

It is a fact that not everything you were taught at school is true. You need to be more skeptical and open minded.

I think you will find that 'Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have' is part of philosophy and science. — Devans99

Yes, but you think wrong. and because you think wrong and derive the way things must be from that wrong thinking, you get the world wrong. So as @tim wood points out you mistake your fantasy for reality, and talk bollocks and call it 'philosophy'.

So as tim wood points out you mistake your fantasy for reality, and talk bollocks and call it 'philosophy' — unenlightened

Your deterioration in language is symptomatic of someone losing an argument.

Instead of vague generalities; can you not come up with any specific counter arguments against the argument in the OP?

the argument in the OP? — Devans99

There's an argument in the op? My argument is the very simple one that arguments cannot constrain the universe they can only constrain talk. The world does not have to do what you or anyone else says, so if you want your talk to be true you have to say what it does, rather than tell it what it has to do.

Incidentally, if you take every negative comment as proof of your correctness you will never lose. I'll leave you to it from here.

The world does not have to do what you or anyone else says — unenlightened

But logic predates, transcends and governs the universe, so yes, the universe has to behave logically. Any time we find absurdities (infinite regresses), we can use those to narrow down the true nature of things. This is just part of basic logic.

But logic predates, transcends and governs the universe, so yes, the universe has to behave logically. — Devans99

Very anthropic, macranthropic, even. Then we daren't ask the question that is always fair to ask: why is there something instead of nothing? Logic, eh? If we knew the answer to this unanswerable question, maybe it would be possible to replace the concept of God with logic, maybe it could be dubbed "Godgic." This is suggestive of the belief mathematics was discovered, not invented. Where have we caught the universe doing its sums or solving equations like some sort of school boy? Is the universe a school boy?

To say that logic predates the universe is clearly more an act of poetry than logic because one of the most defining human characteristics, logic, has been projected onto the cosmos, and thus the cosmos has become a synecdoche for man and his logic.

Where have we caught the universe doing its sums like some sort of school boy? — Anthony

F=ma, e=mc^2, etc... when have we not caught the universe doing sums? It seems to follow purely mathematical rules. And thats what you'd expect; logic transcends everything and maths is just an extension of logic.

when have we not caught the universe doing sums? — Devans99

Only people have done this. You could only ever have seen people doing sums...what the logic and math describe is not the logic and math, but something different and something greater.

Is there not a moment when all that has happened has happened and all that will happen has yet to happen? There would be no motion in such a moment, and such a moment would be the present; any and all prediction can only be done in the present. Nothing has ever not happened in the present, nothing will ever happen not in the present. If we dig up documents (bones) of a dinosaur, it can only be done in the present. Quite literally, nothing can escape the present. There is mental time travel, which some consider to be magical thinking. Perhaps we can travel in akasha through time.

Nothing has ever not happened in the present — Anthony

So you mean the universe has never been completely at rest? Yes I agree, an at rest universe would be a dead universe.

Quite literally, nothing can escape the present — Anthony

There is the quantum eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment). It seems to suggest retro-causality; IE signals travelling from present to past.

You could think of it like that, but physics makes no distinction between now and past/present and in relativity, there is no preferred reference frame. — Devans99

Well, in terms of what we experience, how else could we think of it? Does anyone experience no distinction between now and past/present?

It is a weakness of standard eternalism that the present has no privileged status, whereas it does for us.

There is also a variation, moving spotlight theory, which is eternalism with a presentness indicator.

Presentism posits 'only now always existed' so all forms of it require an infinite regress, which is not only undesirable, its actually impossible:

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*. — Devans99

I don't understand this. First of all, you say an infinite regress is impossible. Why. Physicists speculate that the universe may be infinite in size, there may be infinite multi-verses. I admit that doesn't make intuitive sense to me, but there's a lot in physics that doesn't.

Also, how long is now? It can't be infinitesimal, or I wouldn't be able to have the experience I do. I looked it up on the web. Somebody says 3 seconds, which makes a certain sense to me. So, the life of the universe is just 3 seconds. All my memories of the past; speculations about the future; and present perceptions, thoughts, and feelings are happening in the 3 seconds. Seems silly, but not illogical.

Eternalism is the accepted view of the majority of physicists. — Devans99

Yeah, well, I don't think so. Show us some documentation. While we are at it, show us how presentism and eternalism can be differentiated by experiment or observation?

I should point out that there is only one kind of infinity — Devans99

Not true.

You could think of it like that, but physics makes no distinction between now and past/present and in relativity, there is no preferred reference frame. — Devans99

This is not true. Physicists say the universe is ~15 billion years old (past). They speculate on what will happen to it eventually, heat death? recollapse? (future). It's true there are different definitions of the direction of time and that the equations of physics work the same backwards and forwards, but it's also true if I drop a glass 5 feet onto concrete it will fall and break on the floor. (thermodynamic direction of time) It will then not spontaneously reassemble and jump back onto the counter.

But logic predates, transcends and governs the universe, so yes, the universe has to behave logically. — Devans99

Yeah...no. You have provided no argument showing this is true. Which it isn't . It's been argued many times on the forum. I don't suggest you take this on here, or the discussion will go off on a big tangent. Personally, I think the idea is silly. If you want to open a separate discussion, I'm sure people will participate.

F=ma, e=mc^2, etc... when have we not caught the universe doing sums? It seems to follow purely mathematical rules. And thats what you'd expect; logic transcends everything and maths is just an extension of logic. — Devans99

Again, no. and for the same reasons. In this case, it's worse, because you have made an error. "F = ma" is an expression from Newtonian physics, which has been supplanted by relativistic physics. It makes a good approximation at human scale speeds, but as things approach the speed of light, it becomes less and less accurate. For you to claim it as an example of the universe's obligation to follow logical rules is a mistake.

So if we experience a stream, a linear sequence of nows, where we don't experience the past and future in the same way, how do we avoid an infinite regress in terms of our temporal experience?

Infinity is not a number and cannot be represented by a number. it is a term to describe the nature of fractions.

There may be an infinity of numbers between zero and one. Zero represents the beginning, one represents the end. Therefor time doesn't have to begin or end.

No need to be so rude. You won't sensibly win anyone over that way.

No need to be so rude. You won't sensibly win anyone over that way. — Roland

Definition of "rude" - Offensively impolite or ill-mannered.

Please describe what I said that was rude. I made no comments about @Devans99, only the arguments that were made. Devans99 made statements that weren't backed up, that were wrong. Seems to me that you have too.

I see you are new. Welcome to the forum. Please believe I say that with no sarcasm or irony.

F=ma, e=mc^2, etc... when have we not caught the universe doing sums? — Devans99

Isn't it wonderful that when you drop something, it always falls down? Clearly there's a master or at least a housekeeper making everything run as smoothly as it does. Or has it occurred to you that the universe does what it does because that is all that it can do, and that maths and physics is just a modeling language that tries to describe that doing?

don't understand this. First of all, you say an infinite regress is impossible — T Clark

I gave a proof:

1.The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*. — Devans99

Or think of it this way. Each event in an infinite regress has a predecessor so each event makes sense on its own, but the series as a whole has no start so the series as a whole can't exist logically.

Physicists speculate that the universe may be infinite in size, there may be infinite multi-verses. — T Clark

The universe started expanding 14 billion years ago so common sense says it can only have reached a finite extent.

The leading multiple universe theory, Eternal Inflation, has a definite start in time, so there would be a finite but growing number of other universes under that theory.

While we are at it, show us how presentism and eternalism can be differentiated by experiment or observation? — T Clark

Presentism is the belief that 'only now always existed' so we need to look for evidence of a start of time (like the Big Bang).

but it's also true if I drop a glass 5 feet onto concrete it will fall and break on the floor. (thermodynamic direction of time) It will then not spontaneously reassemble and jump back onto the counter. — T Clark

The 2nd law works the same whether 'now' is involved or not; it does not matter whether you drop the glass now or 10 minutes ago or 10 minutes into the future, the result is the same. The 2nd law counts against presentism as proponents need to explain why entropy is so low.

So if we experience a stream, a linear sequence of nows, where we don't experience the past and future in the same way, how do we avoid an infinite regress in terms of our temporal experience? — Terrapin Station

The infinite regress occurs only with infinite time; if there is a start of time there is no infinite regress. If time is circular, there is no infinite regress. It's only the 'time goes back forever' model that is a problem.

Therefor time doesn't have to begin or end. — Roland

I think that time has a start and provably so (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1).

Or has it occurred to you that the universe does what it does because that is all that it can do, and that maths and physics is just a modeling language that tries to describe that doing? — tim wood

Information is unarguably real and logic is how information is processed. The universe is composed of information thus governed by logic.