I don't see how that follows, and I don't recall seeing an argument for that. Thus far, I've only assumed it for argument's sake. — S
The integers (negative and positive) comprise an infinite linear sequence. What is its first member? Which integer does not have a predecessor? — aletheist
No, that's not right. Any member that you single out will necessarily have a predecessor, even if you don't explicitly include it in the part of the sequence that you're focussing on. — S
There are twice as many integers as even numbers within any finite (and even) interval, but neither the set of all integers nor the set of all even numbers is finite. — aletheist
But it seems to me that time wouldn't really end, it would just transition over and over again infinitely. — S
What? It looks like you're running into contradiction again. If there's a member without a predecessor, then that must be a starting member. — S
What's supposedly finite in that model, then? You say that it's not infinite, but you're describing an infinite loop. You yourself say that the same events repeat themselves endlessly, and that there's no beginning or end, which means that it must be infinite. There isn't a first cause or a last effect, except in name alone. — S
I don't see how the objections to an infinite linear regression wouldn't equally apply to an infinite loop. You say that if there is no first member in the sequence, then the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist. Well, there is no first member in the sequence under your model. You're just arbitrarily picking a member in an infinite circular sequence and calling it that, but the same can be done in infinite linear sequence. — S
By such (il)logic, there should be twice as many integers as even numbers, which is also not the case. — aletheist
No, it doesn't. 4 might be twice two, but what could it mean to say it has twice the information? — Banno
So your mind is not in the real world? Infinity is not a thing like my cat or last Tuesday? What's going on here? Is infinity a thing like my mortgage? Like a unicorn? — Banno
If so, then there must be a first cause. Yet what is being called a first cause in the argument isn't actually a first cause, because it was caused by an effect which was presumably itself caused by an effect, and so on. So, there must be a first cause, but there isn't. :chin: — S
"The only answer is that the first cause was caused by the last effect.
— Devans99
Which suggests an infinite regress of cause and effect, if that's his answer when you zone in on this point each time. Yet he says that an infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible — S
How do you know? — Banno
Everyday experience tends to revolve around human beings. Human beings have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, an ever pending suicide event we rarely find interesting enough to discuss. Are human beings logical? This is who you are analyzing a realm so vast as to be beyond our comprehension with, suicidal cave men. — Jake
everything is an effect, which is precisely what proponents of an unmoved mover deny. — aletheist
As soon as you talk about comparing the "amount" of something, you are quantifying it, and thereby treating it as discrete — aletheist
What part of "motion is more fundamental than position" do you still not understand? Giving the position of something to any degree of precision requires measuring its distance from an arbitrary reference point at an arbitrary instant using an arbitrary unit. — aletheist
No, that progress itself through the space-time continuum (i.e., motion) is the fundamental reality; any discrete subdivisions of space and time are our arbitrary constructions. — aletheist
So entropy is not connected in anyway to time and vice-versa? — Pussycat
this process of big bang/crunch repeats itself indefinitely and eternally, right? — Pussycat
No, any real continuum could potentially be subdivided infinitely; it can never actually be subdivided infinitely. See the difference? — aletheist
Didn't you know that the mathematics of infinity is a kludge put there to force it into the arithmetic we use on finite numbers? — Pattern-chaser
How many times must I repeat that I am arguing for real continuity, not actual infinity, and that these are two distinct concepts? — aletheist
Only by ignoring the fact that the whole point of arguments for an unmoved mover is that there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect of some other cause — aletheist
No doubt they would say the same about your arguments here — aletheist