Some future events, especially those which are more immediate, would have a probability approaching an infinite value — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you mean probability approaching 1?

It is a basic ontological mistake to extend a causal chain into the future, — Metaphysician Undercover

In the physical world perhaps. In the idealized mathematical world it is fairly easy to do.

Everything, everywhere all at once.

Best picture winner last year. I have to say: meh. — Mikie

I agree. I gave up and turned to something else. Too much like a video game.

Barbie, on the other hand . . . . :smile:

The mathematical waveform is not a real thing — Gnomon

:up:

There are no material waveforms in Reality — Gnomon

Ocean waves might be considered as waveforms, although they are erratic. Radar, etc. are waveforms in reality.

So there exists semantics for infinitesimals (and their reciprocals) that does not imply the existence of infinite time, space or information (which is the unfortunate result of misinterpreting such numbers as literally denoting limitless extensions) — sime

Excellent posts. Very thought-provoking. :up:

That's what I do, take everything to the most base level, and lay it out plain and simple. But the simple confuses many because at the most simple level things are complex. — Metaphysician Undercover

:cool:

These are avenues of thought that lie close to First Causes. However, my mathematical approach provides tangible examples that can be picked apart. Otherwise the discussion devolves quickly into "Yes, they exist" and "No, they don't" - virtually theological banter.

And don't forget the other end of causal chains - do they terminate in the future, or peter out into nothingness. And by what mechanisms do they interact? At least these are not simply beliefs.

But, good thread, everyone. :smile:

quick-witted — jgill

:lol: Come on. — Mikie

I might be wrong. I had just watched a clip from a Biden press conference.

Philosophy should meet the same standard of clarity met by math — ucarr

Let's start with Being compared with, say, Complex number. :roll:

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim

It is limited to things uncaused, surely. — AmadeusD

Unless a clear, non-debatable physical example arises the things uncaused may be the empty set.

I would assume that those who do not understand that this is a form of rounding off, and claim that the two expressions are actually the same, despite the glaring difference in meaning between them, are lost in self-deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you for illuminating this issue for the fifth graders on the forum.

Is this the way forward in philosophy - to create new expressions or words, then debate them? Actually, it resembles math in this respect, other than math defines the expression clearly.

↪jgill
You kidding? The last presidential debate between the two was a disaster for Trump. He completely derailed the debate, talked over everyone, including the moderator, and kept devolving into outright raves. — Wayfarer

I watched him for awhile in the recent town hall meeting in Iowa and he looked quick witted and vibrant. We'll see where all this goes. Curious times. I still think Michelle Obama could be chosen at the convention, with Biden retiring. She would have my vote.

Wonder if this will continue forward, when it's Biden vs Trump: why even give the respect for the other candidate by debating him face to face? — ssu

I think Trump is eager for a debate with Biden. He's much more quick-witted and energetic than Slow Joe. Biden's cabal may keep him from debating.

Thank you, Mr Surge the Borders President — jgill

I'm wondering though, would this be sufficient to vote Clown?
From my spot, nope, but I'm no Denverite. — jorndoe

If you live in an area where children are removed from school buildings on occasion to make room for illegal immigrants, or hospitals shut down, then perhaps Clown doesn't look so bad.

What was the worst thing he did in his first term, prior to January 6th?

I am prepared for a deluge . . . . . . :scream:

Do multiple causation chains spring into being with first causes or first cause?

By the time you have reached the seventh or eighth article you should be looking at something to do with philosophy. — Sir2u

Two that I am intimately acquainted with went in two steps to the definition of mathematics, as you predict.

The topic remains an opposition between infinitism and foundationalism, with Philosophim taking a foundationalist position. The alternative is an acceptance of infinite complexity, — Banno

An infinite chain of reasons or causation chain may be finite in the sense that as one moves further and further back in time the passage or rate at which time moves (I know, sloppy) possibly changes all the way down to zero.

Infinite complexity to me means all the transfinite stuff that set theory produces. It may never arise in the physical world.

Denver Hospital System may fail due to Treating Migrants

Thank you, Mr Surge the Borders President. :roll:

Blame the Democrats for running a corpse for President. — Hanover

I thought the problem was he was asleep at the wheel. :roll:

I have been looking into what Sir Roger Penrose has to say about transfinite theory in physics, and it appears he thinks it can arise in computational physics as that discipline evolves. He speaks of data fields and defines expressions like ${{\infty }^{r{{\infty }^{q}}}}$.

As for physics outside data fields he doesn't forsee transfinitism. As much as I have read.

Hence you can have people working in science who say they don't care at all about philosophy. — ssu

:smile:

It may not be easy to keep this thread from drifting away from the transfinite.

For all the discussions about the Grandfather Paradox, timelines, alternate histories, etc. I don't think humans will ever travel physically to the past, although in theory we are now able to travel to the future slower and slower via spaceships.

We "travel" to the past when we look at an old photo or watch an old TV show. That kind of technology might develop into a means of recording virtually everything in a particular sphere of activity, allowing those in the future to "travel" into the past without any paradoxes or violations of physical laws. In this sense time travel is dependent upon the present preparing for the future travelers.

If you think physical time travel to the past is possible, begin by explaining how.

That we don't have any use for the larger infinities in physics, at least yet, makes it doubtful that the Cantorian idea of larger and larger infinities is valid. — ssu

I recall from my functional analysis courses the Hahn-Banach theorem, which deals with extending linear functionals on manifolds. This was the only time I encountered transfinitism. Even then a simple change in the hypotheses eliminated the need for going into multiple infinities. It's possible this theorem is the basis for a part of a mathematical process used in quantum theory. We'd have to ask an expert.

Add: Practical Transfinite

The key point is this: we can conceive of an object being non-existent at one moment and existent the next – we do not need to even introduce the notion of “cause” into this thought experiment. — expos4ever

And that's all it is, a mental feat, like flapping my wings and soaring to the moon. We are blessed with the ability to be creative, and much of which we imagine can be brought forth in the real world through our efforts. But not the miracle apple.

I must, however, admit that my examples of causal chains with/without first causes is nothing more than a mathematical illusion, like your apple. :cool:

Yet if there's a Continuum Hypothesis, we clearly don't understand everything about infinity. — ssu

I think much of what we don't understand is a result of definitions in set theory. And when transfinite theory is incorporated into physics, practitioners take notice. I wonder if that has happened?

Anyhow, good luck in keeping this thing going. :smile:

It's a two way street — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course it is. Virtual particles is fair game for both sides of the intellectual coin. And as I mentioned there seems to be a spectrum between virtual and real, which is fascinating. At some point in this spectrum may be where mathematics is reified.

Thanks for the Floridi remark. I'm looking into it now. New territory for me. :smile:

I was a gymnast in the 1950s and a rock climber up until the early 2000s. Never smoked, never used drugs, but used to have a highball or two every other day up 'til around 2000 when I retired.

Now, at 86, I still do some pull-ups and short hill walking every few days. But I have arthritis all over my body, so I am recently using a cane. I continue minor mathematical explorations. You remember what Sachel said . . . :cool:

What is the specific prior event that caused the decay of that atom at that time? — EricH

That's a problem with virtually all causality chains. There may not be just one cause at each step, there may be many, and so chains interact with one another. The complications are staggering, as your example implies. To all extents and purposes it appears random.

↪jgill

Maybe you can shed some light as to why massed randomness seems so ordered. — mentos987

The Central Limit Theorem may be what you are talking about, although this ancient thread goes all over the place.The CLT concerns arithmetic averages of n observations as the value of n goes to infinity.

This thread might also involve the notion that in an infinite period of time all things that are possible will occur. That's pretty vague.

I haven't used probability theory in over thirty years. @fdrake is more knowledgeable.

But yes in the end everything becomes equally probable. — IP060903

Perhaps someone would offer a proof. :chin:

The question is really about what caused the set of causality to be. If the universe has a finite chain of causality, what caused that to be? If the universe has an infinitely regressive chain of causality, what caused that to be? There is no prior cause in either case. It would be that set without prior explanation; it simply would be — Philosophim

Well, this is certainly a deep issue. Good luck. Nice chatting with you. :smile:

One thing is infinity, that set theory takes just as an axiom — ssu

Not all mathematicians are set theorists. "Without bound" works pretty well for some of us, without transfinite or philosophical overtones.

I have to say I find it pretty annoying, and even irresponsible. — Jamal

I apologize if I have offended you. I seem to have misinterpreted the situation.


Radio Free Europe

Al Jazeera

BBC

The implication being that, were there no law against it.... :yikes: — Wayfarer

Oh, if only that nitwit president had not invited the world to surge the border. Guess Robert Gates is right. Sad state of affairs. Maybe Michelle will rescue our country.

The probability of measuring some part of a system can be computed from the wave function. I've not heard the result of that computation being referred to as a 'wave', but I'm sure it is somewhere — noAxioms

The Schrödinger equation's solution is called a wave function. If one simplifies the equation considerably it has the form dQ/dt=kQ, which has solutions involving e^it=cost+isint, giving it repetitive or wave-like characteristics.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your comment.

and now Russia but not for much longer! — Jamal

Escape before you're drafted! I hear Putin is even militarizing migrants.

As a mathematician I don't recommend this topic for this forum. There are not many of us here with knowledge of transfinite theory. But maybe some interest will be sparked and the thread will be better populated than I imagine. :cool:

Lets envision an a thought experiment of an actual chain as a visual. — Philosophim

What I have produced in mathematical terms is an actual chain - I can make it more specific with definitions of functions, etc. if you desire. Your actual chain is a complete abstraction.

What I have shown is that first cause is more complicated than what the ancients understood. In my example, n going to infinity, using the same z at each value of n produces an infinite causal chain having that z as a sort of ultimate first cause. I would think this example would stir original philosophical thought rather than a regurgitation of traditional ideas. :chin:

Another causal chain question: Do infinite chains ever end? Can infinite chains have specific values? Think going the other direction, into the future.

I tried to understand cases where numbers are physical entities, but I must admit that I couldn't possibly think of any case number that can be regarded as a physical object — Corvus

:up:

In physics, isn't time just clock-time? Kind of a practical use, rather than a discussion of what it is? — AmadeusD

Seems that way to me. I use time as t, a non-negative real number, in my math. I think most have given up on what time is. But arguments about whether points in time exist or time is durations or intervals persist. See Bergson vs Einstein and Peter Lynds.

Is there's a boil-down source to understand the concept? — AmadeusD

I wish. Time dilation shows that the passage of time is relative to motion, so in a way time is linked to change.

A particle can assume the characteristics of a wave in an experiment and can be shown to exhibit the characteristics of a more conventional particle by changes in the experiment. But the wave form of the particle is not the probability wave of the particle is it?

Though, maybe i'm missing a trick but it seems to be that your suggestion presupposes an 'actual' time, independent of objects passing, rather than time being a description, or set of relations between objects — AmadeusD

I agree with MU here. If it were not for Minkowski spacetime allowing rest frames and thus the "passage" of time with no physical changes I would think time required change.