Garbles18

I understand how a discrete flow of time could be seen conceptually, but I don't see how it could be true mathmatically. No matter how small a scale of time between two points, you can always divide by 2 to get an even smaller scale. But let's say that time is discrete and .000001 seconds and .0000011 seconds exist, but the possible infinite set of moments between never happened since time flows in discrete units of .0000001. Even if it is possible, it seems really silly to argue it. It's like saying that it is possible that the sun does not exist for any fraction of a second that no one is looking at it. You can't prove it because it only happens when the sun isn't being observed by anyone and it only lasts an instant.

Clutch

G-18: note my post above. We're not really talking about the number of temporal instants; we're talking about some sequence of events. Whether time is discrete or continuous, we can individuate events in a way that makes each one end just as its immediate successor begins.

The central question is whether a temporal succession of events, with a structure mirroring that of the infinite natural numbers, would entail the completion of an infinite number of events. The answer is No.

Hence the FC argument fails.

luvluv

wiploc:

Either you have misunderstood my posts to a point which I almost do not deem possible, or you are not reading them.

When I say that the cosmological argument is not sound, I mean it is not sound in establishing God. I believe it succesfully argues for a first cause. I've said that several times.

I am not claiming that first cause must be God. I've said that several times.

I am not claiming, from Craig's extension of the cosmolgical argument, that any God can be established from that extension other than the broadly theistic God. I've said that several times.

Clutch:

I'm pretty sure the answer is Yes. The temporal succession of events you are referring to is infinite, is it not?

tronvillian:

Kick the ballistics, G.

tronvillain

Pardon?

Clutch

The answer is No.

The succession of events is infinite. Specifically, it is countably infinite, like the natural numbers, which means that there exists no element in the series -- no event in the past -- more than finitely removed from the present.

In other words, it is mathematical fact that such a series contains no point P such that getting from P to now requires completing an infinite series of events. Since the series contains no such point, it is simply a misrepresentation to claim that this infinite-past model entails the completion of an infinite series.

Garbles18

I think I understand what you are saying. Tell me if I'm wrong. You are saying that it doesn't matter if the universe was infinitely old because between any point in the past and the present time, a finite amount of time has passed. And whether or not time is continuous, a finite amount has passed between two points in time. Hence, luvluv is wrong in stating that an infinite amount of time needs to be traversed to get to the present if time is infinitely regressive.

If that is what you are saying then I agree and I don't see how luvluv could possibly argue against that.

tronvillain

Unless you are like wiploc, and say something like this:
He is definitely talking about starting at a given point in time and completing an infinite series to reach the present point in time.

luvluv

tronvillian:

Roughly translated: "Make your case, friend!"

Clutch:

I get that, but we don't have the luxury of only counting from a finite point FORWARDS. For infinite regress to work we have to assume that ALL the infinite events in the series have actually taken place, and that would require an infinite number of events to have actually COMPLETED before the present. You are essentially saying, it seems to me, that if we ignore the fact that the regress is actually supposed to be INFINITE, and only concern ourselves with some finite point BEFORE infinity, then there are no problems.

Well, of course not. But if we are trying to make sense of the entire infinite series, which is what I am doing, then it does represent a problem. There is, supposedly, an infinite number of events involved in the ENTIRE regress, and I am trying to discuss the regress in it's entirety.

Tangentially, I have a problem with every day adding another 24 hours of events to a regress which is already, supposedly, infinite. If we can add to it, then how can it actually be infinite in extent?

Make me understand.

Garbles:

Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz.

Mageth

"To Infinity, and Beyond!"

I'm pretty sure that infinity + 1 = infinity.

tronvillain

Make my case? I already have a couple of times, but the only response you have given is to alter your position slightly in ways that make essentially no difference.