| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
18 Apr 2004 12:52:48 PM |
| Object: |
A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
This is a response to a post by Don Kresch in the threat titled
"Belated Reply to Christopher A. Lee on First Cause Arguments". I
noticed that what Don thinks is the proper first cause argument is
*NOT* my argument. So I will go over his comments, give my reposne,
and then give the first cause argument as I understand it (or my
version of the first cause argument, which is adapted for the most
part from William Lane Craig's arguments, though they may not be
identical). I would also welcome comments from anyone else (including
Christopher A. Lee).
they try to weasel out of it by saying "everything
that begins must have a cause" and special plead that god
didn't begin.
I never employed the premise "God didn't begin," so this is simply a
straw man. No premise in my argument will presuppose the existence of
God. Let's focus on the actual argument, which I will attempt to lay
out in this post. The arguments I present either stand or fall on
their own merits.
I challenge you to show one instance where I have presupposed
the existence of God. If you can't, your charge rings hollow.
That's what the basis of the argument is, bucko.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
2a (hidden) God did not begin to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. Therefore, the cause is god.
It's the way the argument works, bucko. No amount of your
whining will change it.
Of course, this is simply a straw man, as I have never used the
argument above. The above is not my argument. First, let's consider
the basic cosmological argument that is analogous to the above:
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
The argument is valid. Assuming it is sound also, does it prove God
exists? No, as it never invokes the existence of God (proponents of
brane theory will agree with every step of the argument, and simply
conclude that the universe came into existence at the Big Bang, which
was caused by a collision of branes). So from here, I need to move
into a first cause argument. I am *NOT* presupposing God's existence
here. I will lay out the premises. Let's focus on the premises (not on
what kind of a person others think I may be).
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
This seems to me to be a clear argument. It is certainly valid. If
there is only one causal regress, then there is a first cause. If
there are multiple indepedent causal regresses, there are multiple
first causes. Nonetheless, there is at least one first cause. Keep in
mind that, thus far in the argument, I have given no reason to assume
a first cause is anything like a deity. Nonetheless, were I to do so
successfully, we see that the door is wide open to polytheism (i.e.
some specific form of Monotheism, like Christianity, Judaism or Islam,
is not a sure thing, and I certainly will not be arguing for any
particular form of theism, nor have I ever done so in alt.atheism).
Before I make any attempt to move this argument towards something in
favor of theism, I want to discuss the argument as is, thus far.
Thus far, I can only glean that Don would dispute the second premise.
We had the following exchange:
My fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all. The only similarity is that Zeno also disagreed with the
existence of an actual infinite in reality (and he tried to use that
to dispute the existence of motion and time to try and lean in favor
of the Parmenidean Pantheism that he championed). Think of what Don is
saying above. He is claiming that if he moves his fingers (or anything
else) a finite distance, the distance traversed is actually infinite.
Actually, that is a contradiction. The distance is finite, though it
can be divided a potentially infinite number of times.
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality? It seems it is more conceptual.
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times. But what would be the distance of each
division? If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero. The number of points is
*POTENTIALLY* infinite. You cannot have an actual infinite (note that
if Don started listing all the points, exempli gratia: 1.1, 1.101,
1.10101, et cetera, he would only list a finite number of points,
though the number of points is, without a doubt, potentiall infinite).
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument. But the above moves
me to the next point. If time stretches back infinitely, i.e. if it is
without bound, then we could never reach this point. That is reason
alone for concluding that time has a bound. I never denied this, and,
contrary to Don's straw man above, I never claimed a certain thing
always existed in time.
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress, we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
What does this mean? What is this bifurcation between personal and
mechanical? Well, think of billiard balls. If you hit one, and it hits
another, which in turn hits still another, there are mechanical
reasons for the causes of these moving billiard balls. Each billiard
ball moved because it was caused to move. But the first cause (in the
restricted domain of this case, you) was a personal agent. To
understand why, imagine if rather than you hitting the first billiard
ball, it got up and moved on its own. I believe it is safe to assume
that either there was some other cause for the billiard ball moving,
or it really did get up and move on its own. But if it moved on its
own, that implies volition - it is a personal agent.
So, what we have is reason for believing in the existence of at least
one personal first cause. The question then becomes, how long has the
first cause existed (which brings us back to the issue of time above).
It could not have begun to exist, because then we would ask what is
the cause for its existence (but if it is the first cause, it cannot
have a cause, but if it has a cause, then it is not a first cause,
thus we push the chain back to the first cause). Now we already know
that time is finite, and from there we conclude that a first cause
could not always exist in a Newtonian time frame work for an eternity,
as it would have traverse an infinite to reach any given point, which
is impossible. What option does that leave us with? It seems to me
that we are left with either concluding that the personal first cause
existed outside of time, or existed within the finite period of time
that has elapsed (as it absurd to say that an infinite amount of time
elapsed), but "prior" to that it existed outside of time.
Notions of being prior to time are troublesome, as is movement outside
of time (though some proponents of Brane theory believe you can have
movement outside of time, so its impossibility is not self evident).
Nonetheless, that being said, we do have good a priori reason to
believe at least that every causal chain begins with a personal first
cause. If, for us, there is only one causal chain, then there is a
personal first cause responsible for all of this. That does not prove
God exists (much less a specific God), but, as I have said previously,
we start to grind close to a theistic position (that in the beginning,
there is a personal agent or agents that caused everything to come
about).
I have more to say, and can advance the argument further, but I would
like to see the comments of others (such as Don Kresch and Christopher
A. Lee, though certainly not only those two). All my premises have
been laid out, so those who wish to dispute my argument must knock off
one or more of my premises. In other words, those who disagree with my
conclusion that, at worst, we have good a priori reason to believe
there was at least one personal first cause, should be clear about
which premises they wish to dispute, and why.
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 Apr 2004 02:18:25 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:40:07 GMT, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> let us all know that:
On 18 Apr 2004 10:52:48 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
All my premises have
been laid out, so those who wish to dispute my argument must knock off
one or more of my premises. In other words, those who disagree with my
conclusion that, at worst, we have good a priori reason to believe
there was at least one personal first cause, should be clear about
which premises they wish to dispute, and why.
How about your initial premise:
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
QM disagrees.
He doesn't care. He wants his god.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
18 Apr 2004 10:09:17 PM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2004 10:52:48 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
First, let's consider
the basic cosmological argument that is analogous to the above:
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
The argument is valid. Assuming it is sound also, does it prove God
exists? No, as it never invokes the existence of God (proponents of
brane theory will agree with every step of the argument, and simply
conclude that the universe came into existence at the Big Bang, which
was caused by a collision of branes). So from here, I need to move
into a first cause argument. I am *NOT* presupposing God's existence
here. I will lay out the premises. Let's focus on the premises (not on
what kind of a person others think I may be).
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
I reject this premise.
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
This is also dubious - do things (in general) have singular causes?
It seems nearly everything has multiple mutually dependent causes.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
Does this argument apply within the universe or to the universe?
It seems that EVEN IF this argument was sound as to things within the
universe that does not mean it pertains to the universe itself.
(that would appear to be the fallacy of composition)
This seems to me to be a clear argument. It is certainly valid. If
there is only one causal regress, then there is a first cause. If
there are multiple indepedent causal regresses, there are multiple
first causes. Nonetheless, there is at least one first cause. Keep in
mind that, thus far in the argument, I have given no reason to assume
a first cause is anything like a deity. Nonetheless, were I to do so
successfully, we see that the door is wide open to polytheism (i.e.
some specific form of Monotheism, like Christianity, Judaism or Islam,
is not a sure thing, and I certainly will not be arguing for any
particular form of theism, nor have I ever done so in alt.atheism).
Before I make any attempt to move this argument towards something in
favor of theism, I want to discuss the argument as is, thus far.
Thus far, I can only glean that Don would dispute the second premise.
We had the following exchange:
My fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all. The only similarity is that Zeno also disagreed with the
existence of an actual infinite in reality
I believe it was Aristotle that invented "actual infinities" verse
"potential infinities".
Zeno was too subtle for Aristotle - he dropped the ball on this one.
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality? It seems it is more conceptual.
It is conceptual. A point is location without extent - it has no
"width".
"actual infinite" is also a concept, "potentially infinite" is also a
concept.
Unnecessary and misleading concepts in my humble opinion.
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times.
What if the distinction "actually infinite: and "potential infinite"
is not a meaningful distinction?
Replace every instance of "actual infinite" and Potential infinite"
with the words "boogedy boo" and "slooperty goo" in Aristotles/Craigs
prattle and see what difference it makes.
None at all.
But what would be the distance of each
division?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
How does the color orange taste?
If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero.
Hence - paradox.
Cool.
It's either infinite or not - putting the word "potentially" in there
changes nothing - it adds no information.
Zeno's paradox doesn't go away when you say "potential".
It's not a magical word - it has no magical power.
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
Why would you need to "traverse it" for it to exist?
It could exist AND not be traversable.
If the universe (in the sense of the Cosmos) has existed eternally
then an infinite exists AND you cannot traverse it.
There is no contradiction.
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument. But the above moves
me to the next point. If time stretches back infinitely, i.e. if it is
without bound, then we could never reach this point.
But "we" don't have to reach this point from an eternity ago - we only
have to reach from 40 years ago.
If the WHOLE is infinite the PARTS can be finite without a problem.
That is reason
alone for concluding that time has a bound.
I require a more coherent reason than that before I give my ascent to
such a proposition!
I never denied this, and,
contrary to Don's straw man above, I never claimed a certain thing
always existed in time.
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress,
But "we" don't see it at all.
we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
What does this mean?
Good question.
What is this bifurcation between personal and
mechanical? Well, think of billiard balls. If you hit one, and it hits
another, which in turn hits still another, there are mechanical
reasons for the causes of these moving billiard balls. Each billiard
ball moved because it was caused to move. But the first cause (in the
restricted domain of this case, you) was a personal agent. To
understand why, imagine if rather than you hitting the first billiard
ball, it got up and moved on its own. I believe it is safe to assume
that either there was some other cause for the billiard ball moving,
or it really did get up and move on its own. But if it moved on its
own, that implies volition - it is a personal agent.
So you *assert* that there is a bifurcation (a true dichotomy) between
the personal and the mechanical.
I got that - but what if i don't believe your assertion?
What if this is a false dichotomy?
One obvious alternative is that the personal *IS* mechanical.
That the personal is an emergent phenomenon based on / a consequent of
the mechanical.
So, what we have is reason for believing in the existence of at least
one personal first cause.
We don't - you do.
The question then becomes, how long has the
first cause existed (which brings us back to the issue of time above).
It could not have begun to exist, because then we would ask what is
the cause for its existence (but if it is the first cause, it cannot
have a cause, but if it has a cause, then it is not a first cause,
thus we push the chain back to the first cause). Now we already know
that time is finite, and from there we conclude that a first cause
could not always exist in a Newtonian time frame work for an eternity,
as it would have traverse an infinite to reach any given point, which
is impossible. What option does that leave us with? It seems to me
that we are left with either concluding that the personal first cause
existed outside of time, or existed within the finite period of time
that has elapsed (as it absurd to say that an infinite amount of time
elapsed), but "prior" to that it existed outside of time.
If your personal, finite in time, uncaused first cause can exist then
the impersonal, finite in time, universe could also exist uncaused.
If the universe cannot exist uncaused then you personal first cause
cannot exist uncaused.
Your argument essentially assumes its conclusion (implicitly, on the
sly).
It's worthless.
In summary you assert (without coherent justification)
"Everything that begins has a cause."
(the motivation for inserting "that begins" being to give God an "out"
latter on...)
I could counter assert :
"Nothing ever begins"
Or
"everything is caused by every other thing - everything has an
infinite number of causes"
Which seem at least equally reasonable.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 026 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 12:23:25 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<05c680ton17onnbr2c8nan496sasckbbrc@4ax.com>...
...
Thank you Mr. Richardson for this well written and well thought out
response (the rest of the respondants seemed to go out of their way to
avoid all my key points, while your post confronted my every argument
with a thought-provoking counter).
First, let's consider
the basic cosmological argument that is analogous to the above:
(a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
The argument is valid. Assuming it is sound also, does it prove God
exists? No, as it never invokes the existence of God (proponents of
brane theory will agree with every step of the argument, and simply
conclude that the universe came into existence at the Big Bang, which
was caused by a collision of branes). So from here, I need to move
into a first cause argument. I am *NOT* presupposing God's existence
here. I will lay out the premises. Let's focus on the premises (not on
what kind of a person others think I may be).
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
I reject this premise.
We discuss this below.
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
This is also dubious - do things (in general) have singular causes?
It doesn't have to be a single causal agent. It can involve multiple
causal agents that make up the cause (like the way my mother and
father played a mutual role in bringing me into existence).
Nonetheless, the premise seems self evident: if the chain is finite,
there has to be a first link (even if that first link is comprised of
multiple parts).
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
Does this argument apply within the universe or to the universe?
It may, or may not, though I deliberately left the universe out of the
discussion, as the postulated personal agent that serves as an alleged
first cause in a given causal chain could be acting within the
universe (note that my article is sufficiently vague so as to also
take into account the possibility, however unlikely, that your
existence and my existence are due to two different, mutually
exclusive causal chains).
It seems that EVEN IF this argument was sound as to things within the
universe that does not mean it pertains to the universe itself.
(that would appear to be the fallacy of composition)
I would agree that it does not follow to employ a conditional
proposition along the lines of "if X caused everything in Y to exist,
then X caused Y to exist" (where Y could be the universe, or my bed
room, et cetera) - i.e. the antecedent of the proposition does not
seem to entail the consequent. So I have avoided any such premise.
This seems to me to be a clear argument. It is certainly valid. If
there is only one causal regress, then there is a first cause. If
there are multiple indepedent causal regresses, there are multiple
first causes. Nonetheless, there is at least one first cause. Keep in
mind that, thus far in the argument, I have given no reason to assume
a first cause is anything like a deity. Nonetheless, were I to do so
successfully, we see that the door is wide open to polytheism (i.e.
some specific form of Monotheism, like Christianity, Judaism or Islam,
is not a sure thing, and I certainly will not be arguing for any
particular form of theism, nor have I ever done so in alt.atheism).
Before I make any attempt to move this argument towards something in
favor of theism, I want to discuss the argument as is, thus far.
Thus far, I can only glean that Don would dispute the second premise.
We had the following exchange:
My fingers traverse an infinite number of points between the keys
and when I move them up. Therefore, I can't be typing.
This is not my argument at all.
It certainly is, m'laddio. The cosmological argument is simply
a different spin on Zeno.
Not at all. The only similarity is that Zeno also disagreed with the
existence of an actual infinite in reality
I believe it was Aristotle that invented "actual infinities" verse
"potential infinities".
Zeno was too subtle for Aristotle - he dropped the ball on this one.
Zeno seems too subtle for a lot of folks. I'll get into the actual
infinite vis a vis the potential infinite below.
The number of points traversed is
potentially infinite,
Nope. It's actually infinite. There are an infinite # of
points between 1 inches and 2 inches.
What exactly is a point in reality? It seems it is more conceptual.
It is conceptual.
Thank you.
A point is location without extent - it has no
"width".
Agreed.
"actual infinite" is also a concept, "potentially infinite" is also a
concept.
Unnecessary and misleading concepts in my humble opinion.
Not at all. We understand what "infinite" means (roughly), and we
certainly understand the dichotomy between actual and potential. My
ability to count is potentially infinite, but I will never actually
reach infinity. If you stack books on top of one another, no matter
how many books you stack, it will always be finite - it will never
actually be infinite.
This notion is used quite sensibly in mathematics. For example,
suppose you have a portion of a function bound from 1 to infinite. If
we let "A!" stand for infinity (I don't know how to post the more
common simble over usenet), we would denote this bounding as follows:
[1,A!)
We do not ever denote it as
[1,A!],
because you never actually reach infinity. This is also the reason for
limit notations in basic calculus. Or if you were integrating a
function that was bound from 1 to infinity, you would not plug
infinity into the integral, as any mathematician would tell you it is
meaningless; rather you would plug some variable, such as 't' into the
integral, and integrate from 1 to t as the limit of t approaches
infinity. I believer college students come across this in
undergraduate calculus when dealing with so-called "improper
integrals".
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times.
What if the distinction "actually infinite: and "potential infinite"
is not a meaningful distinction?
It seems perfectly meaningful to me. It is true that you can divide a
given distance an infinite number of times, but only in a sense of
potential infinity. You can potentially divide it an infinite number
of times, but you will not actually make an infinite number of
divisions. You approach infinity (hence potential), but you never
actually reach infinity (which would be actual). Hence the reason that
an actual infinite cannot exist in reality.
Replace every instance of "actual infinite" and Potential infinite"
with the words "boogedy boo" and "slooperty goo" in Aristotles/Craigs
prattle and see what difference it makes.
None at all.
I disagree strongly, and with all due respect, I feel that you have
given no reason to accept this position of yours. I think I have
explained actual and potential infinity quite sensibly above. If you'd
like me to elaborate, I will try to do so...
But what would be the distance of each
division?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
How does the color orange taste?
This is a bit sophomoric (no offense). The question was legitimate, as
it shows you cannot actually divide something an infinite number of
times (though the number of divisions you can make is potentially
infinite).
If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero.
Hence - paradox.
Cool.
More than mere paradox, it is a reductio ad absurdum against the
position that an actual infinite can exist (or in this case, that you
really can divide a line an infinite number of times - that you can
make a number of divisions that is actually infinite).
It's either infinite or not - putting the word "potentially" in there
changes nothing - it adds no information.
Zeno's paradox doesn't go away when you say "potential".
It's not a magical word - it has no magical power.
Zeno's paradox may still be present (though most proponents with
Calculus would disagree - still I like the version of Zeno's paradox
that argues you could never get started). The point was to show why
you cannot have an actual infinite. Don's argument was simply silly,
as he tried to point to a finite distance and claim it is actually
infinite. Its made up of an infinite number of what?
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
Why would you need to "traverse it" for it to exist?
If it is a causal chain or a temporal sequence, we had to have
traversed it to reach this point. Suppose that there were an infinite
number of years that elapsed before I was born. How could we ever
reach the point when I was born? You cannot traverse an infinite. Or,
suppose a given causal chain regresses infinitely - how does one ever
reach the point in which you or I were caused? It cannot be reached,
because in doing so we would have to traverse an actual infinite. Not
a finite distance that can be divided a potentially infinite number of
times, but rather an actually infinitely large distance or number of
steps.
It could exist AND not be traversable.
Interesting. Another problem is that you cannot have an actual
infinite of anything. No matter how many you have, it is always
finite.
If the universe (in the sense of the Cosmos) has existed eternally
then an infinite exists AND you cannot traverse it.
There is no contradiction.
There's a huge contradiction if the universe existed eternally within
time, i.e. if there were an infinite number of minutes before I was
born, because then we would never reach that point, this point, or any
point, because an infinite number of minutes would have to elapse
before the point in question is reached. This is why you cannot have
an infinite regress (hence leaving us with finite causal chains, which
was part of my argument).
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument. But the above moves
me to the next point. If time stretches back infinitely, i.e. if it is
without bound, then we could never reach this point.
But "we" don't have to reach this point from an eternity ago - we only
have to reach from 40 years ago.
But an infinite amount of time must elapse before "40 years ago" (or
even "now" or "yesterday" or "tomorrow") can occur.
If the WHOLE is infinite the PARTS can be finite without a problem.
But time seems to be unidirectional, so if it is infinite (or
regresses infinitely), we never reach any of the parts.
That is reason
alone for concluding that time has a bound.
I require a more coherent reason than that before I give my ascent to
such a proposition!
The reasons are given above. It is simply incoherent to think that an
infinite number of years elapsed before you were born.
I never denied this, and,
contrary to Don's straw man above, I never claimed a certain thing
always existed in time.
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress,
But "we" don't see it at all.
Another point should be noted. In adademia, if one can show that an
argument leads to or implies an infinite regress, the argument is
considered refuted. However, in these discussions suddenly people wish
to do away with this otherwise iron clad rule. A causal chain cannot
regress infinitely, because an actual infinite is impossible, and one
cannot traverse an infinite.
we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
What does this mean?
Good question.
Thank you.
What is this bifurcation between personal and
mechanical? Well, think of billiard balls. If you hit one, and it hits
another, which in turn hits still another, there are mechanical
reasons for the causes of these moving billiard balls. Each billiard
ball moved because it was caused to move. But the first cause (in the
restricted domain of this case, you) was a personal agent. To
understand why, imagine if rather than you hitting the first billiard
ball, it got up and moved on its own. I believe it is safe to assume
that either there was some other cause for the billiard ball moving,
or it really did get up and move on its own. But if it moved on its
own, that implies volition - it is a personal agent.
So you *assert* that there is a bifurcation (a true dichotomy) between
the personal and the mechanical.
I got that - but what if i don't believe your assertion?
What if this is a false dichotomy?
One obvious alternative is that the personal *IS* mechanical.
That the personal is an emergent phenomenon based on / a consequent of
the mechanical.
Here it seems we're getting really close to a hard determinist
position. Are you a hard determinist?
Furthermore, if we are talking about the first cause in a finite
causal chain, to imply that its personal nature is a consequent of
mechanical factors (like me having a certain disposition due to
biology), that seems to imply a cause for this first cause, which
would mean this first cause is actually NOT the first cause in the
postulated finite causal chain. So we have to push the chain back
until we reach the first cause.
So, what we have is reason for believing in the existence of at least
one personal first cause.
We don't - you do.
I mean no disrespect in saying this to you, but I have seen no reason
to doubt any of the premises laid out.
The question then becomes, how long has the
first cause existed (which brings us back to the issue of time above).
It could not have begun to exist, because then we would ask what is
the cause for its existence (but if it is the first cause, it cannot
have a cause, but if it has a cause, then it is not a first cause,
thus we push the chain back to the first cause). Now we already know
that time is finite, and from there we conclude that a first cause
could not always exist in a Newtonian time frame work for an eternity,
as it would have traverse an infinite to reach any given point, which
is impossible. What option does that leave us with? It seems to me
that we are left with either concluding that the personal first cause
existed outside of time, or existed within the finite period of time
that has elapsed (as it absurd to say that an infinite amount of time
elapsed), but "prior" to that it existed outside of time.
If your personal, finite in time, uncaused first cause can exist then
the impersonal, finite in time, universe could also exist uncaused.
The problem is if the universe is the first event in a causal chain,
the question becomes how it set everything else into motion without
being personal (i.e. it seems one might approach Pantheism?). Another
option might be (as you alluded to above) that the universe is simply
the theater of cause and effect, and within that theatre, there is at
least one causal chain that was originally set into motion by at least
one personal agent.
If the universe cannot exist uncaused then you personal first cause
cannot exist uncaused.
Your argument essentially assumes its conclusion (implicitly, on the
sly).
It's worthless.
I disagree. My sevent point argument never made any positive claims
about the universe. My argument is that with a causal chain, at the
beginning of such is a personal agent that set it into motion.
In summary you assert (without coherent justification)
"Everything that begins has a cause."
I think there is tremendous inductive support for the premise that
"Everything that begins has a cause." Nonetheless, that was not a
premise in my seven point argument for at least one personal agent
being the ultimate cause of my existence and yours (though admittedly
I did presuppose this premise in my side bar about how long the first
caused existed, and if it existed outside of time). I find it rather
incoherent to think of something coming into existence from nothing.
(the motivation for inserting "that begins" being to give God an "out"
latter on...)
Not at all. I never invoked God in my premises, so this is simply a
bad misrepresentation of my argument.
I could counter assert :
"Nothing ever begins"
You could assert that - that everything that exists now, always
existed. But at some point, part of it has to exist outside of time
(because it cannot always exist in time, as that leads to an infinite
regress).
Or
"everything is caused by every other thing - everything has an
infinite number of causes"
You cannot have an actual infinite, and if you are asserting an
infinite causal regress, you are asserting something that cannot
exist.
Okay, I have to run, and get back to my studies. I will be gone most
likely for a week, and then I'll get back to this thread, which is
being (and will continue to be) archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=2c68d44e.0404180952.35c89dd4%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
20 Apr 2004 01:42:09 AM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2004 10:23:25 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<05c680ton17onnbr2c8nan496sasckbbrc@4ax.com>...
...
<snip a lot of stuff >
What exactly is a point in reality? It seems it is more conceptual.
It is conceptual.
Thank you.
A point is location without extent - it has no
"width".
Agreed.
"actual infinite" is also a concept, "potentially infinite" is also a
concept.
Unnecessary and misleading concepts in my humble opinion.
Not at all. We understand what "infinite" means (roughly), and we
certainly understand the dichotomy between actual and potential. My
ability to count is potentially infinite, but I will never actually
reach infinity. If you stack books on top of one another, no matter
how many books you stack, it will always be finite - it will never
actually be infinite.
So potentially infinite ALWAYS means finite.
So why not say "finirte"?
When you (or anyone else) writes "potentially" infinite I will read
"finite". That seems the only rationally course.
This notion is used quite sensibly in mathematics.
I can quite confidently state that the notion of "potentially
infinite" is not a mathematical one.
For example,
suppose you have a portion of a function bound from 1 to infinite. If
we let "A!" stand for infinity (I don't know how to post the more
common simble over usenet), we would denote this bounding as follows:
[1,A!)
We do not ever denote it as
[1,A!],
because you never actually reach infinity.
We denote it that way because A! isnt a number - isnt a fixed point on
the number line.
This is also the reason for
limit notations in basic calculus. Or if you were integrating a
function that was bound from 1 to infinity, you would not plug
infinity into the integral, as any mathematician would tell you it is
meaningless; rather you would plug some variable, such as 't' into the
integral, and integrate from 1 to t as the limit of t approaches
infinity. I believer college students come across this in
undergraduate calculus when dealing with so-called "improper
integrals".
I have done mathematics at university level and never once encountered
"potential infinity".
The concept does not arise in mathematics.
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times.
What if the distinction "actually infinite: and "potential infinite"
is not a meaningful distinction?
It seems perfectly meaningful to me. It is true that you can divide a
given distance an infinite number of times, but only in a sense of
potential infinity. You can potentially divide it an infinite number
of times, but you will not actually make an infinite number of
divisions. You approach infinity (hence potential), but you never
actually reach infinity (which would be actual). Hence the reason that
an actual infinite cannot exist in reality.
I have read the above very carefully several times and cannot find in
it the distinction between finite and "potential" infinity.
Replace every instance of "actual infinite" and Potential infinite"
with the words "boogedy boo" and "slooperty goo" in Aristotles/Craigs
prattle and see what difference it makes.
None at all.
I disagree strongly, and with all due respect, I feel that you have
given no reason to accept this position of yours.
If something is potentialy infinite it is finite yes?
Then why no say "finite".
I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.
If "potentially infinite" means something other than "finite" then you
*should* be able to say what that is.
But what would be the distance of each
division?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
How does the color orange taste?
This is a bit sophomoric (no offense). The question was legitimate, as
it shows you cannot actually divide something an infinite number of
times (though the number of divisions you can make is potentially
infinite).
Are you speaking of a physical limitation or a logical one?
I cannot physically divide something up an infinite nember of times in
a finite time.
Logically and conceptually I can.
I can sum an infinite series and do it in a finite time.
When thinking - when conceptualizing - we can go places and do things
we cannot physically do.
We can make a map of the galaxy and the conceptualize what the night
sky would like from Antares.
And we can do so with perfect acuaracy.
Not being physically able to travel to Antares is no hinderance at
all.
If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero.
Hence - paradox.
Cool.
More than mere paradox, it is a reductio ad absurdum against the
position that an actual infinite can exist (or in this case, that you
really can divide a line an infinite number of times - that you can
make a number of divisions that is actually infinite).
What you or I can do is not important - what we are discussing is the
nature of being the nature of reality.
IF Space is ACTUALLY continuous then in the space between my thumb and
forefinger there are an infinite number of positions and when I close
the gap between them I do traverse and infinite number of actual
points and do so in a finite time.
That is counter intuitive - but who said reality had to conform to our
intuition?
Is space continuous?
We simply dont know.
Until the twentieth century we assumed it to be so.
Perhaps space itself is "granular" - if it is it is on a very tiny
scale - much smaller than the width of a proton.
It is logically possible that space IS continous.
It's either infinite or not - putting the word "potentially" in there
changes nothing - it adds no information.
Zeno's paradox doesn't go away when you say "potential".
It's not a magical word - it has no magical power.
Zeno's paradox may still be present (though most proponents with
Calculus would disagree - still I like the version of Zeno's paradox
that argues you could never get started). The point was to show why
you cannot have an actual infinite. Don's argument was simply silly,
as he tried to point to a finite distance and claim it is actually
infinite. Its made up of an infinite number of what?
It is possibly made up of an infinite number of locations.
That is it is possible to locat an electron half way between your
finger and thumb.
it is possible to locate an electron half way between that position
and your thumb.
it is possible to locate an electron half way between that position
and your thumb.
etc.
If space is continuous then it is aways possibe to locate the electron
between one location and another location no matter how close the two
locations.
Is this how reality actually is?
Nobody knows.
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
Why would you need to "traverse it" for it to exist?
If it is a causal chain or a temporal sequence, we had to have
traversed it to reach this point.
no "we" dont have to have traversed it at all.
Suppose that there were an infinite
number of years that elapsed before I was born.
OK.
How could we ever
reach the point when I was born?
Why would anything have to?
You cannot traverse an infinite.
Me ? No I am finite so I can only exist for a tiny portion of the
infinite path.
Or,
suppose a given causal chain regresses infinitely - how does one ever
reach the point in which you or I were caused?
Whom is it that has to traverse the infinite?
(God? In that case, no problem, he is eternal)
All actual things that make up the chain traverse only part of the
infinite chain.
So there is no problem.
Or to put it another way the problem doesnt apply to anything actual.
8-)
It cannot be reached,
because in doing so we would have to traverse an actual infinite.
No we wouldnt.
Nothing would.
Not
a finite distance that can be divided a potentially infinite number of
times, but rather an actually infinitely large distance or number of
steps.
It could exist AND not be traversable.
Interesting. Another problem is that you cannot have an actual
infinite of anything. No matter how many you have, it is always
finite.
You cannot MAKE an infinite thing by adding to a finite thing - but
that doesn't speak against an infinite thing having always existed.
Something infinite and eternal never has to come into being so the
imposibility of bringing it into being is (obviously) not a problem.
If the universe (in the sense of the Cosmos) has existed eternally
then an infinite exists AND you cannot traverse it.
There is no contradiction.
There's a huge contradiction if the universe existed eternally within
time, i.e. if there were an infinite number of minutes before I was
born, because then we would never reach that point, this point, or any
point, because an infinite number of minutes would have to elapse
before the point in question is reached. This is why you cannot have
an infinite regress (hence leaving us with finite causal chains, which
was part of my argument).
Your (and Craigs) argument fails - nothing need traverse the infinite
and the infinite need not come into being.
First you want to have a potential infinite # of points between
my fingers and the keys. We know that there is a bound between them
(there is a measurable distance. Then you want to have an actual
infinite # of moments for something always existing in time, when
we KNOW THAT TIME HAS A BOUND. You can't have it both ways, fuckwit!
It seems that Don does not understand my argument. But the above moves
me to the next point. If time stretches back infinitely, i.e. if it is
without bound, then we could never reach this point.
But "we" don't have to reach this point from an eternity ago - we only
have to reach from 40 years ago.
But an infinite amount of time must elapse before "40 years ago" (or
even "now" or "yesterday" or "tomorrow") can occur.
Yes - but that isnt a problem.
If the WHOLE is infinite the PARTS can be finite without a problem.
But time seems to be unidirectional, so if it is infinite (or
regresses infinitely), we never reach any of the parts.
Again why does any actual thing have to reach over the whole of
eternity for the whole of eternity to exist.
There is no argument that says "you" "I" or "we" have to traverse an
infinite for it to exist.
(Or if there is such an argument I have never seen it.)
That is reason
alone for concluding that time has a bound.
I require a more coherent reason than that before I give my ascent to
such a proposition!
The reasons are given above. It is simply incoherent to think that an
infinite number of years elapsed before you were born.
No it isnt.
That is just something people assert but never justify.
I never denied this, and,
contrary to Don's straw man above, I never claimed a certain thing
always existed in time.
This takes us back to the first cause argument. Now that we see that
one cannot have an infinite causal regress,
But "we" don't see it at all.
Another point should be noted. In adademia, if one can show that an
argument leads to or implies an infinite regress, the argument is
considered refuted. However, in these discussions suddenly people wish
to do away with this otherwise iron clad rule. A causal chain cannot
regress infinitely, because an actual infinite is impossible, and one
cannot traverse an infinite.
So its impossible because it impossible?
Sorry thats not an argumnet or a reason - its a bald assertion.
(With a touch of Argumentum ad populum thrown in.)
we get back to the first
cause. Here I introduce a new syllogism:
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
What does this mean?
Good question.
Thank you.
What is this bifurcation between personal and
mechanical? Well, think of billiard balls. If you hit one, and it hits
another, which in turn hits still another, there are mechanical
reasons for the causes of these moving billiard balls. Each billiard
ball moved because it was caused to move. But the first cause (in the
restricted domain of this case, you) was a personal agent. To
understand why, imagine if rather than you hitting the first billiard
ball, it got up and moved on its own. I believe it is safe to assume
that either there was some other cause for the billiard ball moving,
or it really did get up and move on its own. But if it moved on its
own, that implies volition - it is a personal agent.
So you *assert* that there is a bifurcation (a true dichotomy) between
the personal and the mechanical.
I got that - but what if i don't believe your assertion?
What if this is a false dichotomy?
One obvious alternative is that the personal *IS* mechanical.
That the personal is an emergent phenomenon based on / a consequent of
the mechanical.
Here it seems we're getting really close to a hard determinist
position. Are you a hard determinist?
No I merely suggest a possibility - that doesnt mean I hold to that
position.
I am a "soft" determinist - I suppose.
That we are free agents (as free as possible but not more so) - but
that our freedom is ultimately resting on a deterministic substrate -
rather than us being the puppets of some "soul" pulling invisible
strings from some alternate spiritual dimension.
Furthermore, if we are talking about the first cause in a finite
causal chain, to imply that its personal nature is a consequent of
mechanical factors (like me having a certain disposition due to
biology), that seems to imply a cause for this first cause, which
would mean this first cause is actually NOT the first cause in the
postulated finite causal chain. So we have to push the chain back
until we reach the first cause.
So, what we have is reason for believing in the existence of at least
one personal first cause.
We don't - you do.
I mean no disrespect in saying this to you, but I have seen no reason
to doubt any of the premises laid out.
I have seen no reason to accept them.
The question then becomes, how long has the
first cause existed (which brings us back to the issue of time above).
It could not have begun to exist, because then we would ask what is
the cause for its existence (but if it is the first cause, it cannot
have a cause, but if it has a cause, then it is not a first cause,
thus we push the chain back to the first cause). Now we already know
that time is finite, and from there we conclude that a first cause
could not always exist in a Newtonian time frame work for an eternity,
as it would have traverse an infinite to reach any given point, which
is impossible. What option does that leave us with? It seems to me
that we are left with either concluding that the personal first cause
existed outside of time, or existed within the finite period of time
that has elapsed (as it absurd to say that an infinite amount of time
elapsed), but "prior" to that it existed outside of time.
If your personal, finite in time, uncaused first cause can exist then
the impersonal, finite in time, universe could also exist uncaused.
The problem is if the universe is the first event in a causal chain,
the question becomes how it set everything else into motion without
being personal (i.e. it seems one might approach Pantheism?).
Why is that a problem?
I dont see the problem unless one assumes/insists that it must be
personal.
Another
option might be (as you alluded to above) that the universe is simply
the theater of cause and effect, and within that theatre, there is at
least one causal chain that was originally set into motion by at least
one personal agent.
i still dont see why (apart from argument from personal credulity "I
cant see how...")
I in fact believe the personal arises out of the mechanical and
impersonal through various physical processes and natural selection.
The personal rests upon and dependsupon the existence of the
impersonal and mechanical.
If the universe cannot exist uncaused then you personal first cause
cannot exist uncaused.
Your argument essentially assumes its conclusion (implicitly, on the
sly).
It's worthless.
I disagree. My sevent point argument never made any positive claims
about the universe. My argument is that with a causal chain, at the
beginning of such is a personal agent that set it into motion.
I dont see the argument as convincing.
I still dont see the personal agent thing as even being supported -
merely asserted.
In summary you assert (without coherent justification)
"Everything that begins has a cause."
I think there is tremendous inductive support for the premise that
"Everything that begins has a cause." Nonetheless, that was not a
premise in my seven point argument for at least one personal agent
being the ultimate cause of my existence and yours (though admittedly
I did presuppose this premise in my side bar about how long the first
caused existed, and if it existed outside of time). I find it rather
incoherent to think of something coming into existence from nothing.
(the motivation for inserting "that begins" being to give God an "out"
latter on...)
Not at all. I never invoked God in my premises, so this is simply a
bad misrepresentation of my argument.
I could counter assert :
"Nothing ever begins"
You could assert that - that everything that exists now, always
existed. But at some point, part of it has to exist outside of time
(because it cannot always exist in time, as that leads to an infinite
regress).
Or
"everything is caused by every other thing - everything has an
infinite number of causes"
You cannot have an actual infinite, and if you are asserting an
infinite causal regress, you are asserting something that cannot
exist.
Okay, I have to run, and get back to my studies. I will be gone most
likely for a week, and then I'll get back to this thread, which is
being (and will continue to be) archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=2c68d44e.0404180952.35c89dd4%40posting.google.com
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 027 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 027 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
10 May 2004 03:31:27 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<0eh98053o4ui19qfc5rgsh6uhcg2829meb@4ax.com>...
...
Apologies for the delay in response... I have been swamped by exams,
and will continue to be so until the end of May. Nonetheless, I wanted
to try and squeeze in at least a couple responses...
"actual infinite" is also a concept, "potentially infinite" is also a
concept.
Unnecessary and misleading concepts in my humble opinion.
Not at all. We understand what "infinite" means (roughly), and we
certainly understand the dichotomy between actual and potential. My
ability to count is potentially infinite, but I will never actually
reach infinity. If you stack books on top of one another, no matter
how many books you stack, it will always be finite - it will never
actually be infinite.
So potentially infinite ALWAYS means finite.
So why not say "finirte"?
Because the two concepts are not the same. For example, the number 2
is finite, it is not potentially infinite. However, the number I can
reach via successive addition is potentially infinite, though the
number I finally settle on will be finite (it will never actually be
infinite).
I can quite confidently state that the notion of "potentially
infinite" is not a mathematical one.
I'd have to look through a few old books, but I do recall the notion
of something being potentially infinite being brought up by professors
during lectures... it is more of a common sense term.
For example,
suppose you have a portion of a function bound from 1 to infinite. If
we let "A!" stand for infinity (I don't know how to post the more
common simble over usenet), we would denote this bounding as follows:
[1,A!)
We do not ever denote it as
[1,A!],
because you never actually reach infinity.
We denote it that way because A! isnt a number - isnt a fixed point on
the number line.
Agreed. That was my point, roughly... but I felt it was more
accurately expressed when I wrote the following:
This is also the reason for
limit notations in basic calculus. Or if you were integrating a
function that was bound from 1 to infinity, you would not plug
infinity into the integral, as any mathematician would tell you it is
meaningless; rather you would plug some variable, such as 't' into the
integral, and integrate from 1 to t as the limit of t approaches
infinity. I believer college students come across this in
undergraduate calculus when dealing with so-called "improper
integrals".
Again, you might say that this is because infinity is not a number,
but that is the reason for limit notation (as the value you plug into
the limits of the definite integral imply the end of the curve or
whatever reaching that point).
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times.
What if the distinction "actually infinite: and "potential infinite"
is not a meaningful distinction?
It seems perfectly meaningful to me. It is true that you can divide a
given distance an infinite number of times, but only in a sense of
potential infinity. You can potentially divide it an infinite number
of times, but you will not actually make an infinite number of
divisions. You approach infinity (hence potential), but you never
actually reach infinity (which would be actual). Hence the reason that
an actual infinite cannot exist in reality.
I have read the above very carefully several times and cannot find in
it the distinction between finite and "potential" infinity.
When you complete your divisions, your final result will be finite.
But finite and potentially infinite are not the same, for reasons
alluded to above. Finite and potentially infinite are not identical,
as finite numbers are not potentially infinite. Potential infinity is
referring to the number of divisions you might make *before* you make
them. Of course the actual result *after* you finish will not be
actually infinite.
But what would be the distance of each
division?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
How does the color orange taste?
This is a bit sophomoric (no offense). The question was legitimate, as
it shows you cannot actually divide something an infinite number of
times (though the number of divisions you can make is potentially
infinite).
Are you speaking of a physical limitation or a logical one?
I would say both. Obviously it is a logical limitation, but that
entails a physical limitation (i.e. logically I cannot jump a distance
into the air that is actually infinite, hence I am physically
incapable of doing so).
I cannot physically divide something up an infinite nember of times in
a finite time.
Logically and conceptually I can.
Are you going to answer the question above? Assuming you actually
divided the distance an infinite number of times, what would be the
distance of each division? You be left with an infinite number of
what? And "infinitessimals" is not a sufficient answer, as I will ask
what that is.
If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero.
Hence - paradox.
Cool.
More than mere paradox, it is a reductio ad absurdum against the
position that an actual infinite can exist (or in this case, that you
really can divide a line an infinite number of times - that you can
make a number of divisions that is actually infinite).
What you or I can do is not important - what we are discussing is the
nature of being the nature of reality.
IF Space is ACTUALLY continuous then in the space between my thumb and
forefinger there are an infinite number of positions and when I close
the gap between them I do traverse and infinite number of actual
points and do so in a finite time.
Do you actually traverse an infinite? Maybe, but I'm skeptical. You're
still doing what Don Kresch was doing, which is bringing it back to
Zeno. The problem is that the distance covered is actually finite, not
infinite. To keep this on a very basic mathematical level, imagine a
graph of the function y=2x and a separate graph of the function
y=1/[x^2]. Imagine trying to find the area "under the curve" (I know
y=2x does not exactly form a curve but rather a straight line) from 2
to infinity for each function. When you integrate the functions (with
respect to x), you'll march off towards infinity in both cases, but
one result will be divergent, while the other will be convergent. Just
because the infinite is involved in our equations does not mean the
subject being dealt with is referring to something that is actually
infinite. The distance between your thumb and forefinger is clearly
*NOT* an infinite distance. It is a finite distance, and we know you
can traverse a finite distance. However, it is the infinite distance
that you cannot traverse (because it will never finish). This is
ultimately part of the reason I found Don Kresch's original allusion
to Zeno to not be very relevant.
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
Why would you need to "traverse it" for it to exist?
If it is a causal chain or a temporal sequence, we had to have
traversed it to reach this point.
no "we" dont have to have traversed it at all.
Okay, think of it like this. If an infinite number of moments
proceeded the moment you were born, and infinite number of moments
would have had to elapsed before you could be born. Of course, an
infinite number of equal finite moments elapsing one after another can
never reach completion, thus if that were the case, you would never
have been born. The same is the case with causal chains. If an
infinite number of causal steps has to be completed before this step,
this step can never be reached or can never taken place. Your answer,
with all due respect, is skirting the issue.
You cannot traverse an infinite.
Me ? No I am finite so I can only exist for a tiny portion of the
infinite path.
The argument is with regard to the impossibility of an infinite
preceeding your coming into existence.
In academia (philosophical discussion, et cetera), an infinite regress
is a sure sign that a theory is flawed (i.e. one can refute a theory
or hypothesis by showing that it leads to or implies an infinite
regress). So, for example, the proposition "every human was born of
human parents" (as a definition of human being) leads to an infinite
regress, and is therefore simply false. I find it strange that when
this iron clad rule is brought to theist-atheist debate, suddenly it
is no longer considered applicable. I apologize if that seems like I'm
poisoning the well, but it nonetheless is my observation. Do you
really believe that the causal chain that led to your coming into
existence stretches back infinitely?
It could exist AND not be traversable.
Interesting. Another problem is that you cannot have an actual
infinite of anything. No matter how many you have, it is always
finite.
You cannot MAKE an infinite thing by adding to a finite thing - but
that doesn't speak against an infinite thing having always existed.
Something infinite and eternal never has to come into being so the
imposibility of bringing it into being is (obviously) not a problem.
You yourself said that infinity is not a number. If, for example, we
have an object in space that is an infinite number of centimeters long
(and therefore an infinite number of meters, kilometers or miles
long), how long is it if infinity is not a number? It seems to me
plainly obvious that no matter how long the object is, its length is
ultimately finite.
If the universe (in the sense of the Cosmos) has existed eternally
then an infinite exists AND you cannot traverse it.
There is no contradiction.
There's a huge contradiction if the universe existed eternally within
time, i.e. if there were an infinite number of minutes before I was
born, because then we would never reach that point, this point, or any
point, because an infinite number of minutes would have to elapse
before the point in question is reached. This is why you cannot have
an infinite regress (hence leaving us with finite causal chains, which
was part of my argument).
Your (and Craigs) argument fails - nothing need traverse the infinite
and the infinite need not come into being.
You basically avoided the point, with regard to an infinite number of
minutes having to elapse. Suppose for example that your favorite TV
show will come on after an infinite number of minutes has elapsed.
What that means is that your favorite TV show will *NEVER* come on
(because no matter how many minutes have elapsed, the number is always
finite). Thus if we were watching your favorite TV show, and I claimed
an infinite number of minutes elapsed before the show came on, you
would know I was incorrect.
The question then becomes, how long has the
first cause existed (which brings us back to the issue of time above).
It could not have begun to exist, because then we would ask what is
the cause for its existence (but if it is the first cause, it cannot
have a cause, but if it has a cause, then it is not a first cause,
thus we push the chain back to the first cause). Now we already know
that time is finite, and from there we conclude that a first cause
could not always exist in a Newtonian time frame work for an eternity,
as it would have traverse an infinite to reach any given point, which
is impossible. What option does that leave us with? It seems to me
that we are left with either concluding that the personal first cause
existed outside of time, or existed within the finite period of time
that has elapsed (as it absurd to say that an infinite amount of time
elapsed), but "prior" to that it existed outside of time.
If your personal, finite in time, uncaused first cause can exist then
the impersonal, finite in time, universe could also exist uncaused.
The problem is if the universe is the first event in a causal chain,
the question becomes how it set everything else into motion without
being personal (i.e. it seems one might approach Pantheism?).
Why is that a problem?
I dont see the problem unless one assumes/insists that it must be
personal.
The question you have not answered is how something sets something
else into motion if it is (a) uncaused and (b) not personal. A first
cause, by definition, does not have any causes preceding it. Thus,
there is nothing to act upon it, or set it into motion, or cause it to
act upon other things. So, then, how does this thing set other things
into motion if it is not personal. How does a billiard ball, for
example, get up and move on its own, without cause, in any mechanical
sense?
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
16 May 2004 09:01:19 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2004 13:31:27 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<0eh98053o4ui19qfc5rgsh6uhcg2829meb@4ax.com>...
...
Apologies for the delay in response... I have been swamped by exams,
and will continue to be so until the end of May. Nonetheless, I wanted
to try and squeeze in at least a couple responses...
"actual infinite" is also a concept, "potentially infinite" is also a
concept.
Unnecessary and misleading concepts in my humble opinion.
Not at all. We understand what "infinite" means (roughly), and we
certainly understand the dichotomy between actual and potential. My
ability to count is potentially infinite, but I will never actually
reach infinity. If you stack books on top of one another, no matter
how many books you stack, it will always be finite - it will never
actually be infinite.
So potentially infinite ALWAYS means finite.
So why not say "finirte"?
Because the two concepts are not the same. For example, the number 2
is finite, it is not potentially infinite. However, the number I can
reach via successive addition is potentially infinite, though the
number I finally settle on will be finite (it will never actually be
infinite).
If you finally settle on a number it will be finite.
It is always finite - because you are always approaching infinity and
never reaching it.
So it never infinite it is always finite.
So a perfectly acceptable substitution for "potentially infinite" is
finite.
They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I can quite confidently state that the notion of "potentially
infinite" is not a mathematical one.
I'd have to look through a few old books, but I do recall the notion
of something being potentially infinite being brought up by professors
during lectures... it is more of a common sense term.
It's a term found in philosophy - it arises from discussions like this
one. It was the invention of Aristotle who was not a mathematician.
He thought he was dealing with (resolving) Zeno.
He wasn't - he didn't.
<snip a bit - we say the same things over and over again)
Think about what Don is claiming here. If this were true, then the
distance could actually (rather than potentially) be divided an
infinite number of times.
What if the distinction "actually infinite: and "potential infinite"
is not a meaningful distinction?
It seems perfectly meaningful to me. It is true that you can divide a
given distance an infinite number of times, but only in a sense of
potential infinity. You can potentially divide it an infinite number
of times, but you will not actually make an infinite number of
divisions. You approach infinity (hence potential), but you never
actually reach infinity (which would be actual). Hence the reason that
an actual infinite cannot exist in reality.
I have read the above very carefully several times and cannot find in
it the distinction between finite and "potential" infinity.
When you complete your divisions, your final result will be finite.
But finite and potentially infinite are not the same, for reasons
alluded to above. Finite and potentially infinite are not identical,
as finite numbers are not potentially infinite. Potential infinity is
referring to the number of divisions you might make *before* you make
them. Of course the actual result *after* you finish will not be
actually infinite.
There is a true dichotomy.
Infinite and finite.
If something is finite it is not infinite.
There is no third (or forth or fifth...) option.
"Potentially infinite" is ACTUALLY finite.
Removing the words potential and actual reduces the information
content (changes the meaning) by zero.
But what would be the distance of each
division?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
How does the color orange taste?
This is a bit sophomoric (no offense). The question was legitimate, as
it shows you cannot actually divide something an infinite number of
times (though the number of divisions you can make is potentially
infinite).
Are you speaking of a physical limitation or a logical one?
I would say both. Obviously it is a logical limitation,
No it isn't, that's begging the question!
That is the very thing we are disagreeing on.
but that
entails a physical limitation (i.e. logically I cannot jump a distance
into the air that is actually infinite, hence I am physically
incapable of doing so).
That's a physical limitation, not a logical one.
I cannot physically divide something up an infinite nember of times in
a finite time.
Logically and conceptually I can.
Are you going to answer the question above? Assuming you actually
divided the distance an infinite number of times, what would be the
distance of each division?
Something I cannot write down.
Smaller than any number.
Adding up an infinite number of these infinitely tiny distances will
give you a finite distance.
You be left with an infinite number of
what? And "infinitessimals" is not a sufficient answer, as I will ask
what that is.
Its difficult to conceptualize infinities and infinitesimals.
Just because something is hard to understand doesn't mean that we
simply give up trying.
We still need infinity.
If the distance of each division is finite, then adding them
up will result in an infinite (rather than finite) distance. A finite
distance cannot be made up of an infinite number of measurable
distances. However, if the distance is zero, then adding up each zero
distance will still give you zero.
Hence - paradox.
Cool.
More than mere paradox, it is a reductio ad absurdum against the
position that an actual infinite can exist (or in this case, that you
really can divide a line an infinite number of times - that you can
make a number of divisions that is actually infinite).
What you or I can do is not important - what we are discussing is the
nature of being the nature of reality.
IF Space is ACTUALLY continuous then in the space between my thumb and
forefinger there are an infinite number of positions and when I close
the gap between them I do traverse and infinite number of actual
points and do so in a finite time.
Do you actually traverse an infinite?
I don't know the ultimate answer.
Nobody does.
Logically it is possible to traverse an infinite number of spatial
divisions and travel 1 cm - a finite distance.
Is that *physically* what actually occurs? - it's possible.
Maybe, but I'm skeptical. You're
still doing what Don Kresch was doing, which is bringing it back to
Zeno.
Yes - because your Aristotelian reasoning avoids answering Zeno.
You haven't slain the dragon you have pretended it isn't there.
The problem is that the distance covered is actually finite, not
infinite.
That's not a problem.
To keep this on a very basic mathematical level, imagine a
graph of the function y=2x and a separate graph of the function
y=1/[x^2]. Imagine trying to find the area "under the curve" (I know
y=2x does not exactly form a curve but rather a straight line) from 2
to infinity for each function. When you integrate the functions (with
respect to x), you'll march off towards infinity in both cases, but
one result will be divergent, while the other will be convergent. Just
because the infinite is involved in our equations does not mean the
subject being dealt with is referring to something that is actually
infinite. The distance between your thumb and forefinger is clearly
*NOT* an infinite distance. It is a finite distance, and we know you
can traverse a finite distance.
We know we traverse it whether or not it is composed of an infinite
number of spatial divisions.
However, it is the infinite distance
that you cannot traverse (because it will never finish).
You will never traverse and infinite distance in a finite time - yes.
This is
ultimately part of the reason I found Don Kresch's original allusion
to Zeno to not be very relevant.
I don't see any reasoning which addresses Zeno.
Furthermore, I'm not talking about dividing a finite distance, I'm
talking about an actual infinite distance, and why that is impossible.
If there were an infinite number of causes leading up to this event in
the causal chain preceding the event, we would never reach this event,
as you cannot traverse an actual infinite (to traverse it means to
complete it, to reach the end - how do you get to the end of something
without end? that is a contradiction).
Why would you need to "traverse it" for it to exist?
If it is a causal chain or a temporal sequence, we had to have
traversed it to reach this point.
no "we" dont have to have traversed it at all.
Okay, think of it like this. If an infinite number of moments
proceeded the moment you were born, and infinite number of moments
would have had to elapsed before you could be born.
Yes.
Of course, an
infinite number of equal finite moments elapsing one after another can
never reach completion,
In a finite time.
thus if that were the case, you would never
have been born.
No.
I would be born 100 years after 100 years ago.
1000 years after 1000 years ago.
1000000 years after 1000000 years ago.
An infinite time after an infinite time ago.
You would never be born a *finite* time after infinitely long ago -
that is perfectly obvious and entirely beside the point.
The same is the case with causal chains. If an
infinite number of causal steps has to be completed before this step,
this step can never be reached or can never taken place. Your answer,
with all due respect, is skirting the issue.
And yours is simply restating your original assertion.
You can restate it a potentially infinite number of times of course.
8-)
You cannot traverse an infinite.
Me ? No I am finite so I can only exist for a tiny portion of the
infinite path.
The argument is with regard to the impossibility of an infinite
preceeding your coming into existence.
Exactly.
So it is nothing to do with any finite person or thing traversing the
infinite chain.
The failure of any finite being to traverse an infinite expanse does
not negate the *existence* of the expanse - it says nothing at all
about it in fact.
More importantly the failure of any finite being to imagine the
infinite does not speak against the existence of the infinite.
In academia (philosophical discussion, et cetera), an infinite regress
is a sure sign that a theory is flawed (i.e. one can refute a theory
or hypothesis by showing that it leads to or implies an infinite
regress).
Or it isn't.
So, for example, the proposition "every human was born of
human parents" (as a definition of human being) leads to an infinite
regress, and is therefore simply false.
It is false, but for other reasons.
(generally physical reasons rather than logical ones - eg finite age
of the earth and sun)
I find it strange that when
this iron clad rule is brought to theist-atheist debate, suddenly it
is no longer considered applicable. I apologize if that seems like I'm
poisoning the well, but it nonetheless is my observation. Do you
really believe that the causal chain that led to your coming into
existence stretches back infinitely?
Yes.
Our present Big Bang universe is apparently (for physical reasons
rather than logical ones) finite.
I believe (although whether I can ever *know* is uncertain) that this
finite universe is one of an infinite number of universes in a greater
and infinitely old meta-universe.
It could exist AND not be traversable.
Interesting. Another problem is that you cannot have an actual
infinite of anything. No matter how many you have, it is always
finite.
You cannot MAKE an infinite thing by adding to a finite thing - but
that doesn't speak against an infinite thing having always existed.
Something infinite and eternal never has to come into being so the
imposibility of bringing it into being is (obviously) not a problem.
You yourself said that infinity is not a number. If, for example, we
have an object in space that is an infinite number of centimeters long
(and therefore an infinite number of meters, kilometers or miles
long), how long is it if infinity is not a number? It seems to me
plainly obvious that no matter how long the object is, its length is
ultimately finite.
All physical objects are finite in length - but it is perfectly
logically possible that space itself or time itself could be infinite.
If the universe (in the sense of the Cosmos) has existed eternally
then an infinite exists AND you cannot traverse it.
There is no contradiction.
There's a huge contradiction if the universe existed eternally within
time, i.e. if there were an infinite number of minutes before I was
born, because then we would never reach that point, this point, or any
point, because an infinite number of minutes would have to elapse
before the point in question is reached. This is why you cannot have
an infinite regress (hence leaving us with finite causal chains, which
was part of my argument).
Your (and Craigs) argument fails - nothing need traverse the infinite
and the infinite need not come into being.
You basically avoided the point, with regard to an infinite number of
minutes having to elapse. Suppose for example that your favorite TV
show will come on after an infinite number of minutes has elapsed.
What that means is that your favorite TV show will *NEVER* come on
(because no matter how many minutes have elapsed, the number is always
finite).
Yes.
Thus if we were watching your favorite TV show, and I claimed
an infinite number of minutes elapsed before the show came on, you
would know I was incorrect.
No - that is your assertion again.
I would *know* it has come on 1 minute after 1 minute ago.
I billion years after a billion years ago etc.
I would not know that an infinite amount of time had not passed.
The question then becomes, how long has the
first cause existed (which brings us back to the issue of time above).
It could not have begun to exist, because then we would ask what is
the cause for its existence (but if it is the first cause, it cannot
have a cause, but if it has a cause, then it is not a first cause,
thus we push the chain back to the first cause). Now we already know
that time is finite, and from there we conclude that a first cause
could not always exist in a Newtonian time frame work for an eternity,
as it would have traverse an infinite to reach any given point, which
is impossible. What option does that leave us with? It seems to me
that we are left with either concluding that the personal first cause
existed outside of time, or existed within the finite period of time
that has elapsed (as it absurd to say that an infinite amount of time
elapsed), but "prior" to that it existed outside of time.
If your personal, finite in time, uncaused first cause can exist then
the impersonal, finite in time, universe could also exist uncaused.
The problem is if the universe is the first event in a causal chain,
the question becomes how it set everything else into motion without
being personal (i.e. it seems one might approach Pantheism?).
Why is that a problem?
I dont see the problem unless one assumes/insists that it must be
personal.
The question you have not answered is how something sets something
else into motion if it is (a) uncaused and (b) not personal. A first
cause, by definition, does not have any causes preceding it. Thus,
there is nothing to act upon it, or set it into motion, or cause it to
act upon other things.
Then nothing would exist *except* the first cause.
So therefore there is no first cause OR everything is the first cause
in which case its a useless concept/term in reality.
So, then, how does this thing set other things
into motion if it is not personal. How does a billiard ball, for
example, get up and move on its own, without cause, in any mechanical
sense?
A billiard ball exist in a universe with spacetime and matter - it is
buffered by the random vibrations of molecules in heat motion.
Nothing *real* is like the metaphysical abstraction that is the first
cause.
A first cause ( like the putative God) doesn't exist anywhere or
anywhen it has no *context* , no past, no influences - the very *idea*
is incoherent.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 050 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
25 May 2004 05:05:28 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<tl3ga09o0hvu6kqlbrl0krusibqj97gd5g@4ax.com>...
Apologies for the delay in response... I have been swamped by exams,
and will continue to be so until the end of May. Nonetheless, I wanted
to try and squeeze in at least a couple responses...
"actual infinite" is also a concept, "potentially infinite" is also a
concept.
Unnecessary and misleading concepts in my humble opinion.
Not at all. We understand what "infinite" means (roughly), and we
certainly understand the dichotomy between actual and potential. My
ability to count is potentially infinite, but I will never actually
reach infinity. If you stack books on top of one another, no matter
how many books you stack, it will always be finite - it will never
actually be infinite.
So potentially infinite ALWAYS means finite.
So why not say "finirte"?
Because the two concepts are not the same. For example, the number 2
is finite, it is not potentially infinite. However, the number I can
reach via successive addition is potentially infinite, though the
number I finally settle on will be finite (it will never actually be
infinite).
If you finally settle on a number it will be finite.
It is always finite - because you are always approaching infinity and
never reaching it.
So it never infinite it is always finite.
So a perfectly acceptable substitution for "potentially infinite" is
finite.
They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
No, they do not mean the same thing, and here is a proof:
If "potentially infinite" and "finite" mean exactly the same thing,
then anything that is finite will also be potentially infinite.
However, the number 2, for example, is finite, but is not potentially
infinite, therefore allowing us to negate the consequent of the
conditional proposition just stated, which results in us negating your
claim.
But what would be the distance of each
division?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
How does the color orange taste?
This is a bit sophomoric (no offense). The question was legitimate, as
it shows you cannot actually divide something an infinite number of
times (though the number of divisions you can make is potentially
infinite).
Are you speaking of a physical limitation or a logical one?
I would say both. Obviously it is a logical limitation,
No it isn't, that's begging the question!
That is the very thing we are disagreeing on.
So are you saying that one actually could divide something an infinite
number of times?
I cannot physically divide something up an infinite nember of times in
a finite time.
Logically and conceptually I can.
Are you going to answer the question above? Assuming you actually
divided the distance an infinite number of times, what would be the
distance of each division?
Something I cannot write down.
Smaller than any number.
What does "smaller than any number" mean? As I understand it, I can
always think of a smaller number...
Adding up an infinite number of these infinitely tiny distances will
give you a finite distance.
Of these divisions, assuming they are equal, are their distances
finite? If so, then an infinite number of them added together would be
infinity, not a finite distance.
Maybe, but I'm skeptical. You're
still doing what Don Kresch was doing, which is bringing it back to
Zeno.
Yes - because your Aristotelian reasoning avoids answering Zeno.
You haven't slain the dragon you have pretended it isn't there.
The problem again is that I'm talking about infinite distances, while
you're talking about finite distances.
But let's look at this another way. If you actually think it is
possible for you to exist at the end of an infinite causal chain, then
this chain would have to stretch back (regress) infinitely. How could
the chain ever begin? It would have no beginning, it would seem, and
thus never start.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
29 May 2004 11:45:14 AM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<tl3ga09o0hvu6kqlbrl0krusibqj97gd5g@4ax.com>...
Apologies for the delay in response... I have been swamped by exams,
and will continue to be so until the end of May. Nonetheless, I wanted
to try and squeeze in at least a couple responses...
"actual infinite" is also a concept, "potentially infinite" is also a
concept.
Unnecessary and misleading concepts in my humble opinion.
Not at all. We understand what "infinite" means (roughly), and we
certainly understand the dichotomy between actual and potential. My
ability to count is potentially infinite, but I will never actually
reach infinity. If you stack books on top of one another, no matter
how many books you stack, it will always be finite - it will never
actually be infinite.
So potentially infinite ALWAYS means finite.
So why not say "finirte"?
Because the two concepts are not the same. For example, the number 2
is finite, it is not potentially infinite. However, the number I can
reach via successive addition is potentially infinite, though the
number I finally settle on will be finite (it will never actually be
infinite).
If you finally settle on a number it will be finite.
It is always finite - because you are always approaching infinity and
never reaching it.
So it never infinite it is always finite.
So a perfectly acceptable substitution for "potentially infinite" is
finite.
They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
No, they do not mean the same thing, and here is a proof:
If "potentially infinite" and "fi | | | | | | | |
