Endless and infinite

[psyreporter]

Follow up of the paper Endless & infinite, published in Oxford's Mind journal in March 2021:

All the time in the world
My paper on the Kalam and successive addition argument came out in the journal Mind today. You can read it here:
https://academic.oup.com/mind/advance-a ... a2mzcxC0VY

Source: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2021/ ... the-world/

Proponents of the Kalām cosmological argument (henceforth the 'Kalām'), in particular William Lane Craig (1979), seek to show that the past must have had a beginning, a moment of creation.

[psyreporter]

What do you mean Mathematical Infinity has a Beginning? What do you mean by Actual Infinity?

It is addressed in the paper. Did you read it?

Quote from Endless and Infinite: potential vs actual infinite

The most commonly heard proposal is that an endless series of future events differs from a beginningless series of past events in that it is a merely potential infinite, having none of the absurd implications of the actual infinite. It is this alleged difference that particularly interests us first. Is it the case that a beginningless series is an actual infinite, whereas an endless series would be only potentially infinite?

]The answer might seem to depend on one’s view of time.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16kwvcuqxf3ww ... 5.pdf?dl=0

A Potential Infinity would therefore have Potential Absurd Implications.

Can you specify which absurdities would be both applicable to actual and potential infinity?

What about 'change states' of which Terrapin Station argues that they are objectively real?

Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

What would be your reply to Terrapin Station's question?

I already answered this. Let's say some Process is going from State 1 (S1) to State 2 (S2). This will happen during some interval of Time between S1 and S2 (T12). Now let's propose that there are multiple Sub States that the Process must go through between S1 and S2. As the number of Sub States increases the time between them decreases. If you want to propose that the number of Sub States then goes to Infinity and say that it is impossible to traverse an Infinite number of Sub States then that would be wrong. The fact is that at a constant Time rate, that the System will in fact transition between an Infinite number of Sub States in the original time Interval. Only if you artificially slow the Time down for each Sub State in your Mind does it seem Impossible. Infinities are an Absurdity, so you have to be careful about just throwing them into argument about anything. If you want to put an Infinite number of Sub States into the Process, then you must accept that other Infinities will show up to compensate.

I do not believe that your reasoning and generalization of infinity is valid.

The paper makes a clear distinction between potential and actual infinity. Do you argue that that is incorrect?

My argument is that the absurdity of which you say that it is applicable to potential infinity is merely of such a nature that it would involve a human (observer) physically counting into infinity.

With the concept beginningless, mathematics cannot apply, and thus, that specific absurdity is not applicable. There is no physical ability to start counting within the concept actual infinity with a beginningless nature.

I have seen no reasoning by which it can be said that actual infinity cannot be applicable to reality, which includes time. On the contrary, by logic, a 'begin' is only possible by an observing mind (by the nature of pattern recognition) and what precedes a begin on a fundamental level logically knows no begin or end.

I tried to read the Paper, but my Neuron was tired. Maybe after it regenerates, I'll give it another try.

A resource that may be of interest as introduction is the WikiPedia article about the Kalām cosmological argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument

A book on the subject by philosopher William Lane Craig:

The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a 1979 book by the philosopher William Lane Craig, in which the author offers a contemporary defense of the Kalām cosmological argument and argues for the existence of God, with an emphasis on the alleged metaphysical impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. The word 'kalam' comes from arabic and means 'the word' or 'an argument' and was originated in the medieval islamic world where scholars used to debate about the arguments or 'kalam' for the existence of god. First, Craig argues that the universe began to exist, using two philosophical and two scientific arguments. Second, Craig argues that whatever begins to exist has a cause that caused it to begin to exist. Finally, Craig argues that this cause is a personal creator who changelessly and independently willed the beginning of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C ... l_Argument

[Terrapin Station]

What I'm confused about is what that (or anything else below) has to do with whether whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

You consistently referenced time as Tn (a change state) in this topic. Not once did you deviate from that vision that you have fiercely defended.

Example:

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

Do you view time in other ways? If not, is a deviation of your reasoning with regard 'impossibility of traversing the infinite' possible in theory? If not, how is it possible to argue that it is non-intuitive to consider time to have had a begin?

Which has what to do, exactly, with the question I'm asking you?

Can you cite your reasoning that would indicate that it is counter-intuitive for time to have had a begin?

Yes, but I'll be damned if I do so before you directly address the simple question I'm asking you first. You need to demonstrate that you're both capable and willing to engage in the simplest of cooperative interaction.

[Sculptor1]

Let's say space is infinite.
What happens when you go to the edge of the univese and kick a ball outwards??
Does it bounce?

[psyreporter]

It is correct that you mentioned several times in this topic that you were merely making a case for counter-intuitivity of time spanning infinitely backwards in time, however, during the discussion several of your replies and questions indicated that you would actually (be required to) to hold such a belief and I have seen no reasoning or indications from you by which it would be possible to find it counter-intuitive to consider that time would need to have had a beginning.

You mentioned the following with regard change states (state of affairs in time) to be applicable to 'things' that can be counted, by which the logical impossibility of infinite regress backwards in time would become applicable.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, don't you think it's the case that some state of affairs obtains--such as me typing the letter "A" at the beginning of this sentence, and then some other state of affairs obtains, such as the "?" I'll type at the end of this sentence, because phenomena aren't static?

T1/T2 are simply names we can use for those different states of affairs.

If you don't think it's the case that things change, what do you think is going on instead?

I replied with the following, of which you indicated that it was false, implying that you argue that change states (state of affairs) that are applicable to 'real things' need to be considered to posses of 'intrinsic existence' and be 'objectively real'.

For a change/state of time to be considered countable, it must have been perceived.

This is false, as I just explained above re a simple oscillating system.

In philosophy, state of affairs is essentially a term for "reality".

In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)


You mentioned the following about your perspective on state of affairs (change states in time) to exist independently from mind (observer) which would imply that state of affairs can be counted by their intrinsic existence independent from mind.

Facts are states of affairs--ways that things happen to be, or (dynamic) arrangements of things in the world.

Facts obtain whether people exist or not.

Such a statement is based on a belief that facts have always been there, independent from time and thus from being named. I have been trying to show that such a conviction is based on a belief in uniformitarianism, a dogma.

A philosophical method by itself is a perspective based on truth conditions. Truth conditions of a perspective on reality are questionable just like the truth conditions of a proposition.

In the case of facts, a truth condition is that facts are synthetic propositions predicated by existence in the real world (i.e. your argument: facts obtain whether people as an observer exist or not). Before one could consider this condition one will need to accept a certain truth about "reality" which is questionable.

Evidence that it is in fact the case that you view change states as part of 'things' that have intrinsic existence without mind (i.e. things that are 'really real' and can be counted) can be seen in your perspective on objective reality.

Why would one be able to argue that the states of affairs i.e. "reality" is real or definitive? One could only use empirical evidence for such a claim and that implies that it is not known what causes reality to exist, by which it is to be implied that one cannot know if reality is real or definitive and thus it is not possible to claim that facts obtain when people (as an observer) exist or not.

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Why it interests me to discover the underlying reasoning for the idea that time must have had a beginning is to determine if it is compatible with the idea that mind originates in the brain, or the idea that it is possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

For context:

I'm an atheist.

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

Intrinsic existence without mind implies that what you call state of affairs (change states in time) are to be considered 'facts' that can be counted independent from an observer or mind, which would imply that mathematical potential infinity is applicable to those change states in time.

When mathematical potential infinity must be applicable to state of affairs in time then the logical implication is that time must have had a begin.

Do you not agree with the above statement? If so, why?

[Terrapin Station]

It is correct that you mentioned several times in this topic that you were merely making a case for counter-intuitivity of time spanning infinitely backwards in time, however, during the discussion several of your replies and questions indicated that you would actually (be required to) to hold such a belief and I have seen no reasoning or indications from you by which it would be possible to find it counter-intuitive to consider that time would need to have had a beginning.

You mentioned the following with regard change states (state of affairs in time) to be applicable to 'things' that can be counted, by which the logical impossibility of infinite regress backwards in time would become applicable.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, don't you think it's the case that some state of affairs obtains--such as me typing the letter "A" at the beginning of this sentence, and then some other state of affairs obtains, such as the "?" I'll type at the end of this sentence, because phenomena aren't static?

T1/T2 are simply names we can use for those different states of affairs.

If you don't think it's the case that things change, what do you think is going on instead?

I replied with the following, of which you indicated that it was false, implying that you argue that change states (state of affairs) that are applicable to 'real things' need to be considered to posses of 'intrinsic existence' and be 'objectively real'.

For a change/state of time to be considered countable, it must have been perceived.

This is false, as I just explained above re a simple oscillating system.

In philosophy, state of affairs is essentially a term for "reality".

In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)


You mentioned the following about your perspective on state of affairs (change states in time) to exist independently from mind (observer) which would imply that state of affairs can be counted by their intrinsic existence independent from mind.

Facts are states of affairs--ways that things happen to be, or (dynamic) arrangements of things in the world.

Facts obtain whether people exist or not.

Such a statement is based on a belief that facts have always been there, independent from time and thus from being named. I have been trying to show that such a conviction is based on a belief in uniformitarianism, a dogma.

A philosophical method by itself is a perspective based on truth conditions. Truth conditions of a perspective on reality are questionable just like the truth conditions of a proposition.

In the case of facts, a truth condition is that facts are synthetic propositions predicated by existence in the real world (i.e. your argument: facts obtain whether people as an observer exist or not). Before one could consider this condition one will need to accept a certain truth about "reality" which is questionable.

Evidence that it is in fact the case that you view change states as part of 'things' that have intrinsic existence without mind (i.e. things that are 'really real' and can be counted) can be seen in your perspective on objective reality.

Why would one be able to argue that the states of affairs i.e. "reality" is real or definitive? One could only use empirical evidence for such a claim and that implies that it is not known what causes reality to exist, by which it is to be implied that one cannot know if reality is real or definitive and thus it is not possible to claim that facts obtain when people (as an observer) exist or not.

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Why it interests me to discover the underlying reasoning for the idea that time must have had a beginning is to determine if it is compatible with the idea that mind originates in the brain, or the idea that it is possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

For context:

I'm an atheist.

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

Intrinsic existence without mind implies that what you call state of affairs (change states in time) are to be considered 'facts' that can be counted independent from an observer or mind, which would imply that mathematical potential infinity is applicable to those change states in time.

When mathematical potential infinity must be applicable to state of affairs in time then the logical implication is that time must have had a begin.

Do you not agree with the above statement? If so, why?

Are you saying to yourself, "How can I be obnoxiously uncooperative?"

[SteveKlinko]

What do you mean Mathematical Infinity has a Beginning? What do you mean by Actual Infinity?

It is addressed in the paper. Did you read it?

Quote from Endless and Infinite: potential vs actual infinite

The most commonly heard proposal is that an endless series of future events differs from a beginningless series of past events in that it is a merely potential infinite, having none of the absurd implications of the actual infinite. It is this alleged difference that particularly interests us first. Is it the case that a beginningless series is an actual infinite, whereas an endless series would be only potentially infinite?

]The answer might seem to depend on one’s view of time.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16kwvcuqxf3ww ... 5.pdf?dl=0

A Potential Infinity would therefore have Potential Absurd Implications.

Can you specify which absurdities would be both applicable to actual and potential infinity?

The best example of an Absurdity is the thought experiment of Infinite points on a line segment. Let the segment be from 0 to 1 on the x axis. Now start at 0 and evenly distribute N more points out to 1. There will now be N points beyond 0 and they will be spaced by 1/N = dx. Now let N-->Infinity. Then 1/N-->0. Everything is fine as long as N is only approaching Infinity. But look what has to happen at N=Infinity. You can see that 1/N = dx = 0. For an infinite number of points to exist, the distance between the points must be identically 0. So, all the points will lay on top of each other at 0. You will never be able to build the points out to 1. This is an obvious Absurdity and is a clear demonstration of the Absurdity of Infinity for this case.

Googled around about Potential Infinity. Concept seems to go back to Aristotle. It seems like Potential Infinity is not really Infinity at all. It is just a process of say going in a direction and never stopping or going forward in time endlessly. This is not Infinity, because you will never get to the end of the direction you are going, and you will never get to the end of Time. So Potential Infinity is just a bad term. Since Potential Infinity is not really an Infinite amount of anything, then it may not suffer from the Absurdities of Infinity. But if want to press the Process out to the Limits at an Actual Infinity then you will have Absurdities. But the key still is that a Potential Infinity is not Infinite.

What about 'change states' of which Terrapin Station argues that they are objectively real?

Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

What would be your reply to Terrapin Station's question?

I already answered this. Let's say some Process is going from State 1 (S1) to State 2 (S2). This will happen during some interval of Time between S1 and S2 (T12). Now let's propose that there are multiple Sub States that the Process must go through between S1 and S2. As the number of Sub States increases the time between them decreases. If you want to propose that the number of Sub States then goes to Infinity and say that it is impossible to traverse an Infinite number of Sub States then that would be wrong. The fact is that at a constant Time rate, that the System will in fact transition between an Infinite number of Sub States in the original time Interval. Only if you artificially slow the Time down for each Sub State in your Mind does it seem Impossible. Infinities are an Absurdity, so you have to be careful about just throwing them into argument about anything. If you want to put an Infinite number of Sub States into the Process, then you must accept that other Infinities will show up to compensate.

I do not believe that your reasoning and generalization of infinity is valid.

The paper makes a clear distinction between potential and actual infinity. Do you argue that that is incorrect?

My argument is that the absurdity of which you say that it is applicable to potential infinity is merely of such a nature that it would involve a human (observer) physically counting into infinity.

With the concept beginningless, mathematics cannot apply, and thus, that specific absurdity is not applicable. There is no physical ability to start counting within the concept actual infinity with a beginningless nature.

I have seen no reasoning by which it can be said that actual infinity cannot be applicable to reality, which includes time. On the contrary, by logic, a 'begin' is only possible by an observing mind (by the nature of pattern recognition) and what precedes a begin on a fundamental level logically knows no begin or end.

Ok I'll say it again in a different way. If you want to stipulate that there are an Infinite number of Time intervals between two events, then the fact is that each Interval duration must be 0 length. Since you have an Infinite amount of Intervals of 0 duration it is easy to see how an Infinite amount of these 0 duration things can be traversed in finite Time. You cannot have an Infinite amount of intervals with nonzero duration no matter how small the nonzero duration is.

I tried to read the Paper, but my Neuron was tired. Maybe after it regenerates, I'll give it another try.

A resource that may be of interest as introduction is the WikiPedia article about the Kalām cosmological argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument

A book on the subject by philosopher William Lane Craig:

The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a 1979 book by the philosopher William Lane Craig, in which the author offers a contemporary defense of the Kalām cosmological argument and argues for the existence of God, with an emphasis on the alleged metaphysical impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. The word 'kalam' comes from arabic and means 'the word' or 'an argument' and was originated in the medieval islamic world where scholars used to debate about the arguments or 'kalam' for the existence of god. First, Craig argues that the universe began to exist, using two philosophical and two scientific arguments. Second, Craig argues that whatever begins to exist has a cause that caused it to begin to exist. Finally, Craig argues that this cause is a personal creator who changelessly and independently willed the beginning of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C ... l_Argument

I'll take a look at that Cosmological Argument.

[Bluemist]

psyreporter:
Congratulations on an excellent published article. What's important in the Kalam, Hilbert, etc. arguments is to expose the issues and you did that well.

The error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration. Counting seconds is possible only by an observing mind.

The observer is thoroughly misunderstood in philosophy, math, and physics.

I, as a me myself, am not an observer in third person, but the unique center of my subjective universe, and people, distance, time, past and future radiate away from the one-and-only Me.

The notion that there is a universal objective us is presumed by modern philosophy to permit a common objective Eleatic philosophical world to be explored. But, of course, Eleatic philosophies like the Forms, universals, and particulars are just as timeless as mathematical and logical objects are.

Similarly, physics assumes that the physical world looks the same for any observer from anywhere. But this is only true from the point of view of physical laws and their implications.

A fourth option is more complicated. It is that the world is relational with respect to subject, object, and evolution in time. Not 'time', but the changes are dual to time, that are said to be in time.

The idea 'infinite number' (backwards in time) is a nonsensical idea since actual infinite cannot be counted. The question whether actual infinite is applicable to time is nonetheless a valid question.

As you note, in modern philosophy, the idea of actual or even possible infinite(s) are just as nonsensical as actual or possible nothing(s) are. In math these can be explicitly defined to exist as needed.

The concept nothing presupposed the idea something. It cannot logically be possible.

The original version of nothing is the absence of the cosmos which is clearly unthinkable. The opposite of something in the universe is the explosive everything else, or in a fully restricted closed setting just something else.

The idea that the Universe and time must have had a begin is only possible in a retro-perspective. It is similar to mathematics requiring a begin that is introduced by an observing mind that only allows for 'potential infinity'.

Logic and mathematics are both pure timeless formalisms. Before and after are meaningless.

A recent study indicated that all particles in the Universe are entangled by 'kind'. This would imply that actual infinity is necessarily applicable to physical reality and thus also time.

Not likely. 'actual infinity' and 'physical reality' are both philosophical speculations unconnected to physicists.

[psyreporter]

Are you saying to yourself, "How can I be obnoxiously uncooperative?"

Can you describe the intended result of your question? What knowledge or answer are you attempting to acquire?

Despite that you say that your reasoning on behalf of the necessity of beginning of time was merely intended to explain why it is counter-intuitive for time to span infinitely backwards, the following indicates that your reasoning would demand a physical begin in time.


1) you believe in intrinsic existence without mind (intrinsic existence being primary and the cause of mind)

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

2) you believe that facts obtain whether they are perceived or not which implies that you consider facts 'objectively real'

For a change/state of time to be considered countable, it must have been perceived.

This is false, as I just explained above re a simple oscillating system.

3) you consider state of affairs facts

Facts are states of affairs

4) you consider state of affairs to be applicable to time

T1/T2 are simply names we can use for those different states of affairs.

Essentially, the problem is similar to your 'belief' in free will as being a physicalist that believes that mind originates from the physical and that physical reality is ultimate and real while reasoning by free will sceptics has indicated that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

The question that has remained unanswered as of today is 'how' you are able to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

The only answer that I have received from you is that you consider believing in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest to be of a similar nature as your belief in free will.

Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

Sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

I then asked you the question whether your believing was based on nothing by faith and if so, what the origin would be of that faith, which you again did not answer.

[Bluemist]

Let's say space is infinite.
What happens when you go to the edge of the univese and kick a ball outwards??
Does it bounce?

First, an infinite universe cannot have an edge because the universe, as a whole, expands along the line of motion. This is conceptually analogous to God adding rooms to an infinite hotel as needed, so everything always looks the same.

But Parmenides's cosmos is a round bounded sphere. In this picture there is an edge and if you stick your arm out it disappears from sight and from being into non-being. But in a real situation, when a whale or orca breaches out of the water it simply leaves its water world for a brief look into an adjoining air world without loss.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you saying to yourself, "How can I be obnoxiously uncooperative?"

Can you describe the intended result of your question? What knowledge or answer are you attempting to acquire?

Two things: One, I'm attempting to acquire the knowledge of whether you believe you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive. Two, I'm attempting to see if you are capable of or willing to be cooperative enough to directly answer a simple question. (Because I'd certainly not bother trying to have a conversation with someone who isn't either capable of or willing to do that.)

[Sculptor1]

Let's say space is infinite.
What happens when you go to the edge of the univese and kick a ball outwards??
Does it bounce?

First, an infinite universe cannot have an edge because the universe, as a whole, expands along the line of motion. This is conceptually analogous to God adding rooms to an infinite hotel as needed, so everything always looks the same.

Sorry
I made a TYPO.
SHould read...
Let's say space is FINITE
What happens when you go to the edge of the univese and kick a ball outwards??
Does it bounce?

But Parmenides's cosmos is a round bounded sphere. In this picture there is an edge and if you stick your arm out it disappears from sight and from being into non-being. But in a real situation, when a whale or orca breaches out of the water it simply leaves its water world for a brief look into an adjoining air world without loss.

There is no basis for Parmenides empirically.
A ball disappearing off the edge flouts the most basic realities of nature. Matter and energy are conserved.

[Terrapin Station]

My paper on the Kalam

I just noticed this. Your paper? There's no way that's your paper when you're incapable of answering a simple question.

[psyreporter]

psyreporter :
Congratulations on an excellent published article. What's important in the Kalam, Hilbert, etc. arguments is to expose the issues and you did that well.

The article was published by a cooperation by philosophers Alex Malpas and Wes Morison (professor). I merely posted a link on this forum for the purpose of a discussion.

A visitor on the blog https://useofreason.wordpress.com/ mentioned the following:

I’ve recently discovered your many discussions on youtube and I have been listening to them religiously. You have an incredible talent for communicating the intricacies of philosophy in such a way that anyone could understand them. I think you should try and get in touch with Sean Carroll if possible and see if you could join him on one of his podcast episodes. You both top the charts for being great communicators and intellectuals, I think that would be one of the most substantive episodes of any podcast ever.

My paper on the Kalam

I just noticed this. Your paper? There's no way that's your paper when you're incapable of answering a simple question.

The post was a quote with a clear "Source: ...". Also, it was posted with the introductory text 'follow up of the paper Endless & infinite and the OP makes it very clear that I found the link in a news feed and that I merely started a discussion about it.

OP:

I noticed the following article in a news feed:

Philosopher Wes Morriston and I have coauthored a paper on the Kalam cosmological argument, and it has been accepted publication in the journal Philosophical Quarterly. Once it is actually available on their page access will probably be limited, unless you have an institutional subscription. However, for now you can download it (for free) via this link.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/

Link to the follow up of the paper:

Follow up of the paper Endless & infinite, published in Oxford's Mind journal in March 2021:

All the time in the world
My paper on the Kalam and successive addition argument came out in the journal Mind today. You can read it here:
https://academic.oup.com/mind/advance-a ... a2mzcxC0VY

Source: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2021/ ... the-world/

Proponents of the Kalām cosmological argument (henceforth the 'Kalām'), in particular William Lane Craig (1979), seek to show that the past must have had a beginning, a moment of creation.

How could you have been confused that I authored the paper?

For clarification, I sent the following to @Scott (admin) in response to the question whether I would want to moderate the forum.

Thank you for the offer to manage the forum, however, since I am not a philosopher and recent events have put a question mark with regard neutrality of my position, I believe that it is best that others will perform the task and as it appears, you and Greta's management is perceived as very good by all users.

I sent the following to Greta (admin):

I do not have a philosophical background and am originally merely a guest and passer-by.

I am interested to help but it may be best that control would remain in your hands (and perhaps other new moderators/admins).

I suggested you and Sculptor1:

Who may be interested and would provide quality are Sculptor and Terrapin Station. They are active daily so they may be a reliable party for long term management of the forum. There may be more users.

Greta did mention that she was provided with the admin role apparently randomly at some point in time, and didn't know wheter she wanted to continue it on the semi long term (she mentioned that she was originally also merely a 'passers by' and that forum administration costed considerable time). As it appears, quite an effort is made to administrate the forum.

[psyreporter]

The observer is thoroughly misunderstood in philosophy, math, and physics.

I, as a me myself, am not an observer in third person, but the unique center of my subjective universe, and people, distance, time, past and future radiate away from the one-and-only Me.

I hold the idea that perception-as-signifier (which performs as an observer when manifested in diverse ways) must nessesarily underlay physical reality by the nature of a pattern that implies that meaning is applicable as precursor to value (with value being patternness).

The following logic provides the basis for the idea:

1. a pattern is nessesarily meaningful (without meaning a pattern is not possible)
2. a pattern is signified by perception (signification provides a pattern with meaning)
3. as representative of meaning perception-as-signifier must precede a pattern on a fundamental level

The indicated meaning is to be considered 'pure meaning' because it cannot be a pattern. Alternative names for what is indicated would be 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued) or truth.

The notion that there is a universal objective us is presumed by modern philosophy to permit a common objective Eleatic philosophical world to be explored. But, of course, Eleatic philosophies like the Forms, universals, and particulars are just as timeless as mathematical and logical objects are.

I do not believe that that is valid. Mathematical and logical objects are retro-perspectives while it can be argued that the timeless nature of the indicated Forms and universals is of substance beyond the scope of subjective experience (i.e. not a retro-perspective).

Similarly, physics assumes that the physical world looks the same for any observer from anywhere. But this is only true from the point of view of physical laws and their implications.

Such an idea is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the laws of Nature.

While repeatability of science provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that has profound implications.

A recent study indicated that the laws of Nature are changing.

(2021) Scientists Say the Laws of Physics Are Changing
The cosmos is stranger than we know. It’s mind-bending to imagine that the laws of physics might learn and adapt over time.
https://futurism.com/laws-physics-changing

A fourth option is more complicated. It is that the world is relational with respect to subject, object, and evolution in time. Not 'time', but the changes are dual to time, that are said to be in time.

Would those changes posses of intrinsic existence (i.e. would they be countable)?

As you note, in modern philosophy, the idea of actual or even possible infinite(s) are just as nonsensical as actual or possible nothing(s) are. In math these can be explicitly defined to exist as needed.

I am not certain whether that is valid. I cannot judge the status quo of modern philosophy but when it regards the idea philosophical examination in general then actual infinity is a concept that seems useful and applicable to reality.

Potential infinity (e.g. mathematical infinity) cannot logically be applicable to the fundamental nature of reality, because it requires a begin that is introduced by an observing mind.

The concept nothing stands in relation to something and therefor implies a begin that is introduced by an observing mind. The nonsensical aspect of that concept is merely that the mind must precede 'nothing' for the concept to be possible.

The original version of nothing is the absence of the cosmos which is clearly unthinkable. The opposite of something in the universe is the explosive everything else, or in a fully restricted closed setting just something else.

The concept 'the cosmos' (as a retro-perspective) is only possible by a begin that is introduced by an observing mind. When it concerns the fundamental nature of what is indicated with cosmos, then a begin cannot logically be possible so the idea absense of 'the cosmos' would be impossible.

Logic and mathematics are both pure timeless formalisms. Before and after are meaningless.

The produce of logic and mathematics is not because it produces objects in retro-perspective (value).

As a pure potential for logic and mathematics it can be said that it embodies the essence of timeless nature (actual infinity) however one could similarly argue that any other craft performed by humans on behalf of what is deemed 'good' would embody the essence of pure timelessness (actual infinity), e.g. gardening.

Value-creation would embody the essence of timeless nature (actual infinity) while value itself does not.

Not likely. 'actual infinity' and 'physical reality' are both philosophical speculations unconnected to physicists.

When all particles in the cosmos are found to be entangled by their 'identical nature' then it simply implies that the quality non-uniqueness (kind) is applicable to every 'thing' in the Universe. That implication would translate into the idea that actual infinity is applicable to the whole of reality, which would include thoughts of the human mind.