Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[brokensymmetry]

The set of all odds say is some set A. Then take it, subtract it from itself. What happens when you subract *identical sets*? well... you could scrolls down to 'Complements' here and see for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
I am proposing the subtraction of *identical sets* from one another.

The problem is, these are inherently mathematical concepts. If I am not allowed to import examples of successfully subtracting infinities, how am I supposed to show that such things are allowed and work just fine? x-x where both xs are evaluated at infinity simply subtract off.

As far as your example goes, that isn't hard, insofar as the future is infinitely as big as the past. By the way, if I have to walk across the room, and take a step such that each time I halve the distance I went previously, how many steps do I have to take to get to the end? It's amazing how many times I manage to 'transverse infinities' in my day to day experience. Do you think time is quantized?

 

[viole]

No but I am aware of science observing an expanding universe, which, on the Christian view, is also recorded in the bible. If space is currently expanding outwards as we move towards the future, if you go back in time space becomes smaller and smaller, to which absolutely nothing existed.

LOL, nobody knows that. That absolutely nothing existed before is only in your mind, I am afraid. Could be, but it could that it is not the case. For what we know, we could be the result of a bouncing Universe that collapsed or a quantum fluctuation of a tiny speck of a pre-existing Universe.

Do you have direct and testable observation that there was absolutely nothing beyond the BB? If you do, we can meet in Stockholm for a beer when you collect you Nobel prize.

Nobody has seen that. Nobody has experimented and validated that. Therefore, according to your criteria of what science is, this is "voodoo science" as well.

That is the standard big bang model which is the predominate model in cosmology. That is called a cosmic beginning, viole.

Yes, and common descent is the predominant model in biology. Maybe more so, considering that it is older than the BB model and still alive and kicking.

Same thing. No direct observation of common ancestors generating humans and chimps at the zoo, but plenty of indirect evidence.

And this is called consciousness from non-consciousness Call.

I know you this is hard to accept, but if we are supposed to go where science takes us, then you or other naturalistics should be willing to accept this.

I accept the BB theory without problems. I personally even think that there was no "before" the BB, i.e. nothing exists beyond, so in that I agree with you.

But that does not affect my naturalistic worldview at all. Why should it?

I actually wonder how theists can keep their worldview if we accept where science leads us. And I mean "science"; not only the cherry-picked areas which do not utterly contradict the Bible...there would be nothing left

Well, whether you are a young earth creationist or old earth, the fact is, we can all agree that the earth is began to exist and how it began to exist is up for debate, doesn't matter.

I hope you are not serious. If I were a YEC, I would not trust the reliability of this scientific result at all, even if I agree with the conclusion. Why? Because we deviate by 6 orders of magnitude when we consider the time involved, among other things.

If you have 1 dollar in the bank, and your banker tells you that, in reality, they are 1 million, would you think they run their bank reliably, even if you are happy about that? Or wouldn't you just take the money and move it to another bank?

So if every event that you mentioned above had a natural number attached to it, what number would you attach to the event that preceded the infinite number. What would that number be...the one RIGHT before infinity was traversed, what would that number be?

Ach, so your problem is not the traversal of events that come to past in infinite time. Your problem is that you cannot conceive a chain of events without a first initiating cause, even if it unfolds in finite time. And since infinities allow that, you have a problem with infinities.

By the way, it is easy to show how you can traverse the infinite line in finite time as well by increasing the traversal speed accordingly; therefore not even linear infinities pose logical problems for what concerns their traversal.

But all this is only a philosophical or intuition problem of yours, not a logical one. There is no logical contradiction whatsoever to explain or define things in terms of their predecessor only, even if there is no predecessor that precedes each of these things. If there were such a logical contradiction, all of math would fall apart.

And if treating infinities and infinitesimals leads to absurd results, why is Calculus so effective in describing the physical Universe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[cottage]

Did I reply? I don't recall.

Well, the thread is still there if you care to respond?

Nonsense.

Then explain to me why it is 'nonsense', but without begging the question?

That answer is inadequate. If we can imagine a rock that is resting on pavement, and the rock and pavement are the ONLY things that exists in reality...under this circumstance, there is no reason for the rock to EVER begin to move, since there is nothing outside it to make it move, nor is there anything within it to make it move...and if you propose there to be something within it to make it move, then there is no reason as to why it would begin to move at that particular point and not another point. The same thing with the "universe" or "big bang" or whatever you want to call it (as that it is still unclear).

Things in existence can be shown to have an explanation in terms of some other thing, but then it is inferred fallaciously from this principle that there are things that can’t be shown to exist but do exist. From this it is said if things in the world have a reason or explanation then the world itself must have a reason or explanation for being what it is. And it is claimed that the explanation isn’t found in the world, therefore it must be external to the world.

But by the same token this external explanation must have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world. In plainer language if God is the explanation then why did God create the world? The question leads to a contradiction. For if God created the world, then he needs a reason for doing so, but no such difficulty arises if the world is eternal, whereas a self-sufficient being cannot have needs and nor can creation be for the benefit of the created creatures, since they didn’t formerly exist and so couldn’t benefit from coming into existence. So, two possibilities here, then: things can happen, or be caused, without a reason, or God isn’t self-sufficient!

And since we don’t know the nature of the phenomenal world any more than we can know the nature of a supposed god, we cannot know how the world is sustained. But we do know the universe exists, which is rather more than can be said of God. You ask ‘at what point did it begin to move?’ I assume by that you mean the Big bang? Well, it didn’t happen in time so the question is meaningless’ as time began from the Big Bang.

Everything has an external reason for its existence, or it exists due to the necessity of its own nature. I think I've just demonstrated why the universe couldn't have existed due to the necessity of its own nature.

But that makes no sense at all. If the world is eternal then there is nothing external to it. And something existing from eternity needs no explanation, whether that is the Universe or god.

I don't know about that though, because that would mean that a omni-sufficient being would literally not be able to do anything…for any act you could say “well, if X is omini-sufficient, he wouldn’t have wanted/needed to do Y”.

Of course God can do anything (that’s logically possible). We know that. The question is why if he is Supreme and complete in all possible things did he create the world to have a relationship with his (inferior) creation? By definition he cannot benefit from such a relationship!

But it isn’t. You can’t explain why something with no free will could begin to do something if there were no pre-deterministic/pre-conditions that existed externally or within it.

There doesn’t have to be a ‘Why’ unless cause is assumed to be necessary (which it isn’t).

The argument is two-fold…as Christians believe that the origin of the disciples belief is best explained by the Resurrection being true…and if you take that along with the arguments which support a being that exist which is CAPABLE of pulling off a Resurrection, the case is made. So it isn’t question begging, we believe based on evidence that we think is sufficient, and then draw the conclusion based on this inference.

Can you not see why you harm the credibility of the argument with that approach? The purpose of the ’Argument from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ’ is to prove the existence of God independent of faith or other arguments. The object is to prove the Resurrection true by appeal to testimony in a historical context. It is supposed to be a proof that is not contingent in any way upon belief. If you read Professor Craig he doesn’t begin the argument by saying ‘We Christians believe…’

And as I said before, he doesn’t stop with just emotions, for ANY given act that a omni-sufficient being makes, one can ask, “Well, if he is sufficient, why did he do X, Y, Z..” Something doesn’t seem right about that.

The crux of the matter is if he is self-sufficient and complete then he has no needs; there is logically nothing that can profit him or augment what he already is and has.

Except for the fact that some naturalists claim that since they believe that life/universe all originated or “came together” naturally, then intelligent design is not needed, and some are not open to the “next argument or theory that proves them false”, at least if the next argument or theory is theological rather than scientific.

Nevertheless they can be proved wrong. Science itself is a living species and one that nobody can presume to control, whether it is the discovery of life-saving medical procedures or the development of weapons of mass destruction. There isn’t a Book of Science that can never be re-written.

And my point is simply neither abiogenesis or macroevolution has never been proven true with science, so it should be a scientific “given” as some would like it to be. That is just wishful thinking and takes just as much faith as religion does.

I’m sorry but it’s ridiculous to speak of science as being akin to religious dogma. What we have faith in today may well have us in fits of laughter in the future. Science is progressive whereas religious belief is static and uncompromising.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The set of all odds say is some set A. Then take it, subtract it from itself. What happens when you subract *identical sets*? well... you could scrolls down to 'Complements' here and see for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
I am proposing the subtraction of *identical sets* from one another.

If you have an infinite number of marbles, and you give me the entire set of marbles, you have 0 marbles...but if you have an infinite number of marbles and you give me all the odd numbered marbles, you we will have an equal amount of marbles.

So on one hand infinity-infinity= 0...and on the other hand infinity-infinity = infinity. I can't express to you how absurd that is, and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

The problem is, these are inherently mathematical concepts. If I am not allowed to import examples of successfully subtracting infinities, how am I supposed to show that such things are allowed and work just fine? x-x where both xs are evaluated at infinity simply subtract off.

Right, they are mathematical concepts...but if you apply these concepts to real life events, you will get absurd results. When you subtract from any amount, you are supposed to have less than what you started with, and this is not the case with infinity, so something is very wrong here.

As far as your example goes, that isn't hard, insofar as the future is infinitely as big as the past.

There is a past-boundary. If you go back in time the equal distant that it took to reach "today", you will never arrive at any point because no matter what point you arrive at, there were an infinitely many points that preceded it.

If you were part of a construction company and your company was tasked to build a house, a house that takes an infinitely many bricks before it will be "complete", and you won't get paid until you "complete" the house......when will you complete the house? The answer; NEVER. For every brick you lay, there will be an infinitely many more bricks to lay.

Now apply that to the universe and the events within it. In order for the present moment to come to past, an infinite number of prior present moments had to come to past in order for this moment to come to past.

There is a huge philosophical problem here...and I understand you are doing everything you can to negate this problem, but there is nothing that you nor anyone else can do to escape this.

By the way, if I have to walk across the room, and take a step such that each time I halve the distance I went previously, how many steps do I have to take to get to the end? It's amazing how many times I manage to 'transverse infinities' in my day to day experience. Do you think time is quantized?

The distance between any two points is finite. You can divide it as much as you like, but as long as you are moving progressively forward, you will arrive at the destination in a finite time at a finite distance.

 

[brokensymmetry]

If you have an infinite number of marbles, and you give me the entire set of marbles, you have 0 marbles...but if you have an infinite number of marbles and you give me all the odd numbered marbles, you we will have an equal amount of marbles.

So on one hand infinity-infinity= 0...and on the other hand infinity-infinity = infinity. I can't express to you how absurd that is, and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.



Right, they are mathematical concepts...but if you apply these concepts to real life events, you will get absurd results. When you subtract from any amount, you are supposed to have less than what you started with, and this is not the case with infinity, so something is very wrong here.



There is a past-boundary. If you go back in time the equal distant that it took to reach "today", you will never arrive at any point because no matter what point you arrive at, there were an infinitely many points that preceded it.

If you were part of a construction company and your company was tasked to build a house, a house that takes an infinitely many bricks before it will be "complete", and you won't get paid until you "complete" the house......when will you complete the house? The answer; NEVER. For every brick you lay, there will be an infinitely many more bricks to lay.

Now apply that to the universe and the events within it. In order for the present moment to come to past, an infinite number of prior present moments had to come to past in order for this moment to come to past.

There is a huge philosophical problem here...and I understand you are doing everything you can to negate this problem, but there is nothing that you nor anyone else can do to escape this.



The distance between any two points is finite. You can divide it as much as you like, but as long as you are moving progressively forward, you will arrive at the destination in a finite time at a finite distance.

No, my challenge is not that if you have an infinite set of marbles and you remove the ones labeled with an odd number that you wouldn't have an infinite set left. No one contests *that*. My challenge is this.

If you have an infinite set of odd numbers, and you remove all of those, how many do you have left? That is what happens when you subtract two *identical* sets from each other. You said 'infinity' and that is not correct.

This is a mathematical problem first. The fact of the matter is that infinities are used in math and science frequently, and with no contradiction or problem. So before we decide that 'ah! an infinity! we have to throw in the towel!' we need to see if it is a problem that can be tamed, or if it is really is out of control. Sometimes it is the latter case, but sometimes we discover after a lot of careful investigation that we can legitimately cancel out infinities in some problem and obtain a meaningful finite solution.

I can define any two finite intervals for whatever events you are worried about. So what that you can always name an earlier one? I can always name a finite interval of time. It's not clear in my mind what the problem is in that case. We can move around where you like on the 'time event' line, name any events you want, and we can define a finite interval of time.

 

[brokensymmetry]

And if treating infinities and infinitesimals leads to absurd results, why is Calculus so effective in describing the physical Universe?

Ciao

- viole

This. I think a lot of this is coming from an incorrect impression from reading apologetically aimed philosophy which honestly lacks much nuance on these sorts of questions leaving readers with the impression there is just an intrinsic absurdity and impossibility to any 'infinity' that no one ever can really handle. A single calculus course however would put that notion to rest.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

LOL, nobody knows that. That absolutely nothing existed before is only in your mind, I am afraid. Could be, but it could that it is not the case.

That is the implication of the model, viole. No one is foolish enough to propose that the singularity was just sitting there waiting to expand, and then suddenly, for no apparent reason, start to expand. Cosmologists were aware of these implications, which is why shortly after the discovery was made, models such as the steady state model and oscillating model got a little steam, because scientists recognized what an absolute beginning to space-time meant.

For what we know, we could be the result of a bouncing Universe that collapsed or a quantum fluctuation of a tiny speck of a pre-existing Universe.

Both oscillating and quantum fluctation models has already been proven wrong...either they had observational problems or they had philosophical problems. Time and time again a model will be "proposed" and brought to the table to stand the test of time and scrutinity, and then it will be proven wrong..scientifically negated, and that has happened to the exact ones that you mentioned.

Do you have direct and testable observation that there was absolutely nothing beyond the BB?

Even if there was a physical reality beyond our space-time, the problem of infinite regress would still plague it. That problem isn't going anywhere, viole. And the good thing about it is, it is independent of science...so no cosmologists, physicists, etc..none of these people can do away with the fact that postulating a pre-big bang model would lead you to problems of infinite regress. None.

I really could get more in depth with it...and I will if I have to

If you do, we can meet in Stockholm for a beer when you collect you Nobel prize.

I'm down with that....beer...a big juicy steak...and one of these :cigar:

Yes, and common descent is the predominant model in biology. Maybe more so, considering that it is older than the BB model and still alive and kicking.

The difference is we have observational and empirical evidence for BB cosmology. We don't have observational and empirical evidence for common descent, or specifically, macroevolution.

Same thing. No direct observation of common ancestors generating humans and chimps at the zoo, but plenty of indirect evidence.

What indirect evidence? There is enough speculation to go around...it is the evidence that is lacking.

And this is called consciousness from non-consciousness Call.

*Walks into a bar*

Me: Excuse me, can I have a nice tall glass of "speculation"

Bartender: Oh, absolutely, we are serving it by the pitcher, all on the house.

Me: Excellent! Can you mix it with a little bit of "evidence" please?

Bartender: I am so sorry, we don't have any "evidence", only "speculation"

Me: What? How can you have serve "speculation" with no "evidence"?

Bartender: What are you talking about? We have been serving this "speculation" for over 150 years, and we NEVER served it with "evidence".

Me: That is a bunch of Chicago Bull-$#!t, I demand my "speculation" to be served with "evidence"!!

Bartender: I am sorry sir, I am going to have to ask you to leave. If you want speculation served with evidence, you are going to have to go down the street to that Christian bar. In fact, they serve more "evidence" than speculation", and I am sure you will get everything you want there. They even have "all you can drink" "evidence" day.

*Gets up and walks towards the exit*

Me: Fine then. I am surpised you guys are even in business anyway.

Bartender: Oh, we have very loyal customers, sir. See those guys over there with the white lab coats, they come here every single day, and they never ask for "evidence"...all they want is "speculation".

Me: Very well then. You serve that to them and I am going down the street where I can get me some "evidence" served with my "speculation"

*walks out the bar*

LMAO that was kind of funny.

Ach, so your problem is not the traversal of events that come to past in infinite time. Your problem is that you cannot conceive a chain of events without a first initiating cause, even if it unfolds in finite time. And since infinities allow that, you have a problem with infinities.

By the way, it is easy to show how you can traverse the infinite line in finite time as well by increasing the traversal speed accordingly; therefore not even linear infinities pose logical problems for what concerns their traversal.

But all this is only a philosophical or intuition problem of yours, not a logical one. There is no logical contradiction whatsoever to explain or define things in terms of their predecessor only, even if there is no predecessor that precedes each of these things. If there were such a logical contradiction, all of math would fall apart.

And if treating infinities and infinitesimals leads to absurd results, why is Calculus so effective in describing the physical Universe?

Ciao

- viole

You are merely telling me that it can be done and that it can exist, yet, no response to the analogy.

 

[viole]

That is the implication of the model, viole. No one is foolish enough to propose that the singularity was just sitting there waiting to expand, and then suddenly, for no apparent reason, start to expand. Cosmologists were aware of these implications, which is why shortly after the discovery was made, models such as the steady state model and oscillating model got a little steam, because scientists recognized what an absolute beginning to space-time meant.

Singularity? What are you talking about? Do you have a picture of that?

Voodoo science, I am afraid

Both oscillating and quantum fluctation models has already been proven wrong...either they had observational problems or they had philosophical problems. Time and time again a model will be "proposed" and brought to the table to stand the test of time and scrutinity, and then it will be proven wrong..scientifically negated, and that has happened to the exact ones that you mentioned.

Only in your mind. Unless you can provide evidence that models like Quantistic fluctuations from a pre-existing Universe are ruled out by the scientific community. It does not seem to be the case.

Everybody has an observational problem. And for what concerns the philosophical problems...what makes you think that scientists care about philosophy? LOL. Nobody wants to go to a gun fight with a knife.

Even if there was a physical reality beyond our space-time, the problem of infinite regress would still plague it. That problem isn't going anywhere, viole. And the good thing about it is, it is independent of science...so no cosmologists, physicists, etc..none of these people can do away with the fact that postulating a pre-big bang model would lead you to problems of infinite regress. None.

Infinite regress, if any, is a problem only for you. You still failed to show logical contradictions about the concept.

I really could get more in depth with it...and I will if I have to

Oh please, go ahead. Let's do some Calculus.

I'm down with that....beer...a big juicy steak...and one of these :cigar:

I am not holding my breath.

The difference is we have observational and empirical evidence for BB cosmology. We don't have observational and empirical evidence for common descent, or specifically, macroevolution.

No Call. We have no observational evidence about the very "beginning" of the Universe. We have no observational evidence that there was absolutely nothing before. Unless you can show us pictures of this alleged nothingness, singularity, or whatever

Speculations and voodoo science, as you would put it.

What indirect evidence? There is enough speculation to go around...it is the evidence that is lacking.

The same indirect evidence of your nothingness before the BB.

oops. What happened with the YEC line?

You are a YEC, aren't you?

*Walks into a bar*

Me: Excuse me, can I have a nice tall glass of "speculation"

Bartender: Oh, absolutely, we are serving it by the pitcher, all on the house.

Me: Excellent! Can you mix it with a little bit of "evidence" please?

Bartender: I am so sorry, we don't have any "evidence", only "speculation"

Me: What? How can you have serve "speculation" with no "evidence"?

Bartender: What are you talking about? We have been serving this "speculation" for over 150 years, and we NEVER served it with "evidence".

Me: That is a bunch of Chicago Bull-$#!t, I demand my "speculation" to be served with "evidence"!!

Bartender: I am sorry sir, I am going to have to ask you to leave. If you want speculation served with evidence, you are going to have to go down the street to that Christian bar. In fact, they serve more "evidence" than speculation", and I am sure you will get everything you want there. They even have "all you can drink" "evidence" day.

*Gets up and walks towards the exit*

Me: Fine then. I am surpised you guys are even in business anyway.

Bartender: Oh, we have very loyal customers, sir. See those guys over there with the white lab coats, they come here every single day, and they never ask for "evidence"...all they want is "speculation".

Me: Very well then. You serve that to them and I am going down the street where I can get me some "evidence" served with my "speculation"

*walks out the bar*

LMAO that was kind of funny.

I actually prefer Monty Python; if it is OK with you.

You are merely telling me that it can be done and that it can exist, yet, no response to the analogy.

I am not telling you. I am showing you how it can be done. I could show you how to traverse infinite lines repeatedly in finite time without any problem, if you want. All you need is a bit of basic math that I am sure you will master without problems.

What analogy? I might have missed that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

This. I think a lot of this is coming from an incorrect impression from reading apologetically aimed philosophy which honestly lacks much nuance on these sorts of questions leaving readers with the impression there is just an intrinsic absurdity and impossibility to any 'infinity' that no one ever can really handle. A single calculus course however would put that notion to rest.

Which translates into: philosophical apologists do not have a clue about math.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, my challenge is not that if you have an infinite set of marbles and you remove the ones labeled with an odd number that you wouldn't have an infinite set left. No one contests *that*. My challenge is this.

If you have an infinite set of odd numbers, and you remove all of those, how many do you have left? That is what happens when you subtract two *identical* sets from each other. You said 'infinity' and that is not correct.

Actually, it is correct. If you had an infinite set of marbles and you can placed a natural number on each marble, and you gave me all the odd numbered marbles, I will have an infinite set of marbles (odd), and you will have an infinite number of (even) marbles. So you subtracted an identical number (infinity) from the total set (infinity) and you STILL have an infinite set (an infinite number of even numbered marbles).

Now think about that for a second...the entire set is infinite, and if you subtract an infinite set (just odd numbers) from the set as a whole (odd+even), you will still have an infinite set!!!

Now, if that isn't absurd enough...suppose I subtracted all of the odd numbered marbles from my set? Remember, since I subtracted from your set, if I were to recount my marbles (the marbles you gave me from your set), by placing a natural number to all of the marbles in my set, the SAME thing would happen, I would subtract all of the odd numbered marbles from my set, and I will still have all the even numbered marbles.

Absurd.

This is a mathematical problem first. The fact of the matter is that infinities are used in math and science frequently, and with no contradiction or problem.

Ok, so you shouldn't have a "problem" (no pun intended) telling me how many times is 2 divided by infinity.

I will patiently wait for your answer.

So before we decide that 'ah! an infinity! we have to throw in the towel!' we need to see if it is a problem that can be tamed, or if it is really is out of control. Sometimes it is the latter case, but sometimes we discover after a lot of careful investigation that we can legitimately cancel out infinities in some problem and obtain a meaningful finite solution.

How many times is 2 divided by infinity???!!!!

I can define any two finite intervals for whatever events you are worried about. So what that you can always name an earlier one? I can always name a finite interval of time. It's not clear in my mind what the problem is in that case. We can move around where you like on the 'time event' line, name any events you want, and we can define a finite interval of time.

I would like a direct answer to my analogy, please.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Actually, it is correct. If you had an infinite set of marbles and you can placed a natural number on each marble, and you gave me all the odd numbered marbles, I will have an infinite set of marbles (odd), and you will have an infinite number of (even) marbles. So you subtracted an identical number (infinity) from the total set (infinity) and you STILL have an infinite set (an infinite number of even numbered marbles).

Now think about that for a second...the entire set is infinite, and if you subtract an infinite set (just odd numbers) from the set as a whole (odd+even), you will still have an infinite set!!!

.

all this abstract talk about 'infinities' is going to get us in trouble. I'm the type of person who requires to think about this in terms of concrete examples.

Yes... we've established this about even and odd sets many posts ago. That isn't my question. See, I agree that the set of all odd integers is the same size as the set of all integers. I don't find that absurd. That just means for every member of one set you can match it with another member of the other set. Counter intuitive? Of course. Absurd? no.

Look at this like natural numbers as you say. A={1,3,5,7,....} and B={1,2,3,4,...}

For every member in A there is a member in B. 1-1, 3-2, 5-3, 7-4, and so on. So you could do the operation B/A, which would serve to remove all the odd elements from B, leaving you with a set that has the elements {2,4,6,...}. You can see there are still an infinite number of elements left. I don't find this weird. There isn't anything strange about the set. It contains precisely what I would expect it to if you were to take out all of the odd elements. Again, I really would like you take a moment to review this, because I am once again agreeing.

It is this part BELOW that I have been trying to establish in the discussion.

But now, this is what I have been asking you about for the last couple posts. If you have the set of all odd integers A, and you take away the set of odd numbers A, what do you have left? That is, what is A/A? In this operation you remove whatever elements are in the second from the first. Since the exact same elements are in A that are in A, once you are done removing all of the elements in A from A, what do you have left? Do you have any elements left?

You have the empty set. Here, you've done an operation such that you've taken a set with infinite elements, and gotten nothing back. How is this possible? This is why I like thinking in terms of specific examples--- and specifically in terms of the *contents* of these sets. Saying they are 'infinity' just refers to the number of elements in them. That doesn't tell much anything else about what is specifically in them.

As to your example, I don't see the issue. Pick a reference time from which to name all other times, r. I can subtract off the 'infinity', i.e. the infinite set of events, from before, and each time define a meaning finite interval.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Singularity? What are you talking about? Do you have a picture of that?

Voodoo science, I am afraid

A picture of what?

Only in your mind. Unless you can provide evidence that models like Quantistic fluctuations from a pre-existing Universe are ruled out by the scientific community. It does not seem to be the case.

[youtube]WOyQFkB1AGM[/youtube]
The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem - Alexander Vilenkin, PhD - YouTube

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has proved that any universe that has been expanding at an average Hubble rate of greater than 0 cannot be past eternal, and virtually all models fall prey to this theorem, including Quantum Fluctuation models. Watch the above video and hang on to every single word.

Everybody has an observational problem. And for what concerns the philosophical problems...what makes you think that scientists care about philosophy? LOL. Nobody wants to go to a gun fight with a knife.

Well, since we are talking about the absolute origins of the universe (at least, I am), and science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain....that would make science inable to explain anything that is of "origins" related...so I will rely on good ole philosophy.

Infinite regress, if any, is a problem only for you. You still failed to show logical contradictions about the concept.

Oh please, go ahead. Let's do some Calculus.

I would like an answer to my analogy before you make such statements.

I am not holding my breath.

No Call. We have no observational evidence about the very "beginning" of the Universe. We have no observational evidence that there was absolutely nothing before. Unless you can show us pictures of this alleged nothingness, singularity, or whatever

Until you can demonstrate in what possible world at which infinite regress is possible, the above statement is meaningless.

Speculations and voodoo science, as you would put it.

:yes:

The same indirect evidence of your nothingness before the BB.

oops. What happened with the YEC line?

You are a YEC, aren't you?

YEC, OEC....I am open to both.

I actually prefer Monty Python; if it is OK with you.

I am not telling you. I am showing you how it can be done. I could show you how to traverse infinite lines repeatedly in finite time without any problem, if you want. All you need is a bit of basic math that I am sure you will master without problems.

It is very simple. If there was an infinite number of births that preceded yours, how would the event of your birth come to past? Very simple. Tell ya what; Go to Haiti, contact a local medium.....ask him/her to contact the spirit of Georg Cantor, and ask him to use his infamous "set theory" to help you answer this very basic question.

And while you are at it, ask him how many times is 2 divided into infinity. Do that and there will be nothing else to talk about.

 

[idav]

That is the implication of the model, viole. No one is foolish enough to propose that the singularity was just sitting there waiting to expand, and then suddenly, for no apparent reason, start to expand.

Nobody is saying one way or another cause we don't know. What we do know is that at a point of singularity our laws of time no longer apply, eternity exists outside space-time.

Cosmologists were aware of these implications, which is why shortly after the discovery was made, models such as the steady state model and oscillating model got a little steam, because scientists recognized what an absolute beginning to space-time meant.

Still just speculation to try and figure out what existed before time. Anything whether you want to call it god or whatever has that issue, it can't be outside of time and then become time without making a step, a change, an event that spells time actually starting.

Both oscillating and quantum fluctation models has already been proven wrong...either they had observational problems or they had philosophical problems. Time and time again a model will be "proposed" and brought to the table to stand the test of time and scrutinity, and then it will be proven wrong..scientifically negated, and that has happened to the exact ones that you mentioned.

We don't know what happened before time began but quantum forces are going to be a fundamental part of the answer. We just don't know enough to say how all that energy would act in that state but we do have a pretty good idea that the laws as we know them would be broken down. With high gravity and energy states time is not an issue, photons/light are eternal because of their state.

What we need to see is a violation of the law of thermodynamics, we need to see a state in which creation of all this intense energy is possible. This is likely what lies beyond our space-time which would go along with multiverse theory, that universes are constantly being created in a state where there is no time because time would be part of the universe being created. We don't need multiverse though, we only need the energy of the universe to come about once.

How anything can just be self sustaining or self initiating is a mind boggler but that is the only way anything can exist and thats why I'm theist. God or the universe or all existence must be necessarily existent which makes it natural and unavoidable.

 

[budhabee]

I believe that sychronistic events happen all the time and some people would consider sychronistic events to be miracles.

Absolutely yes on this. Syncronistic events should prove we are being watched over constantly. I once went for three months with Sychronistic events happening to me every day or every other day. It was downright spookie I tell you. The hairs on the back of my neck would stand up. Right now it has slowed up a little thank goodness.:run:

 

[idav]

We can literally see the history of the universe but when it comes down to what brought it about I think we are all stumped.

We end up with something like this picture. There really needn't be a miracle, just something we haven't figured out yet.

 

[viole]

A picture of what?

Of the singularity. Do you have one, or have you reproduced it in lab?

[youtube]WOyQFkB1AGM[/youtube]
The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem - Alexander Vilenkin, PhD - YouTube

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has proved that any universe that has been expanding at an average Hubble rate of greater than 0 cannot be past eternal, and virtually all models fall prey to this theorem, including Quantum Fluctuation models. Watch the above video and hang on to every single word.

I hope you are not serious. I know the BGVT. What it says is that the geometry of our space time is closed, that is you cannot leave it, basically. No matter how far you go in the past, or on in space, you will reach a non trespassable limit.

But that does not entail that our spacetime does not originate from another one.

Consider this. A small bubble of water separated from a bigger bubble of water. After separation, all creatures inside the small bubble of water will, correctly, infer that you cannot leave the bubble (BGVT). True. But that does not entail that the mother bubble did not exist to originated it.

This is obvious. Research about self contained bubble universes is alive and kicking. And perfectly allowed by Guth theory. Do you see something in Guth's equations that prevents that? I don't. Quite the contrary, actually.

For starters, the guy speaking (Dr. Vilenkin) is a proponent of eternal (sic) inflation and multiverses. From the prologue of his book (Many worlds in one, the search for other universes):
"The book describes a new cosmology theory that says that every possible chain of events, no matter how bizarre or improbable, has actually happened somewhere in the universe- and not only once but an infinite amount of times!"

I suggest you read the book and hang on to every single word, as you would put it

So, how do you explain that one of the authors of that theorem has no problem whatsoever with eternal inflation, multiple universes and events happening an infinite amount of times?

Well, since we are talking about the absolute origins of the universe (at least, I am), and science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain....that would make science inable to explain anything that is of "origins" related...so I will rely on good ole philosophy.

Fine. But don't say science confirms a firsts cause or a a unique universe. Because it doesn't. Actually, it claims the contrary as Dr. Vilenkin's work shows.

You can keep the knife. But be careful, ... we have the guns

I would like an answer to my analogy before you make such statements.

What analogy?

Until you can demonstrate in what possible world at which infinite regress is possible, the above statement is meaningless.

I already told how it is possible. Having an infinite amount of events is not a problem. Dr. Vilenkin agrees with me, apparently (and not with you).

You actually have it in this universe. I can always cut a segment of time in two without limits. Unless, you think time is quantized. Do you believe that?

YEC, OEC....I am open to both.

Be honest here. It is like being open to both someone who tells you that earth's equator is 40,000 Km long and to someone that tells you that it is 40 meters long.
Cool, I can be open to the possibility that I can have a little stroll from Lucerne to Seattle tonight to meet a friend. I think I will walk through Siberia, there are only a few millimeters of water to cross, lol.

Your openness is a little wide here. I am afraid.

Incidentally, the same guys who showed that theorem would laugh to anyone who says that the Universe is 6,000 years old and children played with little velociraptor pets, and rightly so.

It is very simple. If there was an infinite number of births that preceded yours, how would the event of your birth come to past? Very simple. Tell ya what; Go to Haiti, contact a local medium.....ask him/her to contact the spirit of Georg Cantor, and ask him to use his infamous "set theory" to help you answer this very basic question.

Very simple answer. My birth has been caused by my parents. And their parents and their parents, etc. As I showed you, we can an infinite chain of events that took finite time to complete.

What is the contradiction? Nobody sees it but you.

And while you are at it, ask him how many times is 2 divided into infinity. Do that and there will be nothing else to talk about.

You mean how many times we can divide 2? If not, then please formulate your question in less ambiguous terms.

He told me infinite times. But that does not mean that I cannot give you today any result of any division of 2. Just ask.
You want the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th division?
I can give you the result in no time, no matter how many 0s you want to add.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Of the singularity. Do you have one, or have you reproduced it in lab?

Do I need one? I assume you believe in evolution? Do you have any video footage of an animal giving birth to a different kind of animal?

I hope you are not serious. I know the BGVT. What it says is that the geometry of our space time is closed, that is you cannot leave it, basically. No matter how far you go in the past, or on in space, you will reach a non trespassable limit.

Actually it states that the universe cannot be extended to past infinity. In fact, on the power point slide it explicitly states "Inflating spacetimes are geodescially incomplete and have a beginning.

But that does not entail that our spacetime does not originate from another one.

Had you actually watched the video, you would have heard Vilenkin say, at about 4:20-4:35 into the video "It is an interesting thing that even though these geodesics of the congruent could be of infinite length (maybe the go all the way to past infinity) ANY OTHER GEODESIC must be finite (incomplete) to the past. So it shows that the past (this spacetime region) must have a past boundary".

Consider this. A small bubble of water separated from a bigger bubble of water. After separation, all creatures inside the small bubble of water will, correctly, infer that you cannot leave the bubble (BGVT). True. But that does not entail that the mother bubble did not exist to originated it.

But the mother bubble would have to be expanding as well, and as the BGVT states, ANY other geodesic must be finite, because the only condition that is needed is for the universe to have an AVERAGE Hubble expansion of greater than zero. Second, you would still have an infinity problem. If there was a mother bubble that is popping out an offspring of bubbles, one of which happens to be our universe, then you are basically saying that this mother bubble has been popping out bubbles for an infinite amount of time, which is absurd based on reasons I've already given.

This is obvious. Research about self contained bubble universes is alive and kicking. And perfectly allowed by Guth theory. Do you see something in Guth's equations that prevents that? I don't. Quite the contrary, actually.

Actually, these fluctuation models that you are holding on too is old and outdated. It is just another example of how something is postulated as a hypothesis, and it gets proven wrong empirically, so that scientists have to go back to the drawing board.

For starters, the guy speaking (Dr. Vilenkin) is a proponent of eternal (sic) inflation and multiverses. From the prologue of his book (Many worlds in one, the search for other universes):
"The book describes a new cosmology theory that says that every possible chain of events, no matter how bizarre or improbable, has actually happened somewhere in the universe- and not only once but an infinite amount of times!"

That is funny, because in that same book he said

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176).

--Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176

Plus, I am going by what the man said from his own mouth. Your quote does not explicitly quote him stating that the universe is eternal. I don't know what the context is of what he said in your quote, but I do know the context of what he said from the video of him giving a short presentation of the BGVT and also the EXPLICIT statement he made from the quote I gave.

So, how do you explain that one of the authors of that theorem has no problem whatsoever with eternal inflation, multiple universes and events happening an infinite amount of times?

Dr. Craig did an essay on Vilenkin's work. Read it.

Vilenkin’s Cosmic Vision: A Review Essay of Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes | Reasonable Faith

Fine. But don't say science confirms a firsts cause or a a unique universe. Because it doesn't. Actually, it claims the contrary as Dr. Vilenkin's work shows.

That isn't the argument...the argument is that the universe began to exist, which it did. That is what science confirms...back when naturalists were maintaining that the universe was infinite and eternal, the theists always maintained that it had a beginning...and now science has confirmed what the theists have been saying for all along.

So now that science confirms a finite universe, the naturalists feels the need to postulate all of these wacky cosmological models to avert a finite universe...such as the universe popping into being uncaused out of nothing...such as these multiverse scenarios to explain away the fine tuning, etc.

No matter what naturalistic scenario you give, it will have an infinity problem. That isn't going anywhere.

What analogy?

This has to be the 4th or 5th time I gave it, but is it worth it? Why, yes it is. To make a long story short, if there was an infinite number of births preceding your birth, how would the even of your birth come to past?

Or better yet, just to stick the knife in a little deeper....if the event of your great-grandson's birth was an infinite distance away, how would the event of his birth come to past?

I mean hell, these seem like very simplistic questions, given the fact that you believe that an actual infinite set can be formulated....so, may I have the answer to the questions, please?

I hope you are not serious. I know the BGVT. What it says is that the geometry of our space time is closed, that is you cannot leave it, basically. No matter how far you go in the past, or on in space, you will reach a non trespassable limit.

Actually it states that the universe cannot be extended to past infinity. In fact, on the power point slide it explicitly states "Inflating spacetimes are geodescially incomplete and have a beginning.

But that does not entail that our spacetime does not originate from another one.

Had you actually watched the video, you would have heard Vilenkin say, at about 4:20-4:35 into the video "It is an interesting thing that even though these geodesics of the congruent could be of infinite length (maybe the go all the way to past infinity) ANY OTHER GEODESIC must be finite (incomplete) to the past. So it shows that the past (this spacetime region) must have a past boundary".

Consider this. A small bubble of water separated from a bigger bubble of water. After separation, all creatures inside the small bubble of water will, correctly, infer that you cannot leave the bubble (BGVT). True. But that does not entail that the mother bubble did not exist to originated it.

But the mother bubble would have to be expanding as well, and as the BGVT states, ANY other geodesic must be finite, because the only condition that is needed is for the universe to have an AVERAGE Hubble expansion of greater than zero. Second, you would still have an infinity problem. If there was a mother bubble that is popping out an offspring of bubbles, one of which happens to be our universe, then you are basically saying that this mother bubble has been popping out bubbles for an infinite amount of time, which is absurd based on reasons I've already given.

This is obvious. Research about self contained bubble universes is alive and kicking. And perfectly allowed by Guth theory. Do you see something in Guth's equations that prevents that? I don't. Quite the contrary, actually.

Actually, these fluctuation models that you are holding on too is old and outdated. It is just another example of how something is postulated as a hypothesis, and it gets proven wrong empirically, so that scientists have to go back to the drawing board.

For starters, the guy speaking (Dr. Vilenkin) is a proponent of eternal (sic) inflation and multiverses. From the prologue of his book (Many worlds in one, the search for other universes):
"The book describes a new cosmology theory that says that every possible chain of events, no matter how bizarre or improbable, has actually happened somewhere in the universe- and not only once but an infinite amount of times!"

That is funny, because in that same book he said

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176).

--Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176

Plus, I am going by what the man said from his own mouth. Your quote does not explicitly quote him stating that the universe is eternal. I don't know what the context is of what he said in your quote, but I do know the context of what he said from the video of him giving a short presentation of the BGVT and also the EXPLICIT statement he made from the quote I gave.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, how do you explain that one of the authors of that theorem has no problem whatsoever with eternal inflation, multiple universes and events happening an infinite amount of times?

Dr. Craig did an essay on Vilenkin's work. Read it.

Vilenkin’s Cosmic Vision: A Review Essay of Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes | Reasonable Faith

Fine. But don't say science confirms a firsts cause or a a unique universe. Because it doesn't. Actually, it claims the contrary as Dr. Vilenkin's work shows.

That isn't the argument...the argument is that the universe began to exist, which it did. That is what science confirms...back when naturalists were maintaining that the universe was infinite and eternal, the theists always maintained that it had a beginning...and now science has confirmed what the theists have been saying for all along.

So now that science confirms a finite universe, the naturalists feels the need to postulate all of these wacky cosmological models to avert a finite universe...such as the universe popping into being uncaused out of nothing...such as these multiverse scenarios to explain away the fine tuning, etc.

No matter what naturalistic scenario you give, it will have an infinity problem. That isn't going anywhere.

I already told how it is possible. Having an infinite amount of events is not a problem.

Actually, you haven't told me. If you had, I wouldn't be on here still asking for an answer to my analogy, something that I've asked at least 4 different times now. Better yet, here is another one...the OTHER one...

If you have a construction company, and your company was tasked to build a house made of bricks, and this house needed an infinite amount of bricks to be laid before it is considered complete, when will the project be complete??

And just so you understand exactly how difficult this question is....even if your company laid a gazillion bricks, your company would not be any closer to completion than if they laid just one brick. Now that is absurd, but you are the one that thinks such a thing can happen, so...answer the question.

I hope you are not serious. I know the BGVT. What it says is that the geometry of our space time is closed, that is you cannot leave it, basically. No matter how far you go in the past, or on in space, you will reach a non trespassable limit.

Actually it states that the universe cannot be extended to past infinity. In fact, on the power point slide it explicitly states "Inflating spacetimes are geodescially incomplete and have a beginning.

But that does not entail that our spacetime does not originate from another one.

Had you actually watched the video, you would have heard Vilenkin say, at about 4:20-4:35 into the video "It is an interesting thing that even though these geodesics of the congruent could be of infinite length (maybe the go all the way to past infinity) ANY OTHER GEODESIC must be finite (incomplete) to the past. So it shows that the past (this spacetime region) must have a past boundary".

Consider this. A small bubble of water separated from a bigger bubble of water. After separation, all creatures inside the small bubble of water will, correctly, infer that you cannot leave the bubble (BGVT). True. But that does not entail that the mother bubble did not exist to originated it.

But the mother bubble would have to be expanding as well, and as the BGVT states, ANY other geodesic must be finite, because the only condition that is needed is for the universe to have an AVERAGE Hubble expansion of greater than zero. Second, you would still have an infinity problem. If there was a mother bubble that is popping out an offspring of bubbles, one of which happens to be our universe, then you are basically saying that this mother bubble has been popping out bubbles for an infinite amount of time, which is absurd based on reasons I've already given.

This is obvious. Research about self contained bubble universes is alive and kicking. And perfectly allowed by Guth theory. Do you see something in Guth's equations that prevents that? I don't. Quite the contrary, actually.

Actually, these fluctuation models that you are holding on too is old and outdated. It is just another example of how something is postulated as a hypothesis, and it gets proven wrong empirically, so that scientists have to go back to the drawing board.

For starters, the guy speaking (Dr. Vilenkin) is a proponent of eternal (sic) inflation and multiverses. From the prologue of his book (Many worlds in one, the search for other universes):
"The book describes a new cosmology theory that says that every possible chain of events, no matter how bizarre or improbable, has actually happened somewhere in the universe- and not only once but an infinite amount of times!"

That is funny, because in that same book he said

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176).

--Alexander Vilenkin, "Many Worlds in One: The Search For Other Universes" (Hill & Wang, 2006), page 176

Plus, I am going by what the man said from his own mouth. Your quote does not explicitly quote him stating that the universe is eternal. I don't know what the context is of what he said in your quote, but I do know the context of what he said from the video of him giving a short presentation of the BGVT and also the EXPLICIT statement he made from the quote I gave.

So, how do you explain that one of the authors of that theorem has no problem whatsoever with eternal inflation, multiple universes and events happening an infinite amount of times?

Dr. Craig did an essay on Vilenkin's work. Read it.

Vilenkin’s Cosmic Vision: A Review Essay of Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes | Reasonable Faith

Fine. But don't say science confirms a firsts cause or a a unique universe. Because it doesn't. Actually, it claims the contrary as Dr. Vilenkin's work shows.

That isn't the argument...the argument is that the universe began to exist, which it did. That is what science confirms...back when naturalists were maintaining that the universe was infinite and eternal, the theists always maintained that it had a beginning...and now science has confirmed what the theists have been saying for all along.

So now that science confirms a finite universe, the naturalists feels the need to postulate all of these wacky cosmological models to avert a finite universe...such as the universe popping into being uncaused out of nothing...such as these multiverse scenarios to explain away the fine tuning, etc.

No matter what naturalistic scenario you give, it will have an infinity problem. That isn't going anywhere.

Dr. Vilenkin agrees with me, apparently (and not with you).

"The book describes a new cosmology theory that says that every possible chain of events, no matter how bizarre or improbable, has actually happened somewhere in the universe- and not only once but an infinite amount of times!"

That is a quote from above that YOU quoted from Vilenkin. So based on this quote, am I to assume that the chain of events which lead to my birth "has actually happened somewhere in the universe -and not only once, but an infinite amount of times"

Now if that isn't what he meant, then I will leave it up to YOU to explain what he meant by saying this, since you are the one that quoted him and is using what he said as a defeater of what I said.

Very simple answer. My birth has been caused by my parents. And their parents and their parents, etc. As I showed you, we can an infinite chain of events that took finite time to complete.

That doesn't answer the question of how THE EVENT OF YOUR BIRTH WOULD COME TO PAST IF THERE WAS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF BIRTHS WHICH PRECEDED IT.

What is the contradiction? Nobody sees it but you.

He told me infinite times.

Yeah, and a gazillion can also be divided into infinity an infinite amount of times. That is the problem...a gazillion is astronomically bigger than the #2, yet despite the astronomical difference, they can both be divided into infinity the same number of times!!!

If you can't see how absurd that is, then there is no point is discussing this further. What more is there to say?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Be honest here. It is like being open to both someone who tells you that earth's equator is 40,000 Km long and to someone that tells you that it is 40 meters long.
Cool, I can be open to the possibility that I can have a little stroll from Lucerne to Seattle tonight to meet a friend. I think I will walk through Siberia, there are only a few millimeters of water to cross, lol.

Your openness is a little wide here. I am afraid.

Actually, it isn't. There are some that think that the universe is billions of years old, and some that think the universe is only thousands of years old...the ones that think the universe is billions of years old does so by various empirical dating methods.....and those that think the universe is only thousands of years old calls in to question these dating methods. So at the end of the day, which one prevails?

Doesn't matter to me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

all this abstract talk about 'infinities' is going to get us in trouble. I'm the type of person who requires to think about this in terms of concrete examples.

LMAO

Yes... we've established this about even and odd sets many posts ago. That isn't my question. See, I agree that the set of all odd integers is the same size as the set of all integers. I don't find that absurd. That just means for every member of one set you can match it with another member of the other set. Counter intuitive? Of course. Absurd? no.

It is absurd to subtract from a given amount and to have no less of an amount than you had before the subtraction.

Look at this like natural numbers as you say. A={1,3,5,7,....} and B={1,2,3,4,...}For every member in A there is a member in B. 1-1, 3-2, 5-3, 7-4, and so on. So you could do the operation B/A, which would serve to remove all the odd elements from B, leaving you with a set that has the elements {2,4,6,...}. You can see there are still an infinite number of elements left. I don't find this weird. There isn't anything strange about the set. It contains precisely what I would expect it to if you were to take out all of the odd elements. Again, I really would like you take a moment to review this, because I am once again agreeing.

Numbers are abstract, they don't exist in reality other than as concepts. Now of course, infinity exists as an abstract idea, but when you apply the idea to reality, you get contradictory results. My point is simple.....one cannot POSSESS an infinite number of things (baseball cards, marbles, etc). Nor can one reach infinity as a destination...or....traverse infinity.

To further drive home the point.....I woke up this morning (thank God). Me getting out of bed this morning is an event. Now theoretically speaking, there was an infinite amount of events which led to me getting up this morning...so that "set" in itself is already infinite, not to mention the infinite amount of events that will follow the event of me getting up this morning.

Do you follow? The event of me getting up is a point on the infinite chain, and all the points that preceded this event would make up the infinite set. So the events that followed the event of me getting out of bed would be included on the infinite set that succeeds the event of me getting out of bed.

So pretty much, infinity sliced in half is infinity. Absurd.

But now, this is what I have been asking you about for the last couple posts. If you have the set of all odd integers A, and you take away the set of odd numbers A, what do you have left? That is, what is A/A? In this operation you remove whatever elements are in the second from the first. Since the exact same elements are in A that are in A, once you are done removing all of the elements in A from A, what do you have left? Do you have any elements left?

That would depend on what you mean, which is why I like real life examples. If by "take away the set of odd numbers", you mean if I was to have the entire set of odd numbers in my possession, and I gave you the entire set of odd numbers in my possession, I would not have any.

You have the empty set.

Ok, so that is what you meant.

Here, you've done an operation such that you've taken a set with infinite elements, and gotten nothing back. How is this possible? This is why I like thinking in terms of specific examples--- and specifically in terms of the *contents* of these sets. Saying they are 'infinity' just refers to the number of elements in them. That doesn't tell much anything else about what is specifically in them.

That is the problem!!! First off, you could of used that same example just by giving a scenario of me having an infinite set and giving you the entire set...the answer would still be the same, right?

With infinity, to add or subtract from it is meaningless, because you are not really losing or gaining anything, which is absurd...or how about this...

Take any astronomical number you like....like say 1 to the gazillionth power. If you divide that number into infinity, it can be divided into infinity an infinite number of times.....now take a smaller number, the #2, now divide that into infinity...it can be divided into infinity the same number of times as 1 to the gazillionth power.

But no two numbers can be divided into any amount the same number of times. That is more than counter-intuitive...that is flat out absurd.

As to your example, I don't see the issue. Pick a reference time from which to name all other times, r. I can subtract off the 'infinity', i.e. the infinite set of events, from before, and each time define a meaning finite interval.

I need specifics. You like to get specific for everything except the analogy.