Big Bang - Evolution

[_MrStakhanovite]

explain and/or link, please...

In Bertie Russell’s Principles of Mathematics, which talks about if Tristram Shandy and him writing his own autobiography at a rate of one day transcribed per year of writing. Even though Shandy gets further behind, if he writes infinitely, Shandy will complete the autobiography.

In his book about actual infinities with Quentin Smith, Craig says this:

But let us turn the story about: suppose Tristram Shandy has been writing from eternity past at the rate of one day per year. Would he now be penning his final page? Here we discern the bankruptcy of the Principle of Correspondence in the world of the real. For according to that principle, Russell's conclusion would be correct: a one-to-one correspondence between days and years could be established so that given an actual infinite number of years, the book will be complete. But such a result is clearly ridiculous.

He’s talking about Cantor's Principle of Correspondence there, and it’s “claim” any two sets which can be placed in a one-to-one correlation are equivalent.

[_EAllusion]

Buffalo -

The Kalaam Cosmological argument is an attempt at empirical argument. It has philosophical considerations underlying it, but that's true of all empirical inference.

[_mikwut]

Hi Stak,

Thank you for the Lonergan link, I have already begun listening to the introductory lecture. I have been going through Insight for quite a while now with introductory books and the text intself it is quite challenging. Thank you for the helpful link.

As I understand him, Craig seems to endorse a "two worlds" view, where he wants to keep everything in Cantor's paradise while denying that it could ever be actual. Craig will admit things like transfinite math is very useful in conception, it cannot map on to the realworld because of absurdities, that is where his Infinite Library and Tristam Shandy paradox get introduced.

How do you justify keeping everything out of paradise? Is there a 1:1 correspondence with mathematical possibilities and actualities?

Mark Nowacki recently defended Craig regarding this issue I believe the best. He uses the work of David Braine:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Reality-Time- ... 539&sr=1-3

first to place and restrict the proper modal context. He narrows the context of Craig's infinite library, Hotel and Tristam Shandy from logical possibility to factual possibility where a context is required for each experiment for them to make any sense. Nowacki relies on Roy Sorensen's work on thought experiments"

http://books.google.com/booksid=d_rFyCI ... ts&f=false)

to justify Craig's examples. He emphasizes the need to remain within the thought experiment and its relevance alone. A possibility refuter is needed to counter a thought experiment or a counterexample that is utilized in the same context as the thought experiment being refuted. Oppy doesn't seem to do so well in this framework. He then presents a cumulative case against the actual infinite based on substance based metaphysics with that groundwork laid. I'm still making my way through it a second time - slower this time.

regards, mikwut

[_karl61]

I recently ordered the book Relics of Eden. I read the first chapter free via my kindle (then my kindle broke). It seems like a real good book. In the first chapter the author says you don't have to take God out of the equation but talks about genes and DNA and says the evidence that has come out in the last ten years is so powerful you can't dismiss it.

[_Morley]

Relics of Eden.

I've been trying to make sense out of the 'junk DNA' findings. This book looks like it offers some explanations. Thank you for the recommendation.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Thank you for the Lonergan link

No problem. My GF’s roommate has a boyfriend who is in that class at Boston College, so that is where I got it from.

How do you justify keeping everything out of paradise? Is there a 1:1 correspondence with mathematical possibilities and actualities?

I’m not sure I fully understand either question.

to justify Craig's examples. He emphasizes the need to remain within the thought experiment and its relevance alone. A possibility refuter is needed to counter a thought experiment or a counterexample that is utilized in the same context as the thought experiment being refuted.

I see. My contention is that if you accept the actual infinity via Cantor, there is no room to introduce some kind of property-blocking mechanism that prevents an actual infinity to be acceptable in the mathematical world but impossible in the physical world.

Let’s take Craig’s example of an infinite library, with a single shelf that stretches out to infinity with books identical in size. All of the absurdities that Craig draws from this kind of example are not really absurd at all, so when Craig sets up the example of there only being two colors of book in the infinite shelf he rhetorically asks:

Would we believe someone who told us that the number of red books in the library is the same as the number of black books plus the number of red books? (from the Finitude of the Past and the Existence of God book, page 12)

I would. Prime numbers can be placed on a one to one correspondence with integers, even though integers include more than just prime numbers. There is nothing absurd about a set being placed with a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

Now Craig accepts modern mathematics, such as integers and prime numbers being on a one to one correspondence, but somehow the equinumerosity of red and black books is absurd. I need some really good reasoning before I accept that the some mathematical necessity must always fail in the physical world. Is there some kind of property that matter has that would stop this?

[_EAllusion]

I recently ordered the book Relics of Eden. I read the first chapter free via my kindle (then my kindle broke). It seems like a real good book. In the first chapter the author says you don't have to take God out of the equation but talks about genes and DNA and says the evidence that has come out in the last ten years is so powerful you can't dismiss it.

Evidence for what?

[_Blixa]

explain and/or link, please...

In Bertie Russell’s Principles of Mathematics, which talks about if Tristram Shandy and him writing his own autobiography at a rate of one day transcribed per year of writing. Even though Shandy gets further behind, if he writes infinitely, Shandy will complete the autobiography.

In his book about actual infinities with Quentin Smith, Craig says this:

But let us turn the story about: suppose Tristram Shandy has been writing from eternity past at the rate of one day per year. Would he now be penning his final page? Here we discern the bankruptcy of the Principle of Correspondence in the world of the real. For according to that principle, Russell's conclusion would be correct: a one-to-one correspondence between days and years could be established so that given an actual infinite number of years, the book will be complete. But such a result is clearly ridiculous.

He’s talking about Cantor's Principle of Correspondence there, and it’s “claim” any two sets which can be placed in a one-to-one correlation are equivalent.

Thanks. I understand the take on infinity here.

[_Morley]

I recently ordered the book Relics of Eden. I read the first chapter free via my kindle (then my kindle broke). It seems like a real good book. In the first chapter the author says you don't have to take God out of the equation but talks about genes and DNA and says the evidence that has come out in the last ten years is so powerful you can't dismiss it.

Evidence for what?

Chromosomal evidence for evolution.

[_mikwut]

Hi Stak,

I see. My contention is that if you accept the actual infinity via Cantor, there is no room to introduce some kind of property-blocking mechanism that prevents an actual infinity to be acceptable in the mathematical world but impossible in the physical world.

Why is this so? What evidence do have for the proposition that within the presently understood big bang cosmological framework of the universe an actual infinity exists?

mikwut