Creation ex nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by modu</i>
<br />Hi Skarp
Not sure if I read you correctly, but I also see a problem here:
A. we can never reach zero in an infinite series - therfore infinite series are only potenial and NOT actual<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The Meta Model does not present itself as a potential, but as an actual.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Fopp</i>
<br />I'm questioning the content of the book itself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For what it's worth, that was obvious to me since your first message in this topic. With all the thousands of times we come across "infinity" in high school and college math, it seemed unlikely to me that you were basing this thread on a misunderstanding of the concept, but rather were questioning the very essence of the model.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by modu</i>
<br />A. we can never reach zero in an infinite series - therfore infinite series are only potenial and NOT actual
B. we can reach the end of an infinite series (as the example with 0 to 2 steps) - therefore infinite series ARE actual

Are we allowed to have it both way?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We are not trying to have it both ways. It is the same for both. All integers are finite. The set of all integers is infinite. All terms in the infinite series are finite. The sum of the infinite series is infinite. Read more about infinities, especially why we must integrate (sum) from zero to infinity in many integrals to reach an exact answer to many practical problems.

Then try to get past your distinction between "potential" and "actual" infinities. We only need one distinction, the one I made for integers. All forms in the universe are finite. All distances in space are finite. All time intervals are finite. All scale ranges are finite. Yet each of these is (necessarily) a member of an infinite set. Don't let the fact that you can only see the finite blind you to the logical necessity of the existence of the infinite.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An infinite universe is a miracle by your defenition, since it is a state withot a cause.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On the contrary. We are driven to an eternal universe because it is the only universe that is not missing any cause/effect pairs and has no miraculous beginning. Once again, to understand, stop thinking of the universe as evolving from some sort of First State, and start thinking of its as always essentially the same except for minor details. If it was always the same as far back as you look, or as far ahead as you look, where could the necessity for a first or a last state possibly come from? That would require changing the entire character of the universe in some fundamental way, such as by adding or destroying matter or energy. We just don't see that ever happening.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you might as well say that the first cause (the almighty or what ever other name you wish to name it) existed for ever and cause/create the universe. again are we alowed to have it both way?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only one way, with no beginning: the opposite of the way you just described, which does have a beginning. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Fopp</i>
<br />I never questioned logic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You sure fooled me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What I meant was to question you're assertion that anyone who do not have a background in the study of infinities (whatever that means) is at a "severe disadvantage". As you said yourself, it can be difficult to unlearn something even if it's wrong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Unlearning is not difficult for most people, just for some who develop an exaggerated sense of the correctness of all their personal beliefs and/or who do not develop the regular habit of admitting mistakes and correcting them.

With that in mind, then it should be obvious that everyone is at a severe disadvantage coming into any discussion while missing some of the relevant background information. In this case, the relevant background is the study of infinities. Studying something does not require believing or accepting, but only understanding.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You're talking as if the definite answer to this is written in a book somewhere. What you should have been able to understand by now is that I'm questioning the content of the book itself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Without having read it? I am negatively impressed.

I've always said that a concept like the Meta Model would be impossible today without the collective wisdom of great thinkers over the ages. For example, there must be on the order of 100 textbooks dealing with solving Zeno's paradoxes alone. I've read a fair number, and I usually stick with an author until he/she has made more apparent mistakes or left more open questions than I can keep track of. In that way, I home in on authors with relevant pieces of the "big picture" and get quickly past all the junk writing. -|Tom|-

[] What about a movie, "Set Theorists of New York." A vicious gang led by psychotics, Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Cantor, take on bank managers for control of the streets. It's well known that bank managers refuse to have anything to do with compound interest [][8D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">With that in mind, then it should be obvious that everyone is at a severe disadvantage coming into any discussion while missing some of the relevant background information. In this case, the relevant background is the study of infinities. Studying something does not require believing or accepting, but only understanding.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ok, so why do you assume that I haven't studied or don't understand infinities? I understand exactly what you mean when you say that the set of integers are infinite, but I still think you are wrong in trying to apply it to the physical world. Integers don't exist, the physical world does.

How much do I have to study? I recently read this article dealing with Cantors different types of infinities. I understand the reasoning but I think it's mistaken. The article makes the same mistake as you in not seeing the distinction between actual and potential infinities.