Actual Infinity and Potential Infinity?: Philosophy Forums

Actual Infinity and Potential Infinity?

Philoso_Fear
Just Learning

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 15, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 12/15/06 - 01:38 AM: Subject: Actual Infinity and Potential Infinity?	#1
I was reading an introduction on the cosmological argument and it gave a brief discription of the Kalam variant of the argument.Although I understand the jist of this variation, I am not clear as to what the terms 'actual infinite' and 'potential infinite' mean. My assumption has always been that infinity just meant, a time without end.Could some one please define these two conditions in laymans terms(I'm new to philosophy)and without resorting to set theory?

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 12/15/06 - 05:15 AM:	#2
The terms potential and actual come from Aristotle. The potential infinite is something that could continue on, were effort to be applied. For example, we could always continue a geometric line if we wanted to, or we could always come up with a bigger number. The actual infinite is something that is actually infinite in extent or in extent of the operations performed. The term actual infinite is not a term of set theory, despite what crazy internet authors like to say. A Google search for the Kalam Argument will quickly provide one with a very bad essay by someone named Ramey. Avoid this essay.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Philoso_Fear
Just Learning

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 15, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 12/15/06 - 09:44 PM:	#3
Thanks for the clarification. The definitions you gave actually seem very obvious now, in fact they are implied in the terms themselves. It's really annoying how some people try to overcomplicate such simple concepts. Thanks again.

Bluster
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 25, 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 2383

Posted 12/17/06 - 05:35 PM:	#4
Greetings PF, Philoso_Fear wrote: Thanks for the clarification. The definitions you gave actually seem very obvious now, in fact they are implied in the terms themselves. It's really annoying how some people try to overcomplicate such simple concepts. Thanks again. Yeah, it is all dippidy duck... simple and straightforward... It is a piece of cake for a finite mind to muster the differential between the actual and potential infinity... I like KK's definition of the potential infinity, conceptually it requires eternal and infinite will for its actualization
At first life was a struggle for existence; now, for a standard of living; next it will be for quality of thinking, the coming earthly goal of human existence. --The Urantia Book In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. --Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James

mikebridge
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2006

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 12/22/06 - 09:09 PM:	#5
Hi- The explanation that made the actual infinite and potential infinite clearer to me (coincidentally, a few days ago) is Aristotle's refutation of Zeno's paradox, where Achilles is running half way across a course, then half the remaining distance, then half the remaining distance again, etc. Zeno seems to be saying that he couldn't ever arrive, because he traverses an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time. Aristotle, on the other hand, says that only a few if any of these points are "actualized". You could actualize a point by stopping on it, or marking it, or whateverâ€”otherwise they remain potential points. If you stopped and marked every point, this indeed would take an infinite amount of time, but if you left most points as potential, unmarked points, you will arrive at your destination without a problem. -Mike Philoso_Fear wrote: I was reading an introduction on the cosmological argument and it gave a brief discription of the Kalam variant of the argument.Although I understand the jist of this variation, I am not clear as to what the terms 'actual infinite' and 'potential infinite' mean. My assumption has always been that infinity just meant, a time without end.Could some one please define these two conditions in laymans terms(I'm new to philosophy)and without resorting to set theory?

longfun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:25 AM:	#6
Kwalish Kid wrote: The terms potential and actual come from Aristotle. The potential infinite is something that could continue on, were effort to be applied. For example, we could always continue a geometric line if we wanted to, or we could always come up with a bigger number. The actual infinite is something that is actually infinite in extent or in extent of the operations performed. The term actual infinite is not a term of set theory, despite what crazy internet authors like to say. A Google search for the Kalam Argument will quickly provide one with a very bad essay by someone named Ramey. Avoid this essay. Can I say, a potential infinity is not bind by any laws, as potential simply contains anything even its opposite. and an actual infinity is an infinity within defined dimensions and related to this its laws.
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

SittinWSocratesTiff
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 02, 2009
Location: Strolling on the Absurd Side of the Street

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 65

Posted 11/06/09 - 03:40 PM:	#7
" If you stopped and marked every point, this indeed would take an infinite amount of time, but if you left most points as potential, unmarked points, you will arrive at your destination without a problem." Nice description. Kind of like the Roadrunner and the Coyote cartoon. Everytime the Coyote ran past where the ground actually existed he stop and look down seeing that he was walking on the faith that there was ground beneath him. Up to the point in which he looks down he does just fine. Way back in my mind there seems to be a saying that as long as you don't check to see, the string will always be 'long enough'.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.