time is the effect of our interaction with the physical world — Ikolos

Time is Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. To be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. So time is not emergent; it is fundamental to the universe.

Time is a series: Now (t=0) only exists because t=-1 had existence. t=-1 only exists because t=-2 had existence. So all moments must have a moment prior to them. The only topology that fits is a closed loop IE circular time. — Devans99

You are adding a causal relationship that there is not in mathematical series, and that is not a mere order: it implies a difference in physical state( not mere numerica diversitas).

Infinity is not a quantity: infinity is a concept: as the infinity of skirts(if this be actual) would not be a skirt. In Logic infinity is defined presupposing a concept(i.e. of a set) as the cardinality of this set, in order to establish a hierarchal order on numerical sets(I.e. sets which contains numbers of limited properties). The ordinal infinity, instead, differentiates between finite and infinte sets, being infinity a property of a set, inasmuch it contains a number of elements such as no one is the bigger in regards to the operation which close that set(as you correctly indicate). You atre talking just of ORDINAL infinity.

In analysis this logical acquisition leads to use a hierarchy of infinities to solve calculus problems.

In topology, which does not presupposes time at all, infinity is either some kind of iteration with preservation of a certain kind of space(but time is not the iteration of the operation of succession, as you rightly said) or it is indetermination: you can proceed indefinite in a given space of any kind.

I do not think is necessary to deny negative actual infinity to deny actual infinity(if this be the case), because the regress is stopped because of PHYSICAL reason: we do not not the whole universe, hence our hypothesis is limited, either because of that or because our-certainly- incomplete knowledge of the physical world. While the actual infinity is not concerned with time: actual infinity would not be a series, but simultaneity of existence. But since we can not state anything but relative in regards to simultaneity, then an actual infinity is just the hypothesis that there are infinite many systems, with their respective conditions, operating harmoniously(some kind of Leibnizian theory). One thing is certain: being time and space just condition to perceive things relatively to our subjective constitution, it can not be said that they-or other forms of them- enclose the world. But this just imply the the world is not finite, not that is infinite. Newton considered finiteness or not in regards to matter and denied the infinity of the universe because, if that be the case, we would have not experience the world as we do. But, in regards to concepts, at the question whether the universe is finite or infinte we could just answer: it is neither finite nor infinite, but non finite. To establish the infinity of the physical world we would need to have its quantity determined as a whole, and as a whole that quantity would have to be an object for us. Which is impossible.


Like I said before, The Big Bang is an Hypothesis to explain the actual condition of the universe in so far as we know physics, relatively to our possibility of interacting meaningfully(cognitively if you want) with the physical world, as, presumably, certain physical processes rendered possible our (relative, sensible) subject of cognition. Thus, the Big Crunch it is(but no everyone agrees) a consequence of an hypothesis. While the Big Bang accounts for the actual condition of the universe, with the above mentioned limitations, the Big crunch is more a prevision based on the possible continuity of physical processes, as regulated by the laws we have discovered so far.

Speed is distance divided by the time IMPLIED TO RUN THAT DISTANCE. This is not the Time you were talking about(a series) and not only this consideration of time presupposes matter(the difference of velocity is a difference in physical states) but also SPACE: you are unwillingly saying that space is more fundamental than time!

Infinity is not a quantity: infinity is a concept: as the infinity of skirts(if this be actual) would not be a skirt. In Logic infinity is defined presupposing a concept(i.e. of a set) as the cardinality of this set, in order to establish a hierarchal order on numerical sets(I.e. sets which contains numbers of limited properties). The ordinal infinity, instead, differentiates between finite and infinte sets, being infinity a property of a set, inasmuch it contains a number of elements such as no one is the bigger in regards to the operation which close that set(as you correctly indicate). You atre talking just of ORDINAL infinity. — Ikolos

All forms of infinity are impossible. The concept itself is fatally flawed, for example:

∞ + 1 = ∞ implies
1 = 0
Surely the mother of all proofs of contradictions. So infinity is not a mathematical concept. Maths models nature strongly suggest we will not find infinity in nature.

Actual Infinity is deeply illogical (see above, or as in the existence of an actually complete infinite set) whereas nature always follows logic, so again we will not find infinity in nature.

Believing in Actual Infinity is IMO akin to belief in magic. IE No place for it in science.

When you acknowledge Actual Infinity is impossible, the start of time follows logically.

First you argue something like:

"All obey to speed of light"

"Speed depends on time"

"Everything depends on time as it obeys to the speed of light".


The speed of light is ARBITRARILY defined infinite, but this is an improper use of the term: the velocity of light is a reference, in so far as it defines a referential PHYSICAL criteria to determine whether something is or is not moving in certain trajectories.

I pass on your silence on your incorrect exposition of the formula of speed.

So infinity is not a mathematical concept. — Devans99

It Is! And you too stated in a comment above, saying that a series is infinte because no terms of it is bigger than every terms of the series(i.e. always exists a bigger one)! I think you have no clear idea of what time is, because sometimes you say it is a series, sometimes you rely on the formula of speed to argue the necessity of the obedience(?) to time and thus(?) a beginning. Time, as perceive, is an effect defined thermodynamically(high school physics).

When you acknowledge Actual Infinity is impossible, the start of time follows logically. — Devans99

Actual infinity is not the assertion that you recognize an infinte number of beings, but the sole consideration of the fact that, being us bounded to certain conditions, being those conditions logically irrelevant, it follows LOGICALLY that an actual infinity it is, under the assumption the the finiteness we perceive is due to unessential condition. Still we can not ASSERT actual infinity, because we need more than logic to say that something exists: logic abstracts from differences in objects, while is because of objective differences that we can talk of knowing something at all.

Still we can not ASSERT actual infinity — Ikolos

1. I proved twice it does not exist in maths. What was wrong with those proofs?
2. It's impossible to construct, geometrically or otherwise.
3. It's not found in nature.
4. It's deeply illogical.
5. Actual Infinity does not exist.

Is this the sort of argument you're promoting, @Devans99?

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there was no 1^st moment
2. if there was no 1^st moment, then there was no 2^nd moment
3. if there was no 2^nd moment, then there was no 3^rd moment
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. if there was no 2^nd last moment, then there would be no now
6. since now exists, we started out wrong, i.e. the universe is not temporally infinite

Here's a more elaborate version:

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there was no 1^st moment, but just some moment, t₁
2. if there was no 1^st moment, then there was no 2^nd moment, but just some moment, t₂
3. if there was no 2^nd moment, then there was no 3^rd moment, but just some moment, t₃
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. there was a 2^nd last moment, t_{now - 1 moment}
6. there is a now, t_now

Notice how 4 masks a switch from non-indexical to indexical? Bad. :)
t₁ could be any past moment, and the duration between any definite t₁ and now is finite, there were just infinitely many past ts instead.
The former rendition misses the latter rendition, hence showing that 1 does not imply a contradiction.

Ontology has its uses.

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there was no 1st moment, but just some moment, t1 — jorndoe

Then t1 is the first moment and the universe is temporally finite.

Then t1 is the first moment and the universe is temporally finite. — Devans99

No. The premise was "the universe was temporally infinite", "no 1^st moment".

No. The premise was "the universe was temporally infinite", "no 1st moment". — jorndoe

That's impossible I'm afraid. Actual Infinity does not exist so negative Actual Infinity does not exist so past eternity does not exist (same structure).

That's impossible I'm afraid. Actual Infinity does not exist so negative Actual Infinity does not exist so past eternity does not exist (same structure). — Devans99

If it's impossible, then derive the contradiction.
After all, simply saying so doesn't make it so.
I tried (the former rendition) and failed (as shown with the latter rendition).

(reposted from lounge)
Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

Further, actual infinity does not follow common sense or mathematical rules:

oo + 1 = oo implies
1 = 0

Nothing in the real world can you add to whilst it remains unchanged. This logical absurdity implies infinity is not a mathematical quantity.

MATHEMATICAL, PHYSICAL, LOGICAL INFINITY

Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

The non-existence of actual infinity implies negative actual infinity does not exist. Negative actual infinity has the same structure as past eternal (in time):

{ …, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 }
{ …, -4, -3, -2, -1 } — Devans99

∞ + 1 = ∞ implies
1 = 0 — Devans99

This are the two argument you set forth. I explain why they are incorrect.

Mathematical infinity is RELATIONAL: infinity is a property of the relation between an operation and the unity selected to operate on. Thus infinity OF THE OPERATION is non sensical, because there is no quantity of an operation except you identify operation with its results. In this case, there would be INDEFINITENESS of replying the operation or applying others, but no infinity. Infinity regards the results: there is none of the results that is bigger than ALL the possible results.

Your first argument is incorrect, because it treats infinity as a NUMBER.

Your second argument is incorrect because of the above reason and because It mixes mathematical infinity with others conception of it, concluding form the impossibility of an actual infinity in maths and from the impossibility of a negative infinity in Physics, the Logical impossibility of an actual infinity(which is factually false after the works of Church, Turing, Godel among others).

ACTUAL INFINITY would be LOGICAL or PHYSICAL. In so far logic concerns variables, being their infinite(see the results of Church Turing) there is an actual infinite in logic, and this is so true that the first order predicative logic is undecidable. In so far physics is concerned, given we do not know completely the universe, and that is because we need to refer to our conditions as observers(it doesn't change the argument if you add instruments to observe), being those conditions relative to our subjective constitution, an actual infinity does not make sense. Yet, we can't even say the universe IS finite, because the boundary under which we investigate it are relative. Hence, we could say: universe is not bounded by itself to the same conditions we are bounded to in order to know something about it, while interacting within it.

SUMMARY

I think I answer 1: why your arguments were wrong;

2: it is not to be constructed as an object, but it is a rule to follow in order to not stop constructing: here is INDEFINITE, not INFINITE. Furthermore it cannot be constructed because it is a RELATION: you can construct terms of a relations, following the conditions stated by the relation only AFTER recognizing the relation as a possible way to relate terms.

3 Right: physical actual infinity is not claimable to exist. But this imply only that physical world is not infinite(in so far as we can understand natural phenomena) , not that it is finite(being infinite or not, we interact significantly with a certain kind of phenomena: hence it may be that there is actual infinity in nature, but the question itself is nonsensical to us, because we consider nature as it has effects on us, not in regards to how big it is).

4 It's just the opposite: it is perfectly logical(cfr. Leibniz, and recently Church, Turing, Godel et alii), and only because logic is insufficient to account for our view of reality It is not correct to infer from logical infinity a physical infinity.

5 Existence is either a logical quantifiers with reference to variables(which are infinite but we cannot say they exists: they are just logical variables that stands in waiting for an interpretation) or a physical existence, and of course not a single existence it is perceived somewhat infinite, nor we have a complete account of everything that exists(for a classical writing on the topic see Quine, From a Logical point of view, essay 1: "What there is?")

1. So we agree it's not a number. All physical quantities including time as space can be represented by numbers. Numbers reflect reality and they do not include infinity. So reality is not likely to include infinity.
2. It's meant to represent physical quantities so it should be physically constructible. If it's not constructible, it's probably impossible.
3. It would be pure magic if actual infinity exists so that's why it's not found in nature. You can't actually believe that space goes on 'forever' can you? How is that possible? That's just believe in magic.
4. What about all the paradoxes of infinity? Hilbert's Hotel for example. Utter madness. You can't really claim such a hotel could exist?
5. You are the one with the irrational belief here. Infinity is magic. Burden of prove that it exists is on you

Every moment must have a moment before it else its not valid. That's a self-evident axiom — Devans99

That helps to clarify where the differences lie between your position and that of others. That is a proposition that you regard as self-evident and that you take as an axiom. Others do not regard it as self-evident and do not accept it as an axiom. Unsurprisingly, different conclusions are reached depending on whether one accepts such an axiom.

NUMBERS ARE NOT SETS

Numbers reflect reality and they do not include infinity. — Devans99

That is a condition whose first member is a very big, but rather vague, assumption. The second member of the conjunction, i.e. numbers do not include infinity, is misleading, for we consider sets of numbers, but numbers are not sets. Hence the relation of inclusion can not be applied to them. It just does not make any sense.

REALITY IS NOT A SET OF NUMBERS

From: numbers reflect reality and numbers exclude infinity you cannot conclude that reality excludes infinity unless you make numbers and reality equal. The argument is however ill founded because of the above reasons.

WHAT IS INFINITY ABOUT

It's meant to represent physical quantities — Devans99

This is hard to believe, for infinity is a RELATIONAL concept, between an operation and a unity in regards to the possibility of generating, for any given result, another who is greater. Infinity IS NOT QUANTITATIVE.

Moreover, this wouldn't follow anyway:

so it should be physically constructible — Devans99

Because we use theoretical entities to represent physical ones, but this does not mean that we physically construct theoretical entities.

Furthermore, constructibility is not possibility, and this is so counter the use of the term that actually what is constructible presupposes the concept of possibility, but not the other way: the concept of a world in which the laws of physics are inverted is possible, for it is not self contradictory; but it is not constructible insofar as we have yet understand its possibility(logical possibility). You need to distinguish in greater detail, because it is never clear one thing, that I am going to ask you explicitly:

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'INFINITY'? Since I gave a very clear and unambigous account on my view, and you, so far, did not.

It would be pure magic if actual infinity exists so that's why it's not found in nature. — Devans99

Again: existence is either a logical quantifier or an attribute of reality. If it is a logical quantifiers it does not distinguish differences in object, and, in principle, the possibly bondable variables are infinite. It's just misleading and nonsensical distinguish actual and potential infinity. It makes sense distinguishing logical, mathematical infinity and physical infinity, which we CAN NOT ASSERT NOR DENY, BECAUSE OF OUR WAY OF KNOWING THING, since it is conditioned de facto, hence the relation between our knowing subject and its objects is one of restriction and not one similar to that of infinity.

Claiming to be magic the «existence of actual infinity» it's just rethoric, without distinction of what do you mean by existence(logical or ontological) and between logical,mathematical and physical infinity, instead of actual and potential(a concept rather vague, which in fact you carefully decided to never expose).

What about all the paradoxes of infinity? Hilbert's Hotel for example. Utter madness. You can't really claim such a hotel could exist? — Devans99

Again: first: the so called hotel is a rather confusing example to explain CANTOR'S Hierarchy of infinities, as intended in set theory as cardinality of sets. It is a theoretical account of problems like: even numbers are infinite. odd numbers are infinite. Hence integers are double infinite. And it is a successful account of explain it. Integers have a. cardinality of Alef, and whatever set of number which may be corresponded 1-1(biunivocally) with the set of integers is infinite of a value Alef, i.e. has cardinality equals to that of the set of integers. Other sets of number, e.g. real numbers, has a cardinality bigger than alef. Hence the idea of a hierarchy of infinities. Read something of set theory and Cantor. It is unbelievable that you don't know anything about set theory, which is the accurate theoretical set of infinity, more than 100 years after Cantor's pioneering work.

You are the one with the irrational belief here. Infinity is magic. Burden of prove that it exists is on you — Devans99

This again is mere rhetoric. I offered a distinction and an exposition of the treatment of infinity in set theory. You keep going on because you didn't clarify your use of terms, and on that I have little burden, except inviting you to consult the actual RESULTS obtained in the treatment of infinity, which you, ignoring, are keeping to treat poetically and mystically, claiming that someone say that it(what, a concept? say that a CONCEPT exists is a grammatical, not philosophical, error) exists is just a straw man fallacy.

From: numbers reflect reality and numbers exclude infinity you cannot conclude that reality excludes infinity — Ikolos

Real life parameters like the size/age of the universe are quantities. Infinity is not a quantity. Hence the universe is finite.

You say infinity is a concept; I agree. Quantities cannot take on the value of a concept. The size of the universe is 'love' makes no sense.

Claiming to be magic the «existence of actual infinity» it's just rethoric — Ikolos

It is not rhetoric. Something that goes on forever is more magical than say pulling a rabbit from a hat.

explain CANTOR'S Hierarchy of infinities — Ikolos

There is no hierarchy of infinities. The definition of infinity as the larger than anything else precludes more than one infinity.


I maintain I have offered plenty of proof for non existence of actual infinity and you have offered no proof that actual infinity exists.

Hence the universe is finite. — Devans99

You presupposes universe is the parameters of our relation with it. This is anthrpocentrism and anthropomorphism. Furthermore, saying universe IS a quantity is a very big assumption.

Quantities cannot take on the value of a concept — Devans99

But the concept of quantity is studied in topology. It is not a study ranging the answers to: how big is x? but: which properties define a certain kind of space, if the transformations are continuous? Hence infinity does not mean:

Something that goes on forever — Devans99

But it is a Relational concept as I said many times, and the you, after pointing it out correctly, strangely went far away from it.

There is no hierarchy of infinities. — Devans99

This is factually false. It is just you don't know enough calculus nor enough logic.

The definition of infinity as the larger than anything else precludes more than one infinity. — Devans99

You keep intending infinity as a quantity and not as a relation. Infinity is the REASON why, for some operation, it is true that there will never be a result which would be THE BIGGEST/HIGHEST. It is not that one highest, insofar as unreachable, nor it is this (reificated) impossibility.

you have offered no proof that actual infinity exists. — Devans99

I don't think 'actual infinity' is a syntagma which means more than a medieval use of words, which are offering a distinction(between actual and potential) which has been clarified by the results on computability by Church and Turing. They proved the so called 'actual' infinity to exist, because we can not compute effectively all the tautologies in first order predicative logic, unless it is certifiable if a certain formula is a tautology if it is actually a tautology.

When you will get acquainted with this unavoidable conquest of human thought you may understand how the problems linked to the concept of infinity were very well solved almost a century ago- or at least clearly stated. And you will perhaps modernize the vocabulary.

You keep intending infinity as a quantity and not as a relation. Infinity is the REASON why, for some operation, it is true that there will never be a result which would be THE BIGGEST/HIGHEST. It is not that one highest, insofar as unreachable, nor it is this (reificated) impossibility. — Ikolos

Relations don't exist in the real world, quantities do. If infinity is a relation it is not part of the real world.

because we can not compute effectively all the tautologies in first order predicative logic — Ikolos

That's a potential infinity. Anything related to computers is potential rather than actual. Computers compute over time and have a finite memory capacity so cannot by definition deal with actual infinity.

Actual Infinity was introduced into set theory for spiritual not logical reasons. Cantor was very devout and believed God was infinite. He thought the whole trans-finite nonsense was dictated to him by God!

Relations don't exist in the real world, quantities do — Devans99

Quantities rely on a relation i.e. parts external to one another.

That's a potential infinity. Anything related to computers is potential rather than actual. Computers compute over time and have a finite memory capacity so cannot by definition deal with actual infinity. — Devans99

I think you keep confusing the RELATION which infinity is and the RESULTS of an operation, which are not infinite, but indefinite, i.e. as long as you operate you get results, and you make a contrasting view in infinity just on this latter plane.

It is irrelevant whether or not a computation rely on limited faculties, for an abstract method of compute infinitely many proposition there is: compute each single one. The problem is how to DECIDE among those INFINITE proposition those which are tautologies(entscheindigung problem).

Your misleading use of words hides that what you call 'actual' regards variables, but to you that means 'results'; while 'potential' regards algorithms(effective procedures discovered, i.e. something which we HAVE the potential to compute. In principle is antiscientific and antirational to believe there exists some problem which is undecidable not just because we have not yet discover the method to solve it, but because it is absolutely unsolvable. I think you might agree with me on this Rationalism, which opposes itself to this mystical unsolvability.)

While you by potential means 'not real'.

Actual Infinity was introduced into set theory for spiritual not logical reasons. Cantor was very devout and believed God was infinite. He thought the whole trans-finite nonsense was dictated to him by God! — Devans99

Very true, but it is pathologic to deny that the application of transfinite reasoning brought to you ACTUALLY EXISTENT machines, and procured great advances in a large variety of fields in technology.

If Newton had said God suggested him his formulas them would not have been the less(nor the most) true, regardless of the author's believe about them or their source.

In advance, in the original formulation of set theory(with no axioms, hence it was not properly a theory explicitly formulated) you could choose how many elements you wanted, as to consider arbitrarily large sets(infinite elements) and treat them as the object of your enquiry. THIS was the reason that Cantor gave of the actual infinity and not a spiritual one. It is an ONTOLOGICAL one.

I think you keep confusing the RELATION which infinity is and the RESULTS of an operation, which are not infinite, but indefinite — Ikolos

What operation with an indefinite result do you refer to?

It is irrelevant whether or not a computation rely on limited faculties, for an abstract method of compute infinitely many proposition there is: compute each single one. The problem is how to DECIDE among those INFINITE proposition those which are tautologies(entscheindigung problem). — Ikolos

Just because there exists an 'infinite' number of something in our minds, does not imply an 'infinite' number of something is possible. Our minds are simply in error. The concept/relation of actual infinity does not translate to reality.

Very true, but it is pathologic to deny that the application of transfinite reasoning brought to you ACTUALLY EXISTENT machines, and procured great advances in a large variety of fields in technology. — Ikolos

Potential infinity (calculus) has brought us much. Actual infinity (set theory) has not. The first reflects nature, the second does not.

You keep changing a lot your mind or at least the way you express your thesis. Maybe is a good sign.

What operation with an indefinite result do you refer to? — Devans99

Any theories you like which produces theorems by inference.

Just because there exists an 'infinite' number of something in our minds, does not imply an 'infinite' number of something is possible. Our minds are simply in error. The concept/relation of actual infinity does not translate to reality. — Devans99

That's false. The first axiom of modal logic (axiom by Alfred Tarski) is: p→◇ p which means: if p is given, than it is possible that p.

Actual infinity (set theory) has not. The first reflects nature, the second does not. — Devans99

That's false. Computer science is based on set theory. Classical mathematics is based on set theory after the development of mathematical logic. And, since you yourself(as anybody who is not insane) admit that classical math brought many results to as, especially in physics, for physics without math is a mythological novel, and since calculus is part of classical maths, it follows that Set theory brought as much as classical maths does, inasmuch this latter is based on the former.

That's false. The first axiom of modal logic (axiom by Alfred Tarski) is: p→◇ p which means: if p is given, than it is possible that p. — Ikolos

Just because it exists in our minds does not mean it exists in reality. Talking trees existing my mind for example.

That's false. Computer science is based on set theory. Classical mathematics is based on set theory after the development of mathematical logic. And, since you yourself(as anybody who is not insane) admit that classical math brought many results to as, especially in physics, for physics without math is a mythological novel, and since calculus is part of classical maths, it follows that Set theory brought as much as classical maths does, inasmuch this latter is based on the former — Ikolos

Computer science may use set theory but it is finite set theory. Maths could do just fine without infinite set theory because infinite sets do not exist. For example, the set of naturals:

{1, 2, 3, 4, ... }

is partially undefined (the ... bit); IE it is not defined so it can never have a cardinality and you can't treat it like a finite set. Set theory tries to treat finite and 'infinite' sets the same, an obviously inappropriate polymorphism. Set theory is broken IMO.

We need to define the universe first and time as well. The universe is the phenomena of objects like the earth, sun, moon, and all of that above and with it. Time has two definitions which are the measure of events an event occur from each other. The other being the events happening in chronological order. A start is one where an event has none before. We can say that since the universe is events of phenomenons than it must have a beginning since an infinite past is impossible because you can not have an infinite events after a certain event because addition synthesis can not equal infinity. An infinite past must have an event with an infinite number of events after it to present so it is impossible. From these reasons, we know the universe has a beginning.

You need to clarify your thought on set theory, because saying there exists no infinite set is incredibly wrong. And saying that

the set of naturals:

{1, 2, 3, 4, ... }

is partially undefined — Devans99

Is not even wrong: it's non sense.

IE it is not defined so it can never have a cardinality and you can't treat it like a finite set. — Devans99

Finiteness and Infinity of a set are very well defined properties of set in set theory, actually. Your cited sentence it is somehow not grammatical: of course you can't treat natural numbers as a finite set, because it is not a finite set.

Your argument rely on a naive epistemology. In fact your argument, except for the imprecise definition of universe and the wrong definition of time is identical to that stated in the thesis of the first antinomies of pure reason in Kant's Critique(1781 first edition).

Your definition of time is wrong, for 1 time is not a measure 2 is not a series of events, nor the order of a series of event: the order of a series of events is a CONSEQUENCE of time as an effect. Time has been studied, and defined successfully in regards to the direction of events in late 1800 by Carnot, Gibbs, Clausius, Boltzmann and others, by thermodynamical laws.

of course you can't treat natural numbers as a finite set, because it is not a finite set. — Ikolos

But maths tries too do this. The set concept encompasses two different object types:

- finite sets. Fully defined. Have cardinality
- infinite sets. Partially defined. No cardinality.

Maths tries to treat these two different object type the same which is an error. They even invent magic numbers for cardinality - thats all nonsense IMO.

infinite sets. Partially defined. No cardinality. — Devans99

it is non sense 'partially undefined'.

But maths tries too do this — Devans99

But not at all. Considering a collection as an object is not considering a collection as finite.

Maths tries to treat these two different object type the same which is an error. T — Devans99

Infinite sets and finite sets are no different object type, for they are both sets.

thats all nonsense IMO. — Devans99

You definitely need to clarify-or to understand- set theory.

We call the universe the observations we make the definition I gave was broad but the actual definition for I could say everything that which exists in and outside of me and my self is part of the universe and as such are phenomena which happens. Next let us make word called emitime and say this means the events of from the present in chronological order as they happened than from the same reasoning I put forth we get that there can be no infinite events before the present and as such is finite than it has a point where the universe did not exist.