(MiG Tournament) Physical laws must conform to preconceptions of what is logical

We must not allow ourselves to confuse mathematical plausibility with real plausibility, and this seems to be what my opponent desires to do. He wants to conflate the abstract world (mathematics) with the physical world (the cosmos). This allows him to accept that things like actual infinites are possible, despite the fact that such abstract notions—while mathematically sound—encounter logical issues when applied to physical reality. An imaginary number works in mathematics, but it struggles to find a place in our temporal existence.Hence, my thesis. Mathematics is useful in separating physical theories with potential from those with none whatsoever, but it does not mean that we should blindly consider such theories as "fatal blows" to competing philosophical arguments. That is what happened in our previous debate. I argued that the KCA points toward a personal creator and Con relied on mere mathematical soundness to flatly reject those implications. This seems to me to be rather dishonest intellectually.What we have is two views on what can and cannot be real, and that is a pretty big deal. So which view is more rational? The view that looks for only mathematical veracity or the view that looks for both mathematical and logical soundness? Con seems to indicate that mathematical veracity is equivalent to logical veracity, but that can't be the case given the reliance on so many non-logical axioms in many physical theories. Indeed, if mathematical soundness were universally accepted as having automatic logical soundness, then we would not be debating the possibility of an actual infinite to begin with.I argue that intellectual honesty demands we consider the whole spectrum of veracity when it comes to major claims about reality, particularly issues about the origin of our existence. It is one thing to create mathematical models of transcendent multiverses but another thing entirely to say that, because the model works mathematically, we can go ahead and reject theistic arguments. Mathematics alone cannot tell us what can be, only what cannot be. My first argument—the Argument from Contingency—supports this. Logic must be applied independently from mathematics, not subordinately, to determine what can be. This is what my second argument—the Argument from Reality—asserts.To see our differences at work, consider the problem of actual infinites. We both agree a physical theory that relies on an infinite set is sufficient enough to make the theory worth exploring. We disagree, however, on the likelihood of such a theory being representative of reality. For him, the mathematics is "all that is required, because it encompasses all that is relevant." I insist that actual infinites reach a philosophical (logical) showstopper that cannot be surmounted.There are two notions of infinity: potential infinity and complete infinity. [1] Potential infinity "refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end." This is the kind of infinity Con appeals to when discussing the expansion of the universe. I agree that the universe exhibits a potential infinity of time. A "completed infinity, or actual infinity, is an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done." This kind of infinity is what is postulated in a beginningless physical model such as the multiverse.The problem is that complete infinities result in a contradiction. Using time as an example, we observe an event A and ask, "How did we get to event A?" The answer lies in an event previous to that, event B. Then we ask, "How did we get to event B?" and so on. We cannot answer the question regarding event A until we've answered the question to event B. But if time is infinite, we will never answer any question about any event prior to event A, thus the question is impossible to answer without a beginning. In fact, it's much worse, because what happens in a complete infinity of time is that we have the case in which the following statement is made: "It is true that event A already happened and has yet to happen at the same time in the same relationship." It leads to philosophical absurdity.The paradox of Hilbert's Hotel [2] makes this clear as well. Hilbert's Hotel is mathematically sound. However, it cannot happen in reality due to logical constraints. Remember, Hilbert's Hotel is a complete infinite, not a potential infinite. All hotels have potential infinity so long as new rooms can be added. Hilbert's Hotel is a complete infinite, and it leads to the contradiction that "all rooms are empty and full at the same time and in the same relationship." It is illogical. I know my opponent will disagree, but watch his rebuttal carefully to see when and where he equivocates a complete infinity with a potential one.I hope I have successfully communicated precisely where our epistemologies diverge. Moreover, I hope I have successfully convinced the readers that my epistemology is more comprehensively rational. Mathematics is useful and meaningful in helping us discover the physical laws of our universe, but in the end, those laws must conform also to logic.Sources http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org...