In a deposition submitted under oath, Matt Eggleston said:
    Sorry to take so long replying.  This has been another busy semester
 at school.  I hope that you haven't lost interest in continuing this
 interesting debate with me.
 ME> BS>ME>The fact is, of course, that all REAL numbers and all REAL
 ME> BS>ME>objects are finite in fact.  Infinity is only a potential.
BS>    But you cannot mathematically prove that infinity is only a
BS> potential, whereas there are many (if not infinite) mathematical
BS> concepts which can be proven to be infinite.  As Cantor, the inventor
BS> of set theory, in which there are many infinite sets, said, "...in
BS> truth the potentially infinite has only a borrowed reality, insofar as
BS> a potentially infinite concept always points toward a logically prior
BS> actually infinite concept whose existence it depends on." (Georg
BS> Cantor, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1932,
BS> pg. 404.
 ME> Which means you cannot derive the infinite from the finite.
    Please read that again, because that is *not* what Cantor said.
 Cantor was the earliest mathematician to create a theory of the actual
 infinite.  What he says in the above quote is that the concept of
 potential infinities exists only because there are actual infinities to
 base those concepts upon.
 ME> GIVEN: Math only describes something if there has been a thing
 ME>        observed acting in the manner which the math describes.
    False.  Math can predict things which haven't been observed.
 ME> GIVEN: Nothing has been observed being infinite.
    False again, not to mention irrelevant.  False because infinite
 series and infinite numbers have been observed.  Divide 22 by 7, and
 tell me exactly what number you get.  Are you observing the number pi,
 inasmuch as a human can ever observe pi?  There is no end to the
 progression of digits to the right of the decimal point in pi.
 Same with 'e', the unique number for which the natural log is 1.
    Your 'given' is irrelevant in that the existence of any object or
 concept does not depend on our ability to observe it.  To believe
 that reality depends on our observation of it is just another way of
 stating that the sound of a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a
 noise if no one is there to hear it.  Arrogantly preposterous.
 ME> QED:   There is nothing which is mathematically infinite.
 ME> That was an amazingly simple proof.
    Only because it was wrong.  The counterexample was even easier.  ;^)
... It's colder than an IRS auditor's smile.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------