Abstract
In “Nonconservation of Energy and loss of Determinism II. Colliding with an Open Set” (2010) Atkinson and Johnson argue in favour of the idea that an actual infinity should be excluded from physics, at least in the sense that physical systems involving an actual infinity of component elements should not be admitted. In this paper I show that the argument Atkinson and Johnson use is erroneous and that an analysis of the situation considered by them is possible without requiring any type of rejection of the idea of infinity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alper, J.S., Bridger, M.: Newtonian supertasks: a critical analysis. Synthese 114, 335–369 (1998)
Atkinson, D., Johnson, P.: Nonconservation of energy and loss of determinism II. Colliding with an open set. Found. Phys. 40, 179–189 (2010)
Frémond, M.: Non-Smooth Thermo-Mechanics. Springer, Berlin (2002)
Peijnenburg, J., Atkinson, D.: Lamps, cubes, balls and walls, Zeno problems and solutions. Philos. Stud. 150, 49–59 (2010)
Pérez Laraudogoitia, J.: A beautiful supertask. Mind 105, 81–83 (1996)
Pérez Laraudogoitia, J.: Some relativistic and higher order supertasks. Philos. Sci. 65, 502–517 (1998)
Pérez Laraudogoitia, J.: An interesting fallacy concerning dynamical supertasks. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 56, 321–334 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Dedicated to the memory of Magdalena Garay Ansoleaga (1912–2010).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perez Laraudogoitia, J. A Flawed Argument Against Actual Infinity in Physics. Found Phys 40, 1902–1910 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9498-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9498-z