Are Infinity Machines conceptually possible?

While infinity is commonly defined as ‘the unlimited, that which goes beyond any
fixed bound’1, Max Black uses two different working definitions of infinity in order to
suggest the antinomies of Zeno’s Paradoxes. For Black’s argument, infinity is both a
physical extremity (that which is infinite in extent) and divisibility (that which is
infinitely divisible). Black describes a series of machines which by their very nature are
contradictory in order to explain the common misconceptions of philosophers when
attempting to solve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise.

Firstly, Black conjures up a machine called Alpha, whose task it is to move an

infinite number of marbles from a tray on its left to a tray on its right. He states that as
Alpha continues with its task, the time it takes for the action to be completed continues to
reduce itself by halves (that is, it takes Alpha at first one minute to move the first marble,
and then half a minute for the second one, and so on infinitely). Because Alpha’s speed
increases as its task continues, it should, after four minutes, have moved all the marbles
from the left to the right. But how can we be sure that Alpha counted an infinite number
of marbles if the task is completed after only four minutes? How can there be a finite
time for counting an infinite sum?

Black’s next machine, Beta, functions on exactly the same principle, but in order
to prove that the marbles counted are infinite, this machine only counts one marble over
and over again. This in itself is contradictory, Black states, because the marble is always
returned to its starting point, and therefore no progress is made. He asserts that Beta is
therefore performing a logically impossible and self defeating operation in moving the
marble from left to right, only to find it on the left tray again. That is, for every time the
marble is moved to the right tray, it must and will be returned to the left; but for every
time the marble is returned to the left, it must and will be moved to the right. The
problem with Black’s assertion of this machine being logically impossible lies in his
definition of infinity. Black is, in this case, stating that it is logically impossible because

1
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy

1
the machine is constantly taking one step forward and one step back, thus remaining
stationary. This is only because Black is assigning this task the definition of infinity
which suits his argument. As mentioned earlier, infinity is both a physical extremity, and
divisibility. Therefore, it does not matter if the machine is making any directional
progress in counting the same marble, it only matters that the machine is counting the
marble infinitely.

Black’s third machine, Gamma, is said to function in the same way as Beta, but
while Beta moves the single marble from left to right, Gamma moves it from right to left,
constantly replenishing Beta’s store, and vice versa. Herein lays the problem: for Gamma
to succeed, Beta must fail, and for Beta to succeed, Gamma must fail. The marble cannot
be both on the left tray and on the right tray at the end of the four minutes. If the marble
is on the right tray, then Beta has succeeded in counting an infinite number of marbles,
but Gamma obviously hasn’t, as it still has a marble to count and move. The same works
if the marble is on the left tray, and so we see that Gamma and Beta being assigned the
same tasks but in opposite directions poses a contradiction.

Black’s next two machines, Delta and Epsilon, function exactly in the same way
as Beta and Gamma do, and are used by Black to illustrate that the time intervals are
irrelevant for the success or failure of the machines. Delta and Epsilon find themselves at
the same directional contradiction as Beta and Gamma; for one to succeed the other must
fail, and therefore, according to Black, neither can succeed. But why can neither succeed?
If one machine succeeds and the other fails, there is still a 50% success rate between the
two machines, and at the end of the exercise, an infinite number of marbles have been
counted, regardless of one machine’s failure. Perhaps it is in the nature of infinity
machines to have one fail in order for the other to succeed, thus making them a logical
partnering of devices that still serve their function accurately.

Black’s final machine, Phi, functions in the same manner as Alpha and Beta, but
with the marbles it transfers becoming geometrically smaller as they are counted, so that
eventually at the end of the four minutes, the marble will be shrunk to nothing, and

2
therefore eliminating the problem with its final location. Black’s only way of proving that
this machine is conceptually impossible is by asserting that if all other infinity machines
are impossible, then Phi must be as well, as there would be a logical inconsistency to
have one machine logically possible and the others not. Since Black believes he has
proven all the other machines to be logically impossible as they cannot succeed and fail
at the same time, Phi must also be impossible.

It can be argued, however, that Black’s infinity machines are not logically or
conceptually impossible, but rather, that they are not considered in the right parameters in
order to promote their possibility. With Alpha, the impossibility lies in counting an
infinite sum in a finite time. But that is simply a matter of poorly defining ‘infinity’.
Alpha functions using the two working definitions of infinity as interchangeable: the
infinite amount of marbles Alpha is counting refers to infinity as a physical extremity: the
marbles are infinite in extent. The time constraint refers to infinite in terms of divisibility,
as the time is constantly divided smaller and smaller. It could be argued that the machine
will not be finished after four minutes; but rather, that like in Zeno’s paradox, it will
never be finished, as the time continues to reduce its self into smaller and smaller
denominations, but never reaches zero. This proves Alpha is not logically inconsistent,
but that Black has not considered the infinite divisibility of time in proportion to the
infinite amount of marbles being counted.

Beta and Gamma, as well as Delta and Epsilon are also not inconsistent. As single
entities they function to count the marble over and over again, an infinite amount of time.
When placed against each other so that one must fail in order for the other to succeed,
still a success is being achieved. It could be argued that once the machines are placed so
that they function together (one replenishing the other’s marble and vice versa) they
cease to be separate entities and become connected and functioning as one machine (or a
system). If this is true, then there is no failure as they are functioning together as a means
to an end. As long as the marble is found on either the left or the right, the system, or
larger machine, has been successful in counting the marble an infinite number of times.

3
 Phi, Black’s final machine has no flaw in it other than Black’s assertion that if
none of the other machines are possible, then no infinity machine can be possible. But
since I have just proven that all of Black’s infinity machines are indeed conceptually
possible in their own right, Phi as well is possible.

To conclude, while infinity machines are conceptually possible as machines

which count an infinite spread of marbles over a finite period of time, it is conceptually
impossible to count an infinite sum in a finite period of time. So, regardless of the logical
consistency of the infinity machine, there still remains a logical inconsistency in the
fundamental principle. There simply isn’t enough time to count an infinite number of
anything, therefore all the machines would continue counting well past the four minute
mark, as they would continue to divide the time into smaller denominations infinitely. If
not, they would be successful until just past four minutes, when it becomes clear that
there has not been an infinite amount of marbles counted. But that does entertain the
notion that up until just past four minutes, the machines have been successful in counting
an infinite sum and only in hindsight is it apparent that the machines failed. It could also
be argued that if such a machine can be conceived, then it must be conceptually possible,
else we would have not been able to conceive it (similar concept to the Theist’s
Ontological Argument). But the catch is simply this: the outcome of the machine’s is
completely independent of what the machine’s task was prior to that outcome; that is, the
end and the means are independent of each other, so the machines’ existences should not
be determined by their success or failure in counting the marbles, only in whether or not
they are capable of counting an infinite sum.