The Paradox of Infinity [Archive]

Locutus

Apr25-03, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Yes, I know that in mathematics infinity can be added with another infinity and the sort. BUT, my question is in the physical sense. We can't run away from the physical world.

I believe that what separates the mathematical universe from the physical universe is practicality. Practicality tells us that in order to exist, the universe must have physical laws. These laws (speed of light, for example) impose finite barriers in an attempt to give order to the universe. Even though these laws do prevent many physical infinities (max speed, min temp, etc), the fact that the universe is in constant motion creates many new infinities.

A common infinity is the coastline of great britain. It is impossible to obtain an exact answer for this, for to do so one must measure at increments infinitely less than planck length, which would require so much energy as to warp space enough to disrupt their results. Not to mention the uncertainty principle...

This is not to say that Britain does not have a definite coastline at a specific increment of time. It does, yet practicality (that word again) prevents us from saying so, because WE cannot obtain this measurement. The physical universe has a human element to it that the mathematical universe lacks. Einstein said that "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." So perhaps the universe is finite, and humans are so infinitely stupid that they cannot comprehend this.

Perhaps this thread belongs in the "philosophy" forum, but oh well.

RuroumiKenshin

Apr26-03, 06:59 PM

Yes, maybe I should ask a moderator to move this thread to philosophy.

Anyway, you bring up an excellent point that has been neglected. Although, it occurs to me that the concept of human stupidity being the obstacle of our understanding of the universe seems be undefined. I came upon this conclusion on the premise that everything is relative. If you were traveling at c, the external world would become blue shifted. But to an external observer, you are the one who is blue shifted. So, you, and the observer are both correct for the whole matter is anisotropic and each of you has the right to your observations. Now, from our perspective, the universe is infinite. Possibly, to an "external" observer, the universe, perhaps, is not infinite. I doubt stupidity has anything to do with the matter.

dr-dock

Apr26-03, 08:39 PM

if i may say what i think of infinity?

infinity is the only other singular point as zero is in respect to positive and negative.make XOY system.it's flat surface/plane with 4 infinity points (2 on each axis).now try to do this:
shift x and y for infinity.you'll get that they both begin with -0 and end with +0 while there is only one infinity in the center.i think that XOY should transform into sphere with radius inf/2 where zero and inf are diametricaly oposite.

RuroumiKenshin

Apr26-03, 08:45 PM

To make my point defintely established:

THIS THREAD IS MAINLY QUESTIONING THE PHYSICAL PARADOXES OF INFINITY. NOT MATHEMATICAL PROSPECTS.

drag

Apr26-03, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
THIS THREAD IS MAINLY
QUESTIONING THE PHYSICAL PARADOXES OF INFINITY.
NOT MATHEMATICAL PROSPECTS.
Indeed. But, should there be a fundumental
difference ? And why ?
(I adressed this above, I believe.)

Live long and prosper.

Stormy

Apr27-03, 04:07 AM

I want to expand on the definition of infinity (no pun intended):

In my mind at least, infinity is something that, not only goes on forever, but also has gone on for ever, well as far as the Physical definition goes (refering to the universe)

plus

Apr27-03, 04:25 PM

There is no need for such large writing.

Mathematics is used to describe the physical universe. Things which are infinite CAN get larger.

A physical example of something getting larger.

Consider the domain in which you are allowed to move in cylindrical coordinates.
Now suppose that at a time t, you are allowed to move in the range
0< theta < t, where theta is the angle in degrees and that there is no restriction on the vertical range or the horizontal distance.

Then up to t=360, although the domain is infinite, it is still expanding. This is not "just a mathematical infinity" it is a practical one, which I have described the only way possible, using mathematics.

NB I could have easily chosen the function so that it increased for ever, but chose this one as it is easier to see what is happening.

Surely you will see now!!!

RuroumiKenshin

Apr27-03, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Stormy
I want to expand on the definition of infinity (no pun intended):

In my mind at least, infinity is something that, not only goes on forever, but also has gone on for ever, well as far as the Physical definition goes (refering to the universe)

That contradicts the big bang. Apparently, you implied that infinity has no beginning.

Could it be that infinity describes state of being?

Locutus

Apr27-03, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
That contradicts the big bang. Apparently, you implied that infinity has no beginning.

Could it be that infinity describes state of being?

Actually (and quite technically speaking), at the instant of the big bang, the universe did occupy infinite volume. If we imagine the universe beginning as a singularity (which is not proven, of course), the big bang marked the instant that the universe began expanding, not when it was a singularity. There is a very tiny difference here, but the only universe that has been measured is the infinite universe (after the first increment of planck time), and the big bang marks this increment, not the time before it.

This is, of course, a small argument, but I still feel Stormy poses an interesting question. After all, we really don't know what the universe was before it was infinite.

wimms

Apr28-03, 06:16 AM

big bang, big-bang. Bigbangboo. We have this cute law: energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thats it - no beginning of universe. Bigbang might be beginning of our cosmology, but not universe.

If you don't accept mathmatics, then this is inherently philosophical question. But I'd like to point out that infinity is NOT a number. You can't apply arithmetics on it, only on a number IN that infinite set. Infinity as unique concept has no meaning and no logical sense by our standards. Its more like direction rather than target.

Infinity is intimately related to concept of Nothing. If universe were finite, it would mean there are boundaries. By definition, beyond these boundaries there must be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment, what is Nothing? Say you have two things separated by Nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything. Is that possibly detectable? Nope. If there is nothing separating two things, they must be touching. If there are 2 universes separated by Nothing, they must be touching, lumping into single Universe. Therefore it is not possible to separate by Nothing.

Now we can say that Universe must be infinite just because Nothing is not logically detectable in principle. And from here, nice reasoning of existence, as logical outcome of impossiblity of state of Nothing.

How can it expand? Can ONE thing be infinite? hehe. it can. Can it split? it can. Can it split forever? why not. Can its multiplicity increase forever? it can. Can it be perceived as expnsion? any time.

drag

Apr28-03, 03:33 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by wimms
big bang, big-bang. Bigbangboo. We have
this cute law: energy cannot be created
nor destroyed. Thats it - no beginning of
universe. Bigbang might be beginning of
our cosmology, but not universe.

If you don't accept mathmatics, then this
is inherently philosophical question.

First of all, it's physics not mathematics.
Second, all the physical laws currently
recognized are limmited by the BB and no
one, so far, attempted to expand them to that
point and beyond because we simply have no idea
about it, again - so far.
Originally posted by wimms
But I'd like to point out that infinity is
NOT a number. You can't apply arithmetics on
it, only on a number IN that infinite set.
Infinity as unique concept has no meaning and
no logical sense by our standards. Its more
like direction rather than target.
I believe a mathematician would disagree
with some of that, but I'm not one so I'll
just keep my mouth shut.
Originally posted by wimms
Infinity is intimately related to concept
of Nothing. If universe were finite, it would
mean there are boundaries.
If the Universe's dimensions were rings
for example - where are the limmits ?
Higher dimensions ?
Originally posted by wimms
By definition, beyond these boundaries there
must be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment,
what is Nothing?
How about - not anything. Makes a difference ?
Originally posted by wimms
Now we can say that Universe must be infinite
just because Nothing is not logically
detectable in principle. And from here,
nice reasoning of existence, as logical
outcome of impossiblity of state of Nothing.

What is your definition of logic ?
Is logic (in your definition [;)])the absolute
guide of the Universe ? Or maybe, your logic
can still outsmart you (like relativity outsmarted
physicts before - and without logical discrepancies) ?

More to the point - the Universe is not logical. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

Mentat

Apr28-03, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by drag
Well, I wasn't talking about math, just using
it as an example. The question is - what's the
difference ? Is there any ? And why ?

Live long and prosper.

Well, you were talking about a mathematical concept, the adding of infinities. I was merely showing that this mathematical concept is less present in the "real" (physical) world than a straight line (this is a hyperbole, please let there be no debate on whether one impossibility is more likely than another).

Anyway, did you read my previous post? Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

plus

Apr28-03, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I believe a mathematician would disagree
with some of that, but I'm not one so I'll
just keep my mouth shut.

Correct.

There is a huge amount of research done into the field of infinity, and I have studied some of it. You may want to find out about the extended real line and some really rigorous work there.

If we are to talk rigorously about infinity, then we should all have Phds in maths. We cannot hope to get to grips with some of the facets of it in this thread, which is written mostly by laypeople.

Rigorous mathematics and physics cannot be handled by conceptions alone. It needs to be accompanied by technical detail.

RuroumiKenshin

Apr28-03, 10:11 PM

Could you apply Zeno's paradox to understanding infinity?

drag

Apr29-03, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, let me explain: I am not talking
about mathematical infinities. I know that
there can be more than one infinity, in maths,
and that there can be "bigger" infinities.
However, I'm talking about space itself.
If you take a space that is infinite (as in,
having no end), how could you possibly add
more space to this? Even if you could,
(though I don't think you could) your result
would be the same as before (infinity), and
thus you haven't made it any bigger at all.
Like I said before that message - things inside
will get farther or closer apart. You'll have
the symptoms of growth.

What you seem to be bothered by are the borders,
but infinity has none, does it ?

Live long and prosper.

damgo

Apr29-03, 01:46 AM

You don't need a math PhD to play with infinities rigorously... basic courses in set theory and analysis should do. [;)] You can perform arithmetic on infinities in several senses -- cardinal and ordinal arithmetic, by using systems such as the hyperreals or surreals, and prob some others I don't know about. But back to the original question....

When we talk about the expansion of an infinite universe, we don't mean its "total size" gets bigger in the way, say, a balloon gets bigger as we blow it up. We mean that the distances between objects in the infinite universe gets larger. So if there are originall objects at {..,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} they will move to {...,-4,-2,0,2,4,..} after some time, and continue to get further apart.

wimms

Apr29-03, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by drag
First of all, it's physics not mathematics.
Second, all the physical laws currently
recognized are limmited by the BB and no
one, so far, attempted to expand them to that
point and beyond because we simply have no idea
about it, again - so far. Ah, now I'm lost. Why did you find important to object that so strongly?
I believe a mathematician would disagree
with some of that, but I'm not one so I'll
just keep my mouth shut.

If the Universe's dimensions were rings
for example - where are the limmits ?
Higher dimensions ? ok, lets leave infinities to Phds in math. They feel touched when laymen talk about their pets. Although extended real line specifically warns that infinity is not a number and should never be treated as number, but only as function.

In regards to rings, what you mean by ring? 2D object? 2D planes are infinite, ring is only subset.

How about - not anything. Makes a difference ?

What is your definition of logic ?
Is logic (in your definition [;)])the absolute
guide of the Universe ? Or maybe, your logic
can still outsmart you (like relativity outsmarted
physicts before - and without logical discrepancies) ?

More to the point - the Universe is not logical. [;)] not anything vs nothing - no difference. There is no reason to exchange definitions of logic, that will go too far off topic. There is probably also huge research in that area constantly heating up. Suffice it to say that logic is the basis of any and all proofs you'd ever heard of. My application of logic may be flawed, in which case you may show my error. I reached such thought as I showed, and unless you can show my error, I see no reason to be sarcastic.

Universe not logical? kidding right? Some argue that universe is not only logical, but rather IS the thing itself.

Royce

Apr29-03, 08:31 AM

As mentioned in the beginning of this thread "Infinity is not a Number"; nor, is it a Limit. Infinity can expand infinitly as Infinity implies no limit, no edge, no boundry, no end. To use a math analogy the number set is infinite and can be expanded infinitly because I can always add a 1 to any infinite number that you can name.

Stormy

Apr29-03, 09:11 AM

Technically you can't add 1 to infinity because you are already there,
for instance, if you say "infinity" and then I say "infinity + 1" then that doesn't count because infinity + 1 was already stated in the term "infinity." [:)]

Think about it and it will make sense [;)]

Mentat

Apr29-03, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by damgo
You don't need a math PhD to play with infinities rigorously... basic courses in set theory and analysis should do. [;)] You can perform arithmetic on infinities in several senses -- cardinal and ordinal arithmetic, by using systems such as the hyperreals or surreals, and prob some others I don't know about. But back to the original question....

When we talk about the expansion of an infinite universe, we don't mean its "total size" gets bigger in the way, say, a balloon gets bigger as we blow it up. We mean that the distances between objects in the infinite universe gets larger. So if there are originall objects at {..,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} they will move to {...,-4,-2,0,2,4,..} after some time, and continue to get further apart.

This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spacial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spacial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion).

Mentat

Apr29-03, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by wimms
not anything vs nothing - no difference. There is no reason to exchange definitions of logic, that will go too far off topic.

You were the one who asked what "nothing" was. He is giving you a perfect answer - it's not anything. There is no "it" to speak of. "Nothing" doesn't refer to anything, and can only be used in exagerations; such as "There's nothing to eat in here", when in fact there are insects crawling around (just an example). If you use the term "nothing" to signify something, you will get a nasty semantic debate - the likes of which I've tried to prevent, with my "Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics thread.

wimms

Apr29-03, 01:39 PM

Please, read before you argue. I've never implied one should think of nothing in any other way.

Mentat

Apr29-03, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by wimms
Please, read before you argue. I've never implied one should think of nothing in any other way.

Oh really?

Originally posted by wimms
By definition, beyond these boundaries there
must be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment,
what is Nothing?

Royce

Apr29-03, 05:07 PM

Stormy,
I disagree. Infinity means no limit, no boundry. To say that I can not add a one to infinity is saying that infinity is a limit which is an oxymoron. I can add infinity to infinity and still have infinity mathematically. Physically infinity "simply" means no edge or boundry. There is no limit in infinity to stop our universe from expanding even if it is infinite. There is more and more evidence however that our universe is closed, a sphere if you will and is expanding faster than the speed of light into an infinite void. The thinking is more and more that we live, and our entire universe is, inside a black hole that is expanding from the singularity that it was "before" the Big Bang. Indeed in another reference system it may still be a singularity. What is the void or what is beyound is anybody's guess. Nothing is mine. No time. No dimension. No spacetime. Nul space is what I call it. it is not even space as we think of it much spacetime. It is literly a void, as hard as that is to conceive of. In comparision it make infinity a piece of cake.
Cake unfortunatly is finite and I better go get some before it disappears into the blackhole that is my grandson.

damgo

Apr29-03, 07:13 PM

>>Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe

Sure there is, it's just infinite. What's the problem? How are the points {m | m is an integer} with location (m*t) not all getting further apart as t increases?

Stormy

Apr29-03, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Royce
[B]Stormy,
I disagree. Infinity means no limit, no boundry. To say that I can not add a one to infinity is saying that infinity is a limit which is an oxymoron.
But that is my point infinity has no limit so if you say infinity then you also mean infinity + X because infinity is, of course, infinite. It has no limit so encompasses all. [:)]

Locutus

Apr29-03, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Stormy
But that is my point infinity has no limit so if you say infinity then you also mean infinity + X because infinity is, of course, infinite. It has no limit so encompasses all. [:)]

This is not true. Let us imagine the set of real numbers between 0 and 1. There are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, but that does not mean that any number must be part of this infinite set. 2, for example, is not encompassed by this infinity.

Infinity is quite simply any quantity that exceeds our means of measuring it. In the case of mathematics, infinity is any number that cannot ever be reached or represented by our numbers.

I find the case of an infinitesimal number easier to use to explain the above statement. An infinitesimal number is infinitely close to 0. It is not 0, but we cannot measure its separation from 0 using any conventional mathematics.

Thus we have established that infinity is not part of the standard mathematic universe of complex numbers. When one says "infinity + X" they are adding to completely dissimilar terms; it is analagous to one saying "22 grams + 18 miles".

Stormy

Apr29-03, 10:26 PM

Ah, but that is the difference between the mathematical and physical point of view. In maths you have to have a starting point and an end point, e.g. 0 and 1 but even though there is an infinite number of values between them it is not infinity because it has limits, i.e. 0 and 1 the universe, however has no such limits.

drag

Apr29-03, 11:20 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Stormy
Ah, but that is the difference between the
mathematical and physical point of view.
In maths you have to have a starting point
and an end point, e.g. 0 and 1 but even
though there is an infinite number of
values between them it is not infinity
because it has limits, i.e. 0 and 1 the
universe, however has no such limits.

Perhaps the Universe is the result of two opposing
rules or something - this will allow a similar
situation on an appropriate physical scale.
Originally posted by Mentat
This is what drag, and others, keep saying,
but I disagree. If someone speaks of the
spacial dimensions themselves as expanding,
then it doesn't follow that just some things
could be getting farther apart, but all
things should be getting farther apart.
And if all things are getting farther apart,
then this has to be happening throughout the
entirety of space. Of course, there is not
"entirety of space" in an infinite universe,
which is why I don't think that everything
can get farther away from everything else,
in an infinite universe. Thus, the spacial
dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite
universe, IMCO (in my current opinion).
Actualy, I believe we WERE speaking of the whole
"deal" and everything in it, otherwise it's just
a local kind of expansion. [;)]
I do not understand the part about the "entirety
of space", what do you mean ?
Originally posted by wimms
Ah, now I'm lost. Why did you find important
to object that so strongly?
Because you seem to use a law that is only
recognized so far in the Universe to justify
the Universe itself or something "outside" of
what we currently call the Universe.
For all we know the Universe may've just appeared.
Originally posted by wimms
In regards to rings, what you mean by ring?
I was just trying to demonstrate that even for
a finite Universe there is NO "nothing" that
you can talk about because nothing is just
not anything. Mentat's thread dealt with this
in the past and I think this was a well justified
explanation. Anyway, my demonstration is that of
all of the 4 dimensions currently known to us.
Think of all of them as curved into rings - then
they have no defined bounderies beyond which you
could say there is something/nothing/whatever.
Originally posted by wimms
Universe not logical? kidding right? Some argue
that universe is not only logical, but rather
IS the thing itself.
I'm talking about the Paradox of Existence.
Our "logic" is the result of trying to understand
the way existence (the Universe) works, but there
are countless possibilities for it because we
may have infinite rules and complexity. Either way,
the rules of the game do not explain the existence
of the game (and that is the ALMOST absolute fact [;)]).

Live long and prosper.

wimms

Apr30-03, 04:09 AM

I've never implied one should think of nothing in any other way.

Originally posted by Mentat
Oh really?
By definition, beyond these boundaries theremust be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment, what is Nothing? Come on, why are you doing this? Exactly next sentence is exactly what you are trying to put through.
Say you have two things separated by Nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything.Please don't catch me on wording. English is my 3rd language afterall. Later I said enough to be unambiguous.

Originally posted by drag
Because you seem to use a law that is only recognized so far in the Universe to justify the Universe itself or something "outside" of what we currently call the Universe. For all we know the Universe may've just appeared.no-no. I've never implied there is any "something outside universe". However bad my english is, its not that bad. I merely pointed out that based on our fundamental law of energy conservation, universe could not have been created or get destroyed. Universe is just bunch of energy afterall. If that law doesn't hold, then we have some tough days ahead. If there was a point when energy was created, then this law is flawed. What happened once, can happen again... Energy cannot be created "inside". If so, then it had to be created all in instant by something outside. I went on specifically to show that there can be no outside, from logical point of view, not some conventional belief. If there is something outside, its included by our definition of universe, and only question subject shifts - what created that outside? We, as being inside that universe obviously obey laws of the whole, are part of the whole.
You see, there is yelling contradiction between energy conservation law and concept of creation, byitself or by anything outside. If it just appeared from nothing, then anything can appear just from nothing, and there is no place for energy conservation.

I was just trying to demonstrate that even for a finite Universe there is NO "nothing" that you can talk about because nothing is just not anything. Mentat's thread dealt with this in the past and I think this was a well justified explanation. Anyway, my demonstration is that of all of the 4 dimensions currently known to us. Think of all of them as curved into rings - then they have no defined bounderies beyond which you could say there is something/nothing/whatever.We've been talking about the same Nothing/not anything. I'm amazed how it could get confusing.

In regards to curved space, disagree. We can't escape the boundaries by means of intertial motion, but that has nothing to do with boundaries or whats beyond them. Curving space doesn't mean there are no boundaries, its just comfortable way to say that we can't care less of the rest. To get "unbounded" curved space we do what? We take finite boundaries and curve them onto themselves.
We can't escape BH, but beyond it is this same universe, over and over, without limits. It might be different, have even different laws, but its still same universe. You've basically suggested that Universe is kind of BH. I dont think so, BH is just a subset of universe, its finite.

Regarding "logic", agree, but I'd go further and say its result of not only us trying, but direct correspondence with the thing itself. So there are not so countless possibilities, they are not here.
Rules of game do not explain the existence of game, unless, the rules IS the game.

Royce

Apr30-03, 09:22 AM

The universe whether flat, infinite, or curved, open, saddle back, or closed, sphere, is a sum zero game. All normal energy and matter is positive energy. Gravity is negative energy and the sum is equal or nearly egual to zero.
There are thoughts that our universe may be a local temporary disturbance in the vacuum, a vertual partical that because of inflation has not yet gone back into the vacuum from which it came. There is also the possibily that it is a singularity that grew massive enough to just close its local spacetime about itself thus "dropping" out of its universe/spacetime reference into a void without reference and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight.
To say that space is curved has been proven time and time again. It is the effect of mass/gravity that curves space. The question is, is there enought mass in the universe to close space completely and thus some billions of years in the future the expansion will be halted by gravity and then the universe will begin deflating back eventually into the singularity from which it all started, the Big Crunch. All of this implies that the universe is not infinite, has had a begining and will have an end and may start the cycle all over again. There is no way of knowing if we exist in the first, last or hundredth cycle as the singularity destroys all information of anything if there was anything before it occured.

plus

Apr30-03, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spacial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spacial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion).

It needs to be defined relative to what, the points are getting farter apart from.

Clearly it can be measured that the stars are getting further apart using conventional measuring techniques. This is what people mean when they say that the universe is expanding. In the same way that I can move further away from this computer for ever, stars can move further away for ever. If you like, it could be measured relative to the speed of light.

Mentat

Apr30-03, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by wimms
Come on, why are you doing this? Exactly next sentence is exactly what you are trying to put through.
Please don't catch me on wording. English is my 3rd language afterall. Later I said enough to be unambiguous.

No, no, your problem is still conceptual, not lingual. You use terms such as "seperated by nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything". This should mean that they are not seperated, but you still use the term "serperated by nothing". Did you mean that they weren't serperated?

BTW, I'm sorry if I offended you, by my intolerance of misuse of the word "nothing". I just hate that there are so many people who don't understand that the word "nothing" doesn't describe anything. You seem to understand that, and I commend that. Your third language? Which other two do you speak? (English is my second language, as I first spoke Spanish).

wimms

Apr30-03, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
No, no, your problem is still conceptual, not lingual. You use terms such as "seperated by nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything". This should mean that they are not seperated, but you still use the term "serperated by nothing". Did you mean that they weren't serperated? Eh, infamous Nothing. You can't even explain that you "can't separate by nothing" without getting caught [:)] Of course I meant no separation.
I hope though that my main point finally got through, that in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing. Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.
I speak estonian and russian. would survive with finnish.

drag

Apr30-03, 10:58 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by wimms
Please don't catch me on wording. English is
my 3rd language afterall.
...
However bad my english is, its not that bad.

It's my 3rd language too, and yours is very
good indeed. [:)]
Originally posted by wimms
Regarding "logic", agree, but I'd go further
and say its result of not only us trying, but
direct correspondence with the thing itself.
So there are not so countless possibilities,
they are not here.
Actually, it doesn't really work (in its "normal"
version) according to the "thing itself" as far as
we know it today.
Originally posted by wimms
Rules of game do not explain the existence of
game, unless, the rules IS the game.
That is a possibility but does not explain
their existence either, does it ? [;)]

Live long and prosper.

RuroumiKenshin

Apr30-03, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by wimms
Eh, infamous Nothing. You can't even explain that you "can't separate by nothing" without getting caught [:)] Of course I meant no separation.
I hope though that my main point finally got through, that in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing. Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.
I speak estonian and russian. would survive with finnish.

Mentat began a thread on the semantics of nothing. It lasted about 10 pages, if I recall correctly. Nothing means "not anything" therefore saying 'this is sepereted by nothing' is actually 'this is seperated by not anything'. Are you getting "nothing" confused with a void??
If you meant no seperation, what did you mean?
English is my second language. (almost my third) The point is not how many languages you speak, its your understanding.

drag

May1-03, 12:04 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by wimms
I hope though that my main point finally got
through, that in same way as you can't
separate by nothing,

Perhaps, you're right. (Though I ussualy dislike
nearly absolute claims.)
Originally posted by wimms
you can't surround by nothing.
Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.

That's an intresting logical deduction, but
I believe that other reasoning lines considered
it seems more like a semantic argument to me on
how much logical induction is present in it.

Live long and prosper.

Michael F. Dmitriyev

May1-03, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by damgo
.... But back to the original question....

When we talk about the expansion of an infinite universe, we don't mean its "total size" gets bigger in the way, say, a balloon gets bigger as we blow it up. We mean that the distances between objects in the infinite universe gets larger. So if there are originall objects at {..,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} they will move to {...,-4,-2,0,2,4,..} after some time, and continue to get further apart.
And hereinafter : BB
{..,-8,-4,0,4,8,..} .... ....
{..,-16,-8,0,8,16,..} .... ....
{..,-32,-6,0,16,32,..} .... ....

And the universe became the blowed balloon, which concentrated a whole matter in the shell.
Is it so?

wimms

May2-03, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by wimms
Rules of game do not explain the existence of game, unless, the rules IS the game.

Originally posted by drag
That is a possibility but does not explain their existence either, does it ? [;)]Yes, but it is interesting boundary situation that brings us to the limits of logical reasoning. Going past that will cause a short-circuit.

Think, what will remain after you "remove" all, mean ALL, from existence? To think about that, you need to apply logical reasoning. Say you conclude that what remains is nothing, oops, -> nothing remains. Just suppose, that we can imagine such condition. Then, we go on and apply logical reasoning. Or, frankly, we assert that logic remains. But logic is rules of a game, thus, if logic remains, it means existence remains. If you remove logic, you remove rules, and there is no game. Thus, rules of game and game are congruent, selfexplanatory, selfreferential. Asking anything beyond that point is invalid by ANY system of logical reasoning. Logic disintegrates.

By any system of logical reasoning, nothing is invalid state, not just impossible, but logically flawed concept. It may be "agreed" as impossible by reduction ad absurdum.

We have plenty of evidence that universe is logical, and very little evidence if at all that its absurd.
Therefore some believe that logic IS the game, rather than what it has or does. See http://ebtx.com for an interesting example.

drag

May2-03, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by wimms
Yes, but it is interesting boundary situation
that brings us to the limits of logical
reasoning. Going past that will cause a
short-circuit.

Think, what will remain after you "remove"
all, mean ALL, from existence? To think
about that, you need to apply logical
reasoning. Say you conclude that what
remains is nothing, oops, -> nothing remains.
Just suppose, that we can imagine such
condition. Then, we go on and apply
logical reasoning. Or, frankly, we assert
that logic remains. But logic is rules of
a game, thus, if logic remains, it means
existence remains. If you remove logic, you
remove rules, and there is no game. Thus,
rules of game and game are congruent,
selfexplanatory, selfreferential. Asking
anything beyond that point is invalid by
ANY system of logical reasoning.
Logic disintegrates.
Precisely the point of my statement.

Michael F. Dmitriyev

May2-03, 02:21 PM

Much varieties of infinity is considered in a philosophy and in mathematician. The Physics tries to find one in which is realized our universe. It is correct. God had chosen for realization one of them and this means that a rest infinityes are just result of creative fantasy of people and have no relation to realities.
Any project for realization must provide such features of the object:
- it must be a most simplicity upon a conservation of all functions;
- an expenseses of energy for its operation must be a minimum;
- it must function in "real time mode" for what must be an instant feedback and a compensating influences;
- it must have a most compactness for a minimization of amount of the elements for realization purpose required;
- no a possible changes of parameter in the system must not bring about its destruction;

Certainly nobody can not know all planning of God, but list of the requirements above for a more or less complex system is known to any designer. So. The Project is approved and its realization began .

Suppose this BB and the following expansion of universe.
But this is a full ignoring of project or, more exactly, its
straight opposition. Only Devil could realize such a project which destroy all planning of God. Herewith his force must be enough to work the system, which can't be working in principle. Anyway, his force might has been enough to inspire the Illusion to realization of such project to people.
It is possible to write this so
(The Absolute zero---> 3D number(?)) * INFINITY--->3D SPACE INFINITY.
This INFINITY of the EXPANSION of THREE- DIMENSIONAL SPACE.
This is the "acting model of our universe".

Really, it is required a superconcepts and huge amount of subterfuges to present working of such "universe". Nobody can't to do it.

What must be a realization to corresponds on the minimum set of the requirements, at least?

It must be the EVOLUTION toward a certain ABSOLUTENESS, but must not BULGE SENSELESSLY in their own size to NOWHERE.
It must not achieve this ABSOLUTENESS in principle and it provides the INFINITY of the PROCESS of EVOLUTION.

Mathematically, this requirements correspond to the process of the endless fission of any real number which will not reach the ABSOLUTE ZERO never.

NUMBER / INFINITY ------> ABSOLUTE ZERO
This is a REAL INFINITY.
This is ALGORITHM, not formula, since a Number has a BINARY FORM. GOD from the beginning had used the INFORMATION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY.
Physically this process must have a FUNDAMENTAL ESSENCE presenting a number in mathematical model.
This the essence is TIME!

Michael F. Dmitriyev

wimms

May2-03, 05:01 PM

-- in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing.

posted by drag
That's an intresting logical deduction, but I believe that other reasoning lines considered it seems more like a semantic argument to me on how much logical induction is present in it. Seems? Show me the flaw. And, while at that, how does BB get away from that?

RuroumiKenshin

May2-03, 07:05 PM

Surrounding something by nothing and seperating something by nothing are both essentially the same. That is, when you seperate something by nothing, you are also surrounding it by nothing. Like wimms, I don't see the flaw....unless of course you're talking about quantum mechanics.

drag

May3-03, 04:19 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by wimms
Seems? Show me the flaw. And, while at that,
how does BB get away from that?
That's part of my point - the BB(or the Universe
for that matter) doesn't seem to get away from that.
So, it seems that possibly it is not a real problem.

Well, about the flaw - you assume there must always
be something outside of something else.
This could possibly serve as one of the "faces"
of the PoE according to certain reasoning systems
that assume the above, but it is perfectly alright
in others, I believe.

The difference between this and the separated "by
nothing" argument is that the latter seems to
violate any reasoning we're so far aware of because
it goes against the "relation between entities" part
that is always present in them, I believe. I mean,
if there's nothing in between - there's no
relation between these separated entities, and
if there are relations - how is that possible ?
(In this case, it's the same as the action at
a distance paradox - before we found out that
the "distance" - space is not nothing.)

Live long and prosper.

RuroumiKenshin

May3-03, 10:33 PM

Yes, Drag, your reasoning makes sense when one ignores QM.
Negative energy in a void (which is the same thing as a 'nothing', ignoring the semantics) is present when there is no positive energy present. But, of course, when one considers the semantics involved, what I said doesn't make sense, right?

wimms

May4-03, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by drag
That's part of my point - the BB(or the Universe for that matter) doesn't seem to get away from that. So, it seems that possibly it is not a real problem.Eh, not that it isn't a problem, BB seems to simply ignore it.

Well, about the flaw - you assume there must always be something outside of something else.
This could possibly serve as one of the "faces" of the PoE according to certain reasoning systems that assume the above, but it is perfectly alright in others, I believe. Its hard to follow you. Correction though: I didn't assume that, I deduced that by logic. Do I understand you correctly, that in some other system of reasoning, statement that something can be surrounded by what we called "not anything", is possibly valid? Is there possibly such a real number that is a last one?

The difference between this and the separated "by nothing" argument is that the latter seems to violate any reasoning we're so far aware of because it goes against the "relation between entities" part that is always present in them, I believe. I mean, if there's nothing in between - there's no relation between these separated entities, and if there are relations - how is that possible ? Uhh. We just went through that. It was precisely whole point of my reasoning, to show that. I started with speculative proposition to show that its not valid. So did you above.

"relation between entities" *is* something - its 'space'. You can't distinguish separate entities if you don't separate them by something. Its like trying to distinguish 2 values whose difference is exactly 0.

Did you mean that in case for universe, there is no entity to relate to outside and thus to talk about 'relation' is invalid? Thats equivalent to searching for 'last number'. In any case, it seems that unboundedness is the only logical conclusion.

RuroumiKenshin

May4-03, 02:29 PM

Eh, not that it isn't a problem, BB seems to simply ignore it.

Quantum mechanics allows for something to be "created out of nothing". So its not, quantum mechanically speaking, a problem, right?

drag

May4-03, 05:42 PM

Greetings !

MajinVegeta, space is not nothing according
to modern science. [;)]

Originally posted by wimms
BB seems to simply ignore it.
Carefull... arguing with nature because
your "logic" tells you what you observe is
impossible is historicly shown to often
be a hopeless effort. [;)]
Originally posted by wimms
Do I understand you correctly, that in some
other system of reasoning, statement that
something can be surrounded by what we
called "not anything", is possibly valid?
Is there possibly such a real number that
is a last one?
Since any reasoning system deals with some
enitities and some relations between them
(though nothing is certain, of course),
your question is not posed correctly. After
all, not anything or nothing is NOT an
entity or a relation.

What I DID mean is that a different reasoning
system may not lead to assignment of limmits.
You talk about something outside ofeverything
as a condition, but what if I simply do not
concern myself with such a condition ?
A similar example is the once existing assumption
that cause must exist before effect, however, today
we know we might sometimes be able to observe
effect before cause, based upon the EPR
experiment and the "instant" WF collapse.
(Though personally, I still don't buy that...[:D])
Originally posted by wimms
Uhh. We just went through that. It was
precisely whole point of my reasoning,
to show that. I started with speculative
proposition to show that its not valid.
So did you above.

"relation between entities" *is*
something - its 'space'. You can't
distinguish separate entities if you
don't separate them by something. Its
like trying to distinguish 2 values
whose difference is exactly 0.

Indeed. When it comes to the real world
"real" relations are themselves entities.
"Pure" relations can exist only in our
abstract thinking (math for example).

But, independent of how you regard
"normal" space in a particular case -
there is still a direct connection between
these "parts" of the real world. The lack
of such a connection would mean that any
abstract relation discribing this would
collapse. It would be a totally chaotic
system - cause with NO effect and chaos.
And if you did manage to tie between two
entities with no connection between them,
then you're the connection.
Originally posted by wimms
Did you mean that in case for universe,
there is no entity to relate to outside
and thus to talk about 'relation' is invalid?
Thats equivalent to searching for 'last number'.

No, you misunderstood me.

Let's try it this way:
If you have a bunch of entities interacting
directly - there's no (enitial, at least)problem
and you can then wonder - what's outside
of each entity, which is a more specific
case argument(and perhaps unnecessary).

But, if there are entities with no connection
between them then they can not possibly
communicate with each other in any manner
and hence it appears to be an impossibility
for a real world discription to include such
enitities since whoever's reasoning with this
discription has to be aware of this situation
and thus violate the lack of connection.

So, returning to the original opinions I
expressed - a limmited Universe may still
be debatable and is not as seemingly impossible
to me as separation by nothing.
(We are, of course, talking about conceptual
comprehension ability - there may be stuff
separated by nothing, but conceptually
I believe my above argument is an almost
absolute proof that we can't possibly know that.
You were implying that the basis of these
two cases is essentialy the same, and I think
it's not, even if there is some argument
as "tough" as mine above that deals with
a finite Universe and that I simply failed
to consider so far.)

Poka ! [:D]

Live long and prosper.

RuroumiKenshin

May4-03, 10:39 PM

MajinVegeta, space is not nothing according
to modern science.

A medium.

Mentat

May5-03, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Surrounding something by nothing and seperating something by nothing are both essentially the same. That is, when you seperate something by nothing, you are also surrounding it by nothing. Like wimms, I don't see the flaw....unless of course you're talking about quantum mechanics.

I didn't think this would be necessary with you, Majin, as you usually don't misuse this word. However, I'm going to run your (quoted) post through the E.i.N.S. It becomes:

"The fact that something is not surrounded by anything, and the the fact that it is not seperated by anything, are both essentially the same. That is when something isn't seperated by anything, it is also isn't surrounded by anything."

Mentat

May5-03, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
A medium.

Not just a medium. Relativity states that it is an entity, which changes and warps due to the presence (and change) of matter/energy.

Kirk Gaulden

May5-03, 11:27 AM

Kirk Gaulden
keg963@hotmail.com

To answer your questions on space-time:

If you take the mathematical processes of relativity and apply them to
the four natural forces you come up with quantun space-time mechanics.
I cannot give specifics because my material is not published as of yet. I sent the information to the jet propulsion lab in California
for studies in space-time phenomenon regaurding mathematical gravity and how space expands, covering wormhole construction through manifolding energies to balance the energies in the universe to
the manipulation of space-times levels of gravity based on a relative
parodox method never used before. This material shows how the universe works, expanding quantum field theory to space-time fields
at different levels to expand the universes as a strand in string
theory. This information uses General Theory of Relativity as a
reference in local time and that time changes as bubbles of time that
our sun passes through that effects our evolution and progress in technologies.

Kirk Gaulden

May5-03, 06:08 PM

If you take into account that space is indeed a time bubble seperate
as a multiplexed manifold as transformation points for the four fundamental forces of nature to be an infinite parodoxia and that light is indeed a hyper graviton in the field. Then relativity demands a relative position for moduli-space-time, therefore,
space can be relative entity in 2 dimensional space. Seeing that
the graviton is a superparticle like Ds is, gravitons can only be
in high quark plasma density states projected by lensing from other
time bubbles from distant stars at different rates faster or slower than the space around it in photon plasma promotes laser lensing that produces super densities at the electromagnetic level. I presented this as a base for our technology.This information is processed by
matter/anti-matter movement created in hyperspace at the center of
the universe.

RuroumiKenshin

May5-03, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Not just a medium. Relativity states that it is an entity, which changes and warps due to the presence (and change) of matter/energy.

An ENTITY, Mentat?

Kirk Gaulden

May6-03, 08:16 AM

Correct! See the stars, galaxies and even planets that have atmospheres to some point are all connected to hyperspace. They have the plasma required to manifold through densities of matter and energy. Energy states that are relative to superpatner ineractions
depend on the balancing of motions and other energies through lensing
to keep the universe from collapsing. If one area is without the weak force that is an area based for transition of energies would take place, through space-time mechanics and fermion-bosonic dynamics
balance is maintained through manifolding the fundamental forces of nature.

drag

May6-03, 12:53 PM

Wow that's amazing Kirk Gaulden !
You know what I think, PF's too boring
and useless and people can't appreciate
real ideas. Why don't we try a more
serious forum like ScienceForums for
example and you could really discuss
your ideas there. [;)]

Peace and long life.

RuroumiKenshin

May7-03, 09:39 PM

Drag, you're on ScienceForums, too?

Kirk: Very interesting, excellent way of describing the universe. I am prone to thinking that "entity" refers to a living thing.

drag

May7-03, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Drag, you're on ScienceForums, too?
Nope. [;)]
But, I'm sorry I forgot you are, any other
appropriate forums out there ? [:D]

RuroumiKenshin

May8-03, 12:08 AM

Yes! I just joined the mkaku.org community.
They have amazing discussions. I guess it is appropriate to say "far out" discussions. But nonetheless, physicsforums is much cooler.

Mentat

May8-03, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
An ENTITY, Mentat?

Yep.

Mentat

May8-03, 01:42 PM

Majin, I don't think that drag was seriously suggesting that ScienceForums.com was better than the PFs. He said something, rather similar to his comment to Kirk Gaulden, on the old PFs, and I still just don't see much humor in it - but I think that's what it's intended for.

drag

May10-03, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
Majin, I don't think that drag was seriously
suggesting that ScienceForums.com was better
than the PFs.
You think...[:D]
Originally posted by Mentat
He said something, rather similar to his
comment to Kirk Gaulden, on the old PFs,

I think I "tried" the same with someone
else on PF2. [a)]
Originally posted by Mentat
and I still just don't see much humor
in it -
In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
but I think that's what it's intended for.
Hard call, isn't it... [:D]

Live long and prosper.

Mentat

May10-03, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by drag
In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language. [;)]

Actually, what is lacking is an appropriate medium for humor. I can't hear the tone of your voice, I can see your facial expressions, I can't read your mind, and I can't feel your need for sarcasm.

Aside from this, I take people's posts seriously, to lessen the risk of insulting someone.

drag

May10-03, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
Aside from this, I take people's posts seriously,
to lessen the risk of insulting someone.
Feel free to insult me anytime...[:D]
The worst that can happen is that it'll
either be justified or you'll be banned...[;)]

Mentat

May12-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by drag
Feel free to insult me anytime...[:D]
The worst that can happen is that it'll
either be justified or you'll be banned...[;)]

Actually, both of those things can happen at the same time. Besides, I have no use for insults.

drag

May12-03, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, both of those things can happen
at the same time. Besides, I have no use
for insults.
Lighten up Mentat ! [;)]

RuroumiKenshin

May13-03, 10:52 PM

In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language.

That actually sounds like me. I'm not good with jokes....seriously, what's so funny about "I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith." the punch line: "What's the name of the other leg?" I don't see the humor.

Anyway, I was reading an article in a recent Scientific American magazine about parallel universes. According to the theory, there are several multiuniverses. We're in one multiverse. If our universe is infinite, how can there be other universes outside of this infinite one? Consequently, I have arrived at the conclusion that these multiuniverses are all(including our universe) in a bigger universe that contains all of them. What do you think?

LogicalAtheist

May13-03, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What is infinity? How can something infinite expand? Once and for all, how can we conclude that the universe is infinite? The fact that the universe is infinite may contradict brane theory. Consequently, could it be tenable to suggest that this brane is a subuniverse?
Of course, the idea of an infinite universe could just be based on the inifite boundary theory proposed by Stephen Hawking.

Who ever said infinite could expand?

WHo ever said the universe is infinite?

I've never heard anyone intelligent argue these two statements. Perhaps you heard this from an idiot?

RuroumiKenshin

May13-03, 11:13 PM

A magazine. There are multiple theories on how the universe is infinite. And the ones that say the universe is not infinite don't quite make sense with the geometry of space. Where did you hear that the universe was finite?

LogicalAtheist

May13-03, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
A magazine. There are multiple theories on how the universe is infinite. And the ones that say the universe is not infinite don't quite make sense with the geometry of space. Where did you hear that the universe was finite?

Universe can't be both expanding and infinite. Simple as that.

I'm not stating it's either finite or infinite.

Is not light traveling outward such that the light is always reaching new distances from it's origin?

Thus is not the universe expanding?

Thus how could an expanding universe be infinite?

That is my logic.

HazZy

May13-03, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Universe can't be both expanding and infinite. Simple as that.

I'm not stating it's either finite or infinite.

Is not light traveling outward such that the light is always reaching new distances from it's origin?

Thus is not the universe expanding?

Thus how could an expanding universe be infinite?

That is my logic. mass can be expanding into infinite space just as light can be traveling through infinite space.

drag

May13-03, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Universe can't be both expanding and infinite.
Actually we've been through this on the
previous pages here and some people at least,
including me, had no prpoblem with that.
Things just get further apart in an infinite
expanding Universe.

Live long and prosper.

RuroumiKenshin

May13-03, 11:45 PM

What about that SCIAM article about parallel universes I described a post or two ago??

Mentat

May15-03, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
That actually sounds like me. I'm not good with jokes....seriously, what's so funny about "I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith." the punch line: "What's the name of the other leg?" I don't see the humor.

While I don't think it's funny, the point is that if his wooden leg is named "Smith", what's the name of his other leg (while originally you would have thought they meant "there's a man, named "Smith", with a wooden leg").

drag

May17-03, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
While I don't think it's funny, the point
is that if his wooden leg is named "Smith",
what's the name of his other leg (while
originally you would have thought they meant
"there's a man, named "Smith", with a wooden leg").
Majin, had he said it to me I'd personally
be deeply offended...[:D]

sage

May20-03, 12:33 PM

"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spacial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spacial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

__________________

spatial dimensions are expanding only in the region of the universe which have began from big bang singularity.this is the only region we know of till date and it is here that our laws of physics hold.
beyond this our concept of spatial dimensions may not hold even!it is only that the expanding entity which we call our universe interacts in some unknown way with whatever that lies outside to create
what we call spatial dimension.same goes for our temporal dimension,physical laws,forces,matter-energy etc.so you see though the universe may be infinite "our universe" is not and so it can certainly
expand.

"and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight".

this is something that i have not understood about inflationary theory.if the universe expanded faster than light does that not mean it went back in time?well what does THAT MEAN?
majinvegeta,if you think big bang theory is correct then how could our universe be infinite?i know that some geometries of space time allow an infinite universe.but how can such a model be comatible with the idea that our universe began from a singularity a finite time ago?can someone illuminate me on that point.anyway parallel universes if true only strengthens my point that the universe we speak about is only a part of the whole, of which perhaps we will never know anything.
i like jokes.just let it not drown the main subject.no offence meant of course![:D]NOTE:THE WORDS UNDER THE SIGN " " ARE QUOTES.I HAVE MERELY REPLIED TO THESE.i should have put the quotation marks before.SORRY !

drag

May20-03, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by sage
If someone speaks of the spacial dimensions
themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow
that just some things could be getting farther
apart, but all things should be getting farther apart.

This objection has been expressed and answered
before in this thread, we meant - ALL things(if the
expansion occurs throughout the infinity discussed).
Anyway, what's your likely argument for this being
impossible for all objects ? (In addition to the more
traditional difficulties with infinity.)

Live long and prosper.

sage

May21-03, 02:10 AM

DEAR DRAG i have edited my post somewhat.please see it again.sorry for the inconvinience![:D]

drag

May21-03, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by sage
sorry for the inconvinience! [:D]
You got it ! THE ANSWER ! God's last message
to his creation ! [:D]
Originally posted by sage
spatial dimensions are expanding only in the
region of the universe which have began from
big bang singularity.
Well, some people seem to think, which is
also why such a thread was posted that the
Universe may be infinite (I mean "normal"
space-time). Anyway the issue of this
being correct or incorrect is far above me
so I'll prefer not to comment on this,
not to mention that there is seemingly no
conclusive probabalistic proof on either
side so far.

We're discussing the expansion part here
because it was proposed as one of the
main aspects in this theoretical paradox
of infinity.

Live long and prosper.

Mentat

May21-03, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by sage
"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spacial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spacial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

Everyone, listen to my new good buddy, sage! [:D]

Sage, I agree entirely with you here. In fact, I have been trying to make the same point for some time now.

spatial dimensions are expanding only in the region of the universe which have began from big bang singularity.this is the only region we know of till date and it is here that our laws of physics hold.
beyond this our concept of spatial dimensions may not hold even!it is only that the expanding entity which we call our universe interacts in some unknown way with whatever that lies outside to create
what we call spatial dimension.same goes for our temporal dimension,physical laws,forces,matter-energy etc.so you see though the universe may be infinite "our universe" is not and so it can certainly
expand.

"and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight".

this is something that i have not understood about inflationary theory.if the universe expanded faster than light does that not mean it went back in time?well what does THAT MEAN?

The universe is not "expanding faster than light", so to speak. What is actually happening is the space between all objects is increasing.

There's the ever-famous "balloon analogy" that is often used to describe this, and it goes kind of like this: Let's say that there is a balloon with spots on it. None of the spots can move away from each other at a speed greater than 1cm/second. However, the rule doesn't apply to what happens when the balloon itself expands, because the spots are not really moving at all.

Does that help at all?

RuroumiKenshin

May22-03, 12:29 AM

But how do you explain the Doppler effect? It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

On the other hand, studies show that models of an infinite universe make more sense (not logical, apperently) than finite models.

drag

May22-03, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But how do you explain the Doppler effect?
It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

That's NOT a doppler effect, Majin. As space-time
expands the EM waves also expand.

Mentat

May22-03, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But how do you explain the Doppler effect? It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

I believe that the Universe is expanding. My previous post just refines ones view of what it means to "expand", according to Relativity.

sage

May23-03, 03:47 AM

"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spacial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spacial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Everyone, listen to my new good buddy, sage!

Sage, I agree entirely with you here. In fact, I have been trying to make the same point for some time now".- MENTAT.
no wonder you agree with me mentat.they were originally posted by you!they are quotes!thanks for calling me buddy,and THANK YOU for explaining to me how the universe could indeed have expanded faster than light during inflationary phase.you are my buddy too you know![:)] let me state clearly what my views are:
1) mentat asked how could our universe expand as it is infinite
2) drag said a infinite universe can indeed expand.
3) i said the universe we study is NOT infinite.it CANNOT BE as it began at a big bang a finite time ago(10 billion?18 billion?estimates vary)but if an entity began expanding from a point a finite time ago at no later stage can it be infinite.it's common sense.
4) since universe we know is finite it can expand.CASE CLOSED.

majin vegeta you said models of an infinite universe made more sense.can you tell us briefly what these models are?thanks

drag

May23-03, 10:53 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by sage
2) drag said an infinite universe can indeed expand.
3) I said the universe we study is NOT infinite.
Correction.
drag said that the point of the Universe
being finite/infinite is irrelevant here as
the thread deals with the possible paradox
of an expanding given infinite Universe. [;)]
Originally posted by sage
it CANNOT BE as it began at a big bang a finite
time ago(10 billion?18 billion?estimates vary)but
if an entity began expanding from a point a finite
time ago at no later stage can it be infinite.
it's common sense.
Had I been a sadistic human being I'd ask
you to precisely formalize the connection.
And even if you succeeded in this task I would
then ask you to prove that the type of "common
sense" you used is indeed absolute and
must "make sense".
I guess you should be glad I'm not a sadistic
human being...[:D]

Peace and long life.

Mentat

May23-03, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by drag
Had I been a sadistic human being I'd ask
you to precisely formalize the connection.

What do you mean, sage made it pretty obvious: If something starts out finite, it will never reach infinity. This just has to do with the basic definition of infinity, which means "going on forever".

On the off chance that you still don't understand it, think of how long it would take a finite entity to reach infinity. Answer: forever. Since forever hasn't passed yet (and never will), the universe would never reach infinity.

And even if you succeeded in this task I would
then ask you to prove that the type of "common
sense" you used is indeed absolute and
must "make sense".

I'd say that it's not just "common" sense, it's definitive, and strikes at the very meaning of the words being used ("finite"; "infinite"; "expansion"; etc...).

Mentat

May23-03, 02:16 PM

drag

May23-03, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
What do you mean, sage made it pretty obvious: If
something starts out finite, it will never reach
infinity. This just has to do with the basic
definition of infinity, which means "going on forever".

Maybe it just became infinite - like an on/off
switch - no expansion (a word that discribes
the derivative of the ratio between the volume
and the time) involved.

HazZy

May23-03, 02:49 PM

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Mentat

May23-03, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by drag
Maybe it just became infinite - like an on/off
switch - no expansion (a word that discribes
the derivative of the ratio between the volume
and the time) involved.

No, because that means that there was a time when it was not infinite. If there was a time when it wasn't infinite, it can never become infinite.

drag

May23-03, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
If there was a time when it wasn't infinite,
it can never become infinite.
Why ?
(I was trying to avoid being sadistic, but
it just didn't work out that way...[:D])

Mentat

May23-03, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by HazZy
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

I've seen this before, and it is a perfectly acceptable cosmological model, but doesn't answer the question of how the spacial dimensions themselves can expand, if the universe is already infinite. You see what I mean? While the model proposed in your link could be true, I wasn't questioning it, I was questioning the model of a universe (by which I mean the whole universe) that was small and became infinite.

Mentat

May23-03, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by drag
Why ?
(I was trying to avoid being sadistic, but
it just didn't work out that way...[:D]) '

I don't like repeating myself...

Originally Posted by Me
On the off chance that you still don't understand it, think of how long it would take a finite entity to reach infinity. Answer: forever. Since forever hasn't passed yet (and never will), the universe would never reach infinity.

drag

May23-03, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't like repeating myself...
Can't say I like it either, so I won't...[:D]
I'll let you do all the work - go 7 messages
back (including this one). [;)]

Mentat

May24-03, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by drag
Can't say I like it either, so I won't...[:D]
I'll let you do all the work - go 7 messages
back (including this one). [;)]

Nothing is instantaneous, according to Relativity, so your on/off example is flawed from the start. Then you have the matter of the Universe's having been finite at some point in time. This also does not allow the Universe to (at any point, short of forever) reach infinite size.

drag

May24-03, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
Nothing is instantaneous, according to Relativity
The BB itself doesn't make sense according to
Relativity, so ? [;)]
Like I said, this thread was dealing with the
hypothetical case of an infinite Universe and
the related possible paradox, not with the
scientific indication or possibility of the
Universe's nature.

Live long and prosper.

sage

May25-03, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What is infinity? How can something infinite expand? Once and for all, how can we conclude that the universe is infinite?
.
look at the third question that majin asked.so drag let us leave the decision of what this thread is dealing with to him.not that i am saying that the universe could not be infinite.read on.
but before that lets clarify whether a finite quantity can expand to become an infinite one.consider the set of all positive integers.it's infinite.now consider the set{1}.it is a finite subset of the above infinite set with no. of elements being one.now say add other positive integers serially one after another in ascending order such that the set increases by n integers per second with n being finite.so when will the set become infinite?NEVER.or not until infinite time has elapsed.i can give more examples but the fact is iff the universe was finite at the time of the big bang it cannot be infinite today.this applies well to our observable universe which was just a point at the time of the bang.indeed hazzy's site gives it's actual radius.so what's the point?
now let us talk about the total universe.that's a red herring.you can't see it, observe it and there is no hope of observing it in future.what's the use thinking of something we can't even verify.but i must say the approach of physicists is rather pragmatic.they feel we live in an unbiased sample of the universe and whatever is true for the part we can see is true in general.research shows that our part is most probably flat.a flat surface extends to infinity.so they conclude the entire universe is a flat surface extending to infinity.if so by our previous conclusions it follows the universe as a whole must be infinite at the beggining of the big bang.since it has been expanding since(vide the idea that anything that holds here holds everywhere). so we come to the original question-can a infinite entity get bigger?
seen a thin rubber sheet?strech it-it elongates does it not?now assume a rubber sheet of the same material extending to infinity say along its length.mark 2 points on it by a sketch pen.now strech holding the sheet at these two points.surely the sheet will elongate(i.e. the dist. between the points increase)otherwise we will have to conclude that rubber has suddenly become as rigid as stone just because it extends to infinity.absurd is'nt it.verdict-infinite entities can expand and there is no logical fallacy in assuming that the universe, infinite at the time of the bang is expanding ever since.
i must say that any assumptions about the entire universe is purely hypothetical and will change constantly as more advanced theories come into being to explain newer facts about the observable universe which we are only beggining to probe in detail.anyway drag what does a switch has to do with the universe.enlighten me will you?

drag

May25-03, 02:52 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by sage
look at the third question that majin asked.so drag let us leave the decision of what this thread is dealing with to him.

To her...[;)]
Originally posted by sage
but before that lets clarify whether a finite quantity can expand to become an infinite one.consider the set of all positive integers.it's infinite.now consider the set{1}.it is a finite subset of the above infinite set with no. of elements being one.now say add other positive integers serially one after another in ascending order such that the set increases by n integers per second with n being finite.so when will the set become infinite?NEVER.or not until infinite time has elapsed.i can give more examples but the fact is iff the universe was finite at the time of the big bang it cannot be infinite today.this applies well to our observable universe which was just a point at the time of the bang.
Did you also remember to tell the Universe
it must follow mathematical logic ? [;)]
Originally posted by sage
anyway drag what does a switch has to do with
the universe.enlighten me will you?
I was just giving an example to Mentat how one
state can change into another (a light switch is
a good example - light/no light).

Live long and prosper.

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 03:00 PM

Drag - You're a female? How old are you?

drag

May25-03, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - You're a female? How old are you?
NO ! NO ! NO !
Oh, sorry ! [t)] I meant - no, I'm not. [;)]
MajinVegeta is, and I believe she said she's 13.

Live long and prosper.

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 03:52 PM

Oh ok, I thought you were corrected someone calling YOU male.

Majin, hmm 13, hmmm. Darn.

heusdens

May25-03, 07:41 PM

Here is a contribution to this issue of infinity.

Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space. (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5)

Mentat

May26-03, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by drag
The BB itself doesn't make sense according to
Relativity, so ? [;)]

Not true. There are many models of the expansion of the Universe, that are perfectly compatible with GR.

Mentat

May26-03, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by drag
Did you also remember to tell the Universe
it must follow mathematical logic ? [;)]

This is one of the assumptions that Science has already made (and everything in Theoretical Physics must conform to the assumptions of Science, obviously).

I was just giving an example to Mentat how one
state can change into another (a light switch is
a good example - light/no light).

It's a good enough example, but irrelevant as a description of the Universe's expansion - as I've already shown.

Mentat

May26-03, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Oh ok, I thought you were corrected someone calling YOU male.

Majin, hmm 13, hmmm. Darn.

You know, souding this deperate is not exactly a good strategy... Oh well. [:((] [;)]

drag

May26-03, 04:21 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
Not true. There are many models of the expansion
of the Universe, that are perfectly compatible with GR.
What does the "expansion of the Universe" have
to do with the BB ?! [g)]

Anyway, I have to point out (and you do
know, I hope, that I'm a person who ussualy
tends to mind his manners [;)] ) that you're
BSing me. Really ! [g)]
I'm telling you that the Universe could just
become infinite as a hypothetical assumption,
a potentially usefull one for this hypothetical
thread btw, and you're shoving some current
scientific theories in my face saying "no, it's
impossible !". Is science complete ? Do we care
about science in this unscientific hypothetical
debate ?
I'm a very patient person, but it certainly seems
to me that you keep arguing just for the sake
of arguing, tell me it isn't so ! [:(]
Originally posted by Mentat
This is one of the assumptions that Science has
already made (and everything in Theoretical Physics
must conform to the assumptions of Science, obviously).
Science makes no assumptions. Math is a language
and science uses it to discribe the Universe
(not with perfect success btw, whatever perfect
success might mean) if and when it works
better than other availible languages.
Originally posted by Mentat
It's a good enough example, but irrelevant as
a description of the Universe's expansion - as
I've already shown.
No. The Universe's expansion is irrelevant to
this example because this example has nothing
to do with expansion.

Don't answer this if you feel you have to,
answer it if you feel you can make a relevant
point, please. [;)]
Thanks !

Live long and prosper.

Mentat

May28-03, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by drag
Anyway, I have to point out (and you do
know, I hope, that I'm a person who ussualy
tends to mind his manners [;)] ) that you're
BSing me. Really ! [g)]
I'm telling you that the Universe could just
become infinite as a hypothetical assumption,
a potentially usefull one for this hypothetical
thread btw, and you're shoving some current
scientific theories in my face saying "no, it's
impossible !".

That's not all I'm doing. I'm also reasoning with you on the nature of infinity. You continue to side-step my arguments, and it's rather frustrating to have to keep repeating them.

I'm a very patient person, but it certainly seems
to me that you keep arguing just for the sake
of arguing, tell me it isn't so ! [:(]

It's not. I do feel I have an obligation to defend my position, but if you would prove me wrong (which you don't seem to want to do, given your obvious side-stepping tendencies), I would give up that position.

Science makes no assumptions.

That is dead wrong. Science makes plenty of assumptions. For example: it assumes that there is an objective Universe, even thought this cannot be proven or falsified. This is just one example, but it should serve to prove that Science makes assumptions.

No. The Universe's expansion is irrelevant to
this example because this example has nothing
to do with expansion.

Yes it does. If something was smaller, and then was bigger, it got from smaller to bigger. If it did so, then it expanded, because "expansion" means "getting bigger".

Don't answer this if you feel you have to,
answer it if you feel you can make a relevant
point, please. [;)]
Thanks !

I like to believe that all of my points have been relevant, but, even if they haven't been, they have all had merit (as have all of yours), and should thus be considered directly, instead of being side-stepped.

drag

May28-03, 06:02 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
That's not all I'm doing. I'm also reasoning with
you on the nature of infinity. You continue to
side-step my arguments, and it's rather frustrating
to have to keep repeating them.
The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science. Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim.
Originally posted by Mentat
It's not. I do feel I have an obligation to defend my
position, but if you would prove me wrong (which you
don't seem to want to do, given your obvious side-stepping tendencies), I would give up that position.

Prove you wrong ?
You can understand from the above that there's
no need for me to do that. But, if you wish:
My reasonig system is that entities that are finite
CAN become infinite and the other way around.
This is done in a procedure I'll call - "metafinity". [:D]
Originally posted by Mentat
That is dead wrong. Science makes plenty of assumptions.

That is dead wrong. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
For example: it assumes that there is an objective Universe, even thought this cannot be proven or falsified. This is just one example, but it should serve to prove that Science makes assumptions.

Show me a real science book that says that.
Science doesn't even adress such issues, it just
deals with observation and connected reasoning.
You've been talking to Alexander too much...[;)]
He, indeed, believes in science. But, he simply
misinterprets it.
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it does. If something was smaller, and then was bigger,
it got from smaller to bigger. If it did so, then it
expanded, because "expansion" means "getting bigger".

Nope, it "metafinited". [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
I like to believe that all of my points have been relevant, but, even if they haven't been, they have all had merit (as have all of yours), and should thus be considered directly, instead of being side-stepped.
They have merit as long as you truly mean what you
say and not just talk because you feel you have to.

Live long and prosper.

RuroumiKenshin

May28-03, 11:17 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mentat
That is dead wrong. Science makes plenty of assumptions.

Give an example, please.

Mentat

May29-03, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by RuroumiKenshin
Give an example, please.

I did, in my response to drag.

Mentat

May29-03, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by drag
The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science.

This is an assumption with no basis, but I'll ignore it, for the time being.

Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim.

Yes there is basis, the nature of the term "infinity". It would take an infinite amount of time to reach infinite size, if you started out finite. This is just a result of using the term "infinite".

Prove you wrong ?
You can understand from the above that there's
no need for me to do that. But, if you wish:
My reasonig system is that entities that are finite
CAN become infinite and the other way around.
This is done in a procedure I'll call - "metafinity". [:D]

This is not a "reasoning system", it is an assumptions, without basis. You are speculating, instead of deferring to the already rigorously defined avenues that Science has been pursuing. IOW, you are presenting a speculation, without Scientific basis, and expecting it to solve a problem that scientists have been struggling with (in a scientific manner) for a very long time.

That is dead wrong. [;)]
Show me a real science book that says that.
Science doesn't even adress such issues, it just
deals with observation and connected reasoning.

Exactly, it deals with observations, as though they actually existed outside of the mind of the "beholder". Remember, just because it seems like an obvious conclusion, doesn't mean that it isn't an assumption (which cannot be proven or falsified, btw).

Nope, it "metafinited". [;)]

Again, you attempt to solve a scientific problem through an unscientific approach (presenting your own speculation, and (in case you hadn't noticed) redefining the properties of "infinity").

wimms

May29-03, 04:19 PM

Yes it does. If something was smaller, and then was bigger, it got from smaller to bigger. If it did so, then it expanded, because "expansion" means "getting bigger". Expansion isn't necessarily getting bigger. Take a sugar cube, one piece. Crush it - many pieces. Expansion. Number of distinguishable pieces expands. Think entropy, varing timeflow, evaporation into vacuum, you can get to possible illusion of spatial expansion.

Mentat

May30-03, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by wimms
Expansion isn't necessarily getting bigger. Take a sugar cube, one piece. Crush it - many pieces. Expansion.

That's not expansion, that's decomposition.

Number of distinguishable pieces expands.

Number of distinguishable pieces increases.

wimms

May30-03, 03:35 PM

semantics again. You don't even try to understand if you sense any loose semantics.
Number of distinguishable spacetime positions, measured in planck units, increases. If your only measure of distance is number of planck lengths, you perceive it as expansion.
I'm not to pursue this idea. Discard it when you understand it.

sage

May30-03, 10:20 PM

this thread is getting bizarre.The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science. Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim
even agreeing to the fact that such a phase transition from finite to infinity may be logically consistent it certainly did not happen AFTER THE BIG BANG since physics does not allow such a phenomenon.
so the point is if the universe is infinite today it had to be infinite at the time of the big bang due to the constraints of physics.metafinity did not happen after the big bang and we are not concerned with what happened before.
AN APPLE FALLS ON EARTH.WHY?BECAUSE PHYSICS SAYS THERE EXISTS A FORCE CALLED GRAVITY THAT ACTS ON IT.WHAT IS A FORCE? WHAT CAUSES IT?WELL.....SO YOU SAID PHYSICS DOES NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS.WHAT ABOUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS "REAL" OR SAY LOGICAL,THAT WE OBSERVE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS OUT THERE.THINK ABOUT IT.

Mentat

May31-03, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by wimms
semantics again. You don't even try to understand if you sense any loose semantics.
Number of distinguishable spacetime positions, measured in planck units, increases. If your only measure of distance is number of planck lengths, you perceive it as expansion.
I'm not to pursue this idea. Discard it when you understand it.

Yes, the particles "expand" away from each other, is that what you mean?

If so, then your reasoning only works when "expansion" means "getting farther apart". However, the Big Bang theory (when coupled with General Relativity) dictates that the spacial dimensions themselves, are "getting bigger" (expanding).

Mentat

May31-03, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by sage
this thread is getting bizarre.
even agreeing to the fact that such a phase transition from finite to infinity may be logically consistent it certainly did not happen AFTER THE BIG BANG since physics does not allow such a phenomenon.
so the point is if the universe is infinite today it had to be infinite at the time of the big bang due to the constraints of physics.metafinity did not happen after the big bang and we are not concerned with what happened before.
AN APPLE FALLS ON EARTH.WHY?BECAUSE PHYSICS SAYS THERE EXISTS A FORCE CALLED GRAVITY THAT ACTS ON IT.WHAT IS A FORCE? WHAT CAUSES IT?WELL.....SO YOU SAID PHYSICS DOES NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS.WHAT ABOUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS "REAL" OR SAY LOGICAL,THAT WE OBSERVE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS OUT THERE.THINK ABOUT IT.

Sage, you've done it again! Very eloquently put.

wimms

May31-03, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, the particles "expand" away from each other, is that what you mean?

If so, then your reasoning only works when "expansion" means "getting farther apart". However, the Big Bang theory (when coupled with General Relativity) dictates that the spacial dimensions themselves, are "getting bigger" (expanding). Yes. Number of distinguishable spacetime positions IS 'spacial dimensions themselves'. Particles come only after that. If given particle 'fills' fixed number of spatial positions, it will not 'expand' with space. Purely my opinion. Entropy increases with number of possible states, so I speculate it has to do with it even though particles remain intact.

drag

Jun1-03, 05:40 PM

Greetings !

I appologize for my late response. I've
been abroad for a few days and now I'm back. [:)]
Originally posted by Mentat
This is an assumption with no basis, but I'll
ignore it, for the time being.
That is indeed an assumption with no basis. [;)]
That's why it makes sense - because "bases",
ANY bases, make no sense. In this case, however,
I did not and will not provide a basis by not
defining the word sense. Observation is just
something - whatever, the rest is assumptions
and likely patterns.
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes there is basis, the nature of the term "infinity".
It would take an infinite amount of time to reach
infinite size, if you started out finite. This is just
a result of using the term "infinite".
Since niether the finite nor the infinite presents
even partial solutions to the mystery of their existence
I see no reason to consider any solution as absolute,
beyond the likely preferences infered from observation.
If you wish to deal with absolute reasoning
please refer to the God & Religion forum. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
This is not a "reasoning system", it is an assumptions,
without basis. You are speculating, instead of deferring to the already rigorously defined avenues that Science has been pursuing. IOW, you are presenting a speculation, without Scientific basis, and expecting it to solve a problem that scientists have been struggling with (in a scientific manner) for a very long time.

I'm not trying to solve anything and nor am I
presenting any scientific basis. I'm just making
a hypothetical assumption because this thread
has made it enitially already and then went on
to discuss the possibilities of expansion in
such a case. BTW, this IS a reasoning system just
like any other. It just doesn't appear to apply to
observation, for now.
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly, it deals with observations, as though they actually existed outside of the mind of the "beholder". Remember, just because it seems like an obvious conclusion, doesn't mean that it isn't an assumption (which cannot be proven or falsified, btw).

No, it just deals with observation. [;)]
They don't mention this part in physics
books because they wan'na save the forests. [:D]
We just have observed data, "outside" makes no
scientific sense in addition to what's observed.
Originally posted by Mentat
Again, you attempt to solve a scientific problem through an unscientific approach (presenting your own speculation, and (in case you hadn't noticed) redefining the properties of "infinity").
And what was that scientific problem, Mentat ?

Sage, our current cosmology models are patheticly
primitive in terms of really providing some answers.
It indeed seems likely according to modern physics
that the Universe could not just become infinite
but science can only state likeliness, it can't
prove things beyond any doubt.

Also again, read my lips - SCIENCE MAKES NO ASSIMPTIONS.
I don't know of what's an "outside reality". Physics
deals with measurements of space and time but it
does not have a parameter called "outside reality"
nor does it have a numeric value for such a parameter. [;)]
Clear ?

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Live long and prosper.

drag

Jun1-03, 05:48 PM

Hey Majin ! Why did you change your username ?

iron~orchid

Jun3-03, 07:28 AM

"....However, I'm talking about space itself. If you take a space that is infinite (as in, having no end), how could you possibly add more space to this?... "

This may have already been mentioned in this thread -- but an answer to the above would be:

To 'add' more space to space, you get rid of all of the junk that is taking up space within the infinite.

Say like, the Earth, dissolves and the area where solid mass exists -- becomes added space.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jun3-03, 05:47 PM

It comes from a childs joke; "How many sides to a Circle?"

The answer is "Two, inside and outside."

From that we define 'space', and that is by delineation.

The definition of "infinite" is 'undelineated space', or "Space with no boundries", but this brings us to a simply problem.

All of the thoughts in our heads are 'delineations of space', hence we can conclude that an 'undelineated space', a 'space without boundaries', is something that we cannot conceive of.

Ergo, no thoughts on the subject, no math, no concepts that will "fill the intellectual bill" as there cannot be, because every thought, is a "delineation" of space.

Thanks..............have nice thoughts!

heusdens

Jun4-03, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by wimms
semantics again. You don't even try to understand if you sense any loose semantics.
Number of distinguishable spacetime positions, measured in planck units, increases. If your only measure of distance is number of planck lengths, you perceive it as expansion.
I'm not to pursue this idea. Discard it when you understand it.

What if the planck lenght is expanding with the space itself.. having space always measure the same in units of planck length.....

Mentat

Jun4-03, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by drag
That is indeed an assumption with no basis. [;)]
That's why it makes sense - because "bases",
ANY bases, make no sense. In this case, however,
I did not and will not provide a basis by not
defining the word sense. Observation is just
something - whatever, the rest is assumptions
and likely patterns.

How is it that you make an assumption about the basis of my assumption, while at the same time denouncing that such a basis can ever exist?

Since niether the finite nor the infinite presents
even partial solutions to the mystery of their existence
I see no reason to consider any solution as absolute,
beyond the likely preferences infered from observation.

There is one thing that is absolute about finity and infinity: their definitions. They are rather clearly defined (as far as words go) and should thus only be refered to in a way that honors their meaning (otherwise, you could just as easily be discussing some entirely unrelated term).

I'm not trying to solve anything and nor am I
presenting any scientific basis. I'm just making
a hypothetical assumption because this thread
has made it enitially already and then went on
to discuss the possibilities of expansion in
such a case.

Actually, your idea is not an hypothecical assumption, as hypotheses can be tested.

BTW, this IS a reasoning system just
like any other. It just doesn't appear to apply to
observation, for now.

Then it is not science, and should restrict itself from scientific forums.

We just have observed data, "outside" makes no
scientific sense in addition to what's observed.

I don't understand this, what do you mean?

And what was that scientific problem, Mentat ?

I thought it was the expansion of the Universe (or, at least, whether the Universe can be finite and yet expanding).

Also again, read my lips - SCIENCE MAKES NO ASSIMPTIONS.

If Science makes not assumptions, then it should be perfectly comfortable with someone's saying that there is nothing but a singular Mind, and that we just percieve there being an objective reality. As it is, Science is not comfortable with this assumption, and must thus be making an assumption to the contrary.

I don't know of what's an "outside reality". Physics
deals with measurements of space and time but it
does not have a parameter called "outside reality"
nor does it have a numeric value for such a parameter. [;)]

"Outside reality" refers to that which does not exist abstracly, in one's mind, but rather has physical/tangible existence.

drag

Jun5-03, 03:07 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
How is it that you make an assumption about the basis of my assumption, while at the same time denouncing that such a basis can ever exist?
I'm loosing the thread of thought here.
In general, observation as I meant it is not something
that has a strict definition. It's just everything = existence.
Originally posted by Mentat
There is one thing that is absolute about finity and infinity: their definitions. They are rather clearly defined (as far as words go) and should thus only be refered to in a way that honors their meaning (otherwise, you could just as easily be discussing some entirely unrelated term).
O.K. But, the strict defintion is in no way a
justification of your absolute reasoning, so I do
not see how that helps you to prove your baseless
assumption about the inability of the finite to
become infinite or the other way around.
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, your idea is not an hypothecical assumption,
as hypotheses can be tested.
O.K. Mind proving the inability of proof for my
hypothetical assumption ?
(You see the difference in our approaches to
assumptions ? You make absolute assumptions and
are naturally asked to prove their absoluteness.
btw, in most cases you still keep arguing to
no awail - don't know why [:D], are you regarding
our discussions as "win or loose" ? Not a very smart
attitude if you ask me. [;)]
Anyway, I just make probabalistic assumptions and
again if you disagree with them the burden of
proof of their impossibility is upon you.
Now, this is NOT a way to "win" arguments. I really
don't care if I end up looking like a complete
idiot [t)], sometimes...[;)]
This is just the way that appears to be the most
basic in argument construction or indeed in
reasoning - the Antrophic principle. Again, even
that may be shown probabalisticly wrong in the future,
but today and throughout human history it's been
pretty reliable...[;)])
Originally posted by Mentat
Then it is not science, and should restrict itself from
scientific forums.
Rediculous ! [g)]
The only and main way that science can expand in addition
to new types of observation is new reasoning systems
applied to it, that is the source of all current
scientific theories - to find the most consistent
perspective.
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't understand this, what do you mean?

What's "outside" ?
You think your PC screen is "outside" of "you" ?
Scientificly that term makes no sense. Physics
uses the concept of distance that is a parmeter
applied to a certain type of observation data.
But, except saying that that piece of observation
data is inconsistent according to our applied reasoning,
which is clearly not the case, there is apparently
nothing more that one can accuse science of here.
Originally posted by Mentat
I thought it was the expansion of the Universe
(or, at least, whether the Universe can be finite
and yet expanding).
And I thought that this thread refered to an
infinite Universe in the first place. So my assumption
may be considered unscientific, but then wouldn't
the whole thread be like that (in terms of the
Q&As) in the first place ? [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
If Science makes not assumptions, then it should be perfectly comfortable with someone's saying that there is nothing but a singular Mind, and that we just percieve there being an objective reality. As it is, Science is not comfortable with this assumption, and must thus be making an assumption to the contrary.
WHO SAID IT'S NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ASSUMPTION ? [g)]
Science makes no true/false judgement on this
point at all because there is no acceptable
reasoning for now that makes us view at least
some observation data as relevant to this point at all.

If you remember what I said to LG FGNF(may he find a
good new forum [:D]) many times it was that there
appears to be, for now at least, no evidence to
either support or not support his hypothesys which
is why it's simply an unneccessary assumption.

Do not confuse this with the reason he was banned. [;)]
The reason he was banned was connected to the fact
that he did try to present such "evidence" by
twisting science (sometimes in intresting, but most
times in rather clumsy ways resulting from his
relative poor knowledge of it) and by not really listening
to people trying to correct him, thus creating some
misleading threads with misleading subjects which
had the potential of misguiding the perspectives
of other members. (Still, though neccessary, it's ashame he was banned...[:(])
Originally posted by Mentat
"Outside reality" refers to that which does not exist abstracly, in one's mind, but rather has physical/tangible existence.
Can you make the separation ?
Does Science (and in the remote case that after reading
this message you'll still say "yes", please do provide
an explanation [;)]) ?

Peace and long life.

Mentat

Jun5-03, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by drag
O.K. But, the strict defintion is in no way a
justification of your absolute reasoning, so I do
not see how that helps you to prove your baseless
assumption about the inability of the finite to
become infinite or the other way around.

What are you talking about? Infinity's strict definition is that it goes on forever. Part of finity's strict definition is that it does not go one forever. Thus, they are incompatible. One cannot ever become the other. They are of a qualitatively different order.

O.K. Mind proving the inability of proof for my
hypothetical assumption ?

I already told you, it defies the definitions of the words that it makes use of (finity and infinity).

(You see the difference in our approaches to
assumptions ? You make absolute assumptions and
are naturally asked to prove their absoluteness.
btw, in most cases you still keep arguing to
no awail - don't know why [:D], are you regarding
our discussions as "win or loose" ?

No, I don't think that I can win or lose this argument, but I do think that your reasoning (on some of these points) is flawed, and so I respond.

Anyway, I just make probabalistic assumptions and
again if you disagree with them the burden of
proof of their impossibility is upon you.

Thus, yours is not a scientific method, as probablistic assumptions, that may or may not even be provable, are not in the realm of science.

Rediculous ! [g)]
The only and main way that science can expand in addition
to new types of observation is new reasoning systems
applied to it, that is the source of all current
scientific theories - to find the most consistent
perspective.

This is untrue. The Scientific method is one reasoning system, an cannot have other reasoning systems applied to it.

What's "outside" ?
You think your PC screen is "outside" of "you" ?
Scientificly that term makes no sense. Physics
uses the concept of distance that is a parmeter
applied to a certain type of observation data,
but except saying that that piece of observation
data is inconsistent according to our applied reasoning,
which is clearly not the case, there is no more
meaning that "outside" recieves in science.

While Physics has shown that there is no relevance to saying that one thing is "outside" of another, the other Sciences make full use of this concept.

And I thought that this thread refered to an
infinite Universe in the first place. So my assumption
may be considered unscientific, but then wouldn't
the whole thread be like that (in terms of the
Q&As) in the first place ? [;)]

No, there is nothing wrong with an infinite Universe. The problem arrises in trying to say that it wasn't infinite, but became infinite.

WHO SAID IT'S NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ASSUMPTION ? [g)]
Science makes no true/false judgement on this
point at all because there is no acceptable
reasoning for now that makes us view at least
some observation data as relevant to this point at all.

Science makes a distinction between the mind of a human observer and that which is observed (othewise the Scientific method would become completely invalid).

drag

Jun6-03, 05:39 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
What are you talking about? Infinity's strict definition is that it goes on forever. Part of finity's strict definition is that it does not go on forever.
Indeed.
Originally posted by Mentat
One cannot ever become the other. They are of a
qualitatively different order.
Prove it, please. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
I already told you, it defies the definitions of the words that it makes use of (finity and infinity).
I do not see any connection whatsoever between the
definitions of the words and the impossibility of the
proccess of "metafinity" which I hypothesized above.
Originally posted by Mentat
Thus, yours is not a scientific method, as probablistic assumptions, that may or may not even be provable, are not in the realm of science.

In that case I must say that you have no idea what
science is all about.
Originally posted by Mentat
This is untrue. The Scientific method is one reasoning system, an cannot have other reasoning systems applied to it.
The same as the previous response.
Originally posted by Mentat
While Physics has shown that there is no relevance to saying that one thing is "outside" of another, the other Sciences make full use of this concept.
The same as the pre-previous response. (Unless of
course you can provide an example ? Don't think so...[;)])
Originally posted by Mentat
No, there is nothing wrong with an infinite Universe. The problem arrises in trying to say that it wasn't infinite, but became infinite.

Again, why ? Explain, please.
There is indeed a problem from the perspective of modern
science. But that's just a probable problem, just like
all of science.
Originally posted by Mentat
Science makes a distinction between the mind of a human observer and that which is observed (othewise the Scientific method would become completely invalid).
First of all, in general the concept of an independent
observer has been abandoned by science almost a century
ago, better get uptodate. [;)]

Second, there is no scientific distinction between
the "mind of a human observer" and any other group
of molecules (except their types and formations) and
so it will remain until shown to likely be otherwise
through some scientificly relevant evidence.

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Peace and long life.

Mentat

Jun6-03, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by drag
Prove it, please. [;)]

I already did. Infinity goes on forever. Finity does not. Now, without defying these definitions, show me how finity can turn to infinity.

I do not see any connection whatsoever between the
definitions of the words and the impossibility of the
proccess of "metafinity" which I hypothesized above.

Then look again.

In that case I must say that you have no idea what
science is all about.

No, I think it is you who doesn't understand the Scientific Method. It starts with observation, then the one collects data, then one hypothesises, then one rigorously tests the hypothesis, and then (if the hypothesis happened to survive testing) one has formulated a theory. Science is based on theories and observations, not on wild assumptions of "what if".

The same as the previous response.

How so? The Scientific Method (as I have shown above) is one reasoning system. If you add other reasoning systems, then you have left the realm of the Scientific method.

The same as the pre-previous response. (Unless of
course you can provide an example ? Don't think so...[;)])

Alright, an example: Neurology. Neurology give a distinction between that which the mind observes, and that which is observed.

Again, why ? Explain, please.
There is indeed a problem from the perspective of modern
science. But that's just a probable problem, just like
all of science.

No, it's not just a scientific problem, it is a problem of definition. (See above).

First of all, in general the concept of an independent
observer has been abandoned by science almost a century
ago, better get uptodate. [;)]

It was abandoned by subatomic physics, nothing more. I have some knowledge of subatomic physics (whether you wish to acknowledge that or not), but I also have knowledge of other branches of science, and they still make the distinction on an everyday basis.

Zantra

Jun6-03, 03:03 PM

Infinity itsself is a paradoxical notion that we give to concepts that we cannot yet fathom due to limitations on science, or the limits of our minds. Infinity cannot be proven, as there is no solution to the problem. Therefore since infinity represents a problem with no concievable solution, it can never be definitively solved. Take PI for example. As of yet no known solution (last I heard was to the 10 billionth decimal place). So we assume it's infinite because the solution is perhaps beyond our minds to comprehend. But we'll keep trying, and we may keep calculating and never reach the end, so the infity of the problem will remain an unsolved issue.

Such is the nature of the universe. We say that it's infinite, but it is only a theory. Can we prove the universe is infinite? No. If it is indeed infinite, then we will never reach the end, and thus the theory remains so, whereas with finite measurement, we may be able to one day in a distance unconcieved future reach the end of a finite universe. Perhaps one day we will one day develop the capacity to travel billions of light years to the other side of the "known" universe, only to discover that we've barely moved in the scope of things. Perhaps the universe is finite, and 1 trillion light years distance is merely .0000000000001 percent of the distance to the edge. It could be that the universe is finite, but as yet it's impossible for us to comprehend the size of it. It's all about perception, and I know we are still but mere children in our understanding of the universe.

drag

Jun6-03, 04:43 PM

Greetings !

Zantra, I'd just like to correct you by mentioning
the fact that math is an absolute abstract (thought out/
invented) system and that [pi] IS proven to be irrational
by an appropriate mathematical theorem. Thus, it will
never end.

Originally posted by Mentat
I already did. Infinity goes on forever. Finity does not. Now, without defying these definitions, show me how finity can turn to infinity.
It's a hypothetical proccess I proposed, remember ? [;)]
If I knew how it is done it would be more than
just hypothetical. Now, don't try to play reverse
psychology on me cause if you say something's
impossible you're the one who has to prove it. [:D]
Originally posted by Mentat
No, I think it is you who doesn't understand the Scientific Method. It starts with observation, then the one collects data, then one hypothesises, then one rigorously tests the hypothesis, and then (if the hypothesis happened to survive testing) one has formulated a theory. Science is based on theories and observations, not on wild assumptions of "what if".

How so? The Scientific Method (as I have shown above) is one reasoning system. If you add other reasoning systems, then you have left the realm of the Scientific method.

The scientific method is not a reasoning system.
The scientific method uses reasoning systems.
All scientific theories are formulated by applying
reasoning of some sort to observed data.

For example, If I reason that everything has a source
then I can say that this orange is the product of
some other physicly defined entity. If I reason
that everything appears out of thin air then
I can say that this orange just materialized.
Of course, observation and the reasoning applied
to it and accepted as scientific are mutualy
connected. We draw our reasoning principles from
observation and we apply them to observation.

Another example - I consider everything that is
mathematicly consistent and appears to discribe
observation to be science. This approach is based
upon the reasoning that math applies to observation.
This in turn has it's source in the fact that it
appears to us that most observation data includes
some basic common principles that we summed up in
the form of mathematics.
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, an example: Neurology. Neurology give a distinction between that which the mind observes, and that which is observed.
I don't think I understand the relevance here.

The distinction you're making is a distinction within
observation. But, for something to really be "outside"
one needs to prove that something exists that is
independent of observation (which I personally think
is probably impossible because I think that existence
and observation are most likely inseprable synonyms in
this respect).
Originally posted by Mentat
It was abandoned by subatomic physics, nothing more. I have some knowledge of subatomic physics (whether you wish to acknowledge that or not), but I also have knowledge of other branches of science, and they still make the distinction on an everyday basis.
That's because they do not really know how to do without it,
for now at least. The most fundumental principles
of our reasoning are separate entities, empty space
and more. Further more, the issue becomes much
less of a problem at macroscopic scales. So, approximations
do fine for the most part aspecially considering that
all macroscopic scale sciences are still full of these.

Live long and prosper.

Zantra

Jun6-03, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Zantra, I'd just like to correct you by mentioning
the fact that math is an absolute abstract (thought out/
invented) system and that [pi] IS proven to be irrational
by an appropriate mathematical theorem. Thus, it will
never end.

.

Ok you say it's been mathmatically proven that there is no end to PI. Show me. YOu can't. We make the "assumption" that it's a neverending loop because we cannot calculate an absolute value. It's again, a "theory"

PI is a bad example, so let's try a different angle. We used to believe the world was flat and that eventually if you reached the end you'd just fall off. We didn't "KNOW" it was, but society made this assumption based on thier limited knowledge of the world around them. Then columbus proved them wrong. It's the same scenario. Making assumptions based on limited date to hypothesize, but again we come to the word "theory" which is not proven. To put it in the most basic terms. The earth is round. I can travel along an axis and eventually I come back to the same point, thus the observation is proven correct. Prove to me with unrefuteable data or conclusive proof that the universe is infinite. And that, is simply my point.

Infinity is a self-defeating paradox that cannot be proven because the very nature of the concept represents a lack of proof or definition.

drag

Jun7-03, 07:39 AM

Greetings Zantra !
Originally posted by Zantra
Ok you say it's been mathmatically proven that there is no end to PI. Show me. YOu can't. We make the "assumption" that it's a neverending loop because we cannot calculate an absolute value. It's again, a "theory"
Purhaps you misunderstood me. I agree with you
in general about REAL infinity. However, when
it comes to math which is a strict and defined
system that we invented - it is capable of proving
something within it is infinite.

Here's the theorem and related links if you wan'em:
http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/infinity/irrat_nm.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

Live long and prosper.

Zantra

Jun7-03, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Zantra !

Purhaps you misunderstood me. I agree with you
in general about REAL infinity. However, when
it comes to math which is a strict and defined
system that we invented - it is capable of proving
something within it is infinite.

Here's the theorem and related links if you wan'em:
http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/infinity/irrat_nm.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html

Live long and prosper.

Ok this is turning into a PI discussion which isn't the direction I was headed, so for the sake of the argument we'll concede the irrationality of PI.

But at this point I was thinking that the current mathmatical understanding eventually won't be able to coexist with the true nature of the universe we will discover, and in fact will have to be expanded.

drag

Jun9-03, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Zantra
But at this point I was thinking that the current mathmatical understanding eventually won't be able to coexist with the true nature of the universe we will discover, and in fact will have to be expanded.
That's why I'm saying it's an abstract system - it
is not connected to the Universe. [;)]

HallsofIvy

Jun10-03, 11:18 AM

Zantra: Ok this is turning into a PI discussion which isn't the direction I was headed, so for the sake of the argument we'll concede the irrationality of PI.

How nice of you. I was under the impression that had been pretty conculusively proven. It is also easy to prove that any number that does NOT have an infinite number of (non-zero) decimal places must be a fraction with only powers of 2 and 5 in the denominator. (And even those will give infinite expansions if you happen to use base 11 rather than base 10.) That has nothing to do with whether or not there actually exist an infinite number of things in the universe.

Zantra:But at this point I was thinking that the current mathmatical understanding eventually won't be able to coexist with the true nature of the universe we will discover, and in fact will have to be expanded.

Well, yes, that happens all the time- the main job of mathematicians is to establish new types of mathematics which physicists often find illuminate physics better. (Much to the disgust of the mathematicians, of course!)

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jun18-03, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons NO ©, Been "given freely" (surrendered, under my name) already

It comes from a childs joke; "How many sides to a Circle?"
The answer is "Two, inside and outside."
From that we define 'space', and that is by delineation.
The definition of "infinite" is 'undelineated space', or "Space with no boundries", but this brings us to a simply problem.
All of the thoughts in our heads are 'delineations of space', hence we can conclude that an 'undelineated space', a 'space without boundaries', is something that we cannot conceive of.
Ergo, no thoughts on the subject, no math, no concepts that will "fill the intellectual bill" as there cannot be, because every thought, is a "delineation" of space.
Thanks..............have nice thoughts!

Needed an EDIT, so put it here to ensure it is noticed...

It may be that we cannot concieve of an infinity, but we can, and do, experience it, all of our lives(times).

It is 'actrully', all you will ever experience and it will be, greater still then all of what you will experience of it!