Eternal Inflation and it's Philospohical implications

[heusdens]

As anlternative to some other pre-Big Bang theories (like the Hawking-Turok Instanton pea model) there is a model of Eternal, Chaotic or Open inflation, in which Inflation reproduces itself eternally.
The merit of this model of inflation is that there is no requirement for a "beginning of time". Once inflation starts, it keeps reproducing new space-time bubbles, each inflating space-time bubble representing a new universe coming out of a big bang.

[Eh]

Eternal inflation is very similar to the old steady state universe, even though proponents of the theory would like to downplay the similarities. Each "bubble universe" is created from a pre-existing space-time, but the universe as a whole may be eternal, as you've said. But the problem is, the pre-existing space itself is expanding. For a universe finite in size, logically it follows that the volume of space would be smaller and smaller the further back in time you look. Eventually at some time in the past, the entire universe (or multiverse, if you will) shrinks down to a point of infinite density. So even an eternal inflation universe would have a beginning. Andrei Linde admits even the self reproducing universe may start off with a primordial singularity.

But with an infinite volume of space, there may indeed be no beginning at all. However, philosophically there is something very unsettling about an infinite volume of space that has been expanding for an infinite amount of time. Maybe it's because there is comfort in the finite, or maybe it's just because infinity is such an ugly concept. Should analysis of the WMAP survey find conlusive evidence that the universe is actually finite, then this model will be in the toilet. That is, unless someone develops a model of inflation based on extra dimensional space that has a minimum of 4 spatial dimensions.

But ignoring WMAP for a moment, try to compare an infinite chaotic inflation universe with the old steady state models. Hoyle invisioned an infinite universe that had been expanding forever, but with matter continously being created from the vacuum to fill in the great voids. Later models dropped the perfect cosmological principle (that idea that the universe looks the same everywhere and at all times) and included the ideas of mini big bangs arising from the vacuum. Though the math and mechanism for these later models were obviously different than inflation, the basic concept is very much alike. They both involved infinite space, and both involved an infinite regress.

At any rate, it seems the issue again comes down to the concept of infinity. Other models such as the cyclic universe, based on M theory also includes a universe that is infinite in space and time, so it seems to be an unavoidable topic these days.

[wuliheron]

At any rate, it seems the issue again comes down to the concept of infinity. Other models such as the cyclic universe, based on M theory also includes a universe that is infinite in space and time, so it seems to be an unavoidable topic these days.

Just as the concept of paradox is increasingly unavoidable. Although, why you think infinity is "ugly" is beyond me. Certainly it is not nice and neat and easily defined, but personally I enjoy abstract art as much as any other kind. :0)

[Eh]

It's probably a mental thing, as the idea of an infinite number of galaxies, infinite stars, etc. is unsettling. Maybe if the damn universe was static it might be easier to swallow, but expansion throws that out the window.

In physics, infinity is often a sign a certain theory is wrong, such as in the case of attempts to formulate a theory of quantum gravity.

[wuliheron]

In physics, infinity is often a sign a certain theory is wrong, such as in the case of attempts to formulate a theory of quantum gravity.

I agree that more often than not that is what it means, but it also means big things are likely in the wind. Newton used infinity to create an incredibly useful theory of motion and calculus. M-theory is now using it to reconcile a rift between mathematics and physics that has grown for over a century. If infinity can't lead to the next big thing in physics it may be that more profound paradoxes are required and that could be a great deal more difficult to resolve. :0)

[Mentat]

M-/string Theory does a pretty good job (IMO) in describing how the universe can continue to expand forever. You see, instead of saying that it will continue to alternate between expansion and contraction, it postulates that it (the universe) is always doing both. It all has to do with forms of measurement, since the measurement of the distance between "wound" strings is inversley proportional to the measurement of the distance between "vibrational" strings.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Eternal inflation is very similar to the old steady state universe, even though proponents of the theory would like to downplay the similarities. Each "bubble universe" is created from a pre-existing space-time, but the universe as a whole may be eternal, as you've said. But the problem is, the pre-existing space itself is expanding. For a universe finite in size, logically it follows that the volume of space would be smaller and smaller the further back in time you look. Eventually at some time in the past, the entire universe (or multiverse, if you will) shrinks down to a point of infinite density. So even an eternal inflation universe would have a beginning. Andrei Linde admits even the self reproducing universe may start off with a primordial singularity.

But with an infinite volume of space, there may indeed be no beginning at all. However, philosophically there is something very unsettling about an infinite volume of space that has been expanding for an infinite amount of time. Maybe it's because there is comfort in the finite, or maybe it's just because infinity is such an ugly concept. Should analysis of the WMAP survey find conlusive evidence that the universe is actually finite, then this model will be in the toilet. That is, unless someone develops a model of inflation based on extra dimensional space that has a minimum of 4 spatial dimensions.

But ignoring WMAP for a moment, try to compare an infinite chaotic inflation universe with the old steady state models. Hoyle invisioned an infinite universe that had been expanding forever, but with matter continously being created from the vacuum to fill in the great voids. Later models dropped the perfect cosmological principle (that idea that the universe looks the same everywhere and at all times) and included the ideas of mini big bangs arising from the vacuum. Though the math and mechanism for these later models were obviously different than inflation, the basic concept is very much alike. They both involved infinite space, and both involved an infinite regress.

At any rate, it seems the issue again comes down to the concept of infinity. Other models such as the cyclic universe, based on M theory also includes a universe that is infinite in space and time, so it seems to be an unavoidable topic these days.

I can for sure think of uglyer concepts as infinite.

What about a finite space. When a spacetraveller arrives there, he will find the sign "End of space. Stop here, or you'll be nowhere!".

Or things like begin or end of time. What would it be, if all of a sudden the universe would simply stop. Just before that, a big sign would be written in the sky: "End of time", and then everything would come to a halt and ceased to be.

By the way, it is a good thing that the universe as such isn't consciouss about al things that go on in the universe. Else, it would already have ceased to be, or never even have begun to be. For sure!

[Eh]

The beauty of curved space is that the universe can be finite yet be unbounded and have no edges. A traveller could go in straight line forever, and though he pass where he started from several times, he would never reach an edge. So finite space seems a much more pleasant alternative.

Finite time on the other hand, still does not seem so straight forward. However, if time is literally an extra spatial dimension (as with the no boundary proposal) the point is moot. The universe would only seem to have a beginning, while space-time as a whole would be eternal. The past present and future would exist as a 4 dimensional, static eternal universe. This eliminates the need for an infinite regress, and offers to solve the antinomy of both time and space. But this idea is counter-intuitive, and has it's own fair share of problems.

[wuliheron]

So, the singularity of finite time is more attractive than infinite space? Both just sound paradoxical to me.

[Eh]

Carefull with the word singularity here. In physics, it means a point of infinite density with zero volume.

With a 4D universe, everything would literally be space. Time would be an illusion. Unless you find geometry to be paradoxical itself, there doesn't seem to be any problems of that nature here.

[wuliheron]

Carefull with the word singularity here. In physics, it means a point of infinite density with zero volume.

With a 4D universe, everything would literally be space. Time would be an illusion. Unless you find geometry to be paradoxical itself, there doesn't seem to be any problems of that nature here.

I would suggest this is a temporal singularity. Just as occurs with a physical singularity, the passage of time slows to zero when inside and no distinction between either kind of singularity is possible to measure. Thus, by physical standards they are one and the same thing.

No matter what, it definitely qualifies as a paradox. It not only defies experience in much the same manner as Zeno's philosophy, it defies reason and logic. Just where did this "geometry" come from? If cause and effect don't apply because time doesn't apply, then logic and reason most certainly do not.

[Eh]

I don't see how that would be a paradox. Where did it come from would be a non question, since it would be non contingent. Of course it defies experience, and is one of the reasons this idea isn't likely to catch on. But there is nothing paradoxal or logically inconsistent about it, or at least no such problems have been found.

The notion of an uncaused, eternal universe that just IS may sound hard to swallow, but that alone does not make it an illogical or unreasonable proposition. As I've stated before, there is nothing logically inconsistant about something existing without being created by something else. That is, unless you know of something philosophers have missed.

[wuliheron]

The notion of an uncaused, eternal universe that just IS may sound hard to swallow, but that alone does not make it an illogical or unreasonable proposition. As I've stated before, there is nothing logically inconsistant about something existing without being created by something else. That is, unless you know of something philosophers have missed.

To say something is infinite is to say it has no limits, which, in itself is to assert a limit. This is a contradiction philosophers have known about since the invention of philosophy. So absurd has the very idea of infinity been considered that Aristotle himself asserted there is no such thing as an actual infinity, just potential ones. He then successfully banned the use of actual infinities and other paradoxes from academia.

[Eh]

What does infinity have to do with the no boundary proposal?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
To say something is infinite is to say it has no limits, which, in itself is to assert a limit.

Don't get that logic. If something has no limit, then it just asserts it doesn't have limit.

Same is the fact that the use of the term "nothing" is not making it into "something".


This is a contradiction philosophers have known about since the invention of philosophy. So absurd has the very idea of infinity been considered that Aristotle himself asserted there is no such thing as an actual infinity, just potential ones. He then successfully banned the use of actual infinities and other paradoxes from academia.

On the other hand the concept of infinity is contradictionary. It is a contradiction f.i. that the infinity exist of finite parts.

"Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. "

[F. Engels, Anti-Duhring (1877). V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space]

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by heusdens
Don't get that logic. If something has no limit, then it just asserts it doesn't have limit.

Same is the fact that the use of the term "nothing" is not making it into "something".

[b]

On the other hand the concept of infinity is contradictionary. It is a contradiction f.i. that the infinity exist of finite parts.

"Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. "

[F. Engels, Anti-Duhring (1877). V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space]


Exactly my response. Bravo.

[wuliheron]

the concept of infinity is contradictionary. It is a contradiction f.i. that the infinity exist of finite parts.


Exactly. In this case, the concept of infinity itself contains the finite within it as well in that it denies it has limits. To say something has no limits is to impose a limit, the limit that it has no limit.


Don't get that logic. If something has no limit, then it just asserts it doesn't have limit.

Same is the fact that the use of the term "nothing" is not making it into "something".

The two terms are not wholly seperate and distinct, but instead, define each other. The finite and infinite, nothing and something, up and down, back and front, inside and outside all define each other. Attempting to speak of one without referring to or at least implying the other leads to semantically meaningless mumbo jumbo.

In the case of infinity, when we do refer to its opposite it leads to contradiction. In other words, paradox. General semantics goes into more detail on this issue. Essentially, to assert infinity is real is to imply an infinitely valued logic in contrast to Aristotle's finite true/false logic.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Don't get that logic. If something has no limit, then it just asserts it doesn't have limit.


Yes, this semantic nightmare has been pointed out many times before in a hundred other threads about Paradox. It is a point that never seems to be understood. I would suggest getting back to the orginal topic of this thread. It was very interesting until it was pulled off track to step on a dead horse.

[wuliheron]

Sorry about that, didn't mean to pop anyone's bubble or derail the conversation. Merely to point out the semantic and aesthetic difficulties people were bringing up. :0)

[Mentat]

I don't understand everyone's confusion with the limit of limitlessness. Do you think it's possible for something that is limitless to have a limit? And yet, if there is something that is impossible for this [limitless] entity, then it has a limit (whatever it is that is impossible for it is it's limit).

[wuliheron]

I don't understand everyone's confusion with the limit of limitlessness.

Don't worry, you are not alone. This has been an infinitely confusing issue for millennia. Just ignore it, it'll go away. :0)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Don't worry, you are not alone. This has been an infinitely confusing issue for millennia. Just ignore it, it'll go away. :0)

But don't you think it's possible to explain it?

Seriously, what was wrong with my explanation?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly. In this case, the concept of infinity itself contains the finite within it as well in that it denies it has limits. To say something has no limits is to impose a limit, the limit that it has no limit.

Don't agree on that logic. Not having a limit, means that there isn't a limit, which doesn't impose a limit.

Using your kind of reasoning also one could say that something undifned is self-contradictionary, cause it would be defined (as 'undefined').

But this reasoning is absurd.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Don't agree on that logic. Not having a limit, means that there isn't a limit, which doesn't impose a limit.

Using your kind of reasoning also one could say that something undifned is self-contradictionary, cause it would be defined (as 'undefined').

But this reasoning is absurd.

No it's not, and your illustration is as good as any, for proving Wu Li's point.

I do not, however, approve of Wuliheron's use of the word "infinity" instead of "limitlessness". I agree that there is a paradox, when speaking of something as being "limitless"; but "infinity" in mathematics and physics can just be endlessness in two directions, it doesn't have to imply limitlessness (and rarely, if ever, does).

[wuliheron]

But don't you think it's possible to explain it?

Seriously, what was wrong with my explanation?

Why certainly you can explain infinity, just as you can explain paradox and the irrational. But your explanation needs to address the heart of the issue more directly instead of relying on finite classical Aristotelian logic alone. Heusdens' quote is more on the money:

"Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. "

[F. Engels, Anti-Duhring (1877). V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space]

Infinity is a double negative and, thus, a positive as this quote makes clear. It is a logical tautology and as such lends itself better to more poetic expression. The passage above touches on the poetic and the most famous western poetic passage to date on infinity is that of William Blake:

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour


Because infinity is tautological and lends itself to poetic expression, these are widely considered the most satisfying and clear ways to express the concept.

[Mentat]

This is a very wrong use of the word, "infinity". Infinity is not composed of a lot of finites. It is an infinite number of finites. This means that you cannot define infinity by how many finites it has, because the answer to that is "infinity", and you are no closer to understanding infinity than when you started.

[wuliheron]

This is a very wrong use of the word, "infinity". Infinity is not composed of a lot of finites. It is an infinite number of finites. This means that you cannot define infinity by how many finites it has, because the answer to that is "infinity", and you are no closer to understanding infinity than when you started.

Infinity is not a number, all numbers are finite. Thus when you say infinity is an infinite number of finites you contradict yourself. You are saying infinity is a finite (number) of finites.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity is not a number, all numbers are finite. Thus when you say infinity is an infinite number of finites you contradict yourself. You are saying infinity is a finite (number) of finites.

All your doing here is defining infinity in such a way that it can't exists. Infinity is meant to convey the concept that something is endless.

So if we take any endless thing and try to attach a number to it, we will be forced to say it is infinite. And therefore, by your definition, we cannot use infinity to convey anything of value so we must have a real number which means it must be finite. But from a semantic standpoint I understand perfectly what the sentence "it has an infinite number of things" is trying to convey. Which, by the way, is the only purpose for having a word for it.

You've created contradictions from semantics yet again. You want to talk about poetry and obscure references whenever you are pontificating on this topic in general, but then when it comes to the specific proofs, you want to apply strict rules of if/then logic. And apply them to semantic concepts no less.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity is not a number, all numbers are finite. Thus when you say infinity is an infinite number of finites you contradict yourself. You are saying infinity is a finite (number) of finites.

Infinity is not a finite number, but infinity is a number, but which has peculiar properties, that distinguish it from any finite number.

[wuliheron]

Infinity is meant to convey the concept that something is endless.


Duh!

All your doing here is defining infinity in such a way that it can't exists.

No, I'm not defining it in such a way that it can't exist, I'm merely pointing out the difficulty in defining the concept as a "thing" in the first place.

You've created contradictions from semantics yet again. You want to talk about poetry and obscure references whenever you are pontificating on this topic in general, but then when it comes to the specific proofs, you want to apply strict rules of if/then logic. And apply them to semantic concepts no less.

Only when people attempt to use infinity as if it is a classically proven concept in order to prove something else. There is absolutely no accepted logical or scientific evidence infinity exists. It is one of those boarderline concepts that is so popular among the religious especially, who have attempted to use it to prove the existence of god and how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin as I am sure you are well aware. At least poets acknowledge this and don't usually pretend it is indisputable evidence crop circles explain the meaning of life, the universe, and everything!

Infinity is not a finite number, but infinity is a number, but which has peculiar properties, that distinguish it from any finite number.

See what I mean, this defies accepted mathematical theory. OK, I give, just what "number" is infinity then? 666? Go ahead, you can tell me, I won't tell anybody else.

[C0mmie]

I dont know if its my taste buds talking, but I find the idea of a "donut shaped" universe (or many of them for that matter) much more comforting than and infinite universe.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron

No, I'm not defining it in such a way that it can't exist, I'm merely pointing out the difficulty in defining the concept as a "thing" in the first place.

See what I mean, this defies accepted mathematical theory. OK, I give, just what "number" is infinity then? 666? Go ahead, you can tell me, I won't tell anybody else.

My only point is that the word infinity conveys meaning when someone writes the sentence "this thing stretches to infinity". But it is meaningless IMO to then take that statement, combine it with some other semantic premise like "infinity is not a number", to then conclude infinity is a contradiction. That's just semantic funtime.

[wuliheron]

My only point is that the word infinity conveys meaning when someone writes the sentence "this thing stretches to infinity". But it is meaningless IMO to then take that statement, combine it with some other semantic premise like "infinity is not a number", to then conclude infinity is a contradiction. That's just semantic funtime.


I'm sorry, but words either have meaning or they don't. Mathematicians don't consider infinity to be a number because it cannot be written down completely, has no clear definition, etc. Therefore we either create clear boundaries as to how it can be dealt with logically or we invite meaningless babble.

What's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.....Infinity!
Who killed the Kennedys..... Infinity.

This is a scholarly website, not one devoted to meaningless babble.
Everyone here knows what the concept of infinity refers to, but I say again it is an illogical, irrational, and unscientific concept. It also just happens to be one of the most useful ones ever devised. To treat it otherwise is to invite meaningless babble.

Of course, you can argue that this is just semantic funtime, but unlikie some of you I have the philosophical and scientific community to back up my assertions. Either we emphasis semantic funtime or we emphasis anything-goes-funtime (Oh, did I spoil someones fun? Did I tell an unpleasent truth? Too bad.)

[C0mmie]

Mathematicians don't consider infinity to be a number because it cannot be written down completely

You can't write down the square root of 2 completely, or pi, or e, or the square root of -1 (i), but they are still numbers, and to the best of my knowldedge infinity is too.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I'm sorry, but words either have meaning or they don't.


I agree with this completely. But I have yet to understand how something that has no meaning can be useful.

Just because a scientists doesn't know how to write it down on a piece of paper and therefore attach the word "number" to it(if this is even true), doesn't mean that you can then insert the word "finite" into every sentence that uses "infinity" and claim it as proof of contradictions.

What's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.....Infinity!
Who killed the Kennedys..... Infinity.


I agree these statements make no sense. Infinity has nothing to do with the Kennedy's. Just wanted to point that out in case someone is actually tempted to believe this extreme depiction of the opposing view.


This is a scholarly website, not one devoted to meaningless babble.

Which is exactly why I suggested that we get this thread back on track and stop discussing this concept in this way. Let's keep the meaningless babble in the paradox threads.[:D]


Of course, you can argue that this is just semantic funtime, but unlikie some of you I have the philosophical and scientific community to back up my assertions.


Where are the scientific and mathematical sources? Just claiming they exists isn't sufficient. You can see many people here disagree with your mathematical premise. And if these sources do exist, it would be good if you can find some from this century. Alot has happened in the last hundred years or so.


Either we emphasis semantic funtime or we emphasis anything-goes-funtime (Oh, did I spoil someones fun? Did I tell an unpleasent truth? Too bad.) [/B]

Nonsense. We don't have to do either of these time wasting things. We can recognise that the imperfections of language are not proof of more fundamental imperfections in the universe. Once we do this we can attempt to have a philosphical conversation without getting bogged down in these imperfections. It is a common criticism of philosphy that it is nothing but debate over semantics. While I try to avoid this as much as I can, the reason why these people make this claim is all over this forum.

[wuliheron]

You can't write down the square root of 2 completely, or pi, or e, or the square root of -1 (i), but they are still numbers, and to the best of my knowldedge infinity is too.

The parts of them you can write down are certainly numbers, infinity is not. Just look it up if you don't believe me. The infinity of infinity in mathematics, by the way, is called aleph aleph and is utterly paradoxical.

I agree with this completely. But I have yet to understand how something that has no meaning can be useful.


I never said infinity has no meaning, I said it is irrational and paradoxical. That is part of the incredible amount of confusion around the subject. God is an illogical, irrational, and paradoxical concept but it certainly has a tremendous amount of meaning for the vast majority of humanity. God also happens to be a very useful concept in many respects just as infinity is.

I agree these statements make no sense. Infinity has nothing to do with the Kennedy's. Just wanted to point that out in case someone is actually tempted to believe this extreme depiction of the opposing view.

Ahhh, then you do have limits you apply to the concept of infinity. How nice. Would you like to list them for the rest of us to debate?

Which is exactly why I suggested that we get this thread back on track and stop discussing this concept in this way.


Then people need to stop insisting infinity is not considered irrational by philosophers, and other such nonesense. I couldn't care less if people want to claim infinity explains crop circles or whatever, but when they start insisting their claims have rational, scholarly, or scientific evidence they threaten the mission of this bulletin board.

Either we emphasis semantic funtime or we emphasis anything-goes-funtime (Oh, did I spoil someones fun? Did I tell an unpleasent truth? Too bad.) [/B]

Nonsense. We don't have to do either of these time wasting things. We can recognise that the imperfections of language are not proof of more fundamental imperfections in the universe. Once we do this we can attempt to have a philosphical conversation without getting bogged down in these imperfections. It is a common criticism of philosphy that it is nothing but debate over semantics. While I try to avoid this as much as I can, the reason why these people make this claim is all over this forum.

Next you'll be telling me this is the answer to world peace.What utter and rediculous hogwash and even brazen lying. You have kept up arguments like this over the irrational with me for days on end. They are now burned into the cds Greg made of the last website and distributed for anyone to buy for twenty bucks.

Again, this is a scholarly website. Debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is by modern scholarly standards a subject for religious and mystical debate, not philosophical. I have posted links to relevent websites on the issues already and given my arguments. Unless you have something sincere to say, I'm done.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by C0mmie
I dont know if its my taste buds talking, but I find the idea of a "donut shaped" universe (or many of them for that matter) much more comforting than and infinite universe.

Is that a matter of "taste" ?

[Eh]

There was a discussion about what the universe tastes like on the old PF. Too bad there isn't an online archive somewhere.

[Mentat]

Wuliheron, your sarcasm (and arrogance) is duly noted, but entirely unnecessary. You are not helping the discussion at all, by avoiding the constructive (or corrective) comments, and mocking the ones that you conceive to be flawed.

Personally, I think that C0mmie made an excellent point (which you are, of course, ignoring), so I'll repeat it here:


You can't write down the square root of 2 completely, or pi, or e, or the square root of -1 (i), but they are still numbers, and to the best of my knowldedge infinity is too.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Ahhh, then you do have limits you apply to the concept of infinity. How nice. Would you like to list them for the rest of us to debate?


Don't confuse the definition of a concept with the application of the concept. People with well thought out ideas don't usually make this mistake.


Then people need to stop insisting infinity is not considered irrational by philosophers, and other such nonesense. I couldn't care less if people want to claim infinity explains crop circles or whatever, but when they start insisting their claims have rational, scholarly, or scientific evidence they threaten the mission of this bulletin board.


I didn't think people were insisting any of this. People are only trying to have a discussion about cosmology theories and the word "infinity" is a useful concept. All I see you doing is resisting the fact that people are using the concept in sentences. Everytime it comes up you derail the thread with this nonsense. Above you said you didn't care if people used infinity to explain crop circles. If this is true, then PLEASE let them do it without interruption!


Next you'll be telling me this is the answer to world peace.What utter and rediculous hogwash and even brazen lying. You have kept up arguments like this over the irrational with me for days on end. They are now burned into the cds Greg made of the last website and distributed for anyone to buy for twenty bucks.


So you're saying that semantic problems carry over into the physical world? No wonder we disagree. And I am proud of my stance in any paradox thread in PF 2. I don't have a problem calling out arrogant use of propaganda to make a point that isn't there.


Again, this is a scholarly website. Debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is by modern scholarly standards a subject for religious and mystical debate, not philosophical. I have posted links to relevent websites on the issues already and given my arguments. Unless you have something sincere to say, I'm done. [/B]

No such link has ever been provided. Where is the link to the respected source that claims infinity is not a number? This is all the proof I need.

And for anyone interested in more instances of this dodging technique, just pay $20 for a copy of PF2.

[wuliheron]

No such link has ever been provided. Where is the link to the respected source that claims infinity is not a number? This is all the proof I need.


Yet again more utter garbage and insincerity. Look it up for yourself, as I said I've already posted such links elsewhere.

Anyone who claims infinity is a number or an accepted rational concept has no clue what the academic history of the subject is, much less modern academic thought on the subject. I was not the one who claimed infinity is a number. Thus I have no reposibility for proving it is not anymore than I am responsible for proving Santa and the seven dwarves don't exist. I would say, "Put up or shut up" but know such sentiments are wasted on you.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yet again more utter garbage and insincerity. Look it up for yourself, as I said I've already posted such links elsewhere.

Anyone who claims infinity is a number or an accepted rational concept has no clue what the academic history of the subject is, much less modern academic thought on the subject. I was not the one who claimed infinity is a number. Thus I have no reposibility for proving it is not anymore than I am responsible for proving Santa and the seven dwarves don't exist. I would say, "Put up or shut up" but know such sentiments are wasted on you.

Yet more dodging. BTW, I claim neither position. I don't talk about things that I don't know about. And I admit that I am not a mathmetician. I'm just pointing out that there are those that disagree with you and all you've done is claim they are wrong with references to "look it up". Where are the links? This is not asking too much. Don't look at it as having to defend yourself and boiling things down to "who's responsible" for providing proof. That's a silly attitude. Look at it as an opportunity to teach those that you claim are ignorant of the facts. THAT my friend is what the forum is all about.

[wuliheron]

Yet more dodging. BTW, I claim neither position. I don't talk about things that I don't know about. And I admit that I am not a mathmetician. I'm just pointing out that there are those that disagree with you and all you've done is claim they are wrong with references to "look it up". Where are the links? This is not asking too much. Don't look at it as having to defend yourself and boiling things down to "who's responsible" for providing proof. That's a silly attitude. Look at it as an opportunity to teach those that you claim are ignorant of the facts. THAT my friend is what the forum is all about.

As I said, the idea of "Put up or shut up" is lost on you. It is not lost on academia. I could argue all day with you once again proving how much of a liar you are about avoiding such things and just how contentious and unscholarly you are. Perhaps eventually the moderators will step in and deal with you then.

Once again, this forum is not dedicated to disproving the existence of Santa Claus, little green men from mars, or any such nonsense. The assertion that infinity has never been contested by philosophers as irrational and that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians are both just as bogus. The kind of rubbish you find in the World Weekly News.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As I said, the idea of "Put up or shut up" is lost on you. It is not lost on academia. I could argue all day with you once again proving how much of a liar you are about avoiding such things and just how contentious and unscholarly you are. Perhaps eventually the moderators will step in and deal with you then.


You always seem to accuse people of the very things you are doing. It's is quite amusing. It is I who must say to you.."put up or shut up". Just claiming something as substantiated fact when others have disagreed is not sufficient. Your post is insulting everyone who disagrees with you by calling them unscholarly, contentious and liars. If the moderators are going to do anything it ought to be about you. This "moderator" ploy always seems to get pulled out of the bag whenever you tire of being adequately challenged on your nonsense.

Congratulations, you have succeeded in reducing another interesting thread to arrogant, namecalling propaganda.

[Mentat]

Wu Li, you may have tried hard to explain why infinity is irrational, but I have also tried hard to show you that it isn't - at least not in the same way as limitlessness - so no one is going to pity your frustration. I understand the paradox of limitlessness - even though very few else seem to - but I disagree with applying this reasoning to "infinity". A mathematical infinity can exist in just two directions, so it would have limits, but would still be infinite (which means, btw, that it goes on forever, not that it has no limits).

[wuliheron]

As always, you are both all talk and no show. Again, put up or shut up.

I have posted countless links to websites disproving your B.S. and all you do is keep coming back with more arguments. Go ahead, prove me wrong, post one single link showing that philosophers have never debated the validity and paradoxical nature of infinity. Go ahead, post one single link showing that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians. Make me look bad, liar.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As always, you are both all talk and no show. Again, put up or shut up.

I have posted countless links to websites disproving your B.S. and all you do is keep coming back with more arguments. Go ahead, prove me wrong, post one single link showing that philosophers have never debated the validity and paradoxical nature of infinity. Go ahead, post one single link showing that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians. Make me look bad, liar.

My little sister has a better attitude than you're displaying right now. When I explode on you, then you'll have an excuse to post such toddlerish tantrums.

Anyway, I know that philosophers have argued the point. Philosophers have also argued whether I exist. They can argue about shoes and ships and ceiling wax, about cabbages and kings. And why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings. I don't really care what they argue about, I'm presenting an argument and your dodging it, by saying "smart people have argued it, so it must be undecided".

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As always, you are both all talk and no show. Again, put up or shut up.

I have posted countless links to websites disproving your B.S. and all you do is keep coming back with more arguments. Go ahead, prove me wrong, post one single link showing that philosophers have never debated the validity and paradoxical nature of infinity. Go ahead, post one single link showing that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians. Make me look bad, liar.

Wuli, please let's be civil. Please stop calling me a liar. I'll say this again. I do not know whether infinity is a number or not. I have not disagreed with you. Some people here have, but I have not. So what am I lying about? My only point is that, infinity not falling under the semantic category of "number", cannot be the premise for you to conclude all sorts of contradictions and dimish the usefulness of the concept in a discussion of cosmology. I think I've been consistent on this message. So, your comments are really aimed at those people who claim infinity is a number. If you do not feel that you need to show them where mathmeticians claim infinity is not a number then that is your perogative. I disagree with this attitude strongly but I can't change what you think of yourself and your own standards of credibility.

Also, just because philosphers have debated something in the past doesn't instantly give the idea credibility. Philosphers have debated many things in the past that we know to be nonsense today. It would help your credibility tremendously if you can find some recent sources to help those that don't have the facts like you seem to.

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
Wu Li, you may have tried hard to explain why infinity is irrational, but I have also tried hard to show you that it isn't - at least not in the same way as limitlessness - so no one is going to pity your frustration. I understand the paradox of limitlessness - even though very few else seem to - but I disagree with applying this reasoning to "infinity". A mathematical infinity can exist in just two directions, so it would have limits, but would still be infinite (which means, btw, that it goes on forever, not that it has no limits).

Yes, that's a good point-the numberline only has 2 directions so it is only "infinite" in those directions- its width is supposedly finite.

In any case, I don't think the general public has any problems in conceptualizing infinity- it's only when we don't state the context in which we are discussing infinity that confusion arises.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Yes, that's a good point-the numberline only has 2 directions so it is only "infinite" in those directions- its width is supposedly finite.

In any case, I don't think the general public has any problems in conceptualizing infinity- it's only when we don't state the context in which we are discussing infinity that confusion arises.

I agree.

If you define "infinity" as synonymous to "limitlessness", then there is a paradox. However, you are right about the number line, which is infinite in two directions, but not limitless.

[wuliheron]

My little sister has a better attitude than you're displaying right now. When I explode on you, then you'll have an excuse to post such toddlerish tantrums.

Your little sister no doubt can get your momma to spank you when you tease her endlessly.

I'm presenting an argument and your dodging it, by saying "smart people have argued it, so it must be undecided".

I'm dodging it saying point blank as I have many times that you would argue pigs have wings. That you keep insisting the existence of infinity is a fact without the slightest bit of evidence to prove it. Without so much as a single link and with constant demands that I disprove one endless argument you present after another. Get a life dude. Arguing endlessly does not prove your ideas any more than shouting does.

Yes, that's a good point-the numberline only has 2 directions so it is only "infinite" in those directions- its width is supposedly finite.


This is just one of his standard arguments. It no more proves infinity isn't irrational than saying that both pigs and wings are real, therefore pigs must have wings. Nor does it disprove my assertion that infinity is a self-contradictory and self-referential paradox, which he usually counters with semantic garbage that denies the very mathematical and dictionary definition of the word infinity.

Wuli, please let's be civil. Please stop calling me a liar.

Just stop lying, stop demanding I prove Santa doesn't exist, stop all your usual misdirection and obfuscation and I'll stop calling you a liar. In other words, be civil yourself. Stop pretending you avoid me and avoid discussions like this. Stop pretending you are polite when you are being as obnoxious as can be.

I disagree with this attitude strongly but I can't change what you think of yourself and your own standards of credibility.


Then stop trying dude. Stop demanding I prove Santa isn't real.

Also, just because philosphers have debated something in the past doesn't instantly give the idea credibility. Philosphers have debated many things in the past that we know to be nonsense today. It would help your credibility tremendously if you can find some recent sources to help those that don't have the facts like you seem to.

I'm not interesting in what you think about my credibility. You are the one who keeps insisting I prove people are wrong rather than that they prove they are right. Get a grip, find some genuine sincerity dude and stop with all this obfuscation. Start insisting people prove they are right when someone challanges such statements rather than insisting everyone else prove them wrong.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I'm not interesting in what you think about my credibility. You are the one who keeps insisting I prove people are wrong rather than that they prove they are right. Get a grip, find some genuine sincerity dude and stop with all this obfuscation. Start insisting people prove they are right when someone challanges such statements rather than insisting everyone else prove them wrong.


I'm not talking about what I think about your credibility. I'm talking about what all the other people you are calling unscholarly think. You know, the ones who say infinity is a number. And I am very confident that most reasonable people who read this will make their own judgement as well. Like I said. I cannot change your standard of credibility with regard to all these other people.

Also, the burden of proof rules that you keep referring to have no place in this situation. The proof or non-proof of Santa , God, or pink ferries is where this rule DOES apply. None of these things can be proven to not exists and no one has ever proven that they do. Unlike the idea that "infinity" is or is not considered a number by current mathmeticians. This should be easily verified if it's true. You cannot just jump into a posts and make wild claims and then claim that you don't have to show some proof by providing a specific source.


Just stop lying, stop demanding I prove Santa doesn't exist, stop all your usual misdirection and obfuscation and I'll stop calling you a liar. In other words, be civil yourself. Stop pretending you are polite when you are being as obnoxious as can be.
Stop pretending you avoid me and avoid discussions like this.

LOl once again you turn your own crimes on the person you are in a discussion with. And I most certainly do avoid those Paradox threads like the plague. I even try to skip over your posts in non-paradox threads because I find them rarely relevant. But this is not a paradox thread and you have managed to get it off track. The first thing I did was suggest that we get it back on track. That was my only intent. I'm am now making that suggestion again.

[wuliheron]

I'm not talking about what I think about your credibility. I'm talking about what all the other people you are calling unscholarly think.

Not willing to let other people speak for themselves, small wonder.

You cannot just jump into a posts and make wild claims and then claim that you don't have to show some proof by providing a specific source.


Tell us oh great one, what else can we not do?

this is not a paradox thread and you have managed to get it off track. The first thing I did was suggest that we get it back on track. That was my only intent. I'm am now making that suggestion again.

I am trying to keep it on track. Claims that infinity is a number are utter bunk. If you want to keep this thread on track, stop talking for other people and telling me what to do. If you haven't noticed it is you who have totally derailed this thread with all this arguing.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Not willing to let other people speak for themselves, small wonder.
Tell us oh great one, what else can we not do?
I am trying to keep it on track. Claims that infinity is a number are utter bunk. If you want to keep this thread on track, stop talking for other people and telling me what to do. If you haven't noticed it is you who have totally derailed this thread with all this arguing.

Wow. Man you have some issues.

OK, enough wasting my time with this egomaniac.

Heusdens, where are you? Did the thread come to a natural end with the participation of Eh and Mentat? It seems you are very much against the idea of a finite space/time whereas Eh thinks it's no uglier then theories of infinity.

I love that this discussion has been coming up more often lately. Carry on.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Your little sister no doubt can get your momma to spank you when you tease her endlessly.



I'm dodging it saying point blank as I have many times that you would argue pigs have wings. That you keep insisting the existence of infinity is a fact without the slightest bit of evidence to prove it. Without so much as a single link and with constant demands that I disprove one endless argument you present after another. Get a life dude. Arguing endlessly does not prove your ideas any more than shouting does.



This is just one of his standard arguments. It no more proves infinity isn't irrational than saying that both pigs and wings are real, therefore pigs must have wings. Nor does it disprove my assertion that infinity is a self-contradictory and self-referential paradox, which he usually counters with semantic garbage that denies the very mathematical and dictionary definition of the word infinity.



Just stop lying, stop demanding I prove Santa doesn't exist, stop all your usual misdirection and obfuscation and I'll stop calling you a liar. In other words, be civil yourself. Stop pretending you avoid me and avoid discussions like this. Stop pretending you are polite when you are being as obnoxious as can be.



Then stop trying dude. Stop demanding I prove Santa isn't real.



I'm not interesting in what you think about my credibility. You are the one who keeps insisting I prove people are wrong rather than that they prove they are right. Get a grip, find some genuine sincerity dude and stop with all this obfuscation. Start insisting people prove they are right when someone challanges such statements rather than insisting everyone else prove them wrong.

Grow up, wuliheron. As you, yourself, have repeated over and over again, this is a forum devoted to scholarly discussion, your last few posts don't even meet the criteria of civilised conversation.

Yes, if I wanted to, I could argue that pigs have wings. I take your saying that as a compliment.

For the 100th time, I am not tring to say that infinity is not paradoxical/self-contradictory/inexplicable/undefinable/etc. I'm really not. I am only trying to show you that the limitlessness paradox, does not apply to infinity. That is all that I am saying.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Wow. Man you have some issues.


Did you just realize that? [;)]


OK, enough wasting my time with this egomaniac.


I agree.


Heusdens, where are you? Did the thread come to a natural end with the participation of Eh and Mentat? It seems you are very much against the idea of a finite space/time whereas Eh thinks it's no uglier then theories of infinity.


Alright then, back on-topic, I should clarify that I am not saying that the universe cannot be infinite. I am saying that I don't believe it can both be infinite, and be expanding at the same time. Eh seems to disagree. I'd like to understand why, but I can't, so I invite Eh to explain his side again.

[wuliheron]

Wow. Man you have some issues.

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

Did you just realize that?


LOL, you both about as objective and unbiased on the issue of infinity as a Born Again Christian is about God.

Still no proof infinity is a number, nothing but personal slams and innuendo. Perhaps the Heraldo show is more your speed (LOLOLOLOL).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Heusdens, where are you? Did the thread come to a natural end with the participation of Eh and Mentat? It seems you are very much against the idea of a finite space/time whereas Eh thinks it's no uglier then theories of infinity.

I love that this discussion has been coming up more often lately. Carry on.

I have been focusing on here on other issues.

It seemed that my initial thread only lead to the issue of the absurdity of infinity, and not as much about the eternal inflation hypothese. Perhaps we should return back to that theme.

But about infinity.....

As a matter of fact I don't think that space/time can be finite.
Although, neither do I think that space/time is infinite in a trivial way (just extending the past to infinity, and extening the observed space to infinity). It happens to be, the universe can not have been this way throughout all of eternity, for several reasons.

Some of this can be explained by Olbers' paradox of the dark night sky. If stars had evolved and were spread around in more or less the same way as they do now, and if space and time were infinite, Olber's paradox proofs that the night sky should be luminous like daytime, because in any direction one would look, we would come across the surface of a star. Naturally, the farther we look, the less brighter and less light we receive, but the more distantiated sphere contains more stars, the two effecst which exactly counterbalance each other (under the conditions that the distribution of lumnious matter is the same throughout all of space and time).
The acceptance of Olbers' paradox leads to the contradiction that either one or both assumptions (space is infinite, time is infinite) are wrong.

A deeper exploration in fact proofs that the night sky IS luminous, and the first calculations of the CMBR showed that this effect of stars from any direction throughout an infine space which was occupied by lumnious matter in the same distribution as we witness now, would lead to a brilliant sky, only not in visible light but as 3K radition.

Current explorations of the CMBR however proof that the spectrum and the fluctuations of the CMBR can not be the effect of star light, and the BB theory provided a better explenation for the CMBR.

Another proof that the universe could not have existed in all of infinity with infinite space, is that the force of gravity would in most cases (dependend on the matter distribution through infinite space) lead to a universe which could not be stable through all of eternity, and thus lead to 'Big Bangs' or 'Big Crunches'.

As a mind experiment, I suggested imagining a universe consisting of only atoms of hydrogen, and assume at some distinct moment a totally perfect distribution of hydrogen atoms throughout all of space. Place an imaginary grid through 3D infinite space (which creates 'cubes' throughout all of space) and place at every corner of a cube (at every crossing of grid lines) one atom of hydrogen, and see how this would evolve through time. Although at first instance this looks like a stable situation (all forces on every hydrogen atom exactly cancel out to zero), but in reality, such can not be the case. All matter would clutter together, only not to a specific point in space, but everywhere. Small inbalances (cause this 'perfect' initial condition, is of course not a situation that is real) would lead to local cluterings, which enlarge themselves.

I am not too familiar with cosmological models, but I have accepted the conclusion of experts, which say that a more or less 'static' universe is impossible.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Still no proof infinity is a number, nothing but personal slams and innuendo. Perhaps the Heraldo show is more your speed (LOLOLOLOL). ]


Wuli, please go back to your paradox threads. It is obvious you aren't reading what others are writing. I have said several times that I have no opinion on whether infinity is a number. Yet you insist on this same low effort response above. My only point has been that infinity is useful as a concept in mathematics and cosmology, whether it's a number or not. Please move on.

[wuliheron]

Wuli, please go back to your paradox threads. It is obvious you aren't reading what others are writing. I have said several times that I have no opinion on whether infinity is a number. Yet you insist on this same low effort response above. My only point has been that infinity is useful as a concept in mathematics and cosmology, whether it's a number or not. Please move on.

Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

I am not certain of the topic of wether or not infinity is a number or not, is important, I hold it is a matter of definition.

If we define 'number' to be a distinguisable number on the number line (which reach out in both directions to infinity) it can be stated that there is no such number ( a distinct point on the number line) that corresponds to infinity.

The proof of this is that infinity refers to the fact that such a number would be larger (farther away from an arbitrary point on the number line, which we call 0) then any other number (point on the number line). All points on the number line however share the same property that to the left and to the right, there are infinitely many points.

But that is just the contradiction we come across, that is part of the concept of infinity.

I think however that for linguistic reasons, it is perfectly ok to call infinity a number, although from the way infinity is defined, it has special characteristics that distinguish it from any other number (point on the number line).

[wuliheron]

I am not certain of the topic of wether or not infinity is a number or not, is important, I hold it is a matter of definition.


It most certainly is not part of the definition of infinity, just look it up. This is not a trivial distinction either. Declaring infinity to be a bona fide number is to give it a validity is simply does not possess in academic circles, no matter how convoluted your personal reasoning might be.

Speaking of which, you have not bothered to intervene in this dispute and clarify the matter until it threatened to stop this thread altogether. Likewise, when it did threaten to end this thread, I noticed you spammed the bulletin board with countless verbose cut and paste articles related to the philosophy of infinity.

Again, put up or shut up. I don't want to hear your personal views on the issue. Provide proof or acknowledge that it does not exist.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[B]Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number.

Please provide the quote where I have done this "repeatedly". My only point is that just because you can make a semantic statement like "infinity is not a number" doesn't mean that you can totally throw away the usefulness of the infinity concept in a cosmology discussion such as this one. If you go back and re-read, I think it may be clear this is all I was doing. If something I've said is misleading, then I apologize. But please provide the quote where I did this so I can analyze my use of words and possibly improve.


If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults?

Anything that I have done that can be interpreted as an insult can clearly be linked to being insulted first. Like being called a liar when I have said over and over that I don't have an opinion on the very topic you were trying to call me a liar about.


If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

I cannot speak for him. I actually understand your point about infinity not being a number. I just diagree that it is important enough to derail the usefulness of the word in a discussion about cosmology theories.

I want to finish in PM, Wuli. Please check yours.

[wuliheron]

I cannot speak for him. I actually understand your point about infinity not being a number. I just diagree that it is important enough to derail the usefulness of the word in a discussion about cosmology theories.


As I have asserted all along, my intention is to make sure this bulletin board remains on a scholarly philosophical level instead of degrading into meaningless mumbo jumbo and mystical nonsense parading as scientific fact. Physics forums already has both a religion and mysticism bulletin board not to mention a general discussion one. This one is for scholarly discussion of philosophy.

Expressions of mysticism and what not are great, I'm a mystic myself. But falsely asserting things are established scientific fact, especially about subjects as slippery as infinity, are definite no-nos. In the case of infinity this is especially critical because so many religious beliefs revolve around the issue and it is therefore often contentious.

Because my own interest lies in paradox, the absurd, and the irrational some people take umbrage at what I claim is irrational. Some have even argued with me that nothing is paradoxical, absurd, or irrational (which I both agree with and disagree with of course.) Absurdity is absurd, that is, all over the map.

One does the best they can. :0)

[Eh]

Back to the topic of an infinite universe that expands. As I've said before, expansion is a local phenomena. As flat space between galaxies expands, the overall size of the universe does not increase. That comes from the very nature of infinity, where every region of space is infinitely small compared to the rest. Even if that region expands, it STILL remains an infinitesimal point in space. So an expanding universe does not get bigger in this situation.

heusdens brought up Olber's paradox. That the night sky is dark disproves the notion of an infinite universe that has existed forever. Actually, the notion of an infinite universe under the physics of 150 years ago was disproven. Modern cosmology has one weapon the scientists back then didn't - the expanding universe. While the fact the universe is only 15 billion years old alone would be enough to handle part of the paradox, the expanding universe does more so.

In the case of a chaotic inflation universe, the same should apply. The finite speed of light and the fact the universe is expanding means light will never be able to reach some regions of the universe. Hence, most of an inflationary universe would be a cold, dark place.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[B]It most certainly is not part of the definition of infinity, just look it up.

The issue of definition is about the concept of "number" not that of "infinity".

As a matter of speak, using the term "infinite number" means that the concept of number includes infinite numbers too.

[wuliheron]

As a matter of speak, using the term "infinite number" means that the concept of number includes infinite numbers too.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way and no amount of fudging semantics will ever make infinity a number. Saying that a number is infinite is not the same thing as saying infinity is a number. Otherwise I could say that cow is black, therefore all cows are black, which is udder nonsense.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, it doesn't work that way and no amount of fudging semantics will ever make infinity a number. Saying that a number is infinite is not the same thing as saying infinity is a number. Otherwise I could say that cow is black, therefore all cows are black, which is udder nonsense.

Just hold it. You are mixing things up. I never claimed infinity to be a number.

I said the issue if wether or not the number concept allows for infinite numbers too, and I stated that that is the case.

When we are talking about infinity, don't mix it up with numbers, cause clearly the concept of "infinity" is not the same as the concept of "number".

The concept of number declares it to be having a certain value, and potentially an infinite value.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Back to the topic of an infinite universe that expands. As I've said before, expansion is a local phenomena. As flat space between galaxies expands, the overall size of the universe does not increase. That comes from the very nature of infinity, where every region of space is infinitely small compared to the rest. Even if that region expands, it STILL remains an infinitesimal point in space. So an expanding universe does not get bigger in this situation.

heusdens brought up Olber's paradox. That the night sky is dark disproves the notion of an infinite universe that has existed forever. Actually, the notion of an infinite universe under the physics of 150 years ago was disproven. Modern cosmology has one weapon the scientists back then didn't - the expanding universe. While the fact the universe is only 15 billion years old alone would be enough to handle part of the paradox, the expanding universe does more so.

In the case of a chaotic inflation universe, the same should apply. The finite speed of light and the fact the universe is expanding means light will never be able to reach some regions of the universe. Hence, most of an inflationary universe would be a cold, dark place.

Yes, thanks for this addition. As I said, the universe is or can be infinite (must be infinite, in my mind), but is not infinite in a trivial way. The space expansion removes the triviality, and the acompanying paradoxes that result from a trivial infinite universe.

[wuliheron]

Just hold it. You are mixing things up. I never claimed infinity to be a number.

Apparently we have another brazen liar in our midst, either that or you have no clue what you have said and don't mind inserting foot into mouth. This is what you wrote:

Infinity is not a finite number, but infinity is a number, but which has peculiar properties, that distinguish it from any finite number.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Apparently we have another brazen liar in our midst, either that or you have no clue what you have said and don't mind inserting foot into mouth. This is what you wrote:

Well then excuse me!

I hold it my previous post explained it clearly, it must have been a slip of the typewriter to say that infinity is a number.

All cleared up now?

[wuliheron]

Well then excuse me!

I hold it my previous post explained it clearly, it must have been a slip of the typewriter to say that infinity is a number.

All cleared up now?

There now, that wasn't difficult, was it.

For just a slip of the typewritter you sure dragged your feet on that one which is just basic mathematical theory.

Ancient Chinese saying,

Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
There now, that wasn't difficult, was it.

For just a slip of the typewritter you sure dragged your feet on that one which is just basic mathematical theory.


Ok. Now, can we go back to the topic?

[wuliheron]

Ok. Now, can we go back to the topic?

You've always had the power to go back to Kansas Dorathy. Just click your heals together three times and say, "I want to go home...."

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

Do not whine about personal remarks. You started them. You kept using your - now-famous - sarcasm and insults, which destroy any rational conversation. It is human nature that we "bite back" a little.

Fliption is right - put discussions of the rational/irrational nature of infinity in threads devoted to that type of discussion.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
You've always had the power to go back to Kansas Dorathy. Just click your heals together three times and say, "I want to go home...."

... said the tornado that carries all topics off to the land of "wuliheronish" unreasonability. No offense, but it was you who side-tracked the topic.

[wuliheron]

... said the tornado that carries all topics off to the land of "wuliheronish" unreasonability. No offense, but it was you who side-tracked the topic.

Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Eternal inflation and it's philosophical implications is the topic, and infinity is just a sub-topic.

[wuliheron]

Do not whine about personal remarks. You started them. You kept using your - now-famous - sarcasm and insults, which destroy any rational conversation. It is human nature that we "bite back" a little.

Fliption is right - put discussions of the rational/irrational nature of infinity in threads devoted to that type of discussion.

Ya'll have dogged my own posts about paradox forever and now you want special treatment in return. You want to be free to discuss infinity as if it were an established scientific fact and present whatever misleading interpretations of the subject you want as accepted philosophical dogma, read my lips:

Fat Chance!

[wuliheron]

Eternal inflation and it's philosophical implications is the topic, and infinity is just a sub-topic.

That's true, better get your facts straight from the ground up and tell other people to please stop talking for you if you want to get back to topic faster. Just click those little heals together Dorathy.... that or go back to Oz.

[heusdens]

Infinity is unavoidable, unless one wants to introduce some "outside" cause to the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this, read this thread. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958)

[heusdens]

A lecture of Andrei Linde (Stanford University) on Inflation and String Cosmology. (http://pauli.physics.lsa.umich.edu/w/arch/som/sto2001/Linde/real/n001.htm)

[wuliheron]

Infinity is unavoidable, unless one wants to introduce some "outside" cause to the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this, read this thread.

All that says to me is that paradox is unavoidable according to our current view of the universe. Duh! People have known that since prehistoric times and Zeno of Elias pointed that out using logic 2,500 years ago without being so verbose and obtuse.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Challenge people to prove that infinity is not a number, on another thread. This one is about the philosophical implications of eternal inflation.

[Eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
Infinity is unavoidable, unless one wants to introduce some "outside" cause to the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this, read this thread. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958)

But hey, the no boundary proposal avoids infinity completely. Both time and space are finite. Quantum gravity pending, the other kind of infinity associated with space and time may be avoided, so long as they are both discrete. Such a model is compatible with inflation models.

On a similar topic, here is a link that you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344

From the URL: "...an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother."

[wuliheron]

Challenge people to prove that infinity is not a number, on another thread. This one is about the philosophical implications of eternal inflation.

Duh!!

I will challange such nonsense in the name of mathematics any time I please. As I already said Dorathy, if you want to stay in OZ that is your affair. This is a physics philosophy bulletin board, not the land of Oz where anything is possible. One of the philosophical implications of an eternal inflationary universe is that it is paradoxical and infinity not being a number is one of the reasons why.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
But hey, the no boundary proposal avoids infinity completely. Both time and space are finite. Quantum gravity pending, the other kind of infinity associated with space and time may be avoided, so long as they are both discrete. Such a model is compatible with inflation models.

Space perhaps, not time.
The finiteness of space has not been proven however.


On a similar topic, here is a link that you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344

From the URL: "...an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother."

Oh, well. It might explain why I have a constant feeling of deja-vu.

[Eh]

With the no boundary proposal, time acts literally like another spatial dimension. Hence past present and future exist as one 4 dimensional unchanging universe.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this could ever be tested, and the best we can hope for is proof about the size of space, not time.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
With the no boundary proposal, time acts literally like another spatial dimension. Hence past present and future exist as one 4 dimensional unchanging universe.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this could ever be tested, and the best we can hope for is proof about the size of space, not time.

I know this is a propoasal (like the no-boundary proposal) from Stephen Hawking, which also introduces the imaginary time concept.
It was a way of solving the singuality at the big bang.

But not everyone is agreeing on this proposal.
I think the theory of eternal inflation, which makes verifyable predictions of the observable universe and which fixes some of the problems in current Big bang theory, had more merits to go for.
Also it does not require the universe to have a beginning.

[Eh]

It's only a proposal, but indeed avoids the problems of infinity. While inflation may make some predictions, it is not incompatible with the no boundary proposal. They both work.

But I'm not sure eternal inflation makes many predictions to stand out against the countless other inflation models. But I guess one prediction for an eternal inflationary universe is that space must be infinite. If WMAP finds conclusive evidence the universe is finite, that model will be dead. So in that sense, an infinitely old universe could be falsified within the year. Time will tell.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
It's only a proposal, but indeed avoids the problems of infinity. While inflation may make some predictions, it is not incompatible with the no boundary proposal. They both work.

But I'm not sure eternal inflation makes many predictions to stand out against the countless other inflation models. But I guess one prediction for an eternal inflationary universe is that space must be infinite. If WMAP finds conclusive evidence the universe is finite, that model will be dead. So in that sense, an infinitely old universe could be falsified within the year. Time will tell.

I would not know. I guess that in eternal inflation, time and space are infinite, but the spacetime bubble that comes out of a certain inflating region, is finite in size.
We can only know about the size of our own spacetime bubble.

[Eh]

The problem lies in the fact of the hyperbolic shape. A 3 dimensional hyperbolic closed space simply cannot be embeded by 3D space. You would need at least 4 spatial dimensions in order for there to be more universe outside our visible space-time. I don't know what changes would be required to work with an extra dimensional inflation model.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
One of the philosophical implications of an eternal inflationary universe is that it is paradoxical and infinity not being a number is one of the reasons why.
You're just semi-correct. An eternal inflationary-universe is not logically possible. There's no paradox about it (since it's not a mystery).
... If anything has been inflating for eternity, and there is still space outside of itself in order to maintain the inflation, then that thing has to be a finite entity. Therefore, its inflationary-time is definitely finite.
A finite object cannot inflate for an eternity - it needs an origin of time for the process to begin. And an infinite object has no rational meaning (therefore, as it does not exist, it cannot inflate).

[wuliheron]

You're just semi-correct. An eternal inflationary-universe is not logically possible. There's no paradox about it (since it's not a mystery).

Au Contre, it is infinitely mysteries. For example, because it has no beginning or end, for all I know every instant is somehow both a beginning and an end. Because it has no limit, for all I know eternity itself is also somehow finite. Logically and conceptually it makes no sense in these respects and is as magical an event as I can conceive of. No different from conceiving of the universe just suddenly appearing out of nowhere and nothing. Both inspire awe and it is perhaps this emotional connection above all that is our most accurate way of conceiving eternity.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Au Contre, it is infinitely mysteries. For example, because it has no beginning or end, for all I know every instant is somehow both a beginning and an end.

I was trying to explain why an eternal inflationary-universe was not a viable possibility. I.e.; I was trying to show why time/change/motion has a beginning.

Because it has no limit, for all I know eternity itself is also somehow finite.

It is impossible that a finite entity should have no limits to its physical parameters of existence. That would make it an infinite physical-entity.

Logically and conceptually it makes no sense in these respects

If we are to apply reason to physical manifestation, then there are plenty of decisive conclusions to be gleaned. Like I said - in this respect, there is no mystery.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I was trying to explain why an eternal inflationary-universe was not a viable possibility. I.e.; I was trying to show why time/change/motion has a beginning.

Of course you can show that, but don't forget you can also and equally show that the opposite is true also: that time can't have a beginning. (see thread: Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958)).
Don't forget about that!! i tried to bring that fact into your mind many times.


It is impossible that a finite entity should have no limits to its physical parameters of existence. That would make it an infinite physical-entity.

Not true. For instance the surface of the earth has a finite size, but it is not limited. Nowhere you fall off the earth.


If we are to apply reason to physical manifestation, then there are plenty of decisive conclusions to be gleaned. Like I said - in this respect, there is no mystery.

Except for the mysteries you introduce yourself, when coming up with the concept of a "beginning of time, space, matter, motion", etc. which enables you to come up with this deity thing again..

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You're just semi-correct. An eternal inflationary-universe is not logically possible. There's no paradox about it (since it's not a mystery).
... If anything has been inflating for eternity, and there is still space outside of itself in order to maintain the inflation, then that thing has to be a finite entity. Therefore, its inflationary-time is definitely finite.
A finite object cannot inflate for an eternity - it needs an origin of time for the process to begin. And an infinite object has no rational meaning (therefore, as it does not exist, it cannot inflate).

You're dead wrong here. The eternal inflation paradigm says that the current universe comes out of an inflated region of space which was finite in size, but which is part of a larger universe, that is infinite in size and has infinite history.
The finite object you refer to (the space-time bubble we call "our universe") has a definite begin, but that is not a begin of time as such. The eternal inflation paradigm states that the inflationary universe reproduces itself, so it came out of a previously inflating spacetime-bubble, and this process can go on in all eternity.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I was trying to explain why an eternal inflationary-universe was not a viable possibility. I.e.; I was trying to show why time/change/motion has a beginning.

It is impossible that a finite entity should have no limits to its physical parameters of existence. That would make it an infinite physical-entity.

If we are to apply reason to physical manifestation, then there are plenty of decisive conclusions to be gleaned. Like I said - in this respect, there is no mystery.

This is paraconsistent logic which is also applicable to Quantum Mechanics and any number of paradoxes from which useful and decisive conclusions can be drawn. The difference is, Quantum Mechanics is an applied reality while this is pure speculation. I could literally (?) speculate endlessly about eternity and infinity without finding a single useful bit of information. Thus it has no advantage over any other possible answer.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Of course you can show that, but don't forget you can also and equally show that the opposite is true also: that time can't have a beginning. (see thread: Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958)).
Don't forget about that!! i tried to bring that fact into your mind many times.

Yes; and now you have brought that to my attention, I find your reasoning to be corrupt (not in an immoral sense). I would also advise people to read that thread. They'll discover a few facts:-
1. You advocate that infinite-time is illogical. In fact, your first sentence here is an acknowledgement of this fact.
2. You have no reasonable disproof of a finite causality-chain. The reader should be aware that you (and Tom) just refuse to accept such a conclusion because you both realise that the conclusion infers the existence of 'God'.
3. Your decision to accept '1' is forced upon you by your absolute reluctance to accept the existence of 'God.
4. Your decision to accept '1' is a decision to accept an illogical premise.
5. Your refusal to accept a finite causality-chain is therefore a decision founded upon bias or incredulity. It is not a decision which reflects a reasoned analysis of the concepts involved.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Yes; and now you have brought that to my attention, I find your reasoning to be corrupt (not in an immoral sense). I would also advise people to read that thread. They'll discover a few facts:-
1. You advocate that infinite-time is illogical. In fact, your first sentence here is an acknowledgement of this fact.
2. You have no reasonable disproof of a finite causality-chain. The reader should be aware that you (and Tom) just refuse to accept such a conclusion because you both realise that the conclusion infers the existence of 'God'.
3. Your decision to accept '1' is forced upon you by your absolute reluctance to accept the existence of 'God.
4. Your decision to accept '1' is a decision to accept an illogical premise.
5. Your refusal to accept a finite causality-chain is therefore a decision founded upon bias or incredulity. It is not a decision which reflects a reasoned analysis of the concepts involved.

What is corrupt in my reasoning?

The reasoning is as follows. Both the finiteness (beginning) of time and the infiniteness of time are provable to be absurd, and refusing one, means to accept the other. Ultimately, however, the issue is contradictionary, and remeans so. Cause any attempt to remove the contradiction, creates even more absurd or profound contradictions.

Do you accept that?


Dialectical-materialism incorporates that in their central premises, and so the use of dialectical reasoning (dialectical reasoning is about contradictions) is a part of the very reasoning itself.

We can not escape from that situation.

The arbitrary introduction of a Deity does in total not remove the inherent contradiction, but creates an absurdity in it's own terms.
Because of that, such an artificial addition to reality, is refused.


Some coments:

1. I did not state that infinite time is illogical. I would state quite the opposite that it follows normal reasoning. The only thing that can be said about the infiniteness of time, is that the concept of inifinity isself is a contradictionary term in it's own. The attempt to remove this contradiction, is to remove infinity, which leaves us with the equal, or even more absurd proposition of having time 'started'. What was before that time? A mere nothingness? An unchanging-existence? Where did the first change come from?

2. The disproof of finite-causality, or better stated the proof that such can not be the case, is because it would require time, matter, motion and space to have begun at some 'time' (a time in which in fact, there was no time!). This is inacceptable. There is no physical evidence that such a thing can happen. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that matter can only exist in eternal, neverlasting motion, as this is seen to be the case.

3. The infinitness of time can be well understood and is based on theorems, which we base on material knowledge. Matter does not appear out of nothing. Matter only is in a constant and endless proces of transforming, changing, moving. This can not be said to have begun or end, and therefore the material world, the universe, is unfolding endlessly without begin or end.

4. We have no reason to assume that things in the past or the future work differently as they do now. If one assumes the past or the future the physical laws were different, it is up to that person assuming that to give us proof of that.

5. In part you already accepted the idea that there must be always something, and that at no point in time there can be 'nothing'. This is a reasonable proposition to conclude that therefore an existing material universe, in whatever material form or shape, must have been existing at all time, that is in all of eternity, endlesly.

6. Even when we are stubborn, and refuse the more obvious conclusions, which I have drawn here, and postulate the existence of some 'unknown/unknowable' Deity, what would it help? Is a Deity necessary to 'create' a universe? To create the universe in this manner of speaking would imply that before (before the universe existed, before time [whatever that can mean]) it (the unvierse)did not exist.
What existed before, or what was the state of the world before that? The mere nothing, or "notingness"? That can't be the case for logical reasons, and secondly, then also this Deity which was called for help, did not exist. So, that in fact means that a pre-existing Deity transforms into the world, and becomes the world. In fact it denotes a continuous transformation, not an act of 'creation' (as in 'creation ex nihilo'). But this ain't very helpfull, because instead of explaining the world, and where it comes from, it necessitates us to explain where this Deity came from. Same problems here as for the world itself.

7. So, this attempt doesn't work neither, for obvious reasons. What else might work then? Well, if neither the obvious (an endless, eternal and infinite existence) nor a pre-existing Deity might help, the only other option is that of a beginning of time, which started out of an absolute nothing. Before time, there was nothing. This implies us to believe that motion arises out of no motion, matter out of nothing, and time and space popup all by themselves. It implies us to accept that the "nothingness" is a real existing state of the world, which happens to have existed before the world started to exist. And that "out of nothing" (although it is a state which can not imply any form of change), all of a sudden everything pops out.

Excuse me, Mr Lifegazer, but such a thing I simply refuse to believe.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I will challange such nonsense in the name of mathematics any time I please.


No you wont. There have been enough locked threads because of other members (not naming names) who keep trying to introduce their personal belief to all topics even remotely related to it. It doesn't matter that you think infinity is irrational. I think that Nietzsche's philosophy of all events (in the past) repeating themselves (in the future) is irrational and foolish. That doesn't mean that I'm allowed to insult/mock anyone who tries to make application of that philosophy. Philosophy allows for people to believe differently, and to speculate as to what would occur, if the premise were true.


As I already said Dorathy, if you want to stay in OZ that is your affair. This is a physics philosophy bulletin board, not the land of Oz where anything is possible. One of the philosophical implications of an eternal inflationary universe is that it is paradoxical and infinity not being a number is one of the reasons why.

Yes, this is a philosophy bulletin board. Not a bulletin board dedicated to sarcasm and arrogant patronization.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is corrupt in my reasoning?

The reasoning is as follows. ~**Both** the finiteness (beginning) of time and the infiniteness of time are provable to be absurd~

That's the point: the finiteness of time is not absurd - until you then realise that 'God' is infered. And you reject 'God' because it just feels absurd.

1. I did not state that infinite time is illogical. I would state quite the opposite that it follows normal reasoning.

You've stated it on several occaisions. Most notably, in the first quote of this post. I've highlighted it, for effect.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's the point: the finiteness of time is not absurd - until you then realise that 'God' is infered. And you reject 'God' because it just feels absurd.

You've stated it on several occaisions. Most notably, in the first quote of this post. I've highlighted it, for effect.

We have discussed this issue lenghty in the topic about Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space. It was about Kant's both argument pro- and contra- a finite time. Both were provable, which leads to the absurd situation of a contradiction, cause both can be proven.

Ok, so let us assume for a moment, that we have no way around this, and then we pretend to arbitrary adapt one of the conclusions, and go for finite time. Then time had a beginning, and the universe has an 'absolute' cause, namely God. But that would infer either:
1- That we add to the beginning finite causal chain another infinite causal chain, namely God.
2- Or we state that no cause can be given, and we have to believe that everything came from nothing literally!

It can be shown that case 1 is just the other choise we could have made (the infinity of time), and that 2 is an absolute absurdity, which therefore we refuse.

As explained in another thread the causality argument comes not in the picture when used in a proper way, and does not conflict with an infinite time. Only then namely causality is universally applied, and every event within the universe is based on cause-and-effect relationship. This however - and that is where the application of cuasuality goes wrong - is not applicable to the universe AS A WHOLE, as explained in the other thread. THAT would imply namely to KILL causality. If the universe AS A WHOLE would have had a cause, then causality can not be at the same time be established for every event IN the universe. Your reasoning goes wrong there in the same way as to imply that since all members of the football team have parents, therefore the football team must have a parent. For obvious reasons, that does not have to be the case.

The alternative of infinite time is therefore acceptable, and the only remaining contradiction is that of infinity itself. All attempts to remove the contradiction from infinity, remove in effect infinity itself, and thereby introducing new and more profound contradictions, and in fact, absurd contradictions.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, this is a philosophy bulletin board. Not a bulletin board dedicated to sarcasm and arrogant patronization. [/B]

The famous western philosopher of modern science, Descartes, was famous for his sarcasm. The land of Oz contains all types of strange characters, including such as yourself who endlessly ask the same questions over and over, demand proof that Santa doesn't exist, make personal slams, and then start calling the kettle black.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The famous western philosopher of modern science, Descartes, was famous for his sarcasm. The land of Oz contains all types of strange characters, including such as yourself who endlessly ask the same questions over and over, demand proof that Santa doesn't exist, make personal slams, and then start calling the kettle black.

You can't even see how petty the above kind of posting is, can you?

Oh well, let's stop intruding on the thread. If you have something to say to me, personally, just PM me.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
We have discussed this issue lenghty in the topic about Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space. It was about Kant's both argument pro- and contra- a finite time. Both were provable, which leads to the absurd situation of a contradiction, cause both can be proven.

Ok, so let us assume for a moment, that we have no way around this, and then we pretend to arbitrary adapt one of the conclusions, and go for finite time. Then time had a beginning, and the universe has an 'absolute' cause, namely God. But that would infer either:
1- That we add to the beginning finite causal chain another infinite causal chain, namely God.
2- Or we state that no cause can be given, and we have to believe that everything came from nothing literally!

It can be shown that case 1 is just the other choise we could have made (the infinity of time), and that 2 is an absolute absurdity, which therefore we refuse.

As explained in another thread the causality argument comes not in the picture when used in a proper way, and does not conflict with an infinite time. Only then namely causality is universally applied, and every event within the universe is based on cause-and-effect relationship. This however - and that is where the application of cuasuality goes wrong - is not applicable to the universe AS A WHOLE, as explained in the other thread. THAT would imply namely to KILL causality. If the universe AS A WHOLE would have had a cause, then causality can not be at the same time be established for every event IN the universe. Your reasoning goes wrong there in the same way as to imply that since all members of the football team have parents, therefore the football team must have a parent. For obvious reasons, that does not have to be the case.

The alternative of infinite time is therefore acceptable, and the only remaining contradiction is that of infinity itself. All attempts to remove the contradiction from infinity, remove in effect infinity itself, and thereby introducing new and more profound contradictions, and in fact, absurd contradictions.

Heusdens, you missed one possible explanation. Big Bang theory coupled with String theory. It's my favorite because it doesn't require the use of the word "nothingness", which I abhor, and which has no real meaning anyway.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, you missed one possible explanation. Big Bang theory coupled with String theory. It's my favorite because it doesn't require the use of the word "nothingness", which I abhor, and which has no real meaning anyway.

Yeah, it is called "brane cosmology". I have heard about it, and read about it.

But in what way is that a "different" alternative?

All I know about the ekpyrotic model is that it states or assumes an infinite space and time frame.

Btw. I do not favour this model, nor the Turok-Hawking Instanton "pea", because of several reasons.
Brane and string cosmology have problems inthemselves, in that they are only theory, and are not yet established on empical evidence, and apart from that don't come with the right predictions on the universe we observe.

See for instante the critique of Andrei Linde on both these models.
Type "Andrei Linde" in Google search and find the link to a lecture about eternal / open inflation in which he talks in detail about that, and his own model).

[wuliheron]

You can't even see how petty the above kind of posting is, can you?

Oh well, let's stop intruding on the thread. If you have something to say to me, personally, just PM me.

Still being derogatory and attempting to tell me what to do. PM me yourself fool. Once again, stop handing out advice you aren't willing to take yourself. Get real, grow up.

[Eh]

Colliding branes produce the big bang: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro/index.html

Time is infinite in that model, and each brane is infinite itself. It is still an infinite regress theory, and only the use of imaginary time gives us a real alternative.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Colliding branes produce the big bang: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro/index.html

Time is infinite in that model, and each brane is infinite itself. It is still an infinite regress theory, and only the use of imaginary time gives us a real alternative.

Lookup the link I provided in my earlier post (lecture of Andrei Linde) and you might be confronted that this theory still suffers from major deficits (for example brane stability, which requires all kinds of fine tuning in the branes relative positions, etc.)

It is not very appealing to me, with lack of physcial evidence, to go for 1o-D models of matter in forms of strings, that occur at the Planck level, which lacks any direct experimental evidence (we would need colliders the size of the solar system to produce the necessary energies required there).

[Eh]

Well I'm not going to get into the technical aspects of the theories, since it's over my head. But apparently inflation also has many fined tuned conditions, and has many feeling the theory is very ad hoc.

But I agree that extra dimensional branes are unappealing. It seems less intellectually satisfying to require all kinds of unseen extra dimensions to explain our world than using the 3 of common experience. I must admit I am not a big fan of string theory for this reason (and the fact it's the biggest reductionist theory ever created). However, once you accept curved space as an explanation for gravity, the comfort of our familiar Eucliean world is shattered. Maybe years from now, the idea of extra dimensions won't seem such a stretch. Experimental evidence would certainly help.

[wuliheron]

and the fact it's the biggest reductionist theory ever created

According to everything I've ever read about String theory it most definitely is not a reductionist theory, but a holistic one. It is essentially an extension of Relativity which incorporates the Indeterminacy of QM, both of which are holistic theories.

[Eh]

I've heard proponents of string theory call it holistic as well. But I don't see it. It reduces everything in nature into working parts (vibrating strings) and may eventually cut up the metric tensor into little stringy bits. It may one day elegantly unify QM with GR (which it does not yet do, being background dependent) but it still smells of reductionism.

[wuliheron]

Well, yeah. Relativity itself is a holistic extension of reductionist Newtonian Mechanics so the resemblance to reductionist theories is understandable. Basically, its the geometric aspect that lends it towards such a view as you point out. However, like Relativity it still does not break down the spacetime continuum itself into discrete parts and is still reliant upon shaky definitions of just what exactly a dimension is.

For example, M-theory postulates that size is relative. To the best of my knowledge the theory would be utterly useless without such holistic assumptions.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
I've heard proponents of string theory call it holistic as well. But I don't see it. It reduces everything in nature into working parts (vibrating strings) and may eventually cut up the metric tensor into little stringy bits. It may one day elegantly unify QM with GR (which it does not yet do, being background dependent) but it still smells of reductionism.

Well, actually, it's both reductionist and holistic, as Brian Greene points out in his book.

Also, it does unify QM and GR, because it doesn't allow anything to take place below the Planck length. Thus, it agrees with QM, that at such small sizes, "weirdness" would occur. But, it keeps space "smooth", as in GR, because nothing exists at the sizes required for such "weirdness". (This was an over-simplification, but it's basically the unification.)

[Eh]

Yes, Michio Kaku has made similar claims, but the justification is weak. The primary entity is the string, and the parts are the fundemental things in the universe. Contrast that to a theory like GR, where force=geometry. What is more holistic than a world of pure geometry? Supergravity for example, uses the super metric tensor to describe everything from quarks to the nuclear forces. No countless abritrary parts required.

And as I'm sure you've read before, since string theory is background dependent (the strings move in a background space-time) it cannot be a complete theory of quantum gravity.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Yes, Michio Kaku has made similar claims, but the justification is weak. The primary entity is the string, and the parts are the fundemental things in the universe. Contrast that to a theory like GR, where force=geometry. What is more holistic than a world of pure geometry? Supergravity for example, uses the super metric tensor to describe everything from quarks to the nuclear forces. No countless abritrary parts required.

And as I'm sure you've read before, since string theory is background dependent (the strings move in a background space-time) it cannot be a complete theory of quantum gravity.

Are you sure of that? Doesn't string theory allow for the quantized weirdness, of a quantum theory of gravity, at levels below a Planck Length - and just get rid of them by saying that there is nothing below this size?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you sure of that? Doesn't string theory allow for the quantized weirdness, of a quantum theory of gravity, at levels below a Planck Length - and just get rid of them by saying that there is nothing below this size?

No, that is not what string theory proposes at all. Below the Planck length everything emerges into a parallel universe or mirror world and it is this transition is what supposidly explains the action-at-distance of the forces. In fact, the theory proposes that distances and lengths are all relative.

What it most definitely does not eliminate is Indeterminacy, which is what Ed is really arguing about. He is claiming the theory is attempting to reduce Quantum Indeterminacy to a finite quantity. This is, of course, highly speculative. Exactly where the theory is leading even the most knowledgable people on the subject are reluctant to speculate on and publically claim it most certainly will not resolve Quantum Indeterminacy.

Considering the consistent failures of people to resolve QM in the last century, I tend to take the side of experts when it comes to String theory.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you sure of that? Doesn't string theory allow for the quantized weirdness, of a quantum theory of gravity, at levels below a Planck Length - and just get rid of them by saying that there is nothing below this size?

That's the gist of it. In string theory, there is nothing smaller than the planck length, nor any parallel universes required to explain particle interactions. While quantum jitters still exist, the finite limit on the size prevents those jitters from making space-time a complete mess. But apparently when describing string interactions, it is done on a fixed backdrop of space-time. In other words, strings move about in a metric the same way a point particle would when describing other field interactions. String theorists know this, and it is hoped that a background free version of superstrings will emerge from M theory.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, that is not what string theory proposes at all. Below the Planck length everything emerges into a parallel universe or mirror world and it is this transition is what supposidly explains the action-at-distance of the forces. In fact, the theory proposes that distances and lengths are all relative.

What it most definitely does not eliminate is Indeterminacy, which is what Ed is really arguing about. He is claiming the theory is attempting to reduce Quantum Indeterminacy to a finite quantity. This is, of course, highly speculative. Exactly where the theory is leading even the most knowledgable people on the subject are reluctant to speculate on and publically claim it most certainly will not resolve Quantum Indeterminacy.

Considering the consistent failures of people to resolve QM in the last century, I tend to take the side of experts when it comes to String theory.

When I said that it didn't allow for anything to be below a Plancks length, I meant that it things just started to get bigger (in the "mirror world") when they get that small. Doesn't that release physicists from the need to find out what happens below a Planck's length?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
When I said that it didn't allow for anything to be below a Plancks length, I meant that it things just started to get bigger (in the "mirror world") when they get that small. Doesn't that release physicists from the need to find out what happens below a Planck's length?

Not at all. Their explanation must still fullfill two criteria, Occam's Razor and predictability. Either this explanation is the simplest one that explains what we observe and predicts phenomena nothing else can or it is not a physical theory.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Not at all. Their explanation must still fullfill two criteria, Occam's Razor and predictability. Either this explanation is the simplest one that explains what we observe and predicts phenomena nothing else can or it is not a physical theory.

Not all theories have to satisfy Occam's Razor, in order to be good. I could make something up like lifegazer's Mind hypothesis, and that would satisfy Occam's Razor much better than any scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that I (or lifegazer) would be correct.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not all theories have to satisfy Occam's Razor, in order to be good. I could make something up like lifegazer's Mind hypothesis, and that would satisfy Occam's Razor much better than any scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that I (or lifegazer) would be correct.

A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

Falsification can not be the only standard, cause the theory itself lacks falsification.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
Falsification can not be the only standard, cause the theory itself lacks falsification.

Like I said, If it turned out to be useful they'd trim down to bare essentials and then try to falsify it. In the mean time, it might as well be a bad hollyweird screen play as far as science is concerned.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

How do we know that LG's hypothesis isn't falsifiable?

[Eh]

Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

Oh *smacks self on head (head starting to hurt, after such numerous mistakes)*, I thought of that right after I posted before. I'm sorry. Yes, I guess it is empirically unfalsifiable (much like the religious idea of God's existence), however it seems to be falsifiable by reason.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

In general one can say, that anything that is not existing, has lack of falsification. If something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that one can proof that it doesn't exist. The inability to disproof something does not mean that it can constitute proof.

[Eh]

Correct, absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence. But what it does is make such a hypothesis completely useless. Since it can never be verified, so long as it is logically consistant we can never know if it is correct. That is the problem with ideas such as the mind hypothesis, as whether or not the idea is right will have no effect on our attempts to understand how the world works.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Correct, absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence. But what it does is make such a hypothesis completely useless. Since it can never be verified, so long as it is logically consistant we can never know if it is correct. That is the problem with ideas such as the mind hypothesis, as whether or not the idea is right will have no effect on our attempts to understand how the world works.

Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again, based on nothing more as an assumption. The idea can never be prooved. It can only be proved there is absolutely no evidence for it. So we should just drop the idea all together.

[Eh]

Just try explaining it to LG.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
Just try explaining it to LG.
My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

[FZ+]

Let's repeat that again. You are assuming that the absence of proof for external reality is proof of absence. This is fundamentally incorrect. To work on that assumption is to go beyond the limits to which reason is applicable. So, your post cannot represent a proof, but is a belief in itself.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

You are wrong here. You say that no argument can be used to prove an external reality. There are good few points made that contradict your idea, in the Hudles to the Mind hypothesis thread - which is why, I suspect, you stopped posting on that thread - and you have yet to present any reason for us to abandon belief in an external reality.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

Materialism is not founded on belief. the very essence of materialism is that it is effectively grounded on scientific knowledge of the world. There is only one possibility: either accept science or belief in god (religion). That is what this whole discussion is all about. One cannot establish science without materialism.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism is not founded on belief. the very essence of materialism is that it is effectively grounded on scientific knowledge of the world. There is only one possibility: either accept science or belief in god (religion). That is what this whole discussion is all about. One cannot establish science without materialism.
You don't have to sweat-it anymore. They locked my thread.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You don't have to sweat-it anymore. They locked my thread.

It was obviously leading to nowhere. I hope you don't mind that scientific minded people don't see any reason to leave materialism and replace it with belief in God.

[M. Gaspar]

What was the title of the thread?

And what do you mean "they locked it"?

Tell me what your point was in 20 words or less. Thanks.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What was the title of the thread?

"An argument for the existence of God?"

And what do you mean "they locked it"?

They put a lock on the thread so nobody could post anything else.

Tell me what your point was in 20 words or less. Thanks.

Existence is God.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"An argument for the existence of God?"

They put a lock on the thread so nobody could post anything else.

Existence is God.

What a profound and deep insight this is. Existence is God.
One merely replaces the definition of existence with some other term, and there one has a new philosophy established!

This is just a deep and very profound well, you are digging into. Now one can establish any other philosophy one wants, providing in last instance one claims : "Existence is X" (substitute any X for this).

With that method any foolish theory can be claimed to be true of course.

[Tom Mattson]

Guys:

The god thread is kaput. This thread is for discussing eternal inflation, not for continuing the other thread. Gaspar, if you have questions for LG about his thread, please send him a Private Message.

[heusdens]

LG logic

"I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."


Using logic, the above statement is realy true, but which then does not lead to the conclusion that no such reality exist, but that the instrument of logic in itself is not sufficient to proof this.

Sometimes one needs to actually dig into reality itself, to conclude anything.....

If I lock myself up in my house, and persist in never leaving my house, I will never find out evidence that for instance Sydney (20.000 km from here) exists. How can I ever testify then that Sydney realy exists?