The Infinity Experience: Can we truly comprehend infinity?

[Mentat]

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

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

 

[sage]

clearing misunderstandings

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

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



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

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

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

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by sage
2) drag said an infinite universe can indeed expand.
3) I said the universe we study is NOT infinite.

Correction.
drag said that the point of the Universe
being finite/infinite is irrelevant here as
the thread deals with the possible paradox
of an expanding given infinite Universe.

Originally posted by sage
it CANNOT BE as it began at a big bang a finite
time ago(10 billion?18 billion?estimates vary)but
if an entity began expanding from a point a finite
time ago at no later stage can it be infinite.
it's common sense.

Had I been a sadistic human being I'd ask
you to precisely formalize the connection.
And even if you succeeded in this task I would
then ask you to prove that the type of "common
sense" you used is indeed absolute and
must "make sense".
I guess you should be glad I'm not a sadistic
human being...

Peace and long life.

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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



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

Sage, I agree entirely with you here. In fact, I have been trying to make the same point for some time now".- MENTAT.
no wonder you agree with me mentat.they were originally posted by you!they are quotes!

It sounded like my style, when I first read them. I just assumed you had come really close.

thanks for calling me buddy,and THANK YOU for explaining to me how the universe could indeed have expanded faster than light during inflationary phase.you are my buddy too you know!

Well, good. And you're welcome.

 

[drag]

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

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

 

[HazZy]

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
If there was a time when it wasn't infinite,
it can never become infinite.

Why ?
(I was trying to avoid being sadistic, but
it just didn't work out that way... )

 

[Mentat]

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

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

 

[Mentat]

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

'

I don't like repeating myself...

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

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't like repeating myself...

Can't say I like it either, so I won't...
I'll let you do all the work - go 7 messages
back (including this one).

 

[Mentat]

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

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

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Nothing is instantaneous, according to Relativity

The BB itself doesn't make sense according to
Relativity, so ?
Like I said, this thread was dealing with the
hypothetical case of an infinite Universe and
the related possible paradox, not with the
scientific indication or possibility of the
Universe's nature.

Live long and prosper.

 

[sage]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What is infinity? How can something infinite expand? Once and for all, how can we conclude that the universe is infinite?
.

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

 

[drag]

Greetings !

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

To her...

Originally posted by sage
but before that let's clarify whether a finite quantity can expand to become an infinite one.consider the set of all positive integers.it's infinite.now consider the set{1}.it is a finite subset of the above infinite set with no. of elements being one.now say add other positive integers serially one after another in ascending order such that the set increases by n integers per second with n being finite.so when will the set become infinite?NEVER.or not until infinite time has elapsed.i can give more examples but the fact is iff the universe was finite at the time of the big bang it cannot be infinite today.this applies well to our observable universe which was just a point at the time of the bang.

Did you also remember to tell the Universe
it must follow mathematical logic ?

Originally posted by sage
anyway drag what does a switch has to do with
the universe.enlighten me will you?

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

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

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

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - You're a female? How old are you?

NO ! NO ! NO !
Oh, sorry ! I meant - no, I'm not.
MajinVegeta is, and I believe she said she's 13.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

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

Majin, hmm 13, hmmm. Darn.

 

[heusdens]

Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space

Here is a contribution to this issue of infinity.

http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5"

 

[Mentat]

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

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mentat]

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

Majin, hmm 13, hmmm. Darn.

You know, souding this deperate is not exactly a good strategy... Oh well.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

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

What does the "expansion of the Universe" have
to do with the BB ?!

Anyway, I have to point out (and you do
know, I hope, that I'm a person who ussualy
tends to mind his manners ) that you're
BSing me. Really !
I'm telling you that the Universe could just
become infinite as a hypothetical assumption,
a potentially usefull one for this hypothetical
thread btw, and you're shoving some current
scientific theories in my face saying "no, it's
impossible !". Is science complete ? Do we care
about science in this unscientific hypothetical
debate ?
I'm a very patient person, but it certainly seems
to me that you keep arguing just for the sake
of arguing, tell me it isn't so !

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

Science makes no assumptions. Math is a language
and science uses it to discribe the Universe
(not with perfect success btw, whatever perfect
success might mean) if and when it works
better than other availible languages.

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

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

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

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

Science makes no assumptions.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drag]

Greetings !

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

The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science. Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim.

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

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

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

That is dead wrong.

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

Show me a real science book that says that.
Science doesn't even adress such issues, it just
deals with observation and connected reasoning.
You've been talking to Alexander too much...
He, indeed, believes in science. But, he simply
misinterprets it.

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

Nope, it "metafinited".

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

They have merit as long as you truly mean what you
say and not just talk because you feel you have to.

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

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

Give an example, please.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RuroumiKenshin
Give an example, please.

I did, in my response to drag.

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope, it "metafinited".

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

 

[wimms]

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

Expansion isn't necessarily getting bigger. Take a sugar cube, one piece. Crush it - many pieces. Expansion. Number of distinguishable pieces expands. Think entropy, varing timeflow, evaporation into vacuum, you can get to possible illusion of spatial expansion.

 

[Mentat]

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

That's not expansion, that's decomposition.

Number of distinguishable pieces expands.

Number of distinguishable pieces increases.

 

[wimms]

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

 

[sage]

this thread is getting bizarre.

The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science. Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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

 

[wimms]

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

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

Yes. Number of distinguishable spacetime positions IS 'spacial dimensions themselves'. Particles come only after that. If given particle 'fills' fixed number of spatial positions, it will not 'expand' with space. Purely my opinion. Entropy increases with number of possible states, so I speculate it has to do with it even though particles remain intact.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

I appologize for my late response. I've
been abroad for a few days and now I'm back.

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

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

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

Since niether the finite nor the infinite presents
even partial solutions to the mystery of their existence
I see no reason to consider any solution as absolute,
beyond the likely preferences infered from observation.
If you wish to deal with absolute reasoning
please refer to the God & Religion forum.

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

I'm not trying to solve anything and nor am I
presenting any scientific basis. I'm just making
a hypothetical assumption because this thread
has made it enitially already and then went on
to discuss the possibilities of expansion in
such a case. BTW, this IS a reasoning system just
like any other. It just doesn't appear to apply to
observation, for now.

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

No, it just deals with observation.
They don't mention this part in physics
books because they wan'na save the forests.
We just have observed data, "outside" makes no
scientific sense in addition to what's observed.

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

And what was that scientific problem, Mentat ?

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

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

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Hey Majin ! Why did you change your username ?

 

[iron~orchid]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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

The answer is "Two, inside and outside."

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

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

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

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

Thanks.....have nice thoughts!

 

[heusdens]

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

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what was that scientific problem, Mentat ?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drag]

Greetings !

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

I'm loosing the thread of thought here.
In general, observation as I meant it is not something
that has a strict definition. It's just everything = existence.

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

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

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, your idea is not an hypothecical assumption,
as hypotheses can be tested.

O.K. Mind proving the inability of proof for my
hypothetical assumption ?
(You see the difference in our approaches to
assumptions ? You make absolute assumptions and
are naturally asked to prove their absoluteness.
btw, in most cases you still keep arguing to
no awail - don't know why , are you regarding
our discussions as "win or loose" ? Not a very smart
attitude if you ask me.
Anyway, I just make probabalistic assumptions and
again if you disagree with them the burden of
proof of their impossibility is upon you.
Now, this is NOT a way to "win" arguments. I really
don't care if I end up looking like a complete
idiot , sometimes...
This is just the way that appears to be the most
basic in argument construction or indeed in
reasoning - the Antrophic principle. Again, even
that may be shown probabalisticly wrong in the future,
but today and throughout human history it's been
pretty reliable...)

Originally posted by Mentat
Then it is not science, and should restrict itself from
scientific forums.

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

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't understand this, what do you mean?

What's "outside" ?
You think your PC screen is "outside" of "you" ?
Scientificly that term makes no sense. Physics
uses the concept of distance that is a parmeter
applied to a certain type of observation data.
But, except saying that that piece of observation
data is inconsistent according to our applied reasoning,
which is clearly not the case, there is apparently
nothing more that one can accuse science of here.

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

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

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

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

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

Do not confuse this with the reason he was banned.
The reason he was banned was connected to the fact
that he did try to present such "evidence" by
twisting science (sometimes in interesting, but most
times in rather clumsy ways resulting from his
relative poor knowledge of it) and by not really listening
to people trying to correct him, thus creating some
misleading threads with misleading subjects which
had the potential of misguiding the perspectives
of other members. (Still, though neccessary, it's ashame he was banned...)

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

Can you make the separation ?
Does Science (and in the remote case that after reading
this message you'll still say "yes", please do provide
an explanation ) ?

Peace and long life.

 

[Mentat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
What are you talking about? Infinity's strict definition is that it goes on forever. Part of finity's strict definition is that it does not go on forever.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Mentat
One cannot ever become the other. They are of a
qualitatively different order.

Prove it, please.

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

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

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

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

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

The same as the previous response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Prove it, please.

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

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

Then look again.

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

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

The same as the previous response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zantra]

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

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

 

[drag]

Greetings !

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

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

It's a hypothetical process I proposed, remember ?
If I knew how it is done it would be more than
just hypothetical. Now, don't try to play reverse
psychology on me cause if you say something's
impossible you're the one who has to prove it.

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

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

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

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

Another example - I consider everything that is
mathematicly consistent and appears to discribe
observation to be science. This approach is based
upon the reasoning that math applies to observation.
This in turn has it's source in the fact that it
appears to us that most observation data includes
some basic common principles that we summed up in
the form of mathematics.

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

I don't think I understand the relevance here.

The distinction you're making is a distinction within
observation. But, for something to really be "outside"
one needs to prove that something exists that is
independent of observation (which I personally think
is probably impossible because I think that existence
and observation are most likely inseprable synonyms in
this respect).

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

That's because they do not really know how to do without it,
for now at least. The most fundumental principles
of our reasoning are separate entities, empty space
and more. Further more, the issue becomes much
less of a problem at macroscopic scales. So, approximations
do fine for the most part aspecially considering that
all macroscopic scale sciences are still full of these.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

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

.

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

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

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

 

[drag]

Greetings Zantra !

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

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

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

Live long and prosper.