What Laws Explain the Infinitude of the Universe?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Logic is of[/b] the ImagInatIon, inseperable.

Logic is a symbolic representation. The PURE imagination is not.

There is your differentiation (not a separation as nothing can be truly separated from anything else).

Not if 'one'concedes that all concepts are, inherently, "bounded" things, the only other manner is the typicono'graphic that is the word "Infinite" itself, but that word incapable of describing that which it attempts to tell of/describe. (fun eh?)

ALL concepts are finite, that is a given.

By your reasoning then there is virtually nothing that we can truly understand because we cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever. The mind has to simplify everything via sensation, imagination, or logic.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes! in your imagination you can conceive of a Euclidian line, but as anyone who studies reality, by structures, knows that the 'straight' line is a misnomer, it is a series of POINTS, as all structures, in physics, at atomic levels, currently known, are spherical.

3D

By definition, points are zero dimentional. You are introducing the real world as if it were an aspect of the abstraction of Euclidean geometry (or vice versa). This is logic flaw.

It seems to be no change in positions and most of the points I've made haven't been addressed. So I feel it's time for me to withdraw from this discussion.

Kindest Regards,

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP)By definition, points are zero dimentional. (SNoP) You are introducing the real world as if it were an aspect of the abstraction of Euclidean geometry (or vice versa).

17/07/2003

So you think that a point can be defined as “Zero Dimensions”, perhaps in (imaginary) mathematics, but not in reality, as reality defines a point as 'solid', having existence, "Being There", (sounds like the title of a movie doesn't it?) and "Zero Dimensions" is definitely NOT there.

A "Zero dimension point" is an oxymoron. (as anything other then an Imaginary item)

As I recall it, in Physics, we describe reality, that which "is".

It is respectfully suggested that you adhere to your own observation, which is easily seen as being that of your own self-perception, reflected off of me, and presented by you as...

Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP) This is logic flaw. (SNoP)

Then again, as you seem to have indicated your departure, this has no Point! (Pardons the pun!)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
17/07/2003

So you think that a point can be defined as “Zero Dimensions”, perhaps in (imaginary) mathematics, but not in reality, as reality defines a point as 'solid', having existence, "Being There", (sounds like the title of a movie doesn't it?) and "Zero Dimensions" is definitely NOT there.

A "Zero dimension point" is an oxymoron. (as anything other then an Imaginary item)

As I recall it, in Physics, we describe reality, that which "is".

EXACTLY! Mathematics is imaginary and not equivalent to reality. This deep confusion between mathematics and reality is the sickness of modern physics!

Infinity exists independently of mathematics and any logic system.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Logic is a symbolic representation. The PURE imagination is not.
PURE imagination is a BLANK PAGE!

There is your differentiation (not a separation as nothing can be truly separated from anything else).



ALL concepts are finite, that is a given.

By your reasoning then there is virtually nothing that we can truly understand because we cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever. The mind has to simplify everything via sensation, imagination, or logic.

From whence in "My Reasoning" do you find what follows in your statement; "cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever" , where?? where in what I have said do you see that?? where??

In that "unascribed quotation" (of me!) I speak ONLY of the 'thing' "Infinity" and how we use a typicono'graphic to tag/name that which we realize we cannot conceive of.

Where do you find that thing about the inability to imagine anything of any true complexity?? where??

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
that a point can be defined as “Zero Dimensions”, perhaps in (imaginary) mathematics, but not in reality, as reality defines a point as 'solid', having existence, "Being There", (sounds like the title of a movie doesn't it?) and "Zero Dimensions" is definitely NOT there.

A "Zero dimension point" is an oxymoron. (as anything other then an Imaginary item)

As I recall it, in Physics, we describe reality, that which "is".

This is the first thing you learn in 8th grade geometry. A point is zero dimensional (ie, it has no length, width, or height), a line is one dimensional (it has length but no width or height), a shape such as a square is two dimensional (length and width but no height, and an object such as a box is three dimensional (length, width, and height).

It sounds like you two are mistaking the point itself being zero dimensional for its LOCATION being zero dimensional. Its location can be expressed in any amount of dimensions you wish depending on the situation (ie, points on a map are located two dimensionally, points in space three dimensionally).

EXACTLY! Mathematics is imaginary and not equivalent to reality. This deep confusion between mathematics and reality is the sickness of modern physics!

Thats a separate and often controversial issue. Is that the root of your distaste for "standard" physics? That would explain an awful lot about where your misconceptions come from.

Virtually everything derived mathematically about physics has later been confirmed by observation to be physically real. This often leads to uncomfortable discoveries - black holes for example were a source of debate on this grounds until they were discovered (their existence was predicted through mathematical derivation long before HST found the first one). Much of quantum mechanics has had the same type of controversy though to my knowledge NOTHING implied by the math has yet to be found inconsistent with physical reality. Ie, nothing that has ever been predicted mathematically by QM has ever been found to be at odds with later experimentation. Even the uncomfortable implications.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
PURE imagination is a BLANK PAGE!

No, PURE imagination is syntax independent. It's "symbols" are not part of a rigorous logic system.

From whence in "My Reasoning" do you find what follows in your statement; "cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever" , where?? where in what I have said do you see that?? where??

You are saying that since we cannot imagine the fullness of infinity then we cannot understand it whatsoever. The fact is that we cannot imagine the fullness of ANYTHING in this physical world, so by your logic we can't understand anything.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is the first thing you learn in 8th grade geometry. A point is zero dimensional (ie, it has no lenght, width, or height), a line is one dimensional (it has length but no width or height), a shape such as a square is two dimensional (length and width but no height, and an object such as a box is three dimensional (length, width, and height).

It sounds like you two are mistaking the point itself being zero dimensional for its LOCATION being zero dimensional. Its location can be expressed in any amount of dimensions you wish depending on the situation (ie, points on a map are located two dimensionally, points in space three dimensionally).

Yes russ in Imaginary realms things can be whatever you would like them to be, concepts in math are included in being things that can contain imaginary elements, but in this discourse we are supposed to be talking about REALITY, Hence tangiblity becomes a critical factor in whether, or not, what you talking about, is real, or not.

It seems that the point being missed is exactly that, the differentiation between what your imagination can do, and what reality does do! It should be noted that your imagination does "imaginary", reality DOES NOT!

EDIT SP!??

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is the first thing you learn in 8th grade geometry. A point is zero dimensional (ie, it has no length, width, or height), a line is one dimensional (it has length but no width or height), a shape such as a square is two dimensional (length and width but no height, and an object such as a box is three dimensional (length, width, and height).

So we have a symbol system for quantifying reality.

It sounds like you two are mistaking the point itself being zero dimensional for its LOCATION being zero dimensional.

no such confusion here.

Thats a separate and often controversial issue. Is that the root of your distaste for "standard" physics? That would explain an awful lot about where your misconceptions come from.

No, the root of my distaste is that standard model is wrong at the core. This is only visible if you get outside the system and can see it from another comparable system. The reason we have resorted to pure mathematics as a causal description is that we have no other choice in the standard model. This is because the roots are faulty and they cannot be thrown out. Too much infrastructure and too painfull.

Virtually everything derived mathematically about physics has later been confirmed by observation to be physically real.

Nope. It is all just an interpretation of the data. There are other more coherent and comprehensive interpretations for which these things are "proof" as well.

This often leads to uncomfortable discoveries - black holes for example were a source of debate on this grounds until they were discovered (their existence was predicted through mathematical derivation long before HST found the first one).

They have not been discovered. They are used to fill in the holes of the standard model, LITERALLY!

Much of quantum mechanics has had the same type of controversy though to my knowledge NOTHING implied by the math has yet to be found inconsistent with physical reality.

It is constantly being retro-fitted to the surprising new data, how could it ever be proven wrong? The only way to supplant it is to show a simpler more coherent system, which already exists.

Ie, nothing that has ever been predicted mathematically by QM has ever been found to be at odds with later experimentation. Even the uncomfortable implications.

Yeah right. These constant suprises are simply dealt with in the standard manner of retro-fitting the theory to new contradictory data so that now it can "predict" them! An abuse of the term "predict' if you ask me!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes russ in Imaginary realms things can be whatever you would like them to be, concepts in math are included in being things that can contain imaginary elements, but in this discourse we are supposed to be talking about REALITY, Hence tangiblity becomes a critical factor in whether, or not, what you talking about, is real, or not.

It seems that the point being missed is exactly that, the differentiation between what your imagination can do, and what reality does do! It should be noted that your imagination does "imaginary", reality DOES NOT!

So then the fact that a square has length and width is a figment of my imagination?

Whoa.

Nevermind. There is no point (no pun intended) to continuing this discussion.

edit: One thing I must note, and I think its been addressed before, but you and Sub are using circular and arbitrary definitions. Ie, by definition A=B, therefore A=B. Then someone points out that either in the real world or by mathematical derivation, A does NOT equal B, you go back to your definition.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP) So then the fact that a square has length and width is a figment of my imagination?

Whoa. (SNoP)

Just outa curiosity, just where, in what you quote from me, do you derive the idea that something tangible is now a figment of your imagination??

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Just outa curiosity, just where, in what you quote from me, do you derive the idea that something tangible is now a figment of your imagination??

Ok, I guess you have sucked me in. Let's start with a clarification:

Does a square have a physically real length and width?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ok, I guess you have sucked me in. Let's start with a clarification:

Does a square have a physically real length and width?

There is metrical extension and there is physical extension.

Is the square physical? Or is it a figment of your imagination?

Let's start with a physical cube instead. This cube has a real physical extension, which can be assigned an arbitrary set of dimensional values depending on the unit system employed. The dimensioning system is imaginary but the physical extension is real and independent of any dimensional system.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
There is metrical extension and there is physical extension.

Is the square physical? Or is it a figment of your imagination?

Let's start with a physical cube instead. This cube has a real physical extension, which can be assigned an arbitrary set of dimensional values depending on the unit system employed. The dimensioning system is imaginary but the physical extension is real and independent of any dimensional system.

Ok, that's still not clear. Does the cube have 3 physically real dimensions or not?

You seem to be implying (whether or not MRP agrees, I'll leave up to him) that the dimensions exist only in my mind. So a cube does NOT have 3 real physical dimensions?

How then do you know that its a cube? Hell, how do you even know its real - that it even exists?

 

[Hurkyl]

A more pressing question is how do we verify whether or not something has physical extension? What measurable properties does physical extension have?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ok, that's still not clear. Does the cube have 3 physically real dimensions or not?

Dimensions are not physically real.

You seem to be implying (whether or not MRP agrees, I'll leave up to him) that the dimensions exist only in my mind. So a cube does NOT have 3 real physical dimensions?

exactly

How then do you know that its a cube? Hell, how do you even know its real - that it even exists? [/B]

I can see it. Do you have to measure something and categorize it to know it exists?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A more pressing question is how do we verify whether or not something has physical extension? What measurable properties does physical extension have?

Everything real has physical extension. Depends on what it is and the measurement tools at our disposal.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I can see it. Do you have to measure something and categorize it to know it exists?

You could know the thing exists; but you couldn't know what the thing was. You wouldn't know if it was a cube, square, gallon of milk, or Carmen Electra, if you (or your visual cortex, on behalf of you) weren't able to measure its properties.

- Warren

 

[Hurkyl]

Everything real has physical extension. Depends on what it is and the measurement tools at our disposal.

How do we know if something is real? Unless we have a way to know if something is real, this does not provide a way to verify if it has physical extension.

What if the measurement tools are atomic clocks and light beams?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
You could know the thing exists; but you couldn't know what the thing was. You wouldn't know if it was a cube, square, gallon of milk, or Carmen Electra, if you (or your visual cortex, on behalf of you) weren't able to measure its properties.

- Warren

My eyes work just fine thank you

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How do we know if something is real? Unless we have a way to know if something is real, this does not provide a way to verify if it has physical extension.

What if the measurement tools are atomic clocks and light beams?

open your eyes

measurements simply contribute to our senses which are proof enough that something exists

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
My eyes work just fine thank you

What does this response even mean?

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
What does this response even mean?

- Warren

"You wouldn't know if it was a cube, square, gallon of milk, or Carmen Electra, if you (or your visual cortex, on behalf of you) weren't able to measure its properties."

I think I would know if it was a cube or a square or a gallon of milk or carmen electra, whether or not I actually measured them.

Thus: "My eyes work just fine thank you"

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A more pressing question is how do we verify whether or not something has physical extension? What measurable properties does physical extension have?

I was getting to that... but you seem to have picked up just about exactly where I left off.

My eyes work just fine thank you

I think I would know if it was a cube or a square or a gallon of milk or carmen electra, whether or not I actually measured them.

Really? Based on what? How do you define a cube? How do you define Carmen Electra? If you don't measure the length of every side of the cube and find them to be exactly the same, how do you know it is a cube?

So basically we have established that you believe something can be physically real only if you can see it, even though seeing it doesn't allow you to exactly identify it (easy there, Descartes, not everyone agrees with him). Guess what, Sub - that means you aren't real. I can't see you. But The Matrix is real because I saw it! I guess this also means you don't love your mother then, right? Love isn't an object I can see.

But wait, just because you can see something, doesn't mean you know WHAT IT IS. Sammy Sosa's bats all look the same from the outside. So even seeing isn't believing!

Sub, the point of my forray into the dimensions debate is your philosophy of REALITY ITSELF is fatally flawed, and that's where your misunderstandings of science begin. A bunch of people have been arguing theories with you (chroot seems a little frustrated...) when your objection is so basic people don't even think about it - you don't understand the concept of REALITY itself.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Really? Based on what? How do you define a cube? How do you define Carmen Electra? If you don't measure the length of every side of the cube and find them to be exactly the same, how do you know it is a cube?

are you serious? A cube is quite easily recognizable. Do you mean to tell me that when you look at a cube you have to get out your measuring tape just to tell if it is a cube? [[ don't tell me that you are expecting to find a PERFECT cube in the wild! They don't physically exist! ]]

So basically we have established that you believe something can be physically real only if you can see it

You have made an incorrect assumption. I said that if we can see it then this proves that in some way this "thing" is physically real. I did not say that this is the only way that i can believe in the reality of something. Please don't put words or conclusions into my mouth. Try and pay attention to what is actually said.

[[ even a dream has a physical basis after-all ... right?? ]]

Guess what, Sub - that means you aren't real. I can't see you.

Oh, no. Here comes the epistemological banalities!

But The Matrix is real because I saw it! I guess this also means you don't love your mother then, right? Love isn't an object I can see.

...and there they go... no further comments about these innane topics.

But wait, just because you can see something, doesn't mean you know WHAT IT IS.

This is OBVIOUS

Sub, the point of my forray into the dimensions debate is your philosophy of REALITY ITSELF is fatally flawed, and that's where your misunderstandings of science begin.

You do not know what my philosophy is. This is quite apparent.

A bunch of people have been arguing theories with you (chroot seems a little frustrated...) when your objection is so basic people don't even think about it - you don't understand the concept of REALITY itself.

Please tell me what reality is then.

 

[Hurkyl]

So I ask again, how do I verify if something is real?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
[[ don't tell me that you are expecting to find a PERFECT cube in the wild! They don't physically exist! ]]

Then there is no such thing as a cube? Wait, let's back up:

A cube is quite easily recognizable. Do you mean to tell me that when you look at a cube you have to get out your measuring tape just to tell if it is a cube?

According to whom? What to you may look like a cube to me may not - maybe I have better eyes. Maybe I'm looking at it from a different angle. Maybe according to me a cube is only a cube if its sides are exactly the same length (isn't that the definition?). "Perfect cube" is redundant. Maybe we are in the Matrix (Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real...?" I'm sure you know the rest). Are you saying that reality is entirely subjective? It exists only in one's mind (of course, that would be a contradiction though)?

You have made an incorrect assumption. I said that if we can see it then this proves that in some way this "thing" is physically real. I did not say that this is the only way that i can believe in the reality of something. Please don't put words or conclusions into my mouth. Try and pay attention to what is actually said.

Ok, but you still have not said how you defne reality. If sight isn't the only way, how else? C'mon, tell us. Is there a QUANTATATIVE way to identify anything? Or is reality only identifiable QUALiTATIVELY (and by definition, subjectively)?

even a dream has a physical basis after-all ... right??

As I understand them, dreams are entirely a construct of your mind.

Oh, no. Here comes the epistemological banalities!

No, sub. These are logical conclusions based on your flawed perception of reality. If my understanding of your perception is wrong, CLARIFY IT! Tell me: how exactly do you define what is "real"? And along with that, how do you positively identify something.

This is OBVIOUS [re: eyes can decieve you]

But you said in the beginning of your post, you could identify a cube on sight. If you understand that seeing isn't always believing, isn't that a contradiction?

You do not know what my philosophy is. This is quite apparent.

Then TELL ME!

Please tell me what reality is then.

No. I'm asking YOU how YOU define reality. My interpretation of your statements is that your definion of reality is wrong - so if you think your definition of reality is right, tell me what your definition of reality is. Explain it to me. Tell me where I have erred in my interpretation of your perception.

Incidentally, I think you can probably guess where I'm going with this. And that might be a reason for you to decline to clarify (or intentionally make your position LESS clear).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets back up a little, russ you quoted me saying this;

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes russ in Imaginary realms things can be whatever you would like them to be, concepts in math are included in being things that can contain imaginary elements, but in this discourse we are supposed to be talking about REALITY, Hence tangiblity becomes a critical factor in whether, or not, what you talking about, is real, or not.

Then you said;

Originally posted by russ_watters
So then the fact that a square has length and width is a figment of my imagination?

The numbers themselves (as existent) or "imaginary elements" that are representative of a tangible reality, hence it is an application of imaginary overlay upon physical reality to facilitate imagining exterior, self evident (By consensus of opinion, prefferably) tangible reality.

The length and width are by no means a figment of imagination, event thought the numbers themselves are simply "imagined" representation.

Not all of the concepts in math are strictly imaginary, but the numbers, as thoughts, are 'sorta' imaginary, but used (and Highly usefull!) and accepted as being "imagined" upon/in reality, in an attempt to adequately describe it.

Does that help?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Lets back up a little...Does that help?

Yes. That would appear to me to be about halfway in between what I believe and what Sub believes. But I'm still trying to get him to clarify as you have. I'll get back to you on how I disagree (or if I'm really good, I'll convince you of a slight inconsistency I see ).

 

[heusdens]

On the problem of infinity in space and time
From: Friedrich Enels, Anti-Duhring (1877)
Chapter V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.

[...]

The problem itself has a very simple solution. Eternity in time, infinity in space, signify from the start, and in the simple meaning of the words, that there is no end in any direction neither forwards nor backwards, upwards or downwards, to the right or to the left. This infinity is something quite different from that of an infinite series, for the latter always starts from one, with a first term. The inapplicability of this idea of series to our object becomes clear directly we apply it to space. The infinite series, transferred to the sphere of space, is a line drawn from a definite point in a definite direction to infinity. Is the infinity of space expressed in this even in the remotest way? On the contrary, the idea of spatial dimensions involves six lines drawn from this one point in three opposite directions, and consequently we would have six of these dimensions. Kant saw this so clearly that he transferred his numerical series only indirectly, in a roundabout way, to the space relations of the world. Herr Dühring, on the other hand, compels us to accept six dimensions in space, and immediately afterwards can find no words to express his indignation at the mathematical mysticism of Gauss, who would not rest content with the usual three dimensions of space [37] {See D. Ph. 67-68}.

As applied to time, the line or series of units infinite in both directions has a certain figurative meaning. But if we think of time as a series counted from one forward, or as a line starting from a definite point, we imply in advance that time has a beginning: we put forward as a premise precisely what we are to prove. We give the infinity of time a one-sided, halved character; but a one-sided, halved infinity is also a contradiction in itself, the exact opposite of an "infinity conceived without contradiction". We can only get past this contradiction if we assume that the one from which we begin to count the series, the point from which we proceed to measure the line is anyone in the series, that it is anyone of the points in the line, and that it is a matter of indifference to the line or to the series where we place this one or this point.

But what of the contradiction of "the counted infinite numerical series"? We shall be in a position to examine this more closely as soon as Herr Dühring has performed for us the clever trick of counting it. When he has completed the task of counting from - = (minus infinity) to 0 let him come again. It is certainly obvious that, at whatever point he begins to count, he will leave behind him an infinite series and, with it, the task which he is to fulfil. Let him just reverse his own infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... and try to count from the infinite end back to 1; it would obviously only be attempted by a man who has not the faintest understanding of what the problem is. And again: if Herr Dühring states that the infinite series of elapsed time has been counted, he is thereby stating that time has a beginning; for otherwise he would not have been able to start "counting" at all. Once again, therefore, he puts into the argument, as a premise, the thing that he has to prove.

The idea of an infinite series which has been counted, in other words, the world-encompassing Dühringian law of definite number, is therefore a contradictio in adjecto ["contradiction in definition" -- ed.] contains within itself a contradiction, and in fact an absurd contradiction.

It is clear that an infinity which has an end but no beginning is neither more nor less infinite than that which has a beginning but no end. The slightest dialectical insight should have told Herr Dühring that beginning and end necessarily belong together, like the north pole and the south pole, and that if the end is left out, the beginning just becomes the end -- the one end which the series has; and vice versa. The whole deception would be impossible but for the mathematical usage of working with infinite series. Because in mathematics it is necessary to start from definite, finite terms in order to reach the indefinite, the infinite, all mathematical series, positive or negative, must start from 1, or they cannot be used for calculation. The abstract requirement of a mathematician is, however, far from being a compulsory law for the world of reality.

For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. 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. Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction.

[...]

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So I ask again, how do I verify if something is real?

sensation is the root of all measurement

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
sensation is the root of all measurement

So only something that can be perceived with the 5 senses is physically real? Is the corollary also true? If something is perceived with one or more of the five senses, does that make it real? And what does measurement have to do with this? Can (must?) what is physically real be expressed quantatatively? In the previous page you said you do NOT need to measure a cube to know its a cube.

Explain, please. The root of your displeasure with math and physics as structured around math seems to be that it doesn't adequately deal with physical reality. Please explain what physical reality is.

I've noticed your answers are getting shorter and shorter. I know I am asking difficult and leading questions, but they are important questions.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Then there is no such thing as a cube?

A perfect cube is an idealization. It cannot and does not truly exist because you cannot get an absolutely (infinitely) precise measurement to construct it with.

Wait, let's back up: According to whom? What to you may look like a cube to me may not - maybe I have better eyes.

All humans can recognize a cube when we see one. Come on is this really so difficult to understand?

Maybe I'm looking at it from a different angle. Maybe according to me a cube is only a cube if its sides are exactly the same length (isn't that the definition?).

It doesn't matter. We humans generally have fuzzy definitions that suffice. Also you can never have a REAL cube with ABSOLUTELY EXACT dimensions because there is no way of manufacturing one. Even with nanotechnology we are limited to the precision of atoms and thus when you zoom in you will find that there are no planes nor lines nor points making up your cube.

Mathematics deals with idealizations not absolute realities.

"Perfect cube" is redundant.

When I say cube (as in one existing in the wild) I don't mean one with absolute precision in its dimensions. Therefore I have to specify EXACTLY what I do mean because this is a source of confusion here because you ARE talking about a perfect cube and I am not.

Is a sugar cube not a cube?

Maybe we are in the Matrix (Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real...?" I'm sure you know the rest). Are you saying that reality is entirely subjective? It exists only in one's mind (of course, that would be a contradiction though)? Ok, but you still have not said how you defne reality. If sight isn't the only way, how else? C'mon, tell us. Is there a QUANTATATIVE way to identify anything? Or is reality only identifiable QUALiTATIVELY (and by definition, subjectively)? As I understand them, dreams are entirely a construct of your mind.

So you believe in a spirit? Or do you believe that dreams are an effect of your brain?

An illusion is a subset of the real. To me the difference between the real and the illusory is in what they appear to be vs. what they actually are. If they appear to be something that they are not then they are an illusion. Illusions are entirely real of course otherwise they would not exist.

No, sub. These are logical conclusions based on your flawed perception of reality. If my understanding of your perception is wrong, CLARIFY IT!

So my perception of reality is flawed yet you do not understand it?

Is everything that you do not understand, necessarily flawed? That is quite a limiting reaction to novelty! Good luck evolving.

Tell me: how exactly do you define what is "real"?

Something that exists. Existence has its roots in causality, of course.

And along with that, how do you positively identify something.

sensation...

But you said in the beginning of your post, you could identify a cube on sight. If you understand that seeing isn't always believing, isn't that a contradiction?

I never made a claim that my senses were perfect, but they are the root of all measurements and identifications. Think about it, could you identify or measure something without sensing it?

Then TELL ME! No. I'm asking YOU how YOU define reality.

You TELL ME!

My interpretation of your statements is that your definion of reality is wrong

Everything foreign to you is wrong...

Incidentally, I think you can probably guess where I'm going with this. And that might be a reason for you to decline to clarify (or intentionally make your position LESS clear).

yes, you feel a desperate need to prove me wrong so that you can safely ignore my claims that the standard model is wrong. I have seen it a million times before. Instead of being curious you are fearful and are compelled to prove to yourself that I am unqualified to make any true statements.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So only something that can be perceived with the 5 senses is physically real?

How many times do I have to deny this assumption for you to hear it?

Is the corollary also true? If something is perceived with one or more of the five senses, does that make it real?

In some sense, yes, provided you know the true nature of illusions.

And what does measurement have to do with this? Can (must?) what is physically real be expressed quantatatively?

It can but it does not have to be.

The root of your displeasure with math and physics as structured around math seems to be that it doesn't adequately deal with physical reality.

That is not the root of my "displeasure". The root, as I have already told you is that it is incorrect. This root error prevents it from acheiving an actual understanding of the causality beneath the empty equations which DO adequately describe the relationships and ratios of physical reality.

I've noticed your answers are getting shorter and shorter. I know I am asking difficult and leading questions, but they are important questions.

lol, yes groping for some semblance of order. Did you run some calculations on your statistics to find my state of mind? [zz)]

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by heusdens
On the problem of infinity in space and time
From: Friedrich Enels, Anti-Duhring (1877)
Chapter V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.

[...]


For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. 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 solution is that the finite is composed of divisions of the infinite and continuous! Not that the infinite is composed out of multiplications of the finite. If you start with infinity there is no reason that it cannot be divided, but if you start with the finite there is no way you can ever reach infinity.

"Multiplication through division " as Buckminster Fuller says.


Thank you heusdens for that fascinating material!

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
A perfect cube is an idealization. It cannot and does not truly exist because you cannot get an absolutely (infinitely) precise measurement to construct it with.

You're getting too caught up with the 'absolutely exactly' notion. We're not requiring perfect cubes here. Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty will do.

All humans can recognize a cube when we see one. Come on is this really so difficult to understand?

It is in fact extremely difficult to understand -- ask any cognitive scientist, or any computer scientist working in machine vision. The task of going from an array of pixels to a perception of a cube (versus a perception of, say, Carmen Electra) is enormously complex. I have no clue why you seem to think it's trivial.

The point I've made is simple: your brain (automatically) measures the dimensions of the things you look at. Your brain immediately recognizes that the silly-putty object has three dimensions that are (roughly) the same, and tags the object as a (shoddy) cube. Were it not for dimensions, and your brain's ability to measure along them, you would be not capable of discerning a cube from Carmen Electra. Perception requires measurement.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, from your posts, I'm going to construct what your definition of reality appears to be. Please correct anything that doesn't fit with your actual beliefs.

Originally posted by subtillioN
A perfect cube is an idealization. It cannot and does not truly exist because you cannot get an absolutely (infinitely) precise measurement to construct it with.

So there is no such thing as a cube. From this it follows that NO object can be positively identified. And:

All humans can recognize a cube when we see one. Come on is this really so difficult to understand?

Ok, so from this and the first quote, what we have here is Rule #1 of your definition of reality.

1. Reality is entirely subjective (corollary, there is no such thing as objective reality).

We humans generally have fuzzy definitions that suffice. Also you can never have a REAL cube with ABSOLUTELY EXACT dimensions because there is no way of manufacturing one. Even with nanotechnology we are limited to the precision of atoms and thus when you zoom in you will find that there are no planes nor lines nor points making up your cube.

Fine. This builds on rule number 1 and from it you get rule number 2.

2. Definitions are subjective.

Which follows number 3:

3. Reality is undefinable.

When I say cube (as in one existing in the wild) I don't mean one with absolute precision in its dimensions. Therefore I have to specify EXACTLY what I do mean because this is a source of confusion here because you ARE talking about a perfect cube and I am not.

Is a sugar cube not a cube?

Well following what you said above, a cube is a cube if you say its a cube and its not a cube if I say its not a cube. Its entirely subjective. And from this we get 4:

4. Reality exists only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder.

I'll let go for now the obvious implication of all of this that if there is no such thing as length, width, or height, there is really no such thing as physical reality.

So you believe in a spirit? Or do you believe that dreams are an effect of your brain?

It has nothing to do with a spirit. A dream is not something that can be detected by your five senses. Whatever its cause, it exists entirely in your own mind. Then again, that would seem to fit with #4 - it exists in your mind and that makes it real?

So my perception of reality is flawed yet you do not understand it?

Is everything that you do not understand, necessarily flawed? That is quite a limiting reaction to novelty! Good luck evolving.

I said that if I am wrong, clarify it. Please do. So far all of your (limited) clarifications have reinforced the perception. This is one of the main differences between you and me (and maybe this is why we are having trouble here). I WANT to understand your opinion. I WANT you to clarify and teach me what you believe. You have stated repeatedly that you do NOT want to understand the alternatives (Relativity for example) to your beliefs.

[re: what is real?] Something that exists.

Thats a circular argument using synonyms - something exists because it is real and something is real because it exists. How do you know something exists? (yeah, yeah, because its real - tell me WHY).

Existence has its roots in causality, of course.

Interesting. Could you expand on that?

I never made a claim that my senses were perfect, but they are the root of all measurements and identifications. Think about it, could you identify or measure something without sensing it?

What's this about measurements again...? I thought measurements weren't real. Please clarify.

You TELL ME!

Please. You have to give the quid to get the pro quo. I asked you a question (with several clarifications) and I'd like an answer.

Everything foreign to you is wrong...

Not even close.

yes, you feel a desperate need to prove me wrong so that you can safely ignore my claims that the standard model is wrong. I have seen it a million times before. Instead of being curious you are fearful and are compelled to prove to yourself that I am unqualified to make any true statements.

I would hardly say I am ignoring you or your claims. I am curious. I am asking direct questions intended to clarify your position and you are not answering them.

How many times do I have to deny this assumption for you to hear it? [re: So only something that can be perceived with the 5 senses is physically real?]

But:

sensation is the root of all measurement [re: So I ask again, how do I verify if something is real?

Isn't that a contradiction? How about this: Can you give me an example of something that cannot be sensed in any way, but is real?

In some sense, yes, provided you know the true nature of illusions. [re:Is the corollary also true? If something is perceived with one or more of the five senses, does that make it real? ]

Can we know the true nature of all illusions?

Sub, the implications of the things you have posted here are staggering. It really does follow from the things that you said that there is no such thing as objective reality - reality is simply a construct of your mind. The Matrix.

edit: multiple screwed up quotes

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
You're getting too caught up with the 'absolutely exactly' notion. We're not requiring perfect cubes here. Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty will do.

It is Russ that requires infinite precision before he can even see one. I said that I can recognize a cube when I see one and Russ said that one must measure it in order to see it.

I thought it would be obvious that I agree with you that "Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty (or sugar) will do".

It is in fact extremely difficult to understand -- ask any cognitive scientist, or any computer scientist working in machine vision. The task of going from an array of pixels to a perception of a cube (versus a perception of, say, Carmen Electra) is enormously complex. I have no clue why you seem to think it's trivial.

Again you make a faulty assumption. Complexity is relative, and I never said the process of vision was trivial.

The point I've made is simple: your brain (automatically) measures the dimensions of the things you look at.

That is quite a stretch. Can you extract from this measurement the values of these dimensions? Sensation is a fuzzy type of measurement and I don't really categorize it as such, but if you wish we can think of it this way.

Your brain immediately recognizes that the silly-putty object has three dimensions that are (roughly) the same, and tags the object as a (shoddy) cube.

No. My sensation of sight works on pattern recognition, not dimensional measurement and logical deduction.

Were it not for dimensions, and your brain's ability to measure along them, you would be not capable of discerning a cube from Carmen Electra.

Not true as pointed out above.

Perception requires measurement.

Well I think you have it a bit inverted.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
No. My sensation of sight works on pattern recognition, not dimensional measurement and logical deduction.

What patterns is your brain recognizing? Be specific.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters

So there is no such thing as a cube.

False assumption. Cubes exist all over the place. They just are not perfect in their physical ratios and they are not made out of mathematical points, lines or planes.

Note that there are two types of cube in operation here. There is the mathematical cube and the physical one. One is an idealization based in precise rules of mathematics and the other is a physical one made imprecisely out of matter.

From this it follows that NO object can be positively identified.

False. I make positive idntifications all the time, but no identification is absolutely infallible.

And: Well following what you said above, a cube is a cube if you say its a cube and its not a cube if I say its not a cube. Its entirely subjective. And from this we get 4:

We all know what a cube really is, right?

4. Reality exists only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder.

Where are you getting this stuff from? That is precisely OPPOSITE of my beliefs.

"Reality exists [not] only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder."

I'll let go for now the obvious implication of all of this that if there is no such thing as length, width, or height, there is really no such thing as physical reality.

I did not claim that there is no such thing as length, width, or height. I am saying that there is physical extension and there is mathematical quantification of this extension. The two are not equivalent.

It has nothing to do with a spirit. A dream is not something that can be detected by your five senses.

Can you not see, hear, smell, touch and feel a dream? Can you not do the same with a dreaming brain?

Whatever its cause, it exists entirely in your own mind.

Whatever its cause? This means that it physically exists.

Then again, that would seem to fit with #4 - it exists in your mind and that makes it real?

Yes a dream is real, but it is also an illusion.

I said that if I am wrong, clarify it. Please do.

I am certainly trying!

This is one of the main differences between you and me (and maybe this is why we are having trouble here). I WANT to understand your opinion. I WANT you to clarify and teach me what you believe. You have stated repeatedly that you do NOT want to understand the alternatives (Relativity for example) to your beliefs.

I am a physics student btw. I AM learning the alternatives and HAVE learned MANY of them already.

Thats a circular argument using synonyms - something exists because it is real and something is real because it exists.

It is not an argument. It is a description of the relation of the terms. Reality is that which exists and that which pertains to causation.

How do you know something exists? (yeah, yeah, because its real - tell me WHY). Interesting. Could you expand on that?

Knowledge is relative and it is rooted in sensation.

I thought measurements weren't real.

I did not say they were not real. I said they have their reality in the mind. You can not find a dimension outside the mind. Even if you write it on paper it is meaningless and non-operational without the mind.

Can you give me an example of something that cannot be sensed in any way, but is real?

We can only sense a minute portion of reality. I have no doubt that the atoms of the mountain out my window are real. I could go on for hours listing things.

Can we know the true nature of all illusions?

It is simple. An illusion is a reality that looks like something that it is not.

Sub, the implications of the things you have posted here are staggering. It really does follow from the things that you said that there is no such thing as objective reality - reality is simply a construct of your mind. The Matrix.

That is a consequence of your interpretations of what I am saying. What I actually believe is EXACTLY the opposite.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
What patterns is your brain recognizing? Be specific.

- Warren

The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be.

And how exactly does your brain perform this pattern recognition?

Be specific.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
And how exactly does your brain perform this pattern recognition?

Be specific.

Go read a CogSci book for the details... or get to the point.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
You're getting too caught up with the 'absolutely exactly' notion. We're not requiring perfect cubes here. Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty will do.

I was harping on it because of the second part of your post. I am perfectly fine with defining a cube loosely IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. If we can agree on a loose definition for a certain context, its simple. Its when you try to define something precisely (aka scientifically) when it gets complex. Thats part of my main point. Reality CANNOT be subjective for that reason.

Again you make a faulty assumption. Complexity is relative, and I never said the process of vision was trivial.

Related to above, Sub: how complex do we need to be? How specific do our definitions need to be?

We all know what a cube really is, right?

Certainly. We have established that its whatever a person THINKS it is but at the same time it is an object with six equal length sides and right angles. And that of course is contradictory. But wait, didn't you say:

...you can never have a REAL cube...

Hmm...

That is quite a stretch. Can you extract from this measurement the values of these dimensions? Sensation is a fuzzy type of measurement and I don't really categorize it as such, but if you wish we can think of it this way.

Be careful - you might accidentally invoke some math there.

The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be. [re: what patterns does your brain recognize?]

But what do these patterns mean in physical reality. For example, you may recognize that Carmen Electra has large breasts, right? What would you base that on? Compared to what? Dimensions! Measurements! Your brain recognizes patterns by comparing shapes to each other. Shooting a basketball is the same way - you start by estimating (even subconcsiously) the distance to the net. From imprecise measurements, it can attain highly advanced pattern recognition and motion control.

Cubes exist all over the place. They just are not perfect in their physical ratios and they are not made out of mathematical points, lines or planes.

Then by definition, they are not cubes. They are objects that are according to subjective pattern recognition, similar to cubes.

Note that there are two types of cube in operation here. There is the mathematical cube and the physical one. One is an idealization based in precise rules of mathematics and the other is a physical one made imprecisely out of matter.

The definition of a cube does not differentiate.

False. I make positive idntifications all the time, but no identification is absolutely infallible. [re: no object can be positively identified]

That is an exact contradiction. Positively fallible.

I did not claim that there is no such thing as length, width, or height. I am saying that there is physical extension and there is mathematical quantification of this extension. The two are not equivalent.

Ok, says who? The people who invented math say the number on the page IS a quantification of a physical reality. And by the way, if there is a physically real length, width, and height, what do you call their intersection?

Where are you getting this stuff from? That is precisely OPPOSITE of my beliefs. [re: reality exists only as the perceptions in the mind of the beholder]

See your definition of a physical cube. If a cube is something that can only be "idealized" by each individual person in their own mind (regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the definition) then reality is a construct of your mind.

Can you not see, hear, smell, touch and feel a dream?

No. You can't. When you are dreaming, you THINK you can, but in fact your sensory organs are not functioning. Again - you are saying that reality is a construct of your imagination. Well, maybe Descartes is feeling better now... "I think therefore I am"... and nothing exists unless I think it.

I am a physics student btw. I AM learning the alternatives and HAVE learned MANY of them already.

And yet you have stated you have no intention of learning Relativity. Strange.

Whatever its cause? This means that it physically exists. [re:...it exists entirely in your own mind.]

Again, I have demonstrated that just because something exists in your mind, doesn't mean it has a physical extension and vice versa. And hey, wait - that's what you said about math!

Yes a dream is real, but it is also an illusion.

That I may need to put into my sig: illusion=reality.

It is not an argument. It is a description of the relation of the terms. Reality is that which exists and that which pertains to causation. [re: real vs exists]

Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause=effect... It is most certainly circular. If not a circular argument then a circular definition/description.

An illusion is a reality that looks like something that it is not.

That's not what I asked. I asked can we KNOW? Are you implying that it doesn't matter if we know or not?

What I actually believe is EXACTLY the opposite.

What you believe appears to be circular, self-contradictory, and self-reinforcing.

 

[subtillioN]

Thats part of my main point. Reality CANNOT be subjective for that reason.

My view is heirarchical. Reality is at root objective. Within this objective reality there exists the sub-set of subjective reality in which the concepts of man reside. These concepts include the very usefull tool of mathematics and dimensional analysis.

Related to above, Sub: how complex do we need to be?

Depends on what we are trying to achieve.

How specific do our definitions need to be?

Specific enough that we can communicate effectively.

------------
We all know what a cube really is, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certainly. We have established that its whatever a person THINKS it is

No. It is a societally established construct. We have a COMMON notion of a cube, otherwise we cannot talk about it.

but at the same time it is an object with six equal length sides and right angles.

approximately equal

And that of course is contradictory. But wait, didn't you say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...you can never have a REAL cube...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm...

Yes, but I was talking about the prefect cube of mathematics because this is what you were fixated upon.

---------
The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be. [re: what patterns does your brain recognize?]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what do these patterns mean in physical reality. For example, you may recognize that Carmen Electra has large breasts, right? What would you base that on? Compared to what? Dimensions! Measurements!

How did you know that I have an excessive complusion to measure breasts! Yes, I am always whipping out my measuring tape and measuring the breasts of the beautiful women that walk by, just so that I can compare them in my exclusively quantitative and dimensional mind.

Your brain recognizes patterns by comparing shapes to each other. Shooting a basketball is the same way - you start by estimating (even subconcsiously) the distance to the net. From imprecise measurements, it can attain highly advanced pattern recognition and motion control.

These "measurements" are not what we familiarly understand by measurements. They are actually a complex process of pattern recognition of our neural networks. I make a distinction because we do not inherently come up with a number in such sensations. If you want to consider this a measurement process then go ahead but it is quite different from the dimensions used in Physics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cubes exist all over the place. They just are not perfect in their physical ratios and they are not made out of mathematical points, lines or planes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then by definition, they are not cubes. They are objects that are according to subjective pattern recognition, similar to cubes.

You said it not me. This is mere quibling over definitions...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that there are two types of cube in operation here. There is the mathematical cube and the physical one. One is an idealization based in precise rules of mathematics and the other is a physical one made imprecisely out of matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The definition of a cube does not differentiate.

sure it does. I just made this differentiation explicit.

That is an exact contradiction. Positively fallible.

Ok then we can make no positive identifications and must deal with approximate ones. Note that an identification only happens in the mind. Real objects do not have lables inherently attached to them...

Note: I simply have a different, non-absolute definition of "positive identification". If an effective, yet fallible, definition of identification is good enough for science then it is good enough for me.

Ok, says who?

me

The people who invented math say the number on the page IS a quantification of a physical reality.

ok so what?

And by the way, if there is a physically real length, width, and height, what do you call their intersection?

There is no intersection. Those dimensions are quantifications of the physical extension. We are getting confused in improperly stated definitions here.

See your definition of a physical cube. If a cube is something that can only be "idealized" by each individual person in their own mind (regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the definition) then reality is a construct of your mind.

Again, where are you getting this stuff from? You have misunderstood my definitions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see, hear, smell, touch and feel a dream?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. You can't. When you are dreaming, you THINK you can, but in fact your sensory organs are not functioning. Again - you are saying that reality is a construct of your imagination. Well, maybe Descartes is feeling better now... "I think therefore I am"... and nothing exists unless I think it.

You are getting lost in inexplicit details of definitions. You are assuming things that lead to false conclusions... oh well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a physics student btw. I AM learning the alternatives and HAVE learned MANY of them already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet you have stated you have no intention of learning Relativity. Strange.

I know it enough to know that I do not need to learn it in any more detail in order to understand physical reality. Big Deal. You don't understand how or why I can make such a conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever its cause? This means that it physically exists. [re:...it exists entirely in your own mind.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I have demonstrated that just because something exists in your mind, doesn't mean it has a physical extension and vice versa.

Mental illusions do have their existence in a physically real and extended process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a dream is real, but it is also an illusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That I may need to put into my sig: illusion=reality.

And thus again you misunderstand what i am talking about.

Do you think an illusion does not physically exist? How could we see it if it did not exist?

Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause=effect... It is most certainly circular. If not a circular argument then a circular definition/description.

It is a chain that cannot be broken. I would love to see you try BTW

What you believe appears to be circular, self-contradictory, and self-reinforcing.

Note the key word here "appears".

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Just jumping back into try to establish some reality again...

Originally posted by subtillioN
We all know what a cube really is, right?

YES! in physical reality it is a collection of SPHERES that, when assempled into a shape appear as a "six (roughly equally) sided, 'square' object".

You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.

Anyways....

(AKA-WHATEVER!)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.

Yes deep into the realm of mis-communication!

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.

Exactly.
**booting this mess to the Philo. forum**

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Phobos
Exactly.
**booting this mess to the Philo. forum**

Mission accomplished.

 

[Hurkyl]

Can something I have sensed not be real?

How do I distinguish between reality and illusion?

Do real things have properties? If so, how do I know what they are?