- #91
subtillioN
The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be.
What Laws Explain the Infinitude of the Universe?
- Thread starter Moni
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Universe
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of infinity in relation to the universe, with participants expressing confusion about its existence and the lack of a definitive formula or proof. Many argue that the universe is likely infinite due to its expanding nature, while others emphasize that infinity is a speculative idea without concrete evidence. The conversation touches on the philosophical implications of infinity, suggesting that it cannot be fully conceptualized or proven, leading to a belief-based understanding. Participants debate whether infinity can be logically defined or if it remains an abstract concept, with some asserting that mathematical constructs can demonstrate the existence of infinity within defined parameters, while others maintain that true infinity cannot be encapsulated or understood by the finite human mind. The dialogue highlights the complexity of discussing infinity, blending philosophy, mathematics, and personal belief systems.
The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be.
- #92
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
And how exactly does your brain perform this pattern recognition?
Be specific.
- Warren
- #93
subtillioN
Go read a CogSci book for the details... or get to the point.
- #94
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
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.
Related to above, Sub: how complex do we need to be? How specific do our definitions need to be?
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:
Hmm...
Be careful - you might accidentally invoke some math there.
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.
Then by definition, they are not cubes. They are objects that are according to subjective pattern recognition, similar to cubes.
The definition of a cube does not differentiate.
That is an exact contradiction. Positively fallible.
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?
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.
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.
And yet you have stated you have no intention of learning Relativity. Strange.
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!
That I may need to put into my sig: illusion=reality.
Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause=effect... It is most certainly circular. If not a circular argument then a circular definition/description.
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 you believe appears to be circular, self-contradictory, and self-reinforcing.
- #95
subtillioN
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.
Depends on what we are trying to achieve.
Specific enough that we can communicate effectively.
No. It is a societally established construct. We have a COMMON notion of a cube, otherwise we cannot talk about it.
approximately equal
Yes, but I was talking about the prefect cube of mathematics because this is what you were fixated upon.
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.
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.
You said it not me. This is mere quibling over definitions...
sure it does. I just made this differentiation explicit.
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.
me
ok so what?
There is no intersection. Those dimensions are quantifications of the physical extension. We are getting confused in improperly stated definitions here.
Again, where are you getting this stuff from? You have misunderstood my definitions.
You are getting lost in inexplicit details of definitions. You are assuming things that lead to false conclusions... oh well.
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.
Mental illusions do have their existence in a physically real and extended process.
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?
It is a chain that cannot be broken. I would love to see you try BTW
Note the key word here "appears".
Last edited by a moderator:
- #96
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
Just jumping back into try to establish some reality again...
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!)
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!)
- #97
subtillioN
Yes deep into the realm of mis-communication!
- #98
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,956
- 7
Exactly.
**booting this mess to the Philo. forum**
- #99
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
Mission accomplished.
- #100
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,922
- 28
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?
How do I distinguish between reality and illusion?
Do real things have properties? If so, how do I know what they are?
- #101
subtillioN
It must be real, but it is not always apparent what its true nature is, i.e. it may be an illusion.
Depends on the nature of the illusion.
Yes. They are causal, i.e. they consist of matter in motion. NOTE: This is based in Sorce Theory in which EVERYTHING is made of matter in motion. In the Standard Model they could be made of energy (whateverthatmeans) or they could even be vacuum fluctuations, i.e. virtual particles, etc. [made of mathematics not causality]
- #102
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,922
- 28
That was quite informative. Examples would be nice. A general approach would be better.
An awfully strange definition of "casual"; how does it relate to cause and effect?
What is matter? What is motion? How do I identify what matter is? How do I identify matter is moving? How would one go about distinguishing between matter in motion and an illusion? What about matter not in motion?
Is your meaning of "casual" limited only to being a set of moving matter?
- #103
subtillioN
In the case of a dream, for instance, there is a different quality about it. In mine things never maintain a consistent identity and thus they keep changing into other things when I am not looking.
In the matrix there are glitches, etc.
It is quite complex. A disequilibrium of matter tends to equalize at a constant speed c per unit density. Causality is based in the constant attempt of matter to equalize its density disturbances and it is in fluid motion.
Cause and effect are the twin halves on an imaginary time-line of this tendency for equilibrium.
As distinguishable from atomic matter, it is a continuous compressible fluid-dynamic substance.
A change of place from any "here" to any "there". Both matter and pressure can move.
You don't need to. Everything is made out of matter.
Various ways all of which involve sensation of a motion relative to something else.
An illusion is made out of matter in motion.
There is no such thing. Only patterns of matter in motion can remain relatively stationary at specific scales. At deeper scales it is found that matter is in motion with equilibrating wave systems moving at c.
causality is a continuum of matter in motion, yes. This matter in motion consists of both fluid motion and the motion of pressure systems (waves).
Last edited by a moderator:
- #104
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,922
- 28
Some more interesting examples of distinguishing illusions would be nice. What about optical "illusions" and magic tricks of various sorts? What about the "illusion" of stillness?
(I put "illusion" in quotes because it's unclear that the way I am using illusion coincides with your meaning of the term)
On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?
Woah, slow down! Going from touchy-feely sensation to this is an awfully big leap! We certainly have not progressed far enough in this semi-rigorous treatment of your beliefs to try and digest a statement like this. (Besides, another round of me telling you that this is syntactically gibberish and you telling me I'm in a mental box would be fruitless)
In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?
Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...? Is it time to try to explain what you mean by these phrase? I think we should still stick to fully fleshing out the basics of knowledge according to you at this point.
So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?
Is pressure matter?
So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.
(I put "illusion" in quotes because it's unclear that the way I am using illusion coincides with your meaning of the term)
On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?
Woah, slow down! Going from touchy-feely sensation to this is an awfully big leap! We certainly have not progressed far enough in this semi-rigorous treatment of your beliefs to try and digest a statement like this. (Besides, another round of me telling you that this is syntactically gibberish and you telling me I'm in a mental box would be fruitless)
In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?
Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...? Is it time to try to explain what you mean by these phrase? I think we should still stick to fully fleshing out the basics of knowledge according to you at this point.
So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?
Is pressure matter?
So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.
- #105
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
Ahem** Isn't there supposed to be a distinguishment between the waking mind and the sleeping mind, in there observation of reality, respecting illusion, and Non illusion of/in nature.
The idea that there is 'no boundary' in perception crossed, therein, is kinda silly.
Further, in the Sciences it is a volontary agreement to described observance of accepted physical (measurable, hence mathematical in nature, as a 'seconding of opinion') propeties of space in Universality.
So, off you goes...
The idea that there is 'no boundary' in perception crossed, therein, is kinda silly.
Further, in the Sciences it is a volontary agreement to described observance of accepted physical (measurable, hence mathematical in nature, as a 'seconding of opinion') propeties of space in Universality.
So, off you goes...
- #106
subtillioN
- #107
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
Why there has to be objective reality
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3703"
Which reasons about the question "Why is there something instead of nothing" and which concludes that there must have been something apart, outside and independend of consciousness, that has existed always.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3703"
Which reasons about the question "Why is there something instead of nothing" and which concludes that there must have been something apart, outside and independend of consciousness, that has existed always.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #108
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,922
- 28
Recall that I was talking about recognizing illusions; how do we discover if our perceptions have been tricked?
If A is an illusion that looks like B, it seems clear by your terminology that the illusion of B is real... but is B real?
Is curved space real?
Is there anything that satisfies the proposition "X is not real"?
So theory and experiment may, indeed, suffice as replacements for direct sensation. Allow me to set this idea on the back burner a bit before we go into depth how this may be done.
But allow me ask one question; if it takes much more than a "yes" or "no" answer, we can defer it until later... is it ever acceptable to trust these artifical senses and logic systems when they contradict our senses?
For example, in the famous optical illusion of circles surrounded by circles, is it acceptable to trust the ruler (and implicitly the theory that rulers are good measuring devices) when it says they are the same size, despite my vision telling me otherwise?
I'm avoiding ascribing any physical idea to "matter in motion" at this time, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm talking neither about bouncing balls nor flowing fluids; I'm trying to develop an acceptable framework of discovery which we can use to make this discovery. Might "time evolution" be an acceptable synonym for "cause and effect"?
To avoid fixing the discussion to anyone theory (and to better follow the flow of the discussion so far as to determining what is an acceptable way to understand the universe), would it suffice it to say that you are using the term "matter" both for "root-level matter" (which is, in some sense, fundamental) and for observable patterns of that root-level matter?
Is there any way we could deduce this conclusion from observation, or must we accept it as an axiom for this discussion? And would the term "point" be an acceptable synonym for "place", in the sense we can say that the universe is "made" of points, and matter extends through these points? By "made" of points, that just means that all extensions of matter can be described by the points through which it extends.
This is in accordance with my previous comment on the term "matter" correct; pressure is not fundamental matter, but an observable pattern in root-level matter. Allow us to hold off on more precise meanings of pressure.
- #109
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
If 'X' were defined as a consciouss actor outside of space time and matter, I would say then that 'X is not real'.
- #110
sir Mojo Loren
Excellent definition. "Outside of space time and matter" could be simplified to "outside causality", however.
- #111
sir Mojo Loren
hmmm... let me take a crack at it.
you have to develop tricks of your own to trick the tricks!
everything is real
Yes "curved space" is a real map of a real field whose essense is really unknown by modern physics.
It depends on your definition of "real". The definitions of these terms are not very well specified so we unconsciously blurr the distinctions.
Yes, but mathematics is not a substitute for causality.
Artificial senses ARE senses. If the senses contradict each other then one must understand the nature of this contradiction before one can trust the senses.
Logic is beyond sensation. It is an artificial, symbolic causality. If it contradicts our experiential understanding of causality, then that is another story and the answer is emphatically "NO". If we abandon causality then there is no way to maintain contact with reality. Our constructions will wander off into a fantasy land with no restrictions as to a deeper physical order.
Of course. The real relations are simply mis-interpreted by the specialized mechanisms of the brain.
A more abstract one so it must be used with caution and always kept in check with the deeper level.
Everything is made out of the same matter. It is important to make a distinction here however. Spinoza uses the terms "Substance" and "modes". Substance is the root level continuous stuff and modes are the finite patterns made out of that substance. These terms will suffice for this discussion.
I feel it is not only quite readily apparent, but it is absloutely logically necessary. Can you imagine any metaphysics without including extension?!
I would say that it is confusing to say that the universe is made of points because points are mental mathematical extensionless place-holders for places and the Universe clearly is not made out of extensionless place-holders.
Yes pressure and charge are modes not substances, of which there can be only one.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #112
Eh
- 745
- 0
Why the name change, subtillioN?