tim wood
2.1k
It being likely we live within an infinite universe, — Anthony
Please make clear your understanding of "infinite." Too many people use the term without really knowing what it means. For example, we don't live in an infinite universe. — tim wood
Anthony does not know if we live in an infinite universe or not...
...and neither do you, Tim. — Frank Apisa
Please make clear your understanding of "infinite." Too many people use the term without really knowing what it means. For example, we don't live in an infinite universe. — tim wood
tim wood
2.1k
Anthony does not know if we live in an infinite universe or not...
...and neither do you, Tim. — Frank Apisa
It's not the universe in question, it's the understanding of a word. Apparently you are one of those who do not understand the word. Or maybe it's a term of art for Anthony - in which case I'd like to know which art and what it means. Or maybe he just means it metaphorically. Up to him to say.
But here's part of what it means: as to number, whatever quality you can attribute, some lesser number already has that quality, or another way, something that is always greater then the thing you can specify. Now, just for fun, can you describe any aspect of the physical universe that cannot in principle be counted? — tim wood
Generically, I mean space may be unlimited. — Anthony
If you are asserting it is finite (or at least, not infinite)...the burden of proof is on you.
Have at it. — Frank Apisa
tim wood
2.1k
If you are asserting it is finite (or at least, not infinite)...the burden of proof is on you.
Have at it. — Frank Apisa
You're a rhinoceros with quills, a duck's bill under your horn, and webbed feet. You say you're not? Prove it! The burden of proof is on you.
I imagine you have a problem with this. Anyone can assert anything and demand someone else prove that it's not the case, and absent proof the assertion must be accorded the respect of possibility - that would be you. But as to the infinite, it's not a case of cases to be proved, it's the understanding of the meaning of a word. Can you count a star? The sun, for example, is a star. Call it number one. What you're representing is that in principle, by definition, it is not possible to count the stars. Granted there are a lot of stars and that counting them might be physically difficult, but in principle they are countable, which means not infinite. — tim wood
So...you think it is okay, reasonable, and logical for you to make a sweeping assertion about the nature of REALITY...and when called upon to meet the burden of proof that accrues...you can simply dismiss it out-of-hand. — Frank Apisa
(If you want to view this as countable but not finite or not is up to you) — CaZaNOx
I think you did. You described what you meant. And it works for me, but it just is not infinite.Basically what I mean is too far away to get a signal or message that obeys physics of spacetime locality. — Anthony
tim wood
2.1k
So...you think it is okay, reasonable, and logical for you to make a sweeping assertion about the nature of REALITY...and when called upon to meet the burden of proof that accrues...you can simply dismiss it out-of-hand. — Frank Apisa
Ok. Make a decision. Are you using "infinite" as metaphor for something? If so please make it clear what that might be. Or as it is defined? In which case, please justify - argue - your application. — tim wood
but it just is not infinite. — tim wood
The idea is that the universe will eventually use up all its possibilities, and at that point will start to repeat. Nothing anyone has to worry about. — tim wood
No not really. It's about what a word means. If you're not interested in that, then you're on your own, which means that you don't make sense (because you're speaking a similar-sounding but different language from everyone else). — tim wood
it is a mechanism that always adds to the currently described view. Similar to Natural Numbers no matter what number you give there's always a bigger one. (If you want to view this as countable but not finite or not is up to you) — CaZaNOx
something that is always greater then the thing you can specify. — tim wood
addressed by continuity. However since this doesn't matter I used a countable claim of infinity referring to N you endorse a incoherent usage of countability.Now, just for fun, can you describe any aspect of the physical universe that cannot in principle be counted? — tim wood
Granted there are a lot of stars and that counting them might be physically difficult, but in principle they are countable, which means not infinite. — tim wood
It's about what a word means. If you're not interested in that, then you're on your own, which means that you don't make sense (because you're speaking a similar-sounding but different language from everyone else). — tim wood
tim wood
2.1k
↪Frank Apisa
It appears to me these are all countable in principle. That is, not infinite. If that is what you mean, then fine. We have just refined what we're talking about so that we're both on the same page. A useful concept to keep in mind is the length of a path on the surface of a sphere. — tim wood
There is no mystery. There is only curiosity and curiosity killed the cat.
What is a mystery anyway? It's simply the need to answer the 7 basic questions: who? what? when? where? which? how? why?
What is interesting is questions don't stop. Infinite regress. The mystery never ends. — TheMadFool
On this topic I'm doing my best not to have an opinion. What I am on about is the meaning of a word and the possible misuse of the word with respect to its meaning, and the non-sense that can result from such mis-usage.Btw: I forgot to mention that I am actually really interested in your honest opinion about change and infinity and if possible why you have those opinions and how they look in an argumentative structure. I hope this isn't being forgotten but just in case it is I wanted to state it and that it was this interest that prompted the reply. — CaZaNOx
any group of somethings — tim wood
No it doesn't. You just keep counting.Repeating creates infinity if it never stops. — CaZaNOx
No it doesn't. And countability just means that some set of thing can be counted, that is, set into some sort of order so that it - the elements of the set - can be paired with the integers in order.The point I was addressing is that the universe contains infinite's, not countability (a word you used but never explained what you meant, not upholding your own standards). — CaZaNOx
I made a case for continuous properties that I am aware are part of Real numbers and are not viewed as countable. — CaZaNOx
if something, or any group of somethings, is discrete, then it can be counted. — tim wood
If it can be counted, then it is finite and not infinite. — tim wood
You may own a lot of shoes, but for so long as each shoe can be counted and is counted, then the number of shoes you own is finite. — tim wood
Yes but we don't need it for N. We use it for Q and Q is diagonalizable, therefore counable but also infinite.Are you familiar with diagonalization? — tim wood
Are you saying the Natural numbers are
A) not countable
B) not infinite
Are you aware that this is your own position that basically no one holds? — CaZaNOx
Just to get it strait. Are you saying that something that repeats (forever without stopping) is not infinite? (Correct me if I misunderstood you)No it doesn't. You just keep counting. — tim wood
No it doesn't. And countability just means that some set of thing can be counted, that is, set into some sort of order so that it - the elements of the set - can be paired with the integers in order. — tim wood
Sorry i missed it, Where did you make that case? — tim wood
Note: The figuratively speaking is there because as it is written it would presuppose an agent which I am not doing.I am arguing that change is an infinite property of the universe.
I would say it's continuous since the idea of turning off and on change (figuratively speaking) doesn't make sense — CaZaNOx
I disagree. I don't see change as a mathematical concept and rather a physical one. I model this however with math.And please try to keep straight that you're applying non-physical (i.e., mathematical, for a guess) concepts to the world. — tim wood
Gravity is arguably action at a distance. The sun's radiation mutates genes from a distance. Lightning has been said to be triggered by particles emanating from exploded suns in distant galaxies. — Anthony
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.[4]
— Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3
Quantum entanglement is the most obvious reason why this proposition may be true. — Anthony
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.