You maybe referring to the difference between Potential and Actual Infinity?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Its possible to keep counting indefinitely but even if you do you will never reach infinity (because it's impossible to count to infinity). So Potential Infinity is OK, but Actual Infinity never happens IMO.

It's impossible to construct something infinite as you'd never finish doing it.

If i do the same thing again that is 8. If i die tommorow and never do this process again and at the same time have never heard of the term 12 i might conclude that `12 doesn't exist. — christian2017

I get what you're trying to get at, but I think this is a very weak analogy.

Thats fair.

i'm just ok at mathematics but i do get better with age so maybe in 10 years i'll have a better analogy or maybe i won't.

"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Its possible to keep counting indefinitely but even if you do you will never reach infinity (because it's impossible to count to infinity). So Potential Infinity is OK, but Actual Infinity never happens IMO.

It's impossible to construct something infinite as you'd never finish doing it. "

My understanding of physics is that what you said is true. There is a law in thermodynamics that things go from high order to low order so if made a computer program that used robotics to farm the land that robot would eventually fall apart or degrade itself unless i did things to actively make repairs to the system. Yeah i think you are right on this if i understand what you are saying. Perhaps if there were other universes (not sure why scientists say there are other universes) where the laws of physics are different then i think the above might not be the case.

Perhaps if there were other universes (not sure why scientists say there are other universes) where the laws of physics are different then i think the above might not be the case. — christian2017

The laws of math should be invariant across all such universes.

I am of the opinion if there are other universes, they will be like this one. They are all made of the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature/density so all universes should end up similar.

"The laws of math should be invariant across all such universes.

I am of the opinion if there are other universes, they will be like this one. They are all made of the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature/density so all universes should end up similar. "

Yeah i definitely agree with that the laws of math would be the same across all universes. As to whether other universes would have the same laws of physics, i've wondered that myself. I certainly can't say your wrong about that.

christian2017
47
↪Devans99


if i add 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 that is 4. If i do the same thing again that is 8. If i die tommorow and never do this process again and at the same time have never heard of the term 12 i might conclude that `12 doesn't exist. The problem is our ability to testify what we believe is true is limited by our time on this earth. Infinte is not necessarily a fake construct its just we personally only have a limited time to testify to the things we hold to be true. If the universe keeps expanding i believe it is certainly possible that it could expand to twice as big, three times as big, 4 times as big and so on. — christian2017

As I see it...what we "believe" is nothing more than what we blindly guess about the unknown.

Anyone can make a guess at any time...nothing wrong with guessing. I do it all the time...and I imagine most people do it often also.

I always refer to my guesses...as guesses.

Some people call their guesses "beliefs."

Devans99
1.1k

Perhaps if there were other universes (not sure why scientists say there are other universes) where the laws of physics are different then i think the above might not be the case. — christian2017


The laws of math should be invariant across all such universes.

I am of the opinion if there are other universes, they will be like this one. They are all made of the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature/density so all universes should end up similar. — Devans99

Why is it that you stray off the path of this thread so often...and discuss matters that are off topic with others...

...and yet tell me I cannot...and refuse to answer my questions that are closer to being on issue than this stuff you are discussing right now?

Most Cosmologists would probably disagree with me... because they are mostly atheist and the Strong Anthropic Principle seems a bit like one of the 10 commandments in atheist terms.

"As I see it...what we "believe" is nothing more than what we blindly guess about the unknown.

Anyone can make a guess at any time...nothing wrong with guessing. I do it all the time...and I imagine most people do it often also.

I always refer to my guesses...as guesses.

Some people call their guesses "beliefs."

Under that logic why don't we just sit around on this forum and discuss our favorite type of icecream or what we think is the best color. I believe the belief that objective truth exists is paramount to having a stable society. I do not believe it is arragant to say that objective truth exists but i will say it is very hard to come by.

I am finding your don't know / can't know attitude to most questions a little defeatist.

I think you should place more weight in inductive reasoning; it is this, rather than deductive reasoning, that guides us though our daily lives.

If CERN published an article claiming detection of a new particle at five nines certainty, what is your attitude? Do you adopt a working assumption that the particle exists? Or do you continue to assume it is unknown whether the particle exists?

I agree with that statement. I lost the quote but you said something to the effect that modern cosmologists are very often athiests.

I'm not going to say what religion Isaac Newton was but he did have a religion and what alot of people don't realize is that much of modern technology can be built using nothing more than physics principles that were discovered in the 19th (1800s) century or even just using Newtonian physics. The point i'm trying to make is people over estimate the ability of alot of modern scientists to solve all the world's problems. I believe science is great and the healthy person of belief will embrace science but that being said we shouldn't just bend over backwards to listen to modern scientists.

Under that logic why don't we just sit around on this forum and discuss our favorite type of icecream or what we think is the best color. — christian2017

If you want to discuss those things...fine with me. I'll offer my favorites.

But the necessity to do that does not derive from my position...and I have no idea of why you think that.

I believe the belief that objective truth exists is paramount to having a stable society. — Christian

Interesting opinion. Could be right...could be dead wrong.

We can discuss your opinions...and the opinions of others instead of ice cream.

I do not believe it is arragant to say that objective truth exists but i will say it is very hard to come by. — Christian

I do not "believe" it either...but then again, I do not do "believing."

If you are saying however, that you believe it is not arrogant to say that objective truth exists...I disagree.

The wording structure "I do not believe..." has to be used carefully in a discussion in a philosophy forum.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I am finding your don't know / can't know attitude to most questions a little defeatist. — Devans99

You are free to do that.

The very last thing I am, however, is a "defeatest."

I will argue a point that I consider significant until my fingers are bloody from typing...and then some.

I think you should place more weight in inductive reasoning; it is this, rather than deductive reasoning, that guides us though our daily lives. — Devans

You are certainly free to think that...although that is a bit out-of-line.

If CERN published an article claiming detection of a new particle at five nines certainty, what is your attitude? Do you adopt a working assumption that the particle exists? Or do you continue to assume it is unknown whether the particle exists?

If scientists come up with information that looks valid...I accept it the way a scientist would. Valid until shown to be wrong.

What is "five nines?"

christian2017
51
↪Devans99


I agree with that statement. I lost the quote but you said something to the effect that modern cosmologists are very often athiests.

I'm not going to say what religion Isaac Newton was but he did have a religion and what alot of people don't realize is that much of modern technology can be built using nothing more than physics principles that were discovered in the 19th (1800s) century or even just using Newtonian physics. The point i'm trying to make is people over estimate the ability of alot of modern scientists to solve all the world's problems. I believe science is great and the healthy person of belief will embrace science but that being said we shouldn't just bend over backwards to listen to modern scientists. — christian2017

I would just like to point out that Einstein, Sagan, Feynman and many other scientists identified as agnostics rather than atheists...and those three actually got angry when people called them atheists.

" Under that logic why don't we just sit around on this forum and discuss our favorite type of icecream or what we think is the best color. — christian2017


If you want to discuss those things...fine with me. I'll offer my favorites.

But the necessity to do that does not derive from my position...and I have no idea of why you think that.

I believe the belief that objective truth exists is paramount to having a stable society. — Christian


Interesting opinion. Could be right...could be dead wrong.

We can discuss your opinions...and the opinions of others instead of ice cream.



I do not believe it is arragant to say that objective truth exists but i will say it is very hard to come by. — Christian


I do not "believe" it either...but then again, I do not do "believing."

If you are saying however, that you believe it is not arrogant to say that objective truth exists...I disagree.

The wording structure "I do not believe..." has to be used carefully in a discussion in a philosophy forum. "

Yeah i've been wrong before but as the last thing you said in that post you should not be offended by the word "believe". Belief implies some form of opinion based on very little or sometimes alot of evidence. Its just a word. If i believe the color brown is best its probably based on the way my brain works or the way i am built. On the other hand i could accuse you that you won't be swayed on anything but you could also accuse me of not being able to be swayed on some things. I believe a cd or compact disc is a close representation of a recorded song however if you increased the sampling rate by some great order of magnitude, somebody somewhere would probably notice an improvement in sound quality.

99.999% certainty of the finding. It's a sort of gold standard for empirical evidence.

My point was at what threshold do you admit inductive evidence into the set of assumptions you hold about the real world?

"I would just like to point out that Einstein, Sagan, Feynman and many other scientists identified as agnostics rather than atheists...and those three actually got angry when people called them atheists. "

I do agree with that in that there is an enormous difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
99.999% certainty of the finding. It's a sort of gold standard for empirical evidence.

My point was at what threshold do you admit inductive evidence into the set of assumptions you hold about the real world? — Devans99

What are you talking about?

And why are you doing it in a thread that asserts "space cannot be infinite" when you are so dismissive of me asking questions that are tangential to the thread topic?

christian2017
53
↪Frank Apisa


"I would just like to point out that Einstein, Sagan, Feynman and many other scientists identified as agnostics rather than atheists...and those three actually got angry when people called them atheists. "

I do agree with that in that there is an enormous difference between an atheist and an agnostic. — christian2017

Thank you, Christian.

We all have a set of assumptions or axioms about the real world we work to and that are mainly inductivity derived. Any inductive truth is prone to a certain margin of error. So I was wondering what your margin of error was?

I'm not dismissive of your questions... sorry if I missed any.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
We all have a set of assumptions or axioms about the real world we work to and that are mainly inductivity derived. Any inductive truth is prone to a certain margin of error. So I was wondering what your margin of error was?

I'm not dismissive of your questions... sorry if I missed any. — Devans99

You were dismissive of my question which I will paraphrase here:

Let's assume that you are correct...that the universe is not infinite...and in fact is a creation.

Where do we go from there? What are the implications of that? What is the point of you insisting that the universe cannot be infinite?

Where do we go from there? What are the implications of that? What is the point of you insisting that the universe cannot be infinite? — Frank Apisa

- It is a step in the road towards a better overall understanding of the universe. Cosmologists have models that are infinite in space or time. If we can eliminate these models, then the cosmologists can concentrate on the models that are possible.

- It is a step towards understanding the nature of infinity (it does not exist).

Devans99
1.2k

Where do we go from there? What are the implications of that? What is the point of you insisting that the universe cannot be infinite? — Frank Apisa


- It is a step in the road towards a better overall understanding of the universe. Cosmologists have models that are infinite in space or time. If we can eliminate these models, then the cosmologists can concentrate on the models that are possible. — Devans99

Then guess the universe is infinite...or guess that it is finite.

How does that give any movement toward understanding?

Finer minds than are available here are working on problems that may one day get us closer...although I doubt we will be appreciable closer than we are right now.

- It is a step towards understanding the nature of infinity (it does not exist).

Stop that nonsense. It doesn't look good on you at all.

We all do that.

The important part is to see that all @Devans99's issues are dissolved if one accepts the logic of infinity he rejects.

That is, the problems are there because he talks about infinity in the wrong way.

space is flat No rotation as far as we can tell and therefore it is infinite. The universe is not expanding as its already infinite. So what's happening - its expanding locally there is another place way far away from here - unimaginably far where space is compressing. There is an infinite number of areas where as far as you can see is expanding and just as many where space is compressing. If the large scale structure goes on forever and there is a similar less defined larger structure and so on and so on out to infinity then the universe is not expanding - it is locally yet for all we can see it is an insignificant spec.

The knots in the large scale structure appear to be forming an endless cloud of something like quarks - sound familiar. I believe it to be doing the same on ever larger scales Less defined As you pull back.

If this happened then DArk matter is all the stuff that did not fall into the singularities that make up the particles of matter. Dark energy is the result of gravity since it cause space to compress and therefor must expand somewhere else.

A black hole sees time go by fast but the stuff outside sees it take forever. When the knots in the large scale structure form particles and cool as the matter around us did - If you were made out of that and looked back at the creation of the particles that made you - it would look like it happened in a bang yet looking up from here it looks like it will take billions if not trillions of years

There is no mathematical or, for that matter, any other law that prevents infinity from growing.

You can still add to infinity. Yes the answer will still be infinity but growing, as you describe it, is the possibility for addition, an operation you can apply to infinity.

The definition of expansion precludes infinity from growing.

Expansion means it is bigger now that it once was. So it can't have been infinite.

You are still wrong.

If the size is:

s0 at time 0
s1 at time 1
s2 at time 2

We have by the definition of expansion:

s0 < s1 < s2

So s0 can't be infinite.

There are not different sorts of infinity, but if you insist on this bullshit:

- We know that s0, s1, s2 are the same kind of infinity: aleph-one.
- The continuum hypothesis states that there are no intermediate cardinal numbers between aleph-null and aleph-one.
-We know aleph-one is s2, so means at best s1 us aleph-null and s0 IS ALWAYS FINITE.