IMHO little to do with the real physical world. — jgill

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to contribute. It's always better to hear about the use of infinities in mathematics from those who really know about the use of infinities in mathematics.

This expansion involves neither space nor objects in space "moving" in a traditional sense

The distance between objects changes in some sense — jgill

I have fallen asleep whilst listening to 'Something from nothing,' by Laurence Krauss audiobook a few times. He talks about drawing a grid of equidistant dots on paper (I assume transparencies would be best) and then drawing a bigger grid of dots with a larger equidistance between each dot on a second piece of paper He then suggests picking any same dot from both papers and superimpose them on each other. You will then see that not only has the distance between every dot increased but the distance between your chosen dot galaxy will have increased by a factor of 2 then 3 then 4 then 5 etc related to how far away from your chosen dot it was on the first grid. This is basically how expansion works in our universe. For me, the second grid is 'bigger' than the first which suggests 'new space' is being created during the expansion rather than a 'stretching' of space between galaxies. If new space is being created and our Universe is not expanding into anything as it is everything then space cannot be already infinite in extent.

If you use the search words 'Does expansion create new space' on sites such a quora, physics stack exchange etc. You get many many viewpoints but they mostly split between 'new space created' and 'spacial stretching.'
One physicist on Quora posted:
"I personally think new spacetime is being created, since before time began there was no space, but who really knows, which is why I say it is the free space being created by stretching it, it is not anything to do with the space within matter expanding. Imagine you had 9 people stand in 3 lines of 3 to represent the singularity, then free space grew by 1 metre between each of them so they would now all be a metre apart. The middle did not move faster than the edges because none of the people actually moved in free space. There was relative velocity between the people but no real velocity since none of them had actually moved through free space. If originally the 9 people were standing on black crosses, they would still be standing on the same black crosses after the expansion. Each person had a zero displacement, therefore zero velocity. This also explains why the edge of our Observable Universe is about 47.5 billion light years away even though the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old. The most distant galaxies didn’t have to move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, it was free space expanding away from us faster than the speed of light that enabled them to be that far away."

Not at all! It's nice that you wanted to see if you could assist us.
I am away to watch some episodes of Star Trek Discovery series 3!!

The "battle" will continue my friend! :wink: — Haglund

:smile: Yes but I don't see our exchanges as a battle.
We should be able to 'dig' each other within the 'guidelines of debate.'
I think we do that quite well.
It's nice for folks like @SpaceDweller to play 'moderator', as well.
All good stuff. I remain a fan Haglund even with your roleplay polytheism.

I think you 2 instead of attacking each other it may be better to put forward arguments for and against God's existence, and then collect as much constructive information as possible to defend your argument — SpaceDweller

Thank you for your comment but Haglund and I remain friends and our dialogue is free and fair with no malice intended or taken. I enjoy debating with him and will continue to do so on other threads.
His knowledge of cosmology is and always has been detailed and impressive.

And the third round goes to... — Haglund

You talk theist! No, they won't do that... Thanks for the exchange! — Haglund

You sound desperate and at war with yourself.

A free electron moves in all possible ways. A straight line is one of them — Haglund

No, you could reach billions of lightyears in 80 years — Haglund

Ok, perhaps your gods will one day take you there instantly. Thanks for the exchange!

I have watched all of the late Christopher Hitches offerings on YouTube many times and he had little difficulty in swatting his theistic opponents in my opinion.
The best advice I would have given any theist wishing to debate him regarding god would have been DONT! You will lose!
I don't share your rather pessimistic viewpoints.

But we can! We can fly to the observable edge of what we see and go behind the horizon. Like on Earth. — Haglund

Yeah well, that might take us more time than the lifespan of our Universe.

I mean if it goes in a straight line and returns — Haglund

But perhaps it doesn't, perhaps there are no real straight lines in a curved Universe.

Gods don't exist in this universe. — Haglund

I agree.

My coordinates for your gods are not in this Universe either! So does that mean they don't exist just because you cant observe or detect the place they refer to.

How can an electron not be at rest if it returns? It has to be at rest at some moment — Haglund

Ever ran around in a circle? If you had your energy replenished as you ran and your leg muscles were indefatigable then you would pass the same points many many times without starting or stopping.

Which doesn't mean they don't exist — Haglund

We will never know if something exists or not if we will never have any way to detect it.
Here is my coordinate system that indicate where your gods live (1,9,2.5.9.0.0.0.0,1,1,1,1, 10278).
So is this proof your gods exist?

An electron or muon yes — Haglund

From the physics stack exchange:
Electrons on the other hand, do have rest mass. It is very confusing when somebody learns about rest mass and thinks electrons can actually be brought to rest. In reality they cannot be. No one has ever experimentally seen an actual electron at rest

An electron or muon yes. — Haglund

evidence?

infinite observable universes — Haglund

No, they are not observable!

It can. In infinite many regions, the regions can expand. Infinity can become twice it's size and stay the same — Haglund

It's like the cookie dough example. The TOTALITY of the dough cannot expand if it is infinite but individual regions within the dough may be able to 'distort.'

Muons have a restframe like electrons have. — Haglund

Again from wikipedia:
In special relativity, the rest frame of a particle is the coordinate system (frame of reference) in which the particle is at rest.

In reality, when is a sub-atomic particle not moving?
We can only refer to a rest frame as a mathematical notion of 3D spacial coordinates in special relativity.
Can we actually bring a photon, an electron, a muon to rest? Has this ever been actually achieved?
No!

Infinite with bounds? I don't understand — Haglund

Infinite but not boundless simply means that the Universe may have parts that we will never be able to even 'detect,' so in that sense it has very real boundaries for lifeforms such as us.

Which doesn't mean infinite space cant expand. — Haglund

Yes it does if the infinite can expand then it was not infinite.

Eternal inflation posits an infinite space eternally inflating. — Haglund

I understand eternal inflation to be referring to the limits/edges of the Universe.
An eternal 'faster than light speed,' inflation which creates a 'multiverse.'
This would make the Universe infinite but bounded for us by our 'light cone' of existence in all directions.

They are getting their equality but it seems only in the western world. — SpaceDweller

They have proven themselves to be a very resilient movement. Give them time.
The only way to prevent them from achieving their goals is to kill them all but that may include YOUR own or ANYONE's own current or future child. So better for us all if we accept all such people as equal to all people.

So basically I try to demask people who believe in such future possibilities. — Haglund

Good luck searching for that nonexistent mask. Keep feeling for it! At the end of all your efforts, you will be left with hands covered in face skin particulates from those 'who believe in such future possibilities.'

Proper time is just an infinite small interval of time which is independent on the frame used. It's different from coordinate time, which is frame dependent, and which is used in Lorenz transformations. and does not exist for a photon, which follows lightlike paths. — Haglund

Yes, I know.

The prevailing view is that the universe is infinite. This is based on observed flatness. But just as for a flat Earth, if you look beyond the horizon, the Earth is pretty much sphere! So basically, flat spacers are the same as flat Earthers.. — Haglund

I disagree, I think the prevailing view is that the Universe MAY BE infinite.
Another view is that it may be infinite but not boundless.

Wikipedia has:
Several potential topological or geometric attributes of the universe are:
Boundedness (whether the universe is finite or infinite)
Flat (zero curvature), hyperbolic (negative curvature), or spherical (positive curvature)
Connectivity: how the universe is put together, i.e., simply connected space or multiply connected space.
There are certain logical connections among these properties. For example, a universe with positive curvature is necessarily finite. Although it is usually assumed in the literature that a flat or negatively curved universe is infinite, this need not be the case if the topology is not the trivial one: for example, a three-torus is flat but finite.

Also from wikipedia is:
The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fits with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data is also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice.

Why shouldn't something infinite be able to expand? — Haglund

In science, infinite means boundless. That which is boundless cannot expand or else boundless does not mean boundless.

How can the proper lifetime of a muon be relative if it's the same for all? It's just defined as the time as measured in the restframe of the muon. Of course, if you look at the muon as it travels fast, the proper time seems to slow down, but its the same still — Haglund

In 'reality,' muons don't have a restframe. So your 'proper lifetime,' label is notional.

If a male thinks he is a woman, the best he can do is to visit psychiatrist to at least learn why does he feel that way.
in psychiatry there is well known diagnosis for this illness, it's easy to google it out therefore mentioning doctor is not mocking.
However true problem is that them feeling it that way is more pleasant than asking doctor for help.
If I feel there is something wrong with my stomach or my head I'll go visit a doctor, and so should a person who thinks that he should change his genitalia — SpaceDweller

I held similar views in my youth. I was brought up in tough part of a city. We had many words for homosexuals you are probably familiar with. When I was around 14 (I think), I beat up a guy who was bigger and stronger than me. I did it because his brother told me to. The person I beat up was a homosexual. In my twenties, on nights out in the city center, there were occasions when the group I was with insulted or threatened those who came within our site who we judged as effeminate or such.
I am ashamed that I took part in such in my past. I will never do anything like that again.
I don't care about a person's gender anymore.
I have been very impressed indeed by the dignity of homosexual/trans/LGBTQ etc people and how they have organised in the western hemisphere in particular, and fought for equal treatment under the law. They dealt with the threat of AIDS and all of the abuse, threats and violence perpetrated against them by young idiots like myself and much worse than I, and they have maintained their dignity. In my opinion, they utterly defeated the viewpoints I held all the way up to my mid-twenties and they will continue to gain equality globally.

Hello, I checked my inbox and found no PM from you.
I will try to send a quick PM to you to establish a connection.

Once it's there, does it grow? How can a small hole, seen from the outside, evolve into a massive one? — Haglund

Cause: energy/mass 'falls into,' the black hole.
Effect: the spherical expanse of the black hole increases.
Nothing more than that afaik.

I don't think it perceives. It rather constructs. Or resonates. The construction is a continuous process which isn't set in motion with an on and of switch. It's no programmed process. with "start" and "stop". Or "if", "if not", "iff", "and", "nand", "or", "nor", or "gondor". — Haglund

are you suggesting the brain does not/cannot perceive?
Perceive seems a perfectly good label to me and seems like a sufficient umbrella term under which words like 'constructs,' 'resonates,' etc could happily shelter.
Current electronic logic gates are no more than a method of representing conditional outcomes.
The way in which the human brain deals with propositional logic is not fully understood.
As I have already stated, your comparison is a conflated one that has little relevance to my future projections of transhumanism.
I have stated this to you many times yet you still insist on comparing the workings of electronic computing systems with my distant future predictions of transhumanism. Even though I have clearly stated that my projections are based on my current readings on genetic engineering and technologies such as CRISPR, quantum computing and biological computing. Despite this, you insist on tubthumping about the current limitations of electronic computing. why?

That's a fair approach! I'm not convinced though that what you see as progression is actual progression — Haglund

I know you are not convinced that transhumanism is a progression and I don't agree with you or understand your logic or your viewpoint. If science and authority do not have the mandate of those they represent then they cannot be allowed to try to progress towards increased transhumanism But anyone voting against would have to argue against giving human beings more choice over their own termination. Our individual survival is currently at the mercy of illness, accident, attack and old age. I would welcome increased protection against all of these. Transhumanism could achieve such further protection and is in my opinion one of the best possibilities we have. You would prefer that we stay at the mercy of some or all of the 4 threats I mentioned? why?

Earlier, you posted:

Proper time though is no relative notion. Neither is proper length — Haglund

Now you say:

All motion is relative. That's what relativity is about. Only relative velocity exists. That's the velocity that's used in the Lorentz transformation. — Haglund

So the notion of proper time and proper length are used is special RELATIVITY and are 'relative notions.'
So do you withdraw the words 'proper time though is no relative notion?' Proper time is a notion of special relativity where you have an object that is at rest (relative to outside frames) and the object moving away from it, is only being RELATED to the object at rest.

All motion is relative. That's what relativity is about. Only relative velocity exists. That's the velocity that's used in the Lorentz transformation — Haglund

Yes, I know.

. I think the fact that space is expanding shows that it is not infinite
— universeness

That not true. Space can be infinite and expanding. That's actually the prevailing view. Which with I disagree. — Haglund

There are different viewpoints. Here are some points from the astronomy stack exchange:

An argument for:
As an illustration, take the infinite 'universe' of the natural numbers i=0…∞. Now consider the sets 2i and 2i+1, each equally infinite as the natural numbers, but stretched. Now combine those two sets to get an expanded 'universe' and you obtain the natural numbers again.

Some counter viewpoints against the mathematical posit above:
a) If we make an analogy, this is equivalent to a Ponzi scheme. It works in theory. But considering nature's limitations it seems quite dubious. See Kant's first antinomy. The infinite attribute of the universe would just be a fallacy of perception.
b) Extrapolating rules at different scales seems naive. What you are stating here is that galaxies are expanding, not the universe.
c) AFAIK universe expansion implies "creating new space". Quite far from this response.
d) This kind of universe expansion is equivalent to measurement contraction.

I have the same viewpoint as c. I think you can expand into something which is infinite but that which IS infinite cannot expand. It makes no sense to me to suggest that it can. The mathematical example above just states that infinity +1, or infinity + infinity = infinity. To me, that just means that you cannot add to infinity. As c suggests you cannot add space to an infinity of space.
Perhaps @jgill would comment on the maths argument used above. As he is a maths prof.

A man my thing he is a woman or vice versa, but there is no way for them to prove it — SpaceDweller

Theists have been able to live without proof of their beliefs/feelings about gods since we left the forests.
I don't think a man who identifies as a woman feels a need to prove their 'inner gender,' to anyone.
I think that current and future transhuman technology will add to the fog which continues to gather around gender. I was born as a male, I have lived as a male and will die as a male but my maleness has became less and less important to me the older I get. Perhaps that is progressive. I suppose that will always be, as I suppose it should always be, in the judgment of everyone else, including me.

My view is that space has no need to expand since its existence is unlimited. — val p miranda

I actually agree in part with this viewpoint but for a different reason. I think the fact that space is expanding shows that it is not infinite. The idea that the existence of space is unlimited is for me, more likely to hinge on the correctness of such theories as 'the Penrose bounce' or the 'multiverse.'

Indeed. In relation to each other. — Haglund

But this is the vital point. Within their frame of reference, their motions are relative.

But proper time is the time you measure in a rest frame. If course when that frame moves, it's a moving restframe. Coordinate free time is the clock that ticks in a rest frame for an observer in rest. Proper time and coordinate time are different things. Proper time has it's own symbol, ττ. Coordinate time is t. A proper time interval is Lorenz invariant — Haglund

I accept all of this but my first sentence holds. Proper time and Proper length are labels used in special RELATIVITY! So to say the motions involved are NOT relative is wrong.

My view is that space has no need to expand since its existence is unlimited. I think that there are serious errors in special and general relativity. That paradigm is holy.
I think in general relativity that the theory of gravity is wrong. I think that space time is wrong In special relativity. I think much is wrong. But do not ask me to defend those views now — val p miranda

Would you accept that your viewpoint is very fringe?
How would you explain observational and experimental results that confirm general and special relativity?
I can state that in my opinion, Force = mass x acceleration is wrong but if I can't offer any evidence to back up my claim then I simply inherit the wind.

Yes, I am. — L'éléphant

This is just a small side question, for my own internal databases. Do you think dualism is on the rise, stagnant or on the wane or does the number of others who hold a similar viewpoint to you, not matter to you, when it comes to dualism?

But the causality that happens with body organs perceiving, say, a color, or hearing a loud bang, come to us in a completely stripped down data. — L'éléphant

Ok, surely the brain is the only body organ that 'perceives' a colour. The eyes being the input devices for colour and not responsible for interpreting colour. There is a good discussion at:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/making-sense-of-how-the-blind-see-color/?msclkid=5291660ac47711eca0bf8eba392bd778
On how colour or a rainbow might be described to or perceived by a person who has been totally blind from birth. They compare it with how a fully sighted person might perceive a quark when they first encounter such words. It seems to me that if the mind or any aspect of its functionality, exists externally to the brain then this external aspect seems incapable to effectively give colour perception to the blind. Sound perception seems to be more possible for the profoundly deaf through distinguishing between vibrations via touch but all interpretation here isstill within the brain alone.

It's the mind that interprets what we perceive. Earlier I said, roughness can only be experience using our organs for sensing textures. Though it reaches our mind, we can't extract "roughness" from our mind. — L'éléphant

Do you think 'roughness,' could be distinguished by a cybernetic hand, now, or in the future?
Do we not 'extract' roughness from our mind by 'pattern matching,' it with smoothness.
I would describe roughness as bumpy bits and indented bits and smooth bits that you can feel when you touch the area with your skin organ. Would you describe 'roughness' (as applied to physical surfaces,) differently?

I always ask a dualist if they are willing to give me their personal view of a physical location(s) for where they think the part of their (or all of their) mind exists outside of their brain.
In the past, I have had answers such as, In the heart, in the body, in superpositions, in gods database, with god, in an omniconsiousness. Do you hold with any of these?

What if the people don't want gene tinkering and transhuman construction, spacetravel, computers with a mind, and all other fantasies you like? — Haglund

If those who vote against it are a majority then their representatives in authority must vote against also and then scientific endeavours in the direction of genetic engineering, transhumanism and artificial intelligence must stop until the majority can be convinced by further discussion from those who
support human progression.

What if the people don't want gene tinkering and transhuman construction, spacetravel, computers with a mind, and all other fantasies you like? — Haglund

I will answer this in another thread as I respect @Philosophim's request to stick to the OP and discuss causality.

:smile: :up:

Causality doesn't have to result in origin debates. I honestly posted this because I was seeing some people on this board have issues understanding what causality was — Philosophim

Ok, I appreciate your complaint. I will humbly bow out of the thread. You are the author.

How in the world did this become a theology debate? — Philosophim

Causality......first cause......science versus god.

Damn you mr. Universe — Haglund

At least life offers us both a moment to have a wee laugh together now and then.
Viva la vida!!!

you were dragged into a sect, I'm glad you escaped, these are crazy people indeed.
it kind of explains why so much disgust toward religious. — SpaceDweller

Yeah, I was too young to know what was going on anyway so I and my sister were relatively unscathed by the experience.
I try not to conflate what some people do whilst flying a religious flag. I don't blame every theists or theism in general for the atrocities of some religious doctrines and its followers.
I am interested in the evidence for the god posit. I find none that is compelling.
I am therefore currently an atheist. I have said this many times but I do feel this to be very true for me.
I don't need the supernatural because I find the natural so super.

It's clear now why you're an atheist! My deer god... :pray: — Haglund

:lol: I hope that's just your bad English! Don't tell me you believe that Deer have gods as well as your previous claim that Dino gods once existed or still do!

Which is another example if your digmatism... eeeh, dogmatism. Digit? — Haglund

Well, all I can respond with to that is a wee cheeky woof woof.

It's my guess you don't like that theists have some kind of hidden knowledge you have no access to — Haglund

That's just woo woo in my opinion. I am no more concerned about that than I am about magicians doing tricks I can't figure out.
I think I do understand perfectly well and my comment that personal theism comes from personal primal fear is correct.