Eternal Inflation and it's Philospohical implications

[wuliheron]

You can't write down the square root of 2 completely, or pi, or e, or the square root of -1 (i), but they are still numbers, and to the best of my knowldedge infinity is too.

The parts of them you can write down are certainly numbers, infinity is not. Just look it up if you don't believe me. The infinity of infinity in mathematics, by the way, is called aleph aleph and is utterly paradoxical.

I agree with this completely. But I have yet to understand how something that has no meaning can be useful.

I never said infinity has no meaning, I said it is irrational and paradoxical. That is part of the incredible amount of confusion around the subject. God is an illogical, irrational, and paradoxical concept but it certainly has a tremendous amount of meaning for the vast majority of humanity. God also happens to be a very useful concept in many respects just as infinity is.

I agree these statements make no sense. Infinity has nothing to do with the Kennedy's. Just wanted to point that out in case someone is actually tempted to believe this extreme depiction of the opposing view.

Ahhh, then you do have limits you apply to the concept of infinity. How nice. Would you like to list them for the rest of us to debate?

Which is exactly why I suggested that we get this thread back on track and stop discussing this concept in this way.

Then people need to stop insisting infinity is not considered irrational by philosophers, and other such nonesense. I couldn't care less if people want to claim infinity explains crop circles or whatever, but when they start insisting their claims have rational, scholarly, or scientific evidence they threaten the mission of this bulletin board.

Either we emphasis semantic funtime or we emphasis anything-goes-funtime (Oh, did I spoil someones fun? Did I tell an unpleasent truth? Too bad.) [/B]

Nonsense. We don't have to do either of these time wasting things. We can recognise that the imperfections of language are not proof of more fundamental imperfections in the universe. Once we do this we can attempt to have a philosphical conversation without getting bogged down in these imperfections. It is a common criticism of philosphy that it is nothing but debate over semantics. While I try to avoid this as much as I can, the reason why these people make this claim is all over this forum.

Next you'll be telling me this is the answer to world peace.What utter and rediculous hogwash and even brazen lying. You have kept up arguments like this over the irrational with me for days on end. They are now burned into the cds Greg made of the last website and distributed for anyone to buy for twenty bucks.

Again, this is a scholarly website. Debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is by modern scholarly standards a subject for religious and mystical debate, not philosophical. I have posted links to relevant websites on the issues already and given my arguments. Unless you have something sincere to say, I'm done.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by C0mmie
I don't know if its my taste buds talking, but I find the idea of a "donut shaped" universe (or many of them for that matter) much more comforting than and infinite universe.

Is that a matter of "taste" ?

 

[Eh]

There was a discussion about what the universe tastes like on the old PF. Too bad there isn't an online archive somewhere.

 

[Mentat]

Wuliheron, your sarcasm (and arrogance) is duly noted, but entirely unnecessary. You are not helping the discussion at all, by avoiding the constructive (or corrective) comments, and mocking the ones that you conceive to be flawed.

Personally, I think that C0mmie made an excellent point (which you are, of course, ignoring), so I'll repeat it here:

You can't write down the square root of 2 completely, or pi, or e, or the square root of -1 (i), but they are still numbers, and to the best of my knowldedge infinity is too.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Ahhh, then you do have limits you apply to the concept of infinity. How nice. Would you like to list them for the rest of us to debate?

Don't confuse the definition of a concept with the application of the concept. People with well thought out ideas don't usually make this mistake.

Then people need to stop insisting infinity is not considered irrational by philosophers, and other such nonesense. I couldn't care less if people want to claim infinity explains crop circles or whatever, but when they start insisting their claims have rational, scholarly, or scientific evidence they threaten the mission of this bulletin board.

I didn't think people were insisting any of this. People are only trying to have a discussion about cosmology theories and the word "infinity" is a useful concept. All I see you doing is resisting the fact that people are using the concept in sentences. Everytime it comes up you derail the thread with this nonsense. Above you said you didn't care if people used infinity to explain crop circles. If this is true, then PLEASE let them do it without interruption!

Next you'll be telling me this is the answer to world peace.What utter and rediculous hogwash and even brazen lying. You have kept up arguments like this over the irrational with me for days on end. They are now burned into the cds Greg made of the last website and distributed for anyone to buy for twenty bucks.

So you're saying that semantic problems carry over into the physical world? No wonder we disagree. And I am proud of my stance in any paradox thread in PF 2. I don't have a problem calling out arrogant use of propaganda to make a point that isn't there.

Again, this is a scholarly website. Debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is by modern scholarly standards a subject for religious and mystical debate, not philosophical. I have posted links to relevant websites on the issues already and given my arguments. Unless you have something sincere to say, I'm done. [/B]

No such link has ever been provided. Where is the link to the respected source that claims infinity is not a number? This is all the proof I need.

And for anyone interested in more instances of this dodging technique, just pay $20 for a copy of PF2.

 

[wuliheron]

No such link has ever been provided. Where is the link to the respected source that claims infinity is not a number? This is all the proof I need.

Yet again more utter garbage and insincerity. Look it up for yourself, as I said I've already posted such links elsewhere.

Anyone who claims infinity is a number or an accepted rational concept has no clue what the academic history of the subject is, much less modern academic thought on the subject. I was not the one who claimed infinity is a number. Thus I have no reposibility for proving it is not anymore than I am responsible for proving Santa and the seven dwarves don't exist. I would say, "Put up or shut up" but know such sentiments are wasted on you.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yet again more utter garbage and insincerity. Look it up for yourself, as I said I've already posted such links elsewhere.

Anyone who claims infinity is a number or an accepted rational concept has no clue what the academic history of the subject is, much less modern academic thought on the subject. I was not the one who claimed infinity is a number. Thus I have no reposibility for proving it is not anymore than I am responsible for proving Santa and the seven dwarves don't exist. I would say, "Put up or shut up" but know such sentiments are wasted on you.

Yet more dodging. BTW, I claim neither position. I don't talk about things that I don't know about. And I admit that I am not a mathmetician. I'm just pointing out that there are those that disagree with you and all you've done is claim they are wrong with references to "look it up". Where are the links? This is not asking too much. Don't look at it as having to defend yourself and boiling things down to "who's responsible" for providing proof. That's a silly attitude. Look at it as an opportunity to teach those that you claim are ignorant of the facts. THAT my friend is what the forum is all about.

 

[wuliheron]

Yet more dodging. BTW, I claim neither position. I don't talk about things that I don't know about. And I admit that I am not a mathmetician. I'm just pointing out that there are those that disagree with you and all you've done is claim they are wrong with references to "look it up". Where are the links? This is not asking too much. Don't look at it as having to defend yourself and boiling things down to "who's responsible" for providing proof. That's a silly attitude. Look at it as an opportunity to teach those that you claim are ignorant of the facts. THAT my friend is what the forum is all about.

As I said, the idea of "Put up or shut up" is lost on you. It is not lost on academia. I could argue all day with you once again proving how much of a liar you are about avoiding such things and just how contentious and unscholarly you are. Perhaps eventually the moderators will step in and deal with you then.

Once again, this forum is not dedicated to disproving the existence of Santa Claus, little green men from mars, or any such nonsense. The assertion that infinity has never been contested by philosophers as irrational and that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians are both just as bogus. The kind of rubbish you find in the World Weekly News.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As I said, the idea of "Put up or shut up" is lost on you. It is not lost on academia. I could argue all day with you once again proving how much of a liar you are about avoiding such things and just how contentious and unscholarly you are. Perhaps eventually the moderators will step in and deal with you then.

You always seem to accuse people of the very things you are doing. It's is quite amusing. It is I who must say to you.."put up or shut up". Just claiming something as substantiated fact when others have disagreed is not sufficient. Your post is insulting everyone who disagrees with you by calling them unscholarly, contentious and liars. If the moderators are going to do anything it ought to be about you. This "moderator" ploy always seems to get pulled out of the bag whenever you tire of being adequately challenged on your nonsense.

Congratulations, you have succeeded in reducing another interesting thread to arrogant, namecalling propaganda.

 

[Mentat]

Wu Li, you may have tried hard to explain why infinity is irrational, but I have also tried hard to show you that it isn't - at least not in the same way as limitlessness - so no one is going to pity your frustration. I understand the paradox of limitlessness - even though very few else seem to - but I disagree with applying this reasoning to "infinity". A mathematical infinity can exist in just two directions, so it would have limits, but would still be infinite (which means, btw, that it goes on forever, not that it has no limits).

 

[wuliheron]

As always, you are both all talk and no show. Again, put up or shut up.

I have posted countless links to websites disproving your B.S. and all you do is keep coming back with more arguments. Go ahead, prove me wrong, post one single link showing that philosophers have never debated the validity and paradoxical nature of infinity. Go ahead, post one single link showing that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians. Make me look bad, liar.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As always, you are both all talk and no show. Again, put up or shut up.

I have posted countless links to websites disproving your B.S. and all you do is keep coming back with more arguments. Go ahead, prove me wrong, post one single link showing that philosophers have never debated the validity and paradoxical nature of infinity. Go ahead, post one single link showing that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians. Make me look bad, liar.

My little sister has a better attitude than you're displaying right now. When I explode on you, then you'll have an excuse to post such toddlerish tantrums.

Anyway, I know that philosophers have argued the point. Philosophers have also argued whether I exist. They can argue about shoes and ships and ceiling wax, about cabbages and kings. And why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings. I don't really care what they argue about, I'm presenting an argument and your dodging it, by saying "smart people have argued it, so it must be undecided".

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As always, you are both all talk and no show. Again, put up or shut up.

I have posted countless links to websites disproving your B.S. and all you do is keep coming back with more arguments. Go ahead, prove me wrong, post one single link showing that philosophers have never debated the validity and paradoxical nature of infinity. Go ahead, post one single link showing that infinity is considered a number by mathematicians. Make me look bad, liar.

Wuli, please let's be civil. Please stop calling me a liar. I'll say this again. I do not know whether infinity is a number or not. I have not disagreed with you. Some people here have, but I have not. So what am I lying about? My only point is that, infinity not falling under the semantic category of "number", cannot be the premise for you to conclude all sorts of contradictions and dimish the usefulness of the concept in a discussion of cosmology. I think I've been consistent on this message. So, your comments are really aimed at those people who claim infinity is a number. If you do not feel that you need to show them where mathmeticians claim infinity is not a number then that is your perogative. I disagree with this attitude strongly but I can't change what you think of yourself and your own standards of credibility.

Also, just because philosphers have debated something in the past doesn't instantly give the idea credibility. Philosphers have debated many things in the past that we know to be nonsense today. It would help your credibility tremendously if you can find some recent sources to help those that don't have the facts like you seem to.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
Wu Li, you may have tried hard to explain why infinity is irrational, but I have also tried hard to show you that it isn't - at least not in the same way as limitlessness - so no one is going to pity your frustration. I understand the paradox of limitlessness - even though very few else seem to - but I disagree with applying this reasoning to "infinity". A mathematical infinity can exist in just two directions, so it would have limits, but would still be infinite (which means, btw, that it goes on forever, not that it has no limits).

Yes, that's a good point-the numberline only has 2 directions so it is only "infinite" in those directions- its width is supposedly finite.

In any case, I don't think the general public has any problems in conceptualizing infinity- it's only when we don't state the context in which we are discussing infinity that confusion arises.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Yes, that's a good point-the numberline only has 2 directions so it is only "infinite" in those directions- its width is supposedly finite.

In any case, I don't think the general public has any problems in conceptualizing infinity- it's only when we don't state the context in which we are discussing infinity that confusion arises.

I agree.

If you define "infinity" as synonymous to "limitlessness", then there is a paradox. However, you are right about the number line, which is infinite in two directions, but not limitless.

 

[wuliheron]

My little sister has a better attitude than you're displaying right now. When I explode on you, then you'll have an excuse to post such toddlerish tantrums.

Your little sister no doubt can get your momma to spank you when you tease her endlessly.

I'm presenting an argument and your dodging it, by saying "smart people have argued it, so it must be undecided".

I'm dodging it saying point blank as I have many times that you would argue pigs have wings. That you keep insisting the existence of infinity is a fact without the slightest bit of evidence to prove it. Without so much as a single link and with constant demands that I disprove one endless argument you present after another. Get a life dude. Arguing endlessly does not prove your ideas any more than shouting does.

Yes, that's a good point-the numberline only has 2 directions so it is only "infinite" in those directions- its width is supposedly finite.

This is just one of his standard arguments. It no more proves infinity isn't irrational than saying that both pigs and wings are real, therefore pigs must have wings. Nor does it disprove my assertion that infinity is a self-contradictory and self-referential paradox, which he usually counters with semantic garbage that denies the very mathematical and dictionary definition of the word infinity.

Wuli, please let's be civil. Please stop calling me a liar.

Just stop lying, stop demanding I prove Santa doesn't exist, stop all your usual misdirection and obfuscation and I'll stop calling you a liar. In other words, be civil yourself. Stop pretending you avoid me and avoid discussions like this. Stop pretending you are polite when you are being as obnoxious as can be.

I disagree with this attitude strongly but I can't change what you think of yourself and your own standards of credibility.

Then stop trying dude. Stop demanding I prove Santa isn't real.

Also, just because philosphers have debated something in the past doesn't instantly give the idea credibility. Philosphers have debated many things in the past that we know to be nonsense today. It would help your credibility tremendously if you can find some recent sources to help those that don't have the facts like you seem to.

I'm not interesting in what you think about my credibility. You are the one who keeps insisting I prove people are wrong rather than that they prove they are right. Get a grip, find some genuine sincerity dude and stop with all this obfuscation. Start insisting people prove they are right when someone challanges such statements rather than insisting everyone else prove them wrong.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I'm not interesting in what you think about my credibility. You are the one who keeps insisting I prove people are wrong rather than that they prove they are right. Get a grip, find some genuine sincerity dude and stop with all this obfuscation. Start insisting people prove they are right when someone challanges such statements rather than insisting everyone else prove them wrong.

I'm not talking about what I think about your credibility. I'm talking about what all the other people you are calling unscholarly think. You know, the ones who say infinity is a number. And I am very confident that most reasonable people who read this will make their own judgement as well. Like I said. I cannot change your standard of credibility with regard to all these other people.

Also, the burden of proof rules that you keep referring to have no place in this situation. The proof or non-proof of Santa , God, or pink ferries is where this rule DOES apply. None of these things can be proven to not exists and no one has ever proven that they do. Unlike the idea that "infinity" is or is not considered a number by current mathmeticians. This should be easily verified if it's true. You cannot just jump into a posts and make wild claims and then claim that you don't have to show some proof by providing a specific source.

Just stop lying, stop demanding I prove Santa doesn't exist, stop all your usual misdirection and obfuscation and I'll stop calling you a liar. In other words, be civil yourself. Stop pretending you are polite when you are being as obnoxious as can be.
Stop pretending you avoid me and avoid discussions like this.

LOl once again you turn your own crimes on the person you are in a discussion with. And I most certainly do avoid those Paradox threads like the plague. I even try to skip over your posts in non-paradox threads because I find them rarely relevant. But this is not a paradox thread and you have managed to get it off track. The first thing I did was suggest that we get it back on track. That was my only intent. I'm am now making that suggestion again.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm not talking about what I think about your credibility. I'm talking about what all the other people you are calling unscholarly think.

Not willing to let other people speak for themselves, small wonder.

You cannot just jump into a posts and make wild claims and then claim that you don't have to show some proof by providing a specific source.

Tell us oh great one, what else can we not do?

this is not a paradox thread and you have managed to get it off track. The first thing I did was suggest that we get it back on track. That was my only intent. I'm am now making that suggestion again.

I am trying to keep it on track. Claims that infinity is a number are utter bunk. If you want to keep this thread on track, stop talking for other people and telling me what to do. If you haven't noticed it is you who have totally derailed this thread with all this arguing.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Not willing to let other people speak for themselves, small wonder.
Tell us oh great one, what else can we not do?
I am trying to keep it on track. Claims that infinity is a number are utter bunk. If you want to keep this thread on track, stop talking for other people and telling me what to do. If you haven't noticed it is you who have totally derailed this thread with all this arguing.

Wow. Man you have some issues.

OK, enough wasting my time with this egomaniac.

Heusdens, where are you? Did the thread come to a natural end with the participation of Eh and Mentat? It seems you are very much against the idea of a finite space/time whereas Eh thinks it's no uglier then theories of infinity.

I love that this discussion has been coming up more often lately. Carry on.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Your little sister no doubt can get your momma to spank you when you tease her endlessly.



I'm dodging it saying point blank as I have many times that you would argue pigs have wings. That you keep insisting the existence of infinity is a fact without the slightest bit of evidence to prove it. Without so much as a single link and with constant demands that I disprove one endless argument you present after another. Get a life dude. Arguing endlessly does not prove your ideas any more than shouting does.



This is just one of his standard arguments. It no more proves infinity isn't irrational than saying that both pigs and wings are real, therefore pigs must have wings. Nor does it disprove my assertion that infinity is a self-contradictory and self-referential paradox, which he usually counters with semantic garbage that denies the very mathematical and dictionary definition of the word infinity.



Just stop lying, stop demanding I prove Santa doesn't exist, stop all your usual misdirection and obfuscation and I'll stop calling you a liar. In other words, be civil yourself. Stop pretending you avoid me and avoid discussions like this. Stop pretending you are polite when you are being as obnoxious as can be.



Then stop trying dude. Stop demanding I prove Santa isn't real.



I'm not interesting in what you think about my credibility. You are the one who keeps insisting I prove people are wrong rather than that they prove they are right. Get a grip, find some genuine sincerity dude and stop with all this obfuscation. Start insisting people prove they are right when someone challanges such statements rather than insisting everyone else prove them wrong.

Grow up, wuliheron. As you, yourself, have repeated over and over again, this is a forum devoted to scholarly discussion, your last few posts don't even meet the criteria of civilised conversation.

Yes, if I wanted to, I could argue that pigs have wings. I take your saying that as a compliment.

For the 100th time, I am not tring to say that infinity is not paradoxical/self-contradictory/inexplicable/undefinable/etc. I'm really not. I am only trying to show you that the limitlessness paradox, does not apply to infinity. That is all that I am saying.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Wow. Man you have some issues.

Did you just realize that?

OK, enough wasting my time with this egomaniac.

I agree.

Heusdens, where are you? Did the thread come to a natural end with the participation of Eh and Mentat? It seems you are very much against the idea of a finite space/time whereas Eh thinks it's no uglier then theories of infinity.

Alright then, back on-topic, I should clarify that I am not saying that the universe cannot be infinite. I am saying that I don't believe it can both be infinite, and be expanding at the same time. Eh seems to disagree. I'd like to understand why, but I can't, so I invite Eh to explain his side again.

 

[wuliheron]

Wow. Man you have some issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you just realize that?

LOL, you both about as objective and unbiased on the issue of infinity as a Born Again Christian is about God.

Still no proof infinity is a number, nothing but personal slams and innuendo. Perhaps the Heraldo show is more your speed (LOLOLOLOL).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Heusdens, where are you? Did the thread come to a natural end with the participation of Eh and Mentat? It seems you are very much against the idea of a finite space/time whereas Eh thinks it's no uglier then theories of infinity.

I love that this discussion has been coming up more often lately. Carry on.

I have been focusing on here on other issues.

It seemed that my initial thread only lead to the issue of the absurdity of infinity, and not as much about the eternal inflation hypothese. Perhaps we should return back to that theme.

But about infinity...

As a matter of fact I don't think that space/time can be finite.
Although, neither do I think that space/time is infinite in a trivial way (just extending the past to infinity, and extening the observed space to infinity). It happens to be, the universe can not have been this way throughout all of eternity, for several reasons.

Some of this can be explained by Olbers' paradox of the dark night sky. If stars had evolved and were spread around in more or less the same way as they do now, and if space and time were infinite, Olber's paradox proofs that the night sky should be luminous like daytime, because in any direction one would look, we would come across the surface of a star. Naturally, the farther we look, the less brighter and less light we receive, but the more distantiated sphere contains more stars, the two effecst which exactly counterbalance each other (under the conditions that the distribution of lumnious matter is the same throughout all of space and time).
The acceptance of Olbers' paradox leads to the contradiction that either one or both assumptions (space is infinite, time is infinite) are wrong.

A deeper exploration in fact proofs that the night sky IS luminous, and the first calculations of the CMBR showed that this effect of stars from any direction throughout an infine space which was occupied by lumnious matter in the same distribution as we witness now, would lead to a brilliant sky, only not in visible light but as 3K radition.

Current explorations of the CMBR however proof that the spectrum and the fluctuations of the CMBR can not be the effect of star light, and the BB theory provided a better explenation for the CMBR.

Another proof that the universe could not have existed in all of infinity with infinite space, is that the force of gravity would in most cases (dependend on the matter distribution through infinite space) lead to a universe which could not be stable through all of eternity, and thus lead to 'Big Bangs' or 'Big Crunches'.

As a mind experiment, I suggested imagining a universe consisting of only atoms of hydrogen, and assume at some distinct moment a totally perfect distribution of hydrogen atoms throughout all of space. Place an imaginary grid through 3D infinite space (which creates 'cubes' throughout all of space) and place at every corner of a cube (at every crossing of grid lines) one atom of hydrogen, and see how this would evolve through time. Although at first instance this looks like a stable situation (all forces on every hydrogen atom exactly cancel out to zero), but in reality, such can not be the case. All matter would clutter together, only not to a specific point in space, but everywhere. Small inbalances (cause this 'perfect' initial condition, is of course not a situation that is real) would lead to local cluterings, which enlarge themselves.

I am not too familiar with cosmological models, but I have accepted the conclusion of experts, which say that a more or less 'static' universe is impossible.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Still no proof infinity is a number, nothing but personal slams and innuendo. Perhaps the Heraldo show is more your speed (LOLOLOLOL). ]

Wuli, please go back to your paradox threads. It is obvious you aren't reading what others are writing. I have said several times that I have no opinion on whether infinity is a number. Yet you insist on this same low effort response above. My only point has been that infinity is useful as a concept in mathematics and cosmology, whether it's a number or not. Please move on.

 

[wuliheron]

Wuli, please go back to your paradox threads. It is obvious you aren't reading what others are writing. I have said several times that I have no opinion on whether infinity is a number. Yet you insist on this same low effort response above. My only point has been that infinity is useful as a concept in mathematics and cosmology, whether it's a number or not. Please move on.

Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

I am not certain of the topic of wether or not infinity is a number or not, is important, I hold it is a matter of definition.

If we define 'number' to be a distinguisable number on the number line (which reach out in both directions to infinity) it can be stated that there is no such number ( a distinct point on the number line) that corresponds to infinity.

The proof of this is that infinity refers to the fact that such a number would be larger (farther away from an arbitrary point on the number line, which we call 0) then any other number (point on the number line). All points on the number line however share the same property that to the left and to the right, there are infinitely many points.

But that is just the contradiction we come across, that is part of the concept of infinity.

I think however that for linguistic reasons, it is perfectly ok to call infinity a number, although from the way infinity is defined, it has special characteristics that distinguish it from any other number (point on the number line).

 

[wuliheron]

I am not certain of the topic of wether or not infinity is a number or not, is important, I hold it is a matter of definition.

It most certainly is not part of the definition of infinity, just look it up. This is not a trivial distinction either. Declaring infinity to be a bona fide number is to give it a validity is simply does not possesses in academic circles, no matter how convoluted your personal reasoning might be.

Speaking of which, you have not bothered to intervene in this dispute and clarify the matter until it threatened to stop this thread altogether. Likewise, when it did threaten to end this thread, I noticed you spammed the bulletin board with countless verbose cut and paste articles related to the philosophy of infinity.

Again, put up or shut up. I don't want to hear your personal views on the issue. Provide proof or acknowledge that it does not exist.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number.

Please provide the quote where I have done this "repeatedly". My only point is that just because you can make a semantic statement like "infinity is not a number" doesn't mean that you can totally throw away the usefulness of the infinity concept in a cosmology discussion such as this one. If you go back and re-read, I think it may be clear this is all I was doing. If something I've said is misleading, then I apologize. But please provide the quote where I did this so I can analyze my use of words and possibly improve.

If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults?

Anything that I have done that can be interpreted as an insult can clearly be linked to being insulted first. Like being called a liar when I have said over and over that I don't have an opinion on the very topic you were trying to call me a liar about.

If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

I cannot speak for him. I actually understand your point about infinity not being a number. I just diagree that it is important enough to derail the usefulness of the word in a discussion about cosmology theories.

I want to finish in PM, Wuli. Please check yours.

 

[wuliheron]

I cannot speak for him. I actually understand your point about infinity not being a number. I just diagree that it is important enough to derail the usefulness of the word in a discussion about cosmology theories.

As I have asserted all along, my intention is to make sure this bulletin board remains on a scholarly philosophical level instead of degrading into meaningless mumbo jumbo and mystical nonsense parading as scientific fact. Physics forums already has both a religion and mysticism bulletin board not to mention a general discussion one. This one is for scholarly discussion of philosophy.

Expressions of mysticism and what not are great, I'm a mystic myself. But falsely asserting things are established scientific fact, especially about subjects as slippery as infinity, are definite no-nos. In the case of infinity this is especially critical because so many religious beliefs revolve around the issue and it is therefore often contentious.

Because my own interest lies in paradox, the absurd, and the irrational some people take umbrage at what I claim is irrational. Some have even argued with me that nothing is paradoxical, absurd, or irrational (which I both agree with and disagree with of course.) Absurdity is absurd, that is, all over the map.

One does the best they can. :0)

 

[Eh]

Back to the topic of an infinite universe that expands. As I've said before, expansion is a local phenomena. As flat space between galaxies expands, the overall size of the universe does not increase. That comes from the very nature of infinity, where every region of space is infinitely small compared to the rest. Even if that region expands, it STILL remains an infinitesimal point in space. So an expanding universe does not get bigger in this situation.

heusdens brought up Olber's paradox. That the night sky is dark disproves the notion of an infinite universe that has existed forever. Actually, the notion of an infinite universe under the physics of 150 years ago was disproven. Modern cosmology has one weapon the scientists back then didn't - the expanding universe. While the fact the universe is only 15 billion years old alone would be enough to handle part of the paradox, the expanding universe does more so.

In the case of a chaotic inflation universe, the same should apply. The finite speed of light and the fact the universe is expanding means light will never be able to reach some regions of the universe. Hence, most of an inflationary universe would be a cold, dark place.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
It most certainly is not part of the definition of infinity, just look it up.

The issue of definition is about the concept of "number" not that of "infinity".

As a matter of speak, using the term "infinite number" means that the concept of number includes infinite numbers too.

 

[wuliheron]

As a matter of speak, using the term "infinite number" means that the concept of number includes infinite numbers too.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way and no amount of fudging semantics will ever make infinity a number. Saying that a number is infinite is not the same thing as saying infinity is a number. Otherwise I could say that cow is black, therefore all cows are black, which is udder nonsense.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, it doesn't work that way and no amount of fudging semantics will ever make infinity a number. Saying that a number is infinite is not the same thing as saying infinity is a number. Otherwise I could say that cow is black, therefore all cows are black, which is udder nonsense.

Just hold it. You are mixing things up. I never claimed infinity to be a number.

I said the issue if wether or not the number concept allows for infinite numbers too, and I stated that that is the case.

When we are talking about infinity, don't mix it up with numbers, cause clearly the concept of "infinity" is not the same as the concept of "number".

The concept of number declares it to be having a certain value, and potentially an infinite value.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Back to the topic of an infinite universe that expands. As I've said before, expansion is a local phenomena. As flat space between galaxies expands, the overall size of the universe does not increase. That comes from the very nature of infinity, where every region of space is infinitely small compared to the rest. Even if that region expands, it STILL remains an infinitesimal point in space. So an expanding universe does not get bigger in this situation.

heusdens brought up Olber's paradox. That the night sky is dark disproves the notion of an infinite universe that has existed forever. Actually, the notion of an infinite universe under the physics of 150 years ago was disproven. Modern cosmology has one weapon the scientists back then didn't - the expanding universe. While the fact the universe is only 15 billion years old alone would be enough to handle part of the paradox, the expanding universe does more so.

In the case of a chaotic inflation universe, the same should apply. The finite speed of light and the fact the universe is expanding means light will never be able to reach some regions of the universe. Hence, most of an inflationary universe would be a cold, dark place.

Yes, thanks for this addition. As I said, the universe is or can be infinite (must be infinite, in my mind), but is not infinite in a trivial way. The space expansion removes the triviality, and the acompanying paradoxes that result from a trivial infinite universe.

 

[wuliheron]

Just hold it. You are mixing things up. I never claimed infinity to be a number.

Apparently we have another brazen liar in our midst, either that or you have no clue what you have said and don't mind inserting foot into mouth. This is what you wrote:

Infinity is not a finite number, but infinity is a number, but which has peculiar properties, that distinguish it from any finite number.