The Infinity Experience: Can we truly comprehend infinity?

[Royce]

As mentioned in the beginning of this thread "Infinity is not a Number"; nor, is it a Limit. Infinity can expand infinitly as Infinity implies no limit, no edge, no boundry, no end. To use a math analogy the number set is infinite and can be expanded infinitly because I can always add a 1 to any infinite number that you can name.

 

[Stormy]

Technically you can't add 1 to infinity because you are already there,
for instance, if you say "infinity" and then I say "infinity + 1" then that doesn't count because infinity + 1 was already stated in the term "infinity."

Think about it and it will make sense

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by damgo
You don't need a math PhD to play with infinities rigorously... basic courses in set theory and analysis should do. You can perform arithmetic on infinities in several senses -- cardinal and ordinal arithmetic, by using systems such as the hyperreals or surreals, and prob some others I don't know about. But back to the original question...

When we talk about the expansion of an infinite universe, we don't mean its "total size" gets bigger in the way, say, a balloon gets bigger as we blow it up. We mean that the distances between objects in the infinite universe gets larger. So if there are originall objects at {..,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} they will move to {...,-4,-2,0,2,4,..} after some time, and continue to get further apart.

This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
not anything vs nothing - no difference. There is no reason to exchange definitions of logic, that will go too far off topic.

You were the one who asked what "nothing" was. He is giving you a perfect answer - it's not anything. There is no "it" to speak of. "Nothing" doesn't refer to anything, and can only be used in exagerations; such as "There's nothing to eat in here", when in fact there are insects crawling around (just an example). If you use the term "nothing" to signify something, you will get a nasty semantic debate - the likes of which I've tried to prevent, with my "Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics thread.

 

[wimms]

Please, read before you argue. I've never implied one should think of nothing in any other way.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
Please, read before you argue. I've never implied one should think of nothing in any other way.

Oh really?

Originally posted by wimms
By definition, beyond these boundaries there
must be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment,
what is Nothing?

 

[Royce]

Stormy,
I disagree. Infinity means no limit, no boundry. To say that I can not add a one to infinity is saying that infinity is a limit which is an oxymoron. I can add infinity to infinity and still have infinity mathematically. Physically infinity "simply" means no edge or boundry. There is no limit in infinity to stop our universe from expanding even if it is infinite. There is more and more evidence however that our universe is closed, a sphere if you will and is expanding faster than the speed of light into an infinite void. The thinking is more and more that we live, and our entire universe is, inside a black hole that is expanding from the singularity that it was "before" the Big Bang. Indeed in another reference system it may still be a singularity. What is the void or what is beyound is anybody's guess. Nothing is mine. No time. No dimension. No spacetime. Nul space is what I call it. it is not even space as we think of it much spacetime. It is literly a void, as hard as that is to conceive of. In comparision it make infinity a piece of cake.
Cake unfortunatly is finite and I better go get some before it disappears into the black hole that is my grandson.

 

[damgo]

>>Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe

Sure there is, it's just infinite. What's the problem? How are the points {m | m is an integer} with location (m*t) not all getting further apart as t increases?

 

[Stormy]

Originally posted by Royce
Stormy,
I disagree. Infinity means no limit, no boundry. To say that I can not add a one to infinity is saying that infinity is a limit which is an oxymoron.

But that is my point infinity has no limit so if you say infinity then you also mean infinity + X because infinity is, of course, infinite. It has no limit so encompasses all.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Stormy
But that is my point infinity has no limit so if you say infinity then you also mean infinity + X because infinity is, of course, infinite. It has no limit so encompasses all.

This is not true. Let us imagine the set of real numbers between 0 and 1. There are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, but that does not mean that any number must be part of this infinite set. 2, for example, is not encompassed by this infinity.

Infinity is quite simply any quantity that exceeds our means of measuring it. In the case of mathematics, infinity is any number that cannot ever be reached or represented by our numbers.

I find the case of an infinitesimal number easier to use to explain the above statement. An infinitesimal number is infinitely close to 0. It is not 0, but we cannot measure its separation from 0 using any conventional mathematics.

Thus we have established that infinity is not part of the standard mathematic universe of complex numbers. When one says "infinity + X" they are adding to completely dissimilar terms; it is analagous to one saying "22 grams + 18 miles".

 

[Stormy]

Ah, but that is the difference between the mathematical and physical point of view. In maths you have to have a starting point and an end point, e.g. 0 and 1 but even though there is an infinite number of values between them it is not infinity because it has limits, i.e. 0 and 1 the universe, however has no such limits.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Stormy
Ah, but that is the difference between the
mathematical and physical point of view.
In maths you have to have a starting point
and an end point, e.g. 0 and 1 but even
though there is an infinite number of
values between them it is not infinity
because it has limits, i.e. 0 and 1 the
universe, however has no such limits.

Perhaps the Universe is the result of two opposing
rules or something - this will allow a similar
situation on an appropriate physical scale.

Originally posted by Mentat
This is what drag, and others, keep saying,
but I disagree. If someone speaks of the
spacial dimensions themselves as expanding,
then it doesn't follow that just some things
could be getting farther apart, but all
things should be getting farther apart.
And if all things are getting farther apart,
then this has to be happening throughout the
entirety of space. Of course, there is not
"entirety of space" in an infinite universe,
which is why I don't think that everything
can get farther away from everything else,
in an infinite universe. Thus, the spacial
dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite
universe, IMCO (in my current opinion).

Actualy, I believe we WERE speaking of the whole
"deal" and everything in it, otherwise it's just
a local kind of expansion.
I do not understand the part about the "entirety
of space", what do you mean ?

Originally posted by wimms
Ah, now I'm lost. Why did you find important
to object that so strongly?

Because you seem to use a law that is only
recognized so far in the Universe to justify
the Universe itself or something "outside" of
what we currently call the Universe.
For all we know the Universe may've just appeared.

Originally posted by wimms
In regards to rings, what you mean by ring?

I was just trying to demonstrate that even for
a finite Universe there is NO "nothing" that
you can talk about because nothing is just
not anything. Mentat's thread dealt with this
in the past and I think this was a well justified
explanation. Anyway, my demonstration is that of
all of the 4 dimensions currently known to us.
Think of all of them as curved into rings - then
they have no defined bounderies beyond which you
could say there is something/nothing/whatever.

Originally posted by wimms
Universe not logical? kidding right? Some argue
that universe is not only logical, but rather
IS the thing itself.

I'm talking about the Paradox of Existence.
Our "logic" is the result of trying to understand
the way existence (the Universe) works, but there
are countless possibilities for it because we
may have infinite rules and complexity. Either way,
the rules of the game do not explain the existence
of the game (and that is the ALMOST absolute fact ).

Live long and prosper.

 

[wimms]

I've never implied one should think of nothing in any other way.

Originally posted by Mentat
Oh really?

By definition, beyond these boundaries theremust be Nothing. Now ponder for a moment, what is Nothing?

Come on, why are you doing this? Exactly next sentence is exactly what you are trying to put through.

Say you have two things separated by Nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything.

Please don't catch me on wording. English is my 3rd language afterall. Later I said enough to be unambiguous.

Originally posted by drag
Because you seem to use a law that is only recognized so far in the Universe to justify the Universe itself or something "outside" of what we currently call the Universe. For all we know the Universe may've just appeared.

no-no. I've never implied there is any "something outside universe". However bad my english is, its not that bad. I merely pointed out that based on our fundamental law of energy conservation, universe could not have been created or get destroyed. Universe is just bunch of energy afterall. If that law doesn't hold, then we have some tough days ahead. If there was a point when energy was created, then this law is flawed. What happened once, can happen again... Energy cannot be created "inside". If so, then it had to be created all in instant by something outside. I went on specifically to show that there can be no outside, from logical point of view, not some conventional belief. If there is something outside, its included by our definition of universe, and only question subject shifts - what created that outside? We, as being inside that universe obviously obey laws of the whole, are part of the whole.
You see, there is yelling contradiction between energy conservation law and concept of creation, byitself or by anything outside. If it just appeared from nothing, then anything can appear just from nothing, and there is no place for energy conservation.

I was just trying to demonstrate that even for a finite Universe there is NO "nothing" that you can talk about because nothing is just not anything. Mentat's thread dealt with this in the past and I think this was a well justified explanation. Anyway, my demonstration is that of all of the 4 dimensions currently known to us. Think of all of them as curved into rings - then they have no defined bounderies beyond which you could say there is something/nothing/whatever.

We've been talking about the same Nothing/not anything. I'm amazed how it could get confusing.

In regards to curved space, disagree. We can't escape the boundaries by means of intertial motion, but that has nothing to do with boundaries or what's beyond them. Curving space doesn't mean there are no boundaries, its just comfortable way to say that we can't care less of the rest. To get "unbounded" curved space we do what? We take finite boundaries and curve them onto themselves.
We can't escape BH, but beyond it is this same universe, over and over, without limits. It might be different, have even different laws, but its still same universe. You've basically suggested that Universe is kind of BH. I don't think so, BH is just a subset of universe, its finite.

Regarding "logic", agree, but I'd go further and say its result of not only us trying, but direct correspondence with the thing itself. So there are not so countless possibilities, they are not here.
Rules of game do not explain the existence of game, unless, the rules IS the game.

 

[Royce]

The universe whether flat, infinite, or curved, open, saddle back, or closed, sphere, is a sum zero game. All normal energy and matter is positive energy. Gravity is negative energy and the sum is equal or nearly egual to zero.
There are thoughts that our universe may be a local temporary disturbance in the vacuum, a vertual particle that because of inflation has not yet gone back into the vacuum from which it came. There is also the possibily that it is a singularity that grew massive enough to just close its local spacetime about itself thus "dropping" out of its universe/spacetime reference into a void without reference and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight.
To say that space is curved has been proven time and time again. It is the effect of mass/gravity that curves space. The question is, is there enought mass in the universe to close space completely and thus some billions of years in the future the expansion will be halted by gravity and then the universe will begin deflating back eventually into the singularity from which it all started, the Big Crunch. All of this implies that the universe is not infinite, has had a beginning and will have an end and may start the cycle all over again. There is no way of knowing if we exist in the first, last or hundredth cycle as the singularity destroys all information of anything if there was anything before it occured.

 

[plus]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion).

It needs to be defined relative to what, the points are getting farter apart from.

Clearly it can be measured that the stars are getting further apart using conventional measuring techniques. This is what people mean when they say that the universe is expanding. In the same way that I can move further away from this computer for ever, stars can move further away for ever. If you like, it could be measured relative to the speed of light.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
Come on, why are you doing this? Exactly next sentence is exactly what you are trying to put through.
Please don't catch me on wording. English is my 3rd language afterall. Later I said enough to be unambiguous.

No, no, your problem is still conceptual, not lingual. You use terms such as "seperated by nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything". This should mean that they are not seperated, but you still use the term "serperated by nothing". Did you mean that they weren't serperated?

BTW, I'm sorry if I offended you, by my intolerance of misuse of the word "nothing". I just hate that there are so many people who don't understand that the word "nothing" doesn't describe anything. You seem to understand that, and I commend that. Your third language? Which other two do you speak? (English is my second language, as I first spoke Spanish).

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, no, your problem is still conceptual, not lingual. You use terms such as "seperated by nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything". This should mean that they are not seperated, but you still use the term "serperated by nothing". Did you mean that they weren't serperated?

Eh, infamous Nothing. You can't even explain that you "can't separate by nothing" without getting caught Of course I meant no separation.
I hope though that my main point finally got through, that in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing. Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.
I speak estonian and russian. would survive with finnish.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wimms
Please don't catch me on wording. English is
my 3rd language afterall.
...
However bad my english is, its not that bad.

It's my 3rd language too, and yours is very
good indeed.

Originally posted by wimms
Regarding "logic", agree, but I'd go further
and say its result of not only us trying, but
direct correspondence with the thing itself.
So there are not so countless possibilities,
they are not here.

Actually, it doesn't really work (in its "normal"
version) according to the "thing itself" as far as
we know it today.

Originally posted by wimms
Rules of game do not explain the existence of
game, unless, the rules IS the game.

That is a possibility but does not explain
their existence either, does it ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by wimms
Eh, infamous Nothing. You can't even explain that you "can't separate by nothing" without getting caught Of course I meant no separation.
I hope though that my main point finally got through, that in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing. Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.
I speak estonian and russian. would survive with finnish.

Mentat began a thread on the semantics of nothing. It lasted about 10 pages, if I recall correctly. Nothing means "not anything" therefore saying 'this is sepereted by nothing' is actually 'this is separated by not anything'. Are you getting "nothing" confused with a void??
If you meant no seperation, what did you mean?
English is my second language. (almost my third) The point is not how many languages you speak, its your understanding.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wimms
I hope though that my main point finally got
through, that in same way as you can't
separate by nothing,

Perhaps, you're right. (Though I ussualy dislike
nearly absolute claims.)

Originally posted by wimms
you can't surround by nothing.
Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.

That's an interesting logical deduction, but
I believe that other reasoning lines considered
it seems more like a semantic argument to me on
how much logical induction is present in it.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by damgo
... But back to the original question...

When we talk about the expansion of an infinite universe, we don't mean its "total size" gets bigger in the way, say, a balloon gets bigger as we blow it up. We mean that the distances between objects in the infinite universe gets larger. So if there are originall objects at {..,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} they will move to {...,-4,-2,0,2,4,..} after some time, and continue to get further apart.

And hereinafter : BB
{..,-8,-4,0,4,8,..} ... ...
{..,-16,-8,0,8,16,..} ... ...
{..,-32,-6,0,16,32,..} ... ...

And the universe became the blowed balloon, which concentrated a whole matter in the shell.
Is it so?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by wimms
Rules of game do not explain the existence of game, unless, the rules IS the game.

Originally posted by drag
That is a possibility but does not explain their existence either, does it ?

Yes, but it is interesting boundary situation that brings us to the limits of logical reasoning. Going past that will cause a short-circuit.

Think, what will remain after you "remove" all, mean ALL, from existence? To think about that, you need to apply logical reasoning. Say you conclude that what remains is nothing, oops, -> nothing remains. Just suppose, that we can imagine such condition. Then, we go on and apply logical reasoning. Or, frankly, we assert that logic remains. But logic is rules of a game, thus, if logic remains, it means existence remains. If you remove logic, you remove rules, and there is no game. Thus, rules of game and game are congruent, selfexplanatory, selfreferential. Asking anything beyond that point is invalid by ANY system of logical reasoning. Logic disintegrates.

By any system of logical reasoning, nothing is invalid state, not just impossible, but logically flawed concept. It may be "agreed" as impossible by reduction ad absurdum.

We have plenty of evidence that universe is logical, and very little evidence if at all that its absurd.
Therefore some believe that logic IS the game, rather than what it has or does. See http://ebtx.com for an interesting example.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by wimms
Yes, but it is interesting boundary situation
that brings us to the limits of logical
reasoning. Going past that will cause a
short-circuit.

Think, what will remain after you "remove"
all, mean ALL, from existence? To think
about that, you need to apply logical
reasoning. Say you conclude that what
remains is nothing, oops, -> nothing remains.
Just suppose, that we can imagine such
condition. Then, we go on and apply
logical reasoning. Or, frankly, we assert
that logic remains. But logic is rules of
a game, thus, if logic remains, it means
existence remains. If you remove logic, you
remove rules, and there is no game. Thus,
rules of game and game are congruent,
selfexplanatory, selfreferential. Asking
anything beyond that point is invalid by
ANY system of logical reasoning.
Logic disintegrates.

Precisely the point of my statement.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Much varieties of infinity is considered in a philosophy and in mathematician. The Physics tries to find one in which is realized our universe. It is correct. God had chosen for realization one of them and this means that a rest infinityes are just result of creative fantasy of people and have no relation to realities.
Any project for realization must provide such features of the object:
- it must be a most simplicity upon a conservation of all functions;
- an expenseses of energy for its operation must be a minimum;
- it must function in "real time mode" for what must be an instant feedback and a compensating influences;
- it must have a most compactness for a minimization of amount of the elements for realization purpose required;
- no a possible changes of parameter in the system must not bring about its destruction;

Certainly nobody can not know all planning of God, but list of the requirements above for a more or less complex system is known to any designer. So. The Project is approved and its realization began .

Suppose this BB and the following expansion of universe.
But this is a full ignoring of project or, more exactly, its
straight opposition. Only Devil could realize such a project which destroy all planning of God. Herewith his force must be enough to work the system, which can't be working in principle. Anyway, his force might has been enough to inspire the Illusion to realization of such project to people.
It is possible to write this so
(The Absolute zero---> 3D number(?)) * INFINITY--->3D SPACE INFINITY.
This INFINITY of the EXPANSION of THREE- DIMENSIONAL SPACE.
This is the "acting model of our universe".

Really, it is required a superconcepts and huge amount of subterfuges to present working of such "universe". Nobody can't to do it.

What must be a realization to corresponds on the minimum set of the requirements, at least?

It must be the EVOLUTION toward a certain ABSOLUTENESS, but must not BULGE SENSELESSLY in their own size to NOWHERE.
It must not achieve this ABSOLUTENESS in principle and it provides the INFINITY of the PROCESS of EVOLUTION.

Mathematically, this requirements correspond to the process of the endless fission of any real number which will not reach the ABSOLUTE ZERO never.

NUMBER / INFINITY ------> ABSOLUTE ZERO
This is a REAL INFINITY.
This is ALGORITHM, not formula, since a Number has a BINARY FORM. GOD from the beginning had used the INFORMATION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY.
Physically this process must have a FUNDAMENTAL ESSENCE presenting a number in mathematical model.
This the essence is TIME!

Michael F. Dmitriyev

 

[wimms]

-- in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing.

posted by drag
That's an interesting logical deduction, but I believe that other reasoning lines considered it seems more like a semantic argument to me on how much logical induction is present in it.

Seems? Show me the flaw. And, while at that, how does BB get away from that?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Surrounding something by nothing and seperating something by nothing are both essentially the same. That is, when you separate something by nothing, you are also surrounding it by nothing. Like wimms, I don't see the flaw...unless of course you're talking about quantum mechanics.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wimms
Seems? Show me the flaw. And, while at that,
how does BB get away from that?

That's part of my point - the BB(or the Universe
for that matter) doesn't seem to get away from that.
So, it seems that possibly it is not a real problem.

Well, about the flaw - you assume there must always
be something outside of something else.
This could possibly serve as one of the "faces"
of the PoE according to certain reasoning systems
that assume the above, but it is perfectly alright
in others, I believe.

The difference between this and the separated "by
nothing" argument is that the latter seems to
violate any reasoning we're so far aware of because
it goes against the "relation between entities" part
that is always present in them, I believe. I mean,
if there's nothing in between - there's no
relation between these separated entities, and
if there are relations - how is that possible ?
(In this case, it's the same as the action at
a distance paradox - before we found out that
the "distance" - space is not nothing.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Yes, Drag, your reasoning makes sense when one ignores QM.
Negative energy in a void (which is the same thing as a 'nothing', ignoring the semantics) is present when there is no positive energy present. But, of course, when one considers the semantics involved, what I said doesn't make sense, right?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by drag
That's part of my point - the BB(or the Universe for that matter) doesn't seem to get away from that. So, it seems that possibly it is not a real problem.

Eh, not that it isn't a problem, BB seems to simply ignore it.

Well, about the flaw - you assume there must always be something outside of something else.
This could possibly serve as one of the "faces" of the PoE according to certain reasoning systems that assume the above, but it is perfectly alright in others, I believe.

Its hard to follow you. Correction though: I didn't assume that, I deduced that by logic. Do I understand you correctly, that in some other system of reasoning, statement that something can be surrounded by what we called "not anything", is possibly valid? Is there possibly such a real number that is a last one?

The difference between this and the separated "by nothing" argument is that the latter seems to violate any reasoning we're so far aware of because it goes against the "relation between entities" part that is always present in them, I believe. I mean, if there's nothing in between - there's no relation between these separated entities, and if there are relations - how is that possible ?

Uhh. We just went through that. It was precisely whole point of my reasoning, to show that. I started with speculative proposition to show that its not valid. So did you above.

"relation between entities" *is* something - its 'space'. You can't distinguish separate entities if you don't separate them by something. Its like trying to distinguish 2 values whose difference is exactly 0.

Did you mean that in case for universe, there is no entity to relate to outside and thus to talk about 'relation' is invalid? Thats equivalent to searching for 'last number'. In any case, it seems that unboundedness is the only logical conclusion.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Eh, not that it isn't a problem, BB seems to simply ignore it.

Quantum mechanics allows for something to be "created out of nothing". So its not, quantum mechanically speaking, a problem, right?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

MajinVegeta, space is not nothing according
to modern science.

Originally posted by wimms
BB seems to simply ignore it.

Carefull... arguing with nature because
your "logic" tells you what you observe is
impossible is historicly shown to often
be a hopeless effort.

Originally posted by wimms
Do I understand you correctly, that in some
other system of reasoning, statement that
something can be surrounded by what we
called "not anything", is possibly valid?
Is there possibly such a real number that
is a last one?

Since any reasoning system deals with some
enitities and some relations between them
(though nothing is certain, of course),
your question is not posed correctly. After
all, not anything or nothing is NOT an
entity or a relation.

What I DID mean is that a different reasoning
system may not lead to assignment of limmits.
You talk about something outside ofeverything
as a condition, but what if I simply do not
concern myself with such a condition ?
A similar example is the once existing assumption
that cause must exist before effect, however, today
we know we might sometimes be able to observe
effect before cause, based upon the EPR
experiment and the "instant" WF collapse.
(Though personally, I still don't buy that... )

Originally posted by wimms
Uhh. We just went through that. It was
precisely whole point of my reasoning,
to show that. I started with speculative
proposition to show that its not valid.
So did you above.

"relation between entities" *is*
something - its 'space'. You can't
distinguish separate entities if you
don't separate them by something. Its
like trying to distinguish 2 values
whose difference is exactly 0.

Indeed. When it comes to the real world
"real" relations are themselves entities.
"Pure" relations can exist only in our
abstract thinking (math for example).

But, independent of how you regard
"normal" space in a particular case -
there is still a direct connection between
these "parts" of the real world. The lack
of such a connection would mean that any
abstract relation discribing this would
collapse. It would be a totally chaotic
system - cause with NO effect and chaos.
And if you did manage to tie between two
entities with no connection between them,
then you're the connection.

Originally posted by wimms
Did you mean that in case for universe,
there is no entity to relate to outside
and thus to talk about 'relation' is invalid?
Thats equivalent to searching for 'last number'.

No, you misunderstood me.

Let's try it this way:
If you have a bunch of entities interacting
directly - there's no (enitial, at least)problem
and you can then wonder - what's outside
of each entity, which is a more specific
case argument(and perhaps unnecessary).

But, if there are entities with no connection
between them then they can not possibly
communicate with each other in any manner
and hence it appears to be an impossibility
for a real world discription to include such
enitities since whoever's reasoning with this
discription has to be aware of this situation
and thus violate the lack of connection.

So, returning to the original opinions I
expressed - a limmited Universe may still
be debatable and is not as seemingly impossible
to me as separation by nothing.
(We are, of course, talking about conceptual
comprehension ability - there may be stuff
separated by nothing, but conceptually
I believe my above argument is an almost
absolute proof that we can't possibly know that.
You were implying that the basis of these
two cases is essentialy the same, and I think
it's not, even if there is some argument
as "tough" as mine above that deals with
a finite Universe and that I simply failed
to consider so far.)

Poka !

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

MajinVegeta, space is not nothing according
to modern science.

A medium.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Surrounding something by nothing and seperating something by nothing are both essentially the same. That is, when you separate something by nothing, you are also surrounding it by nothing. Like wimms, I don't see the flaw...unless of course you're talking about quantum mechanics.

I didn't think this would be necessary with you, Majin, as you usually don't misuse this word. However, I'm going to run your (quoted) post through the E.i.N.S. It becomes:

"The fact that something is not surrounded by anything, and the the fact that it is not separated by anything, are both essentially the same. That is when something isn't separated by anything, it is also isn't surrounded by anything."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
A medium.

Not just a medium. Relativity states that it is an entity, which changes and warps due to the presence (and change) of matter/energy.

 

[Kirk Gaulden]

space-temporal mechanics

Kirk Gaulden
keg963@hotmail.com

To answer your questions on space-time:

If you take the mathematical processes of relativity and apply them to
the four natural forces you come up with quantun space-time mechanics.
I cannot give specifics because my material is not published as of yet. I sent the information to the jet propulsion lab in California
for studies in space-time phenomenon regaurding mathematical gravity and how space expands, covering wormhole construction through manifolding energies to balance the energies in the universe to
the manipulation of space-times levels of gravity based on a relative
parodox method never used before. This material shows how the universe works, expanding quantum field theory to space-time fields
at different levels to expand the universes as a strand in string
theory. This information uses General Theory of Relativity as a
reference in local time and that time changes as bubbles of time that
our sun passes through that effects our evolution and progress in technologies.