The Infinity Experience: Can we truly comprehend infinity?

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
What do you mean, sage made it pretty obvious: If
something starts out finite, it will never reach
infinity. This just has to do with the basic
definition of infinity, which means "going on forever".

Maybe it just became infinite - like an on/off
switch - no expansion (a word that discribes
the derivative of the ratio between the volume
and the time) involved.

 

[HazZy]

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Maybe it just became infinite - like an on/off
switch - no expansion (a word that discribes
the derivative of the ratio between the volume
and the time) involved.

No, because that means that there was a time when it was not infinite. If there was a time when it wasn't infinite, it can never become infinite.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
If there was a time when it wasn't infinite,
it can never become infinite.

Why ?
(I was trying to avoid being sadistic, but
it just didn't work out that way... )

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by HazZy
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

I've seen this before, and it is a perfectly acceptable cosmological model, but doesn't answer the question of how the spatial dimensions themselves can expand, if the universe is already infinite. You see what I mean? While the model proposed in your link could be true, I wasn't questioning it, I was questioning the model of a universe (by which I mean the whole universe) that was small and became infinite.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Why ?
(I was trying to avoid being sadistic, but
it just didn't work out that way... )

'

I don't like repeating myself...

Originally Posted by Me
On the off chance that you still don't understand it, think of how long it would take a finite entity to reach infinity. Answer: forever. Since forever hasn't passed yet (and never will), the universe would never reach infinity.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't like repeating myself...

Can't say I like it either, so I won't...
I'll let you do all the work - go 7 messages
back (including this one).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Can't say I like it either, so I won't...
I'll let you do all the work - go 7 messages
back (including this one).

Nothing is instantaneous, according to Relativity, so your on/off example is flawed from the start. Then you have the matter of the Universe's having been finite at some point in time. This also does not allow the Universe to (at any point, short of forever) reach infinite size.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Nothing is instantaneous, according to Relativity

The BB itself doesn't make sense according to
Relativity, so ?
Like I said, this thread was dealing with the
hypothetical case of an infinite Universe and
the related possible paradox, not with the
scientific indication or possibility of the
Universe's nature.

Live long and prosper.

 

[sage]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What is infinity? How can something infinite expand? Once and for all, how can we conclude that the universe is infinite?
.

look at the third question that majin asked.so drag let us leave the decision of what this thread is dealing with to him.not that i am saying that the universe could not be infinite.read on.
but before that let's clarify whether a finite quantity can expand to become an infinite one.consider the set of all positive integers.it's infinite.now consider the set{1}.it is a finite subset of the above infinite set with no. of elements being one.now say add other positive integers serially one after another in ascending order such that the set increases by n integers per second with n being finite.so when will the set become infinite?NEVER.or not until infinite time has elapsed.i can give more examples but the fact is iff the universe was finite at the time of the big bang it cannot be infinite today.this applies well to our observable universe which was just a point at the time of the bang.indeed hazzy's site gives it's actual radius.so what's the point?
now let us talk about the total universe.that's a red herring.you can't see it, observe it and there is no hope of observing it in future.what's the use thinking of something we can't even verify.but i must say the approach of physicists is rather pragmatic.they feel we live in an unbiased sample of the universe and whatever is true for the part we can see is true in general.research shows that our part is most probably flat.a flat surface extends to infinity.so they conclude the entire universe is a flat surface extending to infinity.if so by our previous conclusions it follows the universe as a whole must be infinite at the beggining of the big bang.since it has been expanding since(vide the idea that anything that holds here holds everywhere). so we come to the original question-can a infinite entity get bigger?
seen a thin rubber sheet?strech it-it elongates does it not?now assume a rubber sheet of the same material extending to infinity say along its length.mark 2 points on it by a sketch pen.now strech holding the sheet at these two points.surely the sheet will elongate(i.e. the dist. between the points increase)otherwise we will have to conclude that rubber has suddenly become as rigid as stone just because it extends to infinity.absurd is'nt it.verdict-infinite entities can expand and there is no logical fallacy in assuming that the universe, infinite at the time of the bang is expanding ever since.
i must say that any assumptions about the entire universe is purely hypothetical and will change constantly as more advanced theories come into being to explain newer facts about the observable universe which we are only beggining to probe in detail.anyway drag what does a switch has to do with the universe.enlighten me will you?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by sage
look at the third question that majin asked.so drag let us leave the decision of what this thread is dealing with to him.

To her...

Originally posted by sage
but before that let's clarify whether a finite quantity can expand to become an infinite one.consider the set of all positive integers.it's infinite.now consider the set{1}.it is a finite subset of the above infinite set with no. of elements being one.now say add other positive integers serially one after another in ascending order such that the set increases by n integers per second with n being finite.so when will the set become infinite?NEVER.or not until infinite time has elapsed.i can give more examples but the fact is iff the universe was finite at the time of the big bang it cannot be infinite today.this applies well to our observable universe which was just a point at the time of the bang.

Did you also remember to tell the Universe
it must follow mathematical logic ?

Originally posted by sage
anyway drag what does a switch has to do with
the universe.enlighten me will you?

I was just giving an example to Mentat how one
state can change into another (a light switch is
a good example - light/no light).

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - You're a female? How old are you?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - You're a female? How old are you?

NO ! NO ! NO !
Oh, sorry ! I meant - no, I'm not.
MajinVegeta is, and I believe she said she's 13.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Oh ok, I thought you were corrected someone calling YOU male.

Majin, hmm 13, hmmm. Darn.

 

[heusdens]

Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space

Here is a contribution to this issue of infinity.

http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5"

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
The BB itself doesn't make sense according to
Relativity, so ?

Not true. There are many models of the expansion of the Universe, that are perfectly compatible with GR.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Did you also remember to tell the Universe
it must follow mathematical logic ?

This is one of the assumptions that Science has already made (and everything in Theoretical Physics must conform to the assumptions of Science, obviously).

I was just giving an example to Mentat how one
state can change into another (a light switch is
a good example - light/no light).

It's a good enough example, but irrelevant as a description of the Universe's expansion - as I've already shown.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Oh ok, I thought you were corrected someone calling YOU male.

Majin, hmm 13, hmmm. Darn.

You know, souding this deperate is not exactly a good strategy... Oh well.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
Not true. There are many models of the expansion
of the Universe, that are perfectly compatible with GR.

What does the "expansion of the Universe" have
to do with the BB ?!

Anyway, I have to point out (and you do
know, I hope, that I'm a person who ussualy
tends to mind his manners ) that you're
BSing me. Really !
I'm telling you that the Universe could just
become infinite as a hypothetical assumption,
a potentially usefull one for this hypothetical
thread btw, and you're shoving some current
scientific theories in my face saying "no, it's
impossible !". Is science complete ? Do we care
about science in this unscientific hypothetical
debate ?
I'm a very patient person, but it certainly seems
to me that you keep arguing just for the sake
of arguing, tell me it isn't so !

Originally posted by Mentat
This is one of the assumptions that Science has
already made (and everything in Theoretical Physics
must conform to the assumptions of Science, obviously).

Science makes no assumptions. Math is a language
and science uses it to discribe the Universe
(not with perfect success btw, whatever perfect
success might mean) if and when it works
better than other availible languages.

Originally posted by Mentat
It's a good enough example, but irrelevant as
a description of the Universe's expansion - as
I've already shown.

No. The Universe's expansion is irrelevant to
this example because this example has nothing
to do with expansion.

Don't answer this if you feel you have to,
answer it if you feel you can make a relevant
point, please.
Thanks !

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Anyway, I have to point out (and you do
know, I hope, that I'm a person who ussualy
tends to mind his manners ) that you're
BSing me. Really !
I'm telling you that the Universe could just
become infinite as a hypothetical assumption,
a potentially usefull one for this hypothetical
thread btw, and you're shoving some current
scientific theories in my face saying "no, it's
impossible !".

That's not all I'm doing. I'm also reasoning with you on the nature of infinity. You continue to side-step my arguments, and it's rather frustrating to have to keep repeating them.

I'm a very patient person, but it certainly seems
to me that you keep arguing just for the sake
of arguing, tell me it isn't so !

It's not. I do feel I have an obligation to defend my position, but if you would prove me wrong (which you don't seem to want to do, given your obvious side-stepping tendencies), I would give up that position.

Science makes no assumptions.

That is dead wrong. Science makes plenty of assumptions. For example: it assumes that there is an objective Universe, even thought this cannot be proven or falsified. This is just one example, but it should serve to prove that Science makes assumptions.

No. The Universe's expansion is irrelevant to
this example because this example has nothing
to do with expansion.

Yes it does. If something was smaller, and then was bigger, it got from smaller to bigger. If it did so, then it expanded, because "expansion" means "getting bigger".

Don't answer this if you feel you have to,
answer it if you feel you can make a relevant
point, please.
Thanks !

I like to believe that all of my points have been relevant, but, even if they haven't been, they have all had merit (as have all of yours), and should thus be considered directly, instead of being side-stepped.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
That's not all I'm doing. I'm also reasoning with
you on the nature of infinity. You continue to
side-step my arguments, and it's rather frustrating
to have to keep repeating them.

The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science. Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim.

Originally posted by Mentat
It's not. I do feel I have an obligation to defend my
position, but if you would prove me wrong (which you
don't seem to want to do, given your obvious side-stepping tendencies), I would give up that position.

Prove you wrong ?
You can understand from the above that there's
no need for me to do that. But, if you wish:
My reasonig system is that entities that are finite
CAN become infinite and the other way around.
This is done in a procedure I'll call - "metafinity".

Originally posted by Mentat
That is dead wrong. Science makes plenty of assumptions.

That is dead wrong.

Originally posted by Mentat
For example: it assumes that there is an objective Universe, even thought this cannot be proven or falsified. This is just one example, but it should serve to prove that Science makes assumptions.

Show me a real science book that says that.
Science doesn't even adress such issues, it just
deals with observation and connected reasoning.
You've been talking to Alexander too much...
He, indeed, believes in science. But, he simply
misinterprets it.

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it does. If something was smaller, and then was bigger,
it got from smaller to bigger. If it did so, then it
expanded, because "expansion" means "getting bigger".

Nope, it "metafinited".

Originally posted by Mentat
I like to believe that all of my points have been relevant, but, even if they haven't been, they have all had merit (as have all of yours), and should thus be considered directly, instead of being side-stepped.

They have merit as long as you truly mean what you
say and not just talk because you feel you have to.

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mentat
That is dead wrong. Science makes plenty of assumptions.

Give an example, please.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RuroumiKenshin
Give an example, please.

I did, in my response to drag.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science.

This is an assumption with no basis, but I'll ignore it, for the time being.

Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim.

Yes there is basis, the nature of the term "infinity". It would take an infinite amount of time to reach infinite size, if you started out finite. This is just a result of using the term "infinite".

Prove you wrong ?
You can understand from the above that there's
no need for me to do that. But, if you wish:
My reasonig system is that entities that are finite
CAN become infinite and the other way around.
This is done in a procedure I'll call - "metafinity".

This is not a "reasoning system", it is an assumptions, without basis. You are speculating, instead of deferring to the already rigorously defined avenues that Science has been pursuing. IOW, you are presenting a speculation, without Scientific basis, and expecting it to solve a problem that scientists have been struggling with (in a scientific manner) for a very long time.

That is dead wrong.
Show me a real science book that says that.
Science doesn't even adress such issues, it just
deals with observation and connected reasoning.

Exactly, it deals with observations, as though they actually existed outside of the mind of the "beholder". Remember, just because it seems like an obvious conclusion, doesn't mean that it isn't an assumption (which cannot be proven or falsified, btw).

Nope, it "metafinited".

Again, you attempt to solve a scientific problem through an unscientific approach (presenting your own speculation, and (in case you hadn't noticed) redefining the properties of "infinity").

 

[wimms]

Yes it does. If something was smaller, and then was bigger, it got from smaller to bigger. If it did so, then it expanded, because "expansion" means "getting bigger".

Expansion isn't necessarily getting bigger. Take a sugar cube, one piece. Crush it - many pieces. Expansion. Number of distinguishable pieces expands. Think entropy, varing timeflow, evaporation into vacuum, you can get to possible illusion of spatial expansion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
Expansion isn't necessarily getting bigger. Take a sugar cube, one piece. Crush it - many pieces. Expansion.

That's not expansion, that's decomposition.

Number of distinguishable pieces expands.

Number of distinguishable pieces increases.

 

[wimms]

semantics again. You don't even try to understand if you sense any loose semantics.
Number of distinguishable spacetime positions, measured in Planck units, increases. If your only measure of distance is number of Planck lengths, you perceive it as expansion.
I'm not to pursue this idea. Discard it when you understand it.

 

[sage]

this thread is getting bizarre.

The only reasoning that makes sense is the
"likely one apparently supported by observation" =
science. Since I made a hypothetical assumption
for the sake of this discussion your attempts
to disprove it are ridiculous because you're basicly
saying that there's some absolute Universal reason
which denies my hypothetical assumption and there
does not appear to be any basis to support such a claim

even agreeing to the fact that such a phase transition from finite to infinity may be logically consistent it certainly did not happen AFTER THE BIG BANG since physics does not allow such a phenomenon.
so the point is if the universe is infinite today it had to be infinite at the time of the big bang due to the constraints of physics.metafinity did not happen after the big bang and we are not concerned with what happened before.
AN APPLE FALLS ON EARTH.WHY?BECAUSE PHYSICS SAYS THERE EXISTS A FORCE CALLED GRAVITY THAT ACTS ON IT.WHAT IS A FORCE? WHAT CAUSES IT?WELL...SO YOU SAID PHYSICS DOES NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS.WHAT ABOUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS "REAL" OR SAY LOGICAL,THAT WE OBSERVE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS OUT THERE.THINK ABOUT IT.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
semantics again. You don't even try to understand if you sense any loose semantics.
Number of distinguishable spacetime positions, measured in Planck units, increases. If your only measure of distance is number of Planck lengths, you perceive it as expansion.
I'm not to pursue this idea. Discard it when you understand it.

Yes, the particles "expand" away from each other, is that what you mean?

If so, then your reasoning only works when "expansion" means "getting farther apart". However, the Big Bang theory (when coupled with General Relativity) dictates that the spatial dimensions themselves, are "getting bigger" (expanding).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sage
this thread is getting bizarre.
even agreeing to the fact that such a phase transition from finite to infinity may be logically consistent it certainly did not happen AFTER THE BIG BANG since physics does not allow such a phenomenon.
so the point is if the universe is infinite today it had to be infinite at the time of the big bang due to the constraints of physics.metafinity did not happen after the big bang and we are not concerned with what happened before.
AN APPLE FALLS ON EARTH.WHY?BECAUSE PHYSICS SAYS THERE EXISTS A FORCE CALLED GRAVITY THAT ACTS ON IT.WHAT IS A FORCE? WHAT CAUSES IT?WELL...SO YOU SAID PHYSICS DOES NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS.WHAT ABOUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS "REAL" OR SAY LOGICAL,THAT WE OBSERVE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS OUT THERE.THINK ABOUT IT.

Sage, you've done it again! Very eloquently put.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, the particles "expand" away from each other, is that what you mean?

If so, then your reasoning only works when "expansion" means "getting farther apart". However, the Big Bang theory (when coupled with General Relativity) dictates that the spatial dimensions themselves, are "getting bigger" (expanding).

Yes. Number of distinguishable spacetime positions IS 'spacial dimensions themselves'. Particles come only after that. If given particle 'fills' fixed number of spatial positions, it will not 'expand' with space. Purely my opinion. Entropy increases with number of possible states, so I speculate it has to do with it even though particles remain intact.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

I appologize for my late response. I've
been abroad for a few days and now I'm back.

Originally posted by Mentat
This is an assumption with no basis, but I'll
ignore it, for the time being.

That is indeed an assumption with no basis.
That's why it makes sense - because "bases",
ANY bases, make no sense. In this case, however,
I did not and will not provide a basis by not
defining the word sense. Observation is just
something - whatever, the rest is assumptions
and likely patterns.

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes there is basis, the nature of the term "infinity".
It would take an infinite amount of time to reach
infinite size, if you started out finite. This is just
a result of using the term "infinite".

Since niether the finite nor the infinite presents
even partial solutions to the mystery of their existence
I see no reason to consider any solution as absolute,
beyond the likely preferences infered from observation.
If you wish to deal with absolute reasoning
please refer to the God & Religion forum.

Originally posted by Mentat
This is not a "reasoning system", it is an assumptions,
without basis. You are speculating, instead of deferring to the already rigorously defined avenues that Science has been pursuing. IOW, you are presenting a speculation, without Scientific basis, and expecting it to solve a problem that scientists have been struggling with (in a scientific manner) for a very long time.

I'm not trying to solve anything and nor am I
presenting any scientific basis. I'm just making
a hypothetical assumption because this thread
has made it enitially already and then went on
to discuss the possibilities of expansion in
such a case. BTW, this IS a reasoning system just
like any other. It just doesn't appear to apply to
observation, for now.

Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly, it deals with observations, as though they actually existed outside of the mind of the "beholder". Remember, just because it seems like an obvious conclusion, doesn't mean that it isn't an assumption (which cannot be proven or falsified, btw).

No, it just deals with observation.
They don't mention this part in physics
books because they wan'na save the forests.
We just have observed data, "outside" makes no
scientific sense in addition to what's observed.

Originally posted by Mentat
Again, you attempt to solve a scientific problem through an unscientific approach (presenting your own speculation, and (in case you hadn't noticed) redefining the properties of "infinity").

And what was that scientific problem, Mentat ?

Sage, our current cosmology models are patheticly
primitive in terms of really providing some answers.
It indeed seems likely according to modern physics
that the Universe could not just become infinite
but science can only state likeliness, it can't
prove things beyond any doubt.

Also again, read my lips - SCIENCE MAKES NO ASSIMPTIONS.
I don't know of what's an "outside reality". Physics
deals with measurements of space and time but it
does not have a parameter called "outside reality"
nor does it have a numeric value for such a parameter.
Clear ?

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Hey Majin ! Why did you change your username ?

 

[iron~orchid]

"...However, I'm talking about space itself. If you take a space that is infinite (as in, having no end), how could you possibly add more space to this?... "

This may have already been mentioned in this thread -- but an answer to the above would be:

To 'add' more space to space, you get rid of all of the junk that is taking up space within the infinite.

Say like, the Earth, dissolves and the area where solid mass exists -- becomes added space.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It comes from a childs joke; "How many sides to a Circle?"

The answer is "Two, inside and outside."

From that we define 'space', and that is by delineation.

The definition of "infinite" is 'undelineated space', or "Space with no boundries", but this brings us to a simply problem.

All of the thoughts in our heads are 'delineations of space', hence we can conclude that an 'undelineated space', a 'space without boundaries', is something that we cannot conceive of.

Ergo, no thoughts on the subject, no math, no concepts that will "fill the intellectual bill" as there cannot be, because every thought, is a "delineation" of space.

Thanks.....have nice thoughts!