- #141
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
What if the Planck length is expanding with the space itself.. having space always measure the same in units of Planck length...
The Infinity Experience: Can we truly comprehend infinity?
That means that the universe has to be finite. That means that "infinity" is a word that has no meaning in the physical universe. Anyone who reads my "Cyclic Universe" thread will know what I'm talking about. If the universe was infinite, then it would already have ended, because there is no way that a universe in which an infinite number of events has taken place can still be in existence. Therefore, in summary, infinity is just a concept, a mathematical tool, and has no meaning in the physical universe.In summary, infinity is a concept of something that goes on forever. However, in the physical sense, it cannot truly exist as the universe must be finite in order to exist. Math
What if the Planck length is expanding with the space itself.. having space always measure the same in units of Planck length...
- #142
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by drag
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.
How is it that you make an assumption about the basis of my assumption, while at the same time denouncing that such a basis can ever exist?
There is one thing that is absolute about finity and infinity: their definitions. They are rather clearly defined (as far as words go) and should thus only be referred to in a way that honors their meaning (otherwise, you could just as easily be discussing some entirely unrelated term).
Actually, your idea is not an hypothecical assumption, as hypotheses can be tested.
Then it is not science, and should restrict itself from scientific forums.
I don't understand this, what do you mean?
I thought it was the expansion of the Universe (or, at least, whether the Universe can be finite and yet expanding).
If Science makes not assumptions, then it should be perfectly comfortable with someone's saying that there is nothing but a singular Mind, and that we just percieve there being an objective reality. As it is, Science is not comfortable with this assumption, and must thus be making an assumption to the contrary.
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.
"Outside reality" refers to that which does not exist abstracly, in one's mind, but rather has physical/tangible existence.
- #143
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings !
I'm loosing the thread of thought here.
In general, observation as I meant it is not something
that has a strict definition. It's just everything = existence.
O.K. But, the strict defintion is in no way a
justification of your absolute reasoning, so I do
not see how that helps you to prove your baseless
assumption about the inability of the finite to
become infinite or the other way around.
O.K. Mind proving the inability of proof for my
hypothetical assumption ?
(You see the difference in our approaches to
assumptions ? You make absolute assumptions and
are naturally asked to prove their absoluteness.
btw, in most cases you still keep arguing to
no awail - don't know why , are you regarding
our discussions as "win or loose" ? Not a very smart
attitude if you ask me.
Anyway, I just make probabalistic assumptions and
again if you disagree with them the burden of
proof of their impossibility is upon you.
Now, this is NOT a way to "win" arguments. I really
don't care if I end up looking like a complete
idiot , sometimes...
This is just the way that appears to be the most
basic in argument construction or indeed in
reasoning - the Antrophic principle. Again, even
that may be shown probabalisticly wrong in the future,
but today and throughout human history it's been
pretty reliable...
)Rediculous !
The only and main way that science can expand in addition
to new types of observation is new reasoning systems
applied to it, that is the source of all current
scientific theories - to find the most consistent
perspective.
What's "outside" ?
You think your PC screen is "outside" of "you" ?
Scientificly that term makes no sense. Physics
uses the concept of distance that is a parmeter
applied to a certain type of observation data.
But, except saying that that piece of observation
data is inconsistent according to our applied reasoning,
which is clearly not the case, there is apparently
nothing more that one can accuse science of here.
And I thought that this thread referred to an
infinite Universe in the first place. So my assumption
may be considered unscientific, but then wouldn't
the whole thread be like that (in terms of the
Q&As) in the first place ?
WHO SAID IT'S NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ASSUMPTION ?
Science makes no true/false judgement on this
point at all because there is no acceptable
reasoning for now that makes us view at least
some observation data as relevant to this point at all.
If you remember what I said to LG FGNF(may he find a
good new forum ) many times it was that there
appears to be, for now at least, no evidence to
either support or not support his hypothesys which
is why it's simply an unneccessary assumption.
Do not confuse this with the reason he was banned.
The reason he was banned was connected to the fact
that he did try to present such "evidence" by
twisting science (sometimes in interesting, but most
times in rather clumsy ways resulting from his
relative poor knowledge of it) and by not really listening
to people trying to correct him, thus creating some
misleading threads with misleading subjects which
had the potential of misguiding the perspectives
of other members. (Still, though neccessary, it's ashame he was banned...
)Can you make the separation ?
Does Science (and in the remote case that after reading
this message you'll still say "yes", please do provide
an explanation
) ?Peace and long life.
Last edited:
- #144
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
What are you talking about? Infinity's strict definition is that it goes on forever. Part of finity's strict definition is that it does not go one forever. Thus, they are incompatible. One cannot ever become the other. They are of a qualitatively different order.
I already told you, it defies the definitions of the words that it makes use of (finity and infinity).
No, I don't think that I can win or lose this argument, but I do think that your reasoning (on some of these points) is flawed, and so I respond.
Thus, yours is not a scientific method, as probablistic assumptions, that may or may not even be provable, are not in the realm of science.
This is untrue. The Scientific method is one reasoning system, an cannot have other reasoning systems applied to it.
While Physics has shown that there is no relevance to saying that one thing is "outside" of another, the other Sciences make full use of this concept.
And I thought that this thread referred to an
infinite Universe in the first place. So my assumption
may be considered unscientific, but then wouldn't
the whole thread be like that (in terms of the
Q&As) in the first place ?
No, there is nothing wrong with an infinite Universe. The problem arrises in trying to say that it wasn't infinite, but became infinite.
Science makes a distinction between the mind of a human observer and that which is observed (othewise the Scientific method would become completely invalid).
- #145
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings !
Indeed.
Prove it, please.
I do not see any connection whatsoever between the
definitions of the words and the impossibility of the
process of "metafinity" which I hypothesized above.
In that case I must say that you have no idea what
science is all about.
The same as the previous response.
The same as the pre-previous response. (Unless of
course you can provide an example ? Don't think so...
)Again, why ? Explain, please.
There is indeed a problem from the perspective of modern
science. But that's just a probable problem, just like
all of science.
First of all, in general the concept of an independent
observer has been abandoned by science almost a century
ago, better get uptodate.
Second, there is no scientific distinction between
the "mind of a human observer" and any other group
of molecules (except their types and formations) and
so it will remain until shown to likely be otherwise
through some scientificly relevant evidence.
Doubt or shout !
Peace and long life.
- #146
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by drag
Prove it, please.
I already did. Infinity goes on forever. Finity does not. Now, without defying these definitions, show me how finity can turn to infinity.
Then look again.
No, I think it is you who doesn't understand the Scientific Method. It starts with observation, then the one collects data, then one hypothesises, then one rigorously tests the hypothesis, and then (if the hypothesis happened to survive testing) one has formulated a theory. Science is based on theories and observations, not on wild assumptions of "what if".
How so? The Scientific Method (as I have shown above) is one reasoning system. If you add other reasoning systems, then you have left the realm of the Scientific method.
The same as the pre-previous response. (Unless of
course you can provide an example ? Don't think so...
Alright, an example: Neurology. Neurology give a distinction between that which the mind observes, and that which is observed.
No, it's not just a scientific problem, it is a problem of definition. (See above).
First of all, in general the concept of an independent
observer has been abandoned by science almost a century
ago, better get uptodate.
It was abandoned by subatomic physics, nothing more. I have some knowledge of subatomic physics (whether you wish to acknowledge that or not), but I also have knowledge of other branches of science, and they still make the distinction on an everyday basis.
- #147
Zantra
- 793
- 3
Infinity itsself is a paradoxical notion that we give to concepts that we cannot yet fathom due to limitations on science, or the limits of our minds. Infinity cannot be proven, as there is no solution to the problem. Therefore since infinity represents a problem with no concievable solution, it can never be definitively solved. Take PI for example. As of yet no known solution (last I heard was to the 10 billionth decimal place). So we assume it's infinite because the solution is perhaps beyond our minds to comprehend. But we'll keep trying, and we may keep calculating and never reach the end, so the infity of the problem will remain an unsolved issue.
Such is the nature of the universe. We say that it's infinite, but it is only a theory. Can we prove the universe is infinite? No. If it is indeed infinite, then we will never reach the end, and thus the theory remains so, whereas with finite measurement, we may be able to one day in a distance unconcieved future reach the end of a finite universe. Perhaps one day we will one day develop the capacity to travel billions of light years to the other side of the "known" universe, only to discover that we've barely moved in the scope of things. Perhaps the universe is finite, and 1 trillion light years distance is merely .0000000000001 percent of the distance to the edge. It could be that the universe is finite, but as yet it's impossible for us to comprehend the size of it. It's all about perception, and I know we are still but mere children in our understanding of the universe.
Such is the nature of the universe. We say that it's infinite, but it is only a theory. Can we prove the universe is infinite? No. If it is indeed infinite, then we will never reach the end, and thus the theory remains so, whereas with finite measurement, we may be able to one day in a distance unconcieved future reach the end of a finite universe. Perhaps one day we will one day develop the capacity to travel billions of light years to the other side of the "known" universe, only to discover that we've barely moved in the scope of things. Perhaps the universe is finite, and 1 trillion light years distance is merely .0000000000001 percent of the distance to the edge. It could be that the universe is finite, but as yet it's impossible for us to comprehend the size of it. It's all about perception, and I know we are still but mere children in our understanding of the universe.
- #148
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings !
Zantra, I'd just like to correct you by mentioning
the fact that math is an absolute abstract (thought out/
invented) system and that [pi] IS proven to be irrational
by an appropriate mathematical theorem. Thus, it will
never end.
If I knew how it is done it would be more than
just hypothetical. Now, don't try to play reverse
psychology on me cause if you say something's
impossible you're the one who has to prove it.
The scientific method uses reasoning systems.
All scientific theories are formulated by applying
reasoning of some sort to observed data.
For example, If I reason that everything has a source
then I can say that this orange is the product of
some other physicly defined entity. If I reason
that everything appears out of thin air then
I can say that this orange just materialized.
Of course, observation and the reasoning applied
to it and accepted as scientific are mutualy
connected. We draw our reasoning principles from
observation and we apply them to observation.
Another example - I consider everything that is
mathematicly consistent and appears to discribe
observation to be science. This approach is based
upon the reasoning that math applies to observation.
This in turn has it's source in the fact that it
appears to us that most observation data includes
some basic common principles that we summed up in
the form of mathematics.
The distinction you're making is a distinction within
observation. But, for something to really be "outside"
one needs to prove that something exists that is
independent of observation (which I personally think
is probably impossible because I think that existence
and observation are most likely inseprable synonyms in
this respect).
for now at least. The most fundumental principles
of our reasoning are separate entities, empty space
and more. Further more, the issue becomes much
less of a problem at macroscopic scales. So, approximations
do fine for the most part aspecially considering that
all macroscopic scale sciences are still full of these.
Live long and prosper.
Zantra, I'd just like to correct you by mentioning
the fact that math is an absolute abstract (thought out/
invented) system and that [pi] IS proven to be irrational
by an appropriate mathematical theorem. Thus, it will
never end.
It's a hypothetical process I proposed, remember ?
If I knew how it is done it would be more than
just hypothetical. Now, don't try to play reverse
psychology on me cause if you say something's
impossible you're the one who has to prove it.
The scientific method is not a reasoning system.
The scientific method uses reasoning systems.
All scientific theories are formulated by applying
reasoning of some sort to observed data.
For example, If I reason that everything has a source
then I can say that this orange is the product of
some other physicly defined entity. If I reason
that everything appears out of thin air then
I can say that this orange just materialized.
Of course, observation and the reasoning applied
to it and accepted as scientific are mutualy
connected. We draw our reasoning principles from
observation and we apply them to observation.
Another example - I consider everything that is
mathematicly consistent and appears to discribe
observation to be science. This approach is based
upon the reasoning that math applies to observation.
This in turn has it's source in the fact that it
appears to us that most observation data includes
some basic common principles that we summed up in
the form of mathematics.
I don't think I understand the relevance here.
The distinction you're making is a distinction within
observation. But, for something to really be "outside"
one needs to prove that something exists that is
independent of observation (which I personally think
is probably impossible because I think that existence
and observation are most likely inseprable synonyms in
this respect).
That's because they do not really know how to do without it,
for now at least. The most fundumental principles
of our reasoning are separate entities, empty space
and more. Further more, the issue becomes much
less of a problem at macroscopic scales. So, approximations
do fine for the most part aspecially considering that
all macroscopic scale sciences are still full of these.
Live long and prosper.
- #149
Zantra
- 793
- 3
Ok you say it's been mathmatically proven that there is no end to PI. Show me. YOu can't. We make the "assumption" that it's a neverending loop because we cannot calculate an absolute value. It's again, a "theory"
PI is a bad example, so let's try a different angle. We used to believe the world was flat and that eventually if you reached the end you'd just fall off. We didn't "KNOW" it was, but society made this assumption based on their limited knowledge of the world around them. Then columbus proved them wrong. It's the same scenario. Making assumptions based on limited date to hypothesize, but again we come to the word "theory" which is not proven. To put it in the most basic terms. The Earth is round. I can travel along an axis and eventually I come back to the same point, thus the observation is proven correct. Prove to me with unrefuteable data or conclusive proof that the universe is infinite. And that, is simply my point.
Infinity is a self-defeating paradox that cannot be proven because the very nature of the concept represents a lack of proof or definition.
Last edited:
- #150
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Zantra !
in general about REAL infinity. However, when
it comes to math which is a strict and defined
system that we invented - it is capable of proving
something within it is infinite.
Here's the theorem and related links if you wan'em:
http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/infinity/irrat_nm.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html
Live long and prosper.
Purhaps you misunderstood me. I agree with you
in general about REAL infinity. However, when
it comes to math which is a strict and defined
system that we invented - it is capable of proving
something within it is infinite.
Here's the theorem and related links if you wan'em:
http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/infinity/irrat_nm.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html
Live long and prosper.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #151
Zantra
- 793
- 3
Ok this is turning into a PI discussion which isn't the direction I was headed, so for the sake of the argument we'll concede the irrationality of PI.
But at this point I was thinking that the current mathmatical understanding eventually won't be able to coexist with the true nature of the universe we will discover, and in fact will have to be expanded.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #152
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
That's why I'm saying it's an abstract system - it
is not connected to the Universe.
- #153
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 42,988
- 981
Zantra:
How nice of you. I was under the impression that had been pretty conculusively proven. It is also easy to prove that any number that does NOT have an infinite number of (non-zero) decimal places must be a fraction with only powers of 2 and 5 in the denominator. (And even those will give infinite expansions if you happen to use base 11 rather than base 10.) That has nothing to do with whether or not there actually exist an infinite number of things in the universe.
Zantra:
Well, yes, that happens all the time- the main job of mathematicians is to establish new types of mathematics which physicists often find illuminate physics better. (Much to the disgust of the mathematicians, of course!)
How nice of you. I was under the impression that had been pretty conculusively proven. It is also easy to prove that any number that does NOT have an infinite number of (non-zero) decimal places must be a fraction with only powers of 2 and 5 in the denominator. (And even those will give infinite expansions if you happen to use base 11 rather than base 10.) That has nothing to do with whether or not there actually exist an infinite number of things in the universe.
Zantra:
Well, yes, that happens all the time- the main job of mathematicians is to establish new types of mathematics which physicists often find illuminate physics better. (Much to the disgust of the mathematicians, of course!)
- #154
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Needed an EDIT, so put it here to ensure it is noticed...
It may be that we cannot concieve of an infinity, but we can, and do, experience it, all of our lives(times).
It is 'actrully', all you will ever experience and it will be, greater still then all of what you will experience of it!
Last edited: