Infinity as referring to a literal, completed physical circumstance (no matter how mind-bogglingly extended or countable) would accordingly be finite, thus canceling out the original claim / ascription. The "immeasurable word" outside of adoption in abstract constructs and technical systems therefore just seems to refer to a continuing or intermittent process of either "adding more" or dividing / fragmenting further. Having no final stage of completion and precise reckoning for such a fixed, fantastic magnitude by even a supernatural agency's magical yardstick.
Could we say that infinity itself has a self-generative aspect to it in that however much there is of it, more always rises up beyond it? Sort of like time. But then what is the ontic status of this "more"? If it is real, then it was always real, like how all uncounted numbers no matter how large must be as real as counted numbers. But to be a set of real objects at all entails a circumscription beyond which there is a nonreal. How can the ongoing epistemically unaccessed infinity be both real and nonreal? Is this the very definition of the possible..the potential.. of pure eternal and increate energy? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The endless process of counting seems to fall out of or be contained in any algorithm that can output the symbols of the continuing sequence, rather than being an existing, completed set. [That's why I tend to view Plato's Theory of Forms as actually concerning intelligibles that are sort of like "rules for producing material and geometrical phenomena" rather than unimaginable, idealized figures that literally exhibit all the properties and states of a class of being at once. Berkeley smashed the latter interpretation to pieces.] The typical brand of eternalism would seem to ensure an existence that is finite, since the past / future exist -- "time" has always been completed, so to speak. But the "growing" hybrid of eternalism and presentism (in philosophy of time) would allow the past to still be "real" while the future is a continuing process of addition. Thus classifiable as "infinite" in the latter sense, if never to be completed or coming to a halt. Bradley Dowden: . . . However, according to the growing-universe or growing-block theory, the past and present are both real, but the future is not real because the future is indeterminate or merely potential. Dinosaurs are real, but our death is not. The third theory is that there are no objective ontological differences among present, past, and future because the differences are merely subjective. This view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism.” --Time; IEP
Finite Shapes InfiniteNon-occuipied Space The finite occupied space,--- O shapes from within the infinite non-occupied space. The finite occupied space shape, is in eternal fluctuation tho naught is ever lost or created in the process of shape changing. In heat death scenarios--- maximal dispersion ---of Universe, some aspects of Universe's shape may become very flat if not appearing as 2D plane only. This latter scenario may be similar to those who ascribed to singularity type ideas of black hole--- maximal compression ---and the opposite conditions of a heat death scenario. Here we open a whole other can of worms, that, imho, are directly related to a corrdinated set of 4, 60 degree oriented and seemingly 2D flat planes. Archimedes---greatest of ancient mathematicians --to understand the integral relationships of this set. Integral/integrity a : essential to completeness : constituent <an integral part of the curriculum> b (1) : being, containing, or relating to one or more mathematical integers (2) : relating to or concerned with mathematical integration or the results of mathematical integration c : formed as a unit with another part <a seat with integral headrest> r6
Infinity is real, it exists... ...it is everything... ...everything is it... ...join everything together... ... close the ends... .. Inflate into a sphere... Infinity is infinite Origami frogs.
Simple Concept Difficult For Some Humans < O > = texticon reprsenting non-occupied and occupied space/"U"niverse This following concept is a fairly simple to follow, irrespective of whether our physical/energy Universe of occupied space is finite integrity--- as I propse ---, or infinite as some others propose. Ok, lets see if there are humans here that can do this following thought process; Conceptually remove the concepts of a finite or <infinite> set of occupied space from existence, and we left only with non-occupied, macro-micro infinite space. See how simple that was. Maybe even a 10 year can follow this simple thought process. I dunno. Here as follows I again use texticon to help those who may be young still and have not yet developed their mental concepts well enough to do the above thought process. < > = texticon representing macro-micro infinite non-occupied space and we have removed the texticon of occupied space aka O < O > infinite space with a finite occupied space or some alleged infinite( not finite ) occupied space < > perhaps using even just this texticon is too confusing for some younger people and some adults in defining an infinite set of non-occupied space. In mathematics the following bracket symbols are used to define a infinite set {......} or { oo} or { } or { infinite }. Space is macro-micron infinite and near the top of the cosmic heirarchy and divides into two simple concepts; non-occupied space----macro-micro infinite ergo < > occupied space---finite---ergo O simple not complex. r6
Pardon? What's this part for a start... macro-micro infinite space ... and I can do any thought process if it makes sense. And you appear to be using zero without giving zero any physics.
Infinite non-occupied space requires no integrity to exist. It's all occupied. Finite occupied space requires and integral finite set of cosmic laws/principles. So does infinite. ..energy cannot be created nor destroyed is basis for a finite, systemic-- if not also structural system ---set of interrelating phenomena. Same with infinite. Infinite non-occupied space is devoid of phenomena ergo i.e. energyless. It's all occupied. These are simple rational logistics, to which you nor anyone else has anything rational or logical to counter-argue your beliefs with. I just did.
gmilam It is ONLY a concept that has no real existence outside of our intellect, you are correct. Time had a beginning therefore it is not and can never be infinite. Same goes for space, it had a beginning and at no point in time did it expand at infinite speed, so it is finite in size. We can conceive of the concept, but if it shows up in our physics it is a sign that we are misunderstanding something. Infinity in physics means "We don't know." or "Here be dragons." Even Black Holes are not infinitely dense, there is always a bigger hole that affects larger areas of spacetime, but there is no hole that affects all of spacetime(unless the whole Universe is within one(closed Universe)). When we say something will continue forever into the future, we are conceiving infinity, but that infinity will never exist, time had a beginning and the Universe has not experienced an infinity of it(it is a finite, measurable duration to the beginning and always will be)and will never have experienced an infinity of it. Same goes for "infinite" space, it does not, can not and will not exist, ever, it will always be finite in size. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This theoretical physical model completes all of your outlines for infinity. Call it a template for infinity... Time has no beginning. Space had no beginning. Space is circulating its expansion. Black holes are not infinitely dense they are circulating their scale. The whole Universe is in a black hole infinite regressive. Time circulates.
Pincho, you don't understand that your use of the word "all" inherently infers/implies a wholeness, completeness ergo finite integrity. Macro-micro infinite non-occupied space is beyond concepts such as "all", whole, integrity etc........ Finite occupied space requires and integral finite set of cosmic laws/principles. No your just being irrational Pincho. You need to reread and actually try to use some rational logic thought processing, instead of just trying to treat a true cosmically infinite non-occupied space the same as finite occupied space i.e. your trying to mix treat two distinctly sperate/differrent catagories as if they are the exactly the same erg; 1) you obviously cannot grasp/understand/comprehend the distinct differrence between an infinite non-occupied space, and a finite occupied space and Earthly analogy for this lack of comprehension on your part would be the ole saying, that,your mixing apples and oranges, 2) true cosmically empty/non-occupied space is a void ergo there is no need of a single cosmic principle to exist in complementation to such non-occupied space. 3) our finite occupied space of Universe has many complemetary cosmic laws/principles that have been discovered, and 2nd law of thermodynamics is just one of them that pertains to occupied space aka physical/energy ergo thermodynamics aka heat/temperature related. Non-occupied space has no thermodynamics, no heat, no temerature etc.... ..energy cannot be created nor destroyed is basis for a finite, systemic-- if not also structural system ---set of interrelating phenomena. Your in denial dude. An infinite set of physical/energy inherently requires eternal creation of energy ergo infinite occupied space inherently violates at least one cosmic law/principle. Please try and use some rational logic on this issue. Infinite non-occupied space is devoid of phenomena ergo i.e. energyless. "all" infers finite. Again your offer no rational logic for infinite physical/energy existence. Such ideas inherently illogical and irrrational via law of thermondynamics for starters, i.e. energy/physical cannot be created and concepts of infinite occupied space inherently violate this simple cosmic law/principled. These are simple rational logistics, to which you nor anyone else has anything rational or logical to counter-argue your beliefs with. Sure dude, just keep telling yourself that. You treat infinity concept just as others treat a finite set i.e. you are not able to rationally seperate the two, and offer a rational logic does not violate 2nd law of thermodynamics. And that is just for starters. Most humans cannot even grasp the size of our known Universe of occupied space. There are no humans that can grasp the idea of a Universe of infinite occupied space. In addition, our observations to date only infer a finite Universe and not an infinite Universe. When you truly have a rationally logical set of replies and any evidence to substantiate your beliefs please share. Please forgive me if I don't hold my breath. You have offerred us no rational logic that would treat infinity the same way we would treat a finite i.e. you obvious have no idea of how two seperate these two ideas into distinct catagories that are treated differrently. Furthermore, infinite occupied space ideas insinuate some God-like existence from beyond that is eternally and infinitely creating energy i.e. more irrational illogic stacked on top of other irrational illogic. imho All systems and structures known to humans are finite. There is no evidence of any infinite systems or structures. I wont hold my breath waiting for such evidence. r6
All means all... as you deny this there is no reasonable response. Infinity = all forever If you don't understand such simple principles we will circle around this for infinity.
It reminds me of another post on another topic, where the poster used the word "description" very effectively. It speaks to what gmilam and you are both saying, as to the nuance between "real" and "described". CC could probably expound on this from the point of view of philosophy. Pretty profound, when you try to get down to brass tacks about what we mean by real and what we mean by--well, how about "abstraction"? Fascinating concept. It brings to mind how Brian Greene presented the "illusion" of space and time in his NOVA presentation (wasn't that cool?) Pearl of wisdom, lost on the folks who haven't experienced this, a consequence of taking a wrong turn while doing a derivation or solving something. But a clear warning sign, like you say. Like most folks, I'm not completely cured of my early life belief in Santa Claus, etc. On the one hand I can pick some good reasons to wholeheartedly agree, but there are some lingering (we might say "superstitious") doubts. One that nips at me here (speaking of Brian Greene, it's addressed quite profusely in Elegant Universe) is the notion that things are connected in different ways in regard to singularities and event horizons. For example, if I pick a "place" (whatever that means) in which space ceases to exist, and a "time" in which the clock doesn't tick, then this "coordinate" would seem to necessarily lie in coincidence with every other instance of timelessness and spacelessness. If this is remotely true (and I'm not saying it is, just speculating) then conceivably the universe is an extremely large number of involutions on itself, i.e., every quantum singularity is coincident with every "point" of every horizon at the macro scale, and, by the same token, this is the same as the envelope of the universe itself, the same condition of the universe at t=0. Not to digress too far, but I do sometimes wonder about it and it did come to mind when you mentioned that there is a difference between the practical limits to density in a Black Hole vs. the (as I like to think of it) the abstraction of a mathematical singularity. Another thought that runs in parallel with this is that of infinitesimals, although we find some boundaries that emerge at the quantum level . . . which sends us scratching our heads and asking "what's so magic about the Planck scale of physical reality?" It's certainly a lot more interesting to speak about "absolute scale" rather than "absolute space" (or position, whatever) -- referring here to what we sometime encounter in the crackpot posts. At issue concerning the microcosm is the question of whether anything can be truly continuous, or "analytic", at which point we might try to address the notion of "an infinity of infinitesimals". Great post, Grumpy. I'm sure there are lots of folks who gain from your no-nonsense explanations, always cutting though the haze without requiring too many prior skills, as the teacher in you shows. That goes for your forays into biology as well. (Just giving credit where credit is due.)
Well it's easy for me to know that the Universe is infinite. I have the physics to create an infinite Universe. The physics for a finite Universe are impossible physics. But my theory shouldn't need to be posted in here. How do you explain the physics without posting the theory? So I am in a catch 22. I know that the Universe is infinite, but I can't post my theory, and nobody could be bothered to read it all anyway. All I can do is say "The Universe Is Infinite" I know the physics.
Pincho_Paxton There is one thing you said that may be truth, it is possible that every BH in the Universe connects to a white hole, but there is only one white hole in spacetime(that we know of), the Big Bang. Maybe the other half of the time dimension(the half that goes backwards)is all rolled up inside the BHs and it connects only to one place, the BB, thus presenting no paradoxes. But neither time nor space are infinite, outside of something like that. Aqueous Id It was Brian Greene that got me thinking about how time, as experienced in the normal Universe, was only half of a dimension, we can only travel one direction through it within this Universe. The Quantum theories posit 11 dimensions, only 4 of which we see in this Universe, the rest being "rolled up" in the quantum, BHs are theoretically in the Quantum. If every BH in time(all of it)short circuited back to the moment of the BB, we would see basically what we see now. Everything that has ever fallen into a BH is still falling(time has stopped, movement is not possible without time to do it in)from the viewpoint of our Universe, it isn't physical forces that prevents the forming of a Singularity, it is the lack of movement in time that stops the collapse. That's speculation, but it has some support from Relativity. Looking at it that way means that time is frozen inside the Event horizon(the only other edge to the Universe besides the now)and will be until the Universe rips. All bets are off after that. There is a reason Einstein called them "frozen stars", I believe that is what he meant, stars with so much time dilation due to gravity that time for them has stopped. The communication through rolled up dimensions could also explain entanglement, as all points in those dimensions are the same point, as you say. I think that a sphere of increasingly dense material forms at the radius where time stops, the volume grows with each added mass(gravity is a result of spacetime bending, not affected by time), that growth encompasses more matter into a growing volume of timelessness and material can make it's way inward, sort of,but I have no clue what happens within that radius, if anything. You end up with a sphere of timeless mass, very dense but not a Singularity. The Event Horizon will always be larger in radius than the mass so we would never see it. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
