Concept of Infinity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
A lack of causality does not “violate science.”

Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]

A lack of causality does violate the scientific method. You cannot perform an experiment and trust the results if the cause and effect relationship does not exist.[/quote]

Then, how would you observe a reverse of causality, such as a unit of space in which time moves backwards?

I’m afraid you are wrong here, and someone like Hawkings would probably agree with me… at least his work does. It is possible to observe the effects of reverse causality and infer its existence from them. [/quote]

Causation is not dependent on time. Things happening in reverse order does not negate causation. Reversal of roles, maybe, but there is still a cause and a resultant effect, time be damned.
[/quote]

??
causation is a flow of events. without time dependence, there is no flow. I’m not sure what you are getting at here.

162

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

forlife, you are without question the biggest scoundrel on this site. No one even comes close. You were caught in a lie in the previous thread you were on and fled. Now you’re attacking me on this thread without provocation. More cowardly acts by a cowardly person. [/quote]

Look out Mak, I’ve moved to the top of his list :slight_smile: Being called names by Zeb is a badge of honor, in a way.

163

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
A lack of causality does not “violate science.”

Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]

A lack of causality does violate the scientific method. You cannot perform an experiment and trust the results if the cause and effect relationship does not exist.[/quote]

Then, how would you observe a reverse of causality, such as a unit of space in which time moves backwards?

I’m afraid you are wrong here, and someone like Hawkings would probably agree with me… at least his work does. It is possible to observe the effects of reverse causality and infer its existence from them. [/quote]

Causation is not dependent on time. Things happening in reverse order does not negate causation. Reversal of roles, maybe, but there is still a cause and a resultant effect, time be damned.
[/quote]

??
causation is a flow of events. without time dependence, there is no flow. I’m not sure what you are getting at here.[/quote]

I guess another way to avoid determinism, aside from randomness, is to exist outside of time itself. Course, wouldn’t that be impossible given your earlier point that the entire universe is comprised of space-time? I guess that means time still passes for photons?

164

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]

I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.

Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?

I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.

People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.

Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.

Everything is related and it all rolls up…

165

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
One way to look at it is through the indefinable point of quantum mechanics… basically, there is an infinite amount of moments between now and “the beginning.” You can always divide time again.

And, incidentally, the book Cosmic Jackpot touches more on the origins of the universe than About Time. Both are great, though. [/quote]

I’ll look into it, thanks. I bought a cheap book called “chronos” but am not sure who the author was. Haven’t got around to reading it yet.

As for infinite moments between now and the beginning, I kind of understand that concept - my only problem is that we can in fact - and do -regularly pass these moments.

What I mean to say is that in the time it took me to type this post, an infinite number of moments existed (if we divide the time) but I did somehow get through them all … is it a bit too conceptual? A kind of paradox?

Will definitely look into the cosmic jackpot book then.

Cheers[/quote]

166

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

i would say that both are equally illogical.
we are playing a “my aporetic affirmation is better than yours !” kind of game here.

which is kinda pointless.

if logic was the only criterium, the agnostic position (“i don’t know”) would be the best.

but logic is NOT the only criterium. [/quote]

No they are not. They are not equally logical, they are two different arguments with different premises. One is purely deductive, the other is inductive. It is always the case that the deductive argument is more solid. In an inductive argument, you can always attack the conclusion based on a in complete set of premises. Inductive arguments are inferred based on facts. The deductive arguments are perfectly linear and complete; i.e. it is a “whole”. You can only attack the conclusion of a deductive argument by attacking the premises, but you cannot add or subtract premises. Deductive arguments are deduced inductive are inferred.

If you want to get really technical, I can make a better argument for the existence of a Prime Mover, that anyone hear can make for their own existence. But the virtue of pure deduction, the Prime Mover is more real than you are.[/quote]
It would be quite interesting if you go into it, would it be somehow doubting that I exist as an independent entity but being unable to deny that I am the effect of an eternal cause since I am not eternal?

167

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.

Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]

Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.

Nothing really ends.[/quote]

We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.

Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.

168

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]

I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.

Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?

I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.

People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.

Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.

Everything is related and it all rolls up…

[/quote]

The triangle I’m thinking of disappears when I die. It’s a product of my brain, like every other cognitive object I create. That doesn’t make it metaphysical, any more than a computation being done by a computer is metaphysical.

Just so I’m clear, it sounds like you believe matter and energy have always existed? If that is the case, there is no such thing as a first cause, because eternity stretches in both directions.

169

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.

Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]

Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.

Nothing really ends.[/quote]

We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.

Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]
All the know mass in the galaxy including the black holes isn’t enough to explain why galaxies don’t fly apart from their rotation.

170

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]
All the know mass in the galaxy including the black holes isn’t enough to explain why galaxies don’t fly apart from their rotation.[/quote]

Gravity.

171

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]
All the know mass in the galaxy including the black holes isn’t enough to explain why galaxies don’t fly apart from their rotation.[/quote]

Gravity.[/quote]

That is what he is referring to when he mentions mass.

172

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]
All the know mass in the galaxy including the black holes isn’t enough to explain why galaxies don’t fly apart from their rotation.[/quote]

Gravity.[/quote]

That is what he is referring to when he mentions mass.[/quote]

Aha.

So what’s he talking about then?

173

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]
All the know mass in the galaxy including the black holes isn’t enough to explain why galaxies don’t fly apart from their rotation.[/quote]

Gravity.[/quote]

That is what he is referring to when he mentions mass.[/quote]

Aha.

So what’s he talking about then?
[/quote]

I think he is making reference to dark matter.

174

But that would explain why galaxies don’t fly apart.

Joab, what are you on about?

175

NASA’s Fermi Telescope Finds Giant Structure in our Galaxy

176

Ah…infinity: used to describe a unit of time and space over which mathematicians will take to think up things that can only happen in their own imaginations while they sit at a coffee table with other mathematicians.

177
178
180

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

Yea, Zeb’s probably the only piece of shit on this board that will come at you like that and then act like Jesus was his cousin.

He’s a fucking douchebag, has been for years.

I feel bad for his family. They probably all live in the basement and his daughters have his grandkids and such, as these “god fearing” hillbillies tend to do… all waiting for the space god’s return…[/quote]

Surely I get an honorable mention.

181

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
A lack of causality does not “violate science.”

Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]

A lack of causality does violate the scientific method. You cannot perform an experiment and trust the results if the cause and effect relationship does not exist.[/quote]

Then, how would you observe a reverse of causality, such as a unit of space in which time moves backwards?

I’m afraid you are wrong here, and someone like Hawkings would probably agree with me… at least his work does. It is possible to observe the effects of reverse causality and infer its existence from them. [/quote]

Causation is not dependent on time. Things happening in reverse order does not negate causation. Reversal of roles, maybe, but there is still a cause and a resultant effect, time be damned.
[/quote]

Hmmm… you’re right…