disproving infinity paradoxes; Hilbert’s Hotel?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Hi Juantoo

I have a bit of trouble with this big bang derived theory of limited matter/energy. Basicly the figure used in measuring the mass of the universe is a guess. And we are only able to detect a small fraction of what is supposed to be there.

The Big Bang is based on the Doppler effect on lightwaves. I learned of Doppler using a railroad train and the sound of the whistle as it approaches and then passes by. The tone of the whistle remains the same, but as it approaches the sound waves "bunch up" and as it continues away the sound waves "extend out," the result being what sounds to the human ear as two distinctly different sounds emitted from the same tonal whistle.

Dr. Hubble discovered the same concept regarding light as applied to other galaxies. This is called "red shift." As other galaxies race away from ours, the light "shifts" towards the red end of the spectrum. And it was also noticed that many galaxies are racing from the same starting point in space. Vajradhara posted something about a year ago pertaining to some thorough catalogue of this that was only completed at that time. It was this same starting point for galaxies that suggested a collective beginning at a singular point in the universe.

Now, from what I am understanding, there are complications with the red shift, because the galaxies are speeding up as they get farther away. In classical physics this should not be...because of friction, entropy, etc., the galaxies should be slowing. But they are not. Which begins to raise questions regarding the hypothetical nature of such postulated concepts as dark matter or energy, or possibly some other super-gravitational "pulling power."

Take this as an example:

Question: How old is the oldest star?
shannon m connolly

Answer: That's an interesting question. From what we know of the
evolution of stars (that is, how they change as they get
older) there seem to be some stars around that are roughly
15 billion years old. However, recent measurements of the
age of the universe suggest that the entire universe is
younger than that (maybe 10 billion years). The answer is
probably somewhere between those two numbers.
asmith (taken from the "ask a scientist" website)

I have read about stars now dated at at 18 million years where as most physicists tend to agree the big bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. There are huge holes and inconsistencies in current models. What we do know is that whatever devices of measurement we build we keep seeing further and further or more and more. And everywhere we look we find things that fit our perceptions but more importantly many that do not.

The last I heard the best estimate back to a common source was on the order of 14 Billion years. Interesting, theoretical physics can take us to a moment a tiny of a fraction after the Big Bang, but we still can't understand the "G-d Particle" of the precise moment of the Bang. Now, using the same theoretical physics, it was actually some time before the first star could coalesce out of the super heated cauldron of matter and energy, something on the order of 1/4 to 1/3 of its life so far. So for a star to be as old as the universe is simply not possible...kinda like being born with a driver's license, one must go through all of the steps in order first.

To say that there is a finite amount of matter is a bit of a leap of faith in theories that are as watertight as colanders.

No more a leap of faith than to consider otherwise. At least one has observable physics to assist in guiding such a faith.

Over on another thread Flow left a link to a harvard scientist working on branes.

Ah yes, p-branes and all that. We did get a sophomorish chuckle out of the name.

In her mathematics we see that the expression of matter on our brane is not necessarily a universal expression. Gravity is entirely dependent on what we perceive as mass, for example, but on an adjacent brane this almost negligibly weak force is massive. Can you imagine living in a universe where each person weighs billions of tons? Or another one where we to a people there seem just as heavy to them?

This presupposes a multiverse. I am not completely adverse to the idea, but I take it with a grain of salt until proven otherwise, which is the crux of the matter. We are arguing one hypothetical against another here...and the idea of Big Bang at least is based on empirical observation, rather than the hypothetical guesstimate of theorhetical mathematics that stand behind the multiple universe idea.

The exchange of matter between branes can take place and if there are an infinite number of those then there could indeed be an infinite amount of matter. Its like a chain of numbers, which despite cyberpi's protestations is potentially infinite in either direction. Say we live on a brane arbitrarily numbered 42. Well branes 41 and 43 will find ways to exchange mass with our brane as ours will with them. Perhaps big bangs and black holes are the big dramatic examples of this. Anyhow my point is that front line physics is far from certain about there being a finite mass. And thus it is not really a very good case for arguing a finite universe.

You do raise at least one point that intrigues me, and that is "where does the matter / energy go that is trapped in a black hole? Related to it, is where did the "super mass" that exploded into the Big Bang come from, if it was surrounded by nothing? Now, this brane hypotheses suggests what is ultimately a door or channel into another universe, sort of like walking from one room to another, although you might not be the same you once you pass through. Conventional Astrophysics suggests that black holes trap and hold the vast majority of the matter and energy "unfortunate enough" to happen into their grip. (I do personally know of at least one Astrophysicist who had a paper published a couple of years ago, Hooray!, long time coming, who was able to explain why certain radiation is able to escape, and this serves to explain certain gamma ray bursts that are recorded from time to time.) This matter / energy then collects and continues to collect, increasing the mass and gravitational pulling power of the black hole. It is also interesting to note that black holes are born out of dead stars, that something that gave for millions and billions of years is now set up to take back for millions and billions of years.

So, presuming this is the *only* universe, and black holes are not doors, and that the mass of energy and matter continue collecting, is there a point of critical mass when another, perhaps smaller "Mini Bang" occurs? Is there a point, perhaps when the universe is so old that few stars remain and the rest are burnt out hulks of their former selves, that the combined gravitational pull of all of the collective black holes engulf each other and what remains of any universe? Could this be how, analogous to an exhaled and inhaled breath, one cycle of an infinite universal cycle, completes itself?

These questions tread on the nature of gravity. For all of the hypothetical and theorhetical guesses and imaginings, gravity is a known and a constant, yet still a complete mystery to us. We know it exists, but we haven't got a clue just what it is or what it is made of.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Ty Juantoo for you post,

Kindest Regards, Tao!

The Big Bang is based on the Doppler effect on lightwaves. I learned of Doppler using a railroad train and the sound of the whistle as it approaches and then passes by. The tone of the whistle remains the same, but as it approaches the sound waves "bunch up" and as it continues away the sound waves "extend out," the result being what sounds to the human ear as two distinctly different sounds emitted from the same tonal whistle.

Dr. Hubble discovered the same concept regarding light as applied to other galaxies. This is called "red shift." As other galaxies race away from ours, the light "shifts" towards the red end of the spectrum. And it was also noticed that many galaxies are racing from the same starting point in space. Vajradhara posted something about a year ago pertaining to some thorough catalogue of this that was only completed at that time. It was this same starting point for galaxies that suggested a collective beginning at a singular point in the universe.

I of course learned of the same ideas as a boy. What I did not learn back then were such ideas as the Compton Effect (#1)which is the effect interstellar dust has on photons. This is not the only other effect and Doppler shifting itself begins to defy predictions at certain wavelengths. and so there are many astronomers who dispute the value of using Doppler shift for accurate cosmological distance data. I am not one of them of course... I'm merely a ponderer

Now, from what I am understanding, there are complications with the red shift, because the galaxies are speeding up as they get farther away. In classical physics this should not be...because of friction, entropy, etc., the galaxies should be slowing. But they are not. Which begins to raise questions regarding the hypothetical nature of such postulated concepts as dark matter or energy, or possibly some other super-gravitational "pulling power."

Not so long ago the top minds of the day believed the world was flat and had theories that supported their beliefs. So it is today. Who knows what our great great grandchildren will believe?

The last I heard the best estimate back to a common source was on the order of 14 Billion years. Interesting, theoretical physics can take us to a moment a tiny of a fraction after the Big Bang, but we still can't understand the "G-d Particle" of the precise moment of the Bang. Now, using the same theoretical physics, it was actually some time before the first star could coalesce out of the super heated cauldron of matter and energy, something on the order of 1/4 to 1/3 of its life so far. So for a star to be as old as the universe is simply not possible...kinda like being born with a driver's license, one must go through all of the steps in order first.

It is impossible that there are stars left over from the universe before the Big Bang? Why? Why does the Big Bang have to be the beginning of this universe? Maybe it is (the Big Bang) the source of large quantities of the matter we see and the dark matter we allegedly measure are from an older time where most of the matter has collapsed into black holes?

This presupposes a multiverse. I am not completely adverse to the idea, but I take it with a grain of salt until proven otherwise, which is the crux of the matter. We are arguing one hypothetical against another here...and the idea of Big Bang at least is based on empirical observation, rather than the hypothetical guesstimate of theorhetical mathematics that stand behind the multiple universe idea.

Big Bang theory may have some subjective evidence to support it, and is undoubtedly the best of the ideas we have on the origins of the observable universe, but it is still only a theory and only marginally more weighty than any of the newer multi-dimensional theories that after all use exactly the same physics to reach a hypothesis.

You do raise at least one point that intrigues me, and that is "where does the matter / energy go that is trapped in a black hole? Related to it, is where did the "super mass" that exploded into the Big Bang come from, if it was surrounded by nothing? Now, this brane hypotheses suggests what is ultimately a door or channel into another universe, sort of like walking from one room to another, although you might not be the same you once you pass through. Conventional Astrophysics suggests that black holes trap and hold the vast majority of the matter and energy "unfortunate enough" to happen into their grip. (I do personally know of at least one Astrophysicist who had a paper published a couple of years ago, Hooray!, long time coming, who was able to explain why certain radiation is able to escape, and this serves to explain certain gamma ray bursts that are recorded from time to time.) This matter / energy then collects and continues to collect, increasing the mass and gravitational pulling power of the black hole. It is also interesting to note that black holes are born out of dead stars, that something that gave for millions and billions of years is now set up to take back for millions and billions of years.

So, presuming this is the *only* universe, and black holes are not doors, and that the mass of energy and matter continue collecting, is there a point of critical mass when another, perhaps smaller "Mini Bang" occurs? Is there a point, perhaps when the universe is so old that few stars remain and the rest are burnt out hulks of their former selves, that the combined gravitational pull of all of the collective black holes engulf each other and what remains of any universe? Could this be how, analogous to an exhaled and inhaled breath, one cycle of an infinite universal cycle, completes itself?

These questions tread on the nature of gravity. For all of the hypothetical and theorhetical guesses and imaginings, gravity is a known and a constant, yet still a complete mystery to us. We know it exists, but we haven't got a clue just what it is or what it is made of.

I am sorry but I copied the below quote from somewhere in the New Scientist archives, closed the window, and I am too lazy to go cite the exact source.

Could our universe be a membrane floating in higher dimensional space, repeatedly smashing into a neighbouring universe? According to an offshoot of string theory called braneworld, there are large extra dimensions of space, and while gravity can reach out into them, we are confined to our own "brane" universe with only three dimensions. Neil Turok of Cambridge University in the UK and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University in New Jersey, US, have worked out how the big bang could have been sparked when our universe clashed violently with another. These clashes repeat, producing a new big bang every now and then - so if the cyclic universe model is right, the cosmos could be immortal.

Now if you follow this idea there is actually no obvious reason that a 'localised' Big Bang could not happen in an extant universe with many stars in it already. Imagine a still pond with lots of leaves floating on it (they are old stars) and you throw a stone into the middle, (the Big Bang). The resultant splash will disturb the leaves as the concentric waves of energy emanate out from the point of disturbance. They will not be carried as great a distance as nor have the same velocity as the energy created by the impact/displacement. And so if you were to measure all you can see you would not get a uniform pattern. This is what happens when some astronomers look at certain objects in the heavens. Like 18 Billion year old stars that have been accurately dated using their radioactive properties.
The last word in the above quoted piece is immortal, surely analogous to infinite

#1 Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


regards

tao

 

[cyberpi]

As far as I know all measurable physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc... reveals so far that no closed, isolated system can be cyclic. It is a one way trip. It is like a book that is being written and can not be erased or re-written... only added to. I'm not saying that couldn't change and I'm not saying the physics someplace else within the universe under different conditions could not be designed completely different, but if scientific theory is based on what is measured here so far then a cyclic universe defies measured science. Simple thermodynamics.

For instance with gravity locally it takes energy to overcome and after that is achieved there is not full recovery of it on the way back down. When something falls back towards Earth there is no regenerative braking. In frictionless space if you want to change course or velocity whether to speed up or slow down you have to use energy and increase the entropy somewhere. There is no alternative except maybe to hitch a ride on the solar wind. It is a decaying one way trip. Yet somehow in the minds of those who hypothesize a big crunch (cycle) the universe collapses under its weight, gets hot, explodes, and then falls back in on itself due to gravity to repeat the process. All on its own? No thermodynamics out there as it is witnessed here?

As for minimum distances that is a degree of what quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle are all about. There is a minimum observable distance and the EM field is quantized in space and in energy levels. It is like living in a computer where there are laws on the existance and movement of information. Don't think of space as space but as the resting place of information (energy / matter) and your ability to access it and control it. Relativity teaches another boundary. A boundary for the movement of information. The way that the boundary is hidden is incredible, simply amazing. I predict that more boundaries will be identified in this century, probably due to some sort of quantum gravity experiment or furthering and understanding of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement demonstrates a boundary in a very similar way that relativity did. The laws came up on a boundary. A hard boundary that reveals space, time, cause and effect to not exactly be what is normally seen and understood. While perhaps viewed as a play toy for possibly faster computations, secret communications, or mental justification for new religions and fiction full imaginations, it is still a boundary.

I guess I don't know if the concept of infinity came from math or from star gazers. Imagine this mental experiment: For a given number of particles and a finite number of degrees of freedom, as witnessed in all states of matter locally in this Universe here on Earth and solar system, there exists a finite number of patterns or states of matter (energy). Imagine a star traveller moving along in space and stopping every so often to witness the local state of this Universe. That person (or thing) might see a new pattern every time he stops but if he travels far enough then he will necessarily see a repeating pattern or duplicate pattern. Why? The reason is that there are a finite number of degrees of freedom and thus a finite number of local states for matter. If the Universe is infinite then you don't need a multi-verse... every configuration you could ever imagine either exists within the infinite universe... there would be an infinite number of Earths in the exact same configuration as the one here is today in a repeating or duplicate pattern. Maybe only zillions upon zillions of parsecs away. Locally we observe a finite number of degrees of freedom and while the possible permutations of the state of matter here in this solar system is HUGE, it is finite. In an infinite universe either the exact same pattern is going to be seen again as some form of locally duplicate pattern, or the cosmology would have to change to add more and more degrees of freedom than what exists here locally.

In math, that is similarly what happens... if a number is 50 digits long there are more degrees of freedom than say a number that is limited to only 10 digits long. In order to keep the sequence going it requires adding more and more degrees of freedom. More digits. You really should not be able to say the word infinity because it would take an infinite number of digits to do so. So, does the Universe appear such that space in any direction has more dimensions or degrees of freedom than it does locally in this galaxy that we inhabit? If it did... does it make any sense to apply locally understood science to the rest of the universe? If not... for the comfort and security of having a boundless universe, are you comfortable that the overwhelming majority of the universe is repeating or is a duplicate of the exact same thing?

To put it in computer terms, the memory within computers with 200 GB hard drives have a finite number of states of hard memory. The possible permutations of the bits within that memory are rather large... but they are finite. Upon having a computer set up side by side with an infinite number of computers of the same type (infinite space), each with a different configurations of bits on the hard drive... you will reach a limit where the pattern either has to repeat or you will have to modify the space / computer to increase to bigger hard drives. Eventually there will be a computer of the same type running the exact same programs and with your exact same data files in the exact same manner as the one on your desk reading this post. That is IF... IF there were infinite space and matter in this Universe. Locally, the degrees of freedom in this Universe are measured as finite.

 

[Tao_Equus]

As far as I know all measurable physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc... reveals so far that no closed, isolated system can be cyclic. It is a one way trip. It is like a book that is being written and can not be erased or re-written... only added to. I'm not saying that couldn't change and I'm not saying the physics someplace else within the universe under different conditions could not be designed completely different, but if scientific theory is based on what is measured here so far then a cyclic universe defies measured science. Simple thermodynamics.

In both highlighted cases there is the imposition of locality by the observer. Locality is artificial, and you cannot use reduction of this nature to describe or deny the infinite.

For instance with gravity locally it takes energy to overcome and after that is achieved there is not full recovery of it on the way back down. When something falls back towards Earth there is no regenerative braking. In frictionless space if you want to change course or velocity whether to speed up or slow down you have to use energy and increase the entropy somewhere. There is no alternative except maybe to hitch a ride on the solar wind. It is a decaying one way trip. Yet somehow in the minds of those who hypothesize a big crunch (cycle) the universe collapses under its weight, gets hot, explodes, and then falls back in on itself due to gravity to repeat the process. All on its own? No thermodynamics out there as it is witnessed here?

I think there are very few physicists out there that support the big crunch hypothesis. It was a rather simple, even naive, idea that was the first obvious question once Big Bang theory had corroborative observational evidence. Today the information we appear to have suggests continued and increased rate/speed of expansion is taking place in the matter released by the Big Bang. What we see now in this expansion is a one way trip yes, but far from decay we seem to have a hidden source of energy pushing that expansion ever faster. How does that fit thermodynamics?

As for minimum distances that is a degree of what quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle are all about. There is a minimum observable distance and the EM field is quantized in space and in energy levels. It is like living in a computer where there are laws on the existance and movement of information. Don't think of space as space but as the resting place of information (energy / matter) and your ability to access it and control it. Relativity teaches another boundary. A boundary for the movement of information. The way that the boundary is hidden is incredible, simply amazing. I predict that more boundaries will be identified in this century, probably due to some sort of quantum gravity experiment or furthering and understanding of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement demonstrates a boundary in a very similar way that relativity did. The laws came up on a boundary. A hard boundary that reveals space, time, cause and effect to not exactly be what is normally seen and understood. While perhaps viewed as a play toy for possibly faster computations, secret communications, or mental justification for new religions and fiction full imaginations, it is still a boundary.

I do get your point but where you see a boundary I have the feeling you interpret it as a finite limit. To me such boundaries are merely the limits of one state of existence. A boundary, lets say a circular walled garden, has a clearly defined boundary but that boundary always but always has 2 sides. Within and without. You seem to perceive such limits differently and this is counter to my perhaps naive and uneducated way of thinking. Nothing but nothing that I have ever come across has only 1 side. And lets face it facts are so often much more incredible than any fiction. A boundary such as light speed may be the limits of our current observational ability and a physical limit on photons in the 3d observable universe but all that really proves is there is a limit on our current observational ability.
Incidentally I have heard a couple of times claims of the detection of particles accelerated beyond light speed. I will try to find more info on this but if true it would not surprise me. Say an exotic particle such as a neutrino is accelerated beyond light speed on a another dimension and it passes into ours it could quite conceivably carry the same momentum into our universe. It may be that light speed is the maximum limit of speed for a particle produced in accordance with the laws of relativity within our universe but our universe very likely is not a closed system.

I guess I don't know if the concept of infinity came from math or from star gazers. Imagine this mental experiment: For a given number of particles and a finite number of degrees of freedom, as witnessed in all states of matter locally in this Universe here on Earth and solar system, there exists a finite number of patterns or states of matter (energy). Imagine a star traveller moving along in space and stopping every so often to witness the local state of this Universe. That person (or thing) might see a new pattern every time he stops but if he travels far enough then he will necessarily see a repeating pattern or duplicate pattern. Why? The reason is that there are a finite number of degrees of freedom and thus a finite number of local states for matter. If the Universe is infinite then you don't need a multi-verse... every configuration you could ever imagine either exists within the infinite universe... there would be an infinite number of Earths in the exact same configuration as the one here is today in a repeating or duplicate pattern. Maybe only zillions upon zillions of parsecs away. Locally we observe a finite number of degrees of freedom and while the possible permutations of the state of matter here in this solar system is HUGE, it is finite. In an infinite universe either the exact same pattern is going to be seen again as some form of locally duplicate pattern, or the cosmology would have to change to add more and more degrees of freedom than what exists here locally.

In math, that is similarly what happens... if a number is 50 digits long there are more degrees of freedom than say a number that is limited to only 10 digits long. In order to keep the sequence going it requires adding more and more degrees of freedom. More digits. You really should not be able to say the word infinity because it would take an infinite number of digits to do so. So, does the Universe appear such that space in any direction has more dimensions or degrees of freedom than it does locally in this galaxy that we inhabit? If it did... does it make any sense to apply locally understood science to the rest of the universe? If not... for the comfort and security of having a boundless universe, are you comfortable that the overwhelming majority of the universe is repeating or is a duplicate of the exact same thing?

To put it in computer terms, the memory within computers with 200 GB hard drives have a finite number of states of hard memory. The possible permutations of the bits within that memory are rather large... but they are finite. Upon having a computer set up side by side with an infinite number of computers of the same type (infinite space), each with a different configurations of bits on the hard drive... you will reach a limit where the pattern either has to repeat or you will have to modify the space / computer to increase to bigger hard drives. Eventually there will be a computer of the same type running the exact same programs and with your exact same data files in the exact same manner as the one on your desk reading this post. That is IF... IF there were infinite space and matter in this Universe. Locally, the degrees of freedom in this Universe are measured as finite.

And locality is an artificial imposed constraint. I love Mandelbrot sets, the visual expression of Chaos Theory. I think one of those would clearly describe what you refer to as repetition of variables yet a mandelbrot set is potentially infinite.
I have really enjoyed discussing the logical way you present yourself but I am in the dark as to your start point. Do you have a religion? Does this effect your interpretations or do you derive them purely from science?

regards

tao

 

[cyberpi]

In both highlighted cases there is the imposition of locality by the observer. Locality is artificial, and you cannot use reduction of this nature to describe or deny the infinite.

If that were true then neither can a person use any evidence observed in this Universe (measured science) for their model or concept of an infinite space. For instance looking into space to say, "It looks infinite" or "It looks cyclic" would be a false observation of irrelevant information. Perhaps since there could be smoke, mirrors, or other distortions at a boundary to fool you in the same way that you claim that science measured locally is fooling me. Local observations have now been deemed irrelevant and I'm entirely comfortable with that.

Today the information we appear to have suggests continued and increased rate/speed of expansion is taking place in the matter released by the Big Bang.

You've expressed that local observations are irrelevant.

What we see now in this expansion is a one way trip yes, but far from decay we seem to have a hidden source of energy pushing that expansion ever faster. How does that fit thermodynamics?

You've expressed that local observations are irrelevant.

I do get your point but where you see a boundary I have the feeling you interpret it as a finite limit. To me such boundaries are merely the limits of one state of existence. A boundary, lets say a circular walled garden, has a clearly defined boundary but that boundary always but always has 2 sides. Within and without.

An example boundary is the measured force of gravity and any laws with it... but you will claim that there are really two sides to that boundary. Obeying the law, or not obeying it. So then again all science has been rendered innappropriate to the discussion... and I'm comfortable with that.

Nothing but nothing that I have ever come across has only 1 side. And lets face it facts are so often much more incredible than any fiction.

Since local things measured or observed have been rendered as innappropriate to infinity, should your local observations be considered as evidence?

I have really enjoyed discussing the logical way you present yourself but I am in the dark as to your start point. Do you have a religion? Does this effect your interpretations or do you derive them purely from science?

One of my initial points was that the only thing infinite is nothing. Do I have a religion? Yes. Does it effect my interpretations? I would say that I recognize that my education comes from more than what I can observe through senses, but in tandem with it. I don't discount what I observe and I try not to discount what I can't observe.

Math teachers teach a way of thinking. Is that way of thinking appropriate? A lot of things in scientific theory were taken from re-arranged math equations which were developed from local observations. When approaching the subject of infinity in math it is based on local observation. For example, 1/.1 = 10, 1/.01 = 100, 1/.001 = 1000, 1/.0001 = 10,000 are local observations... but then you draw some squigly lines, save some paper, and deduce, generalize, or extrapolate that when Y = n/X... As X-> 0, then Y-> infinity. Nobody has done the numbers and tested the theory. A problem I've pointed out is that there is no consideration for the amount of information in X or in Y. As I see it, both X and Y have to grow to infinite information... an infinite number of digits. There is a hidden math of the information content on each side of an equation. Whereas for X = 0... how many digits are there? A leap from .001 to 0 is extremely artificial. Zero should conceivably require an infinite number of digits to express because in a sense, 0 has nearly infinite application, meaning that (nearly) all countable things are possibly included with 0. Zero atoms, zero oranges, zero electrons, zero neutrons, zero.... for the same reason that .01 expresses one part of something divided into 100 little pieces it might be a good to know what it is that can be divided into an infinite number of pieces. Can an electron be divided into 100 pieces? No, not locally. The number .01 is special in that it requires things that can be divided into 100 pieces. Not everything can. So the leap from .001 to 0 is enormous. .001 can be associated with limited things whereas 0 can be associated with an infinite number of things. When you get to 0 essentially you can have 0 of anything. I have zero planets hidden in my back pocket.

So, I am entirely comfortable with your approach of saying that locality does NOT infer the same rules on distant numbers! Extremely large numbers and extremely small portions have new rules that few people consider. My hat is off to Z on the OP... I too loved the discussion.

 

[cyberpi]

Looking for simpler or unique ways to express something, maybe this:

Math maintains that: Infinity is the sum quantity of parts of anything that is decimated into pieces of nothing.

I use the word decimate in place of the word divide in recognition of locally observed thermodynamics.

 

[Tao_Equus]

thanks Cyberpi,

If that were true then neither can a person use any evidence observed in this Universe (measured science) for their model or concept of an infinite space. For instance looking into space to say, "It looks infinite" or "It looks cyclic" would be a false observation of irrelevant information. Perhaps since there could be smoke, mirrors, or other distortions at a boundary to fool you in the same way that you claim that science measured locally is fooling me. Local observations have now been deemed irrelevant and I'm entirely comfortable with that.

I would not say that it is necessarily fooling you, more that every observation imposes local limitations. I also believe everything has some value, even the crassest idea. However you may have to travel a long way to find it. Our ability to study and reason is wonderful but to believe that we have even the merest glimmer of what hyper-reality is is self-glorification and very naive. But we can only work with what we have. And so we ponder.

You've expressed that local observations are irrelevant.

In regard to infinity yes they are.

An example boundary is the measured force of gravity and any laws with it... but you will claim that there are really two sides to that boundary. Obeying the law, or not obeying it. So then again all science has been rendered innappropriate to the discussion... and I'm comfortable with that.

Is it really a question science can answer even? It is rightly placed in the philosophy section and thats how I approach it.

Since local things measured or observed have been rendered as innappropriate to infinity, should your local observations be considered as evidence?

Not for the existence of infinity but yes in refutation of finite limitations.

One of my initial points was that the only thing infinite is nothing. Do I have a religion? Yes. Does it effect my interpretations? I would say that I recognize that my education comes from more than what I can observe through senses, but in tandem with it. I don't discount what I observe and I try not to discount what I can't observe.

Forgive me if I make false assumptions but I believe you to be a Christian. Do you believe in an afterlife in heaven? If so what would be the duration of the stay there and what would constitute its end? I often hear it called the "hereafter" a term that implies infinity. Do you believe in that?

As for your thoughts on Mathematics I agree that mathematicians routinely round and fudge to suit there needs. But as I am poorly educated and cannot sing the music of numbers for myself I have made the decision to give some merit to that field in the hope that peer scrutiny is sufficient check on its more exuberant practitioners. But like in everything I dont fully accept nor discount, merely bear it mind. In that we seem to share a common approach.


Regards

Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Ah, here is another approach: Locally in this Universe infinity is a useless amount because locally in this Universe absolutely nothing is infinite. Locally in this Universe, the only thing infinite is nothing.

 

[Tao_Equus]

YouTube - vultures from jungle book

 

[juantoo3]

Now don't start that again...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

#1 Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the old "is light composed of particles or waves" chestnut. Isn't that what led to the semi-occasional demise of that darn cat? Depending (dependent) on the observer and the instrument used to observe?



Compton Scattering reminded me of the Penrose Mechanism:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111161v1.pdf

[astro-ph/0306135v1] Production of the High Energy-Momentum Spectra of Quasars 3C 279 and 3C 273 Using the Penrose Mechanism

A Black Hole Accreting Matter from a Companion Star

Extracting Energy-Momentum from Rotating Black Holes Using the Penrose Mechanism

and a wiki brief on Sir Roger Penrose:

Roger Penrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Enjoy!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Been pondering this subject a bit. Got to thinking about the (possible?) connection between cold-fusion and the philosopher's stone.

A present train of thought suggests all the known elements are created by fusion within the heart of a star. Beginning with fusing hydrogen atoms into helium, and on up the scale through lead, gold and iron and beyond.

Now, we have been discussing infinity. Is there some corollary with immortality? Is immortality something like infinity but with a beginning, or is immortality simply a hyper-extension of mortality? (in other words, does immortality have an end?)

Seems to me the philosopher's stone, long a storied but secretive mystery, is supposed to impart immortality and / or transmutation. I long thought it quite puzzling why the major royal houses of Europe (and Asia?) would place so much faith and credit into such alchemical process were there nothing to the whispers. Especially given that the Old World explorers coming from Spain and Portugal were sent out with the commission to find "gold and the fountain of youth."

In a star there is enough mass and latent energy to fuel a fusion process. Indeed, of the first two atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, one was fusion and one was fission (or so I have heard from a number of sources). According to these same sources, it was determined that fission was the more cost effective manner to develop nuclear weapons, and so began the treadmill into MADness (Mutually Assured Destruction).

I have also heard from a few sources that a fusion plant was constructed in Antarctica, but that it "got away" from the controllers and so that means of developing nuclear power was pretty well written off. That is, until a few years back somebody proposed "cold-fusion," and a lot of hopes were raised (no less my own.) But the experiment could not be repeated (so we were told), and the whole idea just kind of faded into the twilight.

There is something mysterious and captivating about transmuting a base metal like lead into a precious metal like gold. There is something likewise captivating about transmuting a mortal being into an immortal one. These are ageless themes, certainly having been among humanity for many many generations.

Hmmm, practical application of infinity to gross material reality?

Going back to the first thought here, about all of the known elements being created in the heart if stars...

That is one manner in which the various stars are measured, it seems the elemental content can be gaged by the light signature. Point being, if the elements "here" in our system are the same elements "out there" in other stars, it seems to me the same essential thermodynamic properties and physical "laws" are at play, along with the same building blocks being played with, throughout the universe. Which, in my mind, seems to negate "localized" laws, wherein other parts of the universe may play by completely different rules. Now, this requires some clarification. The same gravity and strong / weak nuclear force(s) and electricity work their magic on the same elements of hydrogen, helium...uranium, plutonium, etc. Water, on this planet with this mass and this existence, boils at 212 degrees F., (100 degrees C.). However, the same water (or essentially same water, H2O), in a different place with higher mass may well take more heat to boil, and in a place with lesser mass may well take less heat to boil. Water under pressure can take greater temperatures before it boils. So, while "interpretations" of the universal laws may well be localized, it seems to me the same laws are still in effect, and play with the same elemental building blocks.

Just my thoughts on the subject for today.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo

Interesting links that provide good supportive data for the relevance of the compton effect.

Kindest Regards, all!



Now, we have been discussing infinity. Is there some corollary with immortality? Is immortality something like infinity but with a beginning, or is immortality simply a hyper-extension of mortality? (in other words, does immortality have an end?)

Seems to me the philosopher's stone, long a storied but secretive mystery, is supposed to impart immortality and / or transmutation. I long thought it quite puzzling why the major royal houses of Europe (and Asia?) would place so much faith and credit into such alchemical process were there nothing to the whispers. Especially given that the Old World explorers coming from Spain and Portugal were sent out with the commission to find "gold and the fountain of youth."

I think monarchs have always enjoyed absolute power and even the faintest hope of prolonging their lives to enjoy it further seemed a worthy enterprise to them and a cool way of extracting gold from their coffers for the con-men. I think it the con-men that kept the myth alive.

That is one manner in which the various stars are measured, it seems the elemental content can be gaged by the light signature. Point being, if the elements "here" in our system are the same elements "out there" in other stars, it seems to me the same essential thermodynamic properties and physical "laws" are at play, along with the same building blocks being played with, throughout the universe. Which, in my mind, seems to negate "localized" laws, wherein other parts of the universe may play by completely different rules. Now, this requires some clarification. The same gravity and strong / weak nuclear force(s) and electricity work their magic on the same elements of hydrogen, helium...uranium, plutonium, etc. Water, on this planet with this mass and this existence, boils at 212 degrees F., (100 degrees C.). However, the same water (or essentially same water, H2O), in a different place with higher mass may well take more heat to boil, and in a place with lesser mass may well take less heat to boil. Water under pressure can take greater temperatures before it boils. So, while "interpretations" of the universal laws may well be localized, it seems to me the same laws are still in effect, and play with the same elemental building blocks.

I perhaps should clarify that I consider the observable universe a local system. A grain of sand on an infinite beach. The different conditions you refer to are all variations that can be easily understood within the laws of our locality but may not and probably will not apply elsewhere. I think the only glimpse we have so far of something beyond immediate locality are quantum effects.

Regards

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi,

My apologies for coming back to this thread but one or two things have festered at the back of my mind.

You stated that infinity is impossible because it defies the laws of thermal dynamics. Which one(s)? And why? Since absolute zero is an impossibility I just cannot see how you can justify the statement. Exchange may get very very tiny but perfect entropy, a limit to infinity, can never be achieved.

After watching an excellent TV show I have been reading up on the work of Kurt Gödel and Ludwig Boltzmann in regard to the paradoxes thrown up by statistical analysis of infinity and I must say that their ideas, though very unpleasant for those that crave order, still stand the tests of the best minds around. Saying only nothing is infinite is just wrong. They also support the idea that the human mind is capable of transcending the limitations of 4D space/time and the mathematics we use to describe it.
Shame they both went insane studying this... maybe I better be careful

 

[_Z_]

tao, hi

all variations that can be easily understood within the laws of our locality but may not and probably will not apply elsewhere.

do you not think that a universal principle is universally applicable? for instance, balance; there would always be a polarity [2 {number attribute}], if not then only oneness remains and nothing can evolve. whatever form that takes it would still belong to the same set of principles concerning the duel natures. perhaps an infinite universe may happen at once with all things happening timelessly,but any universe in time would i feel evolve and thence have all the universal attributes of the numbers.

I have been reading up on the work of Kurt Gödel and Ludwig Boltzmann in regard to the paradoxes thrown up by statistical analysis of infinity and I must say that their ideas, though very unpleasant for those that crave order, still stand the tests of the best minds around. Saying only nothing is infinite is just wrong.

sounds interesting! i would like to test such minds, can you elaborate with any specific ideas?

zero is a ‘comparative’ state, a metaphor of that which does not existed as zero can never exist, it cannot be infinitely real. i would say that no comparative or transient state can be infinite, yet we can have infinite transience [where transience itself is eternal]?!

chaos and randomness are tricky, you can make a simple program to produce a ‘random’ result, yet this would always be within the perimeters of that program, even if they are continually changing. infinite chaos would be impossible - if i may, for similar reasons as in the opening post. we would still be up against 'limits' versus the 'unlimited', chaos is simply limits that are continually changing without fully taking shape. similarly the universe is chaos that does take shape - or at least appears to - and this is transience. perhaps the only difference is that chaos is not governed.

 

[Tao_Equus]

tao, hi



do you not think that a universal principle is universally applicable? for instance, balance; there would always be a polarity [2 {number attribute}], if not then only oneness remains and nothing can evolve. whatever form that takes it would still belong to the same set of principles concerning the duel natures.

The duality of fundamental structure does appear to be everywhere. As we were discussing on another thread on dimensions we have to be careful about taking it for granted that the of the laws of our 4D universe are truly universally applicable. It would seem however that some must be, duality perhaps foremost amongst them.

perhaps an infinite universe may happen at once with all things happening timelessly,but any universe in time would i feel evolve and thence have all the universal attributes of the numbers.

I think the hardest concept to ever get my head around was being able to discount time as an illusion. And that is what I believe it to be now and apply it to all my thinking on such matters. Our universe is a constituent part in the multiverse which is infinite and without time. What we perceive as time is not the actual passage of moments but an expression of infinity. Every moment exists eternally somewhere in infinity. And you do not have to expend time (which doesn't exist anyway) to go from any point to any other point. What we see as passing time is a conveyor belt of expressions put in enough order for them to make sense to us. Evolution is the expression of potential/certainty within the infinite. Potentials/certainties are clumped together, again giving the illusion to us that there is progression/evolution in a linear manner but in the infinite all potentials are already realities. So time cannot exist except as a frame of reference.

sounds interesting! i would like to test such minds, can you elaborate with any specific ideas?

A good place to start would be Boltzmann's ideas on entropy and probability which figured high in forming his beliefs on the nature of infinity. But be careful he, and several more scientists, ended up going insane getting his head round it all. I am ok tho, I was already mad to start with

zero can never exist, it cannot be infinitely real. i would say that no comparative or transient state can be infinite, yet we can have infinite transience [where transience itself is eternal]?!

Zero can exist as a point of reference. Transience is an illusion within eternity we are required to invent to make sense of it all.

chaos and randomness are tricky, you can make a simple program to produce a ‘random’ result, yet this would always be within the perimeters of that program, even if they are continually changing. infinite chaos would be impossible - if i may, for similar reasons as in the opening post. we would still be up against 'limits' versus the 'unlimited', chaos is simply limits that are continually changing without fully taking shape. similarly the universe is chaos that does take shape - or at least appears to - and this is transience. perhaps the only difference is that chaos is not governed.

Infinity is BIG!! There is space for everything


Tao

 

[_Z_]

tao

we have to be careful about taking it for granted that the of the laws of our 4D universe are truly universally applicable

true yes - good point. i don’t know what difference dimension make other than unto themselves [i.e. the 4D remains as it is]. however we should indeed recognise that all things are limited.

‘universal’ can have so many meanings yet refers to limits, with duality being a good example of that. however, how i see is that to be truly universal everything has to link to everything - one principle to another as one thing to another - with the result being non specific. that is to say that there is no overall limit, duality is linked to transience which links to the infinite etc.
its kinda like the universe has no definable edges as don’t all things within it including meanings, then the shape of the universe is a result of its overall universality.

the hardest concept to ever get my head around was being able to discount time as an illusion

me to - and i still don’t get it at all. illusions always have a reality to them! time is perhaps simply a result of things changing and those changes could be completely random, then it just so happens that they appear to have order for a while and we call part of that time.
however; ‘as soon as we try do define time as an illusion, we tend to loose reality’. i.e. any idea of illusory time becomes nonsensical.
What we perceive as time is not the actual passage of moments but an expression of infinity

infinity i would think cannot be expressed!? universality can be and that links to infinity so things can be given potential infinity. i.e. be open ended. that is not the same as actually being infinity or an expression of.

Zero can exist as a point of reference. Transience is an illusion within eternity we are required to invent to make sense of it all.

well put.

thanks
_Z_

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi _Z_ and thanks for your reply

‘universal’ can have so many meanings yet refers to limits, with duality being a good example of that. however, how i see is that to be truly universal everything has to link to everything ......



..... illusions always have a reality to them! time is perhaps simply a result of things changing and those changes could be completely random, then it just so happens that they appear to have order for a while and we call part of that time.


infinity i would think cannot be expressed!?

They way I look at it each "moment" is a universe too. Imagine each moment/universe stacked side by side like they were books on a library shelf. The Librarian is meticulous in keeping related works in the correct order and so we find the closest moment/universes placed either side of our current one. As we jump from one book to the next to the next we perceive it as time, but time does not pass because these moments remain where they were, static and unchanging. I see each moment/universe as an expression of infinity, or slightly more accurately of probability. For me Infinity is expressed as probabilities.

Regards

Tao

 

[_Z_]

For me Infinity is expressed as probabilities.

this is where we are imagining infinity as an ‘infinite amount of things’ and hence there is infinite potential. however there is only potentially an infinite amount of things not an actual infinite amount of things. perhaps probability is simply a part of transience, as the square becomes a circle it has the potential of the circle within it kinda thing.

in the main i would ask is infinity active in any way - how would you see this? all it has to be is present to have an effect, this is how i see the universal ‘it’ too and also mathematical cycles [e.g. of universal astrology].

Imagine each moment/universe stacked side by side like they were books on a library shelf. The Librarian is meticulous in keeping related works in the correct order and so we find the closest moment/universes placed either side of our current one.

interesting way to put it! what happens when you start to phase those books gradually from one to another? imagine a planet in one moment then that same planet a moment later, yet a nano second before there would also be a planet [i.e. between apparent moments]! how would the molecular structures and forces of each entity cope with each other?

secondly, zeno’s paradox comes to mind - do we have an infinite amount of planets between each book in the library of time? [which would create an infinity paradox of course]

thanks

 

[Bandit]

Using the example listed above, one can see that infinite does not necessarily mean 'all.' That is where the fallacy is.

Same here. Not always all or every or full. And there are limitations to that which is infinite just as there are different limitations to that which is finite. It must be somewhere in the middle where infinite meets finite.

Another one I have considered is eternity as with no beginning and no end- we think of as infinite in different ways. Eternity can also have a beginnning while having no end, a starting point and goes infinite in one direction or that is how it appears to me for now.