geordief

OK.That is just the way I see things.

I am getting boxed in but I could respond by saying that your two fingers are pointing at something that (if it did exist) no longer does. Plus on grounds of accuracy we would need to be talking about two lasers and they would have to be produced until they met -where if we saw that intersection (which we wouldn't) that point would again be in the past and probably inaccurate anyway. Do you not like (or just accept as a valid pov) my assumption (maybe an act of faith) that points need to be a site of interaction to be called points?(otherwise they could be called something like "meta points")

How can you point to a point without something happening there? You can only see it ,for example if a photon has reflected off it. If I just follow the direction of your finger the point could be anywhere between the end of your finger and ,say the moon.

That is not self evident ,is it? I am predisposed to believe that a point in space only exists when something happens there. Is that wrong?

Well expansion is described as space (that is not bound by gravity -ie the space between galaxies I think) increasing uniformly with time. In relativity it is said that time dilation is accompanied by a corresponding spatial contraction(if I have that right). Would the same apply in inflation or expansion? (Not that I can detect a frame of reference to apply it to if it was applicable)

I don't think General Relativity predicted either ,did it? So ,when thinking about them is GR of any import? For example ,with inflation it occured to me that with the enormous activity occurring it might be represented as space stretching and time stretching less(or contracting?) But then I thought "Maybe GR has nothing to do with this?"

Some people (I think I have heard) claim that the universe may be made of numbers. Think that may be an ancient(pythagorean or similar ?) belief but I think that the hologram view of the universe says something similar. If that were the case then it would be trivial to say that the universe "contained numbers"(well maybe numbers do contain other numbers, both larger and smaller,) I prefer to think that numbers are abstractions and that the universe contains abstractions. By the way ,(and back to the OP) if events and particles are very closely related(particles only manifesting when interacting) and particles are not local but spread out like waves,then maybe events likewise are spread out and so are not finite even in a finite system?

(I have to apologise first for my inability to go through your and others' links in anything like a rigorous way as I am not equipped for that degree of intellectual inquiry-I may once have been and I hope I still retain some curiosity and openmindedness) That said and in my own mind the question in my OP has been answered in the negative but you seem to be looking at it in a different way and to try and ddress what you are saying (your bottom line) you seem perhaps to be saying that the number of relations between the set of finite spacetime events in a hypothetically finite universe can be infinite. On reflection perhaps so .My first scenario was actually just the number of actual events.They would be (in my mind anyway) physical whereas the relations would be mathematical or geometric. Have I understood some of what you were saying?

Yes. (Not that I was claiming that the universe is actually either finite or infinite .I don't think there is any way to know)

I looked up Berkenstein bounds (very cursorily as befits my weak mathematical and physical brain) and it seems to say that for a given finite system it is possible to describe it (presumably with a number) in only a finite way. If that is a correct interpretation then one can extrapolate that finding to a system that is the entirety of a finite universe** and so it is possible to create a number that is larger than that number. I think that is what I was trying to say.(not in the OP itself because my assumption there seems to have been incorrect and I changed my tune thereafter) **ie describe it with a finite number

Yes ,that is what I was asking.(perhaps I was trying to shoehorn my understanding of the map/territory ,it model/modeled idea into the discussion since I find it very important in it's own right) Perhaps ,but I don't see it.I don't have that expertise.

Is it unbounded?If we start with ,say 3 events then the set of all relationships is still a finite number. And if we increase 3 to a number representing the set of all events in the spacetime of a finite universe then the corresponding set of relationships is still also another finite number. So ,if we have a theoretical number larger than that ,it will not have its "territory " will it?

(Actually, I anticipated your line of thinking if I am not deluding myself) So the set of these potential causal relations is still finite in a finite universe and if we call the new number derived from E , E2 then there will be another number ,say N(new) where N(new)>E2 What happens?A black hole? But just creating a number is not the same as storing information(in my mind the mapping was just theoretical.)

So if the number of events in the real world is E and a number,N >E then you are saying that N can be mapped to E?

Even if the real world is finite?

Well numbers can be a model of real things like the events/interactions in my OP and so those events are the territory with the numbers being the maps. Since the numbers can be of any size , a large enough one cannot be mapped onto the real world (the set of real events) and so I thought you could consider them (the sufficiently large numbers )as a kind of map without a corresponding territory.

Thanks.Even small numbers present me with difficulty and so I don't think I will manage to understand how Graham's number is constructed. I suppose numbers can be considered as maps that need not have a territory.

with circumspection? Thought the OP was phrased ambiguously..."a moral-free" market or a moral "free-market"? (I know it is the latter)

Thanks.I imagined that even those numbers might fall short but it seems I was wrong-just that writing them out longhand would be impossible.

Are there numbers that are to large for us to represent? Finite numbers... If we calculate the number of events/interactions that take place within a defined spacetime volume is it possible to represent that in a conventional way ,like 10 to power of some finite number? Eg a ball of lead with a mass of 1 kilo. Then ,if we extrapolate and our test volume is increased to include the observed or theorized universe ** that number defies imagination but is there any way to represent it? Not infinity because it is not ,I think infinite. Not measurable,quite obviously but what happens to our number system if we try to give it a number? **ie the number of interactions that might take place over the whole lifetime of a temporaly finite universe.

Science is composed of (groups of) scientific workers whose motives may differ. As with all things ,those outside the group may benefit ,or otherwise from the product of their labour. In the realm of physics it may be said that the product of their work is to peel away the layers that obstruct the view of the way things work. Failing that it is to build more accurate models of that. The alternative to those results becoming public knowledge is to prevent people from pursuing careers in scientific endeavour. A bit of a catch 22 (?).Some discoveries seem beneficial at first and later are regretted whilst the opposite probably applies in other cases. We seem as a civilisation to be in a kind of treadmill where the option of falling behind is as unfortunate a circumstance as having to continuously keep up.

Yes ,there are different perceptions in different contexts.I didn't mean that the perception I mentioned was widespread(or right) ,but that it was kind of perennial. Yes the layperson struggles to have a clue-or interest about what scientists try to learn. That means me (I struggle to have the understanding of a layman) The world is on a knife edge and we are accelerating into god only knows what future.I almost feel relieved I won't be here to find out.

Well,it seems a fairly common perception that we may be coming to a point where most of the physical laws are known( a faulty perception ,no doubt but I feel it is there) Then our level of scientific progress seems to be unprecedented and so the precedents you adduced ,as striking as they may be might not be good models for what we are facing into. It seems to me that the future has never been less clear than it is today. I was born into a period of incredible technological and scientific (and social) change and am still unprepared for what is happening now (and seems likely to happen) AI does seem to be one of the huge changes just hoving to on the horizon and so I may have given into the temptation to shoehorn it into this thread (since its effects seem as if they are going to be felt right across the board and may possibly and bizarrely even impact on the subject of this thread )

Does the law of diminishing returns apply to scientific progress? If humans' needs are more or less met will what is unknown in the physical world seem less important ? Might human civilisation "degenerate" into party time ?(especially if all the scientific acquisition are kept in the trust of AI guardians**whom few are inclined to doubt) **one of their roles might be the propagation of scientific infotainment.

I think they should contribute to the cost of their accommodation .They are having far too good a time. Same goes for tobogganing penguins.