The Measure Problem

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

The measure problem tells us that our models of the universe must be finite

Even if that is true (which I don't accept) it would be, as you say, a problem with the model. The universe doesn't care about our models.

[DannyTR]

But the very concept of Actual Infinity is absurd for any materialistist. Objects have a start for materialists. Objects without start cannot exist. So spacetime has a start. 

The non-material world is less constraining but let’s not go there.

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

But the very concept of Actual Infinity is absurd for any materialistist. Objects have a start for materialists. Objects without start cannot exist. So spacetime has a start. 

The non-material world is less constraining but let’s not go there.

How many possible sections are there between any two points in space?

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

But the very concept of Actual Infinity is absurd for any materialistist.

I don't see why. But even if it is, that doesn't tell us about the real universe. 

The physical extent of the universe isn't defined by what some subset of human philosopher's believe.

47 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

Objects without start cannot exist.

More baseless assertions.

Do you any evidence for anything you claim?

Or is it going to be one baseless claim after another. You might as well claim that the moon is populated by invisible unicorns. It has as much evidence as your other claims.

[DannyTR]

36 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How many possible sections are there between any two points in space?

First, if space is discrete then there is a finite number of sections between any two points in space. Continuous space leads to Zeno’s paradoxes hence space is discrete (paradoxes are indicative of an underlying logic error IE space is continuous is wrong).

Second, even if space was continuous, this is an example of a potential infinity whereas I’m talking about actual Infinity.

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity):

  - Those sections only exits as they are created through some sort of iterative process that tends to but never actually reaches infinity.

 - Mentally, how could your mind ever conceive simultaneously of an infinite number of sections, that would require infinite brain capacity 

Edited September 22, 2018 by DannyTR
Clarify

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

 - Mentally, how could your mind ever conceive simultaneously of an infinite number of sections, that would require infinite brain capacity 

Just because we can't conceive it doesn't mean it's forbidden.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

Continuous space leads to Zeno’s paradoxes hence space is discrete

[quiet]

On viernes, 21 de septiembre de 2018 at 9:53 AM, DannyTR said:

The Actually Infinite is an illogical concept that does not exist mathematically or in the material world.

In the Solvay Congress of 1927 the use of the word probability as the name of a new mathematical procedure, typical of quantum theory, different from the procedures that the same word names in thermodynamics, has been accepted. I want to start confessing my perplexity and my disagreement in front of intruducing the postulate that proposes to express the square of the wave amplitude in terms of probability. That requires admitting that the square root of probability is something that has the physical ability to propagate. I find this idea as deficient as saying that the number concept of mathematics occupies space and is capable of traveling. If DannyTR feels the same, then in that I agree with him. In other details I do not agree and I will try to show why.

First let's think about the natural numbers. And suppose there is no infinite. Then, in increasing sense, there is an insurmountable maximum [math]N_f[/math] in the set of natural numbers.

You generate a recurring program, which adds 1 to the result obtained in the previous step. In the first step there is no previous step, then the previous result is zero. Sum 1 and the result is 1. The second step is to add 1 to the result of the previous step, that is 1 + 1 = 2. With this recurrent procedure, the program passes in increasing order by all natural numbers.

In case there is no infinity in natural numbers, the program should stop when it reaches [math]N_f[/math] . The computer is enabled to continue, the adding procedure is enabled to advance without logical failure, there are no mathematical obstacles, but the program stops at [math]N_f[/math] . This is very weird.

No multiplication, no potentiation, no operation with natural numbers could give a result greater than [math]N_f[/math] .

The number of bosons in a physical system is natural. Physical laws explicitly state that there is no upper limit to the number of bosons that can coexist within a finite volume. Are the investigations that led to the formulation of those laws wrong? Note that the freedom to accumulate bosons unlimitedly is given for finite volume. That is, we can not present a critique based on the absurdity of infinite volume, because a finite volume is enough to accumulate bosons without limit. Numerical infinity within a finite volume. Obviously, an infinite number of bosons, within a finite volume, implies an infinite energy density of positive sign. Cosmology is beginning to admit that the net energy of the universe is equal to zero, because the energy of positive sign is compensated with energy of the opposite sign. Nothing prohibits that type of compensation can be established within a finite volume. If that volume contains two sets of symmetrical bosons, both with an infinite number of bosons but with opposite signs in energy, the energy density would be equal to zero within that volume. The numerical infinity linked to the zero of the net energy.

Newton, Leibniz, Cauchy, Weierstrass, Bolzano, Cantor, each in his time, have studied infinity in mathematics. I translate a paragraph referring to the work of Bolzano, taken from a document in Spanish, available at the following address.

https://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/pdf2014/14/CyT_14_18.pdf

---------
 
Translation:

In the publication Paradoxes of the infinite of 1840 he claims the existence of the current infinite using the idea of set and recognizes that the difference between finite and infinite sets is the possibility of being in correspondence with a part of his own, as Galileo had already observed.

End of translation

---------

Everything known points against us when we try to underestimate infinity. That does not mean that we can attribute to infinity properties that do not possess, or invoke infinity in cases that do not admit it. That is why I wanted to give the example of two infinite symmetric energy densities, within a finite volume, that give a net density equal to zero, without forbidding the presence of an infinite number of bosons.

Edited September 22, 2018 by quiet

[DannyTR]

Important to understand the difference between potential and actual infinity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

The program only potentially passes through infinite number of states it never actually achieves Infinity...

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

The program only potentially passes through infinite number of states it never actually achieves Infinity...

What program? And how is computer program relevant to the universe?

edit: just read the irrelevant nonsense in the previous post. So ignore those questions 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

5 hours ago, DannyTR said:

Yes the bounded has boundaries of the same nature as the bounded itself.

I guess nothing is beyond that boundary there is no time or space there.

Thank you,

 

Why was that so difficult?

 

OK so let us consider the set of all real numbers that lie between 5 and 10.

 

Would you agree that that 

all of these are greater than or equal to 5  and less than or equal to 10?

Thus we are we agreed that the set is bounded since this the the definition of a bounded set?

 

4 hours ago, DannyTR said:

You are making things too complicated:

 - You have a paradox; the measure problem

 

I am trying to take the development of the logic in simple steps that we can agree along the way.

It is unfortunate that you are using the word measure which has special meaning in mathematics, as you are using it nearly (but not quite) correctly and the correct term is relevant to this discussion.

It would be better to forego using it until you have studiep up a little bit on its exact meaning,.

1 hour ago, quiet said:

In the Solvay Congress of 1927 the use of the word probability as the name of a new mathematical procedure, typical of quantum theory, different from the procedures that the same word names in thermodynamics, has been accepted. I want to start confessing my perplexity and my disagreement in front of intruducing the postulate that proposes to express the square of the wave amplitude in terms of probability. That requires admitting that the square root of probability is something that has the physical ability to propagate.

Why do you say the relationship between the square root of the (square of the amplitude)  and between the variance and standard deviation is different?

The classical probability described is the same in both cases. And that probability is only an interpretation of readings one would get it is a model that, like all models, is not perfect.

As to numbers 'occupying space.

They don't.

 

That is why the number line is not a perfect model of the number system.

The numbers are not actually parts of a line.

 

That is why the subject is best cast in set theory which is capable of handling the logic.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, quiet said:

In the Solvay Congress of 1927 the use of the word probability as the name of a new mathematical procedure, typical of quantum theory, different from the procedures that the same word names in thermodynamics, has been accepted.

How is probability in quantum theory any different from classical probability?

2 hours ago, quiet said:

That requires admitting that the square root of probability is something that has the physical ability to propagate.

I don't think you can go from a probability to a wave function. 

2 hours ago, quiet said:

I find this idea as deficient as saying that the number concept of mathematics occupies space and is capable of traveling.

I can only imagine that you find it deficient because you don't understand it. In the end, it doesn't matter. The model works; it correctly predicts the probability of, for example, finding an electron in the appropriate orbital of an atom.

2 hours ago, quiet said:

You generate a recurring program, which adds 1 to the result obtained in the previous step. In the first step there is no previous step, then the previous result is zero. Sum 1 and the result is 1. The second step is to add 1 to the result of the previous step, that is 1 + 1 = 2. With this recurrent procedure, the program passes in increasing order by all natural numbers.

In case there is no infinity in natural numbers, the program should stop when it reaches Nf . The computer is enabled to continue, the adding procedure is enabled to advance without logical failure, there are no mathematical obstacles, but the program stops at Nf . This is very weird.

No multiplication, no potentiation, no operation with natural numbers could give a result greater than Nf .

Is this supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum argument? It isn't at all clear what you mean. But it is completely pointless because the fact that integers are infinite is inherent in their definition.

2 hours ago, quiet said:

Cosmology is beginning to admit that the net energy of the universe is equal to zero

It is a hypothesis. It has not been confirmed, and I'm not sure it can be. But it does solve some problems.

And "beginning to admit" seems odd for an idea that goes back to 1973, with origins around the beginning of the last century.

2 hours ago, quiet said:

If that volume contains two sets of symmetrical bosons, both with an infinite number of bosons but with opposite signs in energy, the energy density would be equal to zero within that volume.

As far as I know there is no such thing as a boson with negative energy. Do you have a reference for this?

 

And, sadly, none of this seems relevant to the topic of the thread.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, DannyTR said:

Important to understand the difference between potential and actual infinity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

The program only potentially passes through infinite number of states it never actually achieves Infinity...

!

Moderator Note

This style of ignoring what people say about your assertions so you can make additional assertions without supportive evidence isn't conducive to discussion. If you can't take the comments on board, perhaps you should start a blog on a different site. Start engaging with substance and rigor or this thread will be closed.

 

[MigL]

You cannot assert something doesn't exist because you haven't found it yet.

Strange and Studiot, like all good scientists, are not discounting the possibility of an infinite universe because we haven't examined all the contents of the universe, nor the actual universe itself, for possible infinities. IOW, since they don't know they are open to all possibilities that could fit current observations

You on the other hand, having neither studied cosmology nor mathematics, but based on your limited everyday experiences, have decreed that infinities are impossible, within, or of, the universe itself. You have eliminated one possibility with no evidence/proof whatsoever.

Is that a fair summation of the argument so far ?
I just wanted to clarify, because it makes your argument seem rather foolish.

[taeto]

3 hours ago, DannyTR said:

Important to understand the difference between potential and actual infinity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

The program only potentially passes through infinite number of states it never actually achieves Infinity...

That wikipedia page is only created by mathematics cranks as a means of vandalizing wikipedia.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, taeto said:

That wikipedia page is only created by mathematics cranks as a means of vandalizing wikipedia.

Maybe DannyTR is one of them. 

[taeto]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe DannyTR is one of them. 

That I doubt.

[quiet]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

How is probability in quantum theory any different from classical probability?

I don't think you can go from a probability to a wave function. 

I can only imagine that you find it deficient because you don't understand it. In the end, it doesn't matter. The model works; it correctly predicts the probability of, for example, finding an electron in the appropriate orbital of an atom.

Is this supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum argument? It isn't at all clear what you mean. But it is completely pointless because the fact that integers are infinite is inherent in their definition.

It is a hypothesis. It has not been confirmed, and I'm not sure it can be. But it does solve some problems.

And "beginning to admit" seems odd for an idea that goes back to 1973, with origins around the beginning of the last century.

As far as I know there is no such thing as a boson with negative energy. Do you have a reference for this?

 

And, sadly, none of this seems relevant to the topic of the thread.

For evidence, a button is enough. Let's go to one of your objections, which seems powerful because it involves infinity, quantum, bosons and negative energy together, suggesting that all of that constitutes an incoherent combination of unrelated things. The reality is that the issue is not new and has been seriously investigated. I put some links, which I could find effortlessly and quickly.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9910207.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b080/23c6e509133f24705134e910bd6a0dfff4ac.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0101247v1.pdf

Have you done the task of looking for them before writing an objection? Have you done the task with the other objections?

On Friday I was in a kindergarten. The teacher distributed games of insertion. I was surprised by a girl who, instead of building, was dedicated to destroy what others built. When the teacher invited the girl to replace the destructive behavior by taking her game and beginning to build, the girl refused violently. The teacher tried to stimulate her to build and the girl started crying. I am still trying to understand that girl, because her behavior inevitably derives from a cause.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, quiet said:

I put some links, which I could find effortlessly and quickly

They seem almost as bizarrely off topic as your initial rant. But maybe you can explain what, exactly, each of them has to do with the topic. 

11 minutes ago, quiet said:

Have you done the task of looking for them before writing an objection?

It is not my job to look for support for your nonsense. 

12 minutes ago, quiet said:

On Friday I was in a kindergarten.

What are you on about? What has this got to do with the topic? (But yes, I can see that you were disguising a pathetic personal attack with this little fantasy.)

[quiet]

51 minutes ago, Strange said:

They seem almost as bizarrely off topic as your initial rant. But maybe you can explain what, exactly, each of them has to do with the topic. 

It is not my job to look for support for your nonsense. 

What are you on about? What has this got to do with the topic? (But yes, I can see that you were disguising a pathetic personal attack with this little fantasy.)

Think a little Strange. You name an X thing and, for whatever reason, I want to deny the possibility that X exists. I want it, it's true. Does that authorize me to write the denial, without previously seeking news about it? If that conduct were legitimate, in the trials would decree sentences only by the sayings of people who invent statements only for the desire to condemn.

Edited September 23, 2018 by quiet
I have write strange instead Strange

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, quiet said:

Think a little strange. You name an X thing and, for whatever reason, I want to deny the possibility that X exists. I want it, it's true. Does that authorize me to write the denial, without previously seeking news about it? If that conduct were legitimate, in the trials would decree sentences only by the sayings of people who invent statements only for the desire to condemn.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. But it doesn’t appear to be related to the topic of the thread. Please stop posting irrelevant nonsense. 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Strange

[quiet]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

You lease stop posting irrelevant nonsense. 

Yes sir. Very good idea.
 

Edited September 23, 2018 by quiet

[DannyTR]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

You cannot assert something doesn't exist because you haven't found it yet.

 

 - We have not found magic yet so we discount it’s existence in the physical sciences.

 - We have not found Actual Infinity in maths or nature so we should discount it’s existence likewise 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, DannyTR said:

 - We have not found magic yet so we discount it’s existence in the physical sciences.

 - We have not found Actual Infinity in maths or nature so we should discount it’s existence likewise 

Invalid analogy. Magic is by definition "supernatural" which by definition is beyond science and totally unevidenced, while the nature of the universe/space/time is most certainly knowable.

Edited September 23, 2018 by beecee

[DannyTR]

What is natural about a quantity larger than any other possible quantity?