Infinity... Can God conceive it?

[iNow]

What is it you consider baseless? The simple notion that the universe was CREATED? Why is this so hard to comprehend?

My friend, please do not conflate my comments that such an assertion is baseless, unfounded, and without a shred of evidence with my ability to comprehend the claim itself. I comprehend quite clearly the assertion, I simply reject it as without merit, without empirical support, and hence not even remotely worthy of my consideration.

 

 

Does the "infinite" exist in a physical realm-actuality?

What does that even mean? As AJB has amply articulated, the "infinite" is a mathematical concept with a very specific purpose and meaning. If you can associate this "physical realm-actuality" religio-babble word salad to that, then please do so. Until then, your comments lack sense, precision, and also relevance.

 

 

Could a supposed being with infinite amounts of mind power consider itself to its fullest extent?

Define the parameters of your "supposed being," your "mind power" and "consider itself to the fullest extent" to set the context of the discussion. Once we agree on those parameters and have clearly established definition, we may just have a chance at having a meaningful discussion. Until then, you may as well be asking whether a purple unicorn flies faster or slower than a pink one.

 

 

Exploration of these ideas is wonderful, as are the challenges to our mental capacities such thought surfing brings, but unless you are precise with your language and definitions you are simply wasting everyones time.

[Syntho-sis]

My friend, please do not conflate my comments that such an assertion is baseless, unfounded, and without a shred of evidence with my ability to comprehend the claim itself. I comprehend quite clearly the assertion, I simply reject it as without merit, without empirical support, and hence not even remotely worthy of my consideration.

 

 

 

What does that even mean? As AJB has amply articulated, the "infinite" is a mathematical concept with a very specific purpose and meaning. If you can associate this "physical realm-actuality" religio-babble word salad to that, then please do so. Until then, your comments lack sense, precision, and also relevance.

 

 

 

Define the parameters of your "supposed being," your "mind power" and "consider itself to the fullest extent" to set the context of the discussion. Once we agree on those parameters and have clearly established definition, we may just have a chance at having a meaningful discussion. Until then, you may as well be asking whether a purple unicorn flies faster or slower than a pink one.

 

 

Exploration of these ideas is wonderful, as are the challenges to our mental capacities such thought surfing brings, but unless you are precise with your language and definitions you are simply wasting everyones time.

 

 

First off I am sorry that I am not as precise in language as some of you more educated lads.

 

I am not always able to convey what I am thinking in concise terms.

 

Especially when it comes to mathematical concepts/philosophy.

 

The infinite only exists as a mathematical idea? How would one explain the reasoning behind the Omniverse if infinity isn't "physical"? (I am sincerely curious- and by no means attempting to be confrontational)

 

I have a paradox for you....

 

It is similar to Zeno's room paradox.

 

Consider that one second of time has occurred. Before one half of a second can occur, one quarter must elapse . Before a forth can elapse; one eighth must occur; and so on.

 

Is it fair to say that an infinite amount of "time" has happened within one second?

 

This is puzzling...Has a second even really "happened"? By this reasoning it would not even be able to be 1/2...because you could continuously divide.

 

As far as parameters, more than anything this is a general discussion of the properties of this mysterious concept that we use everyday...The infinite...

 

Something of which I have long been obsessed/fascinated.

 

I do not believe that time has always existed..If I am correct, if an infinte amount of time happens, anything that can happen, has already occured.

 

 

So time did have an origin of sorts.

 

Agree or disagree?

[Mr Skeptic]

You do realize, right, that your whole diatribe there was one big strawman?

 

Quote me in this thread where I stated that anybody's beliefs were wrong. Please, I beg of you. Scratch that, I dare you.

 

Uh, if you read my post, you will see that I was not saying that. My post was in response to your accusation of double standards. Pretending that it was about you or specifically about you saying a religious belief is wrong, is, well, a strawman.

 

Also, the part about proving a religious belief is wrong is part of this, because when we tear down someone's theory it if generally by showing that it is wrong. You said there is a double standard for tearing down religious belief and tearing down crazy theories; I pointed out that you in general can't tear down religious beliefs and now you pretend my post was claiming you did.

 

You will not, because you cannot, because I never asserted any such thing.

 

Well, if you never said that someone's religious beliefs were wrong, and you said that someone's attempted scientific theory was wrong, then you are holding double standards as well.

[padren]

What is it you consider baseless? The simple notion that the universe was CREATED? Why is this so hard to comprehend? It takes far more faith for someone to believe the universe has always existed- than it does to say that it was created by an ultra-intelligent being. < In my humble opinion.

I do disagree with your claim it takes more faith for someone to believe the universe has always existed, and I also already proposed alternative concepts that do not involve either a being creating the universe or it always existing.

If you just want to share respective views that's fine, if you want to discuss how I come to my conclusions I will be happy to share the logic and we can compare the competing concepts.

 

But please stay on topic. By no means is this a religious discussion but merely an inquiry into the proposition of some of the more basic questions that we ask everyday...(But have no REAL answers)

Well, we were but you did in a couple posts make claims that the "creator concept" was not only a more logical but the only logical conclusion one could reach, and as such it was naturally challenged.

 

That would be like having a discussion and suddenly throwing out "and since it is only logical to see that life begins at conception" you can bet the discussion will be equally sidetracked in that case.

 

I don't mean to belabor the point, I just want you to see the distinction in how your comments opened up this line of discussion.

Such as.. Does the "infinite" exist in a physical realm-actuality? Could a supposed being with infinite amounts of mind power consider itself to its fullest extent?

 

I am interested in everyone's thoughts on these things (And any other paradoxes that anyone would like to bring up.)

 

We may not be able to answer all these questions but they sure are fun to think about....

 

I do enjoy these sorts of topics. Regarding infinity in the physical universe, I think space is either curved (loops back on itself) or is infinite, but I can't recall if the measurements hit the accuracy level to reach a conclusive determination.

 

Personally I can't imagine infinity as part of physical reality, as I can't help but to logically conclude that everything with definition (even space/time) requires/required energy to come into existence, and an infinite spatial plane would require infinite energy to create, which I just don't see happening.

As I said before though, I could be wrong, I am not in that discipline.

[Baby Astronaut]

Well, we were but you did in a couple posts make claims that the "creator concept" was not only a more intuitive but the only intuitive conclusion one could reach, and as such it was naturally challenged.

There, fixed

 

New visitors here might not understand the level of precision in definition given to certain words, especially in scientific contexts like these boards. So naturally, when someone's been using the phrase "it's only logical" in everyday language without giving much thought to its absolute, standard, textbook definition (and maybe completely unaware of the studies on logical fallacies or even the components of good debate) -- especially when news anchors or a famous intellectual wanna-be spouts the phrase often -- and seeing as there's no placard at the forums entry stating "no fallacies allowed, and you must only use the word Logic properly", then we might conclude it's only *logical* that a newcomer unfamiliar with the rigors of science (and having grown up on entertainment-filtered science) is going to make a few errors of intended meaning and word choice.

 

So instead of biting off someone's head for a minor error that's fairly common and understandable, people here can be a little more productive and explain, give links to how scientific words differ from everyday, popular use of the same words. And link to a site that clearly illustrates fallacies and how to avoid them.

 

People do come here to learn, not to get a barrage of disapproval on word choice that often seems to be unclear/confusing on how they erred. I've seen it often, the person doesn't seem to know why the crowd is attacking their *seemingly* valid points, when normally, if offering those same points in the everyday world, it spurs interest and discussion.

 

 

These links are a start at least, there's probably better websites.

 

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

 

It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you're more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence. To help you see how people commonly make this mistake, this handout uses a number of controversial political examples—arguments about subjects like abortion, gun control, the death penalty, gay marriage, euthanasia, and pornography. The purpose of this handout, though, is not to argue for any particular position on any of these issues; rather, it is to illustrate weak reasoning, which can happen in pretty much any kind of argument!

 

http://modern-science.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html

 

Fact/Know/True

English:

Something that is absolutely correct, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Science:

These terms are not generally used as their meanings are imprecise. Sometimes when talking w/ laypeople they're used to mean "observation," other times to mean "theory." When talking to other scientists we use different words. Nothing in science can be "known" absolutely as "true," so these words are meaningless.

[ajb]

The infinite only exists as a mathematical idea? How would one explain the reasoning behind the Omniverse if infinity isn't "physical"? (I am sincerely curious- and by no means attempting to be confrontational)

 

I don't think infinity is just a mathematical idea. May people have asked questions like yours such as if god can understand infinity. It does seem to be a mathematical construct that has "spilled over" into religion and philosophy. I think that is only has some real meaning in mathematics.

 

Infinity is thought not to be a physical thing. All experiments and observations produce real numbers. For some reason real numbers play a very privileged role in nature. For example, the Sun is 1AU away from us. I have 4 apples in my basket. My glass contains 1 pint of beer. And so on.

 

Infinity is not a real number. Therefore it is unlikely, based on what we know that anything will actually take "value infinity".

 

However, infinity does appear in physical theories. Remember that these are mathematical models and not directly nature.

 

Usually, if some "physical observable" reaches an infinite value then this is seen as the breakdown of the theory. That is you are trying to apply a theory to a regime that it cannot handle. For example, the singularity in black holes. No one really thinks that the curvature goes to infinity. It is expected that quantum effects will smooth out this infinity.

[Baby Astronaut]

I don't think infinity is just a mathematical idea. May people have asked questions like yours such as if god can understand infinity. It does seem to be a mathematical construct that has "spilled over" into religion and philosophy.

I dunno. When a child asks how far does space go out, one answers "forever". Or what's the highest number? "they don't end" Or how much does someone love them? "Infinitely" Or how much do they love 'em back? "Infinity plus infinity".

 

We all play these games or mental exercises, and seeing no end in sight or imagining something going on forever is so (visually) natural a kid can quickly understand what you're saying -- where its math representation probably takes quite bit of schooling to absorb.

[Syntho-sis]

I dunno. When a child asks how far does space go out, one answers "forever". Or what's the highest number? "they don't end" Or how much does someone love them? "Infinitely" Or how much do they love 'em back? "Infinity plus infinity".

 

We all play these games or mental exercises, and seeing no end in sight or imagining something going on forever is so (visually) natural a kid can quickly understand what you're saying -- where its math representation probably takes quite bit of schooling to absorb.

 

 

 

I appreciated the handout on fallacies. I read the entire thing. I've not much experience in actual academic arguments, but I am slowly learning.

[Lan(r)12]

By no means am I a mathematician, but I think to say that infinity has no bearing in the natural world is, well, wrong.

 

I cant see how space could be finite. WHAT is outside the boundary then?...Do i get to the end and then there is nothing? I cant take another step? This seems more confusing to me than saying space is infinite.

 

The [math]\lim_{x\to\infty} \ x = infinity[/math]

 

To me...this is a common function, with common applications. Its basically saying, well what if I add just one more? And going by that, numbers in the physical world never end.

 

I may be wrong about this, but thats how I see it.

[Sisyphus]

By no means am I a mathematician, but I think to say that infinity has no bearing in the natural world is, well, wrong.

 

I cant see how space could be finite. WHAT is outside the boundary then?...Do i get to the end and then there is nothing? I cant take another step? This seems more confusing to me than saying space is infinite.

 

The [math]\lim_{x\to\infty} \ x = infinity[/math]

 

To me...this is a common function, with common applications. Its basically saying, well what if I add just one more? And going by that, numbers in the physical world never end.

 

I may be wrong about this, but thats how I see it.

 

The universe can be finite and still not have a boundary. There have been lots of topics here about exactly that. Also, "numbers in the physical world" is not a meaningful phrase.

[Lan(r)12]

The universe can be finite and still not have a boundary. There have been lots of topics here about exactly that. Also, "numbers in the physical world" is not a meaningful phrase.

 

Why isnt it?

And could you explain the boundary thing to me?

[Sisyphus]

Numbers are abstractions, not physically real things. Often they are useful in describing physical things, but that doesn't mean that anything mathematically describable is something that physically exists. You can, for example, mathematically describe a hypothetical 500-dimensional object, but none physically exist. And you can count to an arbitrarily large number, to the point where you'll run out of physical things to be counting.

 

With the universe, briefly, it's hard to imagine directly, but analogies are helpful. Imagine the surface of the Earth as a 2-dimensional universe. It has a finite area, but you can never walk to the edge of it, only get back to where you started. Now you just have to transfer that to 3 dimensions in your mind, and imagine space itself "curving" back on itself, such that travelling in a straight line would theoretically eventually get you right back where you started.

[Lan(r)12]

Ok, so you are saying that since this is a finite universe, incredibly large numbers exist only in logic and math?

 

And that anaology was helpful...but it hurt my head lol

Thanks.

[Sisyphus]

I'm saying that all numbers only exist in math. Some math is useful for describing physical things.

[Syntho-sis]

With the universe, briefly, it's hard to imagine directly, but analogies are helpful. Imagine the surface of the Earth as a 2-dimensional universe. It has a finite area, but you can never walk to the edge of it, only get back to where you started. Now you just have to transfer that to 3 dimensions in your mind, and imagine space itself "curving" back on itself, such that travelling in a straight line would theoretically eventually get you right back where you started.

 

I've heard this idea before. Is there any empirical evidence that space actually "curves" on itself?

[padren]

There, fixed

We are well past the point of this mattering and have all moved on, but I just want to say for clarity that no, it wasn't an issue of the wrong word. The request was to step through the arguments logically, not intuit what feels most fitting.

Second, even with the "fixed" wording it's still a claim that is subject to challenge. Personally, I do not find a deity solution more intuitive. I suspect people who believe in deities do, and those that find deities very odd ideas indeed would not.

 

New visitors here might not understand the level of precision in definition given to certain words, especially in scientific contexts like these boards. So naturally, when someone's been using the phrase "it's only logical" in everyday language without giving much thought to its absolute, standard, textbook definition (and maybe completely unaware of the studies on logical fallacies or even the components of good debate) -- especially when news anchors or a famous intellectual wanna-be spouts the phrase often -- and seeing as there's no placard at the forums entry stating "no fallacies allowed, and you must only use the word Logic properly", then we might conclude it's only *logical* that a newcomer unfamiliar with the rigors of science (and having grown up on entertainment-filtered science) is going to make a few errors of intended meaning and word choice.

In what context does saying something is logical not boil down to a claim of "A follows B" in some manner? When should inaccuracies be ignored? It really has nothing to do with the word logic, just the utterance of a claim, especially when that claim is followed by a challenge as posts #4/#6 clearly did.

So instead of biting off someone's head for a minor error that's fairly common and understandable, people here can be a little more productive and explain, give links to how scientific words differ from everyday, popular use of the same words. And link to a site that clearly illustrates fallacies and how to avoid them.

I think that's a bit harsh, his assertion was pulled apart, but I don't think he was attacked. I think we had a good discussion on the side topic and moved on pretty well so I don't mean to drag the thread back there... I just find your assertion of language being the largest factor to be inaccurate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think this is what I was mentioning earlier the WMAP research:

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

I believe that means if space curves it is a sphere (finite) and if it's flat it's infinite, and they not believe to within a 2% margin of error it is flat.

This stuff is a bit outside my area of expertise, so not 100% sure on my interpretation of the results.

[Syntho-sis]

Aha!

 

"The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper. That is the result confirmed by the WMAP science."

 

^^GEOMTERY OF THE UNIVERSE- last paragraph

 

Inflation theory- http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

 

The flatness problem- "WMAP has determined the geometry of the universe to be nearly flat. However, under Big Bang cosmology, curvature grows with time. A universe as flat as we see it today would require an extreme fine-tuning of conditions in the past, which would be an unbelievable coincidence."

 

^ What is being supposed by that last sentence?

 

Wouldn't flatness equal infinite space? -Or infinitely expanding space?

[padren]

 

The flatness problem- "WMAP has determined the geometry of the universe to be nearly flat. However, under Big Bang cosmology, curvature grows with time. A universe as flat as we see it today would require an extreme fine-tuning of conditions in the past, which would be an unbelievable coincidence."

 

^ What is being supposed by that last sentence?

 

Wouldn't flatness equal infinite space? -Or infinitely expanding space?

 

Well, that's the supposition, but I don't know enough to say that is a conclusive fact as a result of those observations.

 

Regarding the coincidence factor: It's entirely possible that in an infinite number of possible universes, for some reason it needs to be flat for life to evolve (total guess, not based on any math or logic) but if that happened to be true, any life that evolved would only evolve to observe such unbelievable coincidental conditions. When I see things that appear to be "against incredible odds" I am reminded of the "lotto prayer fallacy" in which, every person in a lotto "prays" to win the lotto - who ever does win will feel that against unbelievable odds their prayers were answered, but only because they don't have access to the pool of failed prayers.

 

So, in the case of extreme coincidence, I don't generally read unbelievable odds as supporting evidence for an intelligent design, in case that's where you were going on that.

 

As to the universe being a flat infinite plane, I can't personally reconcile how a finite amount of energy could result in an infinite plane - so that is an interesting question for sure. Maybe someone in the astrophysics/cosmology department could shed light on that one.

[mooeypoo]

I am reminding everyone that a religious discussion is against the policy of the forums. This thread began as a philosophical and mathematical debate about the universe, and uses the term 'god' as a metaphorical question.

 

The posts relating to arguments about religion (specifically, Intelligent Design) were split off to a new thread and locked: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39954

 

All members participating in the debate are encouraged to avoid reverting back to a religious argument and continue the philosophical and metaphorical argument, as is stated in SFN's rules of conduct.

 

Enjoy.

[Syntho-sis]

I'm certainly glad that we are back to the original topic...

 

Things definitely got out of hand. By no means am I attempting to force my personal ideas onto others. Nor am I trying to present my religious thoughts as science.

 

I'm not sure if anyone noticed the question I posted a few days ago. (This was in the middle of another topic of debate and got sidelined)

 

But here it is--

 

It is similar to Zeno's dichotomy paradox

 

Consider that one second of time has occurred. Before one half of a second can occur, one quarter must elapse . Before a forth can elapse; one eighth must occur; and so on.

 

Until the actual second is realized.

 

This is puzzling...Has a second even really "happened"? By this reasoning it would not even be able to be 1/2...because you could continuously divide.

 

Or could you use the argument that the measurement of one second encompasses all the irrational measurements that make it up?

 

Now I know that mathematicians no longer consider Zeno's paradoxes valid, but I think they bring an interesting perspective to the infinite as both a mathematical property and a metaphysical concept.

 

Is it fair to say that an infinite amount of "time" has happened within one second?

 

Think of fractals, that should get the idea across.

[Mr Skeptic]

It could be there is a minimum time interval (eg due to quantum mechanics). Otherwise, time is infinitely divisible, ie you could divide a time interval into as many parts as you want. That does not mean infinite time though.

 

Syntho-sis, add up the numbers 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... and tell me if you see a pattern.

[Syntho-sis]

It could be there is a minimum time interval (eg due to quantum mechanics). Otherwise, time is infinitely divisible, ie you could divide a time interval into as many parts as you want. That does not mean infinite time though.

 

Syntho-sis, add up the numbers 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... and tell me if you see a pattern.

 

Yes I think I know what you are getting at...As the amount of intervals making up the whole> 1 > increase, their values decrease.

 

No fraction added to the whole number 1 will equal 2.

 

Am I in the right ball park of what you were demonstrating?

 

But could you ever get to the point where you could no longer divide something?

 

Isn't that what Max Plank demonstrated? Does a Planck length apply to the concept of time?

 

(haha I am a beginner on most of these things so you'll have to forgive my ignorance.)

[Mr Skeptic]

No, I meant literally add them up, to look for a pattern.

1/2 =

1/2 + 1/4 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 =

...

See if you can find a pattern.

[samtheflash82]

Where did the universe come from?

 

Brooklyn

[Syntho-sis]

No, I meant literally add them up, to look for a pattern.

1/2 =

1/2 + 1/4 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 =

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 =

...

See if you can find a pattern.

 

Here's what I got...In decimal form-

 

1/2 =0.5

1/2 + 1/4 =0.75

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 =0.875

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 =0.9375

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32=0.96875

 

In fractions-

 

1/2 = 1/2

1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 7/8

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 = 15/16

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 = 31/32

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64= 63/64

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + 1/128= 127/128

 

I see the pattern, what are you trying to show though? What does this mean?