If I can imagine it, it is possible!

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

Why? 

 I might have been misunderstanding something here,  but Absolute Infinity should mean that all components of reality (spacetime, energy, matter)  is infinite. 

How exactly would you tell the difference between the universe being, say, 10 times bigger than the observable universe and being infinite? Given that nothing outside the observable universe can be measured or have any effect on you. 

Local density differences would be exactly the same however large the universe is. 

[FreeWill]

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

How exactly would you tell the difference between the universe being, say, 10 times bigger than the observable universe and being infinite? Given that nothing outside the observable universe can be measured or have any effect on you. 

Local density differences would be exactly the same however large the universe is. 

Please note that Absolute Infinity is not just about space, It supposed to includes energy and matter as well, where density differences would vanish.

Is there density differences in the core of a black hole?  

[JessPetersenjessie14]

FreeWill you’re assuming that Absolute Infinity would be infinitely dense in all areas. No. A truly infinite reality must include spaces ranging from infinitesimally dense to infinitely dense and everything in between (including finite densities like in our Universe)

The finite is included in the infinite

Edited May 3, 2019 by JessPetersenjessie14

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

Please note that Absolute Infinity is not just about space, It supposed to includes energy and matter as well, where density differences would vanish.

Why would density difference vanish? Why would the density differences here on Earth be affected by the universe beyond the observable universe which by definition can have no effect on it.

Quote

Is there density differences in the core of a black hole?  

We don't now anything about the inside of a black hole. And it isn't relevant anyway (being finite).

2 minutes ago, JessPetersenjessie14 said:

A truly infinite reality must include spaces ranging from infinitesimally dense to infinitely dense and everything in between

I don't see why.

 

[JessPetersenjessie14]

Strange, I’m proving YOU right. What do you mean “I don’t see why”

FreeWill is assuming an infinite reality would be uniform (infinitely dense throughout). I’m saying that a truly infinite reality would include all densities including finite ones

Edited May 3, 2019 by JessPetersenjessie14

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, JessPetersenjessie14 said:

Strange, I’m proving YOU right. What do you mean “I don’t see why”

There is no reason to say that there must be regions of infinite density (which sounds physically impossible) in an infinite universe. The rest of the universe could be largely the same as the visible universe.

(And I have reported you for creating more sock puppets.)

[JessPetersenjessie14]

We’re talking about a reality that’s Absolutely Infinite. It must include anything and everything that doesn’t defy itself.

Infinitetly dense matter doesn’t contradict it’s own definition

Edited May 3, 2019 by JessPetersenjessie14

[Strange]

1 minute ago, JessPetersenjessie14 said:

We’re talking about a reality that’s Absolutely Infinite. It must include anything and everything that doesn’t defy itself.

What is the evidence for that claim?

2 minutes ago, JessPetersenjessie14 said:

Infinitetly dense matter doesn’t contradict it’s own definition

What evidence do you have that matter can be infinitely dense?

[FreeWill]

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why would density difference vanish? 

Because in every point of space-time we would have infinite mass. 

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why would the density differences here on Earth be affected by the universe beyond the observable universe which by definition can have no effect on it.

I do not know, you tell me? I haven't said anything like this? 

I do not think it is possible, that anything is outside the realm of spacetime we also exist in.  I can imagine it (or something like that) but that won't make it real. 

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

Because in every point of space-time we would have infinite mass. 

Why? 

The mass here is not affected by the physical extent of the universe. The mass of the Earth is the same if the universe is 10 time bigger than the observable universe, or 10,000 times bigger or 100 billion times bigger. Or infinitely bigger.

Quote

I do not know, you tell me? I haven't said anything like this? 

I do not think it is possible, that anything is outside the realm of spacetime we also exist in.  I can imagine it (or something like that) but that won't make it real. 

You did. You said that if the universe beyond the observable universe were infinite then density differences would disappear. This is not logical.

[FreeWill]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the evidence for that claim?

What evidence do you have that matter can be infinitely dense?

The op is: if I can imagine it, it is possible?

It is a thought experiment, and of course, it can not be possible. The whole point is to prove that even we can imagine Absolute Infinity it is Absolutely Impossible because in reality there are no signs of such a scenario. 

[Strange]

Just now, FreeWill said:

The whole point is to prove that even we can imagine Absolute Infinity it is Absolutely Impossible because in reality there are no signs of such a scenario. 

And I am trying to find out why you claim it is impossible when it is not possible to know.

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the evidence for that claim?

What evidence do you have that matter can be infinitely dense?

Note: this is a science forum, so wild guesses are not acceptable.

[MigL]

Hmmm...
I don't recall G Cantor ever using the term 'Absolute Infinity'.

If this is your own personal definition, maybe you should actually provide proof that it exists.
( as Georg did with his proofs of degrees of infinity )

[FreeWill]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't recall G Cantor ever using the term 'Absolute Infinity'.

 

Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Absolute_infinite,_well-ordering_theorem,_and_paradoxes

Absolute infinite, well-ordering theorem, and paradoxes[edit]

In 1883, Cantor divided the infinite into the transfinite and the absolute.^[53]

The transfinite is increasable in magnitude, while the absolute is unincreasable.

 

The concept of the existence of an actual infinity was an important shared concern within the realms of mathematics, philosophy and religion. Preserving the orthodoxy of the relationship between God and mathematics, although not in the same form as held by his critics, was long a concern of Cantor's.^[67] He directly addressed this intersection between these disciplines in the introduction to his Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre, where he stressed the connection between his view of the infinite and the philosophical one.^[68] To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications – he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,^[69] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.^[5]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

If this is your own personal definition, maybe you should actually provide proof that it exists.
( as Georg did with his proofs of degrees of infinity )

I have been thinking about it, imagine it, and come to the conclusion that Absolute Infinity is not possible, because of the lack of physical signs, the degree of Absolute Infinity would require. 

Could you share Georg's proofs on the Absolute Infinite? 

Edited May 4, 2019 by FreeWill

[FreeWill]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

Note: this is a science forum, so wild guesses are not acceptable.

Agreed and absolutely accepted.

10 hours ago, EthanKahn said:

Absolute Infinity never ends and will always posit more

wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Absolute_infinite,_well-ordering_theorem,_and_paradoxes

"The transfinite is increasable in magnitude, while the absolute is unincreasable. For example, an ordinal α is transfinite because it can be increased to α + 1. On the other hand, the ordinals form an absolutely infinite sequence that cannot be increased in magnitude because there are no larger ordinals to add to it."

 

If we imagine the Absolute Infinite density everywhere,  based on Cantor's description it could not be further increased, so It would be the same in every point of spacetime, so my assumption that there is of no density difference in Absolute Infinity would be correct.

That is exactly why I dare to exclude its existence based on my simple but real observation on density differences in Nature. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by FreeWill

[Strange]

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

If we imagine the Absolute Infinite density everywhere,  based on Cantor's description it could not be further increased, so It would be the same in every point of spacetime, so my assumption that there is of no density difference in Absolute Infinity would be correct.

An infinite universe does not imply infinite density. (And Cantor doesn’t say anything about density)

[MigL]

I could have sworn G Cantor used the terms 'denumerable' and 'non-denumerable' for countable and uncountable infinite sets respectively.
I stand corrected.
However the definition you use for 'absolute' infinity is certainly different from his, and even more so from later work by B Russel and J VonNeumann.

[FreeWill]

20 hours ago, Strange said:

An infinite universe does not imply infinite density. (And Cantor doesn’t say anything about density)

Citation or reasoning needed. 

If we use the term Absolute Infinite on the Universe, it supposed to be applied to all components of the described entity, in this case: spacetime, energy, and matter(mass). 

We can not call something absolute if we do not handle it absolute.

Cantor described God as an Absolute Infinite. Is there anywhere written that his Absolute Infinite has absolutely no physically recognizable energy and matter(mass), so it is just about information?

How an Absolute Infinite physical entity can degrade to transfinite or partially infinite, when basically nothing can impact It by definition?

2 hours ago, MigL said:

However the definition you use for 'absolute' infinity is certainly different from his, and even more so from later work by B Russel and J VonNeumann.

True, but all of them worked in mathematics, while the term, by its nature, should be applicable in reality, if it could be true. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by FreeWill

[Strange]

3 hours ago, FreeWill said:

Citation or reasoning needed.

See previous posts. Also:

”Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Universe in its totality is finite or infinite.[3][57][58]”

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

3 hours ago, FreeWill said:

If we use the term Absolute Infinite on the Universe, it supposed to be applied to all components of the described entity, in this case: spacetime, energy, and matter(mass). 

Ah, I see. You are talking about a fantasy universe that only exists in your imagination. 

You will excuse me if I am only willing to discuss reality; the universe we live in.  Which may be infinite. 

3 hours ago, FreeWill said:

Cantor described God 

Sorry, this is not science. 

 

[FreeWill]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

”Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Universe in its totality is finite or infinite.[3][57][58]”

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

The Universe is all of space and time^[a] and their contents,^[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. 

There is no space beyond the observable Universe. Even it is  10 000 times bigger as we know it and you can not observe those regions today, it does not mean that those regions are not part of the Universe we can just partially observe. 

We still can predict it with logic, that is it finite or infinite. That is why philosophy arose trying to answer such questions. 

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Ah, I see. You are talking about a fantasy universe that only exists in your imagination. 

Yes, since the OP is about: if I can imagine it is possible!

I can exclude based on logic the Absolute Infinite even I can imagine it. I am happy you agree. 

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sorry, this is not science. 

I know. That was Cantor´s recognition. He will never know. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by FreeWill

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

There is no space beyond the observable Universe.

Really? What do you base this claim on?

7 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

We still can predict it with logic, that is it finite or infinite. That is why philosophy arose trying to answer such questions.

You cannot answer such problems with logic. That is why philosophers (and scientists) do not know the answer.

7 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

I can exclude based on logic the Absolute Infinite even I can imagine it. I am happy you agree. 

I don't agree with your fantasies.

[FreeWill]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

There is no space beyond the observable Universe.

Really? What do you base this claim on?

On the link you shared saying:

The Universe is all of space and time^[a] and their contents,^[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. 

Since we observe some part of the Universe, even we can not observe all part of it, those areas will be part of the observed Entity.

Note that our incapability to observe some parts of the Universe does not indicate that we could not do that if we would be technologically more advanced. 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You cannot answer such problems with logic. That is why philosophers (and scientists) do not know the answer.

Yet. But I can try. That's why the forum has a philosophy section.

It is more likely that we answer these questions by logic, based on our scientific achievements, than we recognize the absolute true nature of the entire system just by observation without philosophy(like mathematics) and logic. 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

I can exclude based on logic the Absolute Infinite even I can imagine it. I am happy you agree. 

I don't agree with your fantasies.

You are confusing.

Can you express what you do not agree with?

Because If you say you do not agree with my thoughts (fantasies, imagination), you are saying you agree that the Universe is Absolute Infinite (which you already said is not possible). 

Edited May 5, 2019 by FreeWill

[Strange]

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

On the link you shared saying:

The Universe is all of space and time^[a] and their contents,^[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. 

Since we observe some part of the Universe, even we can not observe all part of it, those areas will be part of the observed Entity.

And that includes the space outside the observable universe (which you claim does not exist). And, by definition, being outside the observable universe, we cannot observe that space.

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

Note that our incapability to observe some parts of the Universe does not indicate that we could not do that if we would be technologically more advanced. 

It has nothing to do with technology.

Have you ever thought that it might be a good idea to learn something about a subject before spouting off with such confidence? Or are you planning a career in politics, instead.

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

Can you express what you do not agree with?

That if the universe is infinite it will be infinitely dense.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

That if the universe is infinite it will be infinitely dense.

Apparently you think that this is a strawman because you used the term "absolute infinite" instead of "infinite". 

As you failed to explain how this difference in terminology was important or relevant to the universe, I ignored it. 

However, we can drop this line of discussion, if you wish. (But you really should learn a little bit about cosmology; it is a fascinating subject. Much more rewarding than making things up.)

[swansont]

13 hours ago, FreeWill said:

 Note that our incapability to observe some parts of the Universe does not indicate that we could not do that if we would be technologically more advanced. 

No, that claim is without basis. The limitation is not technology, it is the finite speed of light.