The limits of infinity. The Universe has a frame.

[1x0]

We are working with infinity because making sense of nothing is more difficult.
Make sense of nothing and you have to provide explanations for the inspected physical and metaphysical values and a cause and causality reasoning on the evolution until the inspection.

With infinity we can take things granted and we do not have to explain how that thing is there. Just it is not true.

Infinity obscure the human brain.

 

 

Inspect the origin as the physical zero state which is a Space(time), Energy(matter) Information free nothing.
The exponential evolution of space and and energy and the linear information about them provided by time suggest that the system started from nothing.

Space is ever expanding. It is existing as a "separate dimension" from materialised informative energy. In other worls space will expand even energy collapses to matter.

Time will never stop since something will always exist. But it does not mean that it is infinite. It has an exact value/information about the sytem. It started at one point and will continue for ever but it is a precise information every time we inspect it. We are just not yet able to make sense and extract it´s real information.

So the Universe has an ever changing but existing frame. Provided by the information about the starting point the physical zero state and the information about the rate of expansion of low energy and matter free space plus the information about how long the system has existed.

For the right explanations we will have to make sense of the first physical steps of the delicate universe which should explain the origin and the co-operation and evolution of intelligence, space, time, energy, matter, gravity......

For the right explanations we have to refine some of the current mathematical understandings because the first physical process discribed by a mathematical operation looks like this:

0x1=1

Peace

Edited March 3, 2015 by 1x0

[Strange]

We are working with infinity because making sense of nothing is more difficult.

 

Who is working with infinity? To do what?

 

 

Time will never stop since something will always exist.

 

How do you know that? Please provide some evidence.

 

 

0x1=1

 

Please explain what thius is supposed to mean, in mathematical terms.

[1x0]

 

Who is working with infinity? To do what?

The mathematical and physical scientific communities. Like:

 

1 ÷ 0 = ∞

 

1 ÷ ∞ = 0

 

To keep up the option to say what ever they think?

 

 

How do you know that? Please provide some evidence.

 

There is no signs that anything disappears from the system, but there is signs of evolution. Space expands and it does so even singularities exist in the system. Gravity is constant(?), space expands, mass increases.

Edited March 3, 2015 by 1x0

[Strange]

The mathematical and physical scientific communities. Like:

 

1 ÷ 0 = ∞

1 ÷ ∞ = 0

 

These are both incorrect. So it appears you are mistaken about people using infinity "to keep up the option to say what ever they think."

 

 

Gravity is constant(?), space expands, mass increases.

 

Evidence of this also needed.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Strange

[1x0]

 

 

Please explain what thius is supposed to mean, in mathematical terms.

 

The natural numbers

 

The dividing by zero can be undefined because we have zero undefined. If zero is defined the operations with zero can be defined too. This is my axiom:

 

zero= space-time-energy-matter-information free nothing

 

Zero is the common reference point for mathematics, physics and philosophy.

 

Note that zero as a mathematical or physical axiom is a conception ever since anything exist!!!

 

If zero does not even carry information then the result of any operation with zero will be the value we have operated zero with. In other words zero does not have any effect on anything since it is nothing. The rest of the mathematical system is our common determinations/agreements but the property of zero can not be changed.

 

0x0=0

0/0=0

0+0=0

0-0=0

 

1x0=1

1/0=1

1+0=1

1-0=1

 

2x0=2

2/0=2

2+0=2

2-0=2

 

.....the natural numbers

 

Can you give a better definition for zero?

[ajb]

 

These are both incorrect. So it appears you are mistaken about people using infinity "to keep up the option to say what ever they think."

 

 

 

I second this. The expressions given above are meaningless.

 

 

The dividing by zero can be undefined because we have zero undefined. If zero is defined the operations with zero can be defined too. This is my axiom:

 

 

 

Zero is okay and well-defined. Division by non-invertible elements is the problem, and for the real (and complex numbers) zero is the only non-invertible number.

 

 

This is my axiom:

 

zero= space-time-energy-matter-information free nothing

 

 

 

Which appears to be nonsense.

[Strange]

The dividing by zero can be undefined because we have zero undefined

 

 

Perhaps you should learn a little basic mathematics before spouting off about 0 and infinity.

 

 

Can you give a better definition for zero?

 

The smallest non-negative integer. The cardinality of the empty set.

[ajb]

The smallest non-negative integer. The cardinality of the empty set.

 

 

The additive identity element in the set of real numbers should also be included here.

[Endy0816]

 

Can you give a better definition for zero?

 

 

There is no single denominator of zero.

 

ie. 0/n = 0

 

n is undefined or to put it another way it equals everything and anything simultaneously, except for zero.

 

When you divide by zero, you have to multiply by n; leaving you with an undefined result.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Endy0816

[1x0]

 

Perhaps you should learn a little basic mathematics before spouting off about 0 and infinity.

 

I did. The purpose is different. I understand enough from that part. I would like to find answers on this claims.

 

 

 

The smallest non-negative integer. The cardinality of the empty set.

 

To set up an empty set´s cardinality you need a physical tool to make sense and to create this empty set in you head.

 

This is a lot of physically positive process so the result of your thoughts about the empty set is actually physically not valid, it is not nothing.

 

You can not ignore physical correctness during the process you build the mathematical world, because without physically presented systems you would not be able to make sense. So It would be nicer if the mathematical system you create with your physical tool (your brain and the produced metaphysical results your thoughts) would support the physical system you exist in.

 

Zero is a space(time), energy(matter), information free nothing. A common reference point for physics and math.

 

You just pick a subjective point. Your though on the empty set is more than nothing.

[ajb]

To set up an empty set´s cardinality you need a physical tool to make sense and to create this empty set in you head.

While it is true that to some extent you cannot completely separate the physical world with the mathematical one, as you say, because we use our brains to explore the mathematical world. However, I don't see the connection with the rest of you claims.

 

 

Zero is a space(time), energy(matter), information free nothing. A common reference point for physics and math.

What do you mean that zero is a space? The vector space with one element? The topological space of one point? What? And what had that got to do with energy and information?

[1x0]

 

What do you mean that zero is a space? The vector space with one element? The topological space of one point? What? And what had that got to do with energy and information?

I mean that the Universe originates from nothing and that nothing is the space(time) energy(matter) information free nothing.

 

Zero is the absence of space time energy matter and information. Zero is our mathematical expression of the phyical zero state.

 

Zero is a conception ever since anything exist. In other words everything exist in proportion to zero. 0=1.

 

A reference point for the physical and metaphysical values and for theirs origin.

 

It is a reference point for the finite but ever evolving Universe.

Edited March 17, 2015 by 1x0

[Strange]

I mean that the Universe originates from nothing

Is there any evidence for that?

[ajb]

I mean that the Universe originates from nothing and that nothing is the space(time) energy(matter) information free nothing.

Okay, that is an extreme interpretation of the big bang theory. Physics as we know it does not work well very close to the classical singularity and so we need to be careful. Anyway...

 

Zero is the absence of space time energy matter and information. Zero is our mathematical expression of the phyical zero state.

That is not really good enough. Zero is a number. You can assign various mathematical objects that have some physical interpretation as taking the value zero. You statement that 'Zero is the absence of space time energy matter and information' does not make any sense to me.

 

Zero is a conception ever since anything exist. In other words everything exist in proportion to zero. 0=1.

All numbers are mathematical concepts, they just happen to be very useful concepts. 0=1 is incorrect if I understand the notation here as being the standard notation for real numbers. If it means something else then please say so.

 

A reference point for the physical and metaphysical values and for theirs origin.

 

It is a reference point for the finite but ever evolving Universe.

This sounds a bit 'fluffy' to me. You need to be much more careful here with definitions. I just don't follow what you are really trying to say.

Edited March 17, 2015 by ajb

[1x0]

Okay, that is an extreme interpretation of the big bang theory. Physics as we know it does not work well very close to the classical singularity and so we need to be careful. Anyway...

 

This is not the big bang theory. It is a theory of a delicate simple creation and its evolution to the first observable physical sign for us we call the big bang. This so called big bang is presented with space, energy and information (laws determine the process of the big bang) and so the big bang as origin can not be validated.

 

All physical models operate with a smaller system expanding to be a bigger system. There is a reason for that which is the exponentially expanding space in the linear timeline and the evolution of energy, matter and information. If you follow this path backwards you reach the physical zero state at the end of the survey. The big bang is just a road block it does not mean that time, space, energy, matter and information did not evolve until that point.

 

 

 

 

That is not really good enough. Zero is a number. You can assign various mathematical objects that have some physical interpretation as taking the value zero. You statement that 'Zero is the absence of space time energy matter and information' does not make any sense to me.

Can you express the physical zero state better?

 

Zero is a numerical expression of a conception. Zero is the only physical value can be expressed by math as a natural number. The reason why it is a reference point. And it is a common reference point.

 

Does space time energy matter and information evolving or not? If you come to the conclusion that it does, where does it evolving from? Follow this path and you will reach a point where you can ask a very common question: What was before? and you can give a firm answer: nothing.

 

If you reached here then try to assume what was first introduced in this state of nothing. How could it have started? Why did it started? I assume it is intelligence (the will of existence) which created space started time and presented with a low level energy. Einsteins Equation should work here too.

 

 

 

 

All numbers are mathematical concepts, they just happen to be very useful concepts. 0=1 is incorrect if I understand the notation here as being the standard notation for real numbers. If it means something else then please say so

True, but zero have existed I think.

 

If

0= space time energy matter information free nothing

1= all energy matter information presented in the common space-time frame

 

It is our point of observation

from the point of nothing everything exist looks like this

0,000000.......1.......2...common physical reality....3.......4......5......6......Laszlo.....0000....00001

 

If we inspect it from the first physical/metaphysical entities point of view it looks like this:

1000000000.......0000000.......Laszlo....6.....5......4......3.......common physical reality....2......1......000000,0

 

Which mathematical operation describes the first physical process? I would say 0x1=1

 

I assume that everything originates from nothing with a cause and causality evolution. Everything exist in proportion to zero, in other words all physical entity presented in the system is already operated by zero.

1*0=1*0*0 (zero could be the indicator for the expansion/evolution of the system if you model it in a 4D binary system (3 space +1 time dimension))

 

Zero is a conception ever since anything exist.

 

Our mathematical system is a conception but this conception has to work in the physical reality too and keep in respect the value presented in the system and described by a natural number. 1x0

 

 

 

This sounds a bit 'fluffy' to me. You need to be much more careful here with definitions. I just don't follow what you are really trying to say.

 

Time started once. It is not an ever existed infinite timeline. There is a point when time has started. The same when space started, when the first intelligence appeared and the first low level energy introduced to the system. When space started to expand. (I assume space with low level energy and intelligence expands with c2 and Einsteins equation predicts the rate of creation and the components correlation)

 

If we know the exact moment of the origin and we know the rate of expansion of space we would also know the size of the universe. The size of the system is getting bigger and bigger, but since the whole physical reality is working in the same space under the regulation of the common physical laws we can describe this system as 1. The One which originates from nothing with a cause and causality evolution. 0=1

 

I hope I could make sense.

Is there any evidence for that?

No. It is an assumption based on the exponential expansion of space in a linear timeline and based on the evolution of energy matter and information.

Edited March 17, 2015 by 1x0

[ajb]

None of what you have said makes much sense.

 

What is the 'physical zero state'? To me it sounds like the vacuum state.

 

'0= space time energy matter information free nothing

 

1= all energy matter information presented in the common space-time frame'

 

Does not make much sense either. What does this equality mean and how is it useful?

 

It seems to me that you are trying to create some philosophy here rather than state anything physically meaningful.

[Mordred]

Join the club, I held off replying in case someone could find a logic

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

In order for this to continue, we're going to need some sort of testable prediction or some other way this idea is falsifiable. Thus far, what has been presented is too nebulous for scientific discussion.

[1x0]

!

Moderator Note

In order for this to continue, we're going to need some sort of testable prediction or some other way this idea is falsifiable. Thus far, what has been presented is too nebulous for scientific discussion.

I will try to give some assumptions which on the Idea is based on. Please not that this is the first time I do so and I am not totally familiar with the rules you use here (or in the scientific community) so correct me where I do mistakes so I can present the idea on a discussable form. I will present the basic thoughts, I hope that is what you meant with falsifiable.

 

1. The Universe is one. It all the energy and matter regulated by the common physical laws in the same/common space-time frame.

 

2. What is physically nothing? A space time energy matter information free state.

 

Questions:

a, Can we count the Universe as one?

b, Does space and time started once or are they always existed?

c, If space and time has started once did they start together?

d, If space and time has started once does information related to their funcions is a consequence of the appearance of this physical entities or information have determine theirs functions.

e, If space and time infinite where and how the information regarding to theirs funcions and construction were introduced in the system. Can we accept an answer that they were always there and why we do have to accept such an assertion?

f, How far an other universe has to be that we can call it a different space-time dimension than ours?

g, How far that other Universe would have to be that our universes gravitational field has 0 effect on it?

h, On which other way an Universe could have evolved that the physical laws appear differently. (speculation but can we run thoughts?)

i, Can nothing physically exit?

j, Can nothing physically existed?

k, Does the Universe evolving?

l, Does information carries or in any way present energy?

m, Does information evolving?

n, Where does information evolving from?

o, Did information always existed?

p, Does information introduced in the system before, after or at the same time when space-time started.

q, Does metaphysical values built on the same physical laws as physical values built on?

r, If you would have to describe the universe with a natural number which one would that be?

s, If you would have to describe yourself with a natural number which one would that be?

t, If you would have to describe nothing with a number which one would that be?

u, Does Einsteins E=mc2 stands in the first physical process?

All answers are welcome and please reason your thoughts.

Swansont I hope point 1 and 2 can be falsifiable. I hope the questions are not too disturbing, if yes please write to me before you close the thread and I remove them.

Please note that I have just started in this forum (did not mean to spam , so please help me how can I present a more valuable discussion to the community if the ones I post are too nebulous. Thanks in advance!

Laszlo

[Strange]

1. The Universe is one. It all the energy and matter regulated by the common physical laws in the same/common space-time frame.

 

This sounds like an attempt to describe one of the assumptions/postulates of relativity: "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion. OR: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity)

 

The last part is wrong: "in the same/common space-time frame." There is no common frame of reference (if that is what you mean by "space-time frame"; if not, you will need to define it.)

 

The reason for that is the second postulate of relativity: "As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference."

 

As for your questions, my attempt at answers are below (I have ignored the ones I don't know anything about or don't understand).

 

a, Can we count the Universe as one?

 

As one what? A single thing? Maybe. But it is composed of many things so describing it as a single thing is not very helpful.

 

b, Does space and time started once or are they always existed?

c, If space and time has started once did they start together?

 

No one knows.

 

d, If space and time has started once does information related to their funcions is a consequence of the appearance of this physical entities or information have determine theirs functions.

 

It may depend on what definition of information you are using, but I would assume it is a property of things that we can measure (like energy or temperature).

 

g, How far that other Universe would have to be that our universes gravitational field has 0 effect on it?

 

Gravity never drops to 0. But I don't really know what "another universe" means, so I don't know if there is an answer to this question.

 

i, Can nothing physically exit?

 

In our universe? No. (There are useful models of empty universes.)

 

j, Can nothing physically existed?

 

No one knows. (See question b)

 

k, Does the Universe evolving?

 

Yes, as described by the big bang model.

 

q, Does metaphysical values built on the same physical laws as physical values built on?

 

What are "metaphysical values"? How would they be measured?

 

I assume "metaphysical" means they don't exist and have nothing to do with physics or reality. But perhaps you can explain what sort of thing you are talking about.

 

r, If you would have to describe the universe with a natural number which one would that be?

 

How can the entire universe be described with one number? You could describe the radius (of the observable universe). Or its mass. Or the number of stars. Or ...

 

s, If you would have to describe yourself with a natural number which one would that be?

t, If you would have to describe nothing with a number which one would that be?

Equally meaningless.

u, Does Einsteins E=mc2 stands in the first physical process?

I'm not sure what you mean by "stand in the first physical process". It is thought to be universally true (although you have only shown half the equation). But what is the "first physical process"?

[swansont]

 

I will present the basic thoughts, I hope that is what you meant with falsifiable.

 

 

No, not really. What I mean is that you make predictions that are specific enough that one could do an experiment to see if that prediction is right or wrong. Also, that you have differentiated yourself from existing models.

 

For example, in the model of the universe resulting from the big bang, one predicts there will be be a background radiation with a temperature of around 3K. One is predicting the existence of this radiation, and something reasonably specific about its spectral characteristics.

 

"The universe is one" is not a model. It is not specific enough.

 

You are free to ask the questions you've listed and should do so outside of any claims that you have some kind of theory or answer about how the universe behaves, because you will be required to defend that claim. If you can't, then the thread gets closed.

[1x0]

Thanks Strange for your answers!

 

The last part is wrong: "in the same/common space-time frame." There is no common frame of reference (if that is what you mean by "space-time frame"; if not, you will need to define it.)

It must be my bad English. I mean the common space-time continuum. You and me we exist in the "same" space if you look on space as one physical entity. Does time ticking for us the same?

 

 

 

Laszlo: If space and time has started once does information related to their funcions is a consequence of the appearance of this physical entities or information have determine theirs functions.

 

Strange:

It may depend on what definition of information you are using, but I would assume it is a property of things that we can measure (like energy or temperature).

Basic information is the properties of things we can measure, but information is your experience, knowledge, thoughts too. Information exist beyond your physical construction. You can count all atoms and measure all of its properties in your body but you can not count your experience, conciousness and feelings, your metaphysical values yet. Your metaphysical values exist because your physical appearance (your body and it´s genetic information) allows it to exist. Doesn´t that genetic information is a collection of information evolving since the beginning? What is the first information your Intelligence built on? What was first information how the physical value should exist or physical value and information is a result?

 

 

 

Gravity never drops to 0. But I don't really know what "another universe" means, so I don't know if there is an answer to this question.

Multiverse theories, MWI...

 

 

 

What are "metaphysical values"? How would they be measured?

Our consciousness, subconsciouness, intelligence, experience, knowledge and feelings. They exist in connection with our physical body but beyond its measurable properties. I think they would be measurable in binary like systems with reference a point we can measure them to. Like zero.

 

 

 

How can the entire universe be described with one number? You could describe the radius (of the observable universe). Or its mass. Or the number of stars. Or ...

That is how we learned to count. An apple has a lot of properties we could descrige. Radius, mass, genetic information, atoms it contains or cells it contains. Still if you look at an apple you are able to make sense of its entirety and call it one apple. It is the same for the universe just a bit bigger.

 

 

Laszlo:

s, If you would have to describe yourself with a natural number which one would that be?

t, If you would have to describe nothing with a number which one would that be?

 

Strange:

Equally meaningless.

Interesting:

If I am able to able to look at you, see your physical appearance, experience you knowlegde and thoughts I would say you are One. You are far from the complexity of the universe but you present One part of its physical/metaphysical values.

 

t:On this question a 6 years old says 0. What is the difference of her and your understanding?

 

Can you make sense of something what do or did not exist? Can you make sense of nothing if it did not exist?

[Strange]

Does time ticking for us the same?

 

Not necessarily. It depends on relative motion, gravity, etc.

 

Basic information is the properties of things we can measure, but information is your experience, knowledge, thoughts too. Information exist beyond your physical construction. You can count all atoms and measure all of its properties in your body but you can not count your experience, conciousness and feelings, your metaphysical values yet. Your metaphysical values exist because your physical appearance (your body and it´s genetic information) allows it to exist. Doesn´t that genetic information is a collection of information evolving since the beginning? What is the first information your Intelligence built on? What was first information how the physical value should exist or physical value and information is a result?

 

Bothing to do with physics, then.

 

Multiverse theories, MWI...

 

These are completely different things. Which are you thinking about?

 

Our consciousness, subconsciouness, intelligence, experience, knowledge and feelings. They exist in connection with our physical body but beyond its measurable properties. I think they would be measurable in binary like systems with reference a point we can measure them to. Like zero.

 

Binary is just a way of representing numbers. If they are be measurable in binary, then they are measurable in decimal. How do you intend to measure these things?

 

That is how we learned to count. An apple has a lot of properties we could descrige. Radius, mass, genetic information, atoms it contains or cells it contains. Still if you look at an apple you are able to make sense of its entirety and call it one apple. It is the same for the universe just a bit bigger.

 

So you are just counting. There is one universe.

 

Which is not the same as "describing the universe with a number" or saying "the universe is one". These are, as far as I can tell, meaningless strings of words.

 

If I am able to able to look at you, see your physical appearance, experience you knowlegde and thoughts I would say you are One. You are far from the complexity of the universe but you present One part of its physical/metaphysical values.

 

So are you just counting again? Yes, there is one of me. So what?

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

Our consciousness, subconsciouness, intelligence, experience, knowledge and feelings. They exist in connection with our physical body but beyond its measurable properties. I think they would be measurable in binary like systems with reference a point we can measure them to. Like zero.

 

For all we know (in a scientific sense) these are just transfers of electrical impulses between neurons. You can measure those with electroencephalography and you can write results down in whatever system you want, be it binary, decimal or hexadecimal.

[1x0]

 

For all we know (in a scientific sense) these are just transfers of electrical impulses between neurons. You can measure those with electroencephalography and you can write results down in whatever system you want, be it binary, decimal or hexadecimal.

Yes. It points that electric impulses transfer information and that electrons has specific properties we are not yet aware of.

The question is how fine and detailed informations attached to electrons and how they "work" together to present a complex information/memory/feeling?

How information, memories, feelings can be transfered in our life from one electron/atom/biologic structure to another? I mean how can memories and feelings be presented in our declining years when every single atom in the body is changed during our lifetime? Then the question comes: can the information what an atom carries be called basic intelligence as it can support any biological construction it participate in, as a human body and it´s consciousness.

 

Nothing to do with physics, then.

I disagree. Our consciousness, feelings, thoughts are processed and presented through our physical tool our body. As so I think it is more physics job to make sense of these properties than religion.

 

 

 

These are completely different things. Which are you thinking about?

 

The One Universe. I do not think that those theories are valid as everything is regulated by the same physical Laws. Even if there are dimension differences those Laws will be the same as I think they exist in the same 3D space interconnected by gravity. As so any "other universe" belongs actually to the same system. I think those theories comes from the misconception of infinity.

 

 

Binary is just a way of representing numbers. If they are be measurable in binary, then they are measurable in decimal. How do you intend to measure these things?

I am happy to hear it. Right now I can see it in a binary system. We set the points of a personality in the binary system and evaluate them with a common scaling system. Questions regarding personality, feelings, thoughts etc.

 

 

So you are just counting. There is one universe.

Which is not the same as "describing the universe with a number" or saying "the universe is one". These are, as far as I can tell, meaningless strings of words.

I point how we use math.

I also point that our Universe is one does not matter how complex it is.

Which reference point would you use to make sense of that One Universe and what would be the properties of that reference point?

 

 

 

So are you just counting again? Yes, there is one of me. So what?

How can you make sense of yourself as one?

How much are you in proportion to everything or in proportion to nothing?

 

1/infinite=0? Are you nothing in proportion to everything? If you are not nothing than is not that indicates that the system is finite? Isn´t it 1/everything=0.000.....001 (you or any physcal entity the question asks)

 

1/0=infinite? Are you everything in proportion to nothing? If you are not everything then is not this indicates that the system is finite? Isn´t it 1/0=1 as you already exist in proportion to nothing?

Edited March 21, 2015 by 1x0