Our planet is among the first of many, many Earths.

[Gater]

And how would you know if I looked at it?

 

I did look at that and found their ideas to be silly and illogical.

 

The fact is that the time and space or both infinite - if you don't want to believe that - fine - I don't care.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Gater

[tar]

Gater,

 

Strange did not say the universe was not infinite, he said the writer of the OP article might not have been correct to state, as a fact, that the universe was infinite. Such a determination, has not been made. Suggested as a possibility, but not established as an unquestioned fact. Thing is, such a thing would be hard to prove. And you cannot prove a negative to begin with.

 

Were I am coming from, is to question your idea that because you think the universe is infinite, and has been

extant forever, that means that an infinite number of Earths have been around, before, now and later. Where I have specifically questioned this, is how you figure there could be an Earthlike iron core planet before there was iron?

 

If there was a time period, even an infinite one available prior the first iron atom, there cannot be ANY iron core planets formed during this time. So you cannot count an infinite number of Earthlike planets within this infinite time period, because the total possible, without iron is ZERO.

 

Zero times infinity is undefined, but looks a lot like zero, to me.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 16, 2015 by tar

[Ophiolite]

And how would you know if I looked at it?

 

I did look at that and found their ideas to be silly and illogical.

 

The fact is that the time and space or both infinite - if you don't want to believe that - fine - I don't care.

On the one hand we have two or three generations of physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists, totaling many hundreds, if not thousands, who have studied the theory and the observations of the nature of the universe, who have, on balance, reached the consensus that we cannot be sure as yet if the universe is finite or infinite.

 

This group contains individuals who lean strongly in one direction and others who lean equally strongly in the other direction, but the general view seems to be that we do not yet know which is correct. These individuals contain some of the brightest minds humanity has ever produced.

 

On the other hand we have yourself: someone who is so ill-versed in cosmological theory they were unaware of this consensus view.

 

Now which should I tend to believe? The ill informed individual, or the generations of specialists? To use your own words it would be silly and illogical to believe you.

 

I am writing this, not to convince you of your error - you are apparently beyond redemption - but to lay out clearly for the casual reader how monumentally dumb and arrogant your position is.

[Strange]

And how would you know if I looked at it?

 

I did look at that and found their ideas to be silly and illogical.

 

You may have looked at the words but, having found they disagreed with your faith, you dismissed the ideas without further consideration. I guess you are one of those who think that their faith trumps reality.

[Gater]

Its all very clear - there are 2 schools of thought - one believes in an infinite universe - the other in a finite universe. One group is right and one group is wrong.

 

I know for a fact that the universe is infinite.

 

If you don't, I suspect your mind is too feeble to grasp such concepts.

 

And my belief is based on logic - not faith.

 

This whole discussion has become very boring.

[Strange]

Its all very clear - there are 2 schools of thought - one believes in an infinite universe - the other in a finite universe. One group is right and one group is wrong.

 

Wrong. There are three groups:

 

1) Those who are convinced that the universe is finite. They have no reason for this belief. It is irrational.

2) Those who are convinced that the universe is infinite. They have no reason for this belief. It is irrational.

3) Those who know the universe could be finite or infinite. They will wait for evidence. This is the only rational position.

 

 

And my belief is based on logic - not faith.

 

What logic? Perhaps you would care to share it.

 

Note: stating that it is a "fact" or "obvious" is not logic. Neither is "well it must be". Nor is "you are too feeble to understand". These are simply statements of your faith. They have nothing to do with logic, evidence, rational thought or science.

[tar]

Gater,

 

Boring?

 

Why don't you answer my iron question. That should prove interesting.

 

You can have infinite time and still have a period of time within that infinite time that operates under certain rules and configurations, with certain entities existent that did not exist prior their existence. I gave the example of the internet. The internet is not infinite. I gave the example of iron core planets. Their existence cannot be infinite.

 

Maybe our universe is of the same kind of entity. It was not, until it was. It came into being at the big bang, and time and space and matter and energy came into being at the same time, and did not exist "prior". Nothing outside the universe, nothing prior the universe, and nothing after the universe. Nothing smaller than the smallest component of the universe, nothing larger than the largest collection of universe stuff.

 

Infinity is a construct of the mind. There is no thing that is actually infinite, that we have ever measured or witnessed. It would be contradictory to ever measure something as infinite.

 

If you bounce an ideal ball and it bounces half as high each time it falls and it comes to rest in 3 seconds, it would have bounced an infinite amount of times within a finite period of time. However, that is an "ideal" ball. A ball we bounced in our minds. The experiment does not have to follow the rules of reality. Like your imagination of an infinite universe, that has to be the case. It might not "have to be" the case. Perhaps there is a time where the elasticity of the ball rebounds but not enough to lift the ball off the ground, or perhaps when the distance of the rebound reaches a Planck length there is no physical way to divide the distance in half, so we cannot count any bounces smaller than a plank length, because there is no meaning to such a bounce.

 

Boring? Perhaps you just have no further argument than to say "the universe is infinite" with no further discussion or evidence, or logical argument to offer and you are withdrawing because you have nothing interesting to say.

Regards, TAR

Edited November 16, 2015 by tar

[Phi for All]

Its all very clear - there are 2 schools of thought - one believes in an infinite universe - the other in a finite universe. One group is right and one group is wrong.

 

I know for a fact that the universe is infinite.

 

If you don't, I suspect your mind is too feeble to grasp such concepts.

 

And my belief is based on logic - not faith.

 

This whole discussion has become very boring.

 

!

Moderator Note

Gator, this is a science site. It should come as no surprise that you can't state something is a fact and not have it challenged if there is the slightest question.

 

Here, we don't use the term "logic" to mean, "this makes sense to me". Logic is a branch of math. What you're looking for, and failing to find, is critical thinking.

 

Please provide supportive evidence for the things you assert as fact. If you don't, it's like running from a pack of wolves. Use your reasoning abilities, support your statements with evidence others can check, and you won't have all these problems. Right now though, you're trying to outrun the wolves instead of showing them you speak wolf.

 

A response to this modnote is unnecessary, but you can report it if you think it's unfair.

[Acme]

...

There is no thing that is actually infinite, that we have ever measured or witnessed. It would be contradictory to ever measure something as infinite. ...

Nonsense. The set of prime numbers is infinite and this is measured by mathematical proof.

[geordief]

Nonsense. The set of prime numbers is infinite and this is measured by mathematical proof.

That is not even English.

[Acme]

 

Nonsense. The set of prime numbers is infinite and this is measured by mathematical proof.

That is not even English.

 

You are not even wrong.

measure

2. An evaluation or a basis of comparison

[geordief]

So parse your statement. What does "this" refer to ? ("this statement" or "this set" )

[Acme]

So parse your statement. What does "this" refer to ? ("this statement" or "this set" )

The infinitude of prime numbers.

[geordief]

Ok so it is English after all. I was taking "this" to refer to the statement as a whole .

 

I don't think , though that the "measurement " of an (mathematical) infinite set allows us to extrapolate into the physical world.

 

I had not come across the concept of "measuring sets" before.

Edited November 16, 2015 by geordief

[Acme]

Ok so it is English after all. I was taking "this" to refer to the statement as a whole .

 

I don't think , though that the "measurement " of an (mathematical) infinite set allows us to extrapolate into the physical world.

 

I had not come across the concept of "measuring sets" before.

I can write out the definition of primes as well as an ordered list of some of its members which makes primes real* in the physical world. Moreover, infinitude is an intrinsically mathematical construct.

 

*real

6. Philosophy Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.

Also see countably infinite in regard to measuring sets.

 

Any set which can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (or integers) so that a prescription can be given for identifying its members one at a time is called a countably infinite (or denumerably infinite) set. Once one countable set S is given, any other set which can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with S is also countable. Countably infinite sets have cardinal number aleph-0.

 

Examples of countable sets include the integers, algebraic numbers, and rational numbers. Georg Cantor showed that the number of real numbers is rigorously larger than a countably infinite set, and the postulate that this number, the so-called "continuum," is equal to aleph-1 is called the continuum hypothesis. Examples of nondenumerable sets include the real, complex, irrational, and transcendental numbers.

[geordief]

I am quite happy with the concept of infinity in the physical world but I don't think this can be shown mathematically.

 

I draw a distinction between the physical world and"ideas about it" (call me old fashioned).

 

Acme's definition of "real" , I notice is prefaced as "Philosophical" and so presumably is there defined as a term applicable to philosophical discussion (which I avoid) .

Edited November 16, 2015 by geordief

[Acme]

I am quite happy with the concept of infinity in the physical world but I don't think this can be shown mathematically.

 

I draw a distinction between the physical world and "ideas about it" (call me old fashioned).

 

Acme's definition of "real" , I notice is prefaced as "Philosophical" and so presumably is there defined as a term applicable to philosophical discussion (which I avoid) .

Again, infinitude is a mathematical concept. Your drawn distinction is philosophical. I would call your arguments spurious.

 

So too do I find Tar's questions in the OP spurious, let alone his assertion on infinity that I called out as nonsense.

 

Beware those crowned in ignorance and bearing the scepter of stupidity. ~ Unattested

 

Saw this article on the web today.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/our-planet-is-among-the-first-of-many-many-earths/ar-BBmzHNh?ocid=spartandhp

...

From what vantage point are statements like "Our planet is among the first of many, many Earths​" made?

 

Wh​at are we considering first and later, and who is going to be around to verify that the ordering was correctly characterized?

 

TAR​

​

[geordief]

Again, infinitude is a mathematical concept. Your drawn distinction is philosophical. I would call your arguments spurious.

 

So too do I find Tar's questions in the OP spurious, let alone his assertion on infinity that I called out as nonsense.

 

Beware those crowned in ignorance and bearing the scepter of stupidity. ~ Unattested

 

Which of my arguments are spurious (you do know that spurious means deceitful ,don't you?)

 

Perhaps you just meant spurious as "wrong" (as it is often used) . Then which of my arguments are "wrong" . (I do not think I have made many)

 

Perhaps you are right that my "distinction" was philosophical . So what?

 

Am I not allowed to make a distinction that can be called "philosophical" ?

Edited November 16, 2015 by geordief

[Strange]

(you do know that spurious means deceitful ,don't you?)

 

No.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/spurious

[geordief]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

 

1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine: spurious poems attributed to Shakespeare.

2. Not trustworthy; dubious or fallacious: spurious reasoning; a spurious justification.

3. Archaic Born to unwed parents.

More than "wrong" . A put down surely

Doesn't "fallacious" mean "deceitful"?.

[Strange]

Doesn't "fallacious" mean "deceitful"?.

 

No, it just mean incorrect or based on a false belief.

[Acme]

Which of my arguments are spurious (you do know that spurious means deceitful ,don't you?)

I know deceit is one sense, yes.

 

Perhaps you just meant spurious as "wrong" (as it is often used) . Then which of my arguments are "wrong" . (I do not think I have made many)

I used spurious in the sense of "1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin". You argued that I wasn't using English and that argument is in essence invalid.

 

Perhaps you are right that my "distinction" was philosophical . So what?

 

Am I not allowed to make a distinction that can be called "philosophical" ?

I was pointing out the irony of you writing that you avoid philosophical discussion shortly after you introduced a philosophical argument.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

 

1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine: spurious poems attributed to Shakespeare.

2. Not trustworthy; dubious or fallacious: spurious reasoning; a spurious justification.

3. Archaic Born to unwed parents.

Acknowledged.

 

More than "wrong" . A put down surely

Surely.

 

Doesn't "fallacious" mean "deceitful"?.

Not always. It also refers to the use of fallacy.

[geordief]

I used spurious in the sense of "1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin". You argued that I wasn't using English and that argument is in essence invalid.

 

I had already conceded that point.

 

I was pointing out the irony of you writing that you avoid philosophical discussion shortly after you introduced a philosophical argument.

 

I can avoid philosophical discussions in general without being obliged to avoid making a philosophical argument personally (inadvertently in this case) even immediately after saying that I avoid them . I don't intend to self censure myself in that regard.

 

 

 

[Acme]

 

I used spurious in the sense of "1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin". You argued that I wasn't using English and that argument is in essence invalid.

I had already conceded that point.

 

Indeed. But you went on to question my use of the term 'spurious' and so I answered your complaint.

 

 

I was pointing out the irony of you writing that you avoid philosophical discussion shortly after you introduced a philosophical argument.

I can avoid philosophical discussions in general without being obliged to avoid making a philosophical argument personally (inadvertently in this case) even immediately after saying that I avoid them . I don't intend to self censure myself in that regard.

 

Well, actually you made the inadvertent philosophical argument before you said you avoided philosophy; thus the irony. If you don't self-censure then you shouldn't be surprised that at a discussion forum others will do you the kindness.

 

Note that I came into this discussion to point out Tar's error in claiming infinity is not susceptible to measurement and that any further claim he made based on that error is also in error. All-in-all, beyond the factual errors, you and Tar appear to have an eristic bent in this thread. That is to say, you argue simply for the sake of arguing.

[tar]

Acme,

 

Well I will have to let you mathematicians fight out whether you can measure infinity, or whether one infinity is countable, or larger than another. All those distinctions are way beyond me.

 

But I still don't think it makes any sense to say you can measure infinity. What scale do you use? What do you compare it to?

 

Idioms:

beyond measure

1. In excess.

2. Without limit.

Regards, TAR​

​