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

[Strange]

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?

 

Another infinite set. Which is how we know there is more than one value of infinity. (An infinite number of infinities, in fact.) This is not terribly complicated.

 

Idioms:

 

You do know that an idiom is an expression which does not have a literal meaning? So the definitions you quote are quite likely irrelevant.

 

"It is raining cats and dogs" does not mean that it is raining cats and dogs.

[Gater]

Trying to explain the concept of infinity to this board is like trying to explain to a group of 5 year olds that there is no Santa Claus, you're just met with denial and rudeness. After a while you realize that your efforts are futile.

 

The difference is that you know the 5 year olds will grow up and probably know the truth in time - sadly this group is already grown but will never know the truth.

 

I suppose not all men are wired to comprehend such things.

[tar]

Strange,

 

Well also infinity does not have a literal meaning. It is a concept, meant to express that there is no limit.

 

If the idiom speaks of a thing without measure as being something without limit, that is as close to literal as you can get.

 

Is the concept of limit a literal concept? I think it is. It refers to an end or a beginning, a border or a limiting factor of some sort. If there is no literal limit, then the thing has that infinite characteristic. It is without limit.

 

Regards, TAR

In the argument with Gater, I suggested that the emergence of iron as an element was a limiting factor in the backward consideration of the count of Earthlike planets. Before there was iron you cannot count any prospective Earthlike planets. There cannot be any before the first.

Edited November 17, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

Trying to explain the concept of infinity to this board is like ...

 

I think most people here have a perfect good understanding of of the meaning of infinity. Many also understand something of cosmology.

 

What I don't understand is what motivates your certainty in your beliefs in the absence of any evidence or rational thought. You keep mentioning "logic" and yet your behaviour is quite irrational.

Strange,

 

Well also infinity does not have a literal meaning. It is a concept, meant to express that there is no limit.

 

It has a very literal and well-defined meaning.

 

It is interesting that you are utterly convinced (with no reason) that the universe must be finite while gater is utterly convinced (with no reason) of the opposite. Two totally irrational people engaged in a dialog. Fascinating to watch.

 

 

Is the concept of limit a literal concept? I think it is. It refers to an end or a beginning, a border or a limiting factor of some sort. If there is no literal limit, then the thing has that infinite characteristic. It is without limit.

 

If a limit is a literal concept, then so is infinity.

[tar]

Strange,

 

We are talking about two concepts here, that I make a distinction between when debating with Gater about an infinite universe.

 

1. Our universe, that started, by all measurements, 13.8 billion years ago... not infinite in time, but possibly infinite in size.

2. The cosmos, or existence that possibly could contain our universe as one element in an unknown set of universes distributed thoughout time and space in some causually connected manner, one setup creating the next in some various patterns, where "other" universes, could have been, might have been, might still be, or might be later.

 

If we are to talk about infinite existence, we can. If we are to talk about our universe starting 13.8 billion years ago, we can. We just have to specify which we are calling infinite.

 

On your fascination

I reject the notion that you are somehow in a better position than I am, to know how the universe currently is. You yourself have areas you cannot be sure about. I am merely discussing the situation from the point of view of what is said about it.

 

Regards, TAR

And the mathematical definitions of various types of infinities are done in comparison with other definitions of various types of infinities. None have literal examples, that I know about.

That is there is nobody that is currently still counting the members of a supposed infinite set, to prove a negative.

[Ophiolite]

I reject the notion that you (Strange) are somehow in a better position than I am, to know how the universe currently is. You yourself have areas you cannot be sure about. I am merely discussing the situation from the point of view of what is said about it.

Based upon what I have read here and observed on other threads, Strange is in a better position than you to comment on how we currently understand the universe to be - which is that we are not sure if it is finite, or infinite. Both are possibilities.

 

Strange's point is exactly that - there are areas "we", the scientific community, cannot be sure about. Gater and to a lesser extent yourself, reject this studied uncertainty, based upon such evidence as exists, in favour of opinions you have fabricated out of gossamer imaginings. Decidedly illogical.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

Hum. I already sided with Strange on that point...

 

Where have I had more gossamer imaginings then everybody else?

 

 

The scientific community is not a monolith, it is made up of individuals. It is made up of definitions and conventions, that change as required.

 

For instance, now the universe is 95 percent not normal understood matter and energy, but composed of dark stuff that we are not so sure about.

 

This understanding was not the case 50 years ago, and all the equations that defined our understanding of the universe worked perfectly well without it.

 

 

Regards, TAR

the universe did not change so much in 50 years

 

just the scientific community's agreed upon definitions concerning the place

and to my OP question, near 100% of the place is outside our view and ability to check on it

[Strange]

1. Our universe, that started, by all measurements, 13.8 billion years ago... not infinite in time, but possibly infinite in size.

 

There is no evidence that the universe "started" then.

 

2. The cosmos, or existence that possibly could contain our universe as one element in an unknown set of universes distributed thoughout time and space in some causually connected manner, one setup creating the next in some various patterns, where "other" universes, could have been, might have been, might still be, or might be later.

 

Unsupported speculation.

 

If we are to talk about infinite existence, we can. If we are to talk about our universe starting 13.8 billion years ago, we can. We just have to specify which we are calling infinite.

 

Gater claims, with no support whatsoever, that they are both infinite.

 

I reject the notion that you are somehow in a better position than I am, to know how the universe currently is.

 

The point is I don't know. Neither do you or Gater. The difference is that I am quite happy with the fact that we don't know, and possibly can never know. You two are just fuelled by irrational beliefs.

 

None have literal examples, that I know about.

 

IF the universe is infinite, then the infinity of stars is equal to the infinity of integers (and therefore less than the infinity of reals).

Edited November 17, 2015 by Strange

[DrP]

Strange - thanks for addressing my question (post 90) - I still might start a new thread asking some further questions... (although they probably have been answered before) - I don't really want to get involved with this one.

it will just confuse matters

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite,

 

Hum. I already sided with Strange on that point...

You say you have, but then you go on to make statements that contradict yourself.

 

Where have I had more gossamer imaginings then everybody else?

I made no comparison with anyone else. I simply stated that you had fabricated positions out of "gossamer imaginings". Whether you do this more or less than anyone else is irrelevant to this discussion. It is your position in this discussion I questioning.

 

At the risk of giving offense, may I confirm that English is not your native language? I have noticed many instances where your interpretation of a post is "odd". I would attempt to be more patient in my discussions with you if this were the case.

 

 

The scientific community is not a monolith, it is made up of individuals. It is made up of definitions and conventions, that change as required.

And Strange is stating what the current thinking of the scientific community is in regard to cosmology. You. and to a much greater extent Gater, persist in making a different statement without producing any evidence to support it.

 

 

For instance, now the universe is 95 percent not normal understood matter and energy, but composed of dark stuff that we are not so sure about.

 

This understanding was not the case 50 years ago, and all the equations that defined our understanding of the universe worked perfectly well without it.

So what? That observation does not mean you can make unsupported statements and have them accepted.

[Acme]

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.

Mathematicians are not fighting over measuring infinity; they are in agreement. Since the distinction is beyond you then it is only reasonable that you excuse yourself from using the distinction in your arguments.

 

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?

So you make my point here about excusing yourself. You can't make the distinction so you have no logical basis to think anything sensible on the matter.

The scale is the number line and it has no limit. You can always add one more number to the line.

 

...

And the mathematical definitions of various types of infinities are done in comparison with other definitions of various types of infinities. None have literal examples, that I know about.

 

That is there is nobody that is currently still counting the members of a supposed infinite set, to prove a negative.

So just above you admit the distinction is beyond you and that you don't know the scale, and yet here -again- you go on to make baseless assertions about that which you don't understand. I gave a literal example of an infinite set, i.e. the prime numbers. It is not 'supposedly' infinite, it is as I said proven infinite (millennia ago by Euclid*) and yes, contrary to your knowing, folks are currently still counting new primes*.

 

*Euclid's Proof of the Infinitude of Primes (c. 300 BC)

 

*Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search: GIMPS

Finding World Record Primes Since 1996

[Ophiolite]

Acme, I wonder if part of the problem is the difference in meaning between a word used in mathematics and those used in every day speech. As a mathematical cretin let me make these couple of observations, the second of which I am hoping you can straighten me out on.

 

1. When the subject of measuring infinity came up in the thread my immediate reaction was that measuring infinity was not possible. My reasoning seems to be a little like that of tar's - what would I measure it against? Then a couple of members, including yourself, confidently asserted that it was possible.

 

Here is where tar and I part company. I know that you are conversant with mathematics and when you state something with confidence you are likely to be correct. Therefore, logically, my impression as to measuring infinity is probably wrong. I still don't understand why (point), but I accept the pronouncement of an expert. (Provisionally of course.)

 

2. So, why do I have a problem with measure? If I imagine an infinitely long line that I wish to measure then I expect to measure it from one end to the other. But an infinitely long line has no end. So I am befuddled. I daresay this will look mighty dumb to some. I am currently reconciling this impasse on the basis that measure in this context is not the same as measure as I am using it. Help!

[tar]

Acme,

 

I read Euclid's proof, and it was indicated that he did not use the words and nomenclature that we use today to handle infinity. His point was that any finite list of primes is not big enough, because the list will always be incomplete.

 

This is my understanding of infinity. Any finite description of the set will not be enough. There is always another one . Like on the number line, you always have an infinite number of points between any two points.

 

But in reality, there is a size, figured as Planck's length, smaller than which has no meaning. So when two points are on either end of a plank length, how do you figure there is a real number between?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 17, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

Acme,

 

I read Euclid's proof, and it was indicated that he did not use the words and nomenclature that we use today to handle infinity. His point was that any finite list of primes is not big enough, because the list will always be incomplete.

 

This is my understanding of infinity. Any finite description of the set will not be enough. There is always another one . Like on the number line, you always have an infinite number of points between any two points.

 

But in reality, there is a size, figured as Planck's length, smaller than which has no meaning. So when two points are on either end of a plank length, how do you figure there is a real number between?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Or, to ask a sensible question based on your (very good) introductory comments: if the universe is infinite, then it doesn't matter how many galaxies you catalog, there will always be another one.

 

(Your question appears to be utterly irrelevant.)

[tar]

Strange,

 

Even more irrelevant than that (if there can be different levels of irrelevancy) is that fact that all the galaxies you catalog are not even indicative of the actual ones that are out there now.

 

Regards, TAR

They are instead indicative of galaxies that existed in those configurations, a million, two million a billion years ago, respectively. The actual configuration and metalicity of those respective galaxies will not be witnessed and checkable for a million, two million and a billion years, at which time the actual configuration would be advanced a million, two million and a billion years...so you STILL would not have a relevant picture.

There is what we see, and what we know or guess must be the case. It is from which of these vantage points that I wonder is the vantage point from which we make statements of the current state of the universe?

Edited November 17, 2015 by tar

[Acme]

Acme, I wonder if part of the problem is the difference in meaning between a word used in mathematics and those used in every day speech. As a mathematical cretin let me make these couple of observations, the second of which I am hoping you can straighten me out on.

 

1. When the subject of measuring infinity came up in the thread my immediate reaction was that measuring infinity was not possible. My reasoning seems to be a little like that of tar's - what would I measure it against? Then a couple of members, including yourself, confidently asserted that it was possible.

 

Here is where tar and I part company. I know that you are conversant with mathematics and when you state something with confidence you are likely to be correct. Therefore, logically, my impression as to measuring infinity is probably wrong. I still don't understand why (point), but I accept the pronouncement of an expert. (Provisionally of course.)

 

2. So, why do I have a problem with measure? If I imagine an infinitely long line that I wish to measure then I expect to measure it from one end to the other. But an infinitely long line has no end. So I am befuddled. I daresay this will look mighty dumb to some. I am currently reconciling this impasse on the basis that measure in this context is not the same as measure as I am using it. Help!

Indeed the crux of the matter is the meaning of words, or if you will, context is everything. Back in post #136 I gave the definition of measure as I was using it when geordief complained that I wasn't even using English when I said, "The set of prime numbers is infinite and this is measured by mathematical proof." Here is that definition again:

You are not even wrong.

measure

 

 

2. An evaluation or a basis of comparison

 

Notice at the dictionary link there are 100 lines or more giving various definitions of 'measure'. All are correct but have differing applications depending on context.

So in the context of this thread, an infinite universe is an evaluation of universe for which there is always something more...

Acme,

 

I read Euclid's proof, and it was indicated that he did not use the words and nomenclature that we use today to handle infinity. His point was that any finite list of primes is not big enough, because the list will always be incomplete.

 

This is my understanding of infinity. Any finite description of the set will not be enough.

But a finite description of the set is enough. The proof is a finite description of an infinity.

 

There is always another one . Like on the number line, you always have an infinite number of points between any two points.

 

But in reality, there is a size, figured as Planck's length, smaller than which has no meaning. So when two points are on either end of a plank length, how do you figure there is a real number between?

 

Regards, TAR

Here you commingle meanings of 'measure'; that of "b. A unit specified by a scale, such as an inch, or by variable conditions, such as a day's march." and that which I used, "2. An evaluation or a basis of comparison

." We are not talking of anything being infinitely small in regards to the universe.

Strange,

 

Even more irrelevant than that (if there can be different levels of irrelevancy) is that fact that all the galaxies you catalog are not even indicative of the actual ones that are out there now.

...

That is simply wrong. Cataloged galaxies are actual galaxies. It is statements such as you make here that prompts others to measure your writing as gossamer imaginings.

[tar]

Acme,

 

I admit that the term actual is one which is the crux of this question of mine, and at the center of a number of statements of mine on various threads where I attempt to express the two meanings of now, require the engagement of imaginations of glossamer quality.

 

What I keep trying to use in my logical understanding of how the universe is, is the two "real" vantage points, from which we understand the universe. One from the vantage point of here and now, me,asuring the photons and gravity waves coming in, and one from a glossamer, imagination point of view for where and how the items that released the photons and gravity waves must currently be, and how they must currently be, if we were to imagine the conditions and movements that we witness, to have continued and evolved in the meantime, during the photon's travel time, over the distance between, until that item (galaxy) was 13.8 years old, which would reflect the condition that that item is in currently. Thus the "actual" cataloged universe, in the one sense is not the actual one in the other.

 

The vantage point has to be specified. At least for me. There is an argument to call either view one based on glossamer imaginations. In the one we call present what is merely the images of the past.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

 

At least for me.

 

But not for anyone else. This "problem" only exists in your imagination.

[tar]

Strange,

 

I imagine you are right.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

 

I admit that the term actual is one which is the crux of this question of mine, and at the center of a number of statements of mine on various threads where I attempt to express the two meanings of now, require the engagement of imaginations of glossamer quality.

 

What I keep trying to use in my logical understanding of how the universe is, is the two "real" vantage points, from which we understand the universe. One from the vantage point of here and now, me,asuring the photons and gravity waves coming in, and one from a glossamer, imagination point of view for where and how the items that released the photons and gravity waves must currently be, and how they must currently be, if we were to imagine the conditions and movements that we witness, to have continued and evolved in the meantime, during the photon's travel time, over the distance between, until that item (galaxy) was 13.8 years old, which would reflect the condition that that item is in currently. Thus the "actual" cataloged universe, in the one sense is not the actual one in the other.

 

The vantage point has to be specified. At least for me. There is an argument to call either view one based on glossamer imaginations. In the one we call present what is merely the images of the past.

 

Regards, TAR

We are the vantage point & you're just spinning your wheels and getting nowhere fast Bro. Eat, drink, and be merry because we can croak at any time.

[tar]

Acme,

 

Well said. Thanks.

 

Regards, TAR

[tar]

Acme,

 

Sorry, I need to continue to spin my wheels.

 

"That is simply wrong. Cataloged galaxies are actual galaxies. It is statements such as you make here that prompts others to measure your writing as gossamer imaginings."

 

Four or five years ago or maybe a little more, I had an insight, that is clear as day to me. I can not dismiss it, and I cannot understand why something so obvious is so hard to explain.

 

I imagined something happening now a foot away from me. It would take light, or magnetic waves, or gravity waves, or anything eminating from that happening a certain amount of time to get to my equipment that would sense the happening. Then I imagined something out a couple seconds, or a minute or an hour or mre, the thing is emanating but my equipment can not sense it, until later...but there the thing is, right now, in my telescope. It is true, twice.

 

I have tried to explain this 100 ways, and sometimes I think people take it as obvious, and sometimes they take it as crazy talk.

 

My own take is that it is just the way it is, the universe is that big, that we cannot interact with it the way we can interact with something a couple light seconds away.

 

And because of this it is not present ​

a distant observer would see us as a distant thing, we are not present to that observer, that observer is not present to us

 

A​ planet 100 light years from here, looking at the Earth, would see the place as it looked in 1915.

So you cannot both talk about the whole universe in the present tense, and talk like you exist yet for the rest of the universe.

 

And so, when you are ordering the emergence of Earthlike planets, and discussing how we are the first of many, you need to be more specific about from what vantage point you are talking.

wait, I remember the exact day I had the insight

 

It was the night after I took my dad to a yankee game against Boston, late in the Yankees first season at the new stadium. I was telling him, earlier in the day about Port Imperial, and how the Ferry Station was a large old Ferry, permanently docked at Port Imperial. It was etched in my brain and part of my model of the world, as I had stood there waiting for my wife to come across on 9/11. But when we got there, the ferry was gone. They had towed it away and built a building as a terminal a little bit North of the ferry.

 

I had the image of the old ferry strong in my mind, and considered it had been there just a year or two before that day, and some observer, on a nearby star, looking with a powerful telescope at NYC and across the Hudson to Port Imperial, would see the old ferry sitting there.

 

So, the question in my mind was, at what point can you say the old Ferry terminal is no longer true, if a whole swath of the Milky way still sees it sitting there, and most of the Milky Way has not even seen it built, and most of the universe has not even seen civilization form on Earth?

there are places in the universe that have not yet seen this Earthlike planet form

 

first of many many? Not to them.

Edited November 21, 2015 by tar

[Ophiolite]

tar, date the formation of each planet as the elapsed time since the Big Bang, or the generation of the CMB. What would be problematic about that?

[geordief]

tar, date the formation of each planet as the elapsed time since the Big Bang, or the generation of the CMB. What would be problematic about that?

Can we do that? Will that give us (in theory) a means of assigning a date to each event as calculated from the time when all events shared the same "time"?

 

 

Would that would give us a definition of universal simultaneity ? Would that be useful?

Edited November 21, 2015 by geordief

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

Nothing would be wrong with that. It would be accurate. However the strings of Galaxies that are currently catalogable, under that thought, are not the way we see them when we engage them with our equipment.

 

The set of items true in the universe, under the all are currently true as 13.8 billion year old items, is not the same set of items that we see when we look at the place. There are, under the umbrella of understanding the universe as both currently existing, and as images of what used to be, two instances of every item. That which we see, and that which we imagine to have to be the case.

 

I do not see a problem with this. It is accurate and true. We have plenty of evidence that this is true. But we don't always talk in these terms. Earlier in the thread Strange stated that of course it is what we see that is true...which ignores the reality that the universe is actually more like a web of strings of galaxies 13.8 billion years old.

 

If we are concerned with the metalicity of galaxies, and we are talking about current galaxies, wouldn't they all be similar to the metalicity of our galaxy, and NOT provide any current information based on what they look like now (unless you interpolate forward and base your imaginary current condition instance on the old image instance) Such I am completely willing to do, but the understanding, the communication of what we are talking about has to specify a difference between the truth of the arrival of a photon announcing a previous event, and the imaginary image of an event happening now, that we will not see for a long time.

 

Both ways you have to use your imagination. So neither has a better reason to be the superior way, but you cannot make statements using both ideas and expect people like me to not be confused as to the meaning of your statement.

 

Regards, TAR

I am just now wondering how Hilbert space handles this. If all items in a transformation are handled at the same time, is there not an automatic mishandling of the items far away from each other in distance? The close stuff not so bad, the furthest corners of the system under consideration, really badly handled.

for instance you could not sample the universe figure the age of each item based on its metalicity and take an average of the ages of all items and say that is how old the universe is currently

 

let's say your average is 7 billion years old

 

it is not true that the universe is 7 billion years old

 

that is how old it was 7 billion years ago

 

it is not that old currently