no such thing as "infinity" in the real world (split)

[B. John Jones]

 

I do understand that human behavior and belief is quite complex and really no less so than that of nature and animals. I also realize that human behavior is a product of will rather than merely happenstance and it's quite easy to see the hand of another power in it and in the behavior of nature itself. This merely isn't my point. My point is that every event of even the tiniest scale has a virtually infinite number of outcomes and each of these outcomes would govern everything in reality given sufficient time. They affect everything in reality even in the briefest possible time.

 

Nothing can be pre-ordained even in a deterministic universe and we know that the universe is no clock-work.

 

I mostly agree, with one primary diversion. That is where you say, that "every event of even the tiniest scale has a virtually infinite number of outcomes and each of these outcomes would govern everything in reality given sufficient time."

 

Take an event of the proportion of a nuclear holocaust (realizing you require a mere tear of a fingernail), without consideration of the ripple effects beyond the intial reduction and destruction of peoples and masses of matter, for the sake of controlling the discussion. Later, we'll permit a single effect as by one ripple.

 

Now, we've lost part of a continent and numerous populations. The quality of air has probably been made much inferior. Human health world-wide has denegrated. I'm sure much more can be said.

 

But the sun still rises and sets. The moon has his cycle. Stop there.

 

I don't doubt that you'll grasp to claim that this, "in sufficient time," is going to effect the moon and sun. But even if it did, neither the nuclear holocaust nor the tear in the fingernail, govern--anything--let alone everything. Regardless of the event's proportion, many things preceded, and many things follow. A thing in a chain of events governs nothing. Nature governs nothing. The moon governs. The sun governs over him. And there's a greater one who governs over them.

Edited June 4, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Daecon]

The Milky Way galaxy?

[B. John Jones]

The Milky Way galaxy?

 

Funny. (and I get heat for relating "metaphysicis," in seriousness, to nature)

Edited June 4, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

The moon governs.

 

 

What does that mean?

[B. John Jones]

You can look at it in 2 ways--Biblically (Gen 1), which is usually not accepted here, or according to the fact that the moon is always at the intersection of the sun and the earth's shadow (dome of night). The moon governs at night, and the sun at day. The moon is subject to the sun.

[Daecon]

Governs what, exactly? Werewolves? And what do you mean by "always at the intersection"? You do know it's possible to sometimes see the moon even during the daytime, right?

Edited June 4, 2016 by Daecon

[cladking]

 

I mostly agree, with one primary diversion. That is where you say, that "every event of even the tiniest scale has a virtually infinite number of outcomes and each of these outcomes would govern everything in reality given sufficient time."

 

 

A butterfly flaps its wings in China causing a hurricane eight days later. The hurricane causes an earthquake after 100 years. The earthquake results in a perturbation of earth's orbit after a million years. The perturbation causes the destruction of the earth/ moon after 10 million years which leads to a collision of galaxies eventually and then a wholly different universe to be created in the next big bang.

 

But why did the butterfly flaps its wings at all? It might be some errant nerve signal caused by the most insignificant collision of particles days earlier.

 

Some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears. Such a molecule (brownian movement) might start a scientist on life long journey. It could even start a religious scholar on such a journey.

 

The world is an impossibly complex place and infinity has nothing to do with it.

Edited June 4, 2016 by cladking

[Velocity_Boy]

No. It's not "infinitely complex" because there is no such thing as "infinity" in the real world.

 

It's far more complex than "infinitely complex" anyway. The odds of any given event occuring are effectively less than the reciprocal of infinity. If you ever think they are greater than you're looking at too large a scale or too short a time frame.

 

Maybe I'll just log back out again for a few months now.

 

Oh, infinity exists all right. It's just that your mind is incapable of grasping it.

 

Don't feel bad, it's not just you, all of us homo sapiens are. Our minds evolved to think in linear and finite terms. And also to seek causes and patterns. And constraints.

 

Even when there are none. This is why we invent gods. And also conspiracy theories. And our manmade language we call mathematics is incapable of providing an equation for infinity. Or explaining it. Though we did invent a symbol for it, which as i recall is that sideways eight.

[Strange]

 

A butterfly flaps its wings in China causing a hurricane eight days later. The hurricane causes an earthquake after 100 years.

 

 

1. You seem to have mistaken a metaphor (probably invented to sell a book) about butterflies for reality.

 

2. Hurricanes don't cause earthquakes.

 

 

 

Some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears.

 

Citation needed. (Or is this, as I suspect, just another thing you have made up?)

 

 

 

The world is an impossibly complex place and infinity has nothing to do with it.

 

"Impossibly complex" suggest the complexity is beyond quantification. How is that different from infinitely complex?

[Velocity_Boy]

1. You seem to have mistaken a metaphor (probably invented to sell a book) about butterflies for reality.

 

2. Hurricanes don't cause earthquakes.

 

 

 

Citation needed. (Or is this, as I suspect, just another thing you have made up?)

 

 

 

"Impossibly complex" suggest the complexity is beyond quantification. How is that different from infinitely complex?

Yeah that butterfly and earthquake bit is pure woo.

 

But as far as hearing high speed molecules, this is nothing unusual. We all do it. After all, what do you think sound is? Simply compressed waves of air, which is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen molecules. As well as a wee bit of argon, but I digress.

 

Just like smell? Do you know what causes different odors? Smells? The shapes of the molecules! That's it. Pure differing shapes and molecular configurations that stimulate our olfactory sensory systems in varying degrees, which in turn are rectified by the cns into memory banks as to what smell that molecular shape is. Like bacon or coffee or rotting leaves.

[Strange]

But as far as hearing high speed molecules, this is nothing unusual. We all do it. After all, what do you think sound is? Simply compressed waves of air, which is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen molecules. As well as a wee bit of argon, but I digress.

 

 

Maybe. But the way he phrased it (and the fact that 90% of what he writes is pure made-up nonsense) suggested he meant something rather different.

[cladking]

 

 

1. You seem to have mistaken a metaphor (probably invented to sell a book) about butterflies for reality.

 

 

No. It's the way chaos theory was described back when it was discovered around 1957. I suppose you consider this "woo" however.

 

2. Hurricanes don't cause earthquakes.

 

 

Everything in existence causes earthquakes. All things are dependent on things that came before. I can imagine many ways a hurricane can cause an earthquake. ...It might take a while though.

 

Citation needed. (Or is this, as I suspect, just another thing you have made up?)

 

 

This should be common knowledge among anyone who considers himself a scientist but, then, it may not be and you get a pass on it due to your age. Just look up "brownian movement" and don't expect me to do all your work.

 

"Impossibly complex" suggest the complexity is beyond quantification. How is that different from infinitely complex?

 

 

Did I mention infinity doesn't even exist. It is so poorly conceptualized by people that they have the absurd notion that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Even if infinity did exist this is simple and utter nonsense. Reality conforms neither to our wishes nor our knowledge. It doesn't conform to math but if a butterfly flaps it wings in China there will be storm somewhere caused by it. This is reality.

 

Even though concepts of infinity tend to the absurd the apparent complexity of reality makes most of these concepts puny in comparison. Numbers like 10 ^ 100,000 are like tiny fractions in this world. In this world, the real world, predicting which tree will be hit by lightning caused by the butterfly is mere child's play in comparision to the really tough predictions.

 

 

 

"Impossibly complex" suggest the complexity is beyond quantification. How is that different from infinitely complex?

 

Actually modern science can be seen as the effort of man to compute this complexity. Each time we learn a new natural phenomenon we can better estimate just how complex something is. Eventually we can put a number on it though i might require a new logarithmic scientific notation. These numbers are going to get impossibly large if we ever know much about nature.

[Strange]

Everything in existence causes earthquakes.

 

Citation needed.

 

This should be common knowledge among anyone who considers himself a scientist but, then, it may not be and you get a pass on it due to your age.

 

What should be common knowledge? That "some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears"? Perhaps you can provide some reference to support (and clarify) your claim?

 

Just look up "brownian movement" and don't expect me to do all your work.

 

I think the term you are looking for is Brownian motion. And it isn't my job to provide support for your claims. That would be your job.

 

But I did a bit of research and it looks like it is impossible for humans to hear the noise created by Brownian motion. (Cats might be able to, though. Or at least it might limit the sensitivity of their hearing. Which is interesting.)

 

Did I mention infinity doesn't even exist.

 

Frequently. But it is still a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence or mathematics. But I notice you didn't answer my question, just rambled on in your usual incoherent way.

 

It is so poorly conceptualized by people

 

It is very precisely conceptualised. You should look up Cantor's work.

 

that they have the absurd notion that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps.

 

Really? Can you provide a reference to anyone who thinks there is an infinite number of pyramids? That is even more bizarre than most of your claims.

[B. John Jones]

 

A butterfly flaps its wings in China causing a hurricane eight days later. The hurricane causes an earthquake after 100 years. The earthquake results in a perturbation of earth's orbit after a million years. The perturbation causes the destruction of the earth/ moon after 10 million years which leads to a collision of galaxies eventually and then a wholly different universe to be created in the next big bang.

 

But why did the butterfly flaps its wings at all? It might be some errant nerve signal caused by the most insignificant collision of particles days earlier.

 

Some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears. Such a molecule (brownian movement) might start a scientist on life long journey. It could even start a religious scholar on such a journey.

 

The world is an impossibly complex place and infinity has nothing to do with it.

 

Regardless, none of those events, not even a "big bang" would govern everything.

 

Fundamentally, the butterfly flaps his wings to live. Life governs everything.

[ajb]

No. It's the way chaos theory was described back when it was discovered around 1957. I suppose you consider this "woo" however.

It is a popular science quote to give the idea of chaos theory, but this is not at statement in chaos theory.

 

The basic idea of chaos theory is that systems of differential equations may have very different solutions for different initial conditions even if these initial conditions are very close to each other. Thus a butterfly can produce a small change in the conditions that can lead to big changes in the system.

 

One should not take the statement about buterflies too seriously.

 

 

Fundamentally, the butterfly flaps his wings to live. Life governs everything.

What about things that are not alive?

Edited June 5, 2016 by ajb

[B. John Jones]

They're governed too.

[ajb]

They're governed too.

In the sense that we can formulate mathematical theories and make predictions... I agree.

 

Anyway, this seems to be drifting off topic: althought infinites do crop up in our theories.

[cladking]

 

 

But I did a bit of research and it looks like it is impossible for humans to hear the noise created by Brownian motion. (Cats might be able to, though. Or at least it might limit the sensitivity of their hearing. Which is interesting.)

 

 

I don't know for a fact that some kids can hear high speed molecules but this is the opinion of experts in the past and is completely logical. I do know it has never been disproven.

 

Frequently. But it is still a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence or mathematics. But I notice you didn't answer my question, just rambled on in your usual incoherent way.

 

 

What supporting evidence do you have that all mathematical constructs exist in the real world? Without this assumption you have no evidence and no logic. I have the observable reality and logic. I know this doesn't prove I'm right but it suggests there's more than one perspective to view what we know and doesn't exclude the possibility I'm right.

 

Really? Can you provide a reference to anyone who thinks there is an infinite number of pyramids? That is even more bizarre than most of your claims.

 

 

If there are an infinity of worlds then there should be an infinity of pyramids on earths. I suppose that means there should even be an earth with a hole where Lincoln should be.

It is a popular science quote to give the idea of chaos theory, but this is not at statement in chaos theory.

 

One should not take the statement about buterflies too seriously.

 

 

But it must be true. There is not only the simple fact that mathematics says it's true but anyone observing a chaotic system can intuit it. It is a description of how the real world actually works. We can't see the harmonic systems are composes of chaotic element that destabilize them in the long term but there's simply no doubt that nothing can last forever.

 

[Strange]

I don't know for a fact that some kids can hear high speed molecules but this is the opinion of experts in the past and is completely logical. I do know it has never been disproven.

 

So you have no evidence for it.

 

What supporting evidence do you have that all mathematical constructs exist in the real world?

 

None. Because I never claimed such a thing.

 

I have the observable reality and logic.

 

No you don't. You have no evidence that the universe is not infinite (other than your disbelief).

 

 

If there are an infinity of worlds then there should be an infinity of pyramids on earths. I suppose that means there should even be an earth with a hole where Lincoln should be.

 

And again, more stuff you are making up.

[cladking]

 

 

 

No you don't. You have no evidence that the universe is not infinite (other than your disbelief).

 

 

 

Of course I have no evidence the universe is not infinite any more than I have evidence it is.

 

I don'tknow.

 

If I believed in space then I might believe the universe is infinite from that perspective. But I don't believe in "space". The existence of space is not axiomatic in my understanding. Cause and effect are axiomatic as are time and reality. But no matter your axioms and definitions there is nothing we can point to and say that is a manifestation of "infinity". We can show how such things break down in the real world. If you try to divide something into ever smaller parts you'll eventually reach a point where your tools aren't up to the job.

 

But like most of these discussions this one isn't about axioms and scientific knowledge. I'm simply not talking about things that can be reduced to explanation by models. I am talking about perspective and the simple fact that people are overlooking reality in their zeal to achieve scientific understanding. At the very least they are looking at reality from a perspective that can't see some things that should be obvious. We aren't even noticing the incredible complexity of nature and instead see our scientific knowledge.

Edited June 5, 2016 by cladking

[Strange]

 

Of course I have no evidence the universe is not infinite any more than I have evidence it is.

 

I don'tknow.

 

 

Good. Then there is no reason to insist, as you do, that infinity does not exist. In future, perhaps you could you phrase it as, "for no particular reason I don't think infinity exists. But I could be wrong."

 

 

 

If I believed in space then I might believe the universe is infinite from that perspective. But I don't believe in "space".

 

So you don't think that distance exists? You think everything in the universe exists in a single point?

 

 

 

But no matter your axioms and definitions there is nothing we can point to and say that is a manifestation of "infinity".

 

If the universe is infinite in extent (which you concede it could be) then we can point to the universe and say it is a manifestation of infinity.

 

 

 

We aren't even noticing the incredible complexity of nature

 

The interesting thing is, according to you this incredible complexity can, in principle, be fully quantified. Because it is not infinite.

 

 

We aren't even noticing the incredible complexity of nature and instead see our scientific knowledge.

 

I don't think that is true. Everyone sees the incredible complexity of nature. Science attempts to produce useful, even if hugely simplified, models of nature. The reason being that the models are useful - they have practical results. Nobody (apart from you) mistakes the models for reality.

 

I am not sure what the alternative is. Presumably, just stand there slack-jawed saying "wow" and achieving nothing.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Strange

[cladking]

 

 

Good. Then there is no reason to insist, as you do, that infinity does not exist. In future, perhaps you could you phrase it as, "for no particular reason I don't think infinity exists. But I could be wrong."

 

 

Well, I could say that except that it's for reasons of logic and consistency with two sciences that I believe that my perspective might be more consistent with reality. I don't "insist" there's no such thing as infinity so much as I simply point out that there is no apparent referent for the concept in the real world.

 

 

So you don't think that distance exists? You think everything in the universe exists in a single point?

 

 

I don't know. Perhaps things are merely separated by time.

 

If the universe is infinite in extent (which you concede it could be) then we can point to the universe and say it is a manifestation of infinity.

 

 

Yes, presuming it's infinite and space exists.

 

The interesting thing is, according to you this incredible complexity can, in principle, be fully quantified. Because it is not infinite.

 

 

It can never be quantified until we understand every single force and process in all of reality. We may have done little more than scratch the surface to date.

 

I don't think that is true. Everyone sees the incredible complexity of nature. Science attempts to produce useful, even if hugely simplified, models of nature. The reason being that the models are useful - they have practical results. Nobody (apart from you) mistakes the models for reality.

 

But no one seems to know what I'm talking about when I speak about the difficulty of predicting the shape of the second cloud that sails over a given point in on a sunny morning in 1,000,000 years.

 

I am not sure what the alternative is. Presumably, just stand there slack-jawed saying "wow" and achieving nothing.

 

 

 

I believe there is an alternative and it merely involves taking a different perspective.

[Strange]

I don't know. Perhaps things are merely separated by time.

 

 

I think it is pretty obvious that things are separated by both time and space. When you walk around your house, you don't think you are moving to different positions? You think Paris, Tokyo and Jupiter are all inside your house?

 

 

It can never be quantified until we understand every single force and process in all of reality.

 

But according to you, those things (and all their combinations) are finite and, therefore, it could be known and calculated in principle?

 

 

But no one seems to know what I'm talking about when I speak about the difficulty of predicting the shape of the second cloud that sails over a given point in on a sunny morning in 1,000,000 years.

 

You think that is merely difficult? Do you know of a model that is able to do that?

 

I doubt it is even possible. Weather is one of the classic examples of unpredictable (chaotic) systems.

 

So, this sounds like just another of your silly straw man arguments (disagreeing with things that no one says).

 

"People mistake models for reality" - No they don't.

"People think it is possible to predict the shape of clouds" - No they don't.

"No one knows what I am talking about" - Entirely possible.

 

 

 

I believe there is an alternative and it merely involves taking a different perspective.

 

Yep. You are very fond of these vague claims. Never anything specific beyond "take a different perspective". About as useful as doing nothing.

[cladking]

 

 

I think it is pretty obvious that things are separated by both time and space. When you walk around your house, you don't think you are moving to different positions? You think Paris, Tokyo and Jupiter are all inside your house?

 

Obvious, eh? Perhaps "apparent" is a better word.

 

It is believed this current moment occurs everywhere simultaneously. I am suggesting we each have a slightly different clock which is between us. Jupiter is hours away.

 

But according to you, those things (and all their combinations) are finite and, therefore, it could be known and calculated in principle?

 

 

Yes, in principle but this would require we learn every single "law" of nature which might be impossible.

You think that is merely difficult? Do you know of a model that is able to do that?

 

I doubt it is even possible. Weather is one of the classic examples of unpredictable (chaotic) systems.

 

 

The odds of any given molecule occupying a specific spot in a million years are simply "infinitely" small. Yet clouds are sailing over right this minute and most of those molecules were on earth even a million years ago. How can anyone take a rudimentary knowledge of water molecules and some of the natural forces and propose that our knowledge is deep and broad and act as though they know everything?

 

How is it possible that everyone sees the world in terms of what he knows when he knows nothing?

 

"People mistake models for reality" - No they don't.

 

 

When you describe reality you'll describe it in terms oif the models you know whether those models were derived from experiment or scripture. When you calculate something or decide on what is right you'll use these models. You'll see things in terms of them and become your models/ beliefs over a lifetime.

 

People don't understand the nature of these models either. For now suffice to say they are language dependent virtually to the same degree they depend on experiment or scripture.

 

Yep. You are very fond of these vague claims. Never anything specific beyond "take a different perspective". About as useful as doing nothing.

 

 

The only reason modern language works at allis that we try to understand one another. When we assign a meaning to a spoken word we are trying to assign a meaning such that it makes sense in context. If you refuse to try to see the sense in what I'm saying it's impossible for me to convey this perspective.

 

Can you even accept such a simple concept that perspective determines what you see? hear? understand?

 

So you are insisting on calling the cone of the umbra, a "dome". Oh well, abuse the language if you must.

 

 

 

Perspective!

 

No side of the cone is flat. One side is a dome.

[Strange]

It is believed this current moment occurs everywhere simultaneously.

 

Believed by who? Only those who know nothing about modern science, presumably.

 

 

I am suggesting we each have a slightly different clock which is between us. Jupiter is hours away.

 

We are not talking about time, but space. The reason Jupiter is hours away is because of the distance - something that, bizarrely, you don't believe exists.

 

Yes, in principle but this would require we learn every single "law" of nature which might be impossible.

 

If they are finite, as you claim, why would it not be possible?

 

The odds of any given molecule occupying a specific spot in a million years are simply "infinitely" small.

 

You don't believe in infinity. So it is just "very" small.

 

How can anyone take a rudimentary knowledge of water molecules and some of the natural forces and propose that our knowledge is deep and broad and act as though they know everything?

 

NO ONE IS DOING THAT.

 

Please stop the stupid (and now dishonest) straw man argument.

 

The only reason modern language works at allis that we try to understand one another. When we assign a meaning to a spoken word we are trying to assign a meaning such that it makes sense in context.

 

This has been known since at least Saussure. You are not telling us anything new.