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

[studiot]

 

strange

It has an infinity of states available, but it will always be in a finite-valued state.

 

 

Yes , you said that before and it is quite true, but I don't see how that is relevent?

 

For instance how many natural numbers are there?

Yet every one of them is finite.

Consider further

Enumeration is now considered one of the basic physical 'dimensions', along with mass, length, time, etc.

Energy is not so considered.

Edited May 3, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

 

Yes , you said that before and it is quite true, but I don't see how that is relevent?

 

Well, I think it is (part of) the reason why people might disagree about whether infinity exists in the real world or not. Because no one has defined what "exists" or "physical" or "real" means. So whether your continuum of states "physically exists" or not is the same question. (Which is why it is a really good example.)

 

I can see the point that having a continuum of states means that there are ways in which infinity exists in nature. But I think others will say that that is not a "thing" which exists. Or it is not really infinite. Or ... (But let's see what the "finitists" come up with.)

[studiot]

 

strange

Because no one has defined what "exists" or "physical" or "real" means. So whether your continuum of states "physically exists" or not is the same question. (Which is why it is a really good example.)

 

Yes I quite agree and I was just thinking of posting to invite cladking, who introduced the question, to say what he means by reality and exists.

 

I was thinking about a test for existence and came up with the question

 

Can something that does not exist interact with/affect reality?

 

I thought I had it but then I realised that non existent things do indeed affect reality.

[cladking]

Yes seems a reasonable if pessimistic summing up, with the exception that many think the underlined words are obvious.

 

What's more because reality is more that our (best) models (or to put it another way reality is our best models and then a whole lot more) it surely must include infinity since the models do so.

 

 

 

 

 

Your calling the idea that we know almost nothing as being "pessimistic" very much makes my point. I'd estimate our total knowledge at about the tiniest fraction of 1% of everything there is to know. Most people estimate our knowledge much closer to 100%. I'd consider any estimate over .05% as being far out of touch with reality; so far out of touch I suspect we must be talking about completely different things.

 

It's not logical to suggest infinity exists because it's in our models. This is like saying Timbukthree exists because it's on some map. While models reflect reality they can only reflect that reality that appears in experiment. We can never know that the reflection is an accurate reflection because perspective influences interpretation and model creation. Surgeons in the 1850's knew time was of the essence in saving lives after traumatic injury so didn't take the time to wash their hands and equipment and their patients died even though their model was quite accurate.

 

 

and the ionisation energy, when the electron breaks free of a simple molecule to form an ion and a free electron, which is in a continuum of energy states.

 

 

Isn't stating that there is a continuum of such states tantamount to suggesting there are (is) an infinite number?

 

Well, I think it is (part of) the reason why people might disagree about whether infinity exists in the real world or not. Because no one has defined what "exists" or "physical" or "real" means. So whether your continuum of states "physically exists" or not is the same question. (Which is why it is a really good example.)

 

I can see the point that having a continuum of states means that there are ways in which infinity exists in nature. But I think others will say that that is not a "thing" which exists. Or it is not really infinite. Or ... (But let's see what the "finitists" come up with.)

 

I think your question merely highlights just how little we actually know.

 

I think the question of the existence of reality here and in Studiot's post demonstrate just how far divorced scientific thought has become from reality.

 

I mentioned earlier how a variable pot doesn't really have an infinite number of resistances. I think this might apply as well to the states of electrons or how two particles collide. It would hardly be surprising if there are quantum states for everything and hence a limited though exceedingly large number of outcomes for any event at all. Chaos theory goes on to tell us no event is too small to not affect things in the large scale in the long term. This is what I mean by the statistical "impossibility" of reality itself. Somewhere billions of years ago a silicone ion had to collide with a hydrogen atom just so in order for life to form on earth. An individual sperm had to win a a race against millions of others for any of us to be born. What are the odds?

 

Reality/ nature/ the universe is what we are trying to understand. We have chosen "science" tounderstand it and our metaphysaics simply excludes the existence of reality because the inventors of modern experimental science realized that each individual has his own perception of reality. This has left us rootless and out of touch but more importantly it leaves us at the mercy of mathematics. It leaves us at the mercy of the models we build from experimental results. Rather than seeking reality directly we see it through the prism of science which dismantles it into its parts which we also see as models. We don't put this "light" back together because most of us are specialists and because most of us need to have it in pieces under the microscope to study it.

 

This is a metaphysical failing but like all such failings it can be largely eliminated simply by recognizing its existence and taking a few common sense steps to mitigate it.

 

Experimental science fails when it gets outside of its metaphysics but this is a separate, and potentially more serious, issue.

 

 

I thought I had it but then I realised that non existent things do indeed affect reality.

 

You're going toneed to explain this to me.

 

I'm sure if you're right then I'm wrong.

[Strange]

I think your question merely highlights just how little we actually know.

 

There was no question in that post.

It's not logical to suggest infinity exists because it's in our models.

 

And, again, NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT.

 

Please stop the idiotic strawman arguments.

 

You invent a stupid idea and then say "we" are wrong to believe it. This is irrational and/or grossly dishonest. And a little insulting.

[ajb]

Even if there is an infinite number of states avaliable, a given finite number of particles can fill only a finite number of these states. The question is if the number of states is really an observable. For example, even for the quantum harmonic oscillator we have an infinite number of states, the energy is not bounded from above. Nobody claims that this shows somthing 'wrong' with quantum mechanics.

[studiot]

 

studiot, on 03 May 2016 - 6:11 PM, said:

 

 

I thought I had it but then I realised that non existent things do indeed affect reality.

 

cladking

You're going toneed to explain this to me.

 

I'm sure if you're right then I'm wrong.

 

 

 

Of course.

 

People copy non existent characters in fiction books, films and video games, as well as real ones in the news, and other non-fiction material.

People searched in vain for Atlantis, the holy grail, the aether and the philosopher's stone.

 

 

ajb

Even if there is an infinite number of states avaliable, a given finite number of particles can fill only a finite number of these states. The question is if the number of states is really an observable. For example, even for the quantum harmonic oscillator we have an infinite number of states, the energy is not bounded from above. Nobody claims that this shows somthing 'wrong' with quantum mechanics.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the answer.

As with strange's comment that these any electron in these states has finite energy, I don't see that either of you questions are relevant.

The OP question (proposition) is that infinity does not exist in the real world.

Not whether we can observe it, or whether the states (if they exist) are occupied, simply that they are available.

 

In the absence of a better definition from the OP or anyone else, and I have asked in this thread, I am equating availability with existence.

Edited May 4, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

 

Your calling the idea that we know almost nothing as being "pessimistic" very much makes my point. I'd estimate our total knowledge at about the tiniest fraction of 1% of everything there is to know.

 

As "we" know so little, perhaps your belief that infinity doesn't exist in reality will turn out to be wrong.

 

Most people estimate our knowledge much closer to 100%.

 

This sounds like another strawman. Can you provide any evidence that "most people" believe this?

 

So, in summary:

• Cladking does not believe that infinity can exist in reality - but provides no evidence or rational argument for this. Nor any definition of "exist" or "reality".
• Cladking insists that everyone is wrong for mistaking their models for reality. But no one does this (except him).
• Cladking insists that everyone is wrong for thinking that infinity exists in reality because it appears in models. But no one does this (except him).
• Cladking insists that "we" know almost nothing (so this must include him).

As there are simple examples where infinity could exist in reality (studiot's example, the universe could be infinite in extent, etc) it is clear that cladking's belief is purely an argument from incredulity (and, as he admits, ignorance) and can therefore be dismissed as unsupported and fallacious.

[ajb]

As with strange's comment that these any electron in these states has finite energy, I don't see that either of you questions are relevant.

Indeed, it is not like we can actually see a single electron having infinite energy, even if there is an infinite number of states avaliable.

 

We do not even need to think of quantum systems here. The classical harmonic oscillator also has an infinite number of energy states.

 

 

In the absence of a better definition from the OP or anyone else, and I have asked in this thread, I am equating availability with existence.

I think this is okay for our discussions.

 

The whole thing is really a question of something we could measure as being 'infinite in value'. We think that we can never measure something as infinite, so if infinity appears in our theories as something that we could in principle measure, then we have a problem. If any infinities occur in things that we cannot measure then there is no real problem.

 

The vacuum energy in quantum field theories is one example. It can be the case that the vacuum energy is formally infinite. However we can only measure energy differences and so there is no true breakdown of the theory.

[Strange]

Indeed, it is not like we can actually see a single electron having infinite energy, even if there is an infinite number of states avaliable.

 

We do not even need to think of quantum systems here. The classical harmonic oscillator also has an infinite number of energy states.

 

I assume the cladking response to that will be that no "real" oscillator has an infinite number of states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[ajb]

I assume the cladking response to that will be that no "real" oscillator has an infinite number of states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It comes back to models and how well we expect them to apply to the physical situations we are modelling.

 

The get out here is that we know that physics generally depends on the energy scales we are examining. There is no reason to think that the harmonic oscillator describes, say molecular vibrations, for all energies. At some point the physics changes and we do not expect this to be a good model.

[studiot]

I think this discussion has really brought out the limitations of the rigid A or NotA brand of logic.

So many of the terms support multiple interpretations and/or suble nuances of meaning.

Worse the moment we introduce explanations we introduce more terms to have shades of.

 

The meaning of measureable or observable for instance,

I think my examples have shown that even the concept of existence has such range of meaning and cannot be simply described as exists or not exists.

 

Another muse arising from another thread where we were discussing the meaning of singularities.

 

We are all happy with the function y = x² rising ever more as we increase x and noting that we can never 'get to the other side of that infinity'

I don't think anyone would call that a singularity, because we can see that we can never reach it.

 

But consider the function y = 1/mod(x).

 

This has a singularity at x=0 (note I do not say at the origin as is often said and is strictly incorrect)

 

But we can bracket or get to both sides of this curve so we regard this infinity as a disturbance of some sort in our otherwise controlled number line and call it a singularity.

Edited May 4, 2016 by studiot

[cladking]

 

Of course.

 

People copy non existent characters in fiction books, films and video games, as well as real ones in the news, and other non-fiction material.

People searched in vain for Atlantis, the holy grail, the aether and the philosopher's stone.

 

 

If you postulate that there exist ape-like gremlins that can access the wings of a plane at 20,000' to cause damage they do not suddenly spring into existence. If someone believes in these gremlins and breaks out a window to shoot at what he sees it isn't the result of gremlins but the belief in gremlins. This becomes an effect of language and not reality itself.

 

Some things that can't be found aren't really lost and can only be seen when you're seareching for something else.

 

The world is an "infinitely" complex place with a very fine line between what we believe is real and what actually is. But there is no fine line between the real and the not real. Everything exists and nothing does not exist. Things that do not exist can have no effect in the real world and even the tiniest events in the real world reverberate through time. Math does not exist but it follows the same natural logic that governs how things exist and change in time.

 

As "we" know so little, perhaps your belief that infinity doesn't exist in reality will turn out to be wrong.

 

 

This is hardly impossible.

 

But so far centuries of progress and experimental results simply show there are ever more orders of magnitude in the possibilities of the outcome of events. Perhaps like "pi" we'll just find we'll never get to the end.

[Strange]

Everything exists

 

Including infinity?

 

Math does not exist

 

I thought everything existed. Everything except mathematics?

 

This sort of sloppy argument is one of the reasons your pretentious, pseudo-philosophical posturing is so tedious. You clearly don't really know how to construct a logical argument so you just throw around words like "metaphysics" hoping it will make you look clever.

 

Perhaps like "pi" we'll just find we'll never get to the end.

 

That is a good definition of infinity. So it clearly does exist.

[studiot]

Reading post 88

Methinks our learned friend has been drinking too much from his desert still.

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by studiot

[ajb]

That word 'exists' is the source of so much confusion and philosophical pitfalls.

[cladking]

 

 

 

 

That is a good definition of infinity. So it clearly does exist.

 

 

I don't see how pi having a set but probably unknowable value is proof of infinity.

 

Let's get back to the collisions of atoms. You believe there are an infinite number of possible results and trajectories from such a collision but the reality is this collision occurs in the real world where it is affected by every other thing in the universe through gravity and electromagetic forces. This implies there are only specific angles and trajectories possible; an exceedingly large number but not "infinity".

 

Pi is a specific number and may simply be like one of those specific possible trajectories.

[Strange]

I don't see how pi having a set but probably unknowable value is proof of infinity.

 

1. I didn't say anything about "proof of infinity".

2. I was referring to the "never get to the end" as a good definition of infinity.

 

As you said that, I assume you admit that the decimal representation of pi has an infinite number of digits. So you agree that infinity exists.

 

You believe ...

 

Please stop inventing things that you think other people believe. You are invariably wrong. You just make yourself look foolish.

[Strange]

Some interesting work (which I don't fully understand!) that relates infinite and finite mathematics

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160524-mathematicians-bridge-finite-infinite-divide/

[B. John Jones]

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.

 

What about the distance between the number (or complexity) of things you've learned about people and the potential number?

[cladking]

 

What about the distance between the number (or complexity) of things you've learned about people and the potential number?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

Are you asking if I believe that people introduce a lot of new complexity?

 

If so then I'd have to say "no". People are no more complex than any other life form though of course we often do things on a far grander scale and some understanding of the consequences.

 

Individually people can be easy to predict in the short term but collectively we are very hard to predict especially in the longer term.

[B. John Jones]

 

I don't understand the question.

 

Are you asking if I believe that people introduce a lot of new complexity?

 

If so then I'd have to say "no". People are no more complex than any other life form though of course we often do things on a far grander scale and some understanding of the consequences.

 

Individually people can be easy to predict in the short term but collectively we are very hard to predict especially in the longer term.

 

Isn't the quantity of new things you can potentially learn about people, people groups and peoples, infinitely more than the quantity of things you now know?

[cladking]

 

Isn't the quantity of new things you can potentially learn about people, people groups and peoples, infinitely more than the quantity of things you now know?

 

No.

 

I doubt it's even as many things as the possible trajectories of a particle.

 

Most of the things we "know" about people and ourselves aren't even true so not relevant to my point.

 

Reality is far more complex than even "infinity" for all practical purposes and it's doubtful anything can exist in infinite number. It is merely a mathematical concept that seems to be misapplied in most instances. All mathematical concepts in each instance are misapplied to the real world to a greater or lesser extent. Reality is not mathematical, it is logical.

[B. John Jones]

 

No.

 

I doubt it's even as many things as the possible trajectories of a particle.

 

Most of the things we "know" about people and ourselves aren't even true so not relevant to my point.

 

Reality is far more complex than even "infinity" for all practical purposes and it's doubtful anything can exist in infinite number. It is merely a mathematical concept that seems to be misapplied in most instances. All mathematical concepts in each instance are misapplied to the real world to a greater or lesser extent. Reality is not mathematical, it is logical.

 

You understand half of it.

 

Truth is, it can be as complex or as simple as you choose. I prefer to rest in my work.

[cladking]

 

You understand half of it.

 

Truth is, it can be as complex or as simple as you choose. I prefer to rest in my work.

 

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.