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

[cladking]

 

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

 

 

 

If you're seriously suggesting yesterday didn't happen onm the moon then one of us is in the wrong discussion.

 

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

 

 

Perhaps the number of processes and "laws" that apply to reality are infinite or unknowable.

 

We have no reason at all to presume that experimental science can come to undersatand all these phenomena. Here we are stuck on the unified field theory for nearly a century. Perhaps our tool (experimental science) isn't up to the task of understanding how these forces are related.

 

I don't know.

 

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

 

 

Yes, exactly. Very good.

 

It is already known to be smaller than any human can imagine. These numbers in mere moments become stupendously large even when considering the tiniest little detail. Nature is constantly performing these impossibly complex computations. Every single one is applied exactly correctly.

NO ONE IS DOING THAT.

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

 

 

Of course everyone is doing this all the time. This is why we each see something different and we each see what we expect. This is the reality of human existence that we can't see because of the way we think. It is the reality that obscures the reality as seen from other perspectives. We preferentially see what we know.

 

When everything you see mirrrors what you know you overestimate your knowledge. If you know God will smite evil doers on earth before he punishes them eternally then you know exactly why murderers et al come to an untimely and ghastly end. What you believe determines what you see. A botanist sees a tree and an anthropologist sees the soil on which it grows. A zoologists sees the monkeys and insects dependent on the tree but none seem to see the forest.

 

The murderer sees a shady spot to dig a grave.

 

This is the reality.

 

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

 

 

It requires effort to see another perspective.

 

Perspective is everything and if you see only one perspective yopu might be missing all the important information.

[Strange]

If you're seriously suggesting yesterday didn't happen onm the moon then one of us is in the wrong discussion.

 

That is not what you said. Please drop the straw man tactic. It is getting very, very boring.

 

 

Perhaps the number of processes and "laws" that apply to reality are infinite or unknowable.

Your whole shtick is that infinity doesn't exist.

 

I don't know.

Wow. Finally.

 

Of course everyone is doing this all the time.

Then please provide an example of a scientists claiming "we know everything".

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Hijack regarding the moon split off to the trash

 

!

Moderator Note

 

B John Jones.

 

Such arrant nonsense is not tolerated in any of the fora - you do not get to make counter-factual assertions and spout mystical claptrap. This is doubly so as your contributions were a hijack to the OPs thread.

 

Do not hijack threads and remember this is a science forum in which we expect argument to be grounded in evidence. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

 

[cladking]

 

 

Then please provide an example of a scientists claiming "we know everything".

 

This is just the way the modern mind works. We each know everything because we each see what we believe. Our beliefs are always reinforced and we eventually become those beliefs. There is no escape.

 

Scientists see the world in terms of models derived from experiment. They don't see things outside of these models most of the time. They simply don't see the world like an accountant, lawyer, or priest sees the world. They don't even see the same thing an engineer sees.

 

Why do you continually dismiss this simple observation? The discussion can't move beyond this until you consider it. It's impossible to see another perspective until you recognize you already have a perspective.

[Strange]

 

This is just the way the modern mind works. We each know everything because we each see what we believe.

 

You keep saying this. You provide no examples or evidence. It is very obviously not true.

[cladking]

You look at a bridge and you see tensile strenghts, vectors, and the modulus of elasticity. A cop sees the extent of his territory and a politician his new yacht. A civil engineer sees traffic patterns and a painter sees a job. A piest sees ways to bring people together and a taxpayer sees either the time it saves or just another boondoggle.

 

Obviously everyone has a unique perspective and even identical twins don't occupy the same space.

[Strange]

 

Obviously everyone has a unique perspective and even identical twins don't occupy the same space.

 

Obviously. But that has nothing to do with your original claim.

 

Every time you are challenged on one of your claims you resort to some sort of rhetorical fallacy or trick: shifting the goal posts, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, etc. I assume this is because you are unable to substantiate any of your beliefs.

[1x0]

 

It is possible the universe is infinite. So by your logic it can't exist.

And just repeating the same assertion is nor proof or even evidence.

It is not. If the Universe has started/created once it means it has a space(time) frame in which it is existing. The probability that the Universe did not start is 0

[Delta1212]

It is not. If the Universe has started/created once it means it has a space(time) frame in which it is existing. The probability that the Universe did not start is 0

You're assuming that the options are either that it started or that it does not exist. There is also the possibility that it has always existed. We can track it back to a hit dense state at a specific point in time, but we don't know what, if anything, came before that at this point.

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

I don't believe you, prove it..

[cladking]

 

Obviously. But that has nothing to do with your original claim.

 

Every time you are challenged on one of your claims you resort to some sort of rhetorical fallacy or trick: shifting the goal posts, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, etc. I assume this is because you are unable to substantiate any of your beliefs.

 

You call it semantics but then fail to note that nothing I'm suggesting contradicts theory.

 

I'm merely talking about a different perspective. Every perspective has advantages and disadvantages relative others. If you want to cross a busy highway you can't assume there is no faster moving vehicle hidden by an approaching tractor-trailer or you may not make it all the way across.

You're assuming that the options are either that it started or that it does not exist. There is also the possibility that it has always existed. We can track it back to a hit dense state at a specific point in time, but we don't know what, if anything, came before that at this point.

 

 

I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite.

[Strange]

You call it semantics

 

No I don't. So now you are lying about what others say, as well as what you say.

 

but then fail to note that nothing I'm suggesting contradicts theory.

 

Vague unsupported opinions can't really contradict a theory.

 

 

I'm merely talking about a different perspective.

 

 

So you keep saying. You seem unable to define what this "different perspective" is, or why it is useful.

 

 

I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite.

 

 

What is the difference between eternal and infinite? One means "without end" and the other means, er... "without end".

[cladking]

 

No I don't. So now you are lying about what others say, as well as what you say.

 

 

 

"Rehtorical trick/ semantics"? This is just another of your continuing semantical arguments.

 

Vague unsupported opinions can't really contradict a theory.

 

I'm making declaratory statements about the nature of reality. These statements in aggregate do not contradict known science and comprise a different way to see things.

 

 

So you keep saying. You seem unable to define what this "different perspective" is, or why it is useful.

 

 

It is a perspective that doesn't require or employ scientific models.

 

One does science to learn about nature. Until the observation is made or the experiment is run nobody knows how it might be useful.

 

What is the difference between eternal and infinite? One means "without end" and the other means, er... "without end".

 

 

I'm sure I don't know.

 

But while all of space exists all at once, maybe only the current moment exists.

[Strange]

 

"Rehtorical trick/ semantics"?

 

 

Semantics is the study of the meanings of words and symbols.

 

Rhetorical tricks refers to your evasiveness, moving the goal posts, using straw man arguments, the frequent use of fallacies such as begging the question and others.

 

I'm not sure how you think these two things are related.

 

 

 

I'm making declaratory statements about the nature of reality.

 

You are stating your personal beliefs as fact. Which is very tedious.

 

 

It is a perspective that doesn't require or employ scientific models.

 

So not very useful, then.

 

 

I'm sure I don't know.

 

Then why did you claim they are different?

[cladking]

 

 

 

 

 

Then why did you claim they are different?

 

 

What I said was, "I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite" in response to someone else's point.

 

You seem to be reading what you expect me to say.

[Strange]

What I said was, "I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite" in response to someone else's point.

 

So please explain how it can be eternal (without end) but not infinite (without end).

 

Just to be clear, to my mind, the only difference between the two words is that eternal can only refer to time, while infinite can refer to other things (for example, space). But in this case, they are both explicitly referring to time, so I am curious how you interpret them differently.

[cladking]

 

So please explain how it can be eternal (without end) but not infinite (without end).

 

Just to be clear, to my mind, the only difference between the two words is that eternal can only refer to time, while infinite can refer to other things (for example, space). But in this case, they are both explicitly referring to time, so I am curious how you interpret them differently.

 

 

I guess you missed this statement;

 

"But while all of space exists all at once, maybe only the current moment exists."

 

Mebbe I can say it another way you'll remember; you can travel in any direction in space but in time only "now" actually exists.

 

Cause and effect simply means that previous "nows" once existed.

 

Now, rather than trying to see the perspective, you'll say I'm engaging in semantics. Sometimes the future can be predicted.

[Strange]

 

 

I guess you missed this statement;

 

"But while all of space exists all at once, maybe only the current moment exists."

 

 

I didn't miss that. I ignored it because it appears to have no connection whatsoever to "the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite". That is a statement about time, not space.

 

As usual, you are just making responses that appear to be complete non sequiturs.

[Delta1212]

 

 

I didn't miss that. I ignored it because it appears to have no connection whatsoever to "the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite". That is a statement about time, not space.

 

As usual, you are just making responses that appear to be complete non sequiturs.

Maybe he means that the current moment is all that exists of time and is finite, but that the every changing present has no beginning and no end and is therefore eternal?

 

That sounded more like a coherent explanation in my head than it does out loud.

[Strange]

That sounded more like a coherent explanation in my head than it does out loud.

 

 

 

That is the trouble with these many of the vague "intuitive" and common sense notions of time, space and infinity. They quickly fall apart when you attempt to make them rigorous....

[cladking]

 

 

 

That is the trouble with these many of the vague "intuitive" and common sense notions of time, space and infinity. They quickly fall apart when you attempt to make them rigorous....

 

Why don't you rigorously show something in the real world that is infinite? Then I'll accuse you of semantics.

Maybe he means that the current moment is all that exists of time and is finite, but that the every changing present has no beginning and no end and is therefore eternal?

 

That sounded more like a coherent explanation in my head than it does out loud.

 

We always want to count things even though all things are unique. All things are one.

 

So we want to count seconds and years as though time can be counted. Perhaps time is merely continuous.

[Strange]

 

Why don't you rigorously show something in the real world that is infinite?

 

 

Because I am not claiming that there is any such thing.

 

 

 

Perhaps time is merely continuous.

 

That is the general consensus at the moment. (Which, ironically, means it is infinitely divisible.)

Edited June 13, 2016 by Strange

[cladking]

 

 

Because I am not claiming that there is any such thing.

 

 

That is the general consensus at the moment. (Which, ironically, means it is infinitely divisible.)

 

Perhaps only the current moment exists. It is dependent on previous moments and may be followed by more moments but why presume a moment can be divided or that a unit of time exists that can be divided?

 

If you can't point to anything in the real world that's infinite then why be so sure that it exists?

 

It appears that the mathematical concept of infinity is being used as the basis of the big bang and the many worlds theories. It is affecting our understandings and is hiding the real complexity of reality.

[Strange]

If you can't point to anything in the real world that's infinite then why be so sure that it exists?

 

I am not. I am just pointing out that you claim it doesn't is a baseless opinion (presented as if it were a fact).

 

 

It appears that the mathematical concept of infinity is being used as the basis of the big bang and the many worlds theories.

 

Please provide some support for this claim.

[cladking]

 

I am not. I am just pointing out that you claim it doesn't is a baseless opinion (presented as if it were a fact).

 

 

 

I also don't believe in pink unicorns.

 

I've never seen one.

 

I am more suggesting that the world might look different from a perspective that unicorns and infinity don't exist at all. I doubt there's an earth in existence that has unicorns or infinity. Your results may vary.