Thread: Does quantum mechanics violate the laws of logic?

I was having a discussion with someone a little while ago and he made a claim that I found completely preposterous. He claimed that the laws of logic did not apply at the quantum level, which seems entirely self-refuting as violating the laws of logic is by definition logically impossible. When I say the laws of logic, I am referring to the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is and is not what it isn't (X = X), the Law of Non-contradiction, which states that in a true dichotomy of X or ~X, nothing can simultaneously be both X and ~X, and the Law of excluded Middle, which states that nothing can be neither X or ~X.



I know a fair bit about quantum mechanics, and absolutely nothing that I know about it violates any of these laws; of course, quantum mechanics does indeed violate our notions of common sense and human intuition, but the three laws of logic are necessarily true due to the impossibility of the contrary.



Did this person I was talking to simply have a misunderstanding of how quantum mechanics works?

Quantum mechanics has been demonstrated to violate Bell's inequality, which is a law of logic. In a quantum entanglement experiment, the properties of two separated particles are correlated even though the particles do not have definite values for those properties. In the particular experiments that test Bell's inequality, there are three properties being measured, and measuring one property for one particle determines that property for the other particle because of the correlation between the particles. Only one property is measured for a given particle, and the result is a YES/NO answer. Measurement of both particles allows two properties to be determined for each particle. By repeating the experiment with various combinations of the three properties, a statistical relationship can be built between the three properties. If the particles had definite values for each of the three properties prior to measurement, then Bell's inequality must logically be satisfied. But Bell's inequality is violated, indicating that the particles do not have definite values for those properties until measured.

I think it should be stressed that what quantum mechanics invalidates is not logic itself, but an assumption about physical objects that has never actually been established to be valid: that a physical object has definite properties even if it has never been either directly or indirectly observed.

My point is that the three laws I mentioned (Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are true tautologically; they are necessarily true due to the impossibility of the contrary. We haven't proved them because the concept isn't even applicable to them; they are self-attesting truths about the nature of existence and all things that exist.

Originally Posted by Fanghur

My point is that the three laws I mentioned (Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are true tautologically; they are necessarily true due to the impossibility of the contrary. We haven't proved them because the concept isn't even applicable to them; they are self-attesting truths about the nature of existence and all things that exist.

Have you consulted the village barber about that?

You cannot break the laws of abstract logic. Funny things can happen at the quantum level, but logical statements such as "X = X" or "If a conditional statement is true, then its contrapositive is also true", cannot be broken. These "logical" laws are not pure logic. They are common-sense statements about the real, physical world that we are so used to and it's so obvious that these statements are true that we see them as abstract logic. But the laws of logic and mathematics cannot be broken. Mathematics/logic can only be "broken" if not everything is taken into account.

If a conditional statement is true, then its contrapositive is also true

Only holds for a deterministic universe, which the quantum world is not.

Originally Posted by Fanghur

My point is that the three laws I mentioned (Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are true tautologically; they are necessarily true due to the impossibility of the contrary. We haven't proved them because the concept isn't even applicable to them; they are self-attesting truths about the nature of existence and all things that exist.

Close. They are apparently self-attesting truths about the nature of existence and all things that exist based on our macroscopic view of the world. These "laws" may need to be modified or extended to match quantum reality.

For example, superposition allows something to be in multiple states simultaneously (see also: Schroedinger's cat).

Originally Posted by Fanghur

My point is that the three laws I mentioned (Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are true tautologically; they are necessarily true due to the impossibility of the contrary. We haven't proved them because the concept isn't even applicable to them; they are self-attesting truths about the nature of existence and all things that exist.

Since no one picked up on my wise crack, I'll explain what I was referring to. The laws quoted above cause problems already in set theory. Consider a small village with a barber who shaves all those, and only those, who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?

Water can be a solid or a liquid or a gas(vapor). We often assign labels cookie-cutter categories based on how we "perceive" things. Someone that has never seen (or heard about) ice, may initially think its a different label than water (~this cold rock looks like a crystal, I shall label it Cryocrystalite. Water say you? Proposterous, this is a strange crystal it is not water since everyone knows water is a liquid! Something cannot be both something and something else~). On our scale there's a number of things that can be perceived, on other scales there are realities that are different from our common daily experience, so when we can perceive something, we can sometimes only perceive one aspect of it, and label that X, and we could observe something that appears different and call it Y, when Y could be an alternate aspect/manifestation of X. So X might appear to be both X and not X.


Alternatively imagine a Cubix world where everything is a solid opaque object and people have no concept of what gas, liquid or fluidity is, then someone from that universe comes here, goes back and tries to explain rain.
- What I dont understand is where you saw that rain object? Was it In front or Behind?
- Well all around.
- What do you mean, it cant be both in front and behind! But how big was it?
- I dont know it was tiny drops all around and big pools on the ground.
- It cant be big and small, how can it be both big and small, how can you not know its exact size? Ok but what shape did it have then, square, cylinder?
- It both had no shape and many shapes, someone gave me a glass of water and it had a cylinder shape, but I dropped the glass and the water fell in a box and it became a cube, then I kicked the box by accident and it became a flat surface on the floor.
- Your story defies all logic.

Our logical sense of reasoning is a factor of our daily experience,ie what our common sense agrees to. But do we live in a quantum scale? No. So what makes you feel our common sense will agree to its own logic! Did anyone Say we can't expand our logic?

It all comes down to the level of rest, that one is at before worrying about calculated actions.

If a conditional statement is true, then its contrapositive is also true Only holds for a deterministic universe, which the quantum world is not.

How can a conditional statement be true but not its contrapositive? In a non-deterministic universe, it is going to be pretty hard to find a conditional statement that is 100% true, but if you find one, it is the same as its contrapositive. Can you give me an example or something?

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

If a conditional statement is true, then its contrapositive is also true... Only holds for a deterministic universe, which the quantum world is not.

How can a conditional statement be true but not its contrapositive? In a non-deterministic universe, it is going to be pretty hard to find a conditional statement that is 100% true, but if you find one, it is the same as its contrapositive. Can you give me an example or something?

In the double-slit experiment, one might say that if the photon passed through one slit, it didn't pass through the other slit. If one measures which slit the photon passed through, then this is found to be true. But if the information determining which slit the photon passed through is erased from existence, then the photon passed through both slits.

Apart from the examples above, it is worth noting that this simplistic logic doesn't even apply in the real world because things can be observer dependent.

For example, in relativity, there is no absolute concept of time and simultaneity. One person may measure to events to have happened at the same time, while another will say that one clearly happened before the other. So the events are both simultaneous and not-simultaneous.

Or an even more mundane one: if I toss a coin, what is the probability of heads versus tails? You may say 50%. But what if I toss a coin and look, but don't show you? For you, the probability is still 50% but for me it is 100% (or 0%). So even probability is observer dependent (which isn't surprising as it is really just a measure of how much information we have).

Originally Posted by KJW

But if the information determining which slit the photon passed through is erased from existence, then the photon passed through both slits.

And it isn't simply a case of us not knowing which slit the photon passed through. One can rotate the plane of polarisation of the photons passing through one of the slits by 90° but never actually measure the polarisation of the photons. In this case, we still don't know which slit the photon passed through but have changed the interference pattern. What this means is that a photon passing through both slits simultaneously is empirically distinguishable from a photon randomly choosing one slit or the other.

Originally Posted by mvb

Originally Posted by Fanghur

My point is that the three laws I mentioned (Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are true tautologically; they are necessarily true due to the impossibility of the contrary. We haven't proved them because the concept isn't even applicable to them; they are self-attesting truths about the nature of existence and all things that exist.

Since no one picked up on my wise crack, I'll explain what I was referring to. The laws quoted above cause problems already in set theory. Consider a small village with a barber who shaves all those, and only those, who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?

Same quote slightly rephrased. "All men in town are clean shaven. The barber is the man in town who shaves all those, and only those men in town who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?" [/QUOTE] In logic this is a statement with a false or contradicting internal premise. The statement should read " The barber is a man in town who shaves all those, and only those other men in town who do not shave themselves." With the word addition of "other" there is no contradiction or logical error and the barber can shave himself.

Oh, wrong again.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

False premise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Syllogism defined:
An instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises).

Does your local educational facility run courses on "How to not miss the entire f*cking point"?
If so you should sign up.

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

If a conditional statement is true, then its contrapositive is also true Only holds for a deterministic universe, which the quantum world is not.

How can a conditional statement be true but not its contrapositive? In a non-deterministic universe, it is going to be pretty hard to find a conditional statement that is 100% true, but if you find one, it is the same as its contrapositive. Can you give me an example or something?

Examples are easy to find in ordinary life. If object X is an automobile factory, and object Y was manufactured by object X, then object Y is an automobile.

Take that logic backwards and it breaks. If object Y is an automobile, it does not therefore follow that object Y was manufactured by object X. Object Y could have been manufactured in another automobile factory.

Some logical chains only work in one direction. Take them backwards and you can't draw any conclusions at all.

Or do you mean something else by "contrapositive"

If object X is a non-automobile factory, and object Y was manufactured by object X, then object Y is not an automobile.

Yeah that works. How does QM fail that version of the test, though?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

If a conditional statement is true, then its contrapositive is also true Only holds for a deterministic universe, which the quantum world is not.

How can a conditional statement be true but not its contrapositive? In a non-deterministic universe, it is going to be pretty hard to find a conditional statement that is 100% true, but if you find one, it is the same as its contrapositive. Can you give me an example or something?

Examples are easy to find in ordinary life. If object X is an automobile factory, and object Y was manufactured by object X, then object Y is an automobile.

Take that logic backwards and it breaks. If object Y is an automobile, it does not therefore follow that object Y was manufactured by object X. Object Y could have been manufactured in another automobile factory.

Some logical chains only work in one direction. Take them backwards and you can't draw any conclusions at all.

Or do you mean something else by "contrapositive"

If object X is a non-automobile factory, and object Y was manufactured by object X, then object Y is not an automobile.

Yeah that works. How does QM fail that version of the test, though?

Its meaningless example
This is not logic at all
If x is factory of automobile and Y is automobile , it is not necessary(not logical to say ) that Y is necessary made by x
But it would be logical if there is only one source of automobile production named X in world , then if Y is an automobile it would be produced by X.

Logic is nothing other than a different aspect of reality . Reality has its own logic.
If a logic is broken, this means there is some hole (error ) in logic and a real logic exists for its replacement.
If logic goes wrong, this means it was not a true logic.

The contrapositive of "P implies Q" is "not Q implies not P", so the contrapositive of "X is an car factory and Y is from X implies Y is a car" would be "Y is not a car implies not(X is a car factory and Y is from X)" which can be translated into "Y is not a car implies X is not a car factory or Y is not from X" which works fine.

Constructivist logic, BTW, does not recognize the law of the excluded middle or double negation as valid logical statements. This has nothing to do with QM though and has been around a lot longer. It's just to show that "logic" isn't so simple a topic.

I saw 'the Enigmatic Giant', an anime episode, a while ago that describes similar mechanics.


The giant in the title guards a bridge and only allows people to cross if they answer his question 'correctly'.


His question is "If you lie, I will run you through with my sword, but if you tell the truth, I will strangle you with my bare hands, what do you say?"


The correct response is "You will run me through with your sword".


If the giant runs the answerer through with his sword then, by his own stated rules, he implies that the answerer lied but if that was the case then the answerer was telling the truth in their original answer and should be strangled by the giants bare hands.

Well, QM is strictly logic. But not classically logic. More intuistionistically logic. (though QM logic is actually a branch of logic)
Actually, most things in nature, do not apply to classic logic. As Brouwer stated: Not(Not(A)) can never equal A, simply because it isn't true.

Originally Posted by Kerling

Well, QM is strictly logic. But not classically logic. More intuistionistically logic. (though QM logic is actually a branch of logic)
Actually, most things in nature, do not apply to classic logic. As Brouwer stated: Not(Not(A)) can never equal A, simply because it isn't true.

Logic is logic no matter where it is applied

One may classify logic as we classified natural science based on field like Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc

But this does not mean a logic can violate other logic
If it happens, this means one of them is wrong
as truth is truth and cannot violate other truth

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Logic is logic no matter where it is applied

One may classify logic as we classified natural science based on field like Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc

But this does not mean a logic can violate other logic
If it happens, this means one of them is wrong
as truth is truth and cannot violate other truth

Logic is just a branch of mathematics. There are many forms of logic. They will not all produce the same results and they are not all applicable to the same problems. If something contradicts "logic" then maybe you are misapplying it, or using the wrong form of logic.

It is nothing to do with The Truth. We often use 3, 5 or even 7 valued logic at work. Which of these represents The Truth?

Your misguided belief in some mystical Truth which is Revealed to You through the medium of common sense and "logic" is, presumably, what leads you to keep posting obviously incorrect statements about physics. Drop the religion and learn some physics.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Logic is logic no matter where it is applied

One may classify logic as we classified natural science based on field like Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc

But this does not mean a logic can violate other logic
If it happens, this means one of them is wrong
as truth is truth and cannot violate other truth

Haha, no silly of course not. Logic is first of all based upon the allowed values of a logical statement. And 2 valued logic is distinctively different from 3 or more valued logic. Also it is very relevant if you want to add an ungerijmde to the problem.

A statement in a simplified form of logic (with the most simplified form being classical logic), needend be true in a higher form of logic and vice-versa.
I mean I can work with a harmonic approximation of a pendulum, untill my approximation breaks down.
Classical logic, is but an approximation of a very large and elaborate field of logic.
And QM-logic itself is just a subgroup of that field.

Truth, is only as truthfull as the way to compare it with other truths.

Logic, like all of mathematics, is absolutely true, but only where the chosen axioms are accepted as a given. This doesn't always hold even in the macroscopic world.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Logic, like all of mathematics, is absolutely true, but only where the chosen axioms are accepted as a given. This doesn't always hold even in the macroscopic world.

"Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence."

And trying to use a scientifical sense of reasoning!

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Logic, like all of mathematics, is absolutely true

Except where it's not.
Using simple logic (and one trivial "experiment") you can "prove" that logic doesn't work.
And didn't Gödel have something to say about it...?

What you can prove is true is absolutely true given those axioms. Godel said there are things that can't be proven true or false (incomplete) unless there are things that can be proven both true and false (inconsistent).

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

What you can prove is true is absolutely true given those axioms. Godel said there are things that can't be proven true or false (incomplete) unless there are things that can be proven both true and false (inconsistent).

Good!

You may now rephrase your post 29# (we are waiting)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Logic is logic no matter where it is applied

One may classify logic as we classified natural science based on field like Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc

But this does not mean a logic can violate other logic
If it happens, this means one of them is wrong
as truth is truth and cannot violate other truth

Logic is just a branch of mathematics. There are many forms of logic. They will not all produce the same results and they are not all applicable to the same problems. If something contradicts "logic" then maybe you are misapplying it, or using the wrong form of logic.

It is nothing to do with The Truth. We often use 3, 5 or even 7 valued logic at work. Which of these represents The Truth?

Your misguided belief in some mystical Truth which is Revealed to You through the medium of common sense and "logic" is, presumably, what leads you to keep posting obviously incorrect statements about physics. Drop the religion and learn some physics.

I am talking about broad meaning of Logic
& If I have closed religious view because I do not believe in built in uncertainty ,this means Einstein should also learn Physics who did not believe it (Although my opinion has nothing to do with Einstein)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Logic, like all of mathematics, is absolutely true

Except where it's not.
Using simple logic (and one trivial "experiment") you can "prove" that logic doesn't work.
And didn't Gödel have something to say about it...?

Give example

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

I am talking about broad meaning of Logic

What does "broad meaning of Logic" mean? I assume it means "this makes sense to me so I will ignore the evidence that contradicts my faith-based opinion".

If I have closed religious view because I do not believe in built in uncertainty ,this means Einstein should also learn Physics who did not believe it (Although my opinion has nothing to do with Einstein)

Einstein was wrong.
You are wrong.

It is logical :"Space is unlimited"
We cannot experimentally go to the one end to find it whether it is unlimited or not
But logically it has no end as no logic is available that shows space is limited

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

I am talking about broad meaning of Logic

What does "broad meaning of Logic" mean? I assume it means "this makes sense to me so I will ignore the evidence that contradicts my faith-based opinion".

If I have closed religious view because I do not believe in built in uncertainty ,this means Einstein should also learn Physics who did not believe it (Although my opinion has nothing to do with Einstein)

Einstein was wrong.
You are wrong.

OK I may be wrong but do not compare me with close minded religious person again & again

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is logical :"Space is unlimited"
We cannot experimentally go to the one end to find it whether it is unlimited or not
But logically it has no end as no logic is available that shows space is limited

That is not "logic". That is, again, an unsupported belief.

There is mathematical logic that shows that space could be finite. We do not have evidence (currently) to know if it finite or infinite. Your bogus logic and faith do not change that.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

OK I may be wrong but do not compare me with close minded religious person again & again

Why not? You behave exactly like a creationist: "I have my faith and I don't care if the evidence shows I am wrong, I will not change my belief".

That is the definition of closed minded.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

OK I may be wrong but do not compare me with close minded religious person again & again

Why not? You behave exactly like a creationist: "I have my faith and I don't care if the evidence shows I am wrong, I will not change my belief".

That is the definition of closed minded.

If it is creationist to believe space is infinite , you can say me creationist
& If you think space is limited/finite , It is better to keep silence for me.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

OK I may be wrong but do not compare me with close minded religious person again & again

Why not? You behave exactly like a creationist: "I have my faith and I don't care if the evidence shows I am wrong, I will not change my belief".

That is the definition of closed minded.

Nothing goes in and don't expect any to come out.(Closed minded)!

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

If it is creationist to believe space is infinite , you can say me creationist

There is no evidence for or against that so I don't really care if you believe it or not. Just as long as you don't present it as a fact or claim there is some "logic" behind it. It is just a belief.

But you will find others on this forum who will argue against an infinite universe on the basis of "logic". You can't both be right.

If you think space is limited/finite , It is better to keep silence for me.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other because there is no evidence one way or the other.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is logical :"Space is unlimited"
We cannot experimentally go to the one end to find it whether it is unlimited or not
But logically it has no end as no logic is available that shows space is limited

Really?
No logic at all?
Not even logic so simple a child could understand it?

1) Space (and time) "started" with the Big Bang.
2) The Big Bang occurred a finite time ago.
3) The expansion of space happened at a finite rate.
Ergo: space cannot be infinite.
If it's not infinite it's limited.


As for the other one (post #32):
We have a line of (let's say 6, but the actual number doesn't matter) inverted cups and I tell you that under one of the cups is a ball. And I further add that it will be a surprise as to which cup the ball is under - you may only work down the line, i.e. check a cup then check the next, then the next...

Logic:
If finding the ball will be a surprise then, logically, the ball cannot be under the final cup. Because, having turned over all of the other cups you'd know that there's nowhere else the ball can be.
That eliminates cup number 6 as a possible candidate.
This therefore means that cup number 5 is the last possible hiding place but it also means that, since, it's now the last cup and the previous caveat holds true, cup number 5 cannot hold the ball.
Therefore number 4 is the last one and....
Therefore, logically there can be no ball under any cup, because if there were it wouldn't be a surprise.

The "experiment", of course, consists simply of actually having six cups, one of which has a ball inside it.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is logical :"Space is unlimited"
We cannot experimentally go to the one end to find it whether it is unlimited or not
But logically it has no end as no logic is available that shows space is limited

It is quite logical to say all members of this forum are humans.

But it is not logical to say strange is a male and not a female.(Without any further information or evidence).i.e just owing to only two types of sex(male or female)

"However it is logical to say strange is either a male or female."

With the above,you can Say logically that 'space' is either finite or infinite(in absence of any evidence to take one above the other).

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is logical :"Space is unlimited"
We cannot experimentally go to the one end to find it whether it is unlimited or not
But logically it [has no]<==>[[cannot be said is as an]] end as no logic is available that shows space is limited

It is quite logical to say all members of this forum are humans.

But it is not logical to say strange is a male and not a female.(Without any further information or evidence).i.e just owing to only two types of sex(male or female)

"However it is logical to say strange is either a male or female."

With the above,you can Say logically that 'space' is either finite or infinite(in absence of any evidence to take one above the other).

You nailed it.

Yet, it would be quite refreshing at this point to be a little modest about what logic is. Raj_K error is in fact very common and most poster here should take a lesson, because they have done the same mistake, and much worse (like conjuring paradox has if it were piece of logic). Parroting believes without bothering to precisely define the context in which there are used is quite common. And Raj_K was NOT doing that.

There are no rule of logic that say that if something cannot be proved true, that is because it is false. And the other way round. This is something believer will ignore. It is a truth, not from logic, but from measurement (like their post content).
Logic say that if something cannot be prove, than it cannot be proved. This is the truth. It cannot be proved, period. It is a great help, because logic itself cannot prove herself (it would be paradoxical), but then is is OK, because it does not mean logic is false (nor true)

Logic only deal with proof. Logic state that proof uses rules. Some weirdo may call that rule of logic, but that would be an error. They are just rule. Made up recipe, that even machine can cook them and test the outcome. Those rule are not logic. It is the logic that made use of them.

Back to space.
Raj_K is very correct to say space is unlimited, if by space he means something you can compare against something else. Like those crackpot that believe that space and time begin at the big bang, without bothering with the fact that does not even make scientific sense nor it is even needed as a part of a mix of a few theory and wild conjecture named the Big Bang model. A creationist model BTW

One may also only need one cube meter of space, and consider it an infinite space, because you can 'sit' in it, in an infinite number of places. The definition of space than being a place where we 'sit'. Measuring that 'sitting' has even lead to observe QM uncertainty, that suggest that you could even be everywhere at once.

But one can also consider that space is something you can put a number on. For example, the time to travel before coming to the same place (for a closed universe). You would be in a box, "greater" than one meter cube, with a precise finite 'measure' (even if ever changing).
It is not very different from a box you cannot even leave, because you would never reach the 'end'.
A black hole is a good example of such boxes. It is finite from our point of view, we can even count them and measure them. But from the inside, is it infinite ?

Back to quantum.
I am perhaps too young to see why Bell theorem is weird. It is not, it is very logical. There is nothing illogical in the way it is tested. Quantum properties that entangled particles caries does not imply any superluminal effect, so Einstein is right.
The principle of locality is even funny to name here, for experiment that by definition, are not local, not in space, not in time, not even in events (just stochastic mayhem).

Where and how logic would be violated by mother nature is yet to discover ... because logic is only for us to process. If logic fail to account for something, my guess mother nature doesn't care, and that people should invent better rules.

“A poet once said, 'The whole universe is in a glass of wine.'
We will probably never know in what sense he meant it, for
poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we
look at a glass of wine closely enough we see the entire
universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid
which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the
reflection in the glass; and our imagination adds atoms. The
glass is a distillation of the earth's rocks, and in its
composition we see the secrets of the universe's age, and
the evolution of stars. What strange array of chemicals are
in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the
ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products.
There in wine is found the great generalization; all life is
fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine
without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much
disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into
the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for
some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe,
into parts -- physics, biology, geology, astronomy,
psychology, and so on -- remember that nature does not
know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting
ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final
pleasure; drink it and forget it all!”
― Richard P. Feynman

Nature does not care the logic is our way to describe nature conveniently. Again, nature doesn't care.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It is logical :"Space is unlimited"
We cannot experimentally go to the one end to find it whether it is unlimited or not
But logically it has no end as no logic is available that shows space is limited

Really?
No logic at all?
Not even logic so simple a child could understand it?

1) Space (and time) "started" with the Big Bang.
2) The Big Bang occurred a finite time ago.
3) The expansion of space happened at a finite rate.
Ergo: space cannot be infinite.
If it's not infinite it's limited.


As for the other one (post #32):
We have a line of (let's say 6, but the actual number doesn't matter) inverted cups and I tell you that under one of the cups is a ball. And I further add that it will be a surprise as to which cup the ball is under - you may only work down the line, i.e. check a cup then check the next, then the next...

Logic:
If finding the ball will be a surprise then, logically, the ball cannot be under the final cup. Because, having turned over all of the other cups you'd know that there's nowhere else the ball can be.
That eliminates cup number 6 as a possible candidate.
This therefore means that cup number 5 is the last possible hiding place but it also means that, since, it's now the last cup and the previous caveat holds true, cup number 5 cannot hold the ball.
Therefore number 4 is the last one and....
Therefore, logically there can be no ball under any cup, because if there were it wouldn't be a surprise.

The "experiment", of course, consists simply of actually having six cups, one of which has a ball inside it.

It violates the logic :It is logical that If there is one ball out of six cups & if we know the 5 cups, there should be no uncertainty/surprise for sixth cup. If a logic violates other logic, one of both may have error.
We would definitely have knowledge of 6^th cup.
I

You are eliminating the surprise by assuming that we know 5 cups which are empty & then illogically eliminating them.
Surprise itself lies in uncertainty (absence of proper knowledge )
If you know the any of 5cups, you would be able to answer where the ball is and no surprise.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It violates the logic :It is logical that If there is one ball out of six cups & if we know the 5 cups, there should be no uncertainty/surprise for sixth cup. If a logic violates other logic, one of both may have error.
We would definitely have knowledge of 6^th cup.
You are eliminating the surprise by assuming that we know 5 cups which are empty & then illogically eliminating them.
Surprise itself lies in uncertainty (absence of proper knowledge )
If you know the any of 5cups, you would be able to answer where the ball is and no surprise.

In other words you're flailing ineffectually.
Do you deny that the logic, as given, is correct?
Do you deny that actually "running the experiment" will produce a ball?

And I notice that you have entirely neglected to address the simple logic showing the universe to be limited.
maybe because that, too, conflicts with your "religious belief".

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Back to space.
Raj_K is very correct to say space is unlimited, if by space he means something you can compare against something else. Like those crackpot that believe that space and time begin at the big bang, without bothering with the fact that does not even make scientific sense nor it is even needed as a part of a mix of a few theory and wild conjecture named the Big Bang model. A creationist model BTW

Our observations tell us that the universe is expanding and thus it used to be smaller. The gaps between the galaxies used to be smaller. The further back in time we look, the smaller the scale factor of the universe. This implies that if we go back far enough we reach a point where there is no space between things at all - space ceases to have any meaning. According to General Relativity (our best theory of how space and time are affected by the density of matter - i.e. gravity), at that point, time also ceases to have any meaning.

This is a logical conclusion, based on our observations and our best theory of gravity. It makes perfect sense, scientifically. It is logical.

BUT.. that doesn't mean it is correct. It is generally accepted that we are pushing GR beyond its domain of applicability when we reach that point. The reason for this is that when infinity starts falling out of the equations, as it does in GR at the Big-Bang, then it is considered non-physical. So we don't think the universe can actually have had infinite density, where there is no meaning to space or time. This is also a logical conclusion to make.

So, the current state of the Big-Bang theory is that the universe is thought to have expanded from a very hot dense state, to a cooler less dense state, and the theory says nothing at all about their ever being no space or no time, or that space and time "started" at the Big-Bang. It does however state that, whilst our best theory (GR) produces singular behaviour at the Big-Bang, then space and time according to GR started there, but this is because GR breaks down there. There is a distinct difference between these two concepts and that is the only logical conclusion we can take from all this. To call our current consensus cosmology "crackpot" is to misunderstand what the current consensus is, and is a global ad-hominem to boot.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It violates the logic :It is logical that If there is one ball out of six cups & if we know the 5 cups, there should be no uncertainty/surprise for sixth cup. If a logic violates other logic, one of both may have error.
We would definitely have knowledge of 6^th cup.
You are eliminating the surprise by assuming that we know 5 cups which are empty & then illogically eliminating them.
Surprise itself lies in uncertainty (absence of proper knowledge )
If you know the any of 5cups, you would be able to answer where the ball is and no surprise.

In other words you're flailing ineffectually.
Do you deny that the logic, as given, is correct?
Do you deny that actually "running the experiment" will produce a ball?

And I notice that you have entirely neglected to address the simple logic showing the universe to be limited.
maybe because that, too, conflicts with your "religious belief".

That may be truth mr Duck, and he appears not to answer whether or not how something may seem logical.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

It violates the logic :It is logical that If there is one ball out of six cups & if we know the 5 cups, there should be no uncertainty/surprise for sixth cup. If a logic violates other logic, one of both may have error.
We would definitely have knowledge of 6^th cup.
You are eliminating the surprise by assuming that we know 5 cups which are empty & then illogically eliminating them.
Surprise itself lies in uncertainty (absence of proper knowledge )
If you know the any of 5cups, you would be able to answer where the ball is and no surprise.

In other words you're flailing ineffectually.
Do you deny that the logic, as given, is correct?
Do you deny that actually "running the experiment" will produce a ball?

And I notice that you have entirely neglected to address the simple logic showing the universe to be limited.
maybe because that, too, conflicts with your "religious belief".

That may be truth mr Duck, and he appears not to answer whether or not how something may seem logical.

Simply incorrect logic and does not match the truth
Logically even if ball is at any six cups, its surprise depends on absence of knowlege
Your assumption if we know any five cups, is illogical for creating surprise

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Back to space.
Raj_K is very correct to say space is unlimited, if by space he means something you can compare against something else. Like those crackpot that believe that space and time begin at the big bang, without bothering with the fact that does not even make scientific sense nor it is even needed as a part of a mix of a few theory and wild conjecture named the Big Bang model. A creationist model BTW

Our observations tell us that the universe is expanding and thus it used to be smaller. The gaps between the galaxies used to be smaller. The further back in time we look, the smaller the scale factor of the universe. This implies that if we go back far enough we reach a point where there is no space between things at all - space ceases to have any meaning. According to General Relativity (our best theory of how space and time are affected by the density of matter - i.e. gravity), at that point, time also ceases to have any meaning.

This is a logical conclusion, based on our observations and our best theory of gravity. It makes perfect sense, scientifically. It is logical.

BUT.. that doesn't mean it is correct. It is generally accepted that we are pushing GR beyond its domain of applicability when we reach that point. The reason for this is that when infinity starts falling out of the equations, as it does in GR at the Big-Bang, then it is considered non-physical. So we don't think the universe can actually have had infinite density, where there is no meaning to space or time. This is also a logical conclusion to make.

So, the current state of the Big-Bang theory is that the universe is thought to have expanded from a very hot dense state, to a cooler less dense state, and the theory says nothing at all about their ever being no space or no time, or that space and time "started" at the Big-Bang. It does however state that, whilst our best theory (GR) produces singular behaviour at the Big-Bang, then space and time according to GR started there, but this is because GR breaks down there. There is a distinct difference between these two concepts and that is the only logical conclusion we can take from all this. To call our current consensus cosmology "crackpot" is to misunderstand what the current consensus is, and is a global ad-hominem to boot.

Whaou, "utter bunkum" is gone, and your post is still not edited, Kudos to logic again.

It is also fine to conjure ad-hominen to the rescue, because the crackpot I debunked were not the scientist (see the green bold) but the people that troll forum misinterpreting the science for religious purpose. I don't think you know which group you belongs to.

Yet you belong to the group of people with bad logic. No scientist can describe what happens then nor even test it, even GR breaks down. The only logical conclusion is to say we don't know what space was before.
If you say otherwise, like "space and time begin at BB" then your are a crackpot sir. My green quote does not contain scientist, because no scientist is stupid enough to make such illogical leap of faith.

When a theories ceases to have any meaning, the thing they describe does not vanish. It is just the theory that stop, not the universe.
If you don't understand that, I suggest a basic logic course.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Simply incorrect logic and does not match the truth
Logically even if ball is at any six cups, its surprise depends on absence of knowlege

And the absence of knowledge is there regardless of whether it's stated or not.
Or do you disagree?
Do you claim that, given a line of 6 cups and the assurance that a ball is under one of them, you know without looking which one has the ball?

Your assumption if we know any five cups, is illogical for creating surprise

What?
Do you claim that, given 6 cups and the assurance that a ball is under one of them, when 5 cups are revealed not to hold the ball it WOULD be a surprise to find the ball under the remaining cup?

And, one more time: And I notice that you have entirely neglected to address the simple logic showing the universe to be limited.
Perhaps you could, while addressing this, also lay out for us the simple logic that the universe is NOT limited (since you have claimed that logic shows this is so).

I am saying in clear words that your example is not logical to show surprise

Space is unlimited ,even there is nothing there is space
If space is limited it must have one end, what would be next to that end

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

I am saying in clear words that your example is not logical to show surprise

Yet you can't support this statement with a shred of rationality.

Space is unlimited ,even there is nothing there is space

And you can't support this one either.

If space is limited it must have one end, what would be next to that end

Have you considered, at any stage of your life, getting an education?

Are you going to, in fact CAN you, reply in any way to my previous comment that "indicates" space is limted?

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Space is unlimited ,even there is nothing there is space
If space is limited it must have one end, what would be next to that end

Ah, the old "what happens beyond the edge" argument. I'm afraid that doesn't work. If the universe is finite then it is almost certainly also without a boundary.

I can already hear you saying, "but that's not logical: everything has a boundary!"

Wrong. And illogical. Let's take a simple example you may be familiar with: the surface of the Earth. (Note, I said SURFACE). This has no edge but is of a finite area.

So, there you go. Your "logical" argument is wrong.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Have you considered, at any stage of your life, getting an education?

No need. He already knows everything through "logic".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

I am saying in clear words that your example is not logical to show surprise

Yet you can't support this statement with a shred of rationality.

Space is unlimited ,even there is nothing there is space

And you can't support this one either.

If space is limited it must have one end, what would be next to that end

Have you considered, at any stage of your life, getting an education?

Are you going to, in fact CAN you, reply in any way to my previous comment that "indicates" space is limted?

ding you (but would not again remind you) statements you given are not logicals

Your statement if we know 5 cups out of 6 cups, then it cannot be in 6th cup, only if we know 5 cups
So if you do not have knowledge of any cups, ball may be in 6th cup also and make surprice
You should join grammar forum

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Space is unlimited ,even there is nothing there is space
If space is limited it must have one end, what would be next to that end

Ah, the old "what happens beyond the edge" argument. I'm afraid that doesn't work. If the universe is finite then it is almost certainly also without a boundary.

I can already hear you saying, "but that's not logical: everything has a boundary!"

Wrong. And illogical. Let's take a simple example you may be familiar with: the surface of the Earth. (Note, I said SURFACE). This has no edge but is of a finite area.

So, there you go. Your "logical" argument is wrong.

Earth has limited boundaries (although in other form due to its shape ) it has limited height , length and width

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Space is unlimited ,even there is nothing there is space
If space is limited it must have one end, what would be next to that end

Ah, the old "what happens beyond the edge" argument. I'm afraid that doesn't work. If the universe is finite then it is almost certainly also without a boundary.

I can already hear you saying, "but that's not logical: everything has a boundary!"

Wrong. And illogical. Let's take a simple example you may be familiar with: the surface of the Earth. (Note, I said SURFACE). This has no edge but is of a finite area.

So, there you go. Your "logical" argument is wrong.

Earth has limited boundaries (although in other form due to its shape ) it has limited height , length and width

Note: I said SURFACE. That's S U R F A C E. SURFACE. That is why I referred to finite area.

Please tell me where the edge of the SURFACE of the Earth is. I have been all round the Earth and I didn't notice an edge. Is it hidden somewhere?

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Space is unlimited ,even there is nothing there is space
If space is limited it must have one end, what would be next to that end

Ah, the old "what happens beyond the edge" argument. I'm afraid that doesn't work. If the universe is finite then it is almost certainly also without a boundary.

I can already hear you saying, "but that's not logical: everything has a boundary!"

Wrong. And illogical. Let's take a simple example you may be familiar with: the surface of the Earth. (Note, I said SURFACE). This has no edge but is of a finite area.

So, there you go. Your "logical" argument is wrong.

Earth has limited boundaries (although in other form due to its shape ) it has limited height , length and width

It is finite, with no boundary. When you walk on the surface of the earth, where do you encounter the boundary?

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

ding you (but would not again remind you) statements you given are not logicals

Wrong.

Your statement if we know 5 cups out of 6 cups, then it cannot be in 6th cup, only if we know 5 cups
So if you do not have knowledge of any cups, ball may be in 6th cup also and make surprice
You should join grammar forum

Perhaps you should learn English.
IF we know that it's not under the first 5 then it MUST be under under the 6th. Or do you dispute this?
BUT, if it's under the 6th then it will not be a surprise. Do you dispute this?
THEREFORE, it cannot (to fulfil the conditions of the initial postulate) be under the 6th.

I'll assume that, since you have persistently refused to address my illustrative logic, you cannot do so.
I'll also take that, since you can provide nothing other than false "logic" (see Strange's post) to back up YOUR claim, you cannot actually support that claim.
It therefore appears that you are indeed holding your position based on nothing other than blind faith ¹.
Much like your stance on the uncertainty principle.


1 Although, possibly, with a large measure of ignorance thrown in.

you yourself sited on its surface , go exactly down until gets other surface (between both surfaces there is earth)

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

you yourself sited on its surface , go exactly down until gets other surface (between both surfaces there is earth)

And this, boys and girls, is an example of what we call avoiding (not missing, but deliberately evading) the point AND simultaneously grasping at straws.
Who says men can't multi-task?

If space is limited, it has limited area what be around that area
only space

There is no surprise from anywhere and any cup.what are you saying? Its like probability!

Given six cups and you know that there is a ball at the under of one,you already know that the ball must be seen in either of the six!(And all have equal chances to have the under them)which is 1/6.

After seeing 5cups the 6,once possible outcomes collapse to one unchangeable,inescapable outcome.(If and only if the ball was inside one of the cups before the experiment).

Is it not strange that you think there's any surprise out of the above? Or 'Mr strange' what do you think?

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

If space is limited, it has limited area what be around that area
only space

If a shoe is transverse, it has transverse schnorgoblorg what be around that schnorgoblorg only shoe.

See? Everyone can play!

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

If space is limited, it has limited area what be around that area
only space

If a shoe is transverse, it has transverse schnorgoblorg what be around that schnorgoblorg only shoe.

See? Everyone can play!

Although I do not exactly know the meaning of "schnorogolorg " but I estimate your meaning
Around schnorgoblorg there would not only sho but appear only sho

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

you yourself sited on its surface , go exactly down until gets other surface (between both surfaces there is earth)

Good grief. Are you just pretending not to understand?

Let's take this very slowly so you might have a chance of understanding.

First, the surface of an object is purely 2 dimensional. This is an analogy for the volume of the universe, using 1 less dimension.

I am sitting at a square table which is about 1 metre on each side. Therefore the surface area is 1 m². You do not need to go up or down to find the edges (because that would mean leaving the surface). The edge is around the edge of the surface. That is why it is called surface area.

So, as you say: the surface area is finite "because" it has an edge.

Now, if we consider the Earth, it has a surface area of about 510,072,000 km². You do not need to go up or down to find the edges (because that would mean leaving the surface). You need to stay on the surface and find the edge. Where is the edge of the surface of the Earth?

You cannot talk about going up or down because that has nothing to do with the surface.

So, contrary to your "logic": the surface area is finite even though it does not have an edge.

Are you able to understand this?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Earth has limited boundaries (although in other form due to its shape ) it has limited height , length and width

Note: I said SURFACE. That's S U R F A C E. SURFACE. That is why I referred to finite area.

Please tell me where the edge of the SURFACE of the Earth is. I have been all round the Earth and I didn't notice an edge. Is it hidden somewhere?

The edge of the earth is pretty much equivalent to its surface, and it has an infinite area.

I suggest that you use better example then ludicrous one. Capital letter won't help. A very basic fractal mathematics explain that very logically.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

you yourself sited on its surface , go exactly down until gets other surface (between both surfaces there is earth)

Let me explain you another way.
They say the surface of the earth is without boundary because you cannot find a way to determine a boundary on a sphere. But that is NOT the reason.
The reason is they did not care to define the rules by which a boundary is defined.

They forget that missing part of their logic because they are clueless about how to explain their faith about the boundaries of space-time.

Even a sheet of paper has no boundaries. If you are an ant and reach the "edge" you just flip over and continue on the back side, for ever and ever.

So definition of border/edge, do count if you want to understand where they are, and ultimately be able to put a finite number on a thing.

Your argument about what is there beyond an edge it totally correct, except it does not concern space-time no more than the strange argument of Strange.

Space time is very finite in our knowledge of it, QM seems to lead to the fact that we cannot even put any number on it. It is not countable.

It is then a question of word, to say that that thing you cannot count is infinite or finite.

Anyway it will still be very logic, when approached by logic, and quacking when approached by a duck.

Damn, why do I keep looking at latest posts before logging in?

Originally Posted by Boing3000

The edge of the earth is pretty much equivalent to its surface, and it has an infinite area.

On a practical level this is nonsense.

A very basic fractal mathematics explain that very logically.

I suggest you look again.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Even a sheet of paper has no boundaries.

So you're agreeing that the surface of the Earth has no boundary? Good.

Space time is very finite in our knowledge of it

Finite. Good you're getting there.

QM seems to lead to the fact that we cannot even put any number on it. It is not countable.

Please show how this is correct.

Anyway it will still be very logic, when approached by logic, and quacking when approached by a duck.

I note that, as usual, your posts seem to consist greatly of attacks on me.
Some sort of obsession, perhaps?
Especially since not a single one of those posts actually refutes anything I've actually said.

mr Duck forget about that guy.

how would you say the surface area of Earth is infinite when we know that its 500,070,000KM^2. is that figure infinite or that guy can't count?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Damn, why do I keep looking at latest posts before logging in?

Originally Posted by Boing3000

The edge of the earth is pretty much equivalent to its surface, and it has an infinite area.

On a practical level this is nonsense.

A very basic fractal mathematics explain that very logically.

I suggest you look again.

I suggest you read again, not just look.

The fact the the surface of the earth in infinite do not imply that its volume(space) is. I think Raj_K will get that. You, I doubt.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Even a sheet of paper has no boundaries.

So you're agreeing that the surface of the Earth has no boundary? Good.

This quote was mine, so I correct this quack.
Ho, and you get it upside down again. The surface of the earth IS a boundary. So it has one, itself.

Space time is very finite in our knowledge of it

Finite. Good you're getting there.

Where again ?

QM seems to lead to the fact that we cannot even put any number on it. It is not countable.

Please show how this is correct.

I don't think I could explain the QM to someone that say that because a ball is not in cup n°5, it can still be there. Sorry.

Anyway it will still be very logic, when approached by logic, and quacking when approached by a duck.

I note that, as usual, your posts seem to consist greatly of attacks on me.
Some sort of obsession, perhaps?

I know your obsession about feeling attacked will persist. I cannot help you.
You will continue to quack nonsense at everybody, and when they will refute your arguments, they will be attacking you. And you made quite a lot of them.

Especially since not a single one of those posts actually refutes anything I've actually said.

See ?

The Boing troll is back.

Originally Posted by merumario

mr Duck forget about that guy.

how would you say the surface area of Earth is infinite when we know that its 500,070,000KM^2. is that figure infinite or that guy can't count?

lol
Let me clarify for you. If there is something that is definitively uncountable it is the surface of the earth. Maybe you should try, once. I am waiting your response, at the restaurant at the end of the universe.

In fact, earth surface is finite, but uncountable. I was making the point that even if it were a Menger sponge, an infinite surface can perfectly sit into a finite space.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Even a sheet of paper has no boundaries.

What? I have just checked. All my sheets of paper have 4 edges (or 1, if you want to consider it a single, continuous boundary).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Even a sheet of paper has no boundaries.

What? I have just checked. All my sheets of paper have 4 edges (or 1, if you want to consider it a single, continuous boundary).

Yes edges. Not boundaries. If you want to convince someone that the universe has no edges (I think Raj_K is all for it) you may continue this line of thought.

Meanwhile a surface of a paper sheet is a cube. Last time I checked, but I still have good eyes. There is no more boundaries on a cube than on a sphere.

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Originally Posted by merumario

mr Duck forget about that guy.

how would you say the surface area of Earth is infinite when we know that its 500,070,000KM^2. is that figure infinite or that guy can't count?

lol
Let me clarify for you. If there is something that is definitively uncountable it is the surface of the earth. Maybe you should try, once. I am waiting your response, at the restaurant at the end of the universe.

In fact, earth surface is finite, but uncountable. I was making the point that even if it were a Menger sponge, an infinite surface can perfectly sit into a finite space.

that is only true depending on the conditions on how you want to count the surface area.like every strange's paper sheet,mine has an edge.

you do not see your because you cannot recognize one.do you think you will ever see one,if you keep turning the paper sheet to the other side without knowing where you started from?

'to see an edge you must note that you actually turned in other to see the other side' this is analogous to earths surface.only that can note a starting point and then count after getting to that point look at my reading. however i will see no edge,because did not need to turn Earth before i saw Africa,was only required to keep moving(which is different from the paper sheet).

Boing, you are one of the most reported members for trolling on these boards. You've been given several temporary suspensions for the same things. You don't contribute in meaningful ways and usually find some meaningless triviality not germane to the discussion to fixate on and derail the thread. I offer this only so you may learn from your mistakes if you join another forum.

Good Bye.

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Originally Posted by merumario

mr Duck forget about that guy.

how would you say the surface area of Earth is infinite when we know that its 500,070,000KM^2. is that figure infinite or that guy can't count?

lol
Let me clarify for you. If there is something that is definitively uncountable it is the surface of the earth. Maybe you should try, once. I am waiting your response, at the restaurant at the end of the universe.

In fact, earth surface is finite, but uncountable. I was making the point that even if it were a Menger sponge, an infinite surface can perfectly sit into a finite space.

that is only true depending on the conditions on how you want to count the surface area.like every strange's paper sheet,mine has an edge.

you do not see your because you cannot recognize one.do you think you will ever see one,if you keep turning the paper sheet to the other side without knowing where you started from?

'to see an edge you must note that you actually turned in other to see the other side' this is analogous to earths surface.only that can note a starting point and then count after getting to that point look at my reading. however i will see no edge,because did not need to turn Earth before i saw Africa,was only required to keep moving(which is different from the paper sheet).

For the record,

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Back to space.
Raj_K is very correct to say space is unlimited, if by space he means something you can compare against something else. Like those crackpot that believe that space and time begin at the big bang, without bothering with the fact that does not even make scientific sense nor it is even needed as a part of a mix of a few theory and wild conjecture named the Big Bang model. A creationist model BTW

Our observations tell us that the universe is expanding and thus it used to be smaller. The gaps between the galaxies used to be smaller. The further back in time we look, the smaller the scale factor of the universe. This implies that if we go back far enough we reach a point where there is no space between things at all - space ceases to have any meaning. According to General Relativity (our best theory of how space and time are affected by the density of matter - i.e. gravity), at that point, time also ceases to have any meaning.

This is a logical conclusion, based on our observations and our best theory of gravity. It makes perfect sense, scientifically. It is logical.

BUT.. that doesn't mean it is correct. It is generally accepted that we are pushing GR beyond its domain of applicability when we reach that point. The reason for this is that when infinity starts falling out of the equations, as it does in GR at the Big-Bang, then it is considered non-physical. So we don't think the universe can actually have had infinite density, where there is no meaning to space or time. This is also a logical conclusion to make.

So, the current state of the Big-Bang theory is that the universe is thought to have expanded from a very hot dense state, to a cooler less dense state, and the theory says nothing at all about their ever being no space or no time, or that space and time "started" at the Big-Bang. It does however state that, whilst our best theory (GR) produces singular behaviour at the Big-Bang, then space and time according to GR started there, but this is because GR breaks down there. There is a distinct difference between these two concepts and that is the only logical conclusion we can take from all this. To call our current consensus cosmology "crackpot" is to misunderstand what the current consensus is, and is a global ad-hominem to boot.

Whaou, "utter bunkum" is gone, and your post is still not edited, Kudos to logic again.

I quickly decided to remove the statement that your post was "utter bunkum", as it was not required for me to state that, as it was just stating the obvious. I removed it only a few moments after posting, so the post doesn't show as edited. That is the only logical conclusion to that particular point!

Originally Posted by Boing3000

It is also fine to conjure ad-hominen to the rescue, because the crackpot I debunked were not the scientist (see the green bold) but the people that troll forum misinterpreting the science for religious purpose. I don't think you know which group you belongs to.

I am not part of that group, as I am not at all religious. The ad-hominem was not to do directly with the part you highlighted in green. It was your linking of the term "crackpot" with the rest of that long run-on sentence - "a mix of a few theory and wild conjecture named the Big Bang model" and then claiming that Big-Bang theory is a "creationist" theory. You were claiming that anyone who accepts the "wild conjecture named the Big Bang model" was a creationist and a crackpot.

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Yet you belong to the group of people with bad logic. No scientist can describe what happens then nor even test it, even GR breaks down. The only logical conclusion is to say we don't know what space was before.
If you say otherwise, like "space and time begin at BB" then your are a crackpot sir.

But I didn't say that. How I summed it all up was to say:

"the theory says nothing at all about their ever being no space or no time, or that space and time "started" at the Big-Bang. It does however state that, whilst our best theory (GR) produces singular behaviour at the Big-Bang, then space and time according to GR started there, but this is because GR breaks down there. There is a distinct difference between these two concepts and that is the only logical conclusion we can take from all this."

Originally Posted by Boing3000

My green quote does not contain scientist, because no scientist is stupid enough to make such illogical leap of faith.

When a theories ceases to have any meaning, the thing they describe does not vanish. It is just the theory that stop, not the universe.
If you don't understand that, I suggest a basic logic course.

It is not your green quote that bothered me, it was the "wild conjecture named the Big-Bang model being a creationist theory" that bothered me, plus your linking that to "crackpot" via a long run on sentence.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

you yourself sited on its surface , go exactly down until gets other surface (between both surfaces there is earth)

Good grief. Are you just pretending not to understand?

Let's take this very slowly so you might have a chance of understanding.

First, the surface of an object is purely 2 dimensional. This is an analogy for the volume of the universe, using 1 less dimension.

I am sitting at a square table which is about 1 metre on each side. Therefore the surface area is 1 m². You do not need to go up or down to find the edges (because that would mean leaving the surface). The edge is around the edge of the surface. That is why it is called surface area.

So, as you say: the surface area is finite "because" it has an edge.

Now, if we consider the Earth, it has a surface area of about 510,072,000 km². You do not need to go up or down to find the edges (because that would mean leaving the surface). You need to stay on the surface and find the edge. Where is the edge of the surface of the Earth?

You cannot talk about going up or down because that has nothing to do with the surface.

So, contrary to your "logic": the surface area is finite even though it does not have an edge.

Are you able to understand this?

Nothing more than unrelated to main point
It is not matter, whether space or earth has edge or has surface
Main point that if space is limited, it has limited Height , Weight and length Like earth
It does not matter what is shape of space round,square or other
You know what is around earth ?
Exactly what would be around space if it is limited?

I hope you will not come to the point and fill post with just meaningless & unrelated lines

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

you yourself sited on its surface , go exactly down until gets other surface (between both surfaces there is earth)

Good grief. Are you just pretending not to understand?

Let's take this very slowly so you might have a chance of understanding.

First, the surface of an object is purely 2 dimensional. This is an analogy for the volume of the universe, using 1 less dimension.

I am sitting at a square table which is about 1 metre on each side. Therefore the surface area is 1 m². You do not need to go up or down to find the edges (because that would mean leaving the surface). The edge is around the edge of the surface. That is why it is called surface area.

So, as you say: the surface area is finite "because" it has an edge.

Now, if we consider the Earth, it has a surface area of about 510,072,000 km². You do not need to go up or down to find the edges (because that would mean leaving the surface). You need to stay on the surface and find the edge. Where is the edge of the surface of the Earth?

You cannot talk about going up or down because that has nothing to do with the surface.

So, contrary to your "logic": the surface area is finite even though it does not have an edge.

Are you able to understand this?

Nothing more than unrelated to main point
It is not matter, whether space or earth has edge or has surface
Main point that if space is limited, it has limited Height , Weight and length Like earth
It does not matter what is shape of space round,square or other
You know what is around earth ?
Exactly what would be around space if it is limited?

I hope you will not come to the point and fill post with just meaningless & unrelated lines

i hope you take note of the word if the universe is limited.

Try not to be more specific when speaking about the unlimited and limited space.(Unless you have evidence that we don't,because Ƒor now we can consider that any could be right).

So it will better to Say if space is either limited or unlimited(lack of evidence makes you address both equal).

BTW, several people here (although I can't quite keep track of who at this point) should probably read up on the Unexpected Hanging Paradox. It's existence does not imply that logic as a whole is faulty. Also, incomplete and inconsistent are two different things. In an incomplete system (like most formal logical systems, arithmetic, etc.) anything you can prove true is definitely true (again, under the give axioms) but there are things that are true but can't be proven true.

As for the edge of space, who knows, maybe there is one. No one can see far enough to tell. But our current best understanding of the universe suggests that there won't be one even if we find a way to go look for it. Now, that still doesn't tell us whether space is finite or infinite as it could wrap around on to itself making it finite but without edge. Again, we don't know the answer at the moment.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Nothing more than unrelated to main point
It is not matter, whether space or earth has edge or has surface
Main point that if space is limited, it has limited Height , Weight and length Like earth
It does not matter what is shape of space round,square or other
You know what is around earth ?
Exactly what would be around space if it is limited?

I hope you will not come to the point and fill post with just meaningless & unrelated lines

Ah, when all else fails it's good to have the reliabale old argument from incredulity to fall back on.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Nothing more than unrelated to main point
It is not matter, whether space or earth has edge or has surface
Main point that if space is limited, it has limited Height , Weight and length Like earth

It is exactly the main point.

The 2D surface of my table has width and length (no height because we are talking about a surface).

You are arguing that the universe is like this (with the added 3rd dimension). And it may be.

However, the surface of the Earth a sphere (*) does not have width and length (again, no height because we are talking about a surface). And yet it still has a finite area.

I am pointing out that the universe could be like this (with the added 3rd dimension).

(*) Let's talk about a sphere as I don't want you making irrelevant comments about mountains or digging holes.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

BTW, several people here (although I can't quite keep track of who at this point) should probably read up on the Unexpected Hanging Paradox. It's existence does not imply that logic as a whole is faulty. Also, incomplete and inconsistent are two different things. In an incomplete system (like most formal logical systems, arithmetic, etc.) anything you can prove true is definitely true (again, under the give axioms) but there are things that are true but can't be proven true.

As for the edge of space, who knows, maybe there is one. No one can see far enough to tell. But our current best understanding of the universe suggests that there won't be one even if we find a way to go look for it. Now, that still doesn't tell us whether space is finite or infinite as it could wrap around on to itself making it finite but without edge. Again, we don't know the answer at the moment.

Thing is, there is no way there can be an edge to space that I can think of? An edge implies inescapably that there are two sides to the edge, which would mean that there would be a "there" on the other side of that edge, so no real edge at all. Space itself is not the definition of "nothing". The definition of "nothing" is like the 7th side of a standard die. It is complete non-existence of any properties, including dimensions.

It follows then that the universe either has curvature of some kind (intrinsic/extrinsic), or it is infinite. Neither of those possibilities excludes a big bang, but to my mind the first option fits better.


I am sure you know all of the above already. Just pointing out for clarity (assuming I didn't make any mistakes).

Тнιѕ thread is mainly about logic. The idea that it has shifted to the discussion of the possible nature of the universe is not quite professional from us.

It is logical to say space is either finite or infinite(without no further evidence or info). on the other hand it is not logical to say space is infinite and not finite(without further evidence or info)

If there is no evidence to enable us pick one above the other,then both must be seen as equal.

Originally Posted by merumario

This thread is mainly about logic. The idea that it has shifted to the discussion of the possible nature of the universe is not quite professional from us.

I think it is relevant because it shows how people will use what they consider to be "logic" (i.e. whether something makes sense to them, personally) in order to justify their beliefs (RAJ_K and Forrest Noble being prime examples).

And even when people do understand logic (as in the case of the OP) they may think they are some sort of absolute truth, rather than a rather arbitrary mathematical tool.

I think examples countering both of these errors are useful to the discussion.

without eroding the value of the above i still would want us to come back home as early as possible!

Well... since we're on the subject of logic:

Originally Posted by merumario

If there is no evidence to enable us pick one above the other,then both must be seen as equal.

I'd say that's incorrect.
Lacking evidence either way does not, automatically, assign 50/ 50 probability.

If I recall we had much the same with... er, someone, in the last month or so, regarding the existence of god (or not).
Their claim was that, since we couldn't prove it either way, it MUST be 50/ 50. Which is blatantly incorrect.

duck you are getting it wrong. i suppose you followed the six cup experiement above? since we were told the ball is under one ball but we have no further info to think that its the 3rd or 1st cup,all cups then have possibility of having the cup underneath them.

in the case of the universe(we are still in progress and the thing can turn either way) so if we assume that we had no prior evidence to show that one has a greater probability,then both are equally possible.

i believe that the above is clear enough to understand.

duck you are getting it wrong. i suppose you followed the six cup experiement above? since we were told the ball is under one ball but we have no further info to think that its the 3rd or 1st cup,all cups then have possibility of having the cup underneath them.

in the case of the universe(we are still in progress and the thing can turn either way) so if we assume that we had no prior evidence to show that one has a greater probability,then both are equally possible.

i believe that the above is clear enough to understand.

Originally Posted by merumario

duck you are getting it wrong.

Really?

i suppose you followed the six cup experiement above?

I suppose you noticed that I was the one who posted it?

since we were told the ball is under one ball but we have no further info to think that its the 3rd or 1st cup,all cups then have possibility of having the cup underneath them.

Um, we were also told that it would be a surprise.
Granted - it could be under the 3rd (or whatever) cup. BUT, as pointed out, it cannot be under the 6th - because it wouldn't be a surprise.
And, given that conclusion, the rest follows: it can't be under the 5th, or the 4th, or the 3rd, or...

in the case of the universe(we are still in progress and the thing can turn either way) so if we assume that we had no prior evidence to show that one has a greater probability,then both are equally possible.

Incorrect.

i believe that the above is clear enough to understand.

It's clear. It's also clear that you're not looking at it correctly.
If there is a lack of evidence you cannot assign probabilities - at all.
You might as well say that since there's an equal lack of evidence that a giant ant rolls the universe up before going to bed every night then the probabilities are: 1/3 finite, 1/3 infinite and 1/3 giant ant buggering about with it.
Add further "equally likely" (i.e. unevidenced) guesses at will.

Please see my "childishly simple logic" (post #45) for the universe being finite in extent ¹. Is there one for it being infinite?

1 Boing's explanation for it being infinite (but in "capacity" rather than extent) - post #47 - is ridiculously flawed ²: there is NOT an infinite number of places, since there is a smallest possible length that means that all locations are discrete and contiguous: you're either here or there, but you can't be inbetween the two. Ergo, possible locations, in a given finite space, are also finite.
2 But that was to be expected.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Well... since we're on the subject of logic:

Originally Posted by merumario

If there is no evidence to enable us pick one above the other,then both must be seen as equal.

I'd say that's incorrect.
Lacking evidence either way does not, automatically, assign 50/ 50 probability.

If I recall we had much the same with... er, someone, in the last month or so, regarding the existence of god (or not).
Their claim was that, since we couldn't prove it either way, it MUST be 50/ 50. Which is blatantly incorrect.

Absolutely right

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by merumario

This thread is mainly about logic. The idea that it has shifted to the discussion of the possible nature of the universe is not quite professional from us.

I think it is relevant because it shows how people will use what they consider to be "logic" (i.e. whether something makes sense to them, personally) in order to justify their beliefs (RAJ_K and Forrest Noble being prime examples).

And even when people do understand logic (as in the case of the OP) they may think they are some sort of absolute truth, rather than a rather arbitrary mathematical tool.

I think examples countering both of these errors are useful to the discussion.

Do you mean earth planet has no length, width or height at any sense (although this is not related to topic)
Question is still yet
What can be around space if it is limited ?
Nothing ? even if it is nothing it is yet space

Originally Posted by merumario

Тнιѕ thread is mainly about logic. The idea that it has shifted to the discussion of the possible nature of the universe is not quite professional from us.

It is logical to say space is either finite or infinite(without no further evidence or info). on the other hand it is not logical to say space is infinite and not finite(without further evidence or info)

If there is no evidence to enable us pick one above the other,then both must be seen as equal.

Dywyddyr 's example does not show this wrong at any way: A true logic does not violate other true logic, if it does one of them must have error
Truth is truth and can never violate other truth
This is Natural equilibrium
If have any problem give example

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Do you mean earth planet has no length, width or height at any sense

That's NOT what was said.
Go back and read it.

Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Dywyddyr 's example does not show this wrong at any way

Yet you stated that I was "absolutely correct".

A true logic does not violate other true logic, if it does one of them must have error

Oops, it's already been pointed out that is incorrect.

Truth is truth and can never violate other truth

Only if those two "truths" are derived from the same "set".