Thread: Infinity cannot exist in reality

Hi all.

I well know that infinity is embedded into the thinking of science.

However,what arguements are there against it in reality over theory? well infinity is defined as Several differing attitudes, so it should be made clear which type is being discussed. This is not about "mathematical" infinity , which is used extensively. It is about time, space and universe infinity which has also been given the characteristics of infinity that mean"goes on forever"....This is very different to a concept of infinity meaning "unmeasurable"

If time and space were see as being "unmeasurable", But finite, Then every theory relating to physics would be different to science that assumed position of infinity "goes on forever and ever".

So the disussion may for a start seek to more closely define the subject before moving on.

I am in favour of an "unmeasurable" universe over a universe which "goes on for ever and ever" . Please can we stay away as much as possible from it having anything to do with religion as this is not the basis for the reason.

Cheers
iseason

A space can be infinite and finite at the same time because an object can snrink when it goes forwards
and enlarge when it goes backwards.There are other possibilities as well.This pertains to the space part.

Originally Posted by iseason

Please can we stay away as much as possible from it having anything to do with religion as this is not the basis for the reason.

There doesn't seem to be any reason. Other than your personal preference.

The universe may be infinite in time. Or not. We don't know.

The universe may be spatially infinite. Or not. We don't know.

Hello iseason and welcome ot the forum. I found several of your comments puzzling.

Originally Posted by iseason

well infinity is defined as Several differing attitudes, so it should be made clear which type is being discussed.

Perhaps English is not your native language. That would explain why you say infinity is defined as an attitude. That makes no sense to me. Could you explain what you mean.

Originally Posted by iseason

It is about time, space and universe infinity which has also been given the characteristics of infinity that mean"goes on forever"....This is very different to a concept of infinity meaning "unmeasurable"

I have never seen infinity described as unmeasurable. Is this a common definition?

Originally Posted by iseason

If time and space were see as being "unmeasurable", But finite, Then every theory relating to physics would be different to science that assumed position of infinity "goes on forever and ever".

Most physical theories I am aware of are indifferent to whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to give an example of some that would be influenced?

Originally Posted by lightspeed

A space can be infinite and finite at the same time because an object can shrink when it goes forwards
and enlarge when it goes backwards.There are other possibilities as well.This pertains to the space part.

I think I'm about to sound really stupid, but...correct me if I'm wrong but surely, if something is infinity big, it can shrink as much as it likes and it will STILL be infinitely big? Similarly if an object is finite in size it can grow as much as it likes but will still never be infinite? It seems that particular threshold cannot be crossed.

Also, to OP, existence must be infinite. If it were to have an edge, then whatever is beyond that edge must also be part of it, because even if there is nothingness beyond that edge surely that would count as "existence" too right? Furthermore, things must get infinity small...because what makes up the smallest particle? So wouldn't that make ALL objects, at least relatively, infinity big?

^ On second thought that was a stupid thing of me to say, since no single particle would ever actually get "Infinity small," it would just get closer and closer to being infinity small, like a asymptote on a 1/X graph >.>

Originally Posted by VincentProud

I think I'm about to sound really stupid, but...correct me if I'm wrong but surely, if something is infinity big, it can shrink as much as it likes and it will STILL be infinitely big? Similarly if an object is finite in size it can grow as much as it likes but will still never be infinite?

Absolutely correct. (Although I'm not sure if it is useful )

I myself have serious issues with the idea of infinity, one of the current issues bothering me with the idea is the 'lack' of uniqueness to fill a possible infinity. That said I guess theoretically I could accept the concept of an infinity that repeats on itself like a time loop as this would only require the same events to be replayed and would not require an 'infinite' amount of uniqueness.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I myself have serious issues with the idea of infinity, one of the current issues bothering me with the idea is the 'lack' of uniqueness to fill a possible infinity. That said I guess theoretically I could accept the concept of an infinity that repeats on itself like a time loop as this would only require the same events to be replayed and would not require an 'infinite' amount of uniqueness.

...the 'lack' of uniqueness to fill a possible infinity.

I suppose that would depend on how one defines uniqueness.

It is the perspective that contributes to uniqueness to my way of thinking.

Add to that that no two objects may occupy the same space at the same time and every object is then unique by it's position, at the very least.

Humans are also exceedingly lacking in perception, in some ways, because we tend to look for that which we expect to see, frequently overlooking fascinating uniqueness that is right before our very senses. The human brain is another example of theoretical uniqueness with no two perceiving or experiencing identically.

Photos of Einstein's Brain Show Unique Features | SciTech Daily

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I myself have serious issues with the idea of infinity, one of the current issues bothering me with the idea is the 'lack' of uniqueness to fill a possible infinity. That said I guess theoretically I could accept the concept of an infinity that repeats on itself like a time loop as this would only require the same events to be replayed and would not require an 'infinite' amount of uniqueness.

...the 'lack' of uniqueness to fill a possible infinity.

I suppose that would depend on how one defines uniqueness.

It is the perspective that contributes to uniqueness to my way of thinking.

Add to that that no two objects may occupy the same space at the same time and every object is then unique by it's position, at the very least.

Humans are also exceedingly lacking in perception, in some ways, because we tend to look for that which we expect to see, frequently overlooking fascinating uniqueness that is right before our very senses. The human brain is another example of theoretical uniqueness with no two perceiving or experiencing identically.

Photos of Einstein's Brain Show Unique Features | SciTech Daily

What I mean is this as far as we know there are limits, such as the speed of light, maxium and minimum temperatures, existing and theorically possible types of atoms ect..., the problem as I see it is this, for an infinity to exist that does not just end up repeating it's self it's needs also a infinite amount of uniqueness. This is because with limits such as the possible number of different types of atoms or possitions they could exist in leads to a very large number of absolute possibilities, now this number is yes very large indeed but and here's the point still finite. This means there is a limit, so once all the possibilities have been done it can then only result in a repeat of a previous possibility.

The problem is the interconnectivity of things, meaning once you start to be able to start quantify something you realise somewhere down the line this quantity has a knock on effect on something else.

As I am new to the forum, I expected to see an email informing me of replies.
So i'm sorry that it has taken so long to come back to this discussion.

I've read through the replies and want to add some things to clear up my veiws.

In most discussions i've seen abpout the universe the measure of infinity is used . Generally it is an "attitude" of "well we can't really know for sure". But rather than being of "too big to measure" it seems to have become (in discussions at least), "goes on forever and ever". This side of the arguement is certainly frequent enough for me not to have to show it to begin this discussion.

I am looking at why there might be a finite universe which DOES NOT have something more outside of it that we simply attribute to "another cycle.....

ok.....So where am I coming from. Let's say the universe is finite...Time and space become limited by parameters which are very different from those which would govern a niverse that was infinite. So how different.....?

Well , in an infinite universe, I cannot see how there could be a chance of ANYTHING creating enough cohesion to form any sort of matter.There simply isn't any opportunity for any sort of "rebound effect" which is seen in the stages of big bang theory .So since our universe HAS limits. And therefore I see it as finite.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

Well , in an infinite universe, I cannot see how there could be a chance of ANYTHING creating enough cohesion to form any sort of matter.

I don't really understand that. The effect of gravity and the electromagnetic forces which cause matter to "clump" together to form planets, stars, galaxies, etc falls off rapidly with distance (inverse square law). So, for example, the composition of the Earth and its orbit around the sun are totally unaffected by the distant universe - it makes no difference if the universe is infinite or just very large.

There simply isn't any opportunity for any sort of "rebound effect" which is seen in the stages of big bang theory

.

What do you mean by "rebound effect"?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

Well , in an infinite universe, I cannot see how there could be a chance of ANYTHING creating enough cohesion to form any sort of matter.

I don't really understand that. The effect of gravity and the electromagnetic forces which cause matter to "clump" together to form planets, stars, galaxies, etc falls off rapidly with distance (inverse square law). So, for example, the composition of the Earth and its orbit around the sun are totally unaffected by the distant universe - it makes no difference if the universe is infinite or just very large.

There simply isn't any opportunity for any sort of "rebound effect" which is seen in the stages of big bang theory

.

What do you mean by "rebound effect"?

You are assuming laws to be the same regardless of whether the universe was infinite...(goes on forever) or finite (Limited by parameters)....If the same logic were applied to anthing else which was physical, you'd be better able to observe the difference in the two concepts.

We seem to have a problem with how we veiw infinity in a real physical universe. If t is seen as going on forever and ever, then both internally and externally, there is nothing to "brake" the process. The horizon stretches in both directione "infinitaly". But there could be nothing there as mass and perception of anything relies on an upper limit to expansion . As you correctly said . this is partly due to gravitation. but gravity also relies on the same law.

Infinity cannot be correct because in an infinate universe, nothing changes.Or ever could have. The rebound effect I'm referring to is where the original 'soup" Create base matter. If you accept infinity , then all energy would be stretched "universally" and would remain that way.

i prefer a finite universe , as I said.

Partly because there is not ANY instance of anything in the universe ever being "not in motion", or standing still. Everything MUST move in this universe and this is about the only thing that we can know with absolute certainty.

The fact that everything MUST change position leads me to believe that positions within the universe can be used "only once".It would be necessary to highlight that mass is mostly empty space, so a large mass (like earth) can still move through while not using or repeating a position. My term "position" refers to 'the smallest division".

As I cannot know just how small that is , I cannot measure it . Just as I cannot know how big the universe is. But I can know that it has limits because I measure them (in scale).

Cheers
Iseason

[/QUOTE]Most physical theories I am aware of are indifferent to whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to give an example of some that would be influenced?[/QUOTE]

If you google gravitational singularity for the wiki link,you'll see infinity used as reasonable explaination . "yeah we can't go that far , so we''ll call it infinity and that explains that part"

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Infinity (symbol: ∞) refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. The English word infinity derives from Latin infinitas, which can be translated as "unboundedness", itself derived from the Greek word apeiros, meaning "endless".^[1]


Cheers
Iseason

Hi all

I must say i'm dissapointed in not getting reasonable discussion on this subject.Not surprised, Just dissapointed.

So I will give some solutions that can be reasonably achieved if the universe were finite. I was really happy when a reply said that infinately big and small amounted to the same thing. I believe that the concept is right on the money. In fact the solution to the toe is

1 =whole.

While this seems fairly simple , the reasoning has many different fundamental concepts to be understood. Almost all of these are valid scientific laws which we apply as unnassailable truths , but don't have enough reasons as to why.
It has been accepted that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I agree with this , but have a lot of trouble understanding why universal statements ignore this fundamental law and allow "infinite" . I also have found it to e very unnecessary for energy to be seen as abundant . This part of my explaination is going to be hard to fathon. The universe has no more that "1" measure of energy. Although we see lots of energy, this is because we have no choice but to ollow the time line which we can understand.In other words, if we could get the universe to "stop" we would only have 1 quanta of 'energy' and that would be all that exists.

This allows it to be both the smallest and the largest . And this can be either 1 or whole.

If we understood the universe as it really is , we first have to remove the order that we percieve through a time view and replace it with a logical sequence.the sequence can be used to create logical patterns which when run according to a timeline view means that our universe becomes "inevitible". This has already been shown to be the case in nature with fractals.This example of natures liklihood of following a pre-determined sequence is good , but doesn't go far enough. What's missing is how it is that this pattern holds true. The reason is that it is already "the solution" and we only feel we are "experienceing it" because we cannot step outside and understand it without following a time impacted viewpoint.

For example....There is no necessity for all points of "time" to have occurred in the order that we see them . You could easily 'if your view allowed' see one occurrence which produced a quanta of 'energy' in your lab , followed by the next in the sequence which not only could occur on the other side of the universe "as we measure it now" but it could also be at different ends of the timeline.What this means is that in a logical sequence, the universe is built one pixel at a time and from every part of the timeline. This matches a "big Bang" which occurs every where in the universe .

This is similar to the "many worlds view", except that it only allows one solution but with a finite number of variations which create that solution only if you view it in a time line. In other words we can seperate individual "snaphots of the universe ". If that snapshot were equal to taking a photograph , then we would see a cross section of occurrences which actually spanned ALL time.

But if that snapshot were to follow how it naturally occurs , the universe would show one dot in one 'position' of the universe at the beginning of "time" and the next at the conclusion of "time". Each "next position " while increasing the time view , don't need to be seen by us as closely related in time or space. This may seem strange when you decide, ...how can this happen across such a vast distance...look to Einstien's "spooky action at a distance".

By necessity, the universe must be finite to allow us to bein fact reviewing the sequence. But not only that , it must be completed, Whole, unchangable , finished, a done deal. There is no possibility that we can affect the outcome. We are simply folloing the pattern which has already reached it's conclusion and like the fractals pattern , this was the most likely to work and completed to what we can observe.

Yes . It means that we cannot affect the outcome AT ALL. Whatever we do is "inevitible" and what we were always going to do. I could sai, "well , I want to do something different " and then choose to go East when I was planning to go West. How niave, The sequence was completed with you going the way you were always going to go. In fact there is not the slightest possibility of me changing any part of the sequence or affecting the outcome.

While people may see this as a God Theory, I beg to differ in the exreme. The theory needs every event to be present within it and this includes the actions of religious belief, but equally , the belief in santa clause and aliens from outer space.If it happened , then it was absolutely contained within the attern.

Think of it this way......If I built a computer program , I could do so in many complex ways. But it would only function correctly if it contained every byte put into the correct order. If I removed any, there would be noticable changes in the functionality.having said that. There is nothing to stop me from creating the finishing lines of data before starting the beginning and the order of the progremme only becomes important when a decision is made as to how I want it to run.

I would be interested to see any easily recognisable law which could not be explained with this as a basis. Please don't try to get me jumping through hoops as that won't get us anywhere. What I'm talking about is the main laws we all follow. i gave an example in this post with action at a distance. That is easily correct.

Cheers
Iseeson

Originally Posted by iseason

Originally Posted by John Galt

Most physical theories I am aware of are indifferent to whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to give an example of some that would be influenced?

If you google gravitational singularity for the wiki link,you'll see infinity used as reasonable explaination . "yeah we can't go that far , so we''ll call it infinity and that explains that part"

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Infinity (symbol: ∞) refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. The English word infinity derives from Latin infinitas, which can be translated as "unboundedness", itself derived from the Greek word apeiros, meaning "endless".^[1]


Cheers
Iseason

Very well - but the infinity associated with black holes has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to try again. What physical theory is different or rendered invalid if the universe is infinite rather than finite? Or vice versa.

I must say i'm dissapointed in not getting reasonable discussion on this subject

You haven't helped matters by using vague terms and misapplying terms. It makes it very difficult to understand what you mean or what you are asking.

Originally Posted by iseason

I was really happy when a reply said that infinately big and small amounted to the same thing.

Did anyone say that? Sounds mutually contradictory and therefore wrong.

In fact the solution to the toe is

1 =whole.

While this seems fairly simple

Simple and faily meaningless?

It has been accepted that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I agree with this , but have a lot of trouble understanding why universal statements ignore this fundamental law and allow "infinite"

I don't see what the conservation law has to with finite or infinite.

This part of my explaination is going to be hard to fathon.

You can say that again. You seem to have a vivid imagination but no understanding of maths or physics.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by iseason

Originally Posted by John Galt

Most physical theories I am aware of are indifferent to whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to give an example of some that would be influenced?

If you google gravitational singularity for the wiki link,you'll see infinity used as reasonable explaination . "yeah we can't go that far , so we''ll call it infinity and that explains that part"

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Infinity (symbol: ∞) refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. The English word infinity derives from Latin infinitas, which can be translated as "unboundedness", itself derived from the Greek word apeiros, meaning "endless".^[1]


Cheers
Iseason

Very well - but the infinity associated with black holes has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to try again. What physical theory is different or rendered invalid if the universe is infinite rather than finite? Or vice versa.

it's very relevant..Any acceptance of infinity ncoupmasses the whole universe. Infinite "anthing cannot be a seperate state.

I must say i'm dissapointed in not getting reasonable discussion on this subject

You haven't helped matters by using vague terms and misapplying terms. It makes it very difficult to understand what you mean or what you are asking.

No ...I'm being quite clear. I have not seen any posts taking the time to think about what a finite universe would look like. That is my main point. I have had this discussion before and every arguement is pro infinite universe.

Taken from Wikipedia "infinity"
Cosmology

In 1584, Bruno proposed an unbounded universe in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds: "Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve around these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Cosmologists have long sought to discover whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By travelling in a straight line one will eventually return to the exact spot one started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology; if one travelled in a straight line through the universe perhaps one would eventually revisit one's starting point.
If, on the other hand, the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe. The Planck spacecraft launched in 2009 is expected to record the cosmic background radiation with 10 times higher precision, and will give more insight into the question of whether the universe is infinite or not.

Because the answer to whether the universe is infinite or not can be answered by the fact that we are self aware, it seems to me to be luducris that we aren't understanding it in this context. We should be better able to understand the sequence and therefore predict the actual size (both icro and macro using these parameters.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

No ...I'm being quite clear. I have not seen any posts taking the time to think about what a finite universe would look like. That is my main point. I have had this discussion before and every arguement is pro infinite universe.

Modern cosmology considers both options. There is no definitive evidence one way or the other. There is some evidence that the universe may be "flat" overall. This could suggest an infinite universe but it is not necessarily so.

Taken from Wikipedia "infinity"
... This is an open question of cosmology. ...

See: an open question.

Because the answer to whether the universe is infinite or not can be answered by the fact that we are self aware

How is the size and topology of the universe connected to the fact we are self aware?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

I was really happy when a reply said that infinately big and small amounted to the same thing.

Did anyone say that? Sounds mutually contradictory and therefore wrong.

In fact the solution to the toe is

1 =whole.

While this seems fairly simple

Simple and faily meaningless?

It has been accepted that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I agree with this , but have a lot of trouble understanding why universal statements ignore this fundamental law and allow "infinite"

I don't see what the conservation law has to with finite or infinite.

This part of my explaination is going to be hard to fathon.

You can say that again. You seem to have a vivid imagination but no understanding of maths or physics.

The laws of conservation relate to a veiw that there is "a lot of energy" . My statement was simply agreeing with them(in principle). However I go further and say that the laws don't give a reason as to why it should be so. Also , I challenge the need for the universe to contain lots of energy present "at one time"

You say I have no understanding of physics. I can agree with that if you are talking about specialist areas.but in most general areas I can keep up.

Here is another interesting lokk at errors we make.

We were taught about dimensions in high school. I also see debates going on in chats about time as a fourth dimension..
In fact, time is a tool to measure the motion of a 3d object in space.

1 dimension cannot exist in reality as a dot must have 3 dimensions in the real world. This is also the case for two dimensions in reality.

Only three dimensions are possible in a time measured universe.
Equally , when you look at what CAN actually exist in the reality of space , it also relies on multiple events.you simply have one without all. so when I look at an object,

You can't have mass without space and momentum
you cant have momentum without space and mass
you can't have space without momentum and mass

Time is only a measure for determining where these are in relation to other events. So none of the above are real events because none can exist on their own account , but must only be seen together with the time measure.As I said , It's the method that we use to understand our universe which is flawed.

But not because this isn't what we see. It's because what we see isn't what it seems.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

No ...I'm being quite clear. I have not seen any posts taking the time to think about what a finite universe would look like. That is my main point. I have had this discussion before and every arguement is pro infinite universe.

Modern cosmology considers both options. There is no definitive evidence one way or the other. There is some evidence that the universe may be "flat" overall. This could suggest an infinite universe but it is not necessarily so.

Taken from Wikipedia "infinity"
... This is an open question of cosmology. ...

See: an open question.

Because the answer to whether the universe is infinite or not can be answered by the fact that we are self aware

How is the size and topology of the universe connected to the fact we are self aware?

existance at all proves that we are not in an infinite universe as I have stated previously. You also quoted a very small part of the statement. The paragraph quoted the term infinity with much more conviction than finite as this is the more popular view.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

The laws of conservation relate to a veiw that there is "a lot of energy" .

Conservation laws say nothing about how much energy there is, only that it is constant.

However I go further and say that the laws don't give a reason as to why it should be so.

Why what should be so?

Also , I challenge the need for the universe to contain lots of energy present "at one time"

It can be argued that the total energy of the universe is zero. Does that make you happier?

You say I have no understanding of physics. I can agree with that if you are talking about specialist areas.but in most general areas I can keep up.

I see little evidence of that.

We were taught about dimensions in high school. I also see debates going on in chats about time as a fourth dimension..
In fact, time is a tool to measure the motion of a 3d object in space.

But it is also a dimension in mathematics. Again, this seems to be an argument from ignorance.

1 dimension cannot exist in reality as a dot must have 3 dimensions in the real world. This is also the case for two dimensions in reality.

You are confusing mathematical abstractions with physical objects.

Only three dimensions are possible in a time measured universe.

Three spatial, one time.

Equally , when you look at what CAN actually exist in the reality of space , it also relies on multiple events.you simply have one without all. so when I look at an object,

So none of the above are real events because none can exist on their own account

You appear to have slipped back into meaningless platitudes. Sorry.

As I said , It's the method that we use to understand our universe which is flawed.

Well, it seems to work. Saying that things like mass and momentum don't exist is not really going to get us anywhere.

It's because what we see isn't what it seems.

Very profound. At best, that is philosophy, not physics.

Originally Posted by iseason

existance at all proves that we are not in an infinite universe as I have stated previously.

You might have stated it but that doesn't make it true. With no mathematics or evidence it is just what you believe. Which is very nice but of no scientific value.

You also quoted a very small part of the statement. The paragraph quoted the term infinity with much more conviction than finite as this is the more popular view.

More likely it is because you took that from an article on infinity. There fore it is going to talk about infinity.

Hi Strange

What you are doing is not very helpful. You are simply taking peices of a conversation and making commentary in a negative sense.

you are neither arguing for or against a finite universe and returning to "an attitude" which feels it makes no difference. This is because you think I must prove or disprove infinity before meaningful arguement. But If I can see build up in the centre , then there is something preventing both ends of a physical object from being infinite.
I don't need any other proofs to say that.

The other thoughts that i've explained come directly from a picture of a finite universe and how that would work. The solution to the universe needs to be one "not zero" as variation requires a point of difference. If I can paint another picture , it is of a circle (for convenience) which contains exactly one million pixels. The circle has now one million possible variations to place a single pixel.

if I were to set the cycle at a speed that I could follow , I would get the impression that lots of pixels were present at the same time. However , the number of possible patterns is incredibly high , even for just a million pixels. Therefore a rule would be necessary for anything to be discernble. As long as this rule was never broken,the overlapping pathways would be more apparent than empty space. Because of the rule, the pattern becomes stronger in some points , creating the impression that they are visited more often . But in fact the position shifts around because each pixel can only be used once. Try a spirograph which moves it's pattern to the left with each turn and you will see the pattern repeats the same crossover points, but one space over.

That is why I see motion as so important . EVERYTHING in the universe is moving either laterally or spinning.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

What you are doing is not very helpful. You are simply taking peices of a conversation and making commentary in a negative sense.

I'm sorry you see it as negative. But that may be because everything you say appears to be wrong, at best.

you are neither arguing for or against a finite universe

Of course not. Either is possible.

This is because you think I must prove or disprove infinity before meaningful arguement.

I don't think you need to prove anything. But I do think you need more than baseless assertions such as:

But If I can see build up in the centre , then there is something preventing both ends of a physical object from being infinite.

I see nothing in that to say it cannot be infinite. Other than your disbelief.

Well I think this is an interesting topic that comes up often and everyone always tells me that as yet we can't tell whether infinity exists or not, which I suppose is fair enough. But I find it difficult to understand how and why it would exist. What I would be ineteresting and helpful if we could make a list, for and against, all the pros and cons for infinity. So if we've got a list to work from we can make so progress go forward and actually learn from there. As things stand we jsut seem to end up rehashing the same points in each discusion and not really moving the debate on. So with a list taking things forward from those points and consider alternative ideas and theories that fit in and work. I think this would be beneficial and we might all end up learning from it, if nothing else at least we'd be discussing new ideas.

I suppose it is an interesting question. But, at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any way to decide one way or the other.

I'm not sure what the pros and cons of finite vs infinite would be.

Newton worked out that, as a consequence of his law of universal gravitation, the only way to avoid the universe collapsing in on itself was for it to be infinite - so that every point was (on average) pulled equally in all directions.

But of course he didn't know about the expanding universe or General Relativity.

Originally Posted by Strange

I suppose it is an interesting question. But, at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any way to decide one way or the other.

I'm not sure what the pros and cons of finite vs infinite would be.

Newton worked out that, as a consequence of his law of universal gravitation, the only way to avoid the universe collapsing in on itself was for it to be infinite - so that every point was (on average) pulled equally in all directions.

But of course he didn't know about the expanding universe or General Relativity.

Wouldn't the expansion transition from a size smaller than it is now, in the past, due to subsequent expansion, into larger size - then infinite universe count as a con against infinity as, just how does something become big enough to become infinite?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Wouldn't the expansion transition from a size smaller than it is now, in the past, due to subsequent expansion, into larger size - then infinite universe count as a con against infinity as, just how does something become big enough to become infinite?

Good question! I don't think there is any way something can go from being finite to infinite (infinite is more than just "very big"). If the universe is infinite it always has been.

Hi all

Thank you for getting on track.

my original objection to an infinite universe stands out for me as a beginning point. if it was infinite, this means "unbounded" This refers to no beginning and no end. As it implies that it was always so then there is no "outer limit" no "inner limit" ...And the universe must have remained Flat and equally distributed everywhere.

This is not the case and we see a universe which has reasonably well distributed structures , but lots of variation as to where we find it. For me, The vast empty areas are potential positions.(please refer to earlier posts). But they can just as easily represent used positions.

Since it is impossible to see the outer limits of the universe, deciding on the question of finite or infinite rests with what is possible given what we can observe. I can't see the difficulty since most new discovery in cience uses pointers to things that can not actually be seen , but because of behaviours that surround the point of investigation , we can make reasonable assumptions.

Cheers
Iseason

Those of you who dislike the idea that the universe is spatially infinite, do you also feel the same about time? Or do you prefer the universe to be infinite in duration (no beginning or end)?

Just curious as to whether people's intuitions about spatial and temporal extent are related or not...

Hi Strange

Definately time is finite. Since it is simply a tool that we use to interpret what we can observe, then it is nothing in itself.

One area I see major contradictions in is 'time travel'. Time in that context is seen as something maleable and that either the future is sitting out there waiting to be 'discovered or that the past is sitting somewhere intact. The fact is that a moment in time is a snapshot of where EVERYTHING in the universe is at certain point. Since the whole universe is in motion away from this fixed 'measurement' , how then can we return the whole universe back to the configuration that represented a certain 'time'. Or forwards to what would represent our future for that matter.

When we look back at distant galaxies , it is accepted fact that those galaxies will no longer be where we are seeing them and may ave already dissapeared. The very act of "looking back in time" prevents us from affecting it .

The only way I can see of travelling through time is by using a direct pathway towards an event. If I picked the moon , it takes a certain amount of time for light to reach to me from that distance. By approaching it in a direct path, I can continue to observe the event , but I will be informed of the event sooner than I would have been had I remained on Earth, Thus reducing time within a continued event. But I have not affected the event itself and only improved my ability to percieve it quickly.

If I travelled away from the event The same thing applies. I will be increasing the time between the event and my perception of it only.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

Definately time is finite.

So, at some point, time ends. And then ... what? nothing? No more universe? But where did it all go!?

hi Strange,

But it is our view of time and space which I percieve as flawed. Time REQUIRES space. Space REQUIRES time.

going back to a view of a snapshot of the universe. the only part of that picture which was "in our time" was the individual photons that took the photograph. the stars and planets have already moved on .

But each photon could be given a specific order by which it arrived at the photograph. If you only want to view the universe using time , then that will be difficult to understand in a finite universe. because without using time as your measuring stick, nothing actually starts or finishes. the order of the universe JUST IS and there is no need to have any boundaries to show outer limits or inner limits.

Let's say the universe were as I claimed "pixelated". Then regardless of your point of observation , if you "actually stopped" the review process , there would only be one pixel within the whole universe.....or more correctly one variation of the whole. When you speed up the process the picture would become more grainy then masses would begin to appear and motion would become apparent.

So the picture of the universe can follow this pattern and still be in step with what has been observed.

Your question is more along the lines of "why can I see this as if it where happening in a time governed pattern." This is because of the number of pixels you yourself use within the framework. Since the order of the pixels I use is directly linked to everything else that occurs within the universe then I am simply a complex part of a very complex pattern.

It becomes important that with a finite universe , that we understand that it MUST be set in concrete. There is no possible chance of changing the order of what has or will occur. Strange as this seems, we are only a tiny insignificant comma in the great book of the universal pattern and although we matter little, we are as unchangeable as the greatest event.

So what is it all for ? that's a philisophical question. and has no place in understanding how it works.

Cheers
Iseason

OK. But that isn't really what I was asking.

Do you think the universe will last forever or do you think it has a limited life?

I'm just curious about the relationship between a preference for a finite universe and its lifetime.

Hi Strange

I must commend you on your lateral thinking. That's an excellent counter.

But I still must regard the question as flawed by the concept of time. when I take The universe as not created via a timelime view , it is also not able to have a beginning or an end as in a time driven universe. What your asking is whether "after" the completion of the pattern, does it continue to exist.

The answer is that in the same way that big or small have no place in affecting the order, beginning and end just don't exist. Causality is a function of time and as such is driven entirely fom our point of view.

However, I must concede that I cannot prevent my concept from resulting in an infinity. well said.

I will have to give serious thought as to why it is not "forever and ever". Thank you for that question. It doesn't change my thoughts on the concept of order though ....but now I have some homework to do. If the 'whole' always existed and the variation is only discernable via our point of view. Although spacially it does not create an infinity, the whole, being outside of a time line creates (possibly) a true infinity by not having any real variation. This would change the concept to one which measured the universe 'without time'.

If we were to accept that the whole were an infinity, then we must then accept that every pixel were itself an infinity.(since they are one and the same.)

LOL I'm not done yet, but i'm stuck with a limited number of infinities.....ROFL....Have to see what I can do about that.

Cheers
Iseason

Are we talking actual infinities or potential infinities here?

Originally Posted by river_rat

Are we talking actual infinities or potential infinities here?

Welcome river rat

i'm afraid I can't see the difference. I've just painted myself into a corner (please read posts from the beginning. ) A potential infinity won't be any different from an actual infinity as you cannot just "start" an infinity. (except as a mathematical sum)... It always was and always will be an infinity.

but for clarity the objection in the title is in reference to a universe which "goes on forever". My current position is still that it needs to be a universe within limits, but I can't get completely away from a result which appears to need a form of infinity... .

cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

No ...I'm being quite clear.

Sorry, you do not get to decide whther or not you are being clear. That is up to your readers to decide, and more tham one of them have decided you are not being clear. Now answer the question: What physical theory is different if the universe is infinite rather than finite, or is rendered invalid if this is the case?

Originally Posted by iseason

I have had this discussion before and every arguement is pro infinite universe.

I have expressed no views on the finite/infinite nature of the universe. I am asking you to specify what which physical theories would be altered. Please do so without further obfuscation.

Originally Posted by iseason

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by iseason

Originally Posted by John Galt

Most physical theories I am aware of are indifferent to whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to give an example of some that would be influenced?

If you google gravitational singularity for the wiki link,you'll see infinity used as reasonable explaination . "yeah we can't go that far , so we''ll call it infinity and that explains that part"

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Infinity (symbol: ∞) refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. The English word infinity derives from Latin infinitas, which can be translated as "unboundedness", itself derived from the Greek word apeiros, meaning "endless".^[1]


Cheers
Iseason

Very well - but the infinity associated with black holes has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the universe is infinite. Would you care to try again. What physical theory is different or rendered invalid if the universe is infinite rather than finite? Or vice versa.

it's very relevant..Any acceptance of infinity ncoupmasses the whole universe. Infinite "anthing cannot be a seperate state.

I must say i'm dissapointed in not getting reasonable discussion on this subject

You haven't helped matters by using vague terms and misapplying terms. It makes it very difficult to understand what you mean or what you are asking.

No ...I'm being quite clear. I have not seen any posts taking the time to think about what a finite universe would look like. That is my main point. I have had this discussion before and every arguement is pro infinite universe.

Taken from Wikipedia "infinity"
Cosmology

In 1584, Bruno proposed an unbounded universe in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds: "Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve around these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Cosmologists have long sought to discover whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By travelling in a straight line one will eventually return to the exact spot one started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology; if one travelled in a straight line through the universe perhaps one would eventually revisit one's starting point.
If, on the other hand, the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe. The Planck spacecraft launched in 2009 is expected to record the cosmic background radiation with 10 times higher precision, and will give more insight into the question of whether the universe is infinite or not.

Because the answer to whether the universe is infinite or not can be answered by the fact that we are self aware, it seems to me to be luducris that we aren't understanding it in this context. We should be better able to understand the sequence and therefore predict the actual size (both icro and macro using these parameters.

Cheers
Iseason

But I did post examples of where infinity is used ad hoc. Infinity affects every part of the universe if it is present at all. not just a single or even muliple points. infinate space means infinite energy and infinite time...Just how many theories can you think of in one minute that use time and space..

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

Infinity affects every part of the universe if it is present at all.

Infinity is not a "thing" that is present (or not). It is about the physical (or temporal) size or extent of the universe.

Now, it is certainly true that the effect of gravity, say, extends forever (to infinity, if the universe is that big). So, in principle, the gravity of the Sun would affect the most distant galaxies.

BUT ...

It decreases with an inverse square law and other other objects would rapidly overwhelm its effects.

An object an infinite distance away would have zero effect. (And it would take an infinite time for that zero effect to get here.)

The mathematics of things like gravity, forces due to electric charges, etc. quite happily extend to infinity. And don't show that here is any conflict with the universe being infinite.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

Infinity affects every part of the universe if it is present at all.

Infinity is not a "thing" that is present (or not). It is about the physical (or temporal) size or extent of the universe.

Now, it is certainly true that the effect of gravity, say, extends forever (to infinity, if the universe is that big). So, in principle, the gravity of the Sun would affect the most distant galaxies.

BUT ...

It decreases with an inverse square law and other other objects would rapidly overwhelm its effects.

An object an infinite distance away would have zero effect. (And it would take an infinite time for that zero effect to get here.)

The mathematics of things like gravity, forces due to electric charges, etc. quite happily extend to infinity. And don't show that here is any conflict with the universe being infinite.

I never said infinity was a "thing"However your post is a good example of how infinity is being used.

"an object an infinite distance away"

My first objection is whether infinity automatically makes that statement false. And whether an object and an infinite concept can be joined at all.I don't believe you can have infinite and finite. You must have one or the other.

A couple of posts I was stumped when you asked me "Do you think the universe will last forever or do you think it has a limited life?".....This automatically changed how I must view my objections to infinity. And honestly, I said so in the next post.

In regards to this new understanding, it was necessary to have either everything as infinite, (timeless) But "whole" in terms of variation. This means not having endless repititions or possible variations. Please remember I am not using time as a template , but a cycle which can be viewed by us in a time driven manner.

So rather than say to you that the universe that I propose is infinite, I would prefer the term "timeless" or able to be viewed outside of the time driven view that would require it to become infinite.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

I never said infinity was a "thing"However your post is a good example of how infinity is being used.

It was your use of the phrase "whether it is present or not" that was a bit odd.

My first objection is whether infinity automatically makes that statement false. And whether an object and an infinite concept can be joined at all.I don't believe you can have infinite and finite. You must have one or the other.

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, the universe must be either finite or infinite in extent. (And we don't know which.) But I suspect you mean something like "you can't have finite things in an infinite universe". Is that what you meant?

If so, why do you think that?

As an analogy, take the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...). There are an infinite number of them but they are all finite.

A couple of posts I was stumped when you asked me "Do you think the universe will last forever or do you think it has a limited life?".....This automatically changed how I must view my objections to infinity. And honestly, I said so in the next post.

I'm afraid that post, and the rest of this one, don't really make much sense to me.

In modern physics, time is just another dimension. Think of it this way, if you want to meet someone you need to specify 3 spatial coordinates (e.g. latitude, longitude, altitude) but you also need to specify the value of the time dimension (4pm Thursday 4th June).

You seem to have an unclear (to me) of what infinity means and what time means. Maybe if we can only talk at cross-purposes, this is a bit pointless ...

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

I never said infinity was a "thing"However your post is a good example of how infinity is being used.

It was your use of the phrase "whether it is present or not" that was a bit odd.

My first objection is whether infinity automatically makes that statement false. And whether an object and an infinite concept can be joined at all.I don't believe you can have infinite and finite. You must have one or the other.

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, the universe must be either finite or infinite in extent. (And we don't know which.) But I suspect you mean something like "you can't have finite things in an infinite universe". Is that what you meant?

If so, why do you think that?

As an analogy, take the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...). There are an infinite number of them but they are all finite.

A couple of posts I was stumped when you asked me "Do you think the universe will last forever or do you think it has a limited life?".....This automatically changed how I must view my objections to infinity. And honestly, I said so in the next post.

I'm afraid that post, and the rest of this one, don't really make much sense to me.

In modern physics, time is just another dimension. Think of it this way, if you want to meet someone you need to specify 3 spatial coordinates (e.g. latitude, longitude, altitude) but you also need to specify the value of the time dimension (4pm Thursday 4th June).

You seem to have an unclear (to me) of what infinity means and what time means. Maybe if we can only talk at cross-purposes, this is a bit pointless ...

Hi Strange.

Absolutely you can have infinity in numbers. That is why in my first post I disqualified number infinities by saying "in Reality."Number infinities aren't physical things and although science can use numbers to make mathematical theories work, there will be an element of allowing for margin of error within that infinite sum. Infinity when used in numbers cannot be an exact science for it's own reason.

Time is as you say another dimension. Or to be more specific, Another method of measurement. Like 1 , 2, and three dimensions, time can solve complex problems very reasonably. However time is indelibly linked to every aspect of a universal view . If we use time as infinite , then we must link every other action within the other three dimensions as also being infinite.

The difference I have been talking about, a finite universe, HAS to either see time as finite(in which case the universe ends)or as not important. That is where I approached the subject from a different angle.

A major headache was causality. Something was necessary to begin the process, and for that , there needed to be some point where a variation CAUSED something to happen.This idea was not new as a google search soon showed. Others had seen that if the reversion could be traced back to a single smallest particle , then a trail from there could be followed. .........Another name I could have called this thread was 'singular particle universe'

The beauty of the line of thought is that if everything can come down to a single "packet",or "quanta' then is always only allowed to add up to one, then it will make the universe equal one no matter where you look.

Now I've pondered this angle for a long time and spent a great deal of time having people rehash old ways of looking at the universe at me while I try to get them to at least TRY to understand where i'm coming from. So how about you drop the attempt to teach and give learning something a go.

This point of view REMOVES time
The universe is always equal to one or whole
Each variation of the universe is only one point of variation (keeping the universe as equalling one)
The number of variations is finite.

MOST IMPORTANTLY ....What we are seeing is a review of those points of variation . It's funny to me that we are so stuck with the concept that the order to things MUST be what we percieve when it has shown time and time again throughout history that our senses are really basic .

At the same time as this there are a dozen accepted concepts which are followed that try to place us outside of the same. Time travel is a popular one. I laugh every time I read threads about it. Yet so many are happy to spend hours talking about time travel as if time "was something".

In a nutshell , I'm stating that each position that is occupied in the universe is imperial. That every position will be occupied at some point in the order, but the position can only be occupied once , and that only one position may be occupied at a time. In this way the universe always adds up to one no matter where you look.

Our ability to "see time" is because our mass is part of the order and can see the order of the universe along a given parameter. So whatever we see is within the order of our own existence, whether it is an echo from the other side of the universe or the result of our presence. (as you applied gravity)

I've used the pixel example as it fits very well. I could present you with the movie"raiders of the lost ark" on a television in a variety of ways. If I showed one pixel at a time, you could not begin to see it as a movie.It's important that I present the movie in the correct order and frequency to allow you to understand what is going on.

The example of the universe is that our view doesn't change what the universe is doing.Because we have no ability to slow down the process nor to speed it up , we will always be bound in the time frame we inhabit.

I don't know if it helps you understand what i'm trying to say. But to get the universe to add to one no matter where you look ...That's AWsome

Cheers
iseason

I'd suggest that infinity only exists in potential. In order to test the existence of infinity you either need to divide something infinitely or count infinite objects - but the act of either is also the causation of each new iteration of 'infinity' as every time you complete the action of either counting or dividing you reify the potentially infinite (ie the iteration before it's completed) into a new finite value, which then implies infinity in the next iteration.

And so on.

Like Zeno's paradox.

The definition of infinity that I was taught had the meaning of endless or boundless, therefore it would not be possible for any human, or even the entire succession of the human race to ever complete a calculation of what is meant by the term 'infinity'.

That we, a species of limited, finite duration, can even conceptualize (to some limited degree) of anything, be it on the micro or macro scale, as having no endpoint, and hence no beginning, is the very riddle of existence itself, in my opinion. We currently extrapolate that the best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years .

We are embedded within our very own concept of infinity and the universe is our best scale model to test the theory of infinity against. Still, even if the universe turns out to be finite, it will then beg the question of what lays beyond the universe for our species is conflicted in our thinking.

Even as we argue that there can be no physical entity that has always existed, it is our nature to seek to go beyond any limit we encounter. A circular situation from my perspective.

Some of you seem to think infinity and eternity are the same thing. They are not.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

The definition of infinity that I was taught had the meaning of endless or boundless, therefore it would not be possible for any human, or even the entire succession of the human race to ever complete a calculation of what is meant by the term 'infinity'.

Although, in mathematics, the meaning of infinity is very well defined. And calculations involving infinities can be performed in finite time; for example, the sum of an infinite series.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Some of you seem to think infinity and eternity are the same thing. They are not.

I am working with standard dictionary definitions. Perhaps you would expand on your statement?

Definition of INFINITY
1
a : the quality of being infinite
b : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : boundlessness

2
: an indefinitely great number or amount <an infinity of stars>

3
a : the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number
b : a part of a geometric magnitude that lies beyond any part whose distance from a given reference position is finite <do parallel lines ever meet if they extend to infinity>
c : a transfinite number (as aleph-null)

4
: a distance so great that the rays of light from a point source at that distance may be regarded as parallel

Definition of ETERNITY
1
: the quality or state of being eternal

2

: infinite time <lasting throughout eternity>


3
plural : age 3b

4
: the state after death : immortality

5
: a seemingly endless or immeasurable time <an eternity of delays>

On science forums when discussing science I don't use dictionaries. My post, by the way, was not directed at you specifically, though I may have been influenced by what you had said.

I am prepared to be corrected on this, but my take is that infinity relates to distance or quantity and eternity to time.

Originally Posted by John Galt

On science forums when discussing science I don't use dictionaries. My post, by the way, was not directed at you specifically, though I may have been influenced by what you had said.

I am prepared to be corrected on this, but my take is that infinity relates to distance or quantity and eternity to time.

It has always been my understanding that eternity is the term used when infinity is applied to the concept of time, it being difficult to comprehend one without the other as both are merely terms for a scale of magnitude that I find to be conceptually fascinating. (In contemplating infinity or eternity we are extrapolating beyond anything that any of our species has ever experienced in life.)

Without a shared starting point of definition, it would seem most difficult to have a comprehensive conversation or to duplicate or replicate various observations and findings, IMO.

Is there no dictionary or glossary of terms that is agreed upon by the scientific method?

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Is there no dictionary or glossary of terms that is agreed upon by the scientific method?

Yes:
in·fi·nite/ˈinfənit/
Adjective:
Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: "an infinite number of stars".

e·ter·ni·ty/iˈtərnitē/
Noun:

Infinite or unending time.
A state to which time has no application; timelessness.
Marriage

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Is there no dictionary or glossary of terms that is agreed upon by the scientific method?

Yes:
in·fi·nite/ˈinfənit/
Adjective:
Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: "an infinite number of stars".

e·ter·ni·ty/iˈtərnitē/
Noun:

Infinite or unending time.
A state to which time has no application; timelessness.
Marriage

I did not realize that science defined marriage as an infinite state.....of bliss, no doubt.

(I can picture seagypsy pondering your intent with that remark, lol, for your eternity could soon become a study in exothermic/endothermic systems.)

Originally Posted by scheherazade

I did not realize that science defined marriage as an infinite state.....of bliss, no doubt.

Eternal. Get it right.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

(I can picture seagypsy pondering your intent with that remark, lol, for your eternity could soon become a study in exothermic/endothermic systems.)

What's living if you don't get in a little trouble once in a while...

And you, Neverfly, remain infernal, lol...

Infernal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Take your choice of synonyms, chuckle....

Thread disruptor- You're off topic.

hi all

Some great discussion overnight.

Infinity seems to be linked in a spacial ,time structue in most peoples minds. When you argue that "we don't know what's outside of the universe"', you continue to use the same way of thinking.But when you use infinity in a time structure, you immediately disqualify it as going on forever and ever because time is a measure and infinity s "without measure or unmeasureable". So time and space become unmeasureable.But we can measure time and space as this is the basis of science.

My objection is to "infinity" whereby the universe spacially and therefore time "goes on forever". As I have stated , this is because infinity does not become flat and evenly distributed, "it can not be anything else". Therefore , spacialy and therefore timewise , the universe is bound and finite.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

Infinity seems to be linked in a spacial ,time structue in most peoples minds.

I have no idea what that means. Infinity is just one possible size (or extent) of the spatial dimensions of the universe.

When you argue that "we don't know what's outside of the universe"'

You are the only one has mentioned the outside of the universe. But now you mention it, according to our current theories, there is no outside. Whether the universe is finite or infinite.

But when you use infinity in a time structure, you immediately disqualify it as going on forever and ever because time is a measure and infinity s "without measure or unmeasureable". So time and space become unmeasureable.But we can measure time and space as this is the basis of science.

You are basing your argument on one, informal definition of the word. Use a mathematical definition and your argument fails.

As I have stated , this is because infinity does not become flat and evenly distributed, "it can not be anything else".

That doesn't appear to mean anything.

Therefore , spacialy and therefore timewise , the universe is bound and finite.

As far as we know, the universe is either infinite or it is finite but unbounded. You will need more than your vague assertions to change that understanding.

What I'm still having trouble with, with regard to infinity, is the idea of the universe is expanding, and that we can observe it as smaller in the past if indeed it was always infinite then how has it gotten bigger, why does it appear smaller in the past? If we don't have a logical explantion how infinity could work along side that which we can observe as a growing universe then how can we logically consider infinity as a possibility? If what we observe is a static model of the universe with no evidence of changes in size then maybe it might offer a possibility for infinity but that doesn't appear to be the case. Even an infinite concept for time seems unlikely as evenually every possible combination of things will have been played out only leaving for the possiblity of a repeat of past events, pretty much like a time loop, certainly not what I would consider infinity.
As for being bounded or unbounded I don't see that it makes that much difference, as the way I see is if you are driving on a road and the road runs out you can't go any further, just as if there was a wall at the end of the road.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

What I'm still having trouble with, with regard to infinity, is the idea of the universe is expanding, and that we can observe it as smaller in the past if indeed it was always infinite then how has it gotten bigger, why does it appear smaller in the past?
As for being bounded or unbounded I don't see that it makes that much difference, as the way I see is if you are driving on a road and the road runs out you can't go any further, just as if there was a wall at the end of the road.

The surface of the Earth is Infinite but Bounded.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

What I'm still having trouble with, with regard to infinity, is the idea of the universe is expanding, and that we can observe it as smaller in the past if indeed it was always infinite then how has it gotten bigger, why does it appear smaller in the past?

It doesn't appear smaller, it is just the distance between things is increasing. For example, the set of integers is infinite but you can still double every value leaving large "gaps" between each one (which you could then fill with odd numbers).

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The surface of the Earth is Infinite but Bounded.

But to me it wouldn't seem infinite because it is quantifiable and given enough time (a finite amount) you could theoretically traverse all of it, to me infinity would mean something that would require an infinite amount of time to transverse.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

What I'm still having trouble with, with regard to infinity, is the idea of the universe is expanding, and that we can observe it as smaller in the past if indeed it was always infinite then how has it gotten bigger, why does it appear smaller in the past?

It doesn't appear smaller, it is just the distance between things is increasing. For example, the set of integers is infinite but you can still double every value leaving large "gaps" between each one (which you could then fill with odd numbers).

Ok perhaps I'm looking at this wrong but this is the way I'm figuring it, if the distance between things is increasing then surely that 'distance' has to actually be something, otherwise how do we even know this extra distance exists, because if we didn't know it exists then all objects in the universe should still appear the same distance away as they always have done. But ok things seem further away because of this 'extra distance' that exists now and appears to have gotten greater over time. So the way I see it is if the universe was already infinite how is this 'extra distance' being added, because how can you add something to the infinite?. That's of course working on the basis that this extra distance is not already part of the universe, if we work on the basis that this extra distance is infact part of the universe then surely as it has grown, we must then conclude that the universe has also grown and thus is not and cannot be infinite.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The surface of the Earth is Infinite but Bounded.

Should that be finite but unbounded ?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Ok perhaps I'm looking at this wrong but this is the way I'm figuring it, if the distance between things is increasing then surely that 'distance' has to actually be something, otherwise how do we even know this extra distance exists, because if we didn't know it exists then all objects in the universe should still appear the same distance away as they always have done. But ok things seem further away because of this 'extra distance' that exists now and appears to have gotten greater over time. So the way I see it is if the universe was already infinite how is this 'extra distance' being added, because how can you add something to the infinite?. That's of course working on the basis that this extra distance is not already part of the universe, if we work on the basis that this extra distance is infact part of the universe then surely as it has grown, we must then conclude that the universe has also grown and thus is not and cannot be infinite.

This is the Hilbert Hotel thing (you can google that ).

It sounds as if you are thinking that "infinite" means the biggest possible (so it can't get any bigger). In fact, it is better defined as bigger than anything possible. Take the integers again; there is always another integer. However far you go you can always do +1. So infinity is not the "biggest" integer. It is the number of integers, even though they are all finite.

If the numbers example didn't do it, how about this. Imagine a ruler of finite length. If you stretch it by 10%, it will be 10% longer and all the markings will be 10% further apart from one another (*). This would be equivalent to a finite universe getting larger.

But, if the ruler is infinite (i.e. however far you go, there is always more ruler ahead of you) then the distance between the all the markings can still increase by 10%. The total size is still infinite (however far you go, there is still always more ruler ahead of you). Infinity + 10% is still just infinity.

(*) A more accurate description is to turn that around: it is the "scale factor" (the distance between markings ) that is increasing over time. In the case of a finite universe/ruler, this means that the total size also increases by the same proportion.

Thanks Strange, I think I'm starting to get it, it seems like because it's infinite there is infinite space within it so can actually add to infinity by putting something inside and using the infinite space if I reading and interpretting it right. Cheers very helpful.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The surface of the Earth is Infinite but Bounded.

Should that be finite but unbounded ?

It should be, yes. I was thinking about one thing and typing about another. Thanks for catching my stupids.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Thanks for catching my stupids.

Yeah, I'm going to have to send some back. I'm running out of storage space.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Thanks Strange, I think I'm starting to get it, it seems like because it's infinite there is infinite space within it so can actually add to infinity by putting something inside and using the infinite space if I reading and interpretting it right. Cheers very helpful.

It is worth reading up on some of Cantor's work on infinity (in mathematics). He came up with simple and elegant proofs that, for example, the number of reals is infinite but also infinitely greater than the number of integers.

And then he went mad ...

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Thanks Strange, I think I'm starting to get it, it seems like because it's infinite there is infinite space within it so can actually add to infinity by putting something inside and using the infinite space if I reading and interpretting it right. Cheers very helpful.

Except that strange keeps talking about a mathematical infinity.His ruler can't be used to prove universal infinity since the intergers are not only choosing to expand at different stages, but in different directions,velocities, stopping expanding and then starting again, as well as colliding ,shrinking,reforming and then expanding again. it's no good saying "the universe is expanding and therefore infinite " or that it doesn't matter, because on earth , things are not following the ruler analogy.

The variance to the ruler analogy also has to be explained as well .

Cheers
Iseason

Once again, I can't really tell what you are talking about.

But, whether the universe is infinite or not makes no difference locally. If it did, we would know if the universe was finite or not.

Originally Posted by Strange

Once again, I can't really tell what you are talking about.

But, whether the universe is infinite or not makes no difference locally. If it did, we would know if the universe was finite or not.

That seems your standard arguement.

But infinity contained is not infinite. It cannot affect the universe without affecting us locally as everything affects everything else. Even your gravitational arguement has a "tow" effect that will transfer via the intervening mass. sure we may find it hard to measure the effect , but it is part of the sum total of the universe.

Cheers
Iseason

And you keep making this same claims with no support.

What, precisely would we see different on Earth if the universe were infinite or finite?

If you cannot show mathematically that there is some measurable difference then ... there is no difference.

It is no good just making vague statements that "there must be a difference". That is not science.

Originally Posted by Strange

And you keep making this same claims with no support.

What, precisely would we see different on Earth if the universe were infinite or finite?

If you cannot show mathematically that there is some measurable difference then ... there is no difference.

It is no good just making vague statements that "there must be a difference". That is not science.

Incredibly, you miss the fact that we cannot "see" a difference.

Since what we have IS what we have, it is one or the other. What we can use is common sense.

I guess the real question is whether infinity is "all encompassing" or can you have your cake and eat it too.

Where do you place your borders for effects of infinity?Are we talking about infinite space , time, mass , energy?

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

Incredibly, you miss the fact that we cannot "see" a difference.

If we cannot see (measure, detect) any difference then ... there is no difference.

Since what we have IS what we have, it is one or the other. What we can use is common sense.

Sorry, "common sense" is no use in science. It used to be thought that in order for something to keep moving that force had to be continually applied. Common sense, really. But wrong. The history of science is full of obvious, intuitive, common sense ideas which turn out to be wrong. That is why we have the scientific method.

And "common sense" varies between people. To you it is obvious that the universe cannot be infinite. There are others to whom it is equally obvious that the universe cannot be finite. That is why science relies on evidence: objective measurable data.

Where do you place your borders for effects of infinity?Are we talking about infinite space , time, mass , energy?

I'm not sure what "effects of infinity" means. If the universe is infinite then there are no borders. (And, according to our current best theory, if the universe is finite it has no borders either.)

If the universe is infinite in extent then it contains infinite mass and energy.

If the universe is finite then it contains finite mass and energy.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

Incredibly, you miss the fact that we cannot "see" a difference.

If we cannot see (measure, detect) any difference then ... there is no difference.

Since what we have IS what we have, it is one or the other. What we can use is common sense.

Sorry, "common sense" is no use in science. It used to be thought that in order for something to keep moving that force had to be continually applied. Common sense, really. But wrong. The history of science is full of obvious, intuitive, common sense ideas which turn out to be wrong. That is why we have the scientific method.

And "common sense" varies between people. To you it is obvious that the universe cannot be infinite. There are others to whom it is equally obvious that the universe cannot be finite. That is why science relies on evidence: objective measurable data.

Where do you place your borders for effects of infinity?Are we talking about infinite space , time, mass , energy?

I'm not sure what "effects of infinity" means. If the universe is infinite then there are no borders. (And, according to our current best theory, if the universe is finite it has no borders either.)

If the universe is infinite in extent then it contains infinite mass and energy.

If the universe is finite then it contains finite mass and energy.

ok. Just getting clear on what we are discussing. lets talk about scale ....infinite down or just up ...?

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

ok. Just getting clear on what we are discussing. lets talk about scale ....infinite down or just up ...?

Do you mean an infinitely large universe and can things be infinitely small?

In both cases, the answer is: we don't know. The universe might be discrete (quantized) at the smallest scales. Or not.

But, of course, there is no connection between these two things. The universe may or may not be continuous (infinitely divisible) at the smallest scales while being either finite or infinite in extent.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

ok. Just getting clear on what we are discussing. lets talk about scale ....infinite down or just up ...?

Do you mean an infinitely large universe and can things be infinitely small?

In both cases, the answer is: we don't know. The universe might be discrete (quantized) at the smallest scales. Or not.

But, of course, there is no connection between these two things. The universe may or may not be continuous (infinitely divisible) at the smallest scales while being either finite or infinite in extent.

Well that is my question.

Where are you seperating effect? you mentioned intergers in mathematics, but in the real universe how are you seperating what "might" be infinite in order to say so.
we have macro worlds and micro worlds, but each is reliant on the other for form and interaction. Are you saying that even though everything in the universe interacts, an infinite universe will behave no differently to a finite one. Where is YOUR proof that this is so.?

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

Where are you seperating effect?

What does that mean? Separating what effect? from what?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

Where are you seperating effect?

What does that mean? Separating what effect? from what?

Infinite universe would mean everything expanding at the same rate.how do you account for changes to a smooth expansion, eg chaos.

Cheers
Iseason

Originally Posted by iseason

Infinite universe would mean everything expanding at the same rate.how do you account for changes to a smooth expansion, eg chaos.

As far as I know, expansion is the same in all directions. The universe is isotropic and homogeneous on large scales. What chaos are you referring to?

And what does that hove to do with separating some effect from something?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by iseason

Infinite universe would mean everything expanding at the same rate.how do you account for changes to a smooth expansion, eg chaos.

As far as I know, expansion is the same in all directions. The universe is isotropic and homogeneous on large scales. What chaos are you referring to?

And what does that hove to do with separating some effect from something?

I guess i am having a lot of trouble with seperating finite and infinity. It seems so many do this without a conflict. Chaos , (or random events) are common across the universe at every scale. They could not be considered as homogeneous as each event is individually unique.

I'm taken by the use of finite and infinite in this item which really doesn't see any conflict with the two concepts side by side. the term of infinite appears to blase' and without regard to what an infinite universe would actually look like.the term seems to mean " really , really small" and is the sort of usage which gets transfered to "eternal,or going on forever."

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.


Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.^{1, 2} According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."³ The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Even though this is what you are saying Strange, it seems a bit unusual to me to have a finite beginning in time and space , but refuse to extend that to expecting an end. It also seems counter-intuitive to disregard the role that time and space ONLY have when measured via motion. What's in space and what it's doing apart from expanding doesn't seem to figure into whether it's infinite or not.

Cheers
Iseason

Chaos , (or random events) are common across the universe at every scale

No, it's not.

, it seems a bit unusual to me to have a finite beginning in time and space , but refuse to extend that to expecting an end

Yes, the creation of the universe was a bit unusual. Your common sense expectations don't really apply.

Why an object shink when it goes forward and vice versa?

Do you mean it srinks in size or something else??

Originally Posted by iseason

I guess i am having a lot of trouble with seperating finite and infinity. It seems so many do this without a conflict. Chaos , (or random events) are common across the universe at every scale. They could not be considered as homogeneous as each event is individually unique.

I'm still not sure what you mean by chaos or random events. The only truly random events are things like nuclear decay, that happen at the very smallest scale. At larger scales things are pretty deterministic: planets orbit stars, stars collect in galaxies, galaxies orbit other galaxies in clusters, clusters organise themselves in larger structures, etc.

At the largest scale, the universe appears pretty homogeneous (the same everywhere, on average).

I'm also still not clear how you think that would be different if the universe was finite or infinite in extent.

the term of infinite appears to blase' and without regard to what an infinite universe would actually look like.

You keep saying this as if an infinite universe would have to look completely different. And yet you are unable to say why or how it would look different. You even said: 'we cannot "see" a difference'.

the term seems to mean " really , really small" and is the sort of usage which gets transfered to "eternal,or going on forever."

You mean "really, really big" surely? And it is a problem that people often think of infinite as meaning really big. But actually, it is bigger than that!

But keep spatial extent being infinite or not separate from the universe being eternal or not. As far as I know there is not connection between them.

the term of infinite appears to blase' and without regard to what an infinite universe would actually look like.

the term seems to mean " really , really small" and is the sort of usage which gets transfered to "eternal,or going on forever."

You mean "really, really big" surely? And it is a problem that people often think of infinite as meaning really big. But actually, it is bigger than that!

But keep spatial extent being infinite or not separate from the universe being eternal or not. As far as I know there is not connection between them.[/QUOTE]

The quote I used was from the internet. But you musn't have read it as the quote was saying infentisinily "small" in reference to the original singularity. That is where I say the use of the term is casual. Infinite is used as a term for really big or really small as if Science DOES know. I understand that you say science doesn't know , but that isn't what you'd think if you google any subject to do with universal concepts.

I'm still quite happy with the only proof I need to prove infinity is incorrect is varience. And that is true because it doesn't matter if the larger picture seems even , any varience is proof of a finite system. Now I understand that science needs more than "my Muses" on a subject" before it can be called proof.

But that is why i'm chatting on a Psudoscience forum ' and not in a university. You corrected me about my saying "we would not see a difference" . my commnt there is simply that the universe is as it is and I've already stated that a Infinite universe would have no discernable varience. We would not SEE the difference , because as you stated everything looks evenly distributed. And of course we cannot see to the lowest levels and the largest are beyond our scope.

However , Why are you so dismissal of using a Scale which includes features within say the earth when we discuss Infinite/finite? I can't see why varience on Earth is excluded from this arguement.

Cheers
Iseason

Every flower brings a batch, infinity is going to happen. Nihilist to think this way.

Originally Posted by iseason

...

You need to communicate a little more clearly. I have no idea what that any of that means.

I had a real giggle coming back here to read this thread. I'll log back in soon to continue this argument with some new twists

cheers
iseeson

If you have bothered to read the contributions of yours and Strange's then you should see that you would be wasting your time attempting to further this discussion.. You are not bending or listening to the other view are you ?
~ So you have more to say.. Is yours the only view ? It might not even be right.. can you prove what you have said you believe is of stronger probability than what Strange has said.. It would seem to me that a certainty of infinite is made difficult by extrapolation of information attained.. The Observable universe gives us clues of the Big Bang and the birthing process we are confident did happen.
To imagine of mufti verses to extrapolate infinity of this Universe when we can confirm as proofs found.. Remember the idiom of science..
To test, to question, to inquire, and to challenge.. I challenge you to offer proofs of your view. Do it well and I might find agreement.
~ or not. ~ After eighteen months do we want to re say what has been said ? Is there more ?

Thanks for the warm welcome back.

yes , I agree that rehashing old ground doesn't get us very far. I was a bit stalled by a reply that had me thinking I was inadvertently proposing something ending in an infinity and had no real way to be true to my own convictions and continue this discussion until I had thought my way through that problem.

Another reply was useful also in that it referred to 'infinite divisions of the difference between whole numbers...see , I do listen.i will answer to the infinity question first.

the problem was that if the 'one or whole' that I was proposing was always there , then it in itself was an infinity. I have found that that conclusion is not necessarily true. In doing so , I also have to stop proposing a finite universe. This is in itself a major shift in thinking since it removes time from all aspects of the concept....... How can I do that?. This concept is pure process. Time for us is personal. Time is and always be the way we measure ourselves against the perceptions we have of what is occurring in our here and now. But it is no more real than if the person of the song on a recording thought there was a little man in the CD player....it's us that's fixed in a lineal time perception.

so what's the process? So , before I mentioned the argument that whole numbers can be divided , as the poster stated 'infinitely '. While I don't propose that the division is infinite , certainly it can keep things a lot tidier . One is not as clear to show what I mean , so I'll use the divisions between 10 and 0.

The behaviour I want to show is this. that the universe died

The state in which the universe was changed from having , to not having 'energy'. I know that this is at the reverse end of looking at Big Bang behaviour , but it makes sense. If you can believe that there was nothing , then something , take a poke at seeing it the other way round. So the math looks something like this.

10 , 0
10 , 5 ,0
10 , 7.5 , 5 , 2.5 , 0

or

10 , 0
10 , 5 , 0
10 , 7.5 , 5 , 2.5 , 0
10 , 1.25 , 7.5 , 5 , 2.5 , 8.75 , 0

10 in this instance is representing 1 . Even though the value of the numbers show less than 1 or whole , the counter is there to balance it at the other end of the string. The counter (in this example 2.5 ) is not sufficient to enter perception on it's own and is a residue from the 7.5 Which keeps the balance at whole or one. Please remember that this is simply a representation of varying states. Pushing out from the centre in this way prevents the need for time and distance to be covered for us to perceive the our view of time and motion.

But this is a reduction concept , not a blow up concept like Big Bang . The energy doesn't fold back into a singularity , because it is a singularity in it's nature. Everywhere you look . Every time you look .

Cheers
Iseeson

... because it is a singularity in it's nature. Everywhere you look . Every time you look .

Hi iseason. So you, I, everything, are a singularity ?

Originally Posted by iseason

The energy doesn't fold back into a singularity , because it is a singularity in it's nature. Everywhere you look . Every time you look .

I don't think you know what the word "singularity" means.

Good morning

when they formed the theory of Big Bang , they used the term singularity . In referring to it in this way, they meant that all the energy was held in one very small tight bundle. Of course , in Big Bang , the energy is then allowed to expand to the universe we see today. So my referred to it in this way is . Since I am proposing that the behaviour never actually expanded as in Big Bang , and is singular in its behaviour , a term singularity seemed to apply. If I used the term incorrectly , then I apologise.

i usually prefer to refer to it as an occurrence , but this implies causality and a timeline rather than the view I want to show. Because our whole way of speaking ang describing things is based around a lineal time structure , this is always my biggest challenge.

So as I said , there is only one measure of energy ever, present any time you look , so you could call it your blink rate . Since the process doesn't favour you over any other part of the process , the blinks that form you are scattered throughout the process in the correct order to fill you in in the correct timeline view. Please remember that I believe the process to be a done deal as far as the process and order is concerned.
Now however , I'm looking to see if what we inhabit is a particular frequency , and whether ther is any chance we can see a different result by moving to the next viable blink rate.
At the moment I see it as 'I am the sum of the number of my occurrences divided by the universal number'. So during my lifetime the cycle evenly distributes , in order , the universe we inhabit.
Cheers
iseeson

I just read that and now I feel like I've entered the Woo Dimension.
Can someone mount a rescue mission?
Soon, please!

That's the problem with this type of forum. It's fine to continue discussions where everybody starts with the same understandings , but it's a very disjointed way to talk about new ideas and concepts especially if you've just flicked through the forum.

Most of the time you end up with flip comments like that or answers that focus one a single point. It's why I gave up on this type of forum before.

Originally Posted by iseason

Since I am proposing that the behaviour never actually expanded as in Big Bang

And yet we see the universe expanding. Which is why we have the big bang model.

So as I said , there is only one measure of energy ever, present any time you look , so you could call it your blink rate .

What does blinking have to do with energy?

Now however , I'm looking to see if what we inhabit is a particular frequency

How is it possible to "inhabit" a frequency? And frequency of what?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by iseason

That's the problem with this type of forum. It's fine to continue discussions where everybody starts with the same understandings , but it's a very disjointed way to talk about new ideas and concepts especially if you've just flicked through the forum.
Most of the time you end up with flip comments like that or answers that focus one a single point. It's why I gave up on this type of forum before.

Nah.
The problem is that people get to post nonsensical word salad and try to pass it off as science.
BTW I didn't (and don't) "just flick through".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by iseason

That's the problem with this type of forum. It's fine to continue discussions where everybody starts with the same understandings , but it's a very disjointed way to talk about new ideas and concepts especially if you've just flicked through the forum.
Most of the time you end up with flip comments like that or answers that focus one a single point. It's why I gave up on this type of forum before.

Nah.
The problem is that people get to post nonsensical word salad and try to pass it off as science.
BTW I didn't (and don't) "just flick through".

second post host and nothing gained in the discussion.

Yes we see the universe expanding. And again you've ignored the ground work to the discussion which asked you to take a different view to that of a lineal timeline. Arguing to me that what we see is what we get is counter productive.

a blink rate is referring to the rate of variance between occurrences when viewed via lineal time.

i'm surprised by your asking about frequency. Isn't everything based around frequencies ?

Originally Posted by marcbo

... because it is a singularity in it's nature. Everywhere you look . Every time you look .

Hi iseason. So you, I, everything, are a singularity ?

iseason, you didn't reply to the above but then you said ..

That's the problem with this type of forum. It's fine to continue discussions where everybody starts with the same understandings , but it's a very disjointed way to talk about new ideas and concepts ..


.. so it seems there's some 'disjointing' coming from you, mostly. Please answer so we can be on the same page. Also, what IS a singularity ? You probably need to define that too, seeing as you are employing the term.

Originally Posted by marcbo

Originally Posted by marcbo

... because it is a singularity in it's nature. Everywhere you look . Every time you look .

Hi iseason. So you, I, everything, are a singularity ?

iseason, you didn't reply to the above but then you said ..

That's the problem with this type of forum. It's fine to continue discussions where everybody starts with the same understandings , but it's a very disjointed way to talk about new ideas and concepts ..


.. so it seems there's some 'disjointing' coming from you, mostly. Please answer so we can be on the same page. Also, what IS a singularity ? You probably need to define that too, seeing as you are employing the term.

OOPS, I just noticed you have addressed this in post 92. Apologies. My screen hadn't updated for some reason. Will read and consider your reply.