Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

The cosmos is infinite; therefore every part of the cosmos is the whole cosmos. Everything, including our apparently finite Universe, is infinite.

4. infinite: that which is all-embracing, boundless and eternal. Nothing that exists can be separate from infinity, nor can anything that is at any point finite become infinite. Our Universe may be unbounded; it may continue to expand for ever, but it will never become infinite.


I think your first point must be wrong, because a finite part of an 'infinite' thing is not all-embracing, so it's not also infinite itself. You suggested you can't take a finite part, but I think you surely have to be allowed to. Why not? The leftover bits wouldn't be 'infinite' anymore by your definition, but they may still have infinite extent in the traditional meaning of the word.

I wonder if you're getting into some Zeno paradox??

.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
...a finite part of an 'infinite' thing is not all-embracing, so it's not also infinite itself.


You must be a mathematician, if not by profession, then certainly by inclination. Try to divorce yourself from Cantor and his infinity of infinities (countable and uncountable). Forget the infinite series, in its many guises. These things exist only in the minds of mathematicians. They have less affinity with reality than does the square root of minus one. (I know I am going to regret bringing the sqrt of -1 into it).

You are probably familiar with holographic plates. Not the holograms we find on credit cards etc.,but those which when viewed by reflected light just look like a lot of swirls, but which when viewed by the right sort of transmitted light produce 3D images.
You are probably aware that however many times you cut one of these plates in half (or any other fraction), it will still product the whole 3D image. The quality will diminish, but the entire image is still there. It seems that every part of the plate contains the whole image. Physical infinity must be rather like this. Every part is the whole.

A finite part of an infinite thing is a figment of the mathematician's imagination.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

mathematicians. They have less affinity with reality than does the square root of minus one. (I know I am going to regret bringing the sqrt of -1 into it).

Hehe regret indeed. -1 itself has no more affinity with reality than sqrt(-1)

Quote:

still product the whole 3D image. The quality will diminish, but the entire image is still there. It seems that every part of the plate contains the whole image.


I've heard of that. But a diminished quality means it's not the whole image. Perhaps by "all embracing" you mean covers the complete range of space/etc, but may not actually include everything within that range?

The real world isn't all holographic plates, it includes some conventional photographic plates too. I still don't get what's wrong with a finite part of an infinite thing. Imagine the universe was infinite in extent. A single atom is surely a finite part of that, isn't it? Furthermore if there was a distinction we could know if the 'cosmos' was infinite or not simply by observing anything in it - oh look that atom is only finite, so the cosmos must be finite too. Or hey all these atoms are infinite, that means there's other stuff outside our finite universe.

I think it's a good idea not to invent new meanings for old terms. It seems you don't really mean "infinity". Perhaps just call it "all embracing" or something else to avoid confusion by people like me.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
ABOUT THE RESEARCH OF Dr.Michael Persinger
==========================================
Dr. Persinger is a Neuoscientist at Laurentian U. who has been conducting experiments on 'god experiences' for the last few years. What he actually does is stimulate parts of the brain in his research participants in order to manufacture feelings of religious experience, alien abduction, encounters with ghosts etc. I believe his goal is to "prove" that religion and many other so called "mystical" or unexplained experience can be attributed to reactions in parts of the brain. )

(Just to self-identify, I am not an atheist myself, however, I have followed Persinger for awhile.)

Here is a bit from his bio/research interests at Laurentian:

"As a human being, I am concerned about the illusionary explanations for human consciousness and the future of human existence. Consequently after writing the Neuro-psychological Base of God Beliefs (1987), I began the systematic application of complex electromagnetic fields to discern the patterns that will induce experiences (sensed presence) that are attributed to the myriad of ego-alien intrusions which range from gods to aliens.

"The research is not to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience but instead to determine which portions of the brain or its electromagnetic patterns generate the experience. Two thousand years of philosophy have taught us that attempting to prove or disprove realities may never have discrete verbal (linguistic) solutions because of the limitation of this measurement.

"The research has been encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and group degradations are coupled implicitly to god beliefs and to the presumption that those who do not believe the same as the experiment are somehow less human and hence expendable. Although these egocentric propensities may have had adaptive significance, their utility for the species' future may be questionable."

To which I commented:

So what if Dr. Persinger's research helps us see how GOD does interpenetrate matter! As John tells us: "The Word became flesh ..." Unitheism welcomes such research. The important question is: How, with the help of the media, which loves to headline the bad news, are we going to get this good news out there? It could be of great value in helping us deal with the problem of evil in the human body, mind and heart (spirit), the root cause of so much pain and suffering.


====================
Reference:
http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/atheism-part-2-science#comment-508174

Last edited by Revlgking; 09/09/10 12:43 PM. Reason: Helpful

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
You've veered off topic there, Rev. Another thread in NQS, maybe?

However -

"The research is not to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience but instead to determine which portions of the brain or its electromagnetic patterns generate the experience..."

- A commendably scientific endeavour.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
...oh look that atom is only finite, so the cosmos must be finite too. Or hey all these atoms are infinite, that means there's other stuff outside our finite universe.


Aha! We have a glimpse of that effervescence that bespeaks a delight in argument for its own sake.

The fact that we are restricted to the 4D of spacetime prevents us from making the sort of observations you suggest. If that were not the case we would all be able to observe, and understand, infinity, so this discussion would be unnecessary.

Quote:
…a diminished quality means it's not the whole image.


Of course, you are right, but an analogy is not the real thing, and should not be taken too literally. Possibly your "conventional photographic plates" should be regarded in this sense?

Quote:
I think it's a good idea not to invent new meanings for old terms.


I don’t think I have invented a new meaning for infinity. The Ancient Greeks and Augustine of Hippo, among others, were there centuries ahead of me. It was Cantor who introduced a new way of thinking about infinity when he let mathematicians loose on it. I am not saying that was a bad thing, only that it resulted in a lot of muddled thinking among those who did not distinguish between mathematical infinities and physical infinity.

Quote:
Perhaps just call it "all embracing" or something else to avoid confusion by people like me.


It is certainly not my intention to cause confusion, but I doubt that replacing “infinity” with “all embracing” would enhance clarity.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

The fact that we are restricted to the 4D of spacetime prevents us from making the sort of observations you suggest.

Huh? We can see atoms, or Christmas cakes and notice that they're finite in space. So why not just look at them and say "oh the cosmos is finite because this part of it is also finite"?


Quote:

Of course, you are right, but an analogy is not the real thing, and should not be taken too literally. Possibly your

But that was the critical point of the idea! That a finite part still includes everything. A holographic plate doesn't do that, so the analogy isn't relevant.


Can you explain what your 'infinity' means?

I think you said "all embracing". That's certainly not what it means to most people. You're really not using the same definition, so nobody knows what you mean. I think if you call it "ugbugu" then you can't lean on people's preconceptions, and you'll be forced to really understand what it means in your context.


Quote:
I don’t think I have invented a new meaning for infinity. The Ancient Greeks and Augustine of Hippo

It doesn't matter what happened thousands of years ago. The meaning that it's generally given today seems to be very different from your meaning. That difference has allowed you to make some logical deductions which would fail if the conventional meaning of infinity were applied.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
To "ugbugu" and beyond....!

Originally Posted By: Kallog
It doesn't matter what happened thousands of years ago
. I can't agree that we can discount all the milestones in science and maths, just because they occurred before we were around to argue with them.

Perhaps we need to clarify one point at a time. Let's start by finding out if you agree that a mathematical reality is not necessarily the same as a physical reality.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
To "ugbugu" and beyond....!
:P

Quote:
I can't agree that we can discount all the milestones in science and maths, just because they occurred before we were around to argue with them.

I mean it doesn't matter to this discussion, just trying to stay focussed.


Quote:
by finding out if you agree that a mathematical reality is not necessarily the same as a physical reality.

Sure I agree.


Last edited by kallog; 09/10/10 03:31 PM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
Sure I agree
.

Good. (2): Do you accept that a mathematical infinity is not necessarily the same thing as a physical infinity?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Kallog
Sure I agree
.

Good. (2): Do you accept that a mathematical infinity is not necessarily the same thing as a physical infinity?


I don't think there can be such a thing as a physical infinity. There might be a quantity which can be measured to have the value infinity, but that's only a mathematical representation of something else. For example how much time does it take for a stationary object to move 1m? Answer is infinity, is that a physical infinity? Another example. If the universe was infinite in extent, we could simply define its size as 1/extent. So it's size becomes 0 in our new units. The apparent physical infinity has just evaporated.

Would you say there's such a thing as a physical "3"? A physical "-3"? A physical pi? A physical complex number?

I would say certainly not to all of the above, with the possible exception of "3", but even then it's tenuous.

Last edited by kallog; 09/11/10 02:59 AM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: kallog
There might be a quantity which can be measured to have the value infinity, but that's only a mathematical representation of something else.


Thanks. I didn't expect you to make my point for me....and so eloquently! What is the "something else"?

I agree that there is not a physical "3" etc. These are just mathematical conventions that are frequently used to quantify physical objects.

Let's have another go at finding some common ground. Would you think there could ever have been a time when absolutely nothing existed?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Thanks. I didn't expect you to make my point for me....and so eloquently! What is the "something else"?

Glad we agree. So why have you used infinity to describe physical things rather than measurements of physical things? That confusion of terms is what lead to all this 'every part contains the whole' business.

Quote:

Let's have another go at finding some common ground. Would you think there could ever have been a time when absolutely nothing existed?


If you include no time in absolutely nothing, then no, by definition. But if you mean time without matter and space, well naively it sounds possible, but maybe those physicists have found some interdependency between them.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
..why have you used infinity to describe physical things rather than measurements of physical things?


If you answer the question "What is the something else" you will have answered your question as well.

According to the BB theory, time was created with the Universe. Unless you believe that something existed prior to the BB, then "no time" must be included in "nothing"


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
[quote=K]..why have you used infinity to describe physical things rather than measurements of physical things?


If you answer the question "What is the something else" you will have answered your question as well.


What was the question again? And what's the answer?

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
..why have you used infinity to describe physical things rather than measurements of physical things?


If a physical thing exists that can be measured as being infinite, then "infinity" would be as appropriately applied to that thing as to the measurement. However, I still maintain that any "infinite thing" that can be measured is only a mathematical infinity.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If a physical thing exists that can be measured as being infinite, then "infinity" would be as appropriately applied to that thing as to the measurement. However, I still maintain that any "infinite thing" that can be measured is only a mathematical infinity.


Now I'm getting lost again. Please apply it to a stationary object taking infinite time to travel a small distance.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
Now I'm getting lost again. Please apply it to a stationary object taking infinite time to travel a small distance.



I’ll try, since you asked so politely.

First, I should take issue with “infinite time”; it is another example of the ubiquitous infinite series which cannot exist outside mathematics. However, in the interest of mutual understanding, let’s not be pedantic.

You want to talk about a stationary object taking infinite time to travel a small distance. If the object is stationary, it does not move, even a small distance. Even if it could be given infinite time, it would have to stop being a stationary object in order to move.

Your turn to do some explaining here: How does a stationary object move while still remaining stationary?

Let me try a little harder to understand what you are asking me to do. Can you tell me when a progression of time becomes infinite? Surely, a little time > a long time > a very long time etc. At what point can you say “this is now infinite”? Only at that point could you say that the stationary object had been stationary for an "infinite time", and even then it would not have moved.

I'm trying, but it seems that to ask the impossible, one has only to make it seem possible, then ask it!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
now infinite”? Only at that point could you say that the stationary object had been stationary for an "infinite time", and even then it would not have moved.


OK I'll improve it. An object is decellerating such that its position asymptotically approaches x=2m. How long does it take to reach 2m? Isn't that infinite time?

Doesn't matter if the universe can last that long. We can imagine it happens in a universe that lasts forever. Like, say the one we're in according to the idea that it continues expanding and never ends.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Kallog. Its 2.45am here. I'm going to sleep on this one before I attempt to answer it.


There never was nothing.
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5