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 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#53423 11/23/14 11:17 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Infinity finds its way into many threads, causes a distraction, then fades away, usually, with no semblance of resolution. Questions about infinity are often linked to questions about time and about nothing.

I propose asking a few questions, in the form of a “poll”, which may help to ameliorate the situation. Each question requires only a yes/no answer, but hopefully these would be accompanied by some thoughts.

1. Is infinity a number?
2. Is eternity a length of time?
3. Is it possible to define Cantor’s “absolute infinity”?
4. If there had ever been (absolutely) nothing, could there be something now?
5. Could there be change without time?


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
The infinity threads do indeed fade away with no resolution. The problem is that there is no satisfactory answer to the questions. So this thread is headed the same way.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I'm inclined to agree in general with that; I just thought it would be interesting to have a few opinions on these specific points before closing the book on a lot of circuitous posting.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
1. Is infinity a number?

Define "number" that is a rubbish layman generic term that is poorly defined. Use a proper mathematical definition of what type of number system you are talking about. There is nothing different between infinity, zero, irrational, negative and complex numbers depending on what number system you are using they may or may not exist.

NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT INFINITY AT ALL

The question can not be answered because it is poorly worded with no clear selection of numbering system.

Ditto to the definitions in rest of questions.

You keep asking the same stupidly worded questions with generic broad layman terms, if you really want an answer how about you try answering some real questions about definitions and refine the questions

1.) What numbering system does the universe use and why?
2.) Is infinity as used above exactly as defined under the choice of the above numbering system.
3.) Is time being defined as a change in observation or are you using it as some other scalar quantity. Even in physics there are multiple definitions of time including Classical, GR and QM to name but a few. What definition of time are you using in the question.
4.) Finally using your definition of time in 3 define eternity it is not in any way a technical or precise term. Even in layman speak someone can wait an eternity meaning they waited something like an hour.

At the moment it appears you don't really want an answer because you refuse to make the questions more precise. The choices of answer to the above questions are actually more interesting than your questions and in particular number 1.

For reference you are taught in school (REAL NUMBER SYSTEM), the second (COMPLEX NUMBER SYSTEM) is known to Calculus students and Engineers and Scientists worldwide, the other two fields (Quaternions and Octonions) are used by Mathematicians and some Physicists.

You could do worse than start with readings about works with octonions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octonion). Infinity is really interesting under octonions smile

BASIC PROBLEM SOLVING THEORY 101

quote: "As such, it makes sense to devote as much attention and dedication to problem definition as possible. What usually happens is that as soon as we have a problem to work on we’re so eager to get to solutions that we neglect spending any time refining it."

quote: "Every problem — no matter how apparently simple it may be — comes with a long list of assumptions attached. Many of these assumptions may be inaccurate and could make your problem statement inadequate or even misguided."

Originally Posted By: Jiddu Krishnamurti

“To ask the 'right' question is far more important than to receive the answer. The solution of a problem lies in the understanding of the problem; the answer is not outside the problem, it is in the problem."

Last edited by Orac; 11/26/14 01:53 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks for that Orac. I don't have time now to give consideration to all the points you raise, but I suspect that working through them will be a learning experience, which is what it is all about for me.

I have to say that my initial impression is that it is a lot of circumlocution of the type that "experts" tend to fall back on when when they don't like to admit that they don't have an answer, but closer inspection could, of course, prove me wrong.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
I guess an entirely new language is needed to match the concepts of non-duality in a duality based world.
What is hot without cold and what is cold etc. etc. etc.

Obviously concepts such as infinity or God had some kind of thought behind them, and if no one has learned to explore the concepts as they were presented then its easier to reject them and deny the concept altogether..

Let's scrap all forms of language and start over.

Who wants to take charge?

eek tired sleep sick wink grin confused smirk shocked laugh crazy blush frown smile cool mad whistle


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
In the mid 1950s I was building a carrier to use 35mm film in an ancient enlarger. I needed two lengths of curved spring. I went to a clock repair shop to see if I could purchase an old clock spring. I explained what I wanted and the shop owner bombarded me with technical questions that he said needed to be answered before he could know what kind of spring I should have. I left empty handed. In the next shop the man listened to my explanation, rummaged in his throw out box and gave me exactly what I needed. Guess where I went later to buy a clock.

We have a similar situation here.

Quote:
Define "number"


Perfectly reasonable request, but also the “go-to” response for avoiding saying “don’t know”.

Quote:
There is nothing different between infinity, zero, irrational, negative and complex numbers depending on what number system you are using they may or may not exist.

What sort of difference are you referring to? If it makes no difference which number system is used, why do you ask me to specify a number system in order to validate my question?

Quote:
You keep asking the same stupidly worded questions….


Have you thought that that is because I keep getting the same evasive, irrelevant responses?

Quote:
1.) What numbering system does the universe use and why?


If stupid questions were six inches tall, that would be a six-footer! What degree of presumption does one have to aspire to in order to think he/she can know what the Universe uses? Are you asking what numbering system scientists use when trying to understand the Universe? If so, perhaps you should take your own advice and ask the right question. If not, you should justify your presumption.

Quote:
2.) Is infinity as used above exactly as defined under the choice of the above numbering system.


This question is meaningless unless one has first answered the question: “Is infinity a number?”

Quote:
3.) Is time being defined as a change in observation or are you using it as some other scalar quantity. Even in physics there are multiple definitions of time including Classical, GR and QM to name but a few. What definition of time are you using in the question.


Inherent in this is the assumption that the way in which we choose to define time actually makes a difference to time itself. How would you justify that assumption?

Quote:
4.) Finally using your definition of time in 3 define eternity it is not in any way a technical or precise term.


I have not defined time. This point can be addressed only if the question: “Is eternity a length of time?” has been answered.

Quote:
Even in layman speak someone can wait an eternity meaning they waited something like an hour.


I would not insult your intelligence by assuming that you really think that has any relevance.

Quote:
At the moment it appears you don't really want an answer because you refuse to make the questions more precise


That is judgemental, arrogant and unwarranted.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
In the mid 1950s I was building a carrier to use 35mm film in an ancient enlarger. I needed two lengths of curved spring. I went to a clock repair shop to see if I could purchase an old clock spring. I explained what I wanted and the shop owner bombarded me with technical questions that he said needed to be answered before he could know what kind of spring I should have. I left empty handed. In the next shop the man listened to my explanation, rummaged in his throw out box and gave me exactly what I needed. Guess where I went later to buy a clock.

Just goes to show you that one can easily connect with another in concepts, and then others just get lost in their own minds regarding self constructed details in relevance to the personal isolation of ones self and ones reality.

It then comes down to a choice or willingness to expand beyond the fear of the "personal" being erased by anything that doesn't agree with ones beliefs... or ones experience... or the fear that the personal reality won't be revered by others in the fashion that one desires it to be worshiped, when an argument ensues and the ad hominem becomes the standard when responding to some thing, or some one.

If you can't rule the world, destroy it. wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Paraphrase:

"Every problem — no matter how apparently simple it may be — comes with a long list of people who think it’s really a different problem. Many of these other problems may have nothing to do with the original one, and may even be misleading."


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ignore this. I made a post, but then realized that I had a wrong link, so I am taking the whole thing out.

Bill Gill

Last edited by Bill; 11/26/14 11:46 PM.

C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
What sort of difference are you referring to? If it makes no difference which number system is used, why do you ask me to specify a number system in order to validate my question?

Seriously Bill S smile

Let do a simple versions for you to see the problem if your number system only allows positive integers then zero and negative numbers are illegal and not valid. Many what we call primitive cultures have that situation in there numbering systems.

Lets look at a few

Australian Aboriginals have no zero and no negatives and no decimals so if I was an Australian Aboriginal I would have some interesting answers for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_enumeration

There is no letter for Zero in Roman numerals because they didn't have it either the concept either but they did have fractions. So again if I was a ancient roman I would have some interesting but different answers for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

Now if we go forward you were taught the REAL NUMBER system at school so you are one up from these primitive cultures. The problem is there is a group of numbers that you can't deal with under that system and some you would have dealt with at school like irrational and repeating numbers. Simple Pi for example can not be written under that system you can only ever approximate it to some number of decimal places or write it in a special symbolic way and you can't use it in that format.

What I am suggesting to you is consider that part of your problem may be you and your primitive number culture and you are giving me interesting answers smile.

If you go to the highest number system we as human culture in the 20th Century know which is Octonions INFINITY presents no problem you can even do all arithmetic operations with it.


Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Have you thought that that is because I keep getting the same evasive, irrelevant responses?

There is nothing evasive about my answer it's very blunt have you consider part of your problem with the questions could be your ignorance in some of your assumptions.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If stupid questions were six inches tall, that would be a six-footer! What degree of presumption does one have to aspire to in order to think he/she can know what the Universe uses? Are you asking what numbering system scientists use when trying to understand the Universe? If so, perhaps you should take your own advice and ask the right question. If not, you should justify your presumption.

See here again you miss the problem any measurement has an accuracy is it 6 inchs, 6.0001 inchs or 6.00010001.... recurring inches. All scientific measurement is reported with an accuracy look at any scientific paper data .... only layman think 6 inches is actually 6 inches smile

So your 6 inches to me is 6 inches +- some uncertainty to this janitor and you will never be able to convince me otherwise smile

Any measurement requires a truncation of the number to some sort of universal grid which in our universe is a Plank distance. Your little REAL NUMBER SYSTEM you were taught at school can not deal with such a cutoff because there is no hint of what precision you need to use.

You have the same issue when you are faced with the common calculator and you want PI what you get is some rounded value that is the best approximation it can do with the decimal point accuracy available. Most calculators are unsuitable for astronomical calculations because they do not have the required precision.

Surely you have thought about this that the whole conservation of energy would be breakable under such a system like the fixed precision accuracy of a calculator. You could engineer situations to exploit the fixed decimal precision roundoff.

We even give it a name "Salami slicing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing)

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
This question is meaningless unless one has first answered the question: “Is infinity a number?”

Under Australian Aboriginal numeric no it's not
Under Ancient Roman numeric no it's not
Under the REAL NUMBER SYSTEM no it's not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number)
Under COMPLEX NUMBER SYSTEM can be argued either way depending on field of use.
Under QUATERNION NUMBER SYSTEM yes it is.
Under OCTONION NUMBER SYSTEM yes it is.

So which numeric system do you propose we use?

You may also please read the warning under Real numbers
QUOTE: "These descriptions of the real numbers are not sufficiently rigorous by the modern standards of pure mathematics. "

If you want it in layman speak the real number system is too primitive to be used for anymore for pure mathematics and I am asking you to consider is it therefore valid to use it for science discussion on the universe.

I will leave the time stuff for now because that gets even trickier with concepts buts lets see if we can work the number system you want to use on the universe and why you make that choice?

This may provide you help thinking about it: https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html

Last edited by Orac; 11/27/14 02:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I will put this as a seperate post as something you may want to consider.

The Standard Model says that particles that make up an atom, quarks and electrons are point particles they do not take up any "space". What makes an atom take up space is not anything spatial but the indeterminacy of its internal spatial relations because of the uncertainty principle.

Thus the standard model is built around an infinity and renormalization becomes important to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

Quote:
In quantum field theory, the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization is any of a collection of techniques used to treat infinities arising in calculated quantities.

Given the above you might need to think about the risk to select a number system that does not formally deal with infinity when dealing with the universe smile

Last edited by Orac; 11/27/14 03:22 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
A final presentation which will probably help you

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12796267/kapustin-talk.swf


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Australian Aboriginals have no zero and no negatives and no decimals so if I was an Australian Aboriginal I would have some interesting answers for you.


Are you out of your depth here, Orac, or are you being deliberately obtuse? If you want to involve the aboriginal concept of infinity, you need to be looking at Alcheringa in its original form, before it became mistranslated.

Alcheringa has been linked both to infinity and to the work of Itzhak Bars. It would make as much sense to suggest that the Aboriginals were ahead of current thinking about mathematical infinities as to involve their number system in this discussion.

The same charge of irrelevance applies to all your comments about different number systems; unless you can establish that infinity is a number.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
FFS orac are you intentionally trying to prove just how ridiculous and dumb your logic is?

the number 6 has no decimal point to consider , there is no decimal point in any whole number.

none !!!

Bill S , clearly specified 6 inches , and an inch is just as much a scientific measurement as a centimeter is.

You should stop trying to bluff your way through a discussion.

your lengthy deposits in this thread may as well have been deposited in the nearest trash bin.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Are you out of your depth here, Orac, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

I think you are being even more obtuse and you are play like the crazy pollack fool you aren't remotely interested in trying to get to the bottom of this.

IF YOU DECIDE TO STOP BEING A FOOL AT LEAST LOOK AT THE PRESENTATION

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12796267/kapustin-talk.swf

It will sort of at least give you a glimpse of the problem and they explain it in dumb as dog language.

Last edited by Orac; 11/27/14 03:41 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
FFS orac are you intentionally trying to prove just how ridiculous and dumb your logic is

Paul since you are such a genius I would like you to go down to your nearest metalwork shop and ask them to give you a 6inch long bar. That is 6 inches exactly plus and minus nothing because that is what you mean right laugh

I really want you to do it and tell me what they say smile

Then can you pleas send me your bar which is exactly 6.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...

Because I want it for the new SI standard

Here is a newsflash there is nothing in the world that has an exact measurement and this is part of the problem I am trying to get Bill S to understand. When a layman says 6 inches there is some inaccuracy that is allowed which is obviously dependant on the application. A 6 inch piece of lumber is probably something like a range 5.95 to 6.05 inches which a layman calls 6 inches because that is as close as he needs to know.

Whatever mathematics system the universe is using has to be able to cope with this problem ... oh but wait you build your own physics system and garbage so it probably isn't like that in your world smile

The problem is first manifest with ATOMS in that they are EXACTLY the same size for each element and that is sort of tricky to understand given the uncertainty in everything ... oh but wait again your physics is probably different because you can have an exact 6 inch bar smile

Last edited by Orac; 11/27/14 04:04 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Interesting that the six inches has become so important in the discussion. The intention of the "quote" was threefold:
1. to introduce a trace of humour;
2. to highlight the absurdity of the question;
3. as an homage to "The Navy Lark" q.v.

If the thread is going to descend into personal sniping, I will bow out at this point.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Did you at least watch the presentation to understand why the 6inches becomes a problem?

It's because it has uncertainty the thing you won't even acknowledge and you won't try and understand smile

They couldn't make it any simpler to understand in the presentation and if you don't get it at that point, then I am sorry but physics is always going to escape you and yes you really need to leave.

Last edited by Orac; 11/27/14 04:10 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
"...go down to your nearest metalwork shop...That is 6 inches exactly plus and minus nothing..."

Having metal working experience, all professional mechanical drawings (the old blueprints) I've worked with have a tolerance for length (x,y,z) and angles.

Fwiw

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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 UsokÂþ»­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