Infinity Lover

Sorry if I wipe the slate completely clean, and start logical deduction from scratch. If we weren't willing to do that in the pursuit of rational explainations, possible bugs in commonly accepted theories would always remain unnoticed and unquestioned, stunning our growth on the whole, I hope you'll agree.

Perhaps someone out there is willing and able to hypotheticly go along with this, to see where it leads to...

If I'm oversimplifying things here, due to 'lack of insight', couldn't it on the other hand not also be said, that straying from basic logic based on the hypothesesis that it doesn't truelly apply to reality the way one might be inclined to 'assume' it does, is pretty much the same as claiming there's a realm of incomprehendable illogicality beyond the logic we're familliar with, rather than admitting there are aspects of currently held theories that simply don't make any sense, hense validating the indulgence of irrational garble as scientificly viable.

1)where there is no existence there would have to be (or rather not-be) non-existence. Or in other words, it's the nonexistent opposite of existence.
2)existence can't be subject to boundaries, because the non-existence beyond those hypothetical boundaries doesn't exist.
3)existence couldn't possibly be anything but boundless, or in other terms infinite.
4)with a expansion taking place at a constant rate throughout an infinite area, every mathmatical point in this area will APPEAR to be the centre from which the expansion originates.

You'd have to take such a hypothetical centre as a frame of reference to determine the expansionrate. The further random points A and B are apart in this process, the faster the gap between them widens. But then again what else is new.

5)an infinite area can't possibly have a 'point' from where such an expansion originates because there is no centre.

On the subject of points....
What's the point of arguing about a hypothetical expansion that could never properly progress, because it would have to go through a infinitely lengthy accelerationprocess, from a point that couldn't possibly be reached in the first place, let alone actually exist? (a point can only exist in the theoretical perfection of mathematics.)
Or a primal bang that didn't try to foolishly comply with mathmatical perfection because some Greek dude named Xeno said so, but aledgedly originated from a point that couldn't possibly exist nontheless. You might have a finite amount of bodies originating from what couldn't possibly be an actual 'point', but never an infinite amount. (THE big bang would have to be merely 'a' big bang.)

Try to think think forward for a change. With an infinite process you have little choice but to pick a random moment to start investigating the process, and today is as good a day as any.
Keep in mind there's an infinite amount of mass and infinite space for that mass to infinitely move around in All such an expansion ultimately results in, is wide (seemingly) open spaces between larger bodies (galaxies).
How about the forces at play in such 'wide open area's' and what those might cause on a quantumlevel.

On a quantum level;
1)the space between two subjects can't possibly consist of nothing.
You can't have pockets of nonexistence existing.
(aw; can't we have nonexistence sometime's being existence for the heck of it, please?
Nope; sorry)
2)there isn't a single bit of space that isn't occupied by something.
(infinite movingspace; not a problem.)
Whatever's considered a vacuum, it would still have to be jam-packed with whatever we can't properly register or classify yet.

I wonder how those star birth clouds fit into this whole picture?
If there was this primal bang everything came out of, who's business are those oversized gassy sun-wombs minding?

Another thing to consider; existence can't do anything but exist, but that doesn't nessecarily mean harbour organic life; that may as well be one of the infinite amount of possible changes it's going through.

And howcome science is capable of considering one particular subject in existence a desicive absolute (lightspeed in a vacuum), while at the same time not treating the desicive primary attribute of existence itself, infinity, boundlessness, as the absolute it is?
You can't have two simultanious infinites, so everything existence consists of is automaticly subject to limitation (even though there's boundless potential within every limitation, because infinity doesn't stop inside those limits), but the infinite whole of existence itself couldn't possibly be. You simply can't slap a limit (a beginning) on infinity.

Or how about the way some say that there was no 'before the Big Bang', because time didn't exist until this 'dimension' unfolded along with the other three during this primal bang? Isn't time merely the frame of reference you get, from the way one limited process is followed by a different one, and given a concrete absolute norm, a standard of meassurement, by using a specific constant motion (a timeunit, such as the second), to observe seperately for determining 'the passage of time' or 'a point in time', or to be used for comparison with other movements to calculate various aspects of a process (like velocity, traveled distance, etc.). If there's no time, that also means there's no movement, and not a single process taking place. How could a process, such as the infamous big bang, possibly be preceided by a condition of absolute stasis? Under such sircumstances no process could possibly be triggered, let alone the coming about of what we call the universe!

Or how about the notion of time not being capable of escaping the gravitational pull of a black hole... regardless of how a black hole impacts the behaviour and condition of the matter it suck in, thus altering the process this matter goes through, it would still be a process that can be meassured according to our known timeframe; seconds, minutes, hours, etc. Whatever's being trapped by such a black hole, it could never be what we call time!

Am I the only one sniffing something funny?
Am I not stating valid points? Am I not asking relevant questions?

Any thoughts on any of this... anyone?

(With a hopefully not too premature thx to whoever's willing to consider and respond )

WJ

I would have to agree with your ideas about existence, logic, finitude and infinitude. If our sense perceptions about our existence always relate to time and space, where are the boundaries? It is not possible to fully comprehend or understand why there is such a thing as timeless concepts, we just find them useful.

Timeless concepts v. existing things dependent upon time (us) is indeed quite a paradox.

Infinity Lover

It is doable to comprehend that the sigular "moment we exist in" isn't the static thing you see in cheap SciFi flicks, where time standing still equals everything freezing up, but actually the very movement and change we see around us. It doesn't become 'the passage of time, untill you start thinking in such terms. We're everchanging subjects with a size, moving through space, and that clock that tells you time is just another one of those moving subjects, same as the sun we revolve around giving us seazons, years, while the earth itselfs spins, giving us days... You don't keep track of, or think in terms of time 24 seven... and if you do you really need to unwind some'time'. We also need to speak in terms of time to keep communication practicle.
Besides that it's also perfectly doable to comprehend that you could never ever (see talking time ) fit the whole of existence between the ears BECAUSE it's boundless. We only deal with a limited part of existence... life as we know it, but that doesn't mean it's beyond us to understand that limited part belongs to an infinite whole. And that slapping a boundary on it that couldn't possibly be the border between existence and nonexistence, isn't something intelligent grownups with degrees in science should seriously do... but that's my opinion.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

sweep

microcosmic and macrocosmic photography in analysis: releasing the boundaries of the imagination by different focal points- inward/ outward focus, as you put it infinity- can you relate to it?

The photographs illustrate modern fractal geometry in its infinite complexity, yet simple dynamics. A pattern is created mathematically according to fractal geometry and it works at all levels in terms of its form, stemming from a basic formula. The prints in question convey a basic formula in the sense that they are simple, and only represent the substance in part. The fact that the images are not set in context and contain phenomena that the human mind does not ordinarily contend with, adds to the effort a viewer has to put in identifying the image. In this way the images eliminate the boundaries imposed on the mind in the act of perceiving, effectively opening the way for the imagination. As a result the viewer is forced to place the object in a context of recognition. This has been made possible by the advent of photographic media and technology extraneous to our worldview.

Infinity Lover

Are you suggesting people should stare at mandelbröd for a bit, before they try to read my post?

sweep

no, persons should read your post and decide for themself whether it fits within their current means for comparing and contrasting purposes. If it does then write it down and imitate as best you can- certainly a possibility

Blankman

Might not hurt. Neither would sniffing some glue. LOL

tronvillain

Infinity Lover:
Oh, I will agree, but I am afraid that I have little confidence in your abilities when it comes to logical deduction.

While I am perfectly willing and able to go along with this, I must point out that where it leads may not be where you may think it leads...

I suppose it could, or at least I think I suppose it could.

I will just point out that my objections to your points do not mean that I claim the universe has a boundary or is finite in extent.

1) The words "no existence" are simply another way of saying "non-existence" - both are simply the opposite of existence.

2) There is no apparent reason that existene cannot be subject to boundaries. Perhaps a short dialague will shed light on the problem you are apparently having with this idea:

A. What exists beyond the boundary?
B. Nothing.
A. You mean that nothing exists beyond the boundary?
B. That's right.
A. Ah, but nothing cannot actually exist!
B. That's also right.
A. Haven't you just contradicted yourself?
B. No, for to say that nothing exists beyond the boundary is simply to say that there is no "beyond the boundary."

3) That something is boundless does not necessarily mean that it is infinite. After all, the surface of a sphere is boundless but finite in extent - you may trace an infinite distance on it without encountering a boundary, but it is finite in area.

4) I assume you mean that the expansion rate is constant over space rather than time, since the expansion rate could vary over time and every point could still be defined as the centre of expansion.

5)An infinite space cannot have an actual point from which expansion occurs, but any point will appear to be the centre of expansion.

I assume you mean that the further away you get from a given point, the faster points appear to be moving away, and that as as you approach infinite points will appear to be moving away infinitely fast. There is no apparent reason this should require an infinitely lengthy acceleration process rather than an instantaneous acceleration process.

If a finite number of bodies could originate from a point, then there is no apparent reason that an infinite number of bodies could not do so as well. Exactly where do you see a logical obstacle?

That the universe has no boundary and is infinite in extent with respect to space does no imply that it is so with respect to time. That said, it does appear to be true that expansion results in widening gaps between large collections of matter.

Saying that "there is nothing in the space between two objects" is not the same as saying "the space between two objects consists of nothing." Only the second is vulnerable to the objection "You can't have pockets of non-existence existing."

Why should they be minding anyone's business? They are simply a sufficiently dense collection of matter being pulled together by gravity.

You should probably cut down on semi-colons a bit... I don't think you can really justify using two in a sentence that short.

See my earlier objections, and again, that the universe is boundless and infinite with respect to space does not imply that it is with respect to time.

As far as I can tell, there is simply no way to get around treating time as a dimension. Now, who actually says "there was no 'before the Big Bang', because time didn't exist until this 'dimension' unfolded along with the other three during this primal bang." If someone actually said that, I can see why you would be confused since the word "until" requires an existing temporal framework. As far as I can tell, when someone says "There was no time before the Big Bang.", they mean "There was no 'before the Big Bang'." As a result, the Big Bang is not preceded by anything, and was not triggered by anything.

To my knowledge, no one claims that time is not able to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole.

Well, you may not be the only one, but that doesn't mean you are actually smelling anything funny. You are making valid points, but you definitely aren't batting a hundred. As for your questions... well, some of them are a little confused.

Those are my thoughts, but you may have decided that the happy face was too premature.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

sweep

tronvillain:

I still don't see that a big bang could be uncaused (untriggered)- that is one of the points that has no explanation. Some people assume that is just is, end of story.

picky? I know the language might be loose but i know what he means. Mind you, it is helpful to point out ones faulty language, especially if others have trouble understanding.

no, but surely necessary is only a matter of preference. Choosing to view, in this matter, a boundless 'something' as finite doesn't help me to anchor this thread much more than i have already tried.

the word gap takes me back to the notion of space, and i think of matter separated by a 'big black void'. An immaterial black void would contain no time and no space meaning that no such gap would exist, which takes us back to the notion that a gap is material.

Try this on for size- instead of looking outwards to expansion how about looking inwards. Consider that our lives are infinitely finite- in the sense that our 'finiteness' contains boundless potential.

Infinity Lover

Can you, on the one hand have infinity existing within a boundary, while it on the other hand doesn't continue beyond this boundary? Infinity is infinity, but not infinitely?

----------------TronVilain-----------
"I am afraid that I have little confidence in your abilities when it comes to logical deduction."
---------------------------------------
That's quite alright. If we're not allowed to doubt one another, we can't trust one another. And if we're not willing to doubt ourselves, we can't trust ourselves. Keeping in mind, that I'm keeping that in mind, rest assured I'm not inclined to deliberately b.s. myself.
--------TV---------------
"While I am perfectly willing and able to go along with this, I must point out that where it leads may not be where you may think it leads... "
--------------------------
The mind wants questions answered, but it doesn't like having it's answers questioned. A natural urge one must recognize for what it is, and surpress in the pursuit of truth. (If we can learn to not piss all over the place and all over ourselves, we can also pottytrain our brains) If you don't, stubbornness and ignorance take over, and debates would become a latrine for verbal diarea, and mental constipation. So I appreciate your sincere willingness to take my post serious, profide me with food for thought I might have overlooked myself, and put my rationality to the test.
-------TV---------
I suppose it could, or at least I think I suppose it could.
---------------------
(Or to put it differntly, I'm pondering the thought, of considering to suppose, that assuming it might, might be safe to say) Could this be the brains natural defence at play? (Just goofing.)

---------TV---------------
I will just point out that my objections to your points do not mean that I claim the universe has a boundary or is finite in extent.
----------------------------
But you're keeping your options open? If so, I'm cool with that. I'm a "choose certainties but always keep your options open" kinda guy myself. (Considering choices come in two absolute flavours, wise and unwise, that's probably the primary piece of wisdom to base one's choices on.)

----------TV-----------------
There is no apparent reason that existene cannot be subject to boundaries. Perhaps a short dialague will shed light on the problem you are apparently having with this idea:
A. What exists beyond the boundary?
B. Nothing.
A. You mean that nothing exists beyond the boundary?
B. That's right.
A. Ah, but nothing cannot actually exist!
B. That's also right.
A. Haven't you just contradicted yourself?
B. No, for to say that nothing exists beyond the boundary is simply to say that there is no "beyond the boundary."
---------------------------
Here you're talking boundaries in terms of size. (Existence being 'something', rather than everything) First of all there IS an apearant reason why existence can't be subject to boundaries in that sense. There would still have to be room for this supposed finite existence to move around in! It can't stand perfectly still. There's no such thing as perfection; also the reason why 0Kelvin can't be reached, nothing can stand perfectly still so there's always a remainder of kinetic energy thus heat.

---------TV-----------
That the universe has no boundary and is infinite in extent with respect to space does no imply that it is so with respect to time.
------------------------
Okay; so now the tables are turned, existence having infinite size, but not lifespan. Well at least there's infinite movingspace for everything in existence to move around in now. Guess that's an improvement. No time without movement. (Just try to tell time from a clock that stands still...more about that further on)

If exisistence had a limited lifespan, it would again have been preceided by an 'era of nonexistence'. The process it goes through, would have spontaniously come about out of a situation of absolute stasis. That's impossible.

Your final statement "B. No, for to say that nothing exists beyond the boundary is simply to say that there is no "beyond the boundary." correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be based on the hypothesis that there's a boundary that would be impossible to get beyond, so there's no possible existence (or impossible nonexistence) beyond the boundary to argue about. Making it a possible way for existence to have a boundary.

(I suppose it could, or at least I think I suppose it could.)
You'd think?

-----------TV---------
3) That something is boundless does not necessarily mean that it is infinite. After all, the surface of a sphere is boundless but finite in extent - you may trace an infinite distance on it without encountering a boundary, but it is finite in area.
------------------------
Same goes for the surface of any object, as long as you don't object to turning corners in the process of tracing distances. But here goes... In stead of tracing lines, lift the pencil you're tracing lines around the surface with OFF the surface. Are you still in touch with the surface? It does end somewhere doesn't it? the inside of any given body isn't the surface either.

For the sake of argument, picture yourself tracing a distance across the surface of a sphere, while fighting off the notion of absolute infinity... Aaaarrrgh it's finite, it's boundless, it's finite, it's boundless. Clinging on to relativity is much like that.

Because that's what it kind of boils down to isn't it? Curved spacetime? Einstein knew very well all movement is realative; that's what his theory was based on. And how do we refer to this constant movement and change..? The passage of time. Which norm do we apply as an absolute to compare all those other movements with? A TIMEUNIT. (A second for instance) which is nothing but a piece of movement itself. Tick (movement) tock (movement). We move through spacetime? We move through space yes. But saying we move through time, is the same as saying we move according to movement.
Has the curvature of spacetime ever been truelly proven? What have our eyes witnessed? Corrupted clocks? Mathmatical perfection unavoidably deviating from reality? The trajecory of light being bend? Are what we call dimensions, truelly maniputable realms to dwell in? The problem with relativity being applied to the process existence is going through, or any formula being applied to infinity, is that it simply doesn't work. Any calculation with infinity in it would take forever, and never profide a conclusive outcome (you'd always have to settle for a questionable premature estimate). You can only get a grip on limited parts of infinity.

------TV---------
4) I assume you mean that the expansion rate is constant over space rather than time, since the expansion rate could vary over time and every point could still be defined as the centre of expansion.
-------------------
Expansion is a PROCESS, which means it's the movement of bodies through space. Which means it can be subjected to that overlyfamilliar frame of reference called time, which is a mere derivative of movement through space (what would movement through lack of space be I suddenly wonder) Im not entirely sure what you mean with that statement, but I'm going to go with a variable expansionrate. If that's the thing, the acceleration or decelleration would have to be constant throughout the whole of existence. Otherwise not every point would appear to be the centre, and there'd be points where you definately wouldn't want to be (as the multitude of celestial bodies homes in on Tronvillain at an alarming pace; "AAAaaargh!!!")

----------IL--------------
On the subject of points....
What's the point of arguing about a hypothetical expansion that could never properly progress, because it would have to go through a infinitely lengthy accelerationprocess, from a point that couldn't possibly be reached in the first place, let alone actually exist? (a point can only exist in the theoretical perfection of mathematics.)
-------TV---------------
I assume you mean that the further away you get from a given point, the faster points appear to be moving away, and that as as you approach infinite points will appear to be moving away infinitely fast. There is no apparent reason this should require an infinitely lengthy acceleration process rather than an instantaneous acceleration process.
---------------------------
No, that's not what I mean. Immagine trying to reach a mathmetical point. Get closer, and closer, and closer... you'd never actually reach it because it's infinitely small, but you'd be slowing down more and more, and more, but never actually stand still. Now reverse that process, and you pretty much have the infamous paradox of Xeno. That's supposed to make you wonder about how you could possibly ever go anywhere, by foolishly applying mathmatical perfection to reality. Must reach point, must- reach- p-o-i-n-t!! No you stupid Greek; PASS THEM BY! Didn't Xeno get run over at a zebracrossing while cerating that paradox? Guess I added that bit to my post because I find the whole infinite regression discussion rather silly.
--------TV----------
If a finite number of bodies could originate from a point, then there is no apparent reason that an infinite number of bodies could not do so as well. Exactly where do you see a logical obstacle?
----------------------

The point of origin, a beginning, would be a limit. Infinity with a limit??? That's exactly where I see the logical obstacle. See it too now?
-------TV-------
Saying that "there is nothing in the space between two objects" is not the same as saying "the space between two objects consists of nothing."
------------------------
And saying your but is in flames, is not the same as saying your ass is on fire. But they mean the same thing. A space consisting of nothing, IS as space where there's nothing, same difference, same impossibility.

---------TV---------
You should probably cut down on semi-colons a bit...
----------------------
Perhaps. I am kinda hooked. Read too much Irving I guess. Any hazzardous side-effects I should know about?

--------TV---------
As far as I can tell, there is simply no way to get around treating time as a dimension.
---------------------
The concept of time serves a practical use, but I do think there's a lot of grownups with degrees in science treating it like something it's not. Starlab invests efort and money in investigating timetravel. Imagine traveling through a realm that doesn't really exist. How far do you need to have your head up your ass for that? I think Kevin Costner's bit in "A perfect world" with the car as a timemachine is as insightful as it gets.

And the smiley face wasn't premature.

------TV-------
but you definitely aren't batting a hundred.
----------------
Keep in mind I'm not pro-league. Which is why I have that relatively clean slate.

A sincere thx for your fastballs, curveballs, spitballs, knuckleballs....

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>