tronvillain

Infinity Lower:
I am afraid that reason is not readily apparent. Let us imagine that existence is finite and bounded on all sides, so that its shape is approximated by a sphere (from the inside anyway, as there is no outside). Are you claiming that there must be something for this "sphere" of existence to move around in? While there could be, I do not see that there must be.

Why would that necessarily be an improvement?

No, if existence extended for a finite amount of time into the past, it would not have to be preceeded by an "era of non-existence" - it would not have to be preceeded by anything. The answer to the question "How much time passed before existence?" would be "None." and hence existence would never have spontaneously come about out a situatin of absolute stasis because no situation of absolute stasis ever existed.

Well, the boundary would be impossible to get beyond because there would be no beyond to get to.

Of course, that assume that it is possible to lift your pencil - that there is something to lift your pencil into.

Pardon?

Well, curved space-time appears to be a physical possibility, but I see no reason to limit the discussion to that. Now, saying that "we move through time" does not appear to be the same as saying "we move according to movement." What does it even mean to say "we move according to movement?" I defy you to construct any system which depicts movement that does not include a time dimension.

No scientific theory is ever "truly proven" but the evidence definitely supports Einstein. Do you claim otherwise?

Ah, but even if any of that is true, you are simply assuming an infinite, which is the issue we are discussing.

Right... so you are simply agreeing with what I said? It's hard to tell sometimes.

Sorry, but none of what you just said makes any sense. You have heard of calculus, yes?

No, I am afraid I do not, but I suspect that is because it does not exist. We are examining the logical possibility of obtaining an infinite number of bodies (rather than the finite number you decided was possilbe) from a point, which has absolutely nothing to do with them existing for a finite or infinite about of time.

Ah, but saying "your butt is in flames" is the same as saying "your ass is on fire", because they mean the same thing. My point is that saying "there is nothing in the space between two objects" does not mean the same thing as ""the space between two objects consists of nothing." The first statement is no more impossible than saying "there is nothing in this box" - it simply means that the box contains no objects, and not that the box contains some substance called "nothing."

Besides risking being unreadable or appearing ridiculous? Not that I am aware of.

Well, I doubt the possibility of time travel, but not because I think time doesn't exist. Can you even coherently explain how time does not exist without having it as a hidden assumption?

Well, I'm glad.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Infinity Lover

So we have...

---------Infinity------------
If it's a load of crock; it sure is a BIG one. A boundless existence, where there isn't a single bit of space that isn't occupied by something, an infinite amount of finites in motion, all size and movement, mass and energy, going through a constant expansion that didn't begin, thus profiding every effect with a cause. Time being an interpretation of the process of continuous movement and change throughout space, rather than a realm to dwell through.
------------------------------
That it doesn't match up to comonly accepted views and popular theories is something I was already well aware of.

And there's
--------Tronvillainia:-----
It's a magical place, where nothing can move unless someone's keeping track of time, existing inside an approximated sphere without an outside, that nobody could ever get beyond to explore the box it's in, because there's nothing in it.
----------------------------
Okay, I'm laying it on a little thick there (trust me; If I consider you to have a sense of humor, I hold you in high esteem)

But seriously, on the subject of movement and time. I can't say I feel terribly defied there.
constructing a system which depicts movement that does not include a time dimension... here goes:

1)space.
2)bodies moving around in it.
Done.

Any essential elements lacking? The space is there? (check) There's bodies moving through it? (check) I have bodies moving through space? (doublecheck)
Now there would be little point in objecting to the bodies moving around, without referring to the ongoing process as the passage of time, because they frankly don't give a rats ass. Which is all for the better, because without all that constant change and movement through space you wouldn't have anything indicating that, as we call it, time is passing by.
Should I defy you to construct a system that depicts time, that does not involve the elements of movement or change? Could I possibly be that cruel? Please feel free to conclude I challenge you to no such thing.
Do I have to get into the night, day, seasons, years, mooncycles thing? What is a second if it isn't a section of movement? Does a clock tell time because it's in motion, or is in motion because of the time it's telling? (Same as for instance the gauge of a voltmeter moves, as it measures a voltage).
What I'm saying is that time exists in a contemplative sense, not in the real sense. You can express the movement through space in terms of time. But the space is an actual 'realm' to move through; time isn't. And that's where science in general, I think, might seriously have it's head up it's tailpipe. And why I'm not inclined to exclude the posibility that spacetimecurvature is a misinterpreted phenomenon.

-----------Tronvillain-------------
"Well, the boundary would be impossible to get beyond because there would be no beyond to get to."
"I am afraid that reason is not readily apparent. Let us imagine that existence is finite and bounded on all sides, so that its shape is approximated by a sphere (from the inside anyway, as there is no outside). Are you claiming that there must be something for this "sphere" of existence to move around in? While there could be, I do not see that there must be.
--------------------------------------
An infinite existence would exclude the nessecity of wondering where it would exist, because the answer would be everywhere. A finite existence however.... Everything it consists of would have a place to exist in, but the existence itself...
Where would it exist?
No matter how much of a logical prison you turn it into (What's beyond the boundary? Answer: no outside inside. What happened before it's initiation? Answer: no before after.) you'd still need to stick it somewhere I'm affraid. If it's not anywhere, it's nowhere pal.

As far as the empty box goes (now there's a fruitfull topic), to avoid future misunderstandings, when I use the word nothing, I'm not being playfull with language. Nothing=nothing. Not even the box it's in. Considering nothing doesn't exist (good luck proving otherwise, without existing at the same time), that empty box is still jampacked with whatever your naked eye isn't registering.
(That's just what this thread needed; some unadulterated nudety).

And I'll flat out admit that most calculus is to steep for me (though I was pretty good at math in highschool, after switching from Havo to VWO I obviously reached the limit to my numbercrunching skills). If that leads you to the conclusion I'm not worth dick as a thinker period, I'll just chance that.
I do know, that you don't need Cantor's math, to understand what having no beginning or end implies, or that there's an infinite amount of points on any given piece of line, or an infinite amount of numbers between 0,001 and 0,002.

Simply put; infinity exists within limitation because it's not subject to boundaries. It doesn't stop being infinite within those limitations. But not outside those limitations either. It wouldn't be infinity if it did.
Let's take a line, representing the process 'the universe' goes through. Let it originate from a point, (let's pretend it's the big bang), go through a second point, and infinitely go on from there....
Have we just drawn a line that goes on infinitely?
No. The line ends somewhere; at the point of origin.
So now there's a line that infinitely goes on..... but it doesn't infinitely go on.
Which is it?
Haven't I just drawn a blatant contradiction of basic logic?
Can something have one quality, and it's opposite at the same time?
Simultaniously wet and dry? Both alive and dead? Logical and illogical?

If existence isn't boundless, then howcome there is infinity within it's limitation?
Can infinity be finite? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

echidna

Good luck, tron.

Infinity Lover

You'll need it.

Added post:

The illogicality of existence as a closed finite system.

X=UBod.
-------------

A-X-B

We have two registerable, classyfiable bodies, A and B, but what is in the 'space'between them? (X)
If X were litterly nothing, we'd have an absolute zero, an area where there's nothing in existence, a pocket of complete nonexistence existing, a finite realm where impossibility is possible, a blatant breach of logic.
If the whole of existence was like this, it would litterly be nothing containing something. If nothing existing isn't impossible enough, nothing containing something would be even more mindboggingly impossible, let alone nothing containing an enourmous amount of things.
Conclusion: X has to be something, whatever it might be.
Regardless of possible existing terms (like dark matter for instance), I'm sticking to a term that's more true to the nature of the subject: UBod (Unfamilliar Body). Because that's exactly what it is, a type of body we haven't been able to familliarize ourselves with yet. (As opposed to Unidentified, which would indicate registered but not yet classified, or Unregistered indicating the opposite.) And since nothing can be perfectly flat, thin, or small (having no size whatsoever), or stand perfectly still for that matter, you're always dealing with a 3D body and it's behaviour.
If A and B themselves were Ubods, X would still have to be a Ubod as well.
----------------

An emotionally charged topic.
-----------------------------------
Taking this into consideration, there couldn't possibly be a bit of 'space' that isn't occupied by something. Naturally two objects can't occupy the same spot simultaniously, so how is movement possible in this case?

In an infinite, boundless environment this wouldn't pose a problem, because there's infite movingspace. The finite subjects within this environment would be subject to boundaries that can be crossed by certain bodies, enabeling movement of other bodies within the subject.

But in a finite environment that couldn't possibly be surpassed, whatever the cause of this finite absolute 'prison' might be, you'd have a major problem. The whole thing would be completely stuck, disabeling all movement. A situation of absolute stasis, that obviously doesn't exist; otherwise I wouldn't be sitting here typing this.

This leaves me with two options. I'll leave it open to debat wheter either is possible.

1)Existence is finite, and nothing exists (creating movingspace within boundaries for whatever does exist)
2)Nothing doesn't exist. Existence is absolutely infinite.

Another problem with option one, is that although everything within this existence has a place to exist in, the finite existence itself doesn't.

Marcel

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

tronvillain

Infinity Lover, while I do have a sense of humour, I am far more amused by your actual responses than at your attempt to ridicule my position on certain logical possibilities.

I asked you to construct a system which depicted movement but did not include a time dimension, which you have completely failed to do. Of course, I am not surprised since any description of motion must assume the existence of temporal relationships. To say that something moved is to say that then it was in one place and now it is in another.

Such a challenge is trivially easy to meet: three spatial dimensions (x, y, and z) and one time dimension (t). Put a sphere correspoinding to the equation x^2+y^2+z^2=1 into this system. Now, move along the time axis as far as you like - the sphere will not ever move or change.

The question "Where would a finite existence exist?" is gibberish, as is the question "Where would an infinite existence exist?" Neither question can be answered with "Everywhere.", since that would simply be to say "Existence exists where existence is." By definition existence does not require somewhere to exist outside of itself, it simply is, whether it is finite or infinite.

By definition, nothing does not exist, but that does not prevent me from saying "nothing is in the box." Now, one could argue that is simply an approximation, and that there is air, or at the very least space, and that the statement would only be completely accurate if the box had no internal volume.

Well, calculus has resolved Xeno's paradox - he was simply mistaken in thinking that the sum of an infinite series must be infinite.

The problem is with your assumption that something infinite cannot have a limit - it is simply wrong. A line drawn from zero to positive infinite is infinitely long, but it begins at zero. The volume encompassed by two infinite parallel planes is infinite, but it it clearly limited by the two planes. I could continue to list examples endlessly, but hopefully your error is now obvious to you.

For future reference, "it's" means "it is" - you should be using "its" to indicate possession by a thing. Anyway, it is not a matter of infinity being finite, it is a matter of how a given infinity is defined. A line that extends infinitely along the x-axis does not also extend infinitely along the y-axis and the z-axis.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

echidna

Umm, I have a dog. It has a tail at one end, and at the other end … a head.

Haven't I just drawn a blatant contradiction of basic logic?
Can something have one quality, and it's opposite at the same time?
Simultaneously head and tail? Both alive and dead? Logical and illogical?

If tail isn't head, then how come there is head within it's limitation?
Can head be tail?

Sadly Infinity_Lover, I really have no idea where you’re coming from. I feel as though I should be feeling the earth shatter under me … and yet it’s not. Do you have any sites which explain your position a little better ?

Compared with my own, Tronvillain’s attention span is bordering on a disorder.

Infinity Lover

-----TV------
Infinity Lover, while I do have a sense of humour, I am far more amused by your actual responses than at your attempt to ridicule my position on certain logical possibilities.
---------------
I'm sorry if that came across as an attempt at riddiculing. I first summed up the elements of my view, followed by summing up yours, to point out one doesn't nessecarily sound any stranger than the other. Though I'll admit the presentation was a trifle tongue in cheeck.

---------TV--------
"I asked you to construct a system which depicted movement but did not include a time dimension, which you have completely failed to do. Of course, I am not surprised since any description of motion must assume the existence of temporal relationships. To say that something moved is to say that then it was in one place and now it is in another."
----------------------
Movement can mean both motion and displacement. Nitpicking, by the way, only has one definition according to my dictionary. (I didn't look up sarcasm ) Even with defining movement as displacement in stead of motion I wouldn't call it a complete failure, the space itself might just as well have been cycling through colours to get the desired effect, taking into consideration that the element of change still leads to the same conclusion, that it's this process of change that profides us with the concept of time (same as with the changing numbers on a digital clock), but it's impossible to have a concept of time without movement...

---------IL---------
Should I defy you to construct a system that depicts time, that does not involve the elements of movement or change?
-------TV-------------
Such a challenge is trivially easy to meet: three spatial dimensions (x, y, and z) and one time dimension (t). Put a sphere correspoinding to the equation into this system. Now, MOVE along the time axis........
------------------------

Do what?

------TV----------
Now, MOVE along the time axis........
--------------------
No dice. Breach of protocol I'm affraid. Perhaps it's not as trivially easy as you thought.
(Ouch man; why?)

In the mean'time', I worked out the glitch in my model.
Check this out.
1) <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

See that sucker move? Or you can simply look around you. My position remains unaltered. Motion is all motion requires. Time however.... That's a interpretation of that motion, a contemplative filter we look through in our observation of this motion. And it's impossible to express time in anything else but timeunits, which are pieces of motion themselves. The rotation of a celestial body, the vibrating of an atom. The concept of time requires motion, motion doesn't require the concept of time.
(And the construction of every random model, that doesn't include the dimension of time, is a motion in itself.)

You describe existence as a finite X, consisting of a collection of finites Y. Y seems to have a place to be, but that's not really the case because X itself does not.
Even though X can't logicly exist, X consisting of Y supposedly solves the problem, because Y couldn't possibly not-exist.
You can't eliminate one imposibility by simply throwing another one at it.

Off course existence exists. But that doesn't mean you can argue it into existing in the middle of impossibility, and make the problem go away by saying the impossiblity isn't there. Create a bubble of alledged probability, and rule out the existence of the needle on the outside that makes it go POP. Isn't it funny, how that's something you'd expect in a religious debate.

------IL------
Let's take a line, representing the process 'the universe' goes through. Let it originate from a point, (let's pretend it's the big bang), go through a second point, and infinitely go on from there....
The line ends somewhere; at the point of origin.
So now there's a line that infinitely goes on..... but it doesn't infinitely go on.
Which is it?
Haven't I just drawn a blatant contradiction of basic logic?
Can something have one quality, and it's opposite at the same time?
Simultaniously wet and dry? Both alive and dead? Logical and illogical?
If existence isn't boundless, then howcome there is infinity within it's limitation?
Can infinity be finite?

-------Echidna---------
Umm, I have a dog. It has a tail at one end, and at the other end … a head.
Haven't I just drawn a blatant contradiction of basic logic?
Can something have one quality, and it's opposite at the same time?
Simultaneously head and tail? Both alive and dead? Logical and illogical?
If tail isn't head, then how come there is head within it's limitation?
Can head be tail?
----------------------------
Do I sense an element of frustration in that post Echidna?

It's not my intention to try anyone's patience, and I'm sorry if it does nonetheless.
Rest assured I'm not going to preceive any of this as sad. And I appreciate your wit. , at the risk of misinterpreting contempt.

But I still notice how you're comparing apples with pears, (If that expression's different in English, bare with me, I'm sure you still know what it means) regardless of the mockery it's mixed with.
A dog can't have a tail and not have a tail at the same time.
It can't have a head and be headless simultaniously.
And something that has both beginning and end, a finite, certainly doesn't compare to the logical contradiction I presented. Do I really need to spell out how it represents the 'open universe originating from a primal bang' hypotheses? You could try to dazzle me with endless streams of calculations, my brain could never properly process, but that stupid simple line, supposedly endless, yet at the same time ending somewhere nontheless, ultimately says it all.
BB|------------&gt; --- -- -
(line representing the expansion of the universe goes on infinitely)
An endLESS line with an END?
How does that not set of any form of b.s. alert?

We have this expression in Dutch. Not being able to see the forest because off all the trees that are in the way.

------Echidna-------
Sadly Infinity_Lover, I really have no idea where you’re coming from. I feel as though I should be feeling the earth shatter under me … and yet it’s not. Do you have any sites which explain your position a little better ?
Compared with my own, Tronvillain’s attention span is bordering on a disorder.
------------------------
Should I really have to apologize for looking at the forest?
Or for not trying to tie the trees into knots?
Or suggesting a whole lot of people might be barking up the wrong one? Or at least mistaking in certain respects?

As far as a website on 'my position' goes; I'm working on one. (Remember mockery's the easy way out. Don't insult your own intellect.) In the meantime you can read my added post, giving further explaination on how according to basic logic every bit of 'space' has to be occupied by something, and how that leads to the conclusion that existence (all that exists, a term I prefer in favor of the more scientific 'universe', because it precisely describes it for what it is) has to be absolutely infinite in order to function. There's plenty of explaination on my perception on the concept of time in this thread. And there's also an explaination on my "principle of absolute infinity" in the "Infinity anxiety; the irrational attachment to beginning thread." And I'm always open to questions and counterarguments.
I'm well aware my views seem oversimplistic (read opening of o.p.), and don't match up popular theories. But unless you can point out actual illogicalities in them, I'm not inclined to abandon them. This very much is my 'sense of reality' we're talking about.
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind a little sarcasm; that keeps me on my toes. But don't make it the soul ingredient.

Respect.
Marcel

tronvillain

Infinity Lover:
A trifle tongue in cheeck? It did not even vaguely resemble my position.

Regardless of whether movement means motion or displacement, it assumes the existence of a temperal dimension. As I said before, to say that something moved is to say that then it was there and now it is here.

*sigh* The point was that the sphere is the same at all points along the t-axis, and so time need not be dependent on the movement of objects in spatial dimensions. The invitation to move along the time axis was simply addressed to you as an observer external to the system.

Give your definition of motion, because as far as I can tell, the generally accepted definition is a change in spatial location (x=0,y=0,z=0 to x-1,y=1,z=1) over time (t=0 to t=1). Unless you can offer an alternative definition, your assertion that motion exists independent of time will not stand.

Trying to dodge the problem by shifting language I see. I will simply again point out how ridiculous the question "Where does existence exist?" is, regardless of whether existence is finite or infinite. In either case the answer can be "Everywhere!", but that is simply saying that "Existence exists where existence is." One might as well answer the question by pointing to every location and saying "There."

So, you are upset that I do not agree with you about what is impossible. Too bad, because as far as I can tell, your assertions of impossibility are completely unsupported.

Now, how about you go back and address the rest of my post?

Infinity Lover

I will remain giving this thread the proper amount of further attention. But bare in mind I do have a life of responsibilities outside this board.

(to be continued...)

Infinity Lover

"Now how about you go back and adress the rest of my post?"

Or else straight to my room and no desert?

There is a limit to how well one can interface one's thoughts. This is not only a matter of one's personal expressive abilities, but subject to the random element of someone else's (mis)ineterpretation as well.
Whether either of us has the tendancy to (sub)consiously look for things to misinterpret, for the benefit of our own position, is something I'm not going to put on the board for debat. I think it's wiser to simply point that it's something to be mindfull of.

Concerening what our exchange of thoughts is starting to evolve into(or at least my interpretation of it):
Let's say my position is that I have a cat. I get the impression, it's now being countered, by saying you've got a dog, and I'm supposed to point out why you don't, which hasn't got anything to do with me having a cat or not.

One of the first things you brought up in your initial post, was something I'll, for the sake of argument, refer to as 'the bubble of no-beyond'.

Here is where I burst the bubble
-----------Tronvillain-----
"Well, the boundary would be impossible to get beyond BECAUSE there would be NO BEYOND to get to."
------------------------------

There's no way to determine there's no other side of the boundary, so the 'lack of beyond' can't serve as a valid cause.
Why?
Because the boundary makes it impossible to upgrade the 'lack of beyond' from mere assumption to certainty.
A posibility that could never become a certainty, is NOT a possible certainty. It's an imposiblity that's waiting for you to get your head out of your tailpipe; the very bogus God's made from.
(Little confidence in my ability to logicly deduct?)
I'm going to asume you either 1)overlooked this error, or 2)were deliberately throwing a puzzle at me, so you could get some laughs out of seeying me wrestle with it. Either way I sincerely hope you're not going to insult your intellect by insulting mine.
Before I continue responding to your posts on this thread, I'd like a straight answer Tron. Not to sling false accusations, but because I want to avoid doing something as unbecoming as that...

Are you simply trying to toy with me for your personal amusement?

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>