My own paradox!

[nes]

You keep treating "infinite" as a value; it is not.
Saying that something has an "infinite value" is shorthand for saying that
whatever actual, concrete value you may pick, that something is still
bigger than your chosen value.

Why, you keep on treating "infinite" as being able to exist in actuality.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Babbling

"Babbling"

All of what you said means absolutely nothing to me.

:notlook:

You have not proven to be anything infinite exists in this universe. We don't really even know what the properties of dark matters are so we shouldn't start making conclusions about it.

:roll:
In quantum field theory the vacuum expectation value (also called condensate) of an operator is its average, expected value in the vacuum.
I know your finite particle-wave premise is bogus.
Number Theory

You haven't shown me one place in this universe that's at absolute zero, neither have you shown me an object which has an infinite temperature. You haven't shown me one place in this universe that is "empty" (no time, no space, no matter, and no virtual particles :roll.
Don't forget that emptiness and even absolute zero doesn't qualify for infinity!

WTF are you talking about?

What infinite property do these objects have?
This is actually very incorrect. Objects in natural would never resemble a perfect cone or circle. The objects are made from big bulky cells that are made from atoms. When these cells are together, then they might appear to form a perfect cone for example, but in actually never form a perfect cone.
If the spirals would be closely looked at, you would notice they would be very ridgy. Not a single spiral would actually be an atomic duplicate of another spiral.

This is so trivial. Noone said they were exact. The point was that the patterns represent a statistically significant approximation of a pattern with infinite convergence.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Apparitions

"Apparitions"

Why, you keep on treating "infinite" as being able to exist in actuality.

Why do you ignore that an infinite entity might also be stateful?

 

[Thinker]

Why, you keep on treating "infinite" as being able to exist in actuality.

As has been patiently pointed out before, "infinite", as used in these
posts, means "unbounded". If you walk round a circular path, the
distance you can travel is not bounded by any properties of the circle;
it is infinite. Any bounds that you will almost certainly attempt to claim
will be external (I'll die eventually, the path will wear out, ...).

 

[Monk-Eye]

Orders Of Magnitude And Scope

"Orders Of Magnitude And Scope"

As has been patiently pointed out before, "infinite", as used in these posts, means "unbounded". If you walk round a circular path, the
distance you can travel is not bounded by any properties of the circle;
it is infinite. Any bounds that you will almost certainly attempt to claim
will be external (I'll die eventually, the path will wear out, ...).

The square root of two has an upper bound, it is irrational and infinite.
Or are you referring to countability?
A single immensity differs from an immensity of single or multiple composites.

 

[Thinker]

Re: Orders Of Magnitude And Scope

"Orders Of Magnitude And Scope"


The square root of two has an upper bound, it is irrational and infinite.
Or are you referring to countability?
A single immensity differs from an immensity of single or multiple composites.

I do not understand your point. The square root of two is irrational, but a
well-defined single value; it is not a sequence. Talking about bounds
seems only meaningful when you consider a sequence of approximations
to the value. Would you talk of the value 1 being bounded? You could, but
I don't think it would be particularly meaningful. Decimal representations
of an irrational, on the other hand, are approximations; the sequence of
representations with increasing numbers of digits approaches the value,
but never reaches it. The value of the approximation is tightly bounded,
but the number of digits is unbounded.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Nuances

"Nuances"

I do not understand your point. The square root of two is irrational, but a
well-defined single value; it is not a sequence. Talking about bounds
seems only meaningful when you consider a sequence of approximations
to the value. Would you talk of the value 1 being bounded? You could, but
I don't think it would be particularly meaningful. Decimal representations
of an irrational, on the other hand, are approximations; the sequence of
representations with increasing numbers of digits approaches the value,
but never reaches it. The value of the approximation is tightly bounded,
but the number of digits is unbounded.

You are referring to abstract algebra, or real and complex analysis.

I am referring to the quality of a set element, that being an irrational number with the quality of infinitude. One need not read anything more into it.

Redirecting, an immensity differs from an immensity of composite elements.

Suppose the immensity is finitely composed of elements with the quality of infinitude, by supposing, an irrational monad perhaps each 1/2 the square root of two. Would it be possible to measure a composition of these elements discretely, or only approximate them?

Monism identifies an intuitive oneness not necessarily that it is one huge immensity.

Theists find reason to reject that an eternal foundation might be intrinsic to nature. Again, it may be the problem of good and evil, or physical requirements for cognition; whence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence become surreallisms.

Or, perhaps you are directing to the flatness-oldness problem.

 

[Thinker]

Re: Nuances

OK. I was simply trying to say things that had some meaning.

 

[nes]

can we get back to the point here?

Anything with the square root of 2 (as I know of) doesn't exist in our universe, any questions?

 

[Thinker]

can we get back to the point here?

Anything with the square root of 2 (as I know of) doesn't exist in our universe, any questions?

You are simply playing with words. I assume you mean that everything in the
real world is an approximation. So what?

 

[nes]

You are simply playing with words. I assume you mean that everything in the
real world is an approximation. So what?

I wasn't neccessarily talking about the values of pi, but values that can't be expressed with numbers. So what? It means that since there is a certain amount of matter, there (is / appears) to be a certain amount of density of matter taking up space. This would mean that the big bang, if such as event would create the universe of today would have a finite amount of matter. I don't understand what would cause a certain amount of matter to come from the big bang, why not any other certain amount? Since time can be expressed in numbers through events we observe, I think it is not a value of infinity (without a beginning). After reading the paragraph I hope you can come to a conclusion instead of the "so what" to "we don't really know".

 

[Thinker]

As usual, it is difficult to glean any meaning from your post, but I'll try.

I wasn't neccessarily talking about the values of pi

Where did pi come from? We were discussing the square root of 2.

..., but values that can't be expressed with numbers.

The expression of values is not a fruitful area. You cannot express the value one
third in decimal with a finite number of digits, but you can if you use base 3
(it's 0.1). pi is exactly 1 (to base pi).

It means that since there is a certain amount of matter...

This is your assumption. On what evidence do you make it? As far as I know,
there is nothing that prevents there being an infinite amount of matter in an
infinite universe. Current speculations about the universe may predict
otherwise, but nothing forbits it.

..., there (is / appears) to be a certain amount of density of matter taking up space.

What do you mean by "amount of density of matter"? The phrase is nonsense.

This would mean that the big bang, if such as event would create the universe of today would have a finite amount of matter.

Translation: "If there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, a finite
amount of matter much have been created". Hardly surprising.

I don't understand what would cause a certain amount of matter to come from the big bang, why not any other certain amount?

Who says the big bang (assuming it) had to involve a "certain" amount of matter? A little more or a little less wouldn't change much.

Since time can be expressed in numbers through events we observe, I think it is not a value of infinity (without a beginning).

Try as I might, I can get no meaning out of that. Care to rephrase?

After reading the paragraph I hope you can come to a conclusion instead of the "so what" to "we don't really know".

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect you don't either.
Also, what is wrong in admitting that we don't know something? I consider
that far more sensible than claiming non-existent knowledge or simply giving
up the search for explanations and saying "god did it".

 

[nes]

As usual, it is difficult to glean any meaning from your post, but I'll try.


Where did pi come from? We were discussing the square root of 2.

Pi and square root of 2 are basically the same thing as they can't be fully expressed through numbers.

The expression of values is not a fruitful area. You cannot express the value one
third in decimal with a finite number of digits, but you can if you use base 3
(it's 0.1). pi is exactly 1 (to base pi).

I think your mistaken. Pi can't be expressed as a fraction.

pi

Pi cannot be expressed as a fraction

...And your comparing a number that can be expressed in a fraction to a number that can not.

It means that since there is a certain amount of matter...

This is your assumption. On what evidence do you make it? As far as I know,
there is nothing that prevents there being an infinite amount of matter in an
infinite universe. Current speculations about the universe may predict
otherwise, but nothing forbits it.

Its to bad your unable to figure out the statement of what I said to be true.

Now follow closely to see if you can understand...

If the big bang happened (or other events) and there was an infinite amount of matter. Then there would always be an infinite amount of matter taking up space since an infinite amount of matter can't be divided to become less dense in to a finite amount of matter. There would never be a time at which an infinite amount of matter would cease to become infinite and become a finite value. You can't take finite amounts of matter out from an infinite amount of matter. This is because an infinite amount of matter has to be infinitely dense, otherwise it would not be infinite.

Your telling me that there is nothing that prevents an infinite amount of matter within an infinite universe? How would density be defined (as a finite value)? Why do we have matter spread out? How would the universe be created? Without a beginning? Spontaneously appearing with an infinite amount of space and matter?

What do you mean by "amount of density of matter"? The phrase is nonsense.

The amount of space a certain amount of matter takes up.

Translation: "If there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, a finite
amount of matter much have been created". Hardly surprising.

If there was a finite amount of matter within an infinite amount of space then there would be no density of matter taking up that space.

Who says the big bang (assuming it) had to involve a "certain" amount of matter? A little more or a little less wouldn't change much.

But why a certain amount? Why did a certain amount of matter come out from the big bang instead of another amount? This is also an event with appears to have a beginning. How do we even know if not multiple big bangs happened? People assume just one happened.

Since time can be expressed in numbers through events we observe, I think it is not a value of infinity (without a beginning).

Try as I might, I can get no meaning out of that. Care to rephrase?

No events at present or in the finite past would be caused by events without a beginning.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect you don't either.
Also, what is wrong in admitting that we don't know something? I consider
that far more sensible than claiming non-existent knowledge or simply giving
up the search for explanations and saying "god did it".

Did I say "anything is wrong in admitting that "you" don't know something"? I think people are just jumping to conclusions about what really happened to the first events that caused what we observe today.

 

[Thinker]

Pi and square root of 2 are basically the same thing as they can't be fully expressed through numbers.

Either your thought processes or your English are so poor that you cannot
express yourself clearly. I suspect there's an element of both. Is English not
your first language?

Root 2 and pi are completely different numbers. Perhaps all you are trying to
say is that they are both irrationals?

I think your mistaken.

You are correct - I didn't notice my typo. pi to base pi is 10.

Pi can't be expressed as a fraction.

Actually it can be expressed as a continued fraction (Pi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
It can also be trivially expressed as (2*pi)/2, which is a fraction. What you
are groping towards is that pi is irrational: it cannot be expressed as the
quotient of two integers.

...And your comparing a number that can be expressed in a fraction to a number that can not.

What is wrong with that? 13/3 is greater than pi. There, I've done it.

Its to bad your unable to figure out the statement of what I said to be true.

Even that sentence is difficult to interpret.

Now follow closely to see if you can understand...

I shall follow very closely.

If the big bang happened (or other events) and there was an infinite amount of matter.

To start with, that's not a sentence.

I think you are trying to say: "Assume the big bang happened and that there
was an infinite amount of matter."

OK. I can assume that.

Then there would always be an infinite amount of matter taking up space since an infinite amount of matter can't be divided to become less dense in to a finite amount of matter.

I cannot understand what you mean by "less dense in to a finite amount of
matter". All you seem to be saying here is that "as we assumed an infinite
amount of matter, we must have an infinite amount of matter". What has
density to do with it?

There would never be a time at which an infinite amount of matter would cease to become infinite and become a finite value.

I think you meant "be" instead of "become". That's the same thing as the
previous statement: "we assumed an infinite amount of matter; we still have
an infinite amount of matter."

You can't take finite amounts of matter out from an infinite amount of matter.

Why not? I could use a teaspoon. I would then still have the infinite amount
of matter, but also the piece I took (in the teaspoon). Don't forget, infinity
isn't a number.

This is because an infinite amount of matter has to be infinitely dense, otherwise it would not be infinite.

In an infinite volume, an infinite mass would have indeterminate density
(mass/volume), not infinite density. It's easy to see it doesn't have to have
infinite density. Consider an infinite chess board. One corner is here and the
sides stretch off forever. I tell you there two grains of sand on each black
square and nothing on the white squares. That's an infinite amount of sand.
The density is 1 grain per square. A finite density.

Your telling me that there is nothing that prevents an infinite amount
of matter within an infinite universe?

No. I'm telling you that I know of nothing that prevents this.

How would density be defined (as a finite value)?

Density is defined as mass divided by volume.

Why do we have matter spread out?

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

How would the universe be created? Without a beginning?

I don't know. If the universe has no beginning, it wasn't created.

pontaneously appearing with an infinite amount of space and matter?

If it is infinite, it never "appeared".

The amount of space a certain amount of matter takes up.

That's density. Now please explain what you mean by "amount of density"
as distinct from "density". How can you have an amount of density?

If there was a finite amount of matter within an infinite amount of space then there would be no density of matter taking up that space.

Overall, yes. A finite amount of matter in an infinite space would have a
density of zero. In the locality of the matter, the density would not be zero.

But why a certain amount? Why did a certain amount of matter come out from the big bang instead of another amount?

Because if a different amount had been involved we would observe that
different amount, and you would be asking why that amount and not
something different.

This is also an event with appears to have a beginning.

By definition, an event divides time into before and after, therefore an event
has a beginning. Your point is what?

How do we even know if not multiple big bangs happened? People assume just one happened.

We don't even know if one happened; it is currently really only a hypothesis.
No "people" do not; some may, but some think there may have been multiple
bangs.

No events at present or in the finite past would be caused by events without a beginning.

Why not?

I think people are just jumping to conclusions about what really happened to the first events that caused what we observe today.

You are immediately jumping to the conclusion that there was a first event.

 

[nes]

In an infinite volume, an infinite mass would have indeterminate density
(mass/volume), not infinite density. It's easy to see it doesn't have to have
infinite density. Consider an infinite chess board. One corner is here and the
sides stretch off forever. I tell you there two grains of sand on each black
square and nothing on the white squares. That's an infinite amount of sand.
The density is 1 grain per square. A finite density.

Again, you can't take a space taken up the size of a grain of sand from a universe completely filled with an infinite amount of matter and expect that grain of sand to have a finite amount of matter. If the space taken up the size of a grain of sand had a finite amount of matter then it would have to come as a result from another part of space with a finite amount of matter. Here your bitching about spelling and grammar errors i don't give a **** about.

What is wrong with that? 13/3 is greater than pi. There, I've done it.

you compared 1/3 to pi.

Even that sentence is difficult to interpret.

then read it again and imagine what I might have said.

To start with, that's not a sentence.

I think you are trying to say: "Assume the big bang happened and that there
was an infinite amount of matter."

OK. I can assume that.

Perhaps I mistakenly placed a period instead of a comma in that sentence.

I cannot understand what you mean by "less dense in to a finite amount of
matter". All you seem to be saying here is that "as we assumed an infinite
amount of matter, we must have an infinite amount of matter". What has
density to do with it?

Because density is

A measure of the quantity of some physical property (usually mass) per unit length, area, or volume (usually volume).

Since the quantity is infinite, the density will always be infinite no matter how much space the selected quantity takes up.


I think you've completely forgotten that I am refuting your argument of

This is your assumption. On what evidence do you make it? As far as I know,
there is nothing that prevents there being an infinite amount of matter in an
infinite universe. Current speculations about the universe may predict
otherwise, but nothing forbits it.

 

[Thinker]

Since the quantity is infinite, the density will always be
infinite no matter how much space the selected quantity takes up.

I suggest you take a course in mathematics that covers infinities. You will then
discover that your statement is false.

I think you've completely forgotten that I am refuting your argument

Far from it. I'm pointing out that your refutation contains no logic.

 

[nes]

I suggest you take a course in mathematics that covers infinities. You will then
discover that your statement is false.
Far from it. I'm pointing out that your refutation contains no logic.

Even if there were "chess squares", if you were to get the density of a chess square with a finite amount of matter and the density of a chess square with an infinite amount of matter, what would be the density of the space taken up by both of the chess squares?

Answer: Infinite.

Even if there were spaces of finite amount of matter, the total density of all the finite amount of space matter takes up would still be infinite. You defend your beliefs through your reasoning and I'll continue to defend mine through my own reasoning.

 

[Thinker]

Even if there were spaces of finite amount of matter, the total density of all the finite amount of space matter takes up would still be infinite. You defend your beliefs through your reasoning and I'll continue to defend mine through my own reasoning.

Your reasoning is false. Perhaps a more mathematical approach will persuade
you of your folly.

Let us assume I have a universe in which there is nothing but a single cell
made up from two cubes, each of volume 1cc. In the cell, one cube is empty,
the other contains 2g of material.

The total mass of this universe is 2g.
The total volume of the universe is 2cc.
The density of matter is 2/2 g/cc = 1g/cc.

Are you with me so far?

Now add another identical cell to this universe.
The total mass of this universe is 2*2g = 4g.
The total volume of the universe is 2*2cc = 4cc.
The density of matter is 4/4 g/cc = 1g/cc.

OK?

Now generalise this to a universe with n identical cells:

The total mass of this universe is n*2g = 2n g.
The total volume of the universe is n*2cc = 2n cc.
The density of matter is (2n)/(2n) g/cc = 1g/cc.

No problems so far? Have you noticed that the density is independent of n?

As n tends to infinity:
2n g, the total mass in this universe, tends to infinity.
2n cc, the total volume of the universe, tends to infinity.
1 g/cc, the density of matter in the universe, tends to..... 1g/cc.

We have a universe infinite in both volume and mass, yet with a finite
density. This refutes your claim that the density of an infinite universe
containing an infinite amount of mass would be infinite.

 

[nes]

notice how I forgot to add spaces of infinite amount of matter.

Even if there were spaces of finite amount of matter, the total density of all the finite amount of space matter takes up would still be infinite. You defend your beliefs through your reasoning and I'll continue to defend mine through my own reasoning.

How would an infinite amount of space and matter come about anyways? It would have to be spontaneously created. If the big bang occurred, the universe would never be infinitely large if we had a "big freeze". What you said about the universe being infinitely spacious with an infinite amount of matter can't actually be logically possible to occur. And about you refuting my argument, I thought you meant chess squares with dark ones have infinite amount of matter, light ones have finite.

 

[Thinker]

How would an infinite amount of space and matter come about anyways? It would have to be spontaneously created. If the big bang occurred, the universe would never be infinitely large if we had a "big freeze". What you said about the universe being infinitely spacious with an infinite amount of matter can't actually be logically possible to occur. And about you refuting my argument, I thought you meant chess squares with dark ones have infinite amount of matter, light ones have finite.

Trying to change the subject when you have been shown to be wrong? How
can you possibly interpret my statement (which follows) as meaning there
was an infinite amount of anything on the black squares?

I tell you there two grains of sand on each black square and nothing
on the white squares.

Have some backbone and admit you were wrong.

I was showing that your grasp of the concept of infinity was poor by refuting
statements you made, such as:

Since the quantity is infinite, the density will always be infinite no matter how much space the selected quantity takes up.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Existential Angst

"Existential Angst"

Trying to change the subject when you have been shown to be wrong? How can you possibly interpret my statement (which follows) as meaning there was an infinite amount of anything on the black squares? Have some backbone and admit you were wrong. I was showing that your grasp of the concept of infinity was poor by refuting statements you made, such as:

Since the quantity is infinite, the density will always be infinite no matter how much space the selected quantity takes up.

He is obsessed with conclusions, not validity:

How would an infinite amount of space and matter come about anyways? It would have to be spontaneously created.

Part 4: Inflation; Anisotropy and Inhomogeneity

He also seems to be arguing the mundane creationists premise, that matter cannot form ordered systems without violating the second law of thermodynamics:

*Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

If the big bang occurred, the universe would never be infinitely large if we had a "big freeze". What you said about the universe being infinitely spacious with an infinite amount of matter can't actually be logically possible to occur.

 

[nes]

How about this, what effects would result from time itself slowing down, speeding up?

And what effects would result from time going backwards?

 

[Thinker]

How about this, what effects would result from time itself slowing down, speeding up?

And what effects would result from time going backwards?

Changing the subject yet again. Still not honest enough to admit you were
wrong?

 

[Thinker]

The silence says everything.

 

[nes]

No, your changed the subject by saying that I've changed the subject. Now you won't talk about the effects time would have if it were slower or faster.