Infinity and our Existence

[Hollus]

I have some interesting ideas that I’ve been turning over in my head for a couple days now, and I was hoping that some Critical Thinkers here could help me out. I’ll try to explain as clearly as I can, but I can’t offer any guarantees.

Let’s say that you have the number 485926493 written down on a whiteboard. If you add or subtract 1 from that number, it’s not really that big of a difference. Sure, it might throw off you calculations a bit, but percentage wise, it’s only a tiny bit of the whole number.

Now let’s say that you have ∞ written down. If you add or subtract any rational number, that’s not going to make any difference at all. No matter how high that number is, it’s still 0% of infinity. The way I see it, whenever you compare natural numbers to infinity, they lose their values and become equal to zero, no matter their previous relation to other natural numbers.

To take this another step further, if you replace rational numbers with periods of time, you could say that finite amounts of time are equal to zero when you compare them to infinite amounts of time. For example, if you have an entity that has existed for an infinite amount of time, from their perspective, other finite entities haven’t really existed at all.

To summarize:
• Compared to infinity, rational numbers are equal to zero.
• Compared to infinity, finite amounts of time are equal to zero.

The main problem that I’m having is that Christianity and many other religions say that their god(s) have existed forever. You could say that our Creator, if we have one, is outside the influences of time, or that he/she created time in the first place. That kind of answer solves the question, although superficially, and it’s not really the kind of thinking that I find sufficient to properly answer these types of questions.

If we assume that our Creator’s existence is infinite, and our own existence is finite, does that mean that our existence really is zero, or just from our Creator’s point of view? Does perspective change our actual existence? Can infinite entities and finite entities even exist in the same universe? Does infinity even exist at all?

I hope that you’ve gained something from reading this, and I look forward to your replies.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Here is how I view infinity with numbers:
an infinite sequence (a limited amount shown which would repeat in the following order) 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8...etc.
an infinite sequence minus 1 (a limited amount shown which would repeat in the same order[aside from the minus one on 3]) 1+2+2+4+5+6+7+8...etc.
As for how this links to any religion or anything, that's for others to determine.

Edit: I would say that infinity exists because you can keep on adding numbers to an amount and keep on repeating the sequence forever. As far as math goes, I would say that it is an ok term to use because you can keep dividing one by three and the decimal would not terminate. Infinity symbolizes a positive never ending sequence (without being negative infinity). However, if we left a computer (which would always be powered and not tampered with) to calculate infinity for as long as time goes on, no one really knows what would happen so infinity is a doubt. Even if infinity doesn't really exist, math uses imaginary numbers like i (which equals the square root of -1 for those of you who don't know) at times. The very thought of infinity is what makes me think that it is a possibility that the world started at the present and time goes toward the past and future for ever.

[aperson]

pow(∞) > ∞

[Hollus]

Mathematically, infinity as an increasing consecutive series of numbers makes sense. The real issue is whether or not infinity is in our universe, not just on paper.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Ultimately, the truth to infinity in our universe is that nobody knows if anything is infinite, but they want to jump to conclusions about gods and other things in society based on what is "normal" to manipulate people to act a certain way. I am a person of patience (not arrogance without evidence) and if people could find a way to live for ever, I would be willing to see if there would be any answer to whether or not anything is infinite in our universe.

[jewpinthethird]

I believe mankind is incapable of fully understanding the concept of infinity and all it's ramifications simple because we are finite beings and our minds are bound to the finite.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

I believe mankind is incapable of fully understanding the concept of infinity and all it's ramifications simple because we are finite beings and our minds are bound to the finite.

But if we are some how able to become infinite beings, would you say that our minds could be bound to infinity as well?

[Lone--Wanderer]

No; our minds are in our brains, which rot rather quickly after we die. Since we don't last forever, that also tends to happen rather quickly compared to infinity.

[Raveren]

When on the subject of infinity, the line dividing sarcasm and deep thought is infinitely small.

Stupidity falls right on that line.

[Adamaja456]

The Univere IS infinite

Suppose you go to what scientists think is the end of the universe and you throw a dart. If the dart doesn't stop, then space keeps going and is infinite. But if you throw a dart and it stops, then what is beyond that barrier in space? There must be something on the other side.

I guess im just trying to say that the only thing I can grasp and being Infinity is the universe

[Lone--Wanderer]

Of course there is something beyond the universe: pure nothingness. No light travelling, no gamma rays, no random asteroids, nothing.

...I wonder what color it is...

[Adamaja456]

yes but infinite nothing is still something =]

[Raveren]

Color is the reflection of light on objects, an object tends to absorb certain colors and reflects the rest, the reflected is what we see. Black is the absence of color, meaning all colors are absorbed, while white is all colors combined, meaning all colors are reflected.

Universe=infinite, maybe, though it is already mostly pure nothing anyway, the only "somethings" are planets, stars, random meteors/comets/asteroids, gases, dust clouds, but otherwise there is nothing.

Even with those somethings, on the atomic scale, atoms are 99.9% empty space.

Let me try to make this simple:Universe is mostly nothing or empty space, if the universe were "nothing" beyond a certain "barrier", then it wouldn't be much different than it is now.

[Adamaja456]

Color is the reflection of light on objects, an object tends to absorb certain colors and reflects the rest, the reflected is what we see. Black is the absence of color, meaning all colors are absorbed, while white is all colors combined, meaning all colors are reflected.

Universe=infinite, maybe, though it is already mostly pure nothing anyway, the only "somethings" are planets, stars, random meteors/comets/asteroids, gases, dust clouds, but otherwise there is nothing.

Even with those somethings, on the atomic scale, atoms are 99.9% empty space.

Let me try to make this simple:Universe is mostly nothing or empty space, if the universe were "nothing" beyond a certain "barrier", then it wouldn't be much different than it is now.

agreed.
The fact that Space is infinite bring up another interesting question. Do people really think we were the only intelligent planet in an infinite space?

[FallenXxRaven]

Ahh. I was waiting for that question to come up. Earth and the way we evolved is just an anomoly in the universe right? What I mean is that on this planet everything was swirling around and whatnot just right for the first lifeform to come to be. Well if you look at the infinity of the universe we are just a tiny insigficant speck. Just to give you an idea of what i mean, just in the Milky Way alone we are a tiny dot on the edge. The Milky Way is just a tiny dot in a cluster of galaxies, and that cluster of galaxies is just a tiny dot in the universe. That should give you an idea of how small this planet really is. But what i mean is its not very smart to NOT think there is no other life in the universe. I'm not even talking about intellegent life, I mean just a microscopic cell somewhere else in the universe, maybe evloving like earth has, or maybe something formed before us and there are super intellegent aliens traving at light speed. All I really mean is that in the infinity of our universe there has to be other life, another solar system where a planet formed just right for life to form, somewhere in this infinity we live in.

[sujishishou]

in in infinite universe,
nothing you say or do has any meaning or purpose.
it is just a set of events that occurred randomly.
its all just random data.
our existance is just meh.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

If a universe is truely infinite, perhaps space is being made or something. I don't know if there is any edge or anything, but if space was somehow infinite, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there is no other life. Even if right now we are the only life forms, if the universe was infinite, wouldn't that mean that if infinity is the way I see it or could possibly imagine it (a sequence that keeps adding or in the terms of a galaxy, space keeps on being made by a sequence [not neccessarily a sequence that goes in any order] though that would leave the thought of what space has not made yet or what is beyond this space), that would mean that a planet or galaxy at any given time could eventually be made to have life forms.

[Falco_L]

All I really mean is that in the infinity of our universe there has to be other life, another solar system where a planet formed just right for life to form, somewhere in this infinity we live in.

This is not necessarily true. Yes, I agree that with respect to our insignificance, the universe is essentially infinite. However, it is also possible that the probability of such life appearing anywhere in the universe is vanishingly small, as to be infinitesimal. If the number of instances of life in the universe is proportional to the product of the volume of space and the probability of life appearing per unit volume, the limit as one goes to infinity and the other goes to zero can, in fact, be a finite number, perhaps one. This sort of limit is seen in fields such as relativity; it is why photons can have momentum as massless particles.

I don't disagree with you, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here and pointing out a common misconception.

[Adamaja456]

This is not necessarily true. Yes, I agree that with respect to our insignificance, the universe is essentially infinite. However, it is also possible that the probability of such life appearing anywhere in the universe is vanishingly small, as to be infinitesimal. If the number of instances of life in the universe is proportional to the product of the volume of space and the probability of life appearing per unit volume, the limit as one goes to infinity and the other goes to zero can, in fact, be a finite number, perhaps one. This sort of limit is seen in fields such as relativity; it is why photons can have momentum as massless particles.

I don't disagree with you, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here and pointing out a common misconception.

I am just a little confused on one part of this.

" If the number of instances of life in the universe is proportional to the product of the volume of space and the probability of life appearing per unit volume, the limit as one goes to infinity and the other goes to zero can, in fact, be a finite number, perhaps one."

I strongly believe that space in infinite. So how can you make the probability using the volume of something that is infinitely big? I dont see how you can say one goes to infinity. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this topic =]

[Hollus]

I believe that there is other life in the universe. The universe is huge, and I think there is a possibility of life on other planets, even in our extremely hostile universe. After all, we've only become to search for extra-solar planets recently because they're very hard to find. (They don't produce or reflect much light, gravity is negligible compared to stars, etc.) There's a lot of possibilities out there, and we shouldn't dismiss the existence of other lifeforms or even intelligent beings so easily.

[Reach]

The Univere IS infinite

Incorrect. At least with respect to our universe. All WMAP observations confirm with great detail the big bang, and that the universe is still expanding. Since the universe is still observably expanding, by definition it is not infinite as it is bound by the finite rate of expansion.

[Falco_L]

I strongly believe that space in infinite. So how can you make the probability using the volume of something that is infinitely big? I dont see how you can say one goes to infinity. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this topic =]

You can use the probability per unit volume of something with near infinite volume by multiplying my something which is near zero. The two will "cancel out" and produce a finite number. You can think of this as a limit:

For instance, 1 x 1 = 1.
Also, 10 x .1 = 1.
Also, 100 x .01 = 1.

You can imagine what would happen if you kept making the first number bigger and the second one smaller, proportionally. Eventually, one would approach infinity and the other would approach zero, but the product would still be 1. This is a relatively simple concept of calculus (the concept of a limit).

I hope this answers your question; I'm not entirely sure I understood what you were asking.

[Hollus]

Incorrect. At least with respect to our universe. All WMAP observations confirm with great detail the big bang, and that the universe is still expanding. Since the universe is still observably expanding, by definition it is not infinite as it is bound by the finite rate of expansion.

Reach is correct. However, even the distance between our planet and the nearest star is mind boggling. When you think about the billions (trillions?) of stars in our universe, all the planets and galaxies, it goes beyond human comprehension. Its easily to say " 100 light years", but when you of it in terms of " 100 km/h for 99999 years" or whatever, it gets a little harder to think about. The universe IS huge, even if it isn't truly infinite, it easily exceeds the limits of our imagination. There's a lot of space out there.

(Unfortunately, Falco_L is incorrect. No matter how large the first number gets, it won't even come a tiny bit close to infinity, just like the second number never gets to zero either.)

[ledwix]

If you are a supporter of the Big Bang Theory, the universe cannot be infinite:

-A "definite" amount of mass equal to the mass of today's universe should have existed at time = 0 seconds, if the Conservation of Mass works.
-An infinite amount of universe space means that there is an infinite amount of mass in the universe.
-An infinite mass at one point cannot be accelerated outward, since gravitational force is also infinite.
-String theory would be the only way to refute through science, but I'm not sure how far we can go when examining things on the order of 10^-35 meters.

Also, on the topic of extraterrestrials:
-If there is any chance above zero that life on other planets exists, and the universe is infinite, then life on other planets exists, because the chances of it existing are infinitely close to 100%. If you are an evolutionist, then the chances of life emerging from non-life is above zero, since this world is an obvious example of life. Therefore, an infinite universe would mean an infinite number of alien civilizations under those circumstances.

[jewpinthethird]

Reach is correct. However, even the distance between our planet and the nearest star is mind boggling. When you think about the billions (trillions?) of stars in our universe, all the planets and galaxies, it goes beyond human comprehension. Its easily to say " 100 light years", but when you of it in terms of " 100 km/h for 99999 years" or whatever, it gets a little harder to think about. The universe IS huge, even if it isn't truly infinite, it easily exceeds the limits of our imagination. There's a lot of space out there.

Yeah, but it's not infinite. At least, we don't have any solid evidence to either make that claim, nor deny it.

Again, to make another nonsensical claim that can't be proved, why stop at a Universe? Why can't there exist a Multiverse? I mean, quantum physics has shown that matter keeps getting smaller and smaller and astronomy has shown that even galaxies cluster together.

[Hollus]

Yeah, but it's not infinite. At least, we don't have any solid evidence to either make that claim, nor deny it.

Again, to make another nonsensical claim that can't be proved, why stop at a Universe? Why can't there exist a Multiverse? I mean, quantum physics has shown that matter keeps getting smaller and smaller and astronomy has shown that even galaxies cluster together.

The universe isn't infinite, but the distances involved are just so huge. Maybe there is a multiverse, or an infinite amount of finite "universes". That makes sense, in a poetic sort of way. But, of course, not provable. Now, anyways.

[Smok3y]

If anything is infinite, like the universe, would there even be a way to prove it? Seems unlikely... I like the idea of it being finite though, it'd be interesting the learn what the "borders" are like.

[Falco_L]

Incorrect. At least with respect to our universe. All WMAP observations confirm with great detail the big bang, and that the universe is still expanding. Since the universe is still observably expanding, by definition it is not infinite as it is bound by the finite rate of expansion.

I would like to point out, simply as a very interesting thought, that even though the universe seems huge, the only observations we have of it are of the visible universe, limited in size by the speed of light. The actual size of the entire universe may be billions of times larger than what we are able to observe. We can only see objects which are close enough to us such that light coming from them has had time to reach us; this distance is approximately 15 billion light years, the age of the universe according to current evidence. This is also why the visible universe is expanding at exactly the speed of light.

This leads to still other very interesting things which I would love to go on about here, but it would take too much space and it's not relevant to the topic.

[Adamaja456]

Incorrect. At least with respect to our universe. All WMAP observations confirm with great detail the big bang, and that the universe is still expanding. Since the universe is still observably expanding, by definition it is not infinite as it is bound by the finite rate of expansion.

Yes, the universe is still expanding but have we charted the end of the universe? I'm not sure how far into Space NASA has seen with powerful telescopes and satellites but until theres some sort of proof to the "end of space" its easier to think of space as infinite

Also, since the universe IS expanding, i can see where its easy to think there must be parameters but think about this.


Think of the universe as a balloon. It starts out as a little dot and constantly grows larger and larger. But think that the balloon can expand to infinity. Although it may look like theres parameters to the universe, it still seems to expand and get bigger. Wouldnt this make the Universe infinite?

EDIT: "Eventually, one would approach infinity and the other would approach zero, but the product would still be 1"

i thought any number times 0 would produce 0. So wouldnt Infinity x 0 = 0 not 1?
But your logic does seem to make sense.

[Reach]

I would like to point out, simply as a very interesting thought, that even though the universe seems huge, the only observations we have of it are of the visible universe, limited in size by the speed of light

Well, yes. We're now actually pretty sure the visible universe is significantly larger than simply the age multiplied by the speed of light though, because of inflation. But yes there could be any amount of 'space' outside of what we can see right now.

Yes, the universe is still expanding but have we charted the end of the universe? I'm not sure how far into Space NASA has seen with powerful telescopes and satellites but until theres some sort of proof to the "end of space" its easier to think of space as infinite

Also, since the universe IS expanding, i can see where its easy to think there must be parameters but think about this.

You don't need to chart the end of the universe. If something is expanding quantifiably, by definition it is not infinite. It's as simple as that. Why? Unless the rate of expansion is infinity, the universe will always have a measurable, finite size if it is expanding quantifiably.

But uh, either way I think WMAP can see the whole universe using old light. It is generally understood that the universe is finite but has no physical boundary. That is, you are never going to get to somewhere and hit a wall or see the end of space. It doesn't work that way...think of it like earth where you'll just keep going around and around. The difference here being up into the sky is another dimension we're incapable of perceiving, and thus cannot leave the universe.

To imagine this you have to put yourself in the higher dimension. We are like stick figures drawn onto a paper ball. We don't have the spatial capacity to leave the paper ball, yet although the ball appears two dimensional to us, it is actually three dimensional.



Think of the universe as a balloon. It starts out as a little dot and constantly grows larger and larger. But think that the balloon can expand to infinity. Although it may look like theres parameters to the universe, it still seems to expand and get bigger. Wouldnt this make the Universe infinite?


The problem here is you can't expand to infinity, so no this wouldn't make the balloon infinite. If you can measure the space inside the balloon at any given time, it is not infinite. In order for the balloon to be infinite it would have to reach a state of infinitely fast expansion.

And uh, that would destroy the universe so it's out of the question ;) It is a rather well known problem for us now, that in around 50 billion years or so the universe is going to be expanding far too fast for energy to maintain the state we know it as. Thankfully we won't be around for the universal annihilation though ;o

[Adamaja456]

Well, yes. We're now actually pretty sure the visible universe is significantly larger than simply the age multiplied by the speed of light though, because of inflation. But yes there could be any amount of 'space' outside of what we can see right now.



You don't need to chart the end of the universe. If something is expanding quantifiably, by definition it is not infinite. It's as simple as that. Why? Unless the rate of expansion is infinity, the universe will always have a measurable, finite size if it is expanding quantifiably.

But uh, either way I think WMAP can see the whole universe using old light. It is generally understood that the universe is finite but has no physical boundary. That is, you are never going to get to somewhere and hit a wall or see the end of space. It doesn't work that way...think of it like earth where you'll just keep going around and around. The difference here being up into the sky is another dimension we're incapable of perceiving, and thus cannot leave the universe.

To imagine this you have to put yourself in the higher dimension. We are like stick figures drawn onto a paper ball. We don't have the spatial capacity to leave the paper ball, yet although the ball appears two dimensional to us, it is actually three dimensional.





The problem here is you can't expand to infinity, so no this wouldn't make the balloon infinite. If you can measure the space inside the balloon at any given time, it is not infinite. In order for the balloon to be infinite it would have to reach a state of infinitely fast expansion.

And uh, that would destroy the universe so it's out of the question ;) It is a rather well known problem for us now, that in around 50 billion years or so the universe is going to be expanding far too fast for energy to maintain the state we know it as. Thankfully we won't be around for the universal annihilation though ;o

yea you seem to make a clear point. Thanks for the information. That has helped me understand a little bit better about our universe=]

Thank You

~Adam

[slipstrike0159]

Incorrect. At least with respect to our universe. All WMAP observations confirm with great detail the big bang, and that the universe is still expanding. Since the universe is still observably expanding, by definition it is not infinite as it is bound by the finite rate of expansion.

Actually, to make this the most correct statement you would have to change it to say "the universe as we currently define it". Everyone thinks of the universe as a giant sphere expanding into nothingness, however, it would also be plausible to think that in nothingness there is also another sphere that is expanding which would also be a "universe" such as jewpins multiverse. If we were to gain knowledge that would lead us to believe this, then our concept of the universe would shift to being what contains the two rapidly expanding spheres. In this such case, it could be infact infinite if knowledge continues to grow without a stopping point.

Also, infinity in of itself is a concept and nothing more. You cannot prove or disprove infinity because you are bound to finite lives in the realm of time and existence. If you could infact break these bonds and live outside of time which allows you to see it as a whole, then you could see a specific even never ending. Aside from this, it is just a concept used to describe an event (such in math) where and increase or decrease of data will not end according to its parameters.

[coolade123]

Scientists say, I believe, that if you keep going in the Universe, you will eventually hit another planet indenticle to ours, with people living on it and technology like ours. I am very confused with this subject but it is a very interesting one.

Also I'm not sure if this deserves to be in another thread, but now we get to the idea of black holes. If you get sucked through a black hole where would you go? Science proves that black holes exist, but where do they take you? I would expect them to take you to a completely other Universe so maybe there are other Universes.

[devonin]

Well, there's a theory out there that there exists something called white holes, that simply eject matter, that could possibly be the "other side" of black holes, but since the gravity in a black hole is so intense that even light can't escape it (Thus why it's a -black- hole) there doesn't exist even the possibility that something as fragile as a human could somehow survive transit through one.

[Kilroy_x]

There's actually conjecture these days that Black Holes might be driven by a force other than gravity. I don't know how white holes are purported to work, but black holes actually emit information in the form of heat radiated from them IIRC which corresponds to what went into the black hole.

[devonin]

Which implies perhaps that matter entering black holes is somehow broken down into some form of kinetic energy?

[Relambrien]

EDIT: I use the word "theory" here not in a scientific sense, meaning I don't mean "theory" to mean "an explanation for a phenomenon supported by several experiments." I mean it to mean "a proposed explanation of a phenomenon." I know it's not the right way to use the word, but I realized what I did after posting, so just bear with me.

Wikipedia has a great set of articles on black wholes and white holes; I won't bother listing everything here because most of it is beyond my comprehension, but I suggest looking at it if you're interested in the topic.

Also, Reach spoke about "the end of the universe," as the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. If this trend continues, the result will be either the "Big Rip" or "Big Freeze," (which can also be found on Wikipedia). The "Big Rip" theory simply says that once the universe expands at a sufficiently fast rate, the space between atoms will extend to the point where objects are broken down, largest to smallest. Galaxies will break apart, followed by solar systems, then planets, then the things on the planets (e.g. us), and finally the atoms themselves.

The "Big Freeze" says that as the space between atoms increases, heat necessarily decreases since heat is caused by the friction between atoms, which would decrease. Once the atoms are sufficiently spaced apart, friction will become low enough to reduce everything in the universe to, I believe, absolute zero.

Those are just two theories however; Wikipedia has an entire article about the end of the universe you could look at for more. The "Big Crunch" theory is also interesting to look at.

[Reach]

Also I'm not sure if this deserves to be in another thread, but now we get to the idea of black holes. If you get sucked through a black hole where would you go? Science proves that black holes exist, but where do they take you? I would expect them to take you to a completely other Universe so maybe there are other Universes.


In reality you would never be able to get anywhere near a black hole. The radiation it gives off would kill you long before much of anything happened. Even if you did somehow get past that part, which you wouldn't, the gravitational force would kill you before even reaching the part of the hole that is completely black ;o

So no worries about getting through to the other side, although there probably isn't one. If you were to keep going deeper into the hole you would reach a singularity, which is a very mysterous place indeed. There is little agreement as to what is actually going on in the singularity and what it is, other than being an incredibly small point at the center, and the source of an astronomically large gravitational force in a tiny space. General relativity and classical mechanics fail completely at describing the singularity.


Relambrien brings up some of the other end of the universe hypothesis, however, the big rip and freeze are really different descriptions of the same scenario. The data we have right now only supports this hypothesis, and the big crunch is impossible given the current composition of the universe. The universe is nearly 3/4 dark energy, and there is no sufficient gravitational force to stop the expansion at this point.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

In reality you would never be able to get anywhere near a black hole. The radiation it gives off would kill you long before much of anything happened. Even if you did somehow get past that part, which you wouldn't, the gravitational force would kill you before even reaching the part of the hole that is completely black ;o


Ok, so perhaps we wouldn't just send human beings randomly if we knew that blackholes would kill us with radiation or a gravitational force, but would it be reasonable if we send some sort of item that could get past these barriers and go to see what is on the "other side"?

[devonin]

Something that small that generates enough gravity to pull light directly into it is not (Correct me if I'm wrong, science people) that anything manmade could possibly survive.

[aperson]

This thread took a turn for the asinine when everyone started asking whether the universe was infinite in size. I've got a more interesting place for you to look,

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

The halting problem entirely breaks down our struggle with infinity, and it's been demonstrated to be unsolvable.

Adamaj kind of blindsided this thread with a bunch of silly discussions about the size of the universe as we know it, but asking about whether the universe is infinite or finite is completely irrelevant to a much more interesting infinity that's lurking right in front of us.

As sentient beings that have the ability to create meaning, we have infinity lurking in front of us inside even trivially small spaces. Even though the base, the universe we live in, might be finite, there are infinite construals of it which provide maps of meaning onto how we see the world. We'll never see the base as it truly is, but instead we'll interpret it through a spring of mappings from the base which we impute.

[jewpinthethird]

Something that small that generates enough gravity to pull light directly into it is not (Correct me if I'm wrong, science people) that anything manmade could possibly survive.

Due to the nature of blackholes, objects are stretched, which means if a human were to cross over the event horizon, they would be torn apart by the gravity. Even, if they were in some kind of enclosure, the stretching would still occur as the person pass over the event horizon.

[chunky_cheese]

Can infinite entities and finite entities even exist in the same universe? Does infinity even exist at all?

God is simply there. There was no time he was created, and no time he has been around for. Always been, always is nothing. God has been around for 0 hours x infinity. Basically, don't try to think of infinity as going on and on and on, but simply as something that is stopped, and does not move.

Using Hollus's logic I can disprove time, infinity is forever, so there is no point in counting or using time, thus it is stopped forever. If our time does not exist to Infinity, and infinity does not exist to us, then what is time itself?

Us humans use revolutions of solar bodies as a form of measuring time.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

I don't believe any claims of any God without hardcore evidence. As for time, I get where people are coming from now. Time is indeed a manmade creation, but no one would really know that it would be false as a concept for ever just because humans made it and it never seems to stop. To me, as far as humans are concerned, the only reason time is made is to make limits on how much time a human consumes doing what ever in their own life time (probably no bearing on what time really means if it were for infinity [this also means stopped for infinity]). I don't think that anyone ever intended for time to go so deep into the idea of infinity, but here it is waiting to be debated.

Edit: If time really is frozen, that doesn't disprove the idea of time's existance. After all, 0 seconds itself is considered time. Time being frozen would still be a measurement of nothing happening.

[Aa_Doodaa]

God is completely illogical, I think we can all agree on that. There has been no evidence supporting God that is strong enough to be brought up against that which supports evolution.

I have only read so far on this thread, and this is what i have to say on what was brought up a page or two ago:

agreed.
The fact that Space is infinite bring up another interesting question. Do people really think we were the only intelligent planet in an infinite space?


To summarize:
• Compared to infinity, rational numbers are equal to zero.
• Compared to infinity, finite amounts of time are equal to zero.

Considering these two quotes went hand-in-hand, and that the assumption of an infinite, never ending universe is true:

Earth, the only planet known to be capable of supporting living organisms (in present time), is unquestionably finite. To stretch the quote from Hollus a bit, I will consider that he agrees to the fact that compared to infinity, finite beings are equal to zero.

Seeing as such is true, Earth, compared to the assumed infinite universe, is equal to zero. This would mean that, taking into account the infinite universe, the probably of there being another planet capable of supporting life is 1 (100%).

Then considering that Earth and this second planet capable of supporting life, when compared to the infinite universe, are still equal to zero, leaving again a probably of 1 that there is yet another planet capable of support life. This pattern would continue on forever, leaving the conclusion that there is an infinite amount of other planets capable of supporting life.

[Aa_Doodaa]

Incorrect. At least with respect to our universe. All WMAP observations confirm with great detail the big bang, and that the universe is still expanding. Since the universe is still observably expanding, by definition it is not infinite as it is bound by the finite rate of expansion.

The observations are based on the fact that other galaxies are effected by redshift, thus meaning moving away from us. This doesn't mean that the universe is expanding, only that other galaxies are moving farther out into the infinity of the universe.

[devonin]

Then considering that Earth and this second planet capable of supporting life, when compared to the infinite universe, are still equal to zero, leaving again a probably of 1 that there is yet another planet capable of support life. This pattern would continue on forever, leaving the conclusion that there is an infinite amount of other planets capable of supporting life.

As it was put quite succinctly and excellently by Douglas Adams: There are an infinite number of worlds because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in.

And so no matter how staggeringly small the chance is that a planet supports life, because there are an infinite number of worlds, an infinite (though smaller infinity) number of them will meet those odds.

[seltivo]

I have an idea. What if the universe wasn't infinite and that it was a four (or five or six...) dimensional object that, when starting from any point, going in any direction, you would not be heading towards the exterior. It could be similar to a Kline's bottle, except more complicated and with more dimensions. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, please don't try to disprove me.

As for black holes, aren't they just huge mases of mater that exercises such a large gravitational force that even something going as fast as light can't escape it. (say yes) If so, there can't be another side, and they probably can't emit enough, if any, radiation to kill someone.

[Aa_Doodaa]

I have an idea. What if the universe wasn't infinite and that it was a four (or five or six...) dimensional object that, when starting from any point, going in any direction, you would not be heading towards the exterior. It could be similar to a Kline's bottle, except more complicated and with more dimensions. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, please don't try to disprove me.

As for black holes, aren't they just huge mases of mater that exercises such a large gravitational force that even something going as fast as light can't escape it. (say yes) If so, there can't be another side, and they probably can't emit enough, if any, radiation to kill someone.

I have no idea what a 'Kline's bottle' is, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not argue. I just ask, would that be the sort of thing where you mysteriously end up back where you started if you traveled for as long as it took in a straight line?

From as much as i know about black holes, they ARE just pieces of matter with massive gravitational pull, so massive that light cannot escape it. I've always asked why it was called a 'hole,' and where the theory of going 'into and out of' a black hole came from. Since i'm not keen about them, i'll leave it for people who are more educated on the subject.

[seltivo]

A Kline's bottle is like a four dimensional version of a mobius strip. (really it's a two dimensional object that can only exist in four dimensional space but...) it's a shape that only has one side. A mobius strip is a ring that has only one side and one edge.

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

and as for infinity times 0, you can basically conclude that it is equal to every number. the 10x0,1 and 100x0,01 can be done with 2, 3, -9 and even imaginary numbers(or so I'm told) like the square root of negative one.
so basically, zero times infinity gives an infinite amount of answers.(kinda cool when you think about it...)

[devonin]

You don't need to know about a Kilne's bottle to "try and disprove" an unsupported statement about the possibility of "some number" of other dimensions that we are actually just unable to percieve.

[seltivo]

I know, but it helps stop people from instantly dismissing my theories. You'd be surprised how many people try to disprove my theories(not that i have that many) even though they have no idea what I am talking about. (I really hope I don't get flamed for that...)

Anyway, I figured out that my theory can be applied to three dimensional space, it's just kinda impossible for most people to picture.

[Falco_L]

I have an idea. What if the universe wasn't infinite and that it was a four (or five or six...) dimensional object that, when starting from any point, going in any direction, you would not be heading towards the exterior. It could be similar to a Kline's bottle, except more complicated and with more dimensions. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, please don't try to disprove me.

I'm pretty sure that this is a completely valid view of our universe. When people envision the universe as simply a sphere expanding into nothingness, it is not really as simple as that. This is a dimensionally reduced model in which a two dimensional universe (the surface of the sphere) is expanding into three dimensions. In reality, our universe is a three dimensional space expanding into four dimensions.

As for black holes, aren't they just huge mases of mater that exercises such a large gravitational force that even something going as fast as light can't escape it. (say yes) If so, there can't be another side, and they probably can't emit enough, if any, radiation to kill someone.

This is not completely true. The radiation emitted by black holes is not coming from within the hole's event horizon (unless you consider Hawking Radiation, which is a whole different phenomenon). It is x-rays emitted by matter just before it crosses the hole's event horizon as it becomes energized by the forces acting upon it. Coming from outside the event horizon, it can escape the gravitational pull of the hole, with sufficient gravitational redshift. As for the concept of "another side", there is no proof that this actually exists in our universe. Wormholes are conceptually possible, but they would be highly unstable in reality and collapse quickly if one did arise. Considering this, any matter (including humans) being pulled into a black hole would simply be torn apart by gravitational forces and condensed into nothingness at the hole's singularity.

[Falco_L]

And I'd just like to say...

I like to think that I have a relatively good grasp of basic astrophysics, but if anyone sees anything conceptually wrong or incomplete with any of my arguments, please point them out.

[shatteredgravity]

i say infinity isnt. of course we exist, but to some it appears not. everyone has those days where they feel invisible to everything and everyone. infinity = forever, and forever is a long time. its honestly all of time. if someone says 'oh i love you forever' they might as well lie to you flat out, cause its not possible. the God who created us is the only one who has infinity and knows it for sure. the only way infinity is possible is with Him - even though its so incredibly unfathomable. infinity and forever isnt possible on earth. its just impossible beyond everything ever.

[Hollus]

i say infinity isnt. of course we exist, but to some it appears not. everyone has those days where they feel invisible to everything and everyone. infinity = forever, and forever is a long time. its honestly all of time. if someone says 'oh i love you forever' they might as well lie to you flat out, cause its not possible. the God who created us is the only one who has infinity and knows it for sure. the only way infinity is possible is with Him - even though its so incredibly unfathomable. infinity and forever isnt possible on earth. its just impossible beyond everything ever.

How do you know that God is infinite? A finite God could have created us.

[Kilroy_x]

How do you know that God is infinite? A finite God could have created us.

The God described in the Bible is Infinite, even if you don't interpret the passages that directly imply this literally. The reason for this is that for a being to be all knowing and all powerful, it would have to have power and knowledge beyond all physical and epistemic boundaries. Of course, if you analyze this you discover contradictions and therefore another refutation of the existence of God (assuming human beings are not just dramatically mistaken about the soundness of reason).

[Hollus]

The God described in the Bible is Infinite, even if you don't interpret the passages that directly imply this literally. The reason for this is that for a being to be all knowing and all powerful, it would have to have power and knowledge beyond all physical and epistemic boundaries. Of course, if you analyze this you discover contradictions and therefore another refutation of the existence of God (assuming human beings are not just dramatically mistaken about the soundness of reason).

If we assume God exists, there are two possibilities that I see.

1. God has finite power.
2. His power is beyond our comprehension, not in power but in nature. (Can God create a rock that he can't lift, etc.)

Even if God has infinite power and that aspect of Him created contradictions, it doesn't necessarily deny His existence, because our perception of a contradiction doesn't actually constitute a contradiction on God's part. Having infinite anything screws everything up anyways.

[Kilroy_x]

If we assume God exists, there are two possibilities that I see.

1. God has finite power.
2. His power is beyond our comprehension, not in power but in nature. (Can God create a rock that he can't lift, etc.)

Even if God has infinite power and that aspect of Him created contradictions, it doesn't necessarily deny His existence, because our perception of a contradiction doesn't actually constitute a contradiction on God's part. Having infinite anything screws everything up anyways.

If God has all powers, by necessity God has all conceivable powers. Therefore, it is possible for God to have infinite power without screwing things up. It is possible for God to control human beings without violating "free will". It is possible for God to do anything, iff God exists and is omnipotent.

So either:

1. God is not omnipotent
2. God is omnipotent, human logic and reason is simply flawed or not up to the task
3. Human logic and reason is not flawed and God does not exist

Now, as far as questions like "Can God create a rock that he can't lift", these can be shown to demonstrate that there is no way that both Logic could be correct and God could exist. The question given is actually not a very powerful argument, however a similar and much more powerful argument has been made with the help of Game theory, specifically in the form of a Modified Newcomb Paradox.

[devonin]

To me, the one thing that such a question -does- prove is that Omnipotence is a concept which is internally contradictory. In order to disprove that something can be -all- powerful, you need only propose one single instance in which they cannot be. There's a very fine distinction between "Omnipotent" and "Something so incredibly powerful that to our meagre limited understanding, appears to be omnipotent" but it is a fairly important one when thinking about things like this.

[Kilroy_x]

It isn't important to the God of the Bible, because the God of the bible is described as fully Omnipotent.

[devonin]

But if the God of the bible is fully Omnipotent, and full omnipotence is a contradiction in terms, then one of a few things are happening:

a) We are misdefining 'omnipotent'
b) We are misdefining 'God'
c) We are mistaken in attributing omnipotence to God

[Kilroy_x]

Misdefinition of premises. Who is "we"? If by we, you mean the bible then we get the following:

1) The Bible is misdefining 'omnipotent'
2) The Bible is misdefining 'God'
3) The Bible is mistaken in attributing omnipotence to God

It is possible for all three to be correct simultaneously, but regardless of which you choose and what number, this reveals that:

The bible is not infallible.

In which case, you admit it is possible that there is no authoritative statement in favor of Gods existence, if you were the sort to think the bible an authoritative text.

Regardless of how you cut this, you get enough contradictions that there is no legitimate way to claim with the previously defined factors that there is a significant probability that God exists.

If by "we" you mean "all the interpreters of the bible", then the text ceases completely to have any functional use, because the text cannot be meaningfully understood by human beings.

Either way, your conventional avenues for showing support for the concept of God have just died. Any other argument you might have for the existence of God is easily refutable. This leaves you with nothing, except a hollow statement of possibility defined extra-logically.

You remember when Hume stated that even if a logician could prove the existence of God, it could not in itself lead to a robust theism because all specific properties of God, all issues of morality relevant to theology etc. , would remain unresolvable? Yeah, that's effectively what you now would have to look forward to if you tried to move forward from here. Nothing.

[devonin]

Well...thanks for doing all the legwork in proving correct the exact point I was trying to make. I like it when you do that.

[Artic_counter]

My way of seing this, is that infinity doesn't exist 'cause infinity is only the invention of the human kind. It was created by men to understand something they couldn't but by doing this, they only got a little farter away from the anwser. If you see it that way, our existence mean something and we are here for a reason. Altougth, there is somethings that I can't pull my finger on it... So many question that will never get an anwser...

[Artic_counter]

Using Hollus's logic I can disprove time, infinity is forever, so there is no point in counting or using time, thus it is stopped forever. If our time does not exist to Infinity, and infinity does not exist to us, then what is time itself?

Time is nothing, only an invention of human being.
But in the other hand it's there 'cause it's a way of thinking.
I believe in time and at the same I don't believe in time...

[Kilroy_x]

My way of seing this, is that infinity doesn't exist 'cause infinity is only the invention of the human kind.

Prove it.

It was created by men to understand something they couldn't but by doing this, they only got a little farter away from the anwser.

Prove it.

If you see it that way, our existence mean something and we are here for a reason.

Prove it.

Altougth, there is somethings that I can't pull my finger on it... So many question that will never get an anwser...

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't an answer for it.

Time is nothing, only an invention of human being.

On the contrary, time is an observable aspect of the universe. It can be understood as either a distinct dimension or as a manifestation of the dimension of space.

[Artic_counter]

Prove it.



Prove it.



Prove it.



Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't an answer for it.



On the contrary, time is an observable aspect of the universe. It can be understood as either a distinct dimension or as a manifestation of the dimension of space.

I don't have to prove anything to you and it's my way of thinking, I am only 14 and I'm devloping it and you too, you don't have any proof for your theory, so...

I once said: It's better to be quiet and look stupid than say somethings and prove it to us.

And by the way, I'm not saying that my theory is the best. I'm saying that it migth be true.

[Hollus]

I don't have to prove anything to you and it's my way of thinking, I am only 14 and I'm devloping it and you too you don't have any proof for your theory, so...

I once said: It's better to be quiet and look stupid than say somethings and prove it to us.

And by the way, I'm not saying that my theory is the best. I'm saying that it migth be true.

Um...If you're developing you'd learn faster if you actually have to prove your points, because then you're thinking instead of just saying random stuff. Second, I'm all for listening more than speaking, but when you do say something, you need support in the form of evidence. This is CT anyways.

[Artic_counter]

Um...If you're developing you'd learn faster if you actually have to prove your points, because then you're thinking instead of just saying random stuff. Second, I'm all for listening more than speaking, but when you do say something, you need support in the form of evidence. This is CT anyways.

I'm working on my proof 'cause it would be stupid to tell you what I'm working on, it would only be pure non-sense. Something intelligent would be to tell you the final awnser of what I'm working on but you do have a point.

By the way,I'm sure no one as actually prove with 100% sure that god do exist. Nobody show it/him/her to the whole world.

[devonin]

If you have no evidence for your belief that is appropriate to present as evidence for your belief, two courses suggest themselves:
1) Don't state your belief until you develop your evidence to where you can use it to defend your point.
2) Acknowledge the possibility that the reason no evidence has developed to where you can use it is because none such exists.

[ljw5021]

Mathematically you can't even begin to work with infinity without some limits to keep things sane. I am agnostic and my opinions are heavily based in math and physics, so I would probably try relating someone outside the influence of time to existing in higher dimensions.

But that's combining something with no evidence with something with evidence, and that's silly.

[Bamboozler]

Existence bears the relevance of whatever you believe is true and right. There is no one when talking about existence to give you a correct answer, you have only yourself and your opinion, and perhaps someone else's opinion on top of that. The same goes for any subject in the world. You can talk about why you believe something is right or wrong, but in the end, it doesn't change anything.

[rebelrunner26]

Mathematically you can't even begin to work with infinity without some limits to keep things sane. I am agnostic and my opinions are heavily based in math and physics, so I would probably try relating someone outside the influence of time to existing in higher dimensions.

But that's combining something with no evidence with something with evidence, and that's silly.

This brings up another aspect... it can also be said that the universe as we know it is also a figment of the human mind because of what we have seen... we know this because of our eyes, which are just part of the body and will eventually shrivel up with the rest of us. This being said, it is possible that there are other dimensions (or planes, like in the Bartimaeus series, even though that's just a fantasy novel) that are not viewable or comprehendable by our minds (or at least our minds enclosed in human brains)

And as far as combining something with no evidence with something with evidence being silly....isn't that what religion does?

[ljw5021]

This brings up another aspect... it can also be said that the universe as we know it is also a figment of the human mind because of what we have seen... we know this because of our eyes, which are just part of the body and will eventually shrivel up with the rest of us. This being said, it is possible that there are other dimensions (or planes, like in the Bartimaeus series, even though that's just a fantasy novel) that are not viewable or comprehendable by our minds (or at least our minds enclosed in human brains)

And as far as combining something with no evidence with something with evidence being silly....isn't that what religion does?

Yeah, that's why religion is silly.

[rebelrunner26]

well, that's not really what i was getting at...i just mean sometimes you have to back a theory up with knowledge that's more concrete...which isn't silly, that's part of life

[redskulll]

well even tho in a way religion is kina of silly, it was made to answer quistion, but in the time nowmost of them are answerd but ppl with weak mines have to look some were for somthing they can understand so religion in a way is the answer for them even tho in a way it wroung but it somthing ppl can look for and even tho the bilbe seems to say somthing and then say anther thing that makes those 2 staments seem both wroung well that just what ppl tho of a long time ago so what we shoudl o is proply make a newer version of the bible but the way things are that wont happen becuase then who going to write it?


sry for teh bad spelling btw im mroe math an since then english :p

[devonin]

Have you considered typing in a word processor first, running spellcheck and then pasting the text here? It will do a world of good making you be understood.

Though I disagree with your assertion that religion is an answer for people with weak minds. People need to stop thinking of religion (especially western religion) as being -just- about creationism and leaps of faith.

Don't underestimate the usefulness of a positive moral code on society either. Some of the most kind, compassionate people I've ever met have been devoutly religious people.

[atalkingcow]

This brings up another aspect... it can also be said that the universe as we know it is also a figment of the human mind because of what we have seen... we know this because of our eyes, which are just part of the body and will eventually shrivel up with the rest of us. This being said, it is possible that there are other dimensions (or planes, like in the Bartimaeus series, even though that's just a fantasy novel) that are not viewable or comprehendable by our minds (or at least our minds enclosed in human brains)

And as far as combining something with no evidence with something with evidence being silly....isn't that what religion does?

No, That's called a Theory.

Religion takes something with almost NO evidence and considers it ABSOLUTE fact.

[rebelrunner26]

theory (n) -a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

[rebelrunner26]

Though I disagree with your assertion that religion is an answer for people with weak minds. People need to stop thinking of religion (especially western religion) as being -just- about creationism and leaps of faith.

Don't underestimate the usefulness of a positive moral code on society either. Some of the most kind, compassionate people I've ever met have been devoutly religious people.

sorry about the double post, but i wanted to point out that America was founded as "one nation under god" by a group of brilliant minds and the laws were based on basic morals which can be traced back to the bible (thou shalt not kill) (thou shalt not steal) etc.

[Kilroy_x]

You realize that words "regarded" and "well-established" thrown in there negate the entire distinction you are trying to make?

Also, the opposite of asdkasdfh is nkrmnqwkn. Take my word for it.

[Kilroy_x]

sorry about the double post, but i wanted to point out that America was founded as "one nation under god" by a group of brilliant minds and the laws were based on basic morals which can be traced back to the bible (thou shalt not kill) (thou shalt not steal) etc.

Intelligence is not a basis for morality.

Anyways, even if you were correct about the specific morals in question being traceable to the bible, the bible can also be traceable to mechanisms of biological evolution. Check. Mate.

[rebelrunner26]

Intelligence is not a basis for morality.

Anyways, even if you were correct about the specific morals in question being traceable to the bible, the bible can also be traceable to mechanisms of biological evolution. Check. Mate.

I wasn't trying to imply that it is. I was just pointing out that there are people with strong minds that also strongly support religion.

Also, the founding fathers were christian, therefore their laws are traceable to the bible.

I see what you're saying, but that can be interpreted in more than one way (i.e. things in other species sometimes kill another member of said species without repercussions) so as far as check mate, i don't think so...not yet anyway

[Kilroy_x]

Also, the founding fathers were christian, therefore their laws are traceable to the bible.

There are many different types of Christian. Suffice it to say the founding fathers can really only be called deists. Some of them leaned towards agnosticism. "I approach death with neither hope nor fear". Sound familiar?

I see what you're saying, but that can be interpreted in more than one way (i.e. things in other species sometimes kill another member of said species without repercussions) so as far as check mate, i don't think so...not yet anyway

I don't think you do understand. Human beings kill each other more than almost any other species. The point is that the Bible sprang out of a set of biological processes to which we can attribute your form of morality, the Bible did NOT create or serve as the basis for morality, even the specific form of morality expressed in it.

[devonin]

Actually, several of the key founding fathers were avowedly deists. That lends an entirely seperate flavour to a lot of things.

[rebelrunner26]

There are many different types of Christian. Suffice it to say the founding fathers can really only be called deists. Some of them leaned towards agnosticism. "I approach death with neither hope nor fear". Sound familiar?

I don't think you do understand. Human beings kill each other more than almost any other species. The point is that the Bible sprang out of a set of biological processes to which we can attribute your form of morality, the Bible did NOT create or serve as the basis for morality, even the specific form of morality expressed in it.

I'm not sure i believe that one. And also, while the bible did not create morality, it was one of the earlier texts that served as a law that put those principles into writing.

[Kilroy_x]

I'm not sure i believe that one.

Why? The claim is found almost universally throughout behavioral science literature.

And also, while the bible did not create morality, it was one of the earlier texts that served as a law that put those principles into writing.

So? Fish were an earlier creature that served to put vertebrates into the animal population. Divergence has since occurred. I like being a mammal.

[rebelrunner26]

well, it depends on what you're calling "more than almost any other species." if you're including insects in this, there are quite a few.

and as far as your fish point...i'm not really sure what you're trying to say. all i was trying to say is that the bible was one of the first written laws for a large quantity of people

[Kilroy_x]

if you're including insects in this, there are quite a few.

Right, insects represent a large exception. However insect aggression is usually tied to sexuality, whereas the basis of human aggression is still debated.

and as far as your fish point...i'm not really sure what you're trying to say. all i was trying to say is that the bible was one of the first written laws for a large quantity of people

I'm saying that your nostalgia doesn't bode as well for morality as you seemed to think.

[rebelrunner26]

hmm...ok. let me rephrase a bit. the bible =/= morality, which is what you're trying to prove to me, right? i agree. but the bible does present a moral code which was seen as the absolute law by many people for a long period of time, and still by some today. these morals were also presented through other texts (as in, other than christian texts), but these morals are still being applied to today's laws across the globe, regardless of if they came from the bible or another text or set of laws. earlier i was just using the bible and the u.s. as an example, but i do realize that it is different in other cultures.

[Kilroy_x]

OK then. You recognize that the Bible was a product of moral thought rather than the other way around, right? In that case, you can't say that the Non-Christian texts are reducible to Biblical ideals, because it is actually the case that both Biblical thinking and other moral thinking share a common ancestry independent of both Christian and specific other texts.

The same thinking explains why we can look at the Codes of Hammurabi as marking the beginnings of legal thinking and of the rule of law, but we don't have to attribute all legal systems to Hammurabi, or even consider the codes to be morally correct.

[rebelrunner26]

agreed.

[GuidoHunter]

Right, insects represent a large exception. However insect aggression is usually tied to sexuality, whereas the basis of human aggression is still debated.

I believe ants and apes (maybe just chimpanzees, but I'll cover all bases in case) are the only species besides humans that engage in warfare (as coalitional intraspecific aggression). If other insects participate in such behavior, it's a rarity.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[rebelrunner26]

i've heard that too...but we were just referring to killing in general, like eating mates and what not

[seltivo]

What does ants killing each other have to do with infinity and our existence?
If you want to talk about the behavior of animals, make another thread. :P

[Kilroy_x]

It has to do with the "our existence" part.

[seltivo]

o haha...


(sry for pointless post)

[dvann]

No Matter How Large Or Small A Number It Is Still A Percentage Of Infinity Like 1 That Is Pratically Zero But It Not So Even Thought Infinty Is The Higest Number In The Univers Ecery Other Number Has A Above Zero Precentage Except For Zero.

[gnr61]

Let Me Explain To You What You Are Saying If A Number Is A Percentage Of Infinity It Is A Fraction Of Infinity Which Implies That It Can Be Multiplied By Something To Equal Infinity Which Defies Some Basic Laws Of Mathematics.

[devonin]

Also, whether gnr was just responding in the same way to prove a point or not, the 'Capitalizing Every Word' thing is incredibly annoying and poor communication, so you ought to try and not do it.

As for dvann's post: As gnr61 said, measurable numbers are not a fraction of infinity, because by its nature, infinity is not measurable.

There's an interesting question though...is 'infinity' technically a prime number? There are branches of mathematics that deal with differing sizes of infinities, such that one infinity could actually be larger than another, so it could be meaningful to say that the only factors of infinity are infinity and 1.

[Kilroy_x]

How could infinity have factors? It doesn't seem like infinity can even have a fixed value, at least not a discernible one, meaning its only provable factor is itself by identity.

[gnr61]

How could infinity have factors? It doesn't seem like infinity can even have a fixed value, at least not a discernible one, meaning its only provable factor is itself by identity.

Non-prime until proven otherwise.

[devonin]

I'm referring here more to the Cantorian concept of transfinite numbers, and that there are sizes of infinities. Given sizes of infinity, I was half-joking that they qualified under the usual definition of primes, even though it would be impossible to prove.

[seltivo]

Ignore this post. everything in it is (according to someone who sounds smarter that me) wrong.(see post 117)
____________________________________
If you multiply 1x2x3x4x...xn and then add one (I think it works if you subract one too, but I'm not shure), you will get a prime number. If, instead of stopping at n, you keep going to infinity, then add one you would get a prime number. This would make infinity prime.

However, even if infinity is prime, you gould just multiply it by two (not really changing much) and make it non prime.

This is where the whole "different sizes of infinity" thing comes in. In theory, multiplying infinity by two would give a larger infinity. But since infinity never ends, it would make sense that the second is no larger than the first.

So, it seems to me that some sizes of infinity are prime and some aren't.
How you would manage to tell them apart would be kinda confusing tough.

Another cool thing I thought I'd mention. There are (theoretically) infinitly more numbers between one and infinity than there are between one and zero. Yet, there is an infinite number of numbers between one and zero.

(If anything I said was wrong or didn't make sense, please tell me)

[shadowraikiri]

maybe infinity is tied to the universe. idk wait forget this what i just said is for a new thread!!!
Seltivo i have no idea what you just said, but i like it.xD and i agree.

[ddrissweet1]

who cares about infinity because numbers were created by humans anyways, so it really doesn't matter.

[seltivo]

I love your enthousiasm ddrissweet1. I'm glad you'r first post was so worth while.

On another note, I dont think infinity can be classified as a prime. I think it's more like zero since it can be devided by anything and still retain the same value.

[rebelrunner26]

i don't think you can really classify infinity as prime or composite because it's really more of a theory than a number

[seltivo]

ya, but it's still fun :)

[rebelrunner26]

true...but i think in order to discuss infinity and actually get somewhere with the discussion, it would probably be better to set some kind of guidelines prior to the start of the debate. otherwise people will start arguing off-topic details pertaining to infinity and submitting their own theories regarding its use while completely missing the point of the discussion....btw, i think we need a thread especially for infinity, unless we've already got one that i don't know about...

[devonin]

So start one, just if you are too specific in what you'll allow as subject matter pertaining to infinity, I suspect the thread won't live very long, but if you aren't specific enough, you seem like you'll be upset if it goes in other directions.

We just really can't have a reasonable discussion about infinity until we acknowledge that infinities are differently sized from one another, that one seems pretty integral, and yet seemingly not understood by too many people.

[Kilgamayan]

If you multiply 1x2x3x4x...xn and then add one (I think it works if you subract one too, but I'm not shure), you will get a prime number. If, instead of stopping at n, you keep going to infinity, then add one you would get a prime number. This would make infinity prime.

If you stop at any point to "add one" you cease to be dealing with infinity.

[devonin]

If you stop at any point to "add one" you cease to be dealing with infinity.

Yes, and no. You can state 'X' as being an infinite series, and then also state X+1, and you get an infinity that is slightly larger than the previous infinity. We really need to get away from the 'infinity as a prime number' thing though, I meant it mostly as a joke.

[Kilgamayan]

The thing is, infinity only comes in two sizes, countable and uncountable, and neither of those sizes are quantifiable via any finite subset of the real numbers. Given X to be an infinite series, X+1 will be the "same size".

ap could probably explain it better than I, however.

But yes, I suggest moving away from the "infinity is prime" gag of an idea (and shame on anyone who took it seriously), mostly because infinity isn't an integer. >_>

[devonin]

The thing is, infinity only comes in two sizes, countable and uncountable, and neither of those sizes are quantifiable via any finite subset of the real numbers.
I disagree. Infinities come in,well, an infinite number of sizes. Here's a nice easy example:

Infinity A: The set of all Real Numbers between 1 and 2
Infinity B: The set of all Real Numbers between 1 and 3

To me, it seems clearly the case that Infinity B is simply larger, since the set contained in B contains within it the set contained in A And other numbers

They are both uncountable infinities, but they are not equal, and they are not the same size at all.

[aperson]

Ok time for the bad math fixathon

If you multiply 1x2x3x4x...xn and then add one (I think it works if you subract one too, but I'm not shure), you will get a prime number. If, instead of stopping at n, you keep going to infinity, then add one you would get a prime number. This would make infinity prime.

This rule is true for any number that's an element of Z+ (read: Integers). Inf is not an element of Z+, therefore infinity does not have any sense of primality.

However, even if infinity is prime, you gould just multiply it by two (not really changing much) and make it non prime.

Ok so infinity isn't prime and you were just rambling.

This is where the whole "different sizes of infinity" thing comes in. In theory, multiplying infinity by two would give a larger infinity. But since infinity never ends, it would make sense that the second is no larger than the first.

See this is what happens when people stumble across a few interesting math posts on sizes of infinity and now think they have some conceptual grasp of what's going on. When we're talking about different sizes of infinity, we're talking about infinite sets, as in, a collection of an infinite number of objects. The set of all even, positive integers is an infinite set. The set of all even and divisible by seven positive integers is an infinite set. The size of the set is denoted by what is called its cardinality. So the set of even positive integers less than ten has a cardinality of 4 {2, 4, 6, 8}.

Any set that is countably infinite bijects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection) to the integers. Any set that is countably infinite has a cardinality of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/e/4/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png. (Read: Aleph-Not, which I'm going to call A_0 from here). Any set of size n+A_0, n*A_0, or A_0^n where n is any integer is still an A_0 sized set because it still bijects to the integers. It isn't until you take the Power set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_set) of an A_0 sized set that you get a larger infinity. The size of the power-set of an n sized set is 2^n, so 2^A_0 is a larger infinity than A_0.

As it turns out in mathematics, the size of the real number is the powerset of the size of the integers (Because every integer has an infinite string of integers after it). Therefore, the real numbers are considered uncountably infinite because they are larger than countably infinite sets, and cannot be bijected to the integers. (This can be demonstrated with a Diagonalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument) argument).

So, it seems to me that some sizes of infinity are prime and some aren't.
How you would manage to tell them apart would be kinda confusing tough.

So it seems, after a crash course in infinite sets, that this post is completely asinine and really makes no sense whatsoever.

Another cool thing I thought I'd mention. There are (theoretically) infinitly more numbers between one and infinity than there are between one and zero. Yet, there is an infinite number of numbers between one and zero.

Depends on your domain. Across the integers there are 0 numbers between 1 and 0 and infinitely numbers between 1 and infinity. In the reals, that's kind of a different story.

(If anything I said was wrong or didn't make sense, please tell me)

Everything was wrong.



The thing is, infinity only comes in two sizes, countable and uncountable, and neither of those sizes are quantifiable via any finite subset of the real numbers. Given X to be an infinite series, X+1 will be the "same size".

This isn't quite true; countable and uncountable describe all the different infinities you can run into, but there's more than one size of infinity in the uncountable sets. Taking the powerset of an infinite set always yields a larger infinite set, so taking the powerset of an uncountably infinite set yields a larger set. Therefore, there are an infinite number of infinities, and all but one of them are uncountable.

Also, a kind of interesting tangent is the Continuum Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis) which asks if there are any different sized infinities between countable and uncountable sets. However, the continuum hypothesis has been demonstrated to be axiomatically undecidable (it's unsolvable, and it can never be solved because of our formulation of mathematics), so this throws the possibility of even more sized infinities into a bit of a grey area.


I disagree. Infinities come in,well, an infinite number of sizes. Here's a nice easy example:

Infinity A: The set of all Real Numbers between 1 and 2
Infinity B: The set of all Real Numbers between 1 and 3

To me, it seems clearly the case that Infinity B is simply larger, since the set contained in B contains within it the set contained in A And other numbers

They are both uncountable infinities, but they are not equal, and they are not the same size at all.

No these are both uncountably infinite sets which both have a cardinality of 2^A_0. You're right, there are an infinite size of infinities, but you're completely wrong on the reasoning. Go read the wiki article on diagonalization and bijection then come back.

[gnr61]

I didn't think math could make a good CT discussion, considering its set-in-stone, indisputable values, but this is turning out to be a pretty interesting read. Especially when people who know what the hell they're talking about follow up people who, well, don't.

[devonin]

No these are both uncountably infinite sets
They are both uncountable infinities

Why the 'no' if you say what I say? My whole conclusion was not whether they were countable or not, my point was that by every logical standpoint, the one is larger than the other. Whether we can determine in a useful way, how much larger or not is irellevant to the point.

How can it be the case that numbers between 1 and 2 can be anything -but- smaller than the numbers between 1 and 3, since the numbers between 1 and 3 contain as part of their set, all the numbers between 1 and 2 -and- the numbers between 2 and 3?

[aperson]

Why the 'no' if you say what I say? My whole conclusion was not whether they were countable or not, my point was that by every logical standpoint, the one is larger than the other. Whether we can determine in a useful way, how much larger or not is irellevant to the point.

And my point is that they are the same size and you are completely misunderstanding how infinity works. 2*A_0 is equicardinal to A_0. therefore any finitely sized domain of real number is equicardinal to any other finitely sized domain of real numbers. If they are equicardinal then they are "an equal sized infinity." I'm not saying at all what you're saying. I'm saying that the powerset of an infinite set is larger than the original set. You're saying that an integer multiple of an infinite set is larger than the original set. And my point, which has the backing from a lot of mathematicians over the 20th century, is that your different interval-length subsets of the reals are the same size.

[devonin]

Bear in mind here, I'm no mathemetician by any stretch, I just associate with plenty, and the best answer I have to your objection is, as regards what I described (being the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis, which you linked to above) is that Paul Cohen's proofs in 1963 either proved or disproved it depending on your particular views of set theory. Obviously my mathy friends and yourself have differing views thereto.

[aperson]

Bear in mind here, I'm no mathemetician by any stretch, I just associate with plenty, and the best answer I have to your objection is, as regards what I described (being the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis, which you linked to above) is that Jack Cohen's proofs in 1963 either proved or disproved it depending on your particular views of set theory. Obviously my mathy friends and yourself have differing views thereto.

I'm aware that GCH is indepent of ZFC, but has ramifications to the implications of AC. However, nothing from the Continuum Hypothesis has anything to do with your post. Both domains you listed have exactly the same size and you can use the tools I linked to in my above post to figure out why. There is no objection here, you are wrong and there is no undecidability involved here.

[devonin]

Devonin: All I really wanted to know was "Did I go into a discussion about the theory of evolution, and present lamarckism as though it were fact"

Mathy Friend: The hammer description might be the right one ;-)
(He had previously referred to what I did as "Using GCH as a hammer"

Devonin: I took a somewhat useful, somewhat not useful example, and presented it as though it were fact in all cases?

Mathy Friend: You used a true fact to support an incorrect claim, which was only very vaguely related to the fact.

Devonin: So my claim was actually just flat incorrect then?

Mathy Friend: What I am trying to explain is why your claim was not correct with respect to the commonly accepted reasoning.

Whereupon followed the surprisingly patient attempts to explain injection and bijective mapping to a philosophy and history major, and I can see where what I said would seem potentially outright daft to a mathematician, for which I apologise. But you have to admit that from an informal logic (Or really, any non-math standpoint) it really makes -no- sense to say "Set A is the same size as Set B, which contains Set A and other things"

This is clearly a case of my reading about math in terms that were too dumbed down to make me realise that the operational approach I'm accustomed to simply wasn't up to the task of looking at such subject matter.

Thank you for encouraging me to seek more educated council on the subject.

[aperson]

Well one of the most basic definitions of an infinite set is that if Set A is infinite then A is a proper subset of A.

Things get haywire and counterintuitive quickly with infinite sets, which is why a layperson shouldn't start messing with the stuff without building up a proper background.

[devonin]

The particular mathematician I was speaking with was perfectly happy to explain, on the grounds that "It is valuable to explain things that seem to defy common sense" So he was right there with me that the point of view I was suggesting made a lot of sense outside the bounds of math.

[jewpinthethird]

Well one of the most basic definitions of an infinite set is that if Set A is infinite then A is a proper subset of A.

Things get haywire and counterintuitive quickly with infinite sets, which is why a layperson shouldn't start messing with the stuff without building up a proper background.

OH GOD, THE INFINITY...IT'S GOING HAYWIRE. WHAT DO WE DO?

[Kilroy_x]

Recombulate the Linuxes; we're going to have to do this the old fashioned way.

[devonin]

Are you boys cooking up there?
Are you building an interociter up there?

Edit: Hot Damn, 1000th post was a MST3k reference!

[rebelrunner26]

ok, first of all...denovin, aperson, i take my hat off to you two.
second...how do you know all of this stuff, because i'd very much like to learn as well
thirdly...this thread went a bit downhill very quickly

[devonin]

First: Thanks :)
Second: I read a lot, and when I get to something I don't understand, I find someone who does and make them explain until I do understand
Third: Jewpin tends to make that happen

[Relambrien]

Third: Jewpin tends to make that happen

I think it started here:


OH GOD, THE INFINITY...IT'S GOING HAYWIRE. WHAT DO WE DO?

[blu3fiend]

i think that although we try to understand infinity we can never understand it as long as we are bound to a certain amount of time

[devonin]

I thought we were agreed to lock this trainwreck.

[dcflipkid]

Even if alien life is out there what is probability of those liforms to colide with the human race and if so would these lifeforms have evolved to our lntellect

[devonin]

if they went out into space looking for other things, they are assuredly past the level of our intellect. Humanity has far too high an opinion of itself.

[Kilgamayan]

Humanity has far too high an opinion of itself.

Welcome to Critical Thinking. ;)

[Magic_V2]

To assume that the universe is infinite contradicts the theory that the universe is expanding. True or false?

[Kilroy_x]

False. There can be an infinite number of components and still be an increase in distance between individuals.

[aperson]

False. There can be an infinite number of components and still be an increase in distance between individuals.

That doesn't disprove his claim but you're really dense so I won't get into the details

[Kilroy_x]

I must have pissed you off pretty good. So let's hear it. Based on your attitude so far I can't imagine you would pass up this good of a chance to show off your relative intelligence, especially relative to me.

[devonin]

That doesn't disprove his claim but you're really dense so I won't get into the details

He didn't make a claim. He said "Do you think this thing I just said is true or false?"

Kilroy responded "I think it is false because x"

The correct thing for you to say would have been "I think it is true because Y" or "I think your reasoning X, is false because Z"

Can we keep the name calling to the sandbox perhaps?

[Kilroy_x]

What fun would that be? There's nothing quite so curious and entertaining as pondering the motivations of a lunatic, especially when their actions are methodical.

[aperson]

I must have pissed you off pretty good. So let's hear it. Based on your attitude so far I can't imagine you would pass up this good of a chance to show off your relative intelligence, especially relative to me.

I think you are wrong because x


He didn't make a claim. He said "Do you think this thing I just said is true or false?"

Kilroy responded "I think it is false because x"

The correct thing for you to say would have been "I think it is true because Y" or "I think your reasoning X, is false because Z"

Can we keep the name calling to the sandbox perhaps?


******

[Kilroy_x]

I think you are wrong because x

I gathered that much already. Please give x a value, I can't be bothered to progress by solving the other side of the problem first because it appears to be a psychopath.

[AmphorLabs]

I gathered that much already. Please give x a value, I can't be bothered to progress by solving the other side of the problem first because it appears to be a psychopath.

x : x is an English paragraph

[Kilroy_x]

Well I guess that's that then.

[Relambrien]

On an unrelated note, I found one of Kilroy's posts amusing enough to be sigged.

On a related note, is there really anything still worth discussing in this thread, or should it just be forgotten?

[devonin]

On an unrelated note, I found one of Kilroy's posts amusing enough to be sigged.

On a related note, is there really anything still worth discussing in this thread, or should it just be forgotten?

I thought we were agreed to lock this trainwreck.

My thoughts are already on record.