More on Infinity

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 9 months ago #4910 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It is not a logical fallacy to assume things can come into existence but not out of existence since existence has a different set of rules than non-existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

[tvf] The logical flaw was to assume that something existing meant that it had to come into existence (out of nothing).

So existence need not have a cause?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Let's take a bowling ball moving in space for example. Conservation tells us that something must have transferred energy to the ball for it to be moving- the motion must have a cause (or beginning).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

[tvf] We're not playing "hide the logic" here. The bowling ball could not acquire momentum from nothing. It had be be transferred to the bowling ball from something else. Ultimately, we could trace the same momentum back atom-by-atom to the supernova that set off collapse of the primeval solar nebula. But it had an infinite history even before that.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If we declare in this example that the energy was always there, then this is already an example that an effect has no cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

[tvf] Apparently this either doesn't communicate well or doesn't stick. So here it goes again. The universe is everything that exists. It consists of "substance". Substance assembles into larger substances and decomposes back into smaller substances. The total number of forms is infinite, but all individual forms are finite. Because there is no absolute frame, there is no standard of rest, so all substance has momentum relative to other substance. Always had it, always will have it. Momentum can no more be created or destroyed than substance.

So causes and effects are what substances with momentum do to one another. There is an infinite chain of causes through infinite space, time, and scale. Each event is finite, but there are an infinite number of them in each infinite dimension. Like integers, every single one is finite, but the totality of them is infinite.

Are we having fun yet? -|Tom|-

[/quote]

If there are infinte forms of substances, why do we only observe a special set of forms? Why do we not see cold objects spontaneously become hot? Why don't we see substances that when assembled into a particle repelling gravity? Why don't we see a substance that decelerates after experiencing a force? Where is the rest of the universe? In the 5th dimension no doubt.

Seriously though, I can live with the idea of an eternal universe that always had infinite unique forms of substances. My disagreement is with the idea that we live in a universe having a finite set of substances but having an infinite number of them. Like if substances were letters in the alphabet, there are only 26 unique letters but an infinite number of them. If the universe was just this set of substances that result in our observations, it would have a property of not having a cause- these substances would have to spontaneously be generated. Saying they have existed forever does not remove the fact that they were an effect without a cause. But if this were possible, eventually, all forms will be spontaneously generated, leading to the original assumption of infinite unique substances.

If the universe had infinite unique substances to start however, we can imagine a substance that can cause our universe, which can also be caused by something else, ad infinitium.

Whether its by spontaneous generation or having always existed, there are infinite forms of substances.

So in summary, I can agree with you. But whether our present universe had a beginning or had always been, both processes are nothing short of miracles.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 9 months ago #4912 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

123...

I think I saw you move from the right just enough that I can agree since you are not claiming absolute origin but show some flexiability. I still can't hold "Infinity" as one possibiity. Coming into existance without a cause is quite acceptable.

I do think there is room to flex some of the variety of things that can or do exist or might come into existance.

I believe that there are specific criteria required to "Allow" creation to occur. For example the possibility that their must be a harmonic resonance. Or in the assembly of sub-components that it must abide by Pauli's Exclusion Principle. Such constraints excludes many formations and produces "Quantum" effects or jumps in forms of existance.

Existance is not and I don't believe can be a homogeneous analog but a bummpy, lumpy gravy. How is that for physics.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 9 months ago #4913 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
123...

I think I saw you move from the right just enough that I can agree since you are not claiming absolute origin but show some flexiability. I still can't hold "Infinity" as one possibiity. Coming into existance without a cause is quite acceptable.

I do think there is room to flex some of the variety of things that can or do exist or might come into existance.

I believe that there are specific criteria required to "Allow" creation to occur. For example the possibility that their must be a harmonic resonance. Or in the assembly of sub-components that it must abide by Pauli's Exclusion Principle. Such constraints excludes many formations and produces "Quantum" effects or jumps in forms of existance.

Existance is not and I don't believe can be a homogeneous analog but a bummpy, lumpy gravy. How is that for physics.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Going back to the number line analogy, I imagine the observed universe as a set with some distinct properties. We are the set of all odd integers on the number line for example. But since the existence of one 1 implies the existence of 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, and vice versa, eventually, even starting out with a special set, the whole infinite number line is created. Even though the number line is infinite, since our universe is the odd integers, we are distinct from the set of even numbers for example. And the combination of different odd integers having uniquely different results than combining even integers. But thus far, we have only observed 1 + 3 = 4 and not 2+4= 6 or even 1 +2 = 3. Why? Do the rest of sets reside in other dimensions? Is there a magical combination, say resulting in prime numbers for example, that will allow our set to interact with other sets?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 9 months ago #5031 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Tom,

In the past you have stated that the MM universe consists of everything that exists and in that respect what you have said might prevail in terms of conservation; however, it appears that our physics are linked to less than all that exists. That is our universe is but a small volume in the overall creation. The difference here is in defining what is the universe. To me it would be only that region to which we have a physical connection.

I am speaking about the Chiral Condensate from which virtual particles appear and vanish. If they exist in another dimension or form that is detached from our physics then in our physical universe momentum is not conserved and that goes to the accelerating expansion of the universe (as most referred to it), if you include creation outside the normal frame of reference as being the universe then perhaps momentum is conserved.

This is not a statement but food for thought.

Mac

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I missed this post but this is a good representation of my view.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 9 months ago #5161 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

Mac,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Or how about electron vanishing from one orbit and appearing in a different orbit without existing inbetween (may not even be the same electron. Probably isn't. Probably became nonexistant and to conserve another came into existance since no time passed between the two events and the electron didn't traverse from one orbit to the other.

So you see you have seen both.

1 - Things go out of existance and become nothing.

2 - Thing come into existance from nothing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If an ice cube freezes out of water did it come from nothing? The "appearance" and "disappearance" of particles is just the detection of a change of property in an infinite sea of substance. You say no time transpires in an orbit change, that teleportation occurs. That's a difficult thing to determine with certainty. If gravitons can move at a billion C we can easily imagine interactions that occur so quickly we assume them to be instantaneous.

1234567890,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If there are infinte forms of substances, why do we only observe a special set of forms? Why do we not see cold objects spontaneously become hot? Why don't we see substances that when assembled into a particle repelling gravity? Why don't we see a substance that decelerates after experiencing a force?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Because we have physical laws that don't allow anything to happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Where is the rest of the universe? In the 5th dimension no doubt.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Wait for the replacement of Hubble, you will see more stars and galaxies out there.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
My disagreement is with the idea that we live in a universe having a finite set of substances but having an infinite number of them. Like if substances were letters in the alphabet, there are only 26 unique letters but an infinite number of them. If the universe was just this set of substances that result in our observations, it would have a property of not having a cause- these substances would have to spontaneously be generated.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

They would not have to be spontaneously generated if they have always existed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Saying they have existed forever does not remove the fact that they were an effect without a cause. But if this were possible, eventually, all forms will be spontaneously generated, leading to the original assumption of infinite unique substances.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Right, substance itself has always existed without any cause. All forms will not be spontaneously generated because physical law does not allow everything to happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If the universe had infinite unique substances to start however, we can imagine a substance that can cause our universe, which can also be caused by something else, ad infinitium.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The mathematics of infinity does allow heirarchies of infinity and indeed our universe could be one of an infinitude of meta-infinities.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 9 months ago #5227 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: So existence need not have a cause?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Of course not. A cause would itself have to exist, and that would lead to circular logic. A Fisrt Cause would require a miracle. In MM, what is occupied exists, and what exists is occupied. And every moment of time, no matter how far back, is just like the present, with an infinite before and after.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If there are infinite forms of substances, why do we only observe a special set of forms?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Because we are creatures finite in time, space, and scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Where is the rest of the universe? In the 5th dimension no doubt.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Elsewhere in time, space, and scale. It is not hiding.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My disagreement is with the idea that we live in a universe having a finite set of substances but having an infinite number of them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That makes no sense to me either. All assemblages of substance are finite. The number of assemblages is infinite. If you have a problem with that, explain your problem to me using integers. They have the same property ... all finite, but an infinite number of them exists.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the universe was just this set of substances that result in our observations, it would have a property of not having a cause- these substances would have to spontaneously be generated.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't see where you get these conclusions. I'm saying just the opposite -- Nothing is ever spontaneously generated from nothing. Substance is existence, its absence is non-existence. (Note: The absence of substance is not vacuum. It is non-existence. Every bit of what we call "vacuum" is filled densely with substance at some scale. If the scales are far enough apart, the substances don't interfere with each other. But a cause of substance or existence violates the very idea that there are no miracles, so there could not have been a First Substance. Every time, every place, every scale looks essentially the same, differing only in the details.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Saying they have existed forever does not remove the fact that they were an effect without a cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No such thing. Substance is not an effect. No process led to substance or existence. It simply always was and always will be.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But if this were possible, eventually, all forms will be spontaneously generated, leading to the original assumption of infinite unique substances.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No forms are ever spontaneously generated. There are no effects without causes. The chain of cause and effect is infinite in both directions. Each link in the chain is finite in time, space, and scale. Like integers.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the universe had infinite unique substances to start however, we can imagine a substance that can cause our universe, which can also be caused by something else, ad infinitium.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"To start"??? That describes a miracle. No miracles needed in MM.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Whether its by spontaneous generation or having always existed, there are infinite forms of substances.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Their count is infinite. Each form is finite. Like integers.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So in summary, I can agree with you. But whether our present universe had a beginning or had always been, both processes are nothing short of miracles.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't see that. A beginning is a miracle. No beginning means no miracle. Are we experiencing a miracle here and now? If the universe has always been just as it is here and now, it follows that if we need no miracles here and now, there was never a need for a miracle. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.353 seconds