Hi SteveA2
Your description matches well to a singular energy universe. This is a universe which has only the smallest unit of energy that it can be broken down into as ALL of the energy that exists.
So your 1-5 scenario is correct (in a sense) because the 'particle' cannot see or interact with itself, but knows where it's been. The view is that the smallest energy and the universal quantity are exactly the same value of "1". Time is irrelevant to the particle and the 'positions' are created "as if all at once". Only when multiples are used does time exist and only while we are looking.
Let's say the value of one (universal) has a finite number of possible positions. But each can only be occupied once and for a uniform "measure". Each position is affected by every other position and must always balance via time , space and motion.
In other words, to use your scenario of a 5 universe. 1-5 is the correct order . but in a multiple relationship where 5 was viewable
1 = beginning
2 = ending
3 = middle
4 = beginning /middle
5 = ending /middle
But that is only if you can view it all. If you can view it's parts (time) then it must be seen only in a local sense.
Space is evenly distributed for that reason and has a lot of capacity. The capacity never alters for us because we have a defined methodology with which to measure it. Even if we decide to affect it via motion, we have a limit as to how that can affect the whole (light speed) which is directly related to the smallest perceivable energy (the structure which forms us).
So while we can see energy as a time line, that is a perception based on multiples.The order has no need to dictate by us , but rather we must be formed according to the pattern which has already been decided.
Since all of space appears evenly distributed, it means that we are created alongside an occurrence on the other side of the universe. we measure this as time. But in fact a position here in 2009 has it's neighbor in a perfectly synchronized order somewhere out there that we could never get the two in 'similar space'.
Because there is only one instance of the energy, it cannot be in two positions and must 'seed' according to the available positions in order. An inflation view is kind of nice, but gives the impression that the process that formed the universe is ongoing.
It is not. The reviewing of the process order can follow a time line. But the process cannot leave the order . To refer to your model
12345 can see 12345 but can only see 1,4,3,2,5 of a ten universe, but can see it twice .(since the second half will be a repeating sequence).But the 12345 would only see two "events".
Think about a circle where you had a thousand divisions. 12345 would see 200 events (seconds)But only while the were looking AS 12345.However the methodology would require that 12345 could only occupy the thousand divisions....And Only after the process had finished and were in review.
We are moving through space so that we are not simply occupying a singular position, (since that is impossible). When the earth moves, The gaps within it are filled . With the depth of the possible positions in each atom,the bulk of the earth passing through a single pathway leaves little behind
Cheers
Iseason
Infinity is a set of numbers with an infinite number of members whos' members members are not equal.
Gödel
Incompleteness Theorem
Ed Wood
"One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?"
- Just infinitely close.
Infinite is a potential that cannot be reached - because time is the only infinite concept - time is infinite by its very concept.
You never run short in time - and that is why you never reach infinite.
"One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?"
- Just infinitely close.
Infinite is a potential that cannot be reached - because time is the only infinite concept - time is infinite by its very concept.
You never run short in time - and that is why you never reach infinite.
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 12 2009, 07:26 AM)
Ed Wood
"One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?"
- Just infinitely close.
Infinite is a potential that cannot be reached - because time is the only infinite concept - time is infinite by its very concept.
You never run short in time - and that is why you never reach infinite.
Hi all
Actually, With infinity you have nothing at all. Time is not a real world component of infinity. (without end means both ends)
Cheers
Iseason
"One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?"
- Just infinitely close.
Infinite is a potential that cannot be reached - because time is the only infinite concept - time is infinite by its very concept.
You never run short in time - and that is why you never reach infinite.
Hi all
Actually, With infinity you have nothing at all. Time is not a real world component of infinity. (without end means both ends)
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason et al
"Actually, With infinity you have nothing at all. Time is not a real world component of infinity. (without end means both ends)"
Absolutely agree - and it also nicely demonstrates that infinite is not part of physical world - physical world is in its quintessence discrete one one hand - and on the other hand it is not possible to define smallest. Smallest in the context of physical world is equivalent to the smallness that we for the specific purpose decide to define as the smallest.We can forget the idea to come up with a definition on smallest - we can forget the idea to operate with initial conditions where smallest is this or that small - it is meaningless. We are limited in our accuracy, and just to say that smallest cannot be defined - but it is as small as we decide - or as small as we are being constraint to define it.
Fundamentally it has to do with the fact that physical world is being perceived out from an anthropocentric 3D concept, and already 3D introduce time, and time become a derived function of 3D, so we cannot define "size" of smallest 3D out from time which is already a derivation of 3D.
"Actually, With infinity you have nothing at all. Time is not a real world component of infinity. (without end means both ends)"
Absolutely agree - and it also nicely demonstrates that infinite is not part of physical world - physical world is in its quintessence discrete one one hand - and on the other hand it is not possible to define smallest. Smallest in the context of physical world is equivalent to the smallness that we for the specific purpose decide to define as the smallest.We can forget the idea to come up with a definition on smallest - we can forget the idea to operate with initial conditions where smallest is this or that small - it is meaningless. We are limited in our accuracy, and just to say that smallest cannot be defined - but it is as small as we decide - or as small as we are being constraint to define it.
Fundamentally it has to do with the fact that physical world is being perceived out from an anthropocentric 3D concept, and already 3D introduce time, and time become a derived function of 3D, so we cannot define "size" of smallest 3D out from time which is already a derivation of 3D.
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 15 2009, 04:37 PM)
Absolutely agree - and it also nicely demonstrates that infinite is not part of physical world -
Do you really agree with that?
I do.
But for some reason when talking about 0.999... StevenA talks about things that are part of the physical world.
0.99... is infinite therefore not part of the physical world therefore don't bring arguements based on the physical world into the discussion.
And again I say if it's not equal to 1 then it's not 0.99...
May I ask why it is that you guys talk about infinity then proceed to bring something unrelated into the discusssion?
buttershug
"May I ask why it is that you guys talk about infinity then proceed to bring something unrelated into the discusssion?"
Well - now that you are the one to expose yourself,
Physical world is being expressed within the range of zero to one. Neither zero nor one is part of physical world.
"May I ask why it is that you guys talk about infinity then proceed to bring something unrelated into the discusssion?"
Well - now that you are the one to expose yourself,
Physical world is being expressed within the range of zero to one. Neither zero nor one is part of physical world.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Feb 11 2009, 01:51 AM)
INFINITY
One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?
I could go on for an infinite amount of time but I have decided to say screw it.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
It is zero unless you make the mistake of introducing physicality into the discussion or worse yet time.
Inifinity must be always infinite.
It can't go from not infinite to infinite.
If someone talks about a process then they are not talking about infinite.
One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?
I could go on for an infinite amount of time but I have decided to say screw it.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
It is zero unless you make the mistake of introducing physicality into the discussion or worse yet time.
Inifinity must be always infinite.
It can't go from not infinite to infinite.
If someone talks about a process then they are not talking about infinite.
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 17 2009, 12:30 PM)
buttershug
"May I ask why it is that you guys talk about infinity then proceed to bring something unrelated into the discusssion?"
Well - now that you are the one to expose yourself,
Physical world is being expressed within the range of zero to one. Neither zero nor one is part of physical world.
You guys are the ones doing the bait and switch.
You have a topic called infinity.
Then you keep bringing the physical into it.
How is the way the physical world being described relevant to a discussion of inifinity?
If you want to talk about the physical world then do so.
If you want to talk about infinity then do so.
Which one of those two subjects do you wish to discuss?
"May I ask why it is that you guys talk about infinity then proceed to bring something unrelated into the discusssion?"
Well - now that you are the one to expose yourself,
Physical world is being expressed within the range of zero to one. Neither zero nor one is part of physical world.
You guys are the ones doing the bait and switch.
You have a topic called infinity.
Then you keep bringing the physical into it.
How is the way the physical world being described relevant to a discussion of inifinity?
If you want to talk about the physical world then do so.
If you want to talk about infinity then do so.
Which one of those two subjects do you wish to discuss?
buttershug
I can only answer for myself - an I say that I wish to discuss Both - with the conclusion that infinity and physical cannot live together.
Physical world cannot contain the concept of 1 (One) - because One it is referring to an object of sameness - no gradient - no motion - no dynamic - no change. Likewise zero cannot be part of physical world because that would be the equivalent of just motion - but without body.
And I am fully in line with Steven saying that 0.99... is part of physical world and 1 is not. I have said that for a long long time - and I have never changed mind with anything I have been stating till now - like I have been persevering that infinity - and continuity - is NOT part of physical world - and like I have been persevering that discreteness cannot be created out from continuity. And persevering that it is not possible to create object of sameness out from dimensionless points -
Object of sameness is axiomatically required in order to understand - explain - and communicate a 3D physical world as it is being perceived by human mind. "Object of sameness" is our understanding - defining and communicating TOOL. And object of sameness is the fundamental also in string theory.
And all this has brought me to the insight (strictly personal of course) that SHAPE is the carrier of fundamental information, that everything physical can be out-folded from shape - shape is the language of Mother Nature. Smallest object still harbor a shape - one can never get rid of shape - one cannot dilute shape irrespective of scale. The idea that there exist dimensionless points - this idea is solely based upon the wrong assumption that shape can be erased from object provided that object is being diluted into small enough. This illusion is carried by the misconception that observer can be disrupted from object, that observer is being kept in one scale and object is being diluted smaller in another scale. Observer and object has to go together hand in hand as two friends - always together.
Universe can be out-folded from objects of sameness with shapes, and their configurations and reconfigurations in 3D space - governed by shapes - is solely a question about having a sufficiently high number of such objects at hand in order to secure sufficiently high complexion.
And the most amazing insight perhaps is that Universe exists only once - Universe is into oscillating existence - and at each flash-expression (with a well defined configuration of all "physical particles" configured relative to each other in space with each their exact 3D shape) universe out-folds from the smallest objects and their configurations - scale-wise - and therefore inertially - to the outermost outline - outermost Russian Doll-structure - that we as human being can interfere with - or de-code - and then Universe reverse the gradient inwards - into smallest Russian doll. It is nearly not for us humans to grasp that such an amount of re-arrangements can be calculated in each flash - but everything is possible thanks to the unlimited "amount of time" being at hand. Time is this tricky something that is creating itself as a derived function of change.
Sorry - it got a little longish.
I can only answer for myself - an I say that I wish to discuss Both - with the conclusion that infinity and physical cannot live together.
Physical world cannot contain the concept of 1 (One) - because One it is referring to an object of sameness - no gradient - no motion - no dynamic - no change. Likewise zero cannot be part of physical world because that would be the equivalent of just motion - but without body.
And I am fully in line with Steven saying that 0.99... is part of physical world and 1 is not. I have said that for a long long time - and I have never changed mind with anything I have been stating till now - like I have been persevering that infinity - and continuity - is NOT part of physical world - and like I have been persevering that discreteness cannot be created out from continuity. And persevering that it is not possible to create object of sameness out from dimensionless points -
Object of sameness is axiomatically required in order to understand - explain - and communicate a 3D physical world as it is being perceived by human mind. "Object of sameness" is our understanding - defining and communicating TOOL. And object of sameness is the fundamental also in string theory.
And all this has brought me to the insight (strictly personal of course) that SHAPE is the carrier of fundamental information, that everything physical can be out-folded from shape - shape is the language of Mother Nature. Smallest object still harbor a shape - one can never get rid of shape - one cannot dilute shape irrespective of scale. The idea that there exist dimensionless points - this idea is solely based upon the wrong assumption that shape can be erased from object provided that object is being diluted into small enough. This illusion is carried by the misconception that observer can be disrupted from object, that observer is being kept in one scale and object is being diluted smaller in another scale. Observer and object has to go together hand in hand as two friends - always together.
Universe can be out-folded from objects of sameness with shapes, and their configurations and reconfigurations in 3D space - governed by shapes - is solely a question about having a sufficiently high number of such objects at hand in order to secure sufficiently high complexion.
And the most amazing insight perhaps is that Universe exists only once - Universe is into oscillating existence - and at each flash-expression (with a well defined configuration of all "physical particles" configured relative to each other in space with each their exact 3D shape) universe out-folds from the smallest objects and their configurations - scale-wise - and therefore inertially - to the outermost outline - outermost Russian Doll-structure - that we as human being can interfere with - or de-code - and then Universe reverse the gradient inwards - into smallest Russian doll. It is nearly not for us humans to grasp that such an amount of re-arrangements can be calculated in each flash - but everything is possible thanks to the unlimited "amount of time" being at hand. Time is this tricky something that is creating itself as a derived function of change.
Sorry - it got a little longish.
You say infinity is not part of the physical world then go on and on about the physical world.
how is 0.99... part of the physical world?
It can not exist as part of the physical world.
there is an infinity of 9's and infinity can not exist in the physical world.
Hopefully someday you will understand that the concept of 0.99... as a complete number and not a process and not part of the universe or physical reality.
dimensionless points don't exist except as a concept.
They are a usefull concept for discussing other more advanced concepts.
If everyone in existence suddendly died would the universe cease to exist?
The concept of 0.99... would.
how is 0.99... part of the physical world?
It can not exist as part of the physical world.
there is an infinity of 9's and infinity can not exist in the physical world.
Hopefully someday you will understand that the concept of 0.99... as a complete number and not a process and not part of the universe or physical reality.
dimensionless points don't exist except as a concept.
They are a usefull concept for discussing other more advanced concepts.
If everyone in existence suddendly died would the universe cease to exist?
The concept of 0.99... would.
buttershug
"If everyone in existence suddendly died would the universe cease to exist?
The concept of 0.99... would."
Depends how you define Universe and Everyone.
Let's assume that you define Everyone as being the human being - and that you define Universe as being "Our Physical Universe" - meaning the everything as being observed by human being - Yes - then it would cease to exist if all human died - However if you define Universe as "The Everything" - No - then the everything would still be.
The concept of 0.99... (like physical universe) is strictly bound to human mind - and as such will vanish together with human mind.
And now to the more philosophical notes.
I would like to think that 0.99... is not infinite - but it has the potential to be - or perhaps better to say nearly to be - and "nearly" is a very important little detail - because if - if 0.99... eventually reach infinite - it would in the very same instant cease to exist physically.
This is not exactly the same as yours:
QUOTE: "Hopefully someday you will understand that the concept of 0.99... as a complete number and not a process and not part of the universe or physical reality."
Your sentence is not very clear - so I take the liberty to interpret: My take is that 0.99... is not into physical existence as a complete number except being perceived as a number - and being perceived as a number means that it is not infinite.
QUOTE: "dimensionless points don't exist except as a concept.
They are a usefull concept for discussing other more advanced concepts."
Yes - as long as they are not being used in the definition of Physical.
So reversely I can say that may be some day You will be able to grasp my thinking
Fortunately we are not forced to be in agreement - I assume that you can gladly live with the knowledge that I am not in agreement with you - and vice verse.
"If everyone in existence suddendly died would the universe cease to exist?
The concept of 0.99... would."
Depends how you define Universe and Everyone.
Let's assume that you define Everyone as being the human being - and that you define Universe as being "Our Physical Universe" - meaning the everything as being observed by human being - Yes - then it would cease to exist if all human died - However if you define Universe as "The Everything" - No - then the everything would still be.
The concept of 0.99... (like physical universe) is strictly bound to human mind - and as such will vanish together with human mind.
And now to the more philosophical notes.
I would like to think that 0.99... is not infinite - but it has the potential to be - or perhaps better to say nearly to be - and "nearly" is a very important little detail - because if - if 0.99... eventually reach infinite - it would in the very same instant cease to exist physically.
This is not exactly the same as yours:
QUOTE: "Hopefully someday you will understand that the concept of 0.99... as a complete number and not a process and not part of the universe or physical reality."
Your sentence is not very clear - so I take the liberty to interpret: My take is that 0.99... is not into physical existence as a complete number except being perceived as a number - and being perceived as a number means that it is not infinite.
QUOTE: "dimensionless points don't exist except as a concept.
They are a usefull concept for discussing other more advanced concepts."
Yes - as long as they are not being used in the definition of Physical.
So reversely I can say that may be some day You will be able to grasp my thinking
Fortunately we are not forced to be in agreement - I assume that you can gladly live with the knowledge that I am not in agreement with you - and vice verse.
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 17 2009, 06:17 PM)
buttershug
So reversely I can say that may be some day You will be able to grasp my thinking
Fortunately we are not forced to be in agreement - I assume that you can gladly live with the knowledge that I am not in agreement with you - and vice verse.
That shows you simply don't get it.
It's ok if you like apples but don't deny the existance of oranges.
If someone says try some oranges does it follow that they don't like apples?
No.
It could be they simply want you to try something new and different.
StevenA has never once discussed 0.99... He has talked about things that seem to be it but are not.
It's not that we are in disagreement. It's I've found something you havn't.
I say that there is math that goes beyond the physical.
I have used an approximation of pi at work.
but I can appreciate that full pi is infinite and I don't have to be able to put it on a number line to understand it.
So reversely I can say that may be some day You will be able to grasp my thinking
Fortunately we are not forced to be in agreement - I assume that you can gladly live with the knowledge that I am not in agreement with you - and vice verse.
That shows you simply don't get it.
It's ok if you like apples but don't deny the existance of oranges.
If someone says try some oranges does it follow that they don't like apples?
No.
It could be they simply want you to try something new and different.
StevenA has never once discussed 0.99... He has talked about things that seem to be it but are not.
It's not that we are in disagreement. It's I've found something you havn't.
I say that there is math that goes beyond the physical.
I have used an approximation of pi at work.
but I can appreciate that full pi is infinite and I don't have to be able to put it on a number line to understand it.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+)
INFINITY
One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?
I could go on for an infinite amount of time but I have decided to say screw it.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
The infinitely small concept is the mathematical point closest to the zero math point. There is the closest to zero without actually being zero.
Mitch Raemsch
One question I would ask is is infinitely small actually zero or just infinitely close?
I could go on for an infinite amount of time but I have decided to say screw it.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
The infinitely small concept is the mathematical point closest to the zero math point. There is the closest to zero without actually being zero.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 19 2009, 01:07 AM)
The infinitely small concept is the mathematical point closest to the zero math point. There is the closest to zero without actually being zero.
Mitch Raemsch
You have proven your incompetence in your failure to understand why a rainbow is an arc, and as such have no business discussing mathematical concepts.
Mitch Raemsch
You have proven your incompetence in your failure to understand why a rainbow is an arc, and as such have no business discussing mathematical concepts.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 19 2009, 01:17 AM)
You have proven your incompetence, and as such have no business discussing mathematical concepts.
Math defines Two Infinitely small: zero and the infinitesimal that approaches.
When you calculate with Calculus you have a zero dimensional derivative for abstract polynomial functions. This is a 0D point that has a slope. But this is not the actual calculating real world curve Calculus which can only hone in on the infinitey small slope only using a finite amount of Calculation posssible. If it could Calculate to infinity real world problems would become exact. The zero dimensional slope is exact and I call it the mind of God. Not so for Human calculation. It can never become as exact as God.
Mitch Raemsch
Math defines Two Infinitely small: zero and the infinitesimal that approaches.
When you calculate with Calculus you have a zero dimensional derivative for abstract polynomial functions. This is a 0D point that has a slope. But this is not the actual calculating real world curve Calculus which can only hone in on the infinitey small slope only using a finite amount of Calculation posssible. If it could Calculate to infinity real world problems would become exact. The zero dimensional slope is exact and I call it the mind of God. Not so for Human calculation. It can never become as exact as God.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 19 2009, 01:27 AM)
Math defines Two Infinitely small: zero and the infinitesimal that approaches.
When you calculate with Calculus you have a zero dimensional derivative for abstract polynomial functions. This is a 0D point that has a slope. But this is not the actual calculating real world curve Calculus which can only hone in on the infinitey small slope only using a finite amount of Calculation posssible. If it could Calculate to infinity real world problems would become exact. The zero dimensional slope is exact and I call it the mind of God. Not so for Human calculation. It can never become as exact as God.
Mitch Raemsch
It's amazing that you can string together these words in such a way, yet still completely fail to understand why a rainbow is an arc.
When you calculate with Calculus you have a zero dimensional derivative for abstract polynomial functions. This is a 0D point that has a slope. But this is not the actual calculating real world curve Calculus which can only hone in on the infinitey small slope only using a finite amount of Calculation posssible. If it could Calculate to infinity real world problems would become exact. The zero dimensional slope is exact and I call it the mind of God. Not so for Human calculation. It can never become as exact as God.
Mitch Raemsch
It's amazing that you can string together these words in such a way, yet still completely fail to understand why a rainbow is an arc.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 19 2009, 01:37 AM)
It's amazing that you can string together these words in such a way, yet still completely fail to understand why a rainbow is an arc.
I claim there will never be an explanation for rainbows that can go all the way.
I believe in the Creator of rainbows. Science is going to go backward in its foundation before it can honestly go forward. Science doesn't know alot; not at this time.
Mitch Raemsch
I claim there will never be an explanation for rainbows that can go all the way.
I believe in the Creator of rainbows. Science is going to go backward in its foundation before it can honestly go forward. Science doesn't know alot; not at this time.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE
I claim there will never be an explanation for rainbows that can go all the way.
Neither your claims nor your thoughts are worth a warm bucket of spit.
One thing science absolutely knows is how to use the words "a lot".
QUOTE (Cusa+)
I claim there will never be an explanation for rainbows that can go all the way.
And you are wrong. I have explained it to you quite thoroughly, and you simply fail to understand. This failure is proof positive that you are incapable of understanding even simple math.
I have used an approximation of pi at work.
but I can appreciate that full pi is infinite and I don't have to be able to put it on a number line to understand it.
What is there to understand about Pi?
Outside of round geometry.
Ditto me a copy of that sentiment, though I'd say it's closer to the process of creating or adding new points. Mathematics has tried to treat it like a number (despite the claims otherwise) and this causes confusion and indeterminacy in a lot of areas of mathematics.
.999... != 1
What sentiment?
Here's a line of thought I've come across a few times and it ends up as an interesting philosophical question.
If time is not constrained but infinite, then experiences of time must also be infinite which require infinite conscious perceptions, memory and cognition etc. in order to perceive and differentiate between those moments.
So let's say that you're already infinite in some aspects and you've always had those infinite properties or capabilities (this is already possible via. the qualities of concious perceptions as there doesn't appear specific finite ways of precisely describing the perceptual qualities of consciousness).
Now if that's the case, then time will contain an infinite quantity of experiences.
Ok, now consider that a slight fraction of infinity is still infinite and even an incredibly slowly growing log(log(log(...log(n)...))) function is still never ending.
Now out of the figurative "set of all possible experiences" which set would you prefer? The pure - "give it all to me, good, bad, indifferent, boring, wild rush etc." or a subset of that?
In other words, if you had a wish granted, would you flip a figurative coin as to what it was or would you select some specific subset of all possible wishes. An unadultered infinity is actually not much different from nothing specific all (at least that seems the way it would seem to look to logic) - it doesn't have any specific feature and if you say everything and all times at once, it would likely fill up all space so perfectly that it would be indistinguishable from an empty void.
Consider that if you could have everything you wanted and everything that made you happy and everything you could possibly imagine etc. versus having some pure non-qualified, unadultered, infinity, which would choose?
P.S. I'd have to truly feel sorry for someone who couldn't be satisfied with being something less than absolutely infinite, it wouldn't appear to be a job I'd want to do.
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
Only a multiplication by zero results in a zero result and because the initial values are both positive (or non-zero), they always recurse as positive (non-zero) values.
If a>0 and b>0 then ab>0 and hence a*b*b*b*b*...>0 by definition if we declare a, b and ab to all be real numbers.
You can prove me wrong by showing a contradiction where a>0 and b>0 but ab=0.
Is 1/Infinity > Zero?
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
But there are not steps involved.
We are talking about 0.99... which is already complete.
What is 1-.99...?
And you are wrong. I have explained it to you quite thoroughly, and you simply fail to understand. This failure is proof positive that you are incapable of understanding even simple math.
QUOTE (Cusa+)
I believe in the Creator of rainbows. Science is going to go backward in its foundation before it can honestly go forward. Science doesn't know alot; not at this time.
Believe whatever you want, but when you pretend to understand science even while not understanding why a rainbow is an arc, it simply proves that you are the fool we all suspect you to be.
Believe whatever you want, but when you pretend to understand science even while not understanding why a rainbow is an arc, it simply proves that you are the fool we all suspect you to be.
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 19 2009, 12:31 AM)
I have used an approximation of pi at work.
but I can appreciate that full pi is infinite and I don't have to be able to put it on a number line to understand it.
What is there to understand about Pi?
Outside of round geometry.
buttershug
"I say that there is math that goes beyond the physical."
Yes and ?
You are off topic with this statement - and I am afraid that you are wasting your time -
"I say that there is math that goes beyond the physical."
Yes and ?
You are off topic with this statement - and I am afraid that you are wasting your time -
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 19 2009, 08:56 AM)
buttershug
"I say that there is math that goes beyond the physical."
Yes and ?
You are off topic with this statement - and I am afraid that you are wasting your time -
The topic is infinity.
It goes beyond the physical.
You and StevenA won't go past the physical
You two are the ones off topic, not I.
And I'm only wasting my time if you are closed minded like StevenA.
If you two want to only talk about physcially restrained math, fine, then don't talk about infinity.
"I say that there is math that goes beyond the physical."
Yes and ?
You are off topic with this statement - and I am afraid that you are wasting your time -
The topic is infinity.
It goes beyond the physical.
You and StevenA won't go past the physical
You two are the ones off topic, not I.
And I'm only wasting my time if you are closed minded like StevenA.
If you two want to only talk about physcially restrained math, fine, then don't talk about infinity.
buttershug
"The topic is infinity.
It goes beyond the physical."
Oh my G..
I have never claimed that the topic infinity does not go beyond physical - I have only tried to define in which frame infinite can be applied - and I say that infinity cannot be used or applied within what I define as physical. I think that Steven is in line with this.
"The topic is infinity.
It goes beyond the physical."
Oh my G..
I have never claimed that the topic infinity does not go beyond physical - I have only tried to define in which frame infinite can be applied - and I say that infinity cannot be used or applied within what I define as physical. I think that Steven is in line with this.
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 19 2009, 12:53 PM)
buttershug
"The topic is infinity.
It goes beyond the physical."
Oh my G..
I have never claimed that the topic infinity does not go beyond physical - I have only tried to define in which frame infinite can be applied - and I say that infinity cannot be used or applied within what I define as physical. I think that Steven is in line with this.
Again you have it backwards.
Infinity is only beyond the physical.
It does not go into the physical.
If you are talking the physical don't talk infinity.
If you only talk the physical don't talk 0.99...
THAT is where StevenA is out of line.
He won't talk beyond the physical which is the only place infinity is but yet he wants to talk about 0.99... and advanced calculus.
It's like talking about the Eiffel tower but only talking about what in North America.
"The topic is infinity.
It goes beyond the physical."
Oh my G..
I have never claimed that the topic infinity does not go beyond physical - I have only tried to define in which frame infinite can be applied - and I say that infinity cannot be used or applied within what I define as physical. I think that Steven is in line with this.
Again you have it backwards.
Infinity is only beyond the physical.
It does not go into the physical.
If you are talking the physical don't talk infinity.
If you only talk the physical don't talk 0.99...
THAT is where StevenA is out of line.
He won't talk beyond the physical which is the only place infinity is but yet he wants to talk about 0.99... and advanced calculus.
It's like talking about the Eiffel tower but only talking about what in North America.
As far as I understand it when math goes beyond the physical it is just an abstraction.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 19 2009, 08:43 PM)
As far as I understand it when math goes beyond the physical it is just an abstraction.
"As far as you understand" is pretty damn short...
Tell us, if you can, why are rainbows arcs? Oh, wait, you DON'T UNDERSTAND even that simple concept!
You deserve zero credibility when talking about mathematics and physics, as you have proven yourself to be incompetent.
"As far as you understand" is pretty damn short...
Tell us, if you can, why are rainbows arcs? Oh, wait, you DON'T UNDERSTAND even that simple concept!
You deserve zero credibility when talking about mathematics and physics, as you have proven yourself to be incompetent.
Where do infinities arise?
1) Paradoxes (It must be, but it can't)
2) Continuums (Self referencing recursions)
3) Space (beyond the visible boundaries)
4) Unknown (the entropy of randomness and the unrealized possibilities of uncertainty)
... etc.
# infinity) Time (fundamental to them all. None of them exist without time)
1) Nature doesn't have any problems with paradoxes - she separates them in time. A ball can be both red and green. You simply paint it whatever color you want, but it takes time to do this (I'm ignoring that a red and green ball could also appear yellow instead).
2) Nature doesn't allow things to be recursively subdivided ... she gives you new objects at smaller or larger scales with different properties. If you cut up an atom, you're not left with another atom and if you cut up a meter, you're not left with a meter to continue cutting into other meters.
For 3 and 4 we have various ways where none of these actually exist in a moment except as intangible possibilities. Also there are logical restrictions to their usage - for example the only way to move into an unknown space is to simply not pay attention to where you're going. In that case you're in a place that was not known and you can't trace a pathway back to where you were. Natural also doesn't allow a paradox for an infinite motion or distance because you can't move there without continually passing through intermediate states.
And though there could be infinite information contained in the selection of a single integer - you're not going to be able to create those, even mentally.
...
So what's the fundamental reason why people encounter paradoxes but nature avoids them? We compress our knowledge into a smaller collection of classes that reference multiple non-identical things in nature. We don't store every piece of raw information in our logic but categorize and shrink the information content.
Notice that people in their thoughts don't get stuck in infinite loops either - people recognize that if you cut an apple or a number in half, you don't get the same objects as you started with (at least if we ignore calculus). If you cut 1 into 2 equal pieces, you get halves and not 1s. If you move in space, you're still in space but at a new location and if you move more, you're at a newer location than the last.
Notice that all these things need unique representations otherwise they can self reference each other, which has been shown by multiple people to be a foundation of many paradoxes.
A number defines a quantity that has a finite boundary. It describes a precise and unique quantity. If we call something like n a number, this cannot mean that n is actually a number unless has already been equated with that number. To be totally literal, if you add something to "a number", you don't get "a number", you get "a different number". Such as 5 and 5+1 gives 6 which is not 5. If n is "a number" then adding 1 to n cannot also result in "a number" it must remain n+1 and never be equal to n.
Notice that in Peano's Axioms there is selected "a number" n, for which n+1 is created and this new number is then reinterpreted to once again be "a number" and not the new number. This self reference causes n to become a non-number (as n is not equal to n+1). So there isn't a precise logical way to define counting except to simply grab things from nature and start grouping them or we could define a precise logical way to count to some maximum number, but you couldn't generalize it to be capable of counting to infinity. (For example, how do you logically define placing a new digit to the "left" of some previous sequence? You'd need a preexisting infinite linear space with continual "next left" locations and yet another count to count the digits of a number ... so you'd have to already be able to count and measure distances in order to begin counting, now that's a paradox).
Numbers are inputs and outputs to logic. Logic doesn't "do" time or create new numbers either.
1) Paradoxes (It must be, but it can't)
2) Continuums (Self referencing recursions)
3) Space (beyond the visible boundaries)
4) Unknown (the entropy of randomness and the unrealized possibilities of uncertainty)
... etc.
# infinity) Time (fundamental to them all. None of them exist without time)
1) Nature doesn't have any problems with paradoxes - she separates them in time. A ball can be both red and green. You simply paint it whatever color you want, but it takes time to do this (I'm ignoring that a red and green ball could also appear yellow instead).
2) Nature doesn't allow things to be recursively subdivided ... she gives you new objects at smaller or larger scales with different properties. If you cut up an atom, you're not left with another atom and if you cut up a meter, you're not left with a meter to continue cutting into other meters.
For 3 and 4 we have various ways where none of these actually exist in a moment except as intangible possibilities. Also there are logical restrictions to their usage - for example the only way to move into an unknown space is to simply not pay attention to where you're going. In that case you're in a place that was not known and you can't trace a pathway back to where you were. Natural also doesn't allow a paradox for an infinite motion or distance because you can't move there without continually passing through intermediate states.
And though there could be infinite information contained in the selection of a single integer - you're not going to be able to create those, even mentally.
...
So what's the fundamental reason why people encounter paradoxes but nature avoids them? We compress our knowledge into a smaller collection of classes that reference multiple non-identical things in nature. We don't store every piece of raw information in our logic but categorize and shrink the information content.
Notice that people in their thoughts don't get stuck in infinite loops either - people recognize that if you cut an apple or a number in half, you don't get the same objects as you started with (at least if we ignore calculus). If you cut 1 into 2 equal pieces, you get halves and not 1s. If you move in space, you're still in space but at a new location and if you move more, you're at a newer location than the last.
Notice that all these things need unique representations otherwise they can self reference each other, which has been shown by multiple people to be a foundation of many paradoxes.
A number defines a quantity that has a finite boundary. It describes a precise and unique quantity. If we call something like n a number, this cannot mean that n is actually a number unless has already been equated with that number. To be totally literal, if you add something to "a number", you don't get "a number", you get "a different number". Such as 5 and 5+1 gives 6 which is not 5. If n is "a number" then adding 1 to n cannot also result in "a number" it must remain n+1 and never be equal to n.
Notice that in Peano's Axioms there is selected "a number" n, for which n+1 is created and this new number is then reinterpreted to once again be "a number" and not the new number. This self reference causes n to become a non-number (as n is not equal to n+1). So there isn't a precise logical way to define counting except to simply grab things from nature and start grouping them or we could define a precise logical way to count to some maximum number, but you couldn't generalize it to be capable of counting to infinity. (For example, how do you logically define placing a new digit to the "left" of some previous sequence? You'd need a preexisting infinite linear space with continual "next left" locations and yet another count to count the digits of a number ... so you'd have to already be able to count and measure distances in order to begin counting, now that's a paradox).
Numbers are inputs and outputs to logic. Logic doesn't "do" time or create new numbers either.
There is the realm of abstract math with zeroD points with slope.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 20 2009, 02:09 AM)
There is the realm of abstract math with zeroD points with slope.
Yes, and it's string theory (but a single string curling into all the rest of the dimensions - there's nothing that says it can only stop at 3, 4, 10, 11 or 26 dimensions).
Notice that if you took these points to represent specific finite set of physical states and you took the slopes (which are constructed as line segments between two points) to point to "next" states within this et, you begin to have a potential combination of finite and infinite (it still doesn't quite work) and you'll find it utimately always ends in closed cycle that can't contain more points than are in the system.
Now if we assume the universe is infinite, then we need something that will never repeat precisely. The easiest thing here is to just create a completely new point every time, and though this (could) be infinite, it doesn't describe a space with any specific properties.
You need to combine these two extremes and have both repetitions, so that you have recurring features with specific properties, as well as a continual growth.
This requires that we pair elements together in order to have one component be able to change, while allowing the other to repeat. So a moment in physical time is composed of (at least) two complimentary halves - the unchanging component (physical laws and conserved quantities) and the altered component (the component that can't be described in terms of predictable physical laws - counting, though we could also see some similarities here with subjective qualities of perception so there may be some relationship).
If we only had a pair of numbers, then the largest possible space to construct over time would appear to grow similar to an outward spiral as every new cycle was one longer than the previous and observed from the context of the previous cycle (which might resemble a mathematical structure similar to the set of forms 0/n,1/n,2/n,...,(n+1)/n and possibly the reciprocal form n/0,n/1,n/2....n/(n+1), though there may not be a 0 in these sequences or the 0 could represent the addition of a new symbol etc. Though this may not seem to allow much complexity to appear, consider that ratios such as 1/3, 5/15 and 6/18 could appear identical, so there would not necessarily be a direct perception of a single outward spiralling as inner events would be continually revisited and this is actually the beginning of what appears to be the most complex structures in number theory. Here's a quick graphical idea of the forms these can take http://www.joebartholomew.com/gcdPlots.html, though we'd truly want something that showed these as sequences of geometric objects constucted by various common factors (static characteristics of objects) and the relatively prime components (the motion between them) between the two numbers (which could then be interpreted as describing both an object as well as its inertial motion).
So it's amazing how something that appears so simple could develop into something quite complex. If we were to further increase the space constructed by some number of unique (counted or created) numbers/attributes, we could combine them into larger sets (though I'd assume no such unique symbol should appear twice so there would be a finite limit to the number of ways a finite set of unique objects or quantities could be selected and ordered) and this would also allow for multiple observers to see the same objects, but ordered differently to determine a unique perspective of the object and they could communicate about the common quantities, if not the specific ordering of these unique numbers/attributes. If we just took the numbers 0 to 9, there are already 10! or over 3.6 million different ways these could be ordered into a set, and more if we allowed subsets of these. If we additionally allowed a manner to count up to this set of size 10 and included all permutations of those, the number of unique pathways or observational perspectives is huge ... and that's just the possibilities with 10 or fewer symbols (how many shades of grey alone are there?
). Of course fewer unique symbols would be required over time to maintain a constant growth in the volume of the described space per unit of time, but ultimately there wouldn't be a finite limit to these unique symbols either.
Yes, and it's string theory (but a single string curling into all the rest of the dimensions - there's nothing that says it can only stop at 3, 4, 10, 11 or 26 dimensions).
Notice that if you took these points to represent specific finite set of physical states and you took the slopes (which are constructed as line segments between two points) to point to "next" states within this et, you begin to have a potential combination of finite and infinite (it still doesn't quite work) and you'll find it utimately always ends in closed cycle that can't contain more points than are in the system.
Now if we assume the universe is infinite, then we need something that will never repeat precisely. The easiest thing here is to just create a completely new point every time, and though this (could) be infinite, it doesn't describe a space with any specific properties.
You need to combine these two extremes and have both repetitions, so that you have recurring features with specific properties, as well as a continual growth.
This requires that we pair elements together in order to have one component be able to change, while allowing the other to repeat. So a moment in physical time is composed of (at least) two complimentary halves - the unchanging component (physical laws and conserved quantities) and the altered component (the component that can't be described in terms of predictable physical laws - counting, though we could also see some similarities here with subjective qualities of perception so there may be some relationship).
If we only had a pair of numbers, then the largest possible space to construct over time would appear to grow similar to an outward spiral as every new cycle was one longer than the previous and observed from the context of the previous cycle (which might resemble a mathematical structure similar to the set of forms 0/n,1/n,2/n,...,(n+1)/n and possibly the reciprocal form n/0,n/1,n/2....n/(n+1), though there may not be a 0 in these sequences or the 0 could represent the addition of a new symbol etc. Though this may not seem to allow much complexity to appear, consider that ratios such as 1/3, 5/15 and 6/18 could appear identical, so there would not necessarily be a direct perception of a single outward spiralling as inner events would be continually revisited and this is actually the beginning of what appears to be the most complex structures in number theory. Here's a quick graphical idea of the forms these can take http://www.joebartholomew.com/gcdPlots.html, though we'd truly want something that showed these as sequences of geometric objects constucted by various common factors (static characteristics of objects) and the relatively prime components (the motion between them) between the two numbers (which could then be interpreted as describing both an object as well as its inertial motion).
So it's amazing how something that appears so simple could develop into something quite complex. If we were to further increase the space constructed by some number of unique (counted or created) numbers/attributes, we could combine them into larger sets (though I'd assume no such unique symbol should appear twice so there would be a finite limit to the number of ways a finite set of unique objects or quantities could be selected and ordered) and this would also allow for multiple observers to see the same objects, but ordered differently to determine a unique perspective of the object and they could communicate about the common quantities, if not the specific ordering of these unique numbers/attributes. If we just took the numbers 0 to 9, there are already 10! or over 3.6 million different ways these could be ordered into a set, and more if we allowed subsets of these. If we additionally allowed a manner to count up to this set of size 10 and included all permutations of those, the number of unique pathways or observational perspectives is huge ... and that's just the possibilities with 10 or fewer symbols (how many shades of grey alone are there?
). Of course fewer unique symbols would be required over time to maintain a constant growth in the volume of the described space per unit of time, but ultimately there wouldn't be a finite limit to these unique symbols either.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 20 2009, 08:09 AM)
Yes, and it's string theory
No it isn't.
Zero dimenional points have been talked about long before string theory was ever concieved.
And to make it more clear for Bukh;
When someone talks to about 0.99..., the correct answer for you is to say something like " that involves infinity, and I only talk about physicalities, therefore I can't talk about 0.99...".
if you talk about 0.99.... you are talking about infinities.
If you talk about infinitinities you are not talking about physicalities.
And please note how very wrong StevenA is in the opening statement of his post.
What Cusa is talking about is many time older than string theory.
And even with string theory there are reasons why they say the dimenions they do.
But StevenA has no clue what those reasons are and so sees no reason for any number of them.
No it isn't.
Zero dimenional points have been talked about long before string theory was ever concieved.
And to make it more clear for Bukh;
When someone talks to about 0.99..., the correct answer for you is to say something like " that involves infinity, and I only talk about physicalities, therefore I can't talk about 0.99...".
if you talk about 0.99.... you are talking about infinities.
If you talk about infinitinities you are not talking about physicalities.
And please note how very wrong StevenA is in the opening statement of his post.
What Cusa is talking about is many time older than string theory.
And even with string theory there are reasons why they say the dimenions they do.
But StevenA has no clue what those reasons are and so sees no reason for any number of them.
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 20 2009, 12:06 PM)
No it isn't.
Zero dimenional points have been talked about long before string theory was ever concieved.
He said points and slopes not isolated points without a structure or space in which they exist.
And it's an old theory too:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3661812/String-of-Pearls
If the points have slopes, those slopes go somewhere - and those "somewheres" are other points etc. So you have finite/points and infinite/string of them.
Neither extreme does much of anything interesting though in that a perfectly deterministic system describes a closed loop without time and a straight line transition to new points offer no structure - so it's "time" without space or similar to a light speed motion - either way, there's no contrast between form and its change.
So he described the theory of The String (a much more natural theory) and not "String Theory" (still trying to be artificially jump started in 10 dimensions).
So the immediate alternate is to combine both and we get a spiral in which we both have a recurring form and a continual growth. This is the most natural form that "falls out" of the idea of connecting points together to describe things. You can go more complicated from there, but that appears to be the natural progression from combining finite and infinite forms or slopes, which represent processes changing a state, which is a point in a space (determined by the slopes/relationships between these points).
If you want to change the space a point resides in, you don't change the point, you change how its related to other points in the space. Drawing a new space around the point, without it being connected as part of the space doesn't describe how the space exists - the space should evolve from the properties of the transitions between the set of states that describe the space and not appended as ad hoc rules afterwards.
Zero dimenional points have been talked about long before string theory was ever concieved.
He said points and slopes not isolated points without a structure or space in which they exist.
And it's an old theory too:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3661812/String-of-Pearls
If the points have slopes, those slopes go somewhere - and those "somewheres" are other points etc. So you have finite/points and infinite/string of them.
Neither extreme does much of anything interesting though in that a perfectly deterministic system describes a closed loop without time and a straight line transition to new points offer no structure - so it's "time" without space or similar to a light speed motion - either way, there's no contrast between form and its change.
So he described the theory of The String (a much more natural theory) and not "String Theory" (still trying to be artificially jump started in 10 dimensions).
So the immediate alternate is to combine both and we get a spiral in which we both have a recurring form and a continual growth. This is the most natural form that "falls out" of the idea of connecting points together to describe things. You can go more complicated from there, but that appears to be the natural progression from combining finite and infinite forms or slopes, which represent processes changing a state, which is a point in a space (determined by the slopes/relationships between these points).
If you want to change the space a point resides in, you don't change the point, you change how its related to other points in the space. Drawing a new space around the point, without it being connected as part of the space doesn't describe how the space exists - the space should evolve from the properties of the transitions between the set of states that describe the space and not appended as ad hoc rules afterwards.
Buttershug - Steven et al -
Infinite is a potential - a not yet realized potential. Physical is everything that has been realized. They are two different worlds and yet they exist within each other.
Physical originates in the simplest - with the potential to end in the infinitely complex - but physical will never reach infinite complexion.
Physical originates in the number of 1, and segregates into more and more and "smaller and smaller" ratios, (ex: 1/2 1/4 1/8) --- towards size zero - towards dimensionless point.
Number 1 is the equivalent of the "Mother Object of Sameness" - sameness is the equivalent of infinite, so object of sameness harbor infinite - but not yet physically out folded. Object of sameness IS the continuum, and the continuum is not yet out-folded into a physical realm.
When the Mother Object of Sameness starts to segregate into ratios- starts to realize its potential in creating more and more ratios - it is logic that in the event that it reaches infinite ratios, reaches dimensionless points, it will re-translate into Mother Object of Sameness (and I am not saying that this can happen - let it be an open question)
Physical realize itself within this range of 1 and zero, and each and every ratio has to be an object, a body, in order to be a defined part of physical. Each "smaller" object of sameness is "made" out from continuum, so irrespective how "small" the said ratio is - it will always be made out from continuum, and there will never be reached a point where continuum cannot be further segregated. Smallest can always be further divided. Continuum is always harbored into the smallest.
Physical can express itself in the different patterns that the smallest objects of sameness can configure into. The more segregated - the more objects at hand the higher the complexion. Each configuration pattern is unique - Universe Exists Only Once - and at the next following re-configuration - Universe takes a new Flash-Expression. And it is the pace by which such re-configurations takes place - that define the "Beat of Universe". This pace - this beat is equivalent to Time-Unit-One. Time is the ordering system - the system that defines the order by which expressions takes place, defining the one-way time line. Time is a derived function reflecting Change. No change - No time.
Physical Realization gives rise to inertia, each flash-expression "takes time" - and each flash-expression develops inertly via scales, of bigger and bigger stable repetitive patterns.
Human is a part of physical world, is a complexion of ratios in a stable pattern, a pattern that is being re-created in more or less the same form at next following repetition. In order to be seen as a physical expression, it must be in a stable- in a repeated pattern.
Everything that relates to definition description perceiving of physical universe relates to such object of sameness and each such object is unique in its ratio and in its relative position. Each such object is the equivalent of a number in the number system.
Objects of sameness cannot reach infinite in number, they have the potential to reach infinite in number. In the hypothetical event that they reach infinite in number they at the very same event reach infinitely small which is the equivalent of dimensionless point, and physical vanish.
Infinite is hidden in every number as a potential, infinite is what is beyond or behind physical - infinite is not an expressed part of physical, infinite is the source from which numbers originates, infinite is just a "source" a non-organized - or a chaotic source - a source which is without space without time without organization - an inert and neutral source - with the sole function that it can supply physical with new objects - can supply the number system with new numbers.
Can be we sure that all numbers have already been physically realized - and I would like to think that we cannot. It is perhaps logic to distinguish numbers in physically realized and into physically potential, respectively -
0.99.... is a representation of everything between 1 and zero - without further defining if and where there exist a transition between physically realized and physically non-realized members, respectively.
But 0.99... is definitely NOT the equivalent of 1.
Infinite is a potential - a not yet realized potential. Physical is everything that has been realized. They are two different worlds and yet they exist within each other.
Physical originates in the simplest - with the potential to end in the infinitely complex - but physical will never reach infinite complexion.
Physical originates in the number of 1, and segregates into more and more and "smaller and smaller" ratios, (ex: 1/2 1/4 1/8) --- towards size zero - towards dimensionless point.
Number 1 is the equivalent of the "Mother Object of Sameness" - sameness is the equivalent of infinite, so object of sameness harbor infinite - but not yet physically out folded. Object of sameness IS the continuum, and the continuum is not yet out-folded into a physical realm.
When the Mother Object of Sameness starts to segregate into ratios- starts to realize its potential in creating more and more ratios - it is logic that in the event that it reaches infinite ratios, reaches dimensionless points, it will re-translate into Mother Object of Sameness (and I am not saying that this can happen - let it be an open question)
Physical realize itself within this range of 1 and zero, and each and every ratio has to be an object, a body, in order to be a defined part of physical. Each "smaller" object of sameness is "made" out from continuum, so irrespective how "small" the said ratio is - it will always be made out from continuum, and there will never be reached a point where continuum cannot be further segregated. Smallest can always be further divided. Continuum is always harbored into the smallest.
Physical can express itself in the different patterns that the smallest objects of sameness can configure into. The more segregated - the more objects at hand the higher the complexion. Each configuration pattern is unique - Universe Exists Only Once - and at the next following re-configuration - Universe takes a new Flash-Expression. And it is the pace by which such re-configurations takes place - that define the "Beat of Universe". This pace - this beat is equivalent to Time-Unit-One. Time is the ordering system - the system that defines the order by which expressions takes place, defining the one-way time line. Time is a derived function reflecting Change. No change - No time.
Physical Realization gives rise to inertia, each flash-expression "takes time" - and each flash-expression develops inertly via scales, of bigger and bigger stable repetitive patterns.
Human is a part of physical world, is a complexion of ratios in a stable pattern, a pattern that is being re-created in more or less the same form at next following repetition. In order to be seen as a physical expression, it must be in a stable- in a repeated pattern.
Everything that relates to definition description perceiving of physical universe relates to such object of sameness and each such object is unique in its ratio and in its relative position. Each such object is the equivalent of a number in the number system.
Objects of sameness cannot reach infinite in number, they have the potential to reach infinite in number. In the hypothetical event that they reach infinite in number they at the very same event reach infinitely small which is the equivalent of dimensionless point, and physical vanish.
Infinite is hidden in every number as a potential, infinite is what is beyond or behind physical - infinite is not an expressed part of physical, infinite is the source from which numbers originates, infinite is just a "source" a non-organized - or a chaotic source - a source which is without space without time without organization - an inert and neutral source - with the sole function that it can supply physical with new objects - can supply the number system with new numbers.
Can be we sure that all numbers have already been physically realized - and I would like to think that we cannot. It is perhaps logic to distinguish numbers in physically realized and into physically potential, respectively -
0.99.... is a representation of everything between 1 and zero - without further defining if and where there exist a transition between physically realized and physically non-realized members, respectively.
But 0.99... is definitely NOT the equivalent of 1.
Cusa
"As far as I understand it when math goes beyond the physical it is just an abstraction."
That is also my understanding; not the same as saying that it is not a useful abstraction of course - but still math then has moved to a world where it does not accurately reflect physical world.
Navier Stokes operates with non-compressible fluid and obviously get the "existence and smoothness problem" just as an example
"As far as I understand it when math goes beyond the physical it is just an abstraction."
That is also my understanding; not the same as saying that it is not a useful abstraction of course - but still math then has moved to a world where it does not accurately reflect physical world.
Navier Stokes operates with non-compressible fluid and obviously get the "existence and smoothness problem" just as an example
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 20 2009, 11:03 PM)
0.99.... is a representation of everything between 1 and zero - without further defining if and where there exist a transition between physically realized and physically non-realized members, respectively.
But 0.99... is definitely NOT the equivalent of 1.
No it isn't it is not
It does not represent 0.5 for example.
If you want something to represent everything between 1 and zero then use something else. 0.99... is already taken.
It is 0.99 followed by an infinite number of 9's and as such there can not be anything between 0.99... and 1.
It is not a "potentiality" is an abstraction.
You don't have to write every 9 for it to be complete.
It is complete and infinite.
No assembly required.
IF it's not equal to 1 then it's not 0.99...
What does 1-0.99... equal?
Most 20th century math if not all, is abstraction.
It is totally irrellevent if it is physcially realized or not.
Math left the physical behind a century ago.
But 0.99... is definitely NOT the equivalent of 1.
No it isn't it is not
It does not represent 0.5 for example.
If you want something to represent everything between 1 and zero then use something else. 0.99... is already taken.
It is 0.99 followed by an infinite number of 9's and as such there can not be anything between 0.99... and 1.
It is not a "potentiality" is an abstraction.
You don't have to write every 9 for it to be complete.
It is complete and infinite.
No assembly required.
IF it's not equal to 1 then it's not 0.99...
What does 1-0.99... equal?
Most 20th century math if not all, is abstraction.
It is totally irrellevent if it is physcially realized or not.
Math left the physical behind a century ago.
QUOTE (bukh+)
When the Mother Object of Sameness starts to segregate into ratios- starts to realize its potential in creating more and more ratios - it is logic that in the event that it reaches infinite ratios, reaches dimensionless points, it will re-translate into Mother Object of Sameness (and I am not saying that this can happen - let it be an open question)
From a position of finite perceptions, we cannot see an infinite scale. We experience a growth onto larger scales, but there doesn't appear to be any limit to the potential complexity of this growth.
If we look at a string of discrete identical objects, there is no specific manner in which they're connected other than in 1 dimension. This wouldn't allow any higher dimensional structures to form and the only significant feature would be if the string was closed into a loop (not specifically a circle, but that would appear the natural interpretation having nothing else to distinguish any point from any other point), but this loop could not change in any manner without additional properties to allow for such change in time to occur.
If we had to them "impose" a change upon this from outside, then the string would not be informationally closed, but would instead one or more of these elements would have to be connected to such a source of change. So we'd have a string with a loop at the end in that case, but notice that such a loop is finite and has no memory beyond whatever current state it is in.
Anyway, there's a much more elegant way of doing all this and we can simply leave it as a single string of discrete objects and get an unlimited complexity in an unlimited number of dimensions by having each discrete object have a unique time frame or frequency of communication along this string. Each element only immediately connects to adjacent elements, but communication along the string allows for an infinite quantity of information to be passed along it in different frequencies, though at a discrete sample rate of a discrete state for each element, there is a (relatively) finite quantity of information available at any point along the string, but no two positions need be identical (if they were, they'd already be the same object).
I've got to run (and I'm certain you've heard me progress along these lines before), so I'll just leave it at that for now. Recognize also that though each element can have a finite quantity of information and memory, there is, over time at any point, an infinite quantity of information available and though the string exists in a single dimension it conveys the equivalent of multiple dimensions of information by using channels of that are multiplexed in time (basically the "frequency" of a signal, though there's phase or modulation information as well). There are specific phenomenon that arise from properties of resonance along the string, but these are uniquely interpreted at each point depending upon its unique internal properties (just as the broadband, raw information of electromagnetic fields or "radio waves" is much higher than that conveyed in some limited frequency band, or "channel"). Memory can arise from reflections along this string and be contained by it without specifically needing isolated memories within a point. The current state of a point can be, in effect, a shared segment of a larger memory, much like individual neurons do not work with entire concepts but are integral to their construction and every neuron still has access to information in other areas of the brain, but at a lower information rate than local information.
And unless there's a way to contain time, the string is infinite (it doesn't appear time is something that can have a finite termination - it gives paradoxes).
From a position of finite perceptions, we cannot see an infinite scale. We experience a growth onto larger scales, but there doesn't appear to be any limit to the potential complexity of this growth.
If we look at a string of discrete identical objects, there is no specific manner in which they're connected other than in 1 dimension. This wouldn't allow any higher dimensional structures to form and the only significant feature would be if the string was closed into a loop (not specifically a circle, but that would appear the natural interpretation having nothing else to distinguish any point from any other point), but this loop could not change in any manner without additional properties to allow for such change in time to occur.
If we had to them "impose" a change upon this from outside, then the string would not be informationally closed, but would instead one or more of these elements would have to be connected to such a source of change. So we'd have a string with a loop at the end in that case, but notice that such a loop is finite and has no memory beyond whatever current state it is in.
Anyway, there's a much more elegant way of doing all this and we can simply leave it as a single string of discrete objects and get an unlimited complexity in an unlimited number of dimensions by having each discrete object have a unique time frame or frequency of communication along this string. Each element only immediately connects to adjacent elements, but communication along the string allows for an infinite quantity of information to be passed along it in different frequencies, though at a discrete sample rate of a discrete state for each element, there is a (relatively) finite quantity of information available at any point along the string, but no two positions need be identical (if they were, they'd already be the same object).
I've got to run (and I'm certain you've heard me progress along these lines before), so I'll just leave it at that for now. Recognize also that though each element can have a finite quantity of information and memory, there is, over time at any point, an infinite quantity of information available and though the string exists in a single dimension it conveys the equivalent of multiple dimensions of information by using channels of that are multiplexed in time (basically the "frequency" of a signal, though there's phase or modulation information as well). There are specific phenomenon that arise from properties of resonance along the string, but these are uniquely interpreted at each point depending upon its unique internal properties (just as the broadband, raw information of electromagnetic fields or "radio waves" is much higher than that conveyed in some limited frequency band, or "channel"). Memory can arise from reflections along this string and be contained by it without specifically needing isolated memories within a point. The current state of a point can be, in effect, a shared segment of a larger memory, much like individual neurons do not work with entire concepts but are integral to their construction and every neuron still has access to information in other areas of the brain, but at a lower information rate than local information.
And unless there's a way to contain time, the string is infinite (it doesn't appear time is something that can have a finite termination - it gives paradoxes).
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 21 2009, 02:16 AM)
From a position of finite perceptions, we cannot see an infinite scale.
It's a good thing some people don't need to. Otherwise we wouldn't have 20th century math.
It's a good thing some people don't need to. Otherwise we wouldn't have 20th century math.
He was making a list of rational numbers. He had to know the digits precisely or it invalidates the rest of the (still failed) attempt.
In other words, if he had began with a claim that by given an unknown set of numbers he could create another unknown number, this means nothing as he would have already began with what he was trying to prove exists.
(And if they were unknown, then he should have called them variables instead)
In other words, if he had began with a claim that by given an unknown set of numbers he could create another unknown number, this means nothing as he would have already began with what he was trying to prove exists.
(And if they were unknown, then he should have called them variables instead)
QUOTE
Quotes
"Classical mathematics concerns itself with operations that can be carried out by God.. Mathematics belongs to man, not to God... When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself." (Bishop 1967)
"Classical mathematics concerns itself with operations that can be carried out by God.. Mathematics belongs to man, not to God... When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself." (Bishop 1967)
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 20 2009, 11:03 PM)
0.99.... is a representation of everything between 1 and zero - without further defining if and where there exist a transition between physically realized and physically non-realized members, respectively.
But 0.99... is definitely NOT the equivalent of 1.
Obviously you are wrong. To argue that .9r has a value less than 1 is inaccurate. But you appear to be arguing that .9r can equal .5. Or .7. That is illogical.
But 0.99... is definitely NOT the equivalent of 1.
Obviously you are wrong. To argue that .9r has a value less than 1 is inaccurate. But you appear to be arguing that .9r can equal .5. Or .7. That is illogical.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 21 2009, 07:50 AM)
He was making a list of rational numbers. He had to know the digits precisely or it invalidates the rest of the (still failed) attempt.
No he was not.
He was describing a list of numbers.
The list exists independend of mankind.
Pretend God made it if that helps you understand.
He was describing not making.
If you understand math then you do NOT need to always know each digit.
Using your incorrect assumption is what invalidates everything.
It's your assumptions that invalidate not the mathematicians axioms.
No he was not.
He was describing a list of numbers.
The list exists independend of mankind.
Pretend God made it if that helps you understand.
He was describing not making.
If you understand math then you do NOT need to always know each digit.
Using your incorrect assumption is what invalidates everything.
It's your assumptions that invalidate not the mathematicians axioms.
The difference between 1 and .9r is 1/infinity
Add the infinitely small to .9r and you get One.
Subtract from 1 and you get .9r
Mitch Raemsch
Add the infinitely small to .9r and you get One.
Subtract from 1 and you get .9r
Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
I have been under the impression that we are among others trying to define those numbers that can - or do represent physical world, which is not an abstraction, and then all other kind of math which is a mind invention - and as such representative for non-physical abstractions.
Physical world is not - cannot be represented by .5 because that would be the definition of two bodies - and two bodies in space cannot appear in different expressions - configurations - they would appear the same at each flash, and showing no change -no dynamic - ergo no physical.
There would most likely be other ratios that cannot express anything physical because their shape happens to create an ideal fit in said number of objects - and as such they just create an object of sameness with no chance of expressing different configurations.
Dimensionality or body is a consequence of having the need for organizing the potential of all numbers into a certain pattern - and already the need of organizing infinite into two different bodies - when object of sameness segregate into more than one - involve a kind of organization - and the mere organizing of numbers is the same as applying a kind of metric - and metric involve a kind of spatiality. So perhaps it is a good assumption that everything physical IS originating out from a kind of singularity - taking no space - and expressing no energy - that origin IS a true potential - not yet out-folded in anything that involve metric.
I have been under the impression that we are among others trying to define those numbers that can - or do represent physical world, which is not an abstraction, and then all other kind of math which is a mind invention - and as such representative for non-physical abstractions.
Physical world is not - cannot be represented by .5 because that would be the definition of two bodies - and two bodies in space cannot appear in different expressions - configurations - they would appear the same at each flash, and showing no change -no dynamic - ergo no physical.
There would most likely be other ratios that cannot express anything physical because their shape happens to create an ideal fit in said number of objects - and as such they just create an object of sameness with no chance of expressing different configurations.
Dimensionality or body is a consequence of having the need for organizing the potential of all numbers into a certain pattern - and already the need of organizing infinite into two different bodies - when object of sameness segregate into more than one - involve a kind of organization - and the mere organizing of numbers is the same as applying a kind of metric - and metric involve a kind of spatiality. So perhaps it is a good assumption that everything physical IS originating out from a kind of singularity - taking no space - and expressing no energy - that origin IS a true potential - not yet out-folded in anything that involve metric.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 21 2009, 10:05 PM)
The difference between 1 and .9r is 1/infinity
Add the infinitely small to .9r and you get One.
Subtract from 1 and you get .9r
Mitch Raemsch
Fields Medal.
Add the infinitely small to .9r and you get One.
Subtract from 1 and you get .9r
Mitch Raemsch
Fields Medal.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 21 2009, 06:30 PM)
Fields Medal.
The only medals Mitch gets are from the Special Olympics.
The only medals Mitch gets are from the Special Olympics.
If someone is going to complain about Mitch, at least post something better when doing so.
If, for example, someone posts a few sentences of comments and this is followed up by 4 additional one or two sentence comments by others all saying that short and pointless posts are useless ... can anyone see the irony (and dare I say hypocracy)?
Here's my third non-hypocritical sentence (whew, that was close)
If, for example, someone posts a few sentences of comments and this is followed up by 4 additional one or two sentence comments by others all saying that short and pointless posts are useless ... can anyone see the irony (and dare I say hypocracy)?
Here's my third non-hypocritical sentence (whew, that was close)
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 21 2009, 11:30 PM)
Fields Medal.
That last infinitely small point is the last point on the mathematical number line derek.
That last infinitely small point is the last point on the mathematical number line derek.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 21 2009, 05:58 PM)
That last infinitely small point is the last point on the mathematical number line derek.
Future Darwin Award...
Future Darwin Award...
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 21 2009, 11:58 PM)
That last infinitely small point is the last point on the mathematical number line derek.
Ditto me a copy of that sentiment, though I'd say it's closer to the process of creating or adding new points. Mathematics has tried to treat it like a number (despite the claims otherwise) and this causes confusion and indeterminacy in a lot of areas of mathematics.
.999... != 1
Ditto me a copy of that sentiment, though I'd say it's closer to the process of creating or adding new points. Mathematics has tried to treat it like a number (despite the claims otherwise) and this causes confusion and indeterminacy in a lot of areas of mathematics.
.999... != 1
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 18 2009, 01:39 AM)
You guys are the ones doing the bait and switch.
You have a topic called infinity.
Then you keep bringing the physical into it.
How is the way the physical world being described relevant to a discussion of inifinity?
If you want to talk about the physical world then do so.
If you want to talk about infinity then do so.
Which one of those two subjects do you wish to discuss?
Hi Buttershug
When I started this thread, my objection to the use of infinity is mainly how it has permeated down to INCLUDE physical things......
Many times I read that the universe 'is infinite'. This is a statement about the physical. and many here are quick to argue that the universe IS infinite. They are not merely referring to "being too big to measure" , but saying that "it never ends".
And to that I have argued,"If this were so, then there is no measurable difference in infinity, and we could not perceive variations". If You are concerned with mathematical infinity , then I have no argument with you. However, IF I am correct, then the mysteries of the physical universe are not out of reach. Because there is an end, there is a beginning. And because we can measure it's parts , we can decide on suitable behaviors simply by agreeing on these two points.
See in time, space and motion we need three points to understand and measure....If we have two (beginning and end) , even though we don't know how far we are away from either, we can know for sure that the inner relative positions are evenly distributed(e=mc squared).
So . Here is a question to you....."is the universe finite or infinite. And how would you argue that your view is correct.....
Cheers
Iseason
You have a topic called infinity.
Then you keep bringing the physical into it.
How is the way the physical world being described relevant to a discussion of inifinity?
If you want to talk about the physical world then do so.
If you want to talk about infinity then do so.
Which one of those two subjects do you wish to discuss?
Hi Buttershug
When I started this thread, my objection to the use of infinity is mainly how it has permeated down to INCLUDE physical things......
Many times I read that the universe 'is infinite'. This is a statement about the physical. and many here are quick to argue that the universe IS infinite. They are not merely referring to "being too big to measure" , but saying that "it never ends".
And to that I have argued,"If this were so, then there is no measurable difference in infinity, and we could not perceive variations". If You are concerned with mathematical infinity , then I have no argument with you. However, IF I am correct, then the mysteries of the physical universe are not out of reach. Because there is an end, there is a beginning. And because we can measure it's parts , we can decide on suitable behaviors simply by agreeing on these two points.
See in time, space and motion we need three points to understand and measure....If we have two (beginning and end) , even though we don't know how far we are away from either, we can know for sure that the inner relative positions are evenly distributed(e=mc squared).
So . Here is a question to you....."is the universe finite or infinite. And how would you argue that your view is correct.....
Cheers
Iseason
Hiya, iseason
It doesn't seem the existance of something infinite can be ruled out because of the perception of time. I"ll try to keep this semi-short.
Basically if something is totally self contained it can't change, or even if it could, it wouldn't be able to perceive such a change without having something else too compare against. If every interaction in the universe was perfectly predictable and the universe was finite, it would have to ultimately repeat precisely, but a repetition would require that every moment occur a first time, and a second time, infinitely ... but that would require a way to count these repetitions and that requires infinite information.
The only other option would appear that the system begin at some point and eventually just stop. This has a similar problem though in the system needs to still be able to count or select specific moments from within it ... but logic itself can't determine when to change its current state - there is no clock in logic. In other words, if we took all the information describing the universe and the current moment, we could see it similar to a single number. The problem is that the number needs to grow to create new numbers and it needs to do this synchronized with observers but logic can't describe how to see something new or how to "reach to the right of the previous digit" or move within a space it can't see etc.
Finitness is necessary for classification and simplification but truly everything is unique in some aspect and no two electrons are entirely identical even if they shared a precisely equivalent electric charge and mass - they're detected at different positions in time.
The laws of physics we construct need rules and limits to their size and complexity so that we can use them to make predictions, but existance as a whole does not need to conform to only the subset of things that can be logically described - for example, if we looked along the time line of the universe in terms of cause and effect, there would logically be no beginning moment, because that would also need a cause etc., but logic has to have a beginning otherwise it doesn't know where to go next.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that there is an infinity, but there needs be only one such infinite source because that's already plenty for existance to have always "been around".
We could say it was due to an infinite space or an infinite time or an infinite energy etc., but all these are related and one can construct or alter the other. In mathematics when an irrational number is encountered, that's the last thing you'll be computing unless you already constructed a way to break out of it and do something else though a single infinite quantity still has plenty of time to both compute a unlimited quantity of irrational numbers to an unlimited number of decimal places while keeping the universe running and having dinner ready too
The trick is begin with just one precisely defined infinity and recognize that it can grow similar to a tree and rotate through different processes in time without being constrained to grow along just a single line - it still is growing as a single thread, but that thread is weaved through everything. I guess I shouldn't say it's still growing, but instead that perceptions of what existance is grow. So everyone has a unique referene point within existance and sees unique slices, but just as it can be perceived in an infinite number of contexts, it can still exist as a single thread. (Though I assume there would still be something beyond that possibly, but that's just from the assumption that everything would have already always existed and certainly there are things beyond human description and understanding, so who truly knows?)
So anyway, though the universe exists as a finite thing from the context of finite perceptions and finite quantities of time etc. It's still likely that most these will become infinite and there does or will exist spaces beyond the boundaries we currently see etc.
Maybe the best description is that everything physical is finite and limited, but at times those change.
It doesn't seem the existance of something infinite can be ruled out because of the perception of time. I"ll try to keep this semi-short.
Basically if something is totally self contained it can't change, or even if it could, it wouldn't be able to perceive such a change without having something else too compare against. If every interaction in the universe was perfectly predictable and the universe was finite, it would have to ultimately repeat precisely, but a repetition would require that every moment occur a first time, and a second time, infinitely ... but that would require a way to count these repetitions and that requires infinite information.
The only other option would appear that the system begin at some point and eventually just stop. This has a similar problem though in the system needs to still be able to count or select specific moments from within it ... but logic itself can't determine when to change its current state - there is no clock in logic. In other words, if we took all the information describing the universe and the current moment, we could see it similar to a single number. The problem is that the number needs to grow to create new numbers and it needs to do this synchronized with observers but logic can't describe how to see something new or how to "reach to the right of the previous digit" or move within a space it can't see etc.
Finitness is necessary for classification and simplification but truly everything is unique in some aspect and no two electrons are entirely identical even if they shared a precisely equivalent electric charge and mass - they're detected at different positions in time.
The laws of physics we construct need rules and limits to their size and complexity so that we can use them to make predictions, but existance as a whole does not need to conform to only the subset of things that can be logically described - for example, if we looked along the time line of the universe in terms of cause and effect, there would logically be no beginning moment, because that would also need a cause etc., but logic has to have a beginning otherwise it doesn't know where to go next.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that there is an infinity, but there needs be only one such infinite source because that's already plenty for existance to have always "been around".
We could say it was due to an infinite space or an infinite time or an infinite energy etc., but all these are related and one can construct or alter the other. In mathematics when an irrational number is encountered, that's the last thing you'll be computing unless you already constructed a way to break out of it and do something else though a single infinite quantity still has plenty of time to both compute a unlimited quantity of irrational numbers to an unlimited number of decimal places while keeping the universe running and having dinner ready too
The trick is begin with just one precisely defined infinity and recognize that it can grow similar to a tree and rotate through different processes in time without being constrained to grow along just a single line - it still is growing as a single thread, but that thread is weaved through everything. I guess I shouldn't say it's still growing, but instead that perceptions of what existance is grow. So everyone has a unique referene point within existance and sees unique slices, but just as it can be perceived in an infinite number of contexts, it can still exist as a single thread. (Though I assume there would still be something beyond that possibly, but that's just from the assumption that everything would have already always existed and certainly there are things beyond human description and understanding, so who truly knows?)
So anyway, though the universe exists as a finite thing from the context of finite perceptions and finite quantities of time etc. It's still likely that most these will become infinite and there does or will exist spaces beyond the boundaries we currently see etc.
Maybe the best description is that everything physical is finite and limited, but at times those change.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 03:15 AM)
Ditto me a copy of that sentiment, though I'd say it's closer to the process of creating or adding new points. Mathematics has tried to treat it like a number (despite the claims otherwise) and this causes confusion and indeterminacy in a lot of areas of mathematics.
.999... != 1
What sentiment?
Here's a line of thought I've come across a few times and it ends up as an interesting philosophical question.
If time is not constrained but infinite, then experiences of time must also be infinite which require infinite conscious perceptions, memory and cognition etc. in order to perceive and differentiate between those moments.
So let's say that you're already infinite in some aspects and you've always had those infinite properties or capabilities (this is already possible via. the qualities of concious perceptions as there doesn't appear specific finite ways of precisely describing the perceptual qualities of consciousness).
Now if that's the case, then time will contain an infinite quantity of experiences.
Ok, now consider that a slight fraction of infinity is still infinite and even an incredibly slowly growing log(log(log(...log(n)...))) function is still never ending.
Now out of the figurative "set of all possible experiences" which set would you prefer? The pure - "give it all to me, good, bad, indifferent, boring, wild rush etc." or a subset of that?
In other words, if you had a wish granted, would you flip a figurative coin as to what it was or would you select some specific subset of all possible wishes. An unadultered infinity is actually not much different from nothing specific all (at least that seems the way it would seem to look to logic) - it doesn't have any specific feature and if you say everything and all times at once, it would likely fill up all space so perfectly that it would be indistinguishable from an empty void.
Consider that if you could have everything you wanted and everything that made you happy and everything you could possibly imagine etc. versus having some pure non-qualified, unadultered, infinity, which would choose?
P.S. I'd have to truly feel sorry for someone who couldn't be satisfied with being something less than absolutely infinite, it wouldn't appear to be a job I'd want to do.
"P.S. I'd have to truly feel sorry for someone who couldn't be satisfied with being something less than absolutely infinite, it wouldn't appear to be a job I'd want to do."
The best is the worse enemy of good.
The best is the worse enemy of good.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 09:51 AM)
P.S. I'd have to truly feel sorry for someone who couldn't be satisfied with being something less than absolutely infinite, it wouldn't appear to be a job I'd want to do.
If it's not absolute infinity it is not infinity.
Lincoln asked. "if you call a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs does that donkey have?"
The anwer is four, calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
and calling things infininty when they are not, does not make it inifinite.
If it's not absolute infinity it is not infinity.
Lincoln asked. "if you call a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs does that donkey have?"
The anwer is four, calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
and calling things infininty when they are not, does not make it inifinite.
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 22 2009, 02:01 PM)
If it's not absolute infinity it is not infinity.
Lincoln asked. "if you call a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs does that donkey have?"
The anwer is four, calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
and calling things infininty when they are not, does not make it inifinite.
Ok, I must agree that there should always be a largest or most "prime" infinity and that this, by default should be exactly what infinity is equal to. Anything derived from it, is not infinite in the same manner and needs to be specified as to how it was constructed relative to infinity, if we're to know what specific 'unbounded' form that derivative is, otherwise infinity morphs and we find things like the question of "infinity-infinity" being undefined. If we were talking about a single infinite quantity, subtracting it from itself should leave us with nothing and not an unknown.
For example, if we began by placing a rock on a table and then took the rock off the table and putting it back on etc. We could do this any number of times, and never have anything less than no rock on the table, despite having taken the rock off the table any number of times.
In mathematics this might typically be described as the number of rocks on the table having a lower limit of 0 as the number of iterations of this place and remove cycle "approached infinity", but as you point out, infinity should be only a specific thing and not things that simply inherit properties from it. If they inherit such properties then those inherited properties need to be known, if we're to which "infinite look alike" we're talking about.
For example, if we split this into odd and even passes of the cycle, we can find that the number of rocks on the table alternates between 0 and 1, and if we know, for example that we're using an even infinite value then we know that we're making a selection out of this to further refine it be not simply the subset of infinite things that is part of this cycle of putting or removing a rock from the table, but additionally one half of that (apparently unending) process (at least until someone got bored) to select the points at which there is no rock on the table and allocated the odd phases of this cycle to indicate the times at which there is 1 rock on the table.
So I do agree with you, buttershug. There is only one largest infinity and if we were to say .999... had this infinite quantity of digits then we could not know what it equalled because this infinite never had time to do anything else and it existed as its own universe. If we want to a "real" .999... in this universe then it can still repeat digits forever, but there will always be fewer of these than infinity (and I'm trying to use the single unredefineable infinity that you're referring to). In calculus a limit is just computed as things "approach infinity" and it's often explicitly stated that a value is not inherently required to reach its limit or boundary, hence such a value is not required to be equal to its limit and a limit can only guarantee some level of approximation to a result. (Some computations that are written as limits are precise but in these cases the designation as a limit could be removed).
And you say I can't do abstract thinking ...
Lincoln asked. "if you call a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs does that donkey have?"
The anwer is four, calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
and calling things infininty when they are not, does not make it inifinite.
Ok, I must agree that there should always be a largest or most "prime" infinity and that this, by default should be exactly what infinity is equal to. Anything derived from it, is not infinite in the same manner and needs to be specified as to how it was constructed relative to infinity, if we're to know what specific 'unbounded' form that derivative is, otherwise infinity morphs and we find things like the question of "infinity-infinity" being undefined. If we were talking about a single infinite quantity, subtracting it from itself should leave us with nothing and not an unknown.
For example, if we began by placing a rock on a table and then took the rock off the table and putting it back on etc. We could do this any number of times, and never have anything less than no rock on the table, despite having taken the rock off the table any number of times.
In mathematics this might typically be described as the number of rocks on the table having a lower limit of 0 as the number of iterations of this place and remove cycle "approached infinity", but as you point out, infinity should be only a specific thing and not things that simply inherit properties from it. If they inherit such properties then those inherited properties need to be known, if we're to which "infinite look alike" we're talking about.
For example, if we split this into odd and even passes of the cycle, we can find that the number of rocks on the table alternates between 0 and 1, and if we know, for example that we're using an even infinite value then we know that we're making a selection out of this to further refine it be not simply the subset of infinite things that is part of this cycle of putting or removing a rock from the table, but additionally one half of that (apparently unending) process (at least until someone got bored) to select the points at which there is no rock on the table and allocated the odd phases of this cycle to indicate the times at which there is 1 rock on the table.
So I do agree with you, buttershug. There is only one largest infinity and if we were to say .999... had this infinite quantity of digits then we could not know what it equalled because this infinite never had time to do anything else and it existed as its own universe. If we want to a "real" .999... in this universe then it can still repeat digits forever, but there will always be fewer of these than infinity (and I'm trying to use the single unredefineable infinity that you're referring to). In calculus a limit is just computed as things "approach infinity" and it's often explicitly stated that a value is not inherently required to reach its limit or boundary, hence such a value is not required to be equal to its limit and a limit can only guarantee some level of approximation to a result. (Some computations that are written as limits are precise but in these cases the designation as a limit could be removed).
And you say I can't do abstract thinking ...
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 03:15 AM)
.999... != 1
Do you have a proof you can present?
Do you have a proof you can present?
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 06:50 PM)
So I do agree with you, buttershug. There is only one largest infinity and if we were to say .999... had this infinite quantity of digits then we could not know what it equalled because this infinite never had time to do anything else and it existed as its own universe. And you say I can't do abstract thinking ...
It doesn't need time.
The concept of 0.99... is a complete one as is.
No assembly required.
Maybe you don't know what it would equal if it is infinite, but a lot of us do.
Stop thinking of it as a process.
It doesn't need time.
The concept of 0.99... is a complete one as is.
No assembly required.
Maybe you don't know what it would equal if it is infinite, but a lot of us do.
Stop thinking of it as a process.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 22 2009, 08:16 PM)
Do you have a proof you can present?
Many, but probably the simplest and clearest arises from the multiplicative property of 0.
The only way to have a multiplication result in 0 is to already possess a zero. If you multiply two positive numbers together you get another positive number.
If .999... is constructed from an infinite number of 9s, each reducing the difference between it and 1 to 1/10th of the previous difference, like this:
1-0=1>0
1-.9=.1>0
1-.99=.01>0
1-.999=.001>0
etc.
Then we can see the difference is 1 (a positive number) and continually multiplied by 1/10 (also a positive number).
Therefore every multiplication by 1/10 results in a positive number, recursively forever and zero is not a positive number.
1-.999...>0
Many, but probably the simplest and clearest arises from the multiplicative property of 0.
The only way to have a multiplication result in 0 is to already possess a zero. If you multiply two positive numbers together you get another positive number.
If .999... is constructed from an infinite number of 9s, each reducing the difference between it and 1 to 1/10th of the previous difference, like this:
1-0=1>0
1-.9=.1>0
1-.99=.01>0
1-.999=.001>0
etc.
Then we can see the difference is 1 (a positive number) and continually multiplied by 1/10 (also a positive number).
Therefore every multiplication by 1/10 results in a positive number, recursively forever and zero is not a positive number.
1-.999...>0
I am still under the impression that what is under discussion is whether a number concept potentially can belong to physical world or not.
According to my mind and my definitions the following apply:
.999...! represent the biggest "physical" infinity - the infinity which is closest to fulfill the requirement for being "The Infinite".
When I say closest to - it is meant as a process - physical IS a process - and physical can be processed into more and more complexion - given that physical gets the opportunity to out-fold ongoing complexion - Such a process is being governed / defined by a time-line. Time is a derived function - and as such it is possible to "create" time as long as there is into existence the required conditions for further complexion of physicality.
This is possible as long as smallest can be divided into smaller, as long as smallest is containing the potential of out-folding further information. As long as smallest point has not reached the ultimate limit where it cannot be further out-folded by applying a metric. (in the event that this point can be reached then physical - (which is the sum of out-folded (processed/expressed) physical and potentially physical) - vanish into the concept of 1.
Zero and 1 does not belong to physical, neither is 0.5 part of physical - and most likely there exist numbers - the equivalent of ratios of 1, that cannot represent a physical condition because the shape of such ratios fit ideally and cannot be arranged in more that one body.
According to my mind and my definitions the following apply:
.999...! represent the biggest "physical" infinity - the infinity which is closest to fulfill the requirement for being "The Infinite".
When I say closest to - it is meant as a process - physical IS a process - and physical can be processed into more and more complexion - given that physical gets the opportunity to out-fold ongoing complexion - Such a process is being governed / defined by a time-line. Time is a derived function - and as such it is possible to "create" time as long as there is into existence the required conditions for further complexion of physicality.
This is possible as long as smallest can be divided into smaller, as long as smallest is containing the potential of out-folding further information. As long as smallest point has not reached the ultimate limit where it cannot be further out-folded by applying a metric. (in the event that this point can be reached then physical - (which is the sum of out-folded (processed/expressed) physical and potentially physical) - vanish into the concept of 1.
Zero and 1 does not belong to physical, neither is 0.5 part of physical - and most likely there exist numbers - the equivalent of ratios of 1, that cannot represent a physical condition because the shape of such ratios fit ideally and cannot be arranged in more that one body.
That fails to be a proof by induction.
Nothing given gives a proof of 1 - 0.999... > 0 -- what you have proven for all finite (terminating) sequences 1 - 0.99...9 = 10^-n > 0.
But since 0.999... is bigger than all such terminating sequences, you have not demonstrated that it too is smaller than 1.
Try again.
Nothing given gives a proof of 1 - 0.999... > 0 -- what you have proven for all finite (terminating) sequences 1 - 0.99...9 = 10^-n > 0.
But since 0.999... is bigger than all such terminating sequences, you have not demonstrated that it too is smaller than 1.
Try again.
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 22 2009, 10:10 PM)
That fails to be a proof by induction.
Nothing given gives a proof of 1 - 0.999... > 0 -- what you have proven for all finite (terminating) sequences 1 - 0.99...9 = 10^-n > 0.
But since 0.999... is bigger than all such terminating sequences, you have not demonstrated that it too is smaller than 1.
Try again.
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
Only a multiplication by zero results in a zero result and because the initial values are both positive (or non-zero), they always recurse as positive (non-zero) values.
If a>0 and b>0 then ab>0 and hence a*b*b*b*b*...>0 by definition if we declare a, b and ab to all be real numbers.
You can prove me wrong by showing a contradiction where a>0 and b>0 but ab=0.
Nothing given gives a proof of 1 - 0.999... > 0 -- what you have proven for all finite (terminating) sequences 1 - 0.99...9 = 10^-n > 0.
But since 0.999... is bigger than all such terminating sequences, you have not demonstrated that it too is smaller than 1.
Try again.
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
Only a multiplication by zero results in a zero result and because the initial values are both positive (or non-zero), they always recurse as positive (non-zero) values.
If a>0 and b>0 then ab>0 and hence a*b*b*b*b*...>0 by definition if we declare a, b and ab to all be real numbers.
You can prove me wrong by showing a contradiction where a>0 and b>0 but ab=0.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 10:42 PM)
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
Only a multiplication by zero results in a zero result and because the initial values are both positive (or non-zero), they always recurse as positive (non-zero) values.
If a>0 and b>0 then ab>0 and hence a*b*b*b*b*...>0 by definition if we declare a, b and ab to all be real numbers.
You can prove me wrong by showing a contradiction where a>0 and b>0 but ab=0.
Is 1/Infinity > Zero?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 22 2009, 11:28 PM)
Is 1/Infinity > Zero?
Well infinity itself isn't (currently) specified to be a number (but we could construct some mathematics to closely emulate it as a numeric inequality by requiring it to be larger than any other number in a computation), but for any natural number >0 the reciprocal is also >0.
1/1>0
1/2>0
1/3>0
...
You can also prove this true for any number, n>=1 like this:
1/n>0
(1/n)*n>0*n
1>0
So the lower limit of the sequence 1/1,1/2,1/3,... would be 0 because they can't be less than or equal to 0.
To specifically say either 1/infinity=0 or 1/infinity>0 would require moving to a more precise context over how you're constructing the 1/infinity term.
Well infinity itself isn't (currently) specified to be a number (but we could construct some mathematics to closely emulate it as a numeric inequality by requiring it to be larger than any other number in a computation), but for any natural number >0 the reciprocal is also >0.
1/1>0
1/2>0
1/3>0
...
You can also prove this true for any number, n>=1 like this:
1/n>0
(1/n)*n>0*n
1>0
So the lower limit of the sequence 1/1,1/2,1/3,... would be 0 because they can't be less than or equal to 0.
To specifically say either 1/infinity=0 or 1/infinity>0 would require moving to a more precise context over how you're constructing the 1/infinity term.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 10:42 PM)
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
But there are not steps involved.
We are talking about 0.99... which is already complete.
What is 1-.99...?
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 22 2009, 08:52 PM)
But there are not steps involved.
We are talking about 0.99... which is already complete.
What is 1-.99...?
.000... with a 1 in the 'last' position.
We are talking about 0.99... which is already complete.
What is 1-.99...?
.000... with a 1 in the 'last' position.
Steve;
That was my opinion also until separating events from perception.
Position is not a property of an elctron, it's a spatial relationship of perception.
QUOTE
Finitness is necessary for classification and simplification but truly everything is unique in some aspect and no two electrons are entirely identical even if they shared a precisely equivalent electric charge and mass - they're detected at different positions in time.
That was my opinion also until separating events from perception.
Position is not a property of an elctron, it's a spatial relationship of perception.
QUOTE (phyti+Feb 23 2009, 02:07 AM)
.000... with a 1 in the 'last' position.
That is the infinitely small or 1/infinity.
That is the infinitely small or 1/infinity.
buttershug;
Since the 'real' numbers are infinitely dense, why can't .99... be next to 1?
QUOTE
It is 0.99 followed by an infinite number of 9's and as such there can not be anything between 0.99... and 1
Since the 'real' numbers are infinitely dense, why can't .99... be next to 1?
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 23 2009, 12:34 AM)
Well infinity itself isn't (currently) specified to be a number (but we could construct some mathematics to closely emulate it as a numeric inequality by requiring it to be larger than any other number in a computation), but for any natural number >0 the reciprocal is also >0.
1/1>0
1/2>0
1/3>0
...
You can also prove this true for any number, n>=1 like this:
1/n>0
(1/n)*n>0*n
1>0
So the lower limit of the sequence 1/1,1/2,1/3,... would be 0 because they can't be less than or equal to 0.
To specifically say either 1/infinity=0 or 1/infinity>0 would require moving to a more precise context over how you're constructing the 1/infinity term.
Is the implication of your post that .9r does not equal 1? Or the .9r does not exist?
1/1>0
1/2>0
1/3>0
...
You can also prove this true for any number, n>=1 like this:
1/n>0
(1/n)*n>0*n
1>0
So the lower limit of the sequence 1/1,1/2,1/3,... would be 0 because they can't be less than or equal to 0.
To specifically say either 1/infinity=0 or 1/infinity>0 would require moving to a more precise context over how you're constructing the 1/infinity term.
Is the implication of your post that .9r does not equal 1? Or the .9r does not exist?
QUOTE (phyti+Feb 23 2009, 02:07 AM)
.000... with a 1 in the 'last' position.
What is the "last" position of infinity?
What is the "last" position of infinity?
QUOTE (phyti+Feb 23 2009, 02:43 AM)
buttershug;
Since the 'real' numbers are infinitely dense, why can't .99... be next to 1?
Its All 9's repeating; infinitely dense.
Since the 'real' numbers are infinitely dense, why can't .99... be next to 1?
Its All 9's repeating; infinitely dense.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 23 2009, 03:06 AM)
Its All 9's repeating; infinitely dense.
There's definitely something infinitely dense on this forum, but it isn't 0.999...
There's definitely something infinitely dense on this forum, but it isn't 0.999...
That is an excellent point.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 23 2009, 03:23 AM)
There's definitely something infinitely dense on this forum, but it isn't 0.999...
That's E=MC SQUARED
Mass is infinitely dense energy.
That's E=MC SQUARED
Mass is infinitely dense energy.
QUOTE (phyti+)
.000... with a 1 in the 'last' position.
I did nothing other than prove it was greater than 0. I didn't claim it was equal to a specific number because the value changes every iteration. If we knew specifically which infinity was being used, we coud reverse this, like this:
Notice this:
.1/.1=1
.01/.01=1
.001/.001=1
etc.
.000...1/.000...1=1 (Of course this implies that the two expansions are of equal length)
So .000...1 can be a deterministic non-zero value as well, if you keep track of which "..." it is. In the case of my proof I didn't bother as I was simply showing that none of these can be 0.
As another example, if we computed the logarithm, base 10 of the terms in this sequence, 1,.1,.01,.001,... we get 0,1,2,3,... now is there any point at which this count would reach some finite limit and stop increasing? If not, then there would be an unlimited number of possible unique values (of course they end up being unique to the extent we designate them uniquely).
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
Only a multiplication by zero results in a zero result and because the initial values are both positive (or non-zero), they always recurse as positive (non-zero) values.
If a>0 and b>0 then ab>0 and hence a*b*b*b*b*...>0 by definition if we declare a, b and ab to all be real numbers.
You can prove me wrong by showing a contradiction where a>0 and b>0 but ab=0.
Hi Guys
This gives .9999 no discernable value....since (as bukh points out), That every portion in the sequence leading up to the string that gives .9999 it's value must be altered as well. So .1111 alters in it's relationship to one but not .9999. At no point did the calculation give , nor can it give, a value that is any different to a herd of elephants as opposed to a flock of geese.....(.9999 being for the flock of geese)
I just made a funny...LOL
Cheers
Iseason
I did nothing other than prove it was greater than 0. I didn't claim it was equal to a specific number because the value changes every iteration. If we knew specifically which infinity was being used, we coud reverse this, like this:
Notice this:
.1/.1=1
.01/.01=1
.001/.001=1
etc.
.000...1/.000...1=1 (Of course this implies that the two expansions are of equal length)
So .000...1 can be a deterministic non-zero value as well, if you keep track of which "..." it is. In the case of my proof I didn't bother as I was simply showing that none of these can be 0.
As another example, if we computed the logarithm, base 10 of the terms in this sequence, 1,.1,.01,.001,... we get 0,1,2,3,... now is there any point at which this count would reach some finite limit and stop increasing? If not, then there would be an unlimited number of possible unique values (of course they end up being unique to the extent we designate them uniquely).
QUOTE (phyti+)
Steve;
That was my opinion also until separating events from perception.
Position is not a property of an elctron, it's a spatial relationship of perception.
Well electrons have a mass and an inertia and the inertia of an electron causes it to exist within space.
Though I have to agree that ones perceptions construct the version of space they interact with, so from that perspective it's not impossible that there could be but a single electron detected in multiple subjectively defined spaces in time.
That was my opinion also until separating events from perception.
Position is not a property of an elctron, it's a spatial relationship of perception.
Well electrons have a mass and an inertia and the inertia of an electron causes it to exist within space.
Though I have to agree that ones perceptions construct the version of space they interact with, so from that perspective it's not impossible that there could be but a single electron detected in multiple subjectively defined spaces in time.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 23 2009, 05:18 AM)
That's E=MC SQUARED
Mass is infinitely dense energy.
That's an interesting comment, but do you mean energy is infinitely dense mass or of some maximal density instead?
Mass is infinitely dense energy.
That's an interesting comment, but do you mean energy is infinitely dense mass or of some maximal density instead?
Cusa - Steven
"That's an interesting comment, but do you mean energy is infinitely dense mass or of some maximal density instead?"
Yes - a very good comment -
I like to think that infinitely dense would implicate ideal solid and no room for change - the equivalent of non-dynamic - non-physical.
There must a little left between .999.... and zero.
"That's an interesting comment, but do you mean energy is infinitely dense mass or of some maximal density instead?"
Yes - a very good comment -
I like to think that infinitely dense would implicate ideal solid and no room for change - the equivalent of non-dynamic - non-physical.
There must a little left between .999.... and zero.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 10:01 PM)
Hiya, iseason
It doesn't seem the existance of something infinite can be ruled out because of the perception of time. I"ll try to keep this semi-short.
Basically if something is totally self contained it can't change, or even if it could, it wouldn't be able to perceive such a change without having something else too compare against. If every interaction in the universe was perfectly predictable and the universe was finite, it would have to ultimately repeat precisely, but a repetition would require that every moment occur a first time, and a second time, infinitely ... but that would require a way to count these repetitions and that requires infinite information.
The only other option would appear that the system begin at some point and eventually just stop. This has a similar problem though in the system needs to still be able to count or select specific moments from within it ... but logic itself can't determine when to change its current state - there is no clock in logic. In other words, if we took all the information describing the universe and the current moment, we could see it similar to a single number. The problem is that the number needs to grow to create new numbers and it needs to do this synchronized with observers but logic can't describe how to see something new or how to "reach to the right of the previous digit" or move within a space it can't see etc.
Finitness is necessary for classification and simplification but truly everything is unique in some aspect and no two electrons are entirely identical even if they shared a precisely equivalent electric charge and mass - they're detected at different positions in time.
The laws of physics we construct need rules and limits to their size and complexity so that we can use them to make predictions, but existance as a whole does not need to conform to only the subset of things that can be logically described - for example, if we looked along the time line of the universe in terms of cause and effect, there would logically be no beginning moment, because that would also need a cause etc., but logic has to have a beginning otherwise it doesn't know where to go next.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that there is an infinity, but there needs be only one such infinite source because that's already plenty for existance to have always "been around".
We could say it was due to an infinite space or an infinite time or an infinite energy etc., but all these are related and one can construct or alter the other. In mathematics when an irrational number is encountered, that's the last thing you'll be computing unless you already constructed a way to break out of it and do something else though a single infinite quantity still has plenty of time to both compute a unlimited quantity of irrational numbers to an unlimited number of decimal places while keeping the universe running and having dinner ready too
The trick is begin with just one precisely defined infinity and recognize that it can grow similar to a tree and rotate through different processes in time without being constrained to grow along just a single line - it still is growing as a single thread, but that thread is weaved through everything. I guess I shouldn't say it's still growing, but instead that perceptions of what existance is grow. So everyone has a unique referene point within existance and sees unique slices, but just as it can be perceived in an infinite number of contexts, it can still exist as a single thread. (Though I assume there would still be something beyond that possibly, but that's just from the assumption that everything would have already always existed and certainly there are things beyond human description and understanding, so who truly knows?)
So anyway, though the universe exists as a finite thing from the context of finite perceptions and finite quantities of time etc. It's still likely that most these will become infinite and there does or will exist spaces beyond the boundaries we currently see etc.
Maybe the best description is that everything physical is finite and limited, but at times those change.
SteveA2
I only read your response before replying.
And what you argue in the first few sentences is precisely what I am about.
Let's forget "amounts" for a moment. The amount of energy that is was or ever will be , can be called 'whole'. A descriptive term is much better than trying to say how much is there.
But, as you rightly state, the "whole" can be divided. This gives us a reasonable way to perceive the universe around us but not to see the universe or "whole". because our methodology REQUIRES us to see things this way, we do. And because of this we rationalize energy via "quantity".
Take away quantity and you end up with one "object" or "energy". It needs to be the smallest division that can be found (or perceived ) within the bounds of the "whole".
Then when we see "empty space", it becomes clear that we are ALWAYS required to occupy a new position in order to exist. In fact "all mass" MUST move in order to be relative. If we cannot "just sit still" , then this says something about the nature of motion in relation to time and space. Going back to well known physics,Photon/electron level energy cannot be tracked through space , So where does it go. ?
What I propose is an ORDER to the universe which is set evenly across space. In other words,,,"one dot here, the next on the other side of the universe . "...This will set up a pattern via both space and distance which relates back very well to time and motion...The repeating fashion of the pattern causes some positions to move through a next best position which gives the illusion of mass or something more enduring than the position alone.
television pixels gives a good image. But imagine watching the entire movie "all at once".....You would see a solid screen. Slow up the projector and it would begin to show motion....bring it to a halt and you'd see a single electron......
As you pointed out. The position of observation is VERY important to what is actually seen....Whole" could not perceive itself( so the universe could not be self aware ). An electron can have no interaction with anything larger than itself...(with what)...
So we live in a relativity of "multiple encounters".....But I remain convinced that these are encounters with "ourselves" or the "singular energy division"....Which is in fact all the energy that exists in the universe....
Cheers
Iseason
It doesn't seem the existance of something infinite can be ruled out because of the perception of time. I"ll try to keep this semi-short.
Basically if something is totally self contained it can't change, or even if it could, it wouldn't be able to perceive such a change without having something else too compare against. If every interaction in the universe was perfectly predictable and the universe was finite, it would have to ultimately repeat precisely, but a repetition would require that every moment occur a first time, and a second time, infinitely ... but that would require a way to count these repetitions and that requires infinite information.
The only other option would appear that the system begin at some point and eventually just stop. This has a similar problem though in the system needs to still be able to count or select specific moments from within it ... but logic itself can't determine when to change its current state - there is no clock in logic. In other words, if we took all the information describing the universe and the current moment, we could see it similar to a single number. The problem is that the number needs to grow to create new numbers and it needs to do this synchronized with observers but logic can't describe how to see something new or how to "reach to the right of the previous digit" or move within a space it can't see etc.
Finitness is necessary for classification and simplification but truly everything is unique in some aspect and no two electrons are entirely identical even if they shared a precisely equivalent electric charge and mass - they're detected at different positions in time.
The laws of physics we construct need rules and limits to their size and complexity so that we can use them to make predictions, but existance as a whole does not need to conform to only the subset of things that can be logically described - for example, if we looked along the time line of the universe in terms of cause and effect, there would logically be no beginning moment, because that would also need a cause etc., but logic has to have a beginning otherwise it doesn't know where to go next.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that there is an infinity, but there needs be only one such infinite source because that's already plenty for existance to have always "been around".
We could say it was due to an infinite space or an infinite time or an infinite energy etc., but all these are related and one can construct or alter the other. In mathematics when an irrational number is encountered, that's the last thing you'll be computing unless you already constructed a way to break out of it and do something else though a single infinite quantity still has plenty of time to both compute a unlimited quantity of irrational numbers to an unlimited number of decimal places while keeping the universe running and having dinner ready too
The trick is begin with just one precisely defined infinity and recognize that it can grow similar to a tree and rotate through different processes in time without being constrained to grow along just a single line - it still is growing as a single thread, but that thread is weaved through everything. I guess I shouldn't say it's still growing, but instead that perceptions of what existance is grow. So everyone has a unique referene point within existance and sees unique slices, but just as it can be perceived in an infinite number of contexts, it can still exist as a single thread. (Though I assume there would still be something beyond that possibly, but that's just from the assumption that everything would have already always existed and certainly there are things beyond human description and understanding, so who truly knows?)
So anyway, though the universe exists as a finite thing from the context of finite perceptions and finite quantities of time etc. It's still likely that most these will become infinite and there does or will exist spaces beyond the boundaries we currently see etc.
Maybe the best description is that everything physical is finite and limited, but at times those change.
SteveA2
I only read your response before replying.
And what you argue in the first few sentences is precisely what I am about.
Let's forget "amounts" for a moment. The amount of energy that is was or ever will be , can be called 'whole'. A descriptive term is much better than trying to say how much is there.
But, as you rightly state, the "whole" can be divided. This gives us a reasonable way to perceive the universe around us but not to see the universe or "whole". because our methodology REQUIRES us to see things this way, we do. And because of this we rationalize energy via "quantity".
Take away quantity and you end up with one "object" or "energy". It needs to be the smallest division that can be found (or perceived ) within the bounds of the "whole".
Then when we see "empty space", it becomes clear that we are ALWAYS required to occupy a new position in order to exist. In fact "all mass" MUST move in order to be relative. If we cannot "just sit still" , then this says something about the nature of motion in relation to time and space. Going back to well known physics,Photon/electron level energy cannot be tracked through space , So where does it go. ?
What I propose is an ORDER to the universe which is set evenly across space. In other words,,,"one dot here, the next on the other side of the universe . "...This will set up a pattern via both space and distance which relates back very well to time and motion...The repeating fashion of the pattern causes some positions to move through a next best position which gives the illusion of mass or something more enduring than the position alone.
television pixels gives a good image. But imagine watching the entire movie "all at once".....You would see a solid screen. Slow up the projector and it would begin to show motion....bring it to a halt and you'd see a single electron......
As you pointed out. The position of observation is VERY important to what is actually seen....Whole" could not perceive itself( so the universe could not be self aware ). An electron can have no interaction with anything larger than itself...(with what)...
So we live in a relativity of "multiple encounters".....But I remain convinced that these are encounters with "ourselves" or the "singular energy division"....Which is in fact all the energy that exists in the universe....
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 23 2009, 11:42 AM)
My sequence did not terminate.
I proved that from the first step the value is always non-zero from the multiplicative property of zero.
Only a multiplication by zero results in a zero result and because the initial values are both positive (or non-zero), they always recurse as positive (non-zero) values.
If a>0 and b>0 then ab>0 and hence a*b*b*b*b*...>0 by definition if we declare a, b and ab to all be real numbers.
You can prove me wrong by showing a contradiction where a>0 and b>0 but ab=0.
Hi Guys
This gives .9999 no discernable value....since (as bukh points out), That every portion in the sequence leading up to the string that gives .9999 it's value must be altered as well. So .1111 alters in it's relationship to one but not .9999. At no point did the calculation give , nor can it give, a value that is any different to a herd of elephants as opposed to a flock of geese.....(.9999 being for the flock of geese)
I just made a funny...LOL
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+)
SteveA2
I only read your response before replying.
And what you argue in the first few sentences is precisely what I am about.
Let's forget "amounts" for a moment. The amount of energy that is was or ever will be , can be called 'whole'. A descriptive term is much better than trying to say how much is there.
But, as you rightly state, the "whole" can be divided. This gives us a reasonable way to perceive the universe around us but not to see the universe or "whole". because our methodology REQUIRES us to see things this way, we do. And because of this we rationalize energy via "quantity".
Yes, there two perspectives. We can either look at the "whole" or we can "count the dots", in many ways they're the same.
One is like a fraction to the right of the decimal, dividing one into segments and the other an integer to the left counting new values. I also think these are quite similar to the contrast between mental and physical views.
And similar to your comments, it's not that existance is specifically broken into individual pieces but that communication occurs by these pieces and so that's how the shared version of it is. Logical communication or even words in a language or dots on a piece of paper etc. anything that needs absolute precision relative to a single thing can only be described in terms of that thing and I think this ends up being the source of numbers, though it also appears potentially possible to move without maintaining an attachment to a past and this removes the continuity and logic and similarly 'numbers' associated with that past. If you want to know where you are then you can't move to a space you cannot locate. If you instead move somewhere and can't trace a path back home, then you don't know where it is relative to it - so each such space would have it's own "home" or origin and that would be the spot where you started to lay down bread crumbs and keep a map with everything traceable to a common origin. If you can locate the same point in two space, then they merge into one space.
Ultimately everything in the universe, to the extent it's seen as a coherent whole must be tied together at a single point in order that it exist in the same space.
(Not everything lies within the universe though, but it would appear that anything someone could know with certainty would have to be tied to a single relationship relative to that person)
I only read your response before replying.
And what you argue in the first few sentences is precisely what I am about.
Let's forget "amounts" for a moment. The amount of energy that is was or ever will be , can be called 'whole'. A descriptive term is much better than trying to say how much is there.
But, as you rightly state, the "whole" can be divided. This gives us a reasonable way to perceive the universe around us but not to see the universe or "whole". because our methodology REQUIRES us to see things this way, we do. And because of this we rationalize energy via "quantity".
Yes, there two perspectives. We can either look at the "whole" or we can "count the dots", in many ways they're the same.
One is like a fraction to the right of the decimal, dividing one into segments and the other an integer to the left counting new values. I also think these are quite similar to the contrast between mental and physical views.
And similar to your comments, it's not that existance is specifically broken into individual pieces but that communication occurs by these pieces and so that's how the shared version of it is. Logical communication or even words in a language or dots on a piece of paper etc. anything that needs absolute precision relative to a single thing can only be described in terms of that thing and I think this ends up being the source of numbers, though it also appears potentially possible to move without maintaining an attachment to a past and this removes the continuity and logic and similarly 'numbers' associated with that past. If you want to know where you are then you can't move to a space you cannot locate. If you instead move somewhere and can't trace a path back home, then you don't know where it is relative to it - so each such space would have it's own "home" or origin and that would be the spot where you started to lay down bread crumbs and keep a map with everything traceable to a common origin. If you can locate the same point in two space, then they merge into one space.
Ultimately everything in the universe, to the extent it's seen as a coherent whole must be tied together at a single point in order that it exist in the same space.
(Not everything lies within the universe though, but it would appear that anything someone could know with certainty would have to be tied to a single relationship relative to that person)
QUOTE (iseason+)
Take away quantity and you end up with one "object" or "energy". It needs to be the smallest division that can be found (or perceived ) within the bounds of the "whole".
It sounds like you're referring to the smallest unit of detectable change or in mathematics it would be much like an inequality A != B, whereas space is constructed by common points where things are at "equal" points in space, but I think what you're describing is closer to the a unit of difference - the origin point of a potentially new space.
It sounds like you're referring to the smallest unit of detectable change or in mathematics it would be much like an inequality A != B, whereas space is constructed by common points where things are at "equal" points in space, but I think what you're describing is closer to the a unit of difference - the origin point of a potentially new space.
QUOTE (iseason+)
Then when we see "empty space", it becomes clear that we are ALWAYS required to occupy a new position in order to exist. In fact "all mass" MUST move in order to be relative.
Yes, space must be constructed by pathways of motion that lead to a common 'origin' for that space. If there was no motion, every point would be isolated and disconnected and unrelated to anything else.
Yes, space must be constructed by pathways of motion that lead to a common 'origin' for that space. If there was no motion, every point would be isolated and disconnected and unrelated to anything else.
QUOTE (iseason+)
If we cannot "just sit still" , then this says something about the nature of motion in relation to time and space. Going back to well known physics,Photon/electron level energy cannot be tracked through space , So where does it go. ?
Good question, though consider that the energy levels themselves could be seen similar to points on a map telling us what they were up to on the trip. If these are truly the smallest possible measurements, then they should be the carriers of information regarding motion and they would not specifically need to travel anywhere within a space we could move within.
Consider this - if you wandered around an area of the Earth, you see a various objects at various locations. Now these objects must remain stationary, or at least be considered stationary objects if you want a map that doesn't change. If these objects themselves can move, that would be similar to dragging areas of your map around to other areas of your map - not a great map, unless it's also able to predict where the landmarks will be found later. So in many ways, if photons convey the lowest levels of information regarding the universe, then they should exist with some stationary and unchanging features. Alternately (and this is a bit harder to envision, but could be possible) it may be that there is not one specific universe and that there exist multiple selections for what features are used as references for what is stationary. Now that would be an interesting source for a "will" as it could be similar to a motion, not through space specifically, but indirectly by selecting which references you considered to stationary (for example, imagine two spinning plates overlayed near each other. If you had a choice of which to stand on, you could potentially move anywhere on either plate by standing still and occassionally selecting to switch between different frames of reference, yet you'd never specifically move within either).
Good question, though consider that the energy levels themselves could be seen similar to points on a map telling us what they were up to on the trip. If these are truly the smallest possible measurements, then they should be the carriers of information regarding motion and they would not specifically need to travel anywhere within a space we could move within.
Consider this - if you wandered around an area of the Earth, you see a various objects at various locations. Now these objects must remain stationary, or at least be considered stationary objects if you want a map that doesn't change. If these objects themselves can move, that would be similar to dragging areas of your map around to other areas of your map - not a great map, unless it's also able to predict where the landmarks will be found later. So in many ways, if photons convey the lowest levels of information regarding the universe, then they should exist with some stationary and unchanging features. Alternately (and this is a bit harder to envision, but could be possible) it may be that there is not one specific universe and that there exist multiple selections for what features are used as references for what is stationary. Now that would be an interesting source for a "will" as it could be similar to a motion, not through space specifically, but indirectly by selecting which references you considered to stationary (for example, imagine two spinning plates overlayed near each other. If you had a choice of which to stand on, you could potentially move anywhere on either plate by standing still and occassionally selecting to switch between different frames of reference, yet you'd never specifically move within either).
QUOTE (iseason+)
What I propose is an ORDER to the universe which is set evenly across space. In other words,,,"one dot here, the next on the other side of the universe . "...This will set up a pattern via both space and distance which relates back very well to time and motion...The repeating fashion of the pattern causes some positions to move through a next best position which gives the illusion of mass or something more enduring than the position alone.
Yes, the natural form of space should be something representing a uniform density - whatever comprises an "empty" space should be uniformly distributed throughout it - or at least that should appear to be the natural interpretation, whether or not it's true. If somehow the distribution was distorted or changed, that would appear to require some other space being used as a reference in order that it be known that some other space was altered, because it wouldn't even seem possible to measure a non-uniformity in a fundamental unit of a space, it would just appear as alterations of the things within it.
Yes, the natural form of space should be something representing a uniform density - whatever comprises an "empty" space should be uniformly distributed throughout it - or at least that should appear to be the natural interpretation, whether or not it's true. If somehow the distribution was distorted or changed, that would appear to require some other space being used as a reference in order that it be known that some other space was altered, because it wouldn't even seem possible to measure a non-uniformity in a fundamental unit of a space, it would just appear as alterations of the things within it.
QUOTE (iseason+)
television pixels gives a good image. But imagine watching the entire movie "all at once".....You would see a solid screen. Slow up the projector and it would begin to show motion....bring it to a halt and you'd see a single electron......
I think this is the same for various classes of velocities in physics. At the fastest end, we have a single process cycling around the entire universe at faster than light speed. From there we see this form connections between these as photon interactions, which are "slower" (though it's also possible to say these all occur at the same velocity by on different scales of time and/or space) and from photons we derive mass with slower kinetic velocities and from there we can form larger features of motion with different structural forms and slower velocities such as a speed of sound or velocity of surface waves, but these are constructed from ever larger collections of influences of a single object.
I think this is the same for various classes of velocities in physics. At the fastest end, we have a single process cycling around the entire universe at faster than light speed. From there we see this form connections between these as photon interactions, which are "slower" (though it's also possible to say these all occur at the same velocity by on different scales of time and/or space) and from photons we derive mass with slower kinetic velocities and from there we can form larger features of motion with different structural forms and slower velocities such as a speed of sound or velocity of surface waves, but these are constructed from ever larger collections of influences of a single object.
QUOTE (iseason+)
As you pointed out. The position of observation is VERY important to what is actually seen....Whole" could not perceive itself( so the universe could not be self aware ). An electron can have no interaction with anything larger than itself...(with what)...
I agree. As long as everything is seen via. a conscious window there would appear little need to describe things outside such a realm ... though it's still interesting to wonder, but given finite perceptions there's only a finite set of things that these can describe and anything more is just guesswork (heck, even guessing is still something inside that conscious window).
On the other hand, it could be interesting to consider that for something like dreaming and waking, there appears a disconnection between the figurative "waking and dreaming spaces". It's interesting to consider that there could be spaces that are connected by fewer than 3 dimensions and so objects in one could not be specifically located in the other, yet they would still influence each other, though in a likely more distributed and non-localized manner or as statistical biases.
I agree. As long as everything is seen via. a conscious window there would appear little need to describe things outside such a realm ... though it's still interesting to wonder, but given finite perceptions there's only a finite set of things that these can describe and anything more is just guesswork (heck, even guessing is still something inside that conscious window).
On the other hand, it could be interesting to consider that for something like dreaming and waking, there appears a disconnection between the figurative "waking and dreaming spaces". It's interesting to consider that there could be spaces that are connected by fewer than 3 dimensions and so objects in one could not be specifically located in the other, yet they would still influence each other, though in a likely more distributed and non-localized manner or as statistical biases.
QUOTE (iseason+)
So we live in a relativity of "multiple encounters".....But I remain convinced that these are encounters with "ourselves" or the "singular energy division"....Which is in fact all the energy that exists in the universe....
I think there could be some finer shades of grey involved, but at least the extremes appear to be either chaos or order and the physical universe we detect is never purely either but lies on the boundary between them.
It sounds like you're referring to the smallest unit of detectable change or in mathematics it would be much like an inequality A != B, whereas space is constructed by common points where things are at "equal" points in space, but I think what you're describing is closer to the a unit of difference - the origin point of a potentially new space.
Good question, though consider that the energy levels themselves could be seen similar to points on a map telling us what they were up to on the trip. If these are truly the smallest possible measurements, then they should be the carriers of information regarding motion and they would not specifically need to travel anywhere within a space we could move within.
Consider this - if you wandered around an area of the Earth, you see a various objects at various locations. Now these objects must remain stationary, or at least be considered stationary objects if you want a map that doesn't change. If these objects themselves can move, that would be similar to dragging areas of your map around to other areas of your map - not a great map, unless it's also able to predict where the landmarks will be found later. So in many ways, if photons convey the lowest levels of information regarding the universe, then they should exist with some stationary and unchanging features. Alternately (and this is a bit harder to envision, but could be possible) it may be that there is not one specific universe and that there exist multiple selections for what features are used as references for what is stationary. Now that would be an interesting source for a "will" as it could be similar to a motion, not through space specifically, but indirectly by selecting which references you considered to stationary (for example, imagine two spinning plates overlayed near each other. If you had a choice of which to stand on, you could potentially move anywhere on either plate by standing still and occassionally selecting to switch between different frames of reference, yet you'd never specifically move within either).
I think this is the same for various classes of velocities in physics. At the fastest end, we have a single process cycling around the entire universe at faster than light speed. From there we see this form connections between these as photon interactions, which are "slower" (though it's also possible to say these all occur at the same velocity by on different scales of time and/or space) and from photons we derive mass with slower kinetic velocities and from there we can form larger features of motion with different structural forms and slower velocities such as a speed of sound or velocity of surface waves, but these are constructed from ever larger collections of influences of a single object.
I think there could be some finer shades of grey involved, but at least the extremes appear to be either chaos or order and the physical universe we detect is never purely either but lies on the boundary between them.
I think there could be some finer shades of grey involved, but at least the extremes appear to be either chaos or order and the physical universe we detect is never purely either but lies on the boundary between them.
QUOTE (iseason+)
Cheers
Iseason
And cheers to you too.
Iseason
And cheers to you too.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 22 2009, 10:42 PM)
You can prove me wrong by showing a contradiction where a>0 and b>0 but ab=0.
The product of two real numbers will never equal zero, if neither the multiplicand nor the multiplier is zero (regardless less of whether they are <0 or >0). Please explain your point.
The product of two real numbers will never equal zero, if neither the multiplicand nor the multiplier is zero (regardless less of whether they are <0 or >0). Please explain your point.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 24 2009, 12:43 AM)
It sounds like you're referring to the smallest unit of detectable change or in mathematics it would be much like an inequality A != B, whereas space is constructed by common points where things are at "equal" points in space, but I think what you're describing is closer to the a unit of difference - the origin point of a potentially new space.
Good question, though consider that the energy levels themselves could be seen similar to points on a map telling us what they were up to on the trip. If these are truly the smallest possible measurements, then they should be the carriers of information regarding motion and they would not specifically need to travel anywhere within a space we could move within.
Consider this - if you wandered around an area of the Earth, you see a various objects at various locations. Now these objects must remain stationary, or at least be considered stationary objects if you want a map that doesn't change. If these objects themselves can move, that would be similar to dragging areas of your map around to other areas of your map - not a great map, unless it's also able to predict where the landmarks will be found later. So in many ways, if photons convey the lowest levels of information regarding the universe, then they should exist with some stationary and unchanging features. Alternately (and this is a bit harder to envision, but could be possible) it may be that there is not one specific universe and that there exist multiple selections for what features are used as references for what is stationary. Now that would be an interesting source for a "will" as it could be similar to a motion, not through space specifically, but indirectly by selecting which references you considered to stationary (for example, imagine two spinning plates overlayed near each other. If you had a choice of which to stand on, you could potentially move anywhere on either plate by standing still and occassionally selecting to switch between different frames of reference, yet you'd never specifically move within either).
I think this is the same for various classes of velocities in physics. At the fastest end, we have a single process cycling around the entire universe at faster than light speed. From there we see this form connections between these as photon interactions, which are "slower" (though it's also possible to say these all occur at the same velocity by on different scales of time and/or space) and from photons we derive mass with slower kinetic velocities and from there we can form larger features of motion with different structural forms and slower velocities such as a speed of sound or velocity of surface waves, but these are constructed from ever larger collections of influences of a single object.
I think there could be some finer shades of grey involved, but at least the extremes appear to be either chaos or order and the physical universe we detect is never purely either but lies on the boundary between them.
QUOTE (iseason+)
Cheers
Iseason
And cheers to you too.
Hi All
Why does it make sense to me that 'the smallest division of energy ' is all there is?
Currently, science holds that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true, then it MUST have always been true OR something changed whereby it could , and then could not be created. (an infinite universe actually requires that energy is always being created)
If I refer to current science (energy not being created) and apply it to the universe , regardless of when or where you want to measure, then there are only two possibilities.
1. That only one point(quantity) of energy exist
2. That EVERY point of energy always existed.
Without a changeable middle ground, these two extremes are the only definitive truths.
This brings us to the next science of cause and effect. How could a singular position (quanta) be responsible for the multiple universe that we perceive? It becomes an irreconcilable problem if we stay at the singular point. However IF we don't discard it just because it's too hard, and go to the other extreme (all the energy/universal quanta), we find that because energy cannot be destroyed, a similar problem exists. Where would the energy go (if we were reversing the process)
Currently , science allows that quanta are "popping into existence" , without too much aggravation about where it is coming from. (another dimension perhaps) is usually how I read the explanation on it. but if we look at the free space, there is always the same distribution of mass and therefore energy throughout the universe.This suggests two possibilities to me.
1. That space is '9' potential in a scale of ten. This would mean that until the last point were added , then it is beyond our perception and measurement on any scale.It also follows that every position in space WILL be filled during a specific cycle. this answers 'where the energy comes from or goes to. As motion is required for mass to exist in space, the mass merely occupies the position along a given pathway. Since the universal balance would need to be kept correct, the mass would seem consistent when viewed in a time line methodology.
2. That space is indeed empty , and there are very different ways of measuring according to relativity....the very small sees time move by very rapidly while the very big sees it much quicker...You can sees this in time travel theory...Moving fast (while retaining mass means time passes by more rapidly for the person / object. While that would not be necessary for a larger object which , while it may move slower than a supercharged human, occupies the same amount of space . So the supercharged human = their mass + momentum to equal the space used by a much larger object.
Given that if they weren't increasing their speed , they would perceive time as we do now, this equals "I am the number of positions I occupy divided by the total number of positions available"....This is not a time dependent quantity. Always it refers to the positions that are ever available throughout the "whole ".
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason
And cheers to you too.
Hi All
Why does it make sense to me that 'the smallest division of energy ' is all there is?
Currently, science holds that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true, then it MUST have always been true OR something changed whereby it could , and then could not be created. (an infinite universe actually requires that energy is always being created)
If I refer to current science (energy not being created) and apply it to the universe , regardless of when or where you want to measure, then there are only two possibilities.
1. That only one point(quantity) of energy exist
2. That EVERY point of energy always existed.
Without a changeable middle ground, these two extremes are the only definitive truths.
This brings us to the next science of cause and effect. How could a singular position (quanta) be responsible for the multiple universe that we perceive? It becomes an irreconcilable problem if we stay at the singular point. However IF we don't discard it just because it's too hard, and go to the other extreme (all the energy/universal quanta), we find that because energy cannot be destroyed, a similar problem exists. Where would the energy go (if we were reversing the process)
Currently , science allows that quanta are "popping into existence" , without too much aggravation about where it is coming from. (another dimension perhaps) is usually how I read the explanation on it. but if we look at the free space, there is always the same distribution of mass and therefore energy throughout the universe.This suggests two possibilities to me.
1. That space is '9' potential in a scale of ten. This would mean that until the last point were added , then it is beyond our perception and measurement on any scale.It also follows that every position in space WILL be filled during a specific cycle. this answers 'where the energy comes from or goes to. As motion is required for mass to exist in space, the mass merely occupies the position along a given pathway. Since the universal balance would need to be kept correct, the mass would seem consistent when viewed in a time line methodology.
2. That space is indeed empty , and there are very different ways of measuring according to relativity....the very small sees time move by very rapidly while the very big sees it much quicker...You can sees this in time travel theory...Moving fast (while retaining mass means time passes by more rapidly for the person / object. While that would not be necessary for a larger object which , while it may move slower than a supercharged human, occupies the same amount of space . So the supercharged human = their mass + momentum to equal the space used by a much larger object.
Given that if they weren't increasing their speed , they would perceive time as we do now, this equals "I am the number of positions I occupy divided by the total number of positions available"....This is not a time dependent quantity. Always it refers to the positions that are ever available throughout the "whole ".
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 24 2009, 02:53 AM)
The product of two real numbers will never equal zero, if neither the multiplicand nor the multiplier is zero (regardless less of whether they are <0 or >0). Please explain your point.
My point is that the difference between 1 and .999... can be determined to be non-zero because the difference arises from a recursive multiplication of a positive number with a positive number:
1-0=1
1-0.9=.1
1-0.99=.01
1-0.999=.001
...
Notice 1*.1=.1 and .1*.1=.01 and .01*.1=.001 etc.
So we can see this as beginning with a>0 and multipying it by b>0 to get ab>0 and the recursion remains positive.
Only a multiplication by 0 results in a zero and we never began with a 0, so we can multiply positive numbers together forever and never find a non-positive result.
My point is that the difference between 1 and .999... can be determined to be non-zero because the difference arises from a recursive multiplication of a positive number with a positive number:
1-0=1
1-0.9=.1
1-0.99=.01
1-0.999=.001
...
Notice 1*.1=.1 and .1*.1=.01 and .01*.1=.001 etc.
So we can see this as beginning with a>0 and multipying it by b>0 to get ab>0 and the recursion remains positive.
Only a multiplication by 0 results in a zero and we never began with a 0, so we can multiply positive numbers together forever and never find a non-positive result.
QUOTE (iseason+)
Hi All
Why does it make sense to me that 'the smallest division of energy ' is all there is?
It would seem that in any event we'd need to define a unit of such a smallest energy for science, even if nature didn't. Otherwise we'd never have a common ruler to start making measurements with and I think this is similar to why a constant light speed under relativity has been accepted - if you have a fundamentally unknown quantity of something, you simply define it to be precisely equal to something. If later on a manner arises to be able to predict finer scale features and you want to make use of these, then you have to construct a new reference, but until that's the case it makes sense to define an unknown as a specific constant unit, whether or not its true.
Why does it make sense to me that 'the smallest division of energy ' is all there is?
It would seem that in any event we'd need to define a unit of such a smallest energy for science, even if nature didn't. Otherwise we'd never have a common ruler to start making measurements with and I think this is similar to why a constant light speed under relativity has been accepted - if you have a fundamentally unknown quantity of something, you simply define it to be precisely equal to something. If later on a manner arises to be able to predict finer scale features and you want to make use of these, then you have to construct a new reference, but until that's the case it makes sense to define an unknown as a specific constant unit, whether or not its true.
QUOTE (iseason+)
Currently, science holds that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true, then it MUST have always been true OR something changed whereby it could , and then could not be created. (an infinite universe actually requires that energy is always being created)
If the universe came from nothing, then we have at least one obvious violation of conservation laws (or rules of thumb), and if we wanted to maintain conservation laws then everything must have always existed. Either way there's an unknown that's constantly being observed in the present and it seems just as valid to say it's observed as a dynamic creative process in "real time".
If the universe came from nothing, then we have at least one obvious violation of conservation laws (or rules of thumb), and if we wanted to maintain conservation laws then everything must have always existed. Either way there's an unknown that's constantly being observed in the present and it seems just as valid to say it's observed as a dynamic creative process in "real time".
QUOTE (iseason+)
If I refer to current science (energy not being created) and apply it to the universe , regardless of when or where you want to measure, then there are only two possibilities.
1. That only one point(quantity) of energy exist
2. That EVERY point of energy always existed.
Without a changeable middle ground, these two extremes are the only definitive truths.
If we were talking about absolute randomness, at least relative to physical laws and objects (which may not actually be random relative to something else) then I don't believe there would be a way to physically distinguish between these two, so yes, these could both be possible - if we're talking about a specific subset of existance, such as the observable universe.
1. That only one point(quantity) of energy exist
2. That EVERY point of energy always existed.
Without a changeable middle ground, these two extremes are the only definitive truths.
If we were talking about absolute randomness, at least relative to physical laws and objects (which may not actually be random relative to something else) then I don't believe there would be a way to physically distinguish between these two, so yes, these could both be possible - if we're talking about a specific subset of existance, such as the observable universe.
QUOTE (iseason+)
This brings us to the next science of cause and effect. How could a singular position (quanta) be responsible for the multiple universe that we perceive? It becomes an irreconcilable problem if we stay at the singular point. However IF we don't discard it just because it's too hard, and go to the other extreme (all the energy/universal quanta), we find that because energy cannot be destroyed, a similar problem exists. Where would the energy go (if we were reversing the process)
I think what we're seeing is the space of logic itself. Logic needs an origin in order order to connect all the dots. If you have some dots, the only way they're seen as related is if you can fit them into some relationship. If no line of relationship can be drawn between them, then they're considered unrelated and they can exist anywhere without problem or restriction, but the problem is that all physical experiences have a common relationship - the physical observer, and the same could be said for mental spaces sharing a common relationship - the mind and of course because the mind also witnesses physical events, these two spaces are also tied together and basically anything that can be known is tied together by 'self' and I assume there are things that are pure experiences without memory because no adequate repetitions to predict or utilize these would be available that could also be tied to this as some sort of 'experienced existance' without explaination. There are some other shades of gray along the transitions between these, but if we move back further it would seem that if everything could exist, it should include things that aren't logical and do not exist in a form that have specific traceable relationships to anything else - the isolated points.
It would seem almost by definition, that if such existed, there would be no logical understanding or description of them, and I'd assume not even an inexplicable, yet rational experience of them.
What am I trying to say? In existance as a whole, there is no probability. Something exists or it does not. A non-zero probability from any perspective means absolute certainty on a larger scale and I'd assume it would be difficult or impossible to prove specifically what does not exist.
Having multiple uncertainties makes no sense to me because it's just like cutting one uncertainty in half and calling it two - if x+y=5 then we know neither x nor y, but if we simply add these two unknowns together we have z=x+y=5. z=5 and the uncertainty disappears but as long as we assign it to multiple possible sources, then we add uncertainty by allowing a selection of sources. The real problem is in determining the manners in which a single uncertainty or energy can be progressively creative over time and its the continual existance of a single unknown per unit of time that grows into multiple representations of it in memory or the past.
This is the subject of a lot of mathematics describing forms of infinite growth and in that sense, there are multiple sources that can be seen within a specific finite context describing the patterns of growth relative to each other, but they're all reliant upon a recurring single unit of time to be constructed, so they all share the same "seed".
On the other hand, there would likely be things in existance that do not share the same "seed" of time and that if observed would likely appear as statistically stationary or random but non-uniform distributions over time. A further extreme would be observed as uniformly random (inexplicable experience from one perspective by a purely deterministic cycle desynchronized in time from another) and something beyond that would be an observed isolated point (which would be entirely unpredictable and non repeating and likely not even considered to be something observable in any comprehensible manner).
I'm just trying to show some of the features that appear to exist on various infinite horizons, though I don't think I could even guess what any of it would be like without time.
I think what we're seeing is the space of logic itself. Logic needs an origin in order order to connect all the dots. If you have some dots, the only way they're seen as related is if you can fit them into some relationship. If no line of relationship can be drawn between them, then they're considered unrelated and they can exist anywhere without problem or restriction, but the problem is that all physical experiences have a common relationship - the physical observer, and the same could be said for mental spaces sharing a common relationship - the mind and of course because the mind also witnesses physical events, these two spaces are also tied together and basically anything that can be known is tied together by 'self' and I assume there are things that are pure experiences without memory because no adequate repetitions to predict or utilize these would be available that could also be tied to this as some sort of 'experienced existance' without explaination. There are some other shades of gray along the transitions between these, but if we move back further it would seem that if everything could exist, it should include things that aren't logical and do not exist in a form that have specific traceable relationships to anything else - the isolated points.
It would seem almost by definition, that if such existed, there would be no logical understanding or description of them, and I'd assume not even an inexplicable, yet rational experience of them.
What am I trying to say? In existance as a whole, there is no probability. Something exists or it does not. A non-zero probability from any perspective means absolute certainty on a larger scale and I'd assume it would be difficult or impossible to prove specifically what does not exist.
Having multiple uncertainties makes no sense to me because it's just like cutting one uncertainty in half and calling it two - if x+y=5 then we know neither x nor y, but if we simply add these two unknowns together we have z=x+y=5. z=5 and the uncertainty disappears but as long as we assign it to multiple possible sources, then we add uncertainty by allowing a selection of sources. The real problem is in determining the manners in which a single uncertainty or energy can be progressively creative over time and its the continual existance of a single unknown per unit of time that grows into multiple representations of it in memory or the past.
This is the subject of a lot of mathematics describing forms of infinite growth and in that sense, there are multiple sources that can be seen within a specific finite context describing the patterns of growth relative to each other, but they're all reliant upon a recurring single unit of time to be constructed, so they all share the same "seed".
On the other hand, there would likely be things in existance that do not share the same "seed" of time and that if observed would likely appear as statistically stationary or random but non-uniform distributions over time. A further extreme would be observed as uniformly random (inexplicable experience from one perspective by a purely deterministic cycle desynchronized in time from another) and something beyond that would be an observed isolated point (which would be entirely unpredictable and non repeating and likely not even considered to be something observable in any comprehensible manner).
I'm just trying to show some of the features that appear to exist on various infinite horizons, though I don't think I could even guess what any of it would be like without time.
QUOTE (iseason+)
Currently , science allows that quanta are "popping into existence" , without too much aggravation about where it is coming from. (another dimension perhaps) is usually how I read the explanation on it. but if we look at the free space, there is always the same distribution of mass and therefore energy throughout the universe.This suggests two possibilities to me.
Consider as well that in order to know specific properties of something and predictable utilize it, you must have something that has a continual existance over some period time as well. So science is biased in some ways in what it "sees".
Consider as well that in order to know specific properties of something and predictable utilize it, you must have something that has a continual existance over some period time as well. So science is biased in some ways in what it "sees".
QUOTE (iseason+)
1. That space is '9' potential in a scale of ten. This would mean that until the last point were added , then it is beyond our perception and measurement on any scale.It also follows that every position in space WILL be filled during a specific cycle. this answers 'where the energy comes from or goes to. As motion is required for mass to exist in space, the mass merely occupies the position along a given pathway. Since the universal balance would need to be kept correct, the mass would seem consistent when viewed in a time line methodology.
2. That space is indeed empty , and there are very different ways of measuring according to relativity....the very small sees time move by very rapidly while the very big sees it much quicker...You can sees this in time travel theory...Moving fast (while retaining mass means time passes by more rapidly for the person / object. While that would not be necessary for a larger object which , while it may move slower than a supercharged human, occupies the same amount of space . So the supercharged human = their mass + momentum to equal the space used by a much larger object.
Given that if they weren't increasing their speed , they would perceive time as we do now, this equals "I am the number of positions I occupy divided by the total number of positions available"....This is not a time dependent quantity. Always it refers to the positions that are ever available throughout the "whole ".
Cheers
Iseason
Well time must include a memory or collection of events. Individual "points" in time mean nothing (or alternately, I guess they could mean anything) without being connected together. In a sense, similar to mass, a larger memory allows for more relationships per additional point to be formed as the addition of a point inherits a meaning determined relative to the size of the "mass", though also in a similar sense, a larger memory of mass has more "inertia" in that individual influences are diluted and on a larger scale.
2. That space is indeed empty , and there are very different ways of measuring according to relativity....the very small sees time move by very rapidly while the very big sees it much quicker...You can sees this in time travel theory...Moving fast (while retaining mass means time passes by more rapidly for the person / object. While that would not be necessary for a larger object which , while it may move slower than a supercharged human, occupies the same amount of space . So the supercharged human = their mass + momentum to equal the space used by a much larger object.
Given that if they weren't increasing their speed , they would perceive time as we do now, this equals "I am the number of positions I occupy divided by the total number of positions available"....This is not a time dependent quantity. Always it refers to the positions that are ever available throughout the "whole ".
Cheers
Iseason
Well time must include a memory or collection of events. Individual "points" in time mean nothing (or alternately, I guess they could mean anything) without being connected together. In a sense, similar to mass, a larger memory allows for more relationships per additional point to be formed as the addition of a point inherits a meaning determined relative to the size of the "mass", though also in a similar sense, a larger memory of mass has more "inertia" in that individual influences are diluted and on a larger scale.
QUOTE (iseason+)
this equals "I am the number of positions I occupy divided by the total number of positions available"....This is not a time dependent quantity. Always it refers to the positions that are ever available throughout the "whole ".
Its interesting to see correlations in this with information and energy. To most precisely localize a point, requires an ability to measure it relative to a larger number of other possible points. The most energy or information is generated by not simply having a large mass, but in being able to distinguish between the points as finely as possible. The ability to make these discernments could be seen similar to a potential energy and potential energy is a conserved quantity over time.
Its interesting to see correlations in this with information and energy. To most precisely localize a point, requires an ability to measure it relative to a larger number of other possible points. The most energy or information is generated by not simply having a large mass, but in being able to distinguish between the points as finely as possible. The ability to make these discernments could be seen similar to a potential energy and potential energy is a conserved quantity over time.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 24 2009, 11:37 AM)
My point is that the difference between 1 and .999... can be determined to be non-zero because the difference arises from a recursive multiplication of a positive number with a positive number:
1-0=1
1-0.9=.1
1-0.99=.01
1-0.999=.001
...
Notice 1*.1=.1 and .1*.1=.01 and .01*.1=.001 etc.
So we can see this as beginning with a>0 and multipying it by b>0 to get ab>0 and the recursion remains positive.
Only a multiplication by 0 results in a zero and we never began with a 0, so we can multiply positive numbers together forever and never find a non-positive result.
How would you express the difference?
1-0=1
1-0.9=.1
1-0.99=.01
1-0.999=.001
...
Notice 1*.1=.1 and .1*.1=.01 and .01*.1=.001 etc.
So we can see this as beginning with a>0 and multipying it by b>0 to get ab>0 and the recursion remains positive.
Only a multiplication by 0 results in a zero and we never began with a 0, so we can multiply positive numbers together forever and never find a non-positive result.
How would you express the difference?
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 25 2009, 11:50 PM)
its 9's repeating forever. it is infinitely close but needs a little more.
Add 1/infinity to .9r and you get One. Add the infinitely small to it and it reaches One.
Mitch Raemsch
And precisely how big is the infinitely small?
And infinitely close would be touching.
If it's close but not touching then it's not infinite.
and 9's repeating forever is a very misleading way to word it because forever involves time and there is no time involved whatso ever. (except now)
Add 1/infinity to .9r and you get One. Add the infinitely small to it and it reaches One.
Mitch Raemsch
And precisely how big is the infinitely small?
And infinitely close would be touching.
If it's close but not touching then it's not infinite.
and 9's repeating forever is a very misleading way to word it because forever involves time and there is no time involved whatso ever. (except now)
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 24 2009, 08:01 PM)
How would you express the difference?
It's expressed as an inequality, such as x<1. In the computation of a limit in calculus, the difference is typically referred to as the "epsilon" or "delta".
(Not that you need another example of the difference between .999... and 1, but consider a function defined to return 0 for an input less than 1 and a 1 for an input greater than or equal to 1.
If we define the limit of this function in an input, x, as x approaches 1, the limit of this function is 0, whereas if we compute the function at 1, the value of the function is 1.)
It's expressed as an inequality, such as x<1. In the computation of a limit in calculus, the difference is typically referred to as the "epsilon" or "delta".
(Not that you need another example of the difference between .999... and 1, but consider a function defined to return 0 for an input less than 1 and a 1 for an input greater than or equal to 1.
If we define the limit of this function in an input, x, as x approaches 1, the limit of this function is 0, whereas if we compute the function at 1, the value of the function is 1.)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And infinitely close would be touching.
... or adjacent.
If we wanted to know what integer was less than 1 and had no other integer between it and 1, it would be 0 and on an integer number line 0 and 1 are adjacent.
... or adjacent.
If we wanted to know what integer was less than 1 and had no other integer between it and 1, it would be 0 and on an integer number line 0 and 1 are adjacent.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 26 2009, 12:25 AM)
9 repeating is .9 with 9's repeating mathematically infinitely
The concept of the infinitely small is defined by 1 divided by Infinity.
Add 1/Infinity to .9 repeating and it finally reaches One.
Mitch Raemsch
BUT it is already there.
If it has to "reach" one then it is not 0.99...
There is no passage of time involved.
Nothing changes. No 9's are added.
If there are an infinite number of 9's then there are an infinite number of 9's.
1/infinity is zero
The concept of the infinitely small is defined by 1 divided by Infinity.
Add 1/Infinity to .9 repeating and it finally reaches One.
Mitch Raemsch
BUT it is already there.
If it has to "reach" one then it is not 0.99...
There is no passage of time involved.
Nothing changes. No 9's are added.
If there are an infinite number of 9's then there are an infinite number of 9's.
1/infinity is zero
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 26 2009, 01:33 AM)
The only thing there is a 9.
Mitch Raemsch
then it is not 0.99...
Mitch Raemsch
then it is not 0.99...
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 26 2009, 02:00 AM)
the only thing at the end of of .9 repeating is another 9
Mitch Raemsch
There IS NO "END" of 0.9r!
Mitch Raemsch
There IS NO "END" of 0.9r!
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 26 2009, 12:25 AM)
9 repeating is .9 with 9's repeating mathematically infinitely
The concept of the infinitely small is defined by 1 divided by Infinity.
Add 1/Infinity to .9 repeating and it finally reaches One.
Mitch Raemsch
Though I would agree that there is a specific infinity that fits the bill, not any randomly selected one will do the job. (We'd need an infinity that is precisely a power of 10 and equal in length to the one constructing the .999... sequence)
.9+1/10=1
.99+1/100=1
.999...+1/1000...=1 (but only if they're constructed to be equal in length)
Notice that we can simplify a lot of calculus by just using variables.
The concept of the infinitely small is defined by 1 divided by Infinity.
Add 1/Infinity to .9 repeating and it finally reaches One.
Mitch Raemsch
Though I would agree that there is a specific infinity that fits the bill, not any randomly selected one will do the job. (We'd need an infinity that is precisely a power of 10 and equal in length to the one constructing the .999... sequence)
.9+1/10=1
.99+1/100=1
.999...+1/1000...=1 (but only if they're constructed to be equal in length)
Notice that we can simplify a lot of calculus by just using variables.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 26 2009, 02:36 AM)
Though I would agree that there is a specific infinity that fits the bill, not any randomly selected one will do the job. (We'd need an infinity that is precisely a power of 10 and equal in length to the one constructing the .999... sequence)
You seem to be viewing this like .9r is some sort of a traveler; forever approaching his destination without arriving. But in that there is no expressible difference; wouldn’t you say that the value of .9r is 1? Or are you arguing some philosophical issue?
You seem to be viewing this like .9r is some sort of a traveler; forever approaching his destination without arriving. But in that there is no expressible difference; wouldn’t you say that the value of .9r is 1? Or are you arguing some philosophical issue?
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 26 2009, 03:41 PM)
Only the concept of the infinitely small nonzero
added to .9 repeating will give one
Mitch Raemsch
Hi all.
It is pointless to add more 9's as it can never achieve any sort of goal.With the knowledge that the two sums can never be harmonized , it's a rather useless argument.
To be sure, mathematical infinity is useful where the end result has a variability within it , but to say..."the universe is infinite" ....to me this can be proven NOT to be true..
Repeating my argument.
EVEN,given the arguments that relativity means different things to each and every form or shape that energy takes.....If I can hold two fixed parameters in any form in which to measure it, there is a center which IS NOT expanding infinitely....Because of this , and because (as you have proven for me with your .999 arguments) Everything in infinity is affected , the middle AND it's boundaries.
You CANNOT do this:- The universe = .999r. (so what part of this sum do I occupy)?
To be relative within this boundary, I would need to be equal to .999r (anywhere you found me).....For as you have argued reasonably well , there is no beginning and no end to .999r....It all occurs at the same time. So it seems rather pointless to have a number like .999r in the first place . Since (given your arguments, the number MAY AS WELL BE 1).
One or whole Can be measured against itself. "wherever and whenever I look I will be measuring RELATIVE to one". I can look upwards in scale and downwards in scale, but every time I look it will always contain the same value. Some very useful ways to organize it are.
Time and space are "measurements of energy, but are not energy".
Therefore, If a distant star had a relative reality (that I am just now seeing) time can be measured in other ways than "distance". Since the two occurred during similar "times",a pattern or order can be used instead of time/distance methodology.
Leaving time/ distance as another viewpoint, the relative instance of energy occurring in two distant points is a close run thing. we could say that while one quanta was occurring "here", a similar quanta occurrence happened "there". Although these two instances have distance between them when measured via time and space, they can be seen as occurring together via an order.
Since we are using a quite different scale for measuring these occurrences, we can put them into a relationship which can also be used in time and space. Balance means that each "second" (when measured via a time line) contains a set number of quanta. But each second can be further broken down according to the position of each occurrence. It is very interesting that a "universal second" is equal to "all time"....If you think about why , the light from 'the beginning of the universe' is still arriving here, so a universal second spans all time, but not all the occurrences.
you need the next universal second. Quite literally, the next moment. This will also span all time, because the light keeps on streaming towards us . What you are now observing is all time and space, but again and again. The only reason it seems to be lots of energy is that you have not reduced it further to less than a universal second.
Cheers
Iseason
added to .9 repeating will give one
Mitch Raemsch
Hi all.
It is pointless to add more 9's as it can never achieve any sort of goal.With the knowledge that the two sums can never be harmonized , it's a rather useless argument.
To be sure, mathematical infinity is useful where the end result has a variability within it , but to say..."the universe is infinite" ....to me this can be proven NOT to be true..
Repeating my argument.
EVEN,given the arguments that relativity means different things to each and every form or shape that energy takes.....If I can hold two fixed parameters in any form in which to measure it, there is a center which IS NOT expanding infinitely....Because of this , and because (as you have proven for me with your .999 arguments) Everything in infinity is affected , the middle AND it's boundaries.
You CANNOT do this:- The universe = .999r. (so what part of this sum do I occupy)?
To be relative within this boundary, I would need to be equal to .999r (anywhere you found me).....For as you have argued reasonably well , there is no beginning and no end to .999r....It all occurs at the same time. So it seems rather pointless to have a number like .999r in the first place . Since (given your arguments, the number MAY AS WELL BE 1).
One or whole Can be measured against itself. "wherever and whenever I look I will be measuring RELATIVE to one". I can look upwards in scale and downwards in scale, but every time I look it will always contain the same value. Some very useful ways to organize it are.
Time and space are "measurements of energy, but are not energy".
Therefore, If a distant star had a relative reality (that I am just now seeing) time can be measured in other ways than "distance". Since the two occurred during similar "times",a pattern or order can be used instead of time/distance methodology.
Leaving time/ distance as another viewpoint, the relative instance of energy occurring in two distant points is a close run thing. we could say that while one quanta was occurring "here", a similar quanta occurrence happened "there". Although these two instances have distance between them when measured via time and space, they can be seen as occurring together via an order.
Since we are using a quite different scale for measuring these occurrences, we can put them into a relationship which can also be used in time and space. Balance means that each "second" (when measured via a time line) contains a set number of quanta. But each second can be further broken down according to the position of each occurrence. It is very interesting that a "universal second" is equal to "all time"....If you think about why , the light from 'the beginning of the universe' is still arriving here, so a universal second spans all time, but not all the occurrences.
you need the next universal second. Quite literally, the next moment. This will also span all time, because the light keeps on streaming towards us . What you are now observing is all time and space, but again and again. The only reason it seems to be lots of energy is that you have not reduced it further to less than a universal second.
Cheers
Iseason
Hej Iseason
Completely agree.
But it is necessary to define what is meant by a Universe.
It is important to stress that we are dealing with a universe which can be interfered with - a universe which can be observed by an observer. A universe which is made observable by relativizing - or calculating ratios between universe and observer, respectively.
This is in my mind easiest to do by choosing a "dimension" as the perceiving tool.
By applying this perceiving model, it is logic that universe has to be segregated into smaller ratios in order to be observable by part of itself. The more divided - the more ratios, the higher the accuracy in perceiving.
But any and all ratios has to show "object" or "corpus" in order to be a ratio of a 3D construct - space or Universe is per definition translated into a 3D construct at the very instant that dimension -"Object of sameness" is being chosen as perceiving tool.
And this analogy can without problems be introduced to explain why universe cease to exist at the very same moment that smallest perceiving tool translates into dimensionless point - at the very same moment that universe is being segregated into dimensionless points - infinitely many dimensionless points - it ceases to exist. So a ratio can never be dimensionless, universe can never be infinitely many ratios,
.9... will always remain a finite amount of ratios, and 1 represent universe when it ceases to be physical and translates into one object of sameness again. 0.9.... can never be equal to 1.
Completely agree.
But it is necessary to define what is meant by a Universe.
It is important to stress that we are dealing with a universe which can be interfered with - a universe which can be observed by an observer. A universe which is made observable by relativizing - or calculating ratios between universe and observer, respectively.
This is in my mind easiest to do by choosing a "dimension" as the perceiving tool.
By applying this perceiving model, it is logic that universe has to be segregated into smaller ratios in order to be observable by part of itself. The more divided - the more ratios, the higher the accuracy in perceiving.
But any and all ratios has to show "object" or "corpus" in order to be a ratio of a 3D construct - space or Universe is per definition translated into a 3D construct at the very instant that dimension -"Object of sameness" is being chosen as perceiving tool.
And this analogy can without problems be introduced to explain why universe cease to exist at the very same moment that smallest perceiving tool translates into dimensionless point - at the very same moment that universe is being segregated into dimensionless points - infinitely many dimensionless points - it ceases to exist. So a ratio can never be dimensionless, universe can never be infinitely many ratios,
.9... will always remain a finite amount of ratios, and 1 represent universe when it ceases to be physical and translates into one object of sameness again. 0.9.... can never be equal to 1.
QUOTE (iseason+Feb 26 2009, 08:20 AM)
It is pointless to add more 9's as it can never achieve any sort of goal.With the knowledge that the two sums can never be harmonized , it's a rather useless argument.
To be sure, mathematical infinity is useful where the end result has a variability within it , but to say..."the universe is infinite" ....to me this can be proven NOT to be true..
Repeating my argument.
EVEN,given the arguments that relativity means different things to each and every form or shape that energy takes.....If I can hold two fixed parameters in any form in which to measure it, there is a center which IS NOT expanding infinitely....Because of this , and because (as you have proven for me with your .999 arguments) Everything in infinity is affected , the middle AND it's boundaries.
You CANNOT do this:- The universe = .999r. (so what part of this sum do I occupy)?
To be relative within this boundary, I would need to be equal to .999r (anywhere you found me).....For as you have argued reasonably well , there is no beginning and no end to .999r....It all occurs at the same time. So it seems rather pointless to have a number like .999r in the first place . Since (given your arguments, the number MAY AS WELL BE 1).
In the decimal (base ten) numeral system: what fraction other than 1/3 (lowest common denominator) can produce .3r? Other than 2/3; .6r? This isn’t some philosophical discussion about our place in the universe. It is about logic. If only 1/3 can produce .3r: what is the logical value of .9r?
To be sure, mathematical infinity is useful where the end result has a variability within it , but to say..."the universe is infinite" ....to me this can be proven NOT to be true..
Repeating my argument.
EVEN,given the arguments that relativity means different things to each and every form or shape that energy takes.....If I can hold two fixed parameters in any form in which to measure it, there is a center which IS NOT expanding infinitely....Because of this , and because (as you have proven for me with your .999 arguments) Everything in infinity is affected , the middle AND it's boundaries.
You CANNOT do this:- The universe = .999r. (so what part of this sum do I occupy)?
To be relative within this boundary, I would need to be equal to .999r (anywhere you found me).....For as you have argued reasonably well , there is no beginning and no end to .999r....It all occurs at the same time. So it seems rather pointless to have a number like .999r in the first place . Since (given your arguments, the number MAY AS WELL BE 1).
In the decimal (base ten) numeral system: what fraction other than 1/3 (lowest common denominator) can produce .3r? Other than 2/3; .6r? This isn’t some philosophical discussion about our place in the universe. It is about logic. If only 1/3 can produce .3r: what is the logical value of .9r?
QUOTE (SteveA2+Feb 26 2009, 03:36 AM)
Notice that we can simplify a lot of calculus by just using variables.
And yet, you're still no good at it.
And your comments about limits using epsilon and delta do little more than show how little you understand. If you understood the epsilon - delta notation you'd not have so much trouble understanding..... wait for it...... kids homework.
And yet, you're still no good at it.
And your comments about limits using epsilon and delta do little more than show how little you understand. If you understood the epsilon - delta notation you'd not have so much trouble understanding..... wait for it...... kids homework.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 26 2009, 02:00 AM)
the only thing at the end of of .9 repeating is another 9
Mitch Raemsch
That "9" you are talking about is already there by definition.
And just because StevenA doesn't know "which" infinity it is doens't make it "random".
Mitch Raemsch
That "9" you are talking about is already there by definition.
And just because StevenA doesn't know "which" infinity it is doens't make it "random".
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 26 2009, 02:09 AM)
If the 9's go on forever then it remains below One by the infinitely nonzero small.
The 9's do not "go" at all.
And stop saying forever. That is a time based concept that has no place with understanding 0.99...
They STAY at an infinite amount of 9's.
Stop "adding" 9's after the last 9 that you see.
Start understanding that they are all represented as already being in place.
and 0.99.. has never represented anything phsysical.
So the nature of the universe has nothing to do with 0.99...
The 9's do not "go" at all.
And stop saying forever. That is a time based concept that has no place with understanding 0.99...
They STAY at an infinite amount of 9's.
Stop "adding" 9's after the last 9 that you see.
Start understanding that they are all represented as already being in place.
and 0.99.. has never represented anything phsysical.
So the nature of the universe has nothing to do with 0.99...
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 26 2009, 12:01 PM)
That "9" you are talking about is already there by definition.
And just because StevenA doesn't know "which" infinity it is doens't make it "random".
If we divide a number by itself, the result is 1 (ignoring 0) and this is true if the number is allowed to be a variable or grow unending etc.
If you call that variable "infinity" and then grab a second variable and also call it "infinity", then unless you're working with identical values, you can't divide one by the other and expect to still get 1. x/x=1, x/y=?
If you want a precise result in any computations that involve infinity, then there's only one largest and the rest are constructed from it as smaller, yet still infinite structures.
The reason why I say that you have to begin with the largest is that trying to have an infinity larger than itself is futile and will simply lead to indeterminant results and infinity can't even equal itself.
For example, if you allow n to grow infinite, then you can't create n+1 because that's larger than infinity and infinity is already impossible to reach.
So you take a single largest infinite (which is fundamentally just time) and assign it to construct smaller growing structures from it, and all of these can be precisely correlated between themselves and The Infinity.
So if you want two infinite values (m and p) to grow and one must grow according to the square of the other (m=p^2), then you instead sum these two (n=m+p^2) and take the sum to be the largest quantity, or The Infinity for the structure and then you assign units of it to be divided to create the ratios m/n and p/n, which would be m/(m+p^2) and p/(m+p^2) and then for only specific quantities of n are these ratios satisfied perfectly, and n is a single process constructing an infinite quantity of solutions (or even approximations) over time.
And just because StevenA doesn't know "which" infinity it is doens't make it "random".
If we divide a number by itself, the result is 1 (ignoring 0) and this is true if the number is allowed to be a variable or grow unending etc.
If you call that variable "infinity" and then grab a second variable and also call it "infinity", then unless you're working with identical values, you can't divide one by the other and expect to still get 1. x/x=1, x/y=?
If you want a precise result in any computations that involve infinity, then there's only one largest and the rest are constructed from it as smaller, yet still infinite structures.
The reason why I say that you have to begin with the largest is that trying to have an infinity larger than itself is futile and will simply lead to indeterminant results and infinity can't even equal itself.
For example, if you allow n to grow infinite, then you can't create n+1 because that's larger than infinity and infinity is already impossible to reach.
So you take a single largest infinite (which is fundamentally just time) and assign it to construct smaller growing structures from it, and all of these can be precisely correlated between themselves and The Infinity.
So if you want two infinite values (m and p) to grow and one must grow according to the square of the other (m=p^2), then you instead sum these two (n=m+p^2) and take the sum to be the largest quantity, or The Infinity for the structure and then you assign units of it to be divided to create the ratios m/n and p/n, which would be m/(m+p^2) and p/(m+p^2) and then for only specific quantities of n are these ratios satisfied perfectly, and n is a single process constructing an infinite quantity of solutions (or even approximations) over time.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.