disproving infinity paradoxes; Hilbert’s Hotel?

[Tao_Equus]

Thanks Cyberpi,

I love your point. So nothing is infinity and something is finite. Yes? If so everything that is something has some boundary and what is beyond that is in what something exists. Or do you propose that something can exist within nothing?

Regards

Tao

[juantoo3]

It is an interesting perspective...but it seems to make sense. Everything created has a beginning, and because it has a beginning it cannot truly be considered infinite. Hmmm, so what existed beyond that teaspoonful of mass / energy at the moment of the Big Bang? The eternal nothingness? Is that what lies beyond our universe today? It that where black holes vent to? Are black holes the "cooling vents" for the cycle of the universe?

Of course, if something is vented into nothing, is nothing still nothing...or does it become something?

[Tao_Equus]

Exactly..

I cannot believe there is such a thing as nothing. Every beginning is the product of the end of one or more other things. You just cannot get something from nothing. Nothing has never existed because there is something. So it is not only nothing that it infinite it is everything is a part of the infinite.
As for fundamental laws (thermodynamics is not one) they are to theoretical physicists, with the exception of Gravity, strictly limited to 3d space/time. Something they believe to be an illusion. Electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces all break down in the expanded theoretical multi-dimensional infinity. So I do not think the concept of infinity to be a logic experiment in thinking yourself up your own jacksie, but a fact that given the existence of one nano-partical is the only logical assumption that can be drawn. If there was indeed 'nothing' that too would be infinite. In that sense nothing is the twin of something.

Tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Exactly..

I cannot believe there is such a thing as nothing. Every beginning is the product of the end of one or more other things. You just cannot get something from nothing. Nothing has never existed because there is something. So it is not only nothing that it infinite it is everything is a part of the infinite.
As for fundamental laws (thermodynamics is not one) they are to theoretical physicists, with the exception of Gravity, strictly limited to 3d space/time. Something they believe to be an illusion. Electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces all break down in the expanded theoretical multi-dimensional infinity. So I do not think the concept of infinity to be a logic experiment in thinking yourself up your own jacksie, but a fact that given the existence of one nano-partical is the only logical assumption that can be drawn. If there was indeed 'nothing' that too would be infinite. In that sense nothing is the twin of something.

Tao

Tao, the last part of your statement reminded me of Tao Te Ching 1 and Chuang Tzu's Discourse on Making All Things Equal!

Actually, a physicist said that if you add up all of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and subtract the gravitational force, you wind up very close to zero--which might suggest creation from nothing.

Also, the idea of zero serves as a reference point from which to measure things relative to each other. {Ever notice how computers will refer to themselves as 0, or zero?}

One other thing--can thoughts and understanding be considered something? Do they not arise from incomprehension? Does that also make incomprehension something? How about noncomprehension? Just where do our thoughts come from? Where do they do after they pass? How about our novel, 'out of the blue' ideas and inspirations? Where do they come from?

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Seattlegal,

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Also, the idea of zero serves as a reference point from which to measure things relative to each other. {Ever notice how computers will refer to themselves as 0, or zero?}

0 (zero) is an artificial arbitrarily imposed point of reference. In an Infinite system zero can be anywhere and measurement both up and down from that point is still infinite and thus gives balance. However that point zero is artificial and for convenience. Hmmm I see a problem tho with one notable zero. The temperature Absolute Zero, Zero Kelvin. OOOOps what do we think about that one? I think the experimental physicists have taken artificially produced temperature readings to within 450 billionths of a degree of absolute zero but that actually getting there is considered impossible. Is this impossibility a confirmation of the infinite? That the harder we try the longer the fractions?

One other thing--can thoughts and understanding be considered something? Do they not arise from incomprehension? Does that also make incomprehension something? How about noncomprehension? Just where do our thoughts come from? Where do they do after they pass? How about our novel, 'out of the blue' ideas and inspirations? Where do they come from?

Well this is where my beliefs seem to diverge from many here. I think this concept of self is in large part an illusion. If you look at yourself as a composite part of a larger organism, life as a whole on Earth at a minimum, then these out of the blue thoughts are easily understood. There are many many instances recorded in history of synchronicity of thought taking place in several places round the world more or less simultaneously. It is the idea/illusion we have of this independence of thought that allows your question. Remove that notion and substitute a collective subconsciousness and it clear to see where.


regards

tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So nothing is infinity and something is finite. Yes?

No. I said that nothing is infinite and I said the only thing infinite is nothing. I did not say that nothing is infinity. Zero is nothing.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I cannot believe there is such a thing as nothing.

So then Zero is suspect too as claiming to be a thing that it is not.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Every beginning is the product of the end of one or more other things.

Oh my... another atheist believer of determinism.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You just cannot get something from nothing.

Whereas I was noting that the whacked out mathematicians and the derived followers believe the opposite... that you can get an infinite amount of nothing from something.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Nothing has never existed because there is something.

So, because you exist then ZERO does not? Are you negative on negative numbers too?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So it is not only nothing that it infinite it is everything is a part of the infinite.

Infinity has no parts because if it did then it would not be infinite. The moment that a digit (a part) exists, the whole thing is finite (NOT infinite). For example you would probably think of 2 as a part of 4 whether by division or subtraction. Whereas infinity has no parts. You can not divide infinity by two or subtract two from it. Infinity is without digits, without parts, and without start or end. I know it is tempting to think of infinity as an extremely large number composed of parts... but its not. Therein exists the fallacy that numbers are infinite. Numbers themselves are symbols and those symbols are NOT infinite in number.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

As for fundamental laws (thermodynamics is not one) they are to theoretical physicists, with the exception of Gravity, strictly limited to 3d space/time.

Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws that there is in every field of science and at every scale. If you can think of a place where it has not been applied then it soon will be.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

No. I said that nothing is infinite and I said the only thing infinite is nothing. I did not say that nothing is infinity. Zero is nothing.

Zero is not nothing. It is a point of reference or a point of potential. To say you have zero oranges you still have to have potential oranges. Otherwise the question of zero would never have arisen. This potential is a product of infinity. For once you have this potential you can always have potentially one more or minus one more, ad-infinitum.

Oh my... another atheist believer of determinism.

Ohhhh Atheist determinist am I!!! How theisticly determinist of you to say so

Whereas I was noting that the whacked out mathematicians and the derived followers believe the opposite... that you can get an infinite amount of nothing from something.

And you can!! However pointless the idea it is as soon as you conceive it the potential is infinite.

Infinity has no parts because if it did then it would not be infinite. The moment that a digit (a part) exists, the whole thing is finite (NOT infinite). For example you would probably think of 2 as a part of 4 whether by division or subtraction. Whereas infinity has no parts. You can not divide infinity by two or subtract two from it. Infinity is without digits, without parts, and without start or end. I know it is tempting to think of infinity as an extremely large number composed of parts... but its not. Therein exists the fallacy that numbers are infinite. Numbers are symbols and they are NOT infinite.

For what you say to be true you would have to invoke a closed system, something that does not exist except by artificial imposition. Give me a number, any one, that is not on an infinite chain of numbers if you are so confident. Just because we can dissect infinite systems for study or use does not remove their true potential.

Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws that there is in every field of science and at every scale. If you can think of a place where it has not been applied then it soon will be.

lol, soon will be gives you an infinite get out clause, a real santa you are

Regards

Tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Zero is not nothing. It is a point of reference or a point of potential. To say you have zero oranges you still have to have potential oranges. Otherwise the question of zero would never have arisen. This potential is a product of infinity. For once you have this potential you can always have potentially one more or minus one more, ad-infinitum.

Oh, so nothing is something {relative to oranges, in this case} if you think about it {oranges, that is.} Does that mean that is you don't think about oranges, you actually have {or would it be lack?} nothing?

For what you say to be true you would have to invoke a closed system, something that does not exist except by artificial imposition.

Hmm, it makes me suspect that a closed system might be the product of closed mind.

Give me a number, any one, that is not on an infinite chain of numbers if you are so confident. Just because we can dissect infinite systems for study or use does not remove their true potential.

Agreed. The more we study, the more we understand that there is a heck of a lot that we simply don't know, and our potential for further study increases, rather than decreases. {I wonder if Thermodynamics has been applied to that, yet.}

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Zero is not nothing. It is a point of reference or a point of potential. To say you have zero oranges you still have to have potential oranges. Otherwise the question of zero would never have arisen. This potential is a product of infinity. For once you have this potential you can always have potentially one more or minus one more, ad-infinitum.

If there are zero things then there is nothing. I assumed units of things: Zero things is nothing. Zero oranges is no oranges.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And you can!! However pointless the idea it is as soon as you conceive it the potential is infinite.

I think you missed the point that the 'something' is allegedly equivalent to an infinite amount of nothing. Not only do you get infinite 'nothing' from the something, but that the something IS an infinite amount of 'nothing'. It is Gestalt on steroids: the whole (something) is both greater and yet composed of the sum of many (infinite) nothings.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

For what you say to be true you would have to invoke a closed system, something that does not exist except by artificial imposition.

Your understanding of a closed system appears different than this: closed system

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Give me a number, any one, that is not on an infinite chain of numbers if you are so confident.

There is no such thing as an infinite chain of numbers except in the tales taught by mathematicians.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Just because we can dissect infinite systems for study or use does not remove their true potential.

What infinite system is there to dissect?!

Here is a bit of trivia for the recovering math follower: If all of the energy and particles in this Universe were used to somehow write or represent the largest number possible, then there are allegedly still more numbers that are greater to it than there are lesser to it... in the belief system of mathematics.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If there are zero things then there is nothing. I assumed units of things: Zero things is nothing. Zero oranges is no oranges.

But look!! You have had to use 2 oranges to get zero!!

Your understanding of a closed system appears different than this: closed system

Well to be honest I aint a whizz at thermodynamics, tho I can make an effective Molotov cocktail, (yes I had a miss-spent youth). I perceived what you were saying to be a closed system in the quantum sense at the end of that wiki link. Something that is still a scientific model and never a reality in our infinite multiverse.

There is no such thing as an infinite chain of numbers except in the tales taught by mathematicians.

Well then you are able to provide me with the first and last number then I take it?

Here is a bit of trivia for the recovering math follower: If all of the energy and particles in this Universe were used to somehow write or represent the largest number possible, then there are allegedly still more numbers that are greater to it than there are lesser to it... in the belief system of mathematics.

There is the problem, all is the misleading bit, since the universe is infinite there is no all.

Regards

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Oh, so nothing is something {relative to oranges, in this case} if you think about it {oranges, that is.} Does that mean that is you don't think about oranges, you actually have {or would it be lack?} nothing?

Not there, because you thought about not thinking about oranges you still conjured up oranges

Hmm, it makes me suspect that a closed system might be the product of closed mind.
Agreed. The more we study, the more we understand that there is a heck of a lot that we simply don't know, and our potential for further study increases, rather than decreases. {I wonder if Thermodynamics has been applied to that, yet.}

Well I know nothing to start with, and I will die knowing nothing, but hey the fun is in playing the game

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well then you are able to provide me with the first and last number then I take it?

If it were possible do you think you would be able to receive it?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There is the problem, all is the misleading bit, since the universe is infinite there is no all.

What percentage of this allegedly infinite Universe do we occupy?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If it were possible do you think you would be able to receive it?

Fudge fudge and more fudge!!

What percentage of this allegedly infinite Universe do we occupy?

Percentage of infinity? As we observe both out into the universe and deep into the microverse there is always more to see, a hint of something smaller, or something further away. You cannot give me a first and last number and we will never see the smallest nor the most distant object.

Tao

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If all of the energy and particles in this Universe were used to ...

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

since the universe is infinite there is no all.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

(this) then raises the quandary of more and more space filled by an unchanging amount of matter and energy...

While the universe is generally accepted to be expanding, it is also generally accepted that there is no new matter or energy being created. There is no "infinite amount" of energy / matter. Every expression of matter or energy is resultant from a change in state of another form of energy or matter with no loss. No energy, or matter, is ever "used up," it merely converts form. For example, to burn a piece of paper consumes a piece of wood pulp into ash by "rapid oxidation." However, the sum total of the weight of the ash, the carbon released as smoke, and the energy released as fire total (equal) the sum total weight of the sheet of paper at rest, the wood pulp carbon and oxygen. In other words, matter and energy are not created or destroyed. This then means there is finite amount of matter / energy available in the universe. It also suggests, as far as anything on a universal scale can be considered infinite, that the matter-energy cycle is infinite and dynamic. The cycle as a whole can be brought to an end if the universe ever "ended." But as long as the universe exists in anything like the present form the matter-energy cycle will continue.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, all!







While the universe is generally accepted to be expanding, it is also generally accepted that there is no new matter or energy being created. There is no "infinite amount" of energy / matter. Every expression of matter or energy is resultant from a change in state of another form of energy or matter with no loss. No energy, or matter, is ever "used up," it merely converts form. For example, to burn a piece of paper consumes a piece of wood pulp into ash by "rapid oxidation." However, the sum total of the weight of the ash, the carbon released as smoke, and the energy released as fire total (equal) the sum total weight of the sheet of paper at rest, the wood pulp carbon and oxygen. In other words, matter and energy are not created or destroyed. This then means there is finite amount of matter / energy available in the universe. It also suggests, as far as anything on a universal scale can be considered infinite, that the matter-energy cycle is infinite and dynamic. The cycle as a whole can be brought to an end if the universe ever "ended." But as long as the universe exists in anything like the present form the matter-energy cycle will continue.

I have a bit of trouble with this big bang derived theory of limited matter/energy. Basicly the figure used in measuring the mass of the universe is a guess. And we are only able to detect a small fraction of what is supposed to be there. Take this as an example:

Question: How old is the oldest star?
shannon m connolly

Answer: That's an interesting question. From what we know of the
evolution of stars (that is, how they change as they get
older) there seem to be some stars around that are roughly
15 billion years old. However, recent measurements of the
age of the universe suggest that the entire universe is
younger than that (maybe 10 billion years). The answer is
probably somewhere between those two numbers.
asmith (taken from the "ask a scientist" website)

I have read about stars now dated at at 18 million years where as most physicists tend to agree the big bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. There are huge holes and inconsistencies in current models. What we do know is that whatever devices of measurement we build we keep seeing further and further or more and more. And everywhere we look we find things that fit our perceptions but more importantly many that do not. To say that there is a finite amount of matter is a bit of a leap of faith in theories that are as watertight as colanders. Over on another thread Flow left a link to a harvard scientist working on branes. In her mathematics we see that the expression of matter on our brane is not necessarily a universal expression. Gravity is entirely dependent on what we perceive as mass, for example, but on an adjacent brane this almost negligibly weak force is massive. Can you imagine living in a universe where each person weighs billions of tons? Or another one where we to a people there seem just as heavy to them? The exchange of matter between branes can take place and if there are an infinite number of those then there could indeed be an infinite amount of matter. Its like a chain of numbers, which despite cyberpi's protestations is potentially infinite in either direction. Say we live on a brane arbitrarily numbered 42. Well branes 41 and 43 will find ways to exchange mass with our brane as ours will with them. Perhaps big bangs and black holes are the big dramatic examples of this. Anyhow my point is that front line physics is far from certain about there being a finite mass. And thus it is not really a very good case for arguing a finite universe.

Regards

Tao