Can Infinity be Real?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Fork, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. Pincho_Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    65
    This is philosophy so we can ignore the Big Bang completely. The Big Bang implies a beginning, it is not circulated, so is not infinite. I am talking about infinity as a circulating series of physics that resemble drips on a pond as galaxies. The galaxies grow, and shrink and circulate forever.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    "All" Inherently Finite --Simple Not Complex

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pincho_Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    65
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Read and Reread Rationally Logical Derived Conclusion( finite conclusion/enclosure

     
  8. Pincho_Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    65
     
  9. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
     
  10. Pincho_Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    65
    You have a finite spacetime, so what happens where it ends? You can't have an end, it's impossible.
     
  11. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    The Boundary of Occupied Space

    Pincho, gravitational spacetime is the odd-bird-out--- ergo quasi-physical/energy ---within the context of our finite Universe of occupied space, ergo it requires its on special considerations.

    One of the ways we might try to assess what happens at the boundaries of our finite Universe--- assuming we get to some how see that area ---is via our telecscopes that see in various EM frequencies.

    1) I don't know that we have seen the boundary of finite Universe,

    2) if we have I'm not familiar with any data that is being offered that is designated as being what is seen at the boundary/edge,

    3) we gradually are able to see further and further away from Earth and what is seen at the further distance-- if I recall correctly ---is something called quazars(?). I forget exactly. What I do recall from some years ago, was that these celestrial objects were moving away from us, at speeds near the speed of light, so it was assumed that, we were near seeing the boundary edge because of near speeds-of-radiation of these celestial objects.


    I have spent more of my time trying to imagine the shape formed by this boundary.

    1) whatever the shape, it is eternal fluctuation, i.e. if it ever approximates a true sphere, then overtime the it will have greater oscillations of this boundary like greater and greater ocean swells.

    Eventually these oscillations may become more likened to those kind of explosive-like events we see emanating from sun that burst-out curve around and come back in.

    However, at entropic heat death-- if such ever occurs ---I have made fairly clear of what I believe the shape of the Universe will be;

    O ! O or,

    OZO


    As for what we may see if we can see the boundary of our finite Universe, I dunno, however, I can envision various rationally logical scenarios and all of these presume, that the boudnary is seeable or the gravitational spacetime boundary effects physical/energy in such a way, that there is something there to see with some EMRadiation harvesting instrument.

    Also, if the shape of finite Universe changes over time, what we may see, may be affected by the shape ex a mass distorts the spacetime around it, so we get varying views of celestial objects because of the mass distorting spacetime.

    That said, maybe we would see some frequency of radiation in some area reflecting back at us, and a differrent frequency elsewhere.

    r6
     
  12. Pincho_Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    65
    So you are basing you finite Universe on I dunno?

    Well done! Great theory!

    I know exactly what's out there, and what shape everything is. There is a boundary, but it connects instantly with another Universe so physics never end.

    And this is the shape just before the next Universe begins...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3fTYS99ZeE&feature=plcp
     
  13. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Pincho, your exhibiting troll-like behavour i.e.you know very well I have offered you plenty of rationally logical conclusions beyond just a "I dunno".

    So you will need to practice having a little more moral integrity dude if you want to have a rationally logical conversation. Please.

    So here above, besides the troll-like unfair, troll-like behaviour being invoking anther Universe scenario--- i.e. capital "U" Universe ---.

    If we have more than one local universe, the it is more correct to use a small 'u" universe, and when total all of your proosed connceted universe's we arrive at a sum-total called capital "U", Universe. I'm not sure you have the intelligence to understand the differrence.

    I have addressed these mutiple-universes, bubble-liek universe, multi-verse scenarios in many other threads not also in this one.

    The sum-total of all--- i.e. finite accounting total ---we still arrive at the same conclusion, we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, that is embraced by macro-micro infinite non-occupied space.

    I have given you many rationally logical explanations for this conclusion and you have given none for your infinite occupied space scenarios.

    I will not hold my breath waiting for you or anyone else to ever conjour a rationally logical explanation for an infinite occupied space scenario.

    None exist and that is why your or no one else offers any. Your position is isn many ways similar so many religous creationist fundamentalists i.e. they propose a something called God, outside of our finite occupied space Universe, that created our finite Universe.

    You propose a God-like somethingness, that is eternally creating infinite physical/energy( occupied space ) Universe.

    Yours and theirs have aboslutely no valid, rationally logical credibility nor any empirical evidence of such irrational concepts.

    Sorryy, Pincho you have nothing valid to offer for infinite non-occupied space scenarios.

    Now I will go look at the link you gave which I already had nothing rationally, logically valid to support your position.

    r6
     
  14. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Pincho On the Outside Looking In--Sung to Moody Blues tune regarding Tim Leary

    Ok so now you've decide to come far enough over to my viewpoint as to offer us vidieo of a finite Universe--- 12-around-one sphericals--see cubo-octahedron/VE ---viewpoint.

    So Pincho, to have and outside inherently infers/implies a finiteness. This goes back to the circle thing rational I gave previously.

    A 2D triangle is the minimal suggestion of catagorising the infinite space into three parts;

    1) outside macro-infinity of non-occupied space----see your given video 3D VE/cubo-octahedron 12-around-1 shape----

    2) circle is the finite occupied space---see your given vidieo where 3D VE/cubo-octahedron( 12-aorund-1 ) is the finite occupied space---,

    3) inside micro-infinity of non-occupied space---see your given video where there may exist non-occupied space between the the 12-around-1 sphericals.


    As you so often do pincho, you do not address directly and specifically, most of the rational logical explanations I've given you. This latter 1, 2, 3 above is just one example of ignoring if not ignorance on this issue of your infinite occupied space, vs my finite occupied space.

    But hey, at least here above, you have made some movement towards acceptance of my viewpoint, so I suppose you should get a bread crumb ofr that....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ....way to go Pincho, your on your way to grasping a finite occupied space Universe. Hopefully we will not have to pull too many more teeth before you actually get your head around a finite concept/scenario.

    No one-- including you ---will ever get there head around a infinite occupied space scenario. imho

    r6
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Disagree

    What is infinite is not intellect concept but the UNDERSTANDING of energy and matter existence which must be infinite
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What makes you think that there actually is a non-occupied space ?
     
  17. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    "Disagree" <OUT >IN< OUT>

    river, what I meant by intellectual concept was that via mind/intelligence we have a concept of infinite non-occupied space--- that I believe does exist outside of/beyond our finite occupied space called Universe ---

    and a concept of an infinite occupied space, which I believe is a false concept.

    Primarily I believe such concept of a finite occupied space Universe is false because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ie. energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and for those like yourself who like to propose infinite occupied space, I can only think, that, forgive them for they know not what they're thinking.

    My concern is 3fold;

    1) for there to be infinite existing occupied space energy has to be created infinitely,

    2) and infinite occupied space lacks systemic if not structural integrity that we know to exist with any wholistic or quantum patterning.

    r6
     
  18. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Systemic Integrity

    1) First and foremost systemic integrity, that we only observe within the context of finite wholististically quantified, pattern integrities,

    2) infinite occupied space--- ergo infinite physical/energy ---inherently would violate 2nd law of thermodynamics, imho

    3) I've seen no evidence or rational logic explanations that would invalidate my two givens above. If you or anyone has some please share.

    I've been asking this question of others in various groups for a few years now, and rarely get any reply, much less a reply that meets any of the criteria I asked for above.

    Thx for asking River. I have to appreciate those around here who;

    1) do not shoot-from-the-hip with out ever asking a question,

    2) those who ask and want to attempt to have a rationally logical based disscussion.

    That stated, I would make clear, that, I'm not a professional or an educated philosopher, mathematician, theoretical or not physicist etc......and in fact, barely passed general math in 9th grade.

    My intellectual curiosity was greatly inspired/inspirited after learning about and reading Bucky Fullers cosmically comprehensive thoughts regarding Universe so many aspects of Universe.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    you may believe this , but I disagree

    we know that there is really no such thing as " non-occupied " anywhere

    chiral condensate


    look guy you read one philosophy on the universe about infinity and the finite and you have the whole thing figured out , that's not good

    My concern is 3fold;

    which there is a theory that this is actually happening

    for instance

    r6[/QUOTE]
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    which means in simple terms

    from Paul A. LaViolette's book " secrets of Anti-gravity Propulsion ; pg.229 , quote

    " The second law of thermodynamics tells us that in closed systems, order always tends toward disorder, that is , it predicts that light scattered from an object should disperse into space and eventually dissipate its energy. This is not so with light striking a phase conjugate mirror. The grating records the information carried by the incoming probe beam concerning where its light waves originated and in turn refracts ( steers ) the pump beam to create an outgoing phase conjugate beam whose waves precisely retrace the paths that had been followed by the incident rays of the probe beam. Thus , a state of initial disorder is made to tend toward a subsequent state of greater order. The scattered light is returned in a more concentrated state toward the point from which it emerged. "

    above
     
  21. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Agree to Disagree

    I agree that we do not observe the existence of a macro-micro infinite non-occupied space, that is spatially beyond our finite physical/energy Universe of spatially occupied space.

    Through history humans have not observed many things( physical/energy ) that do occupy space ex germs, bacteria, electrons, atoms etc...and there is still that, which we do not observe directly but we see it effects ex electrons changing energy values shows us a photon indirectly.

    All virtual particles inferred by effects we see on particles on whatever that we do observe so similar situation to electron-photon observances.

    Observing that exists as a true non-occupied space is whole differrrent set of circumstances that is dependent on;

    1) evidence of that we live in a finite occupied space Universe,

    2) rational logical conclusions inferred from any such evidence as as stated above in #1.

    We believe that there exists cosmic/generalized laws/principles, because we have not observed them to violated any where any time in human existence.

    We only observe a finite Universe of occupied space, and on that alone we may deduce, that, there may very well be more, but infinite occupied space inherently invokes the creation of physical/energy. imho.

    This may be one of the stated cruxes that we disagree on i.e. the existence of cosmic/generalized laws/principles, and how specifically infinite occupied space invokes violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, if not others.

    My ideas/theories/conjectures/speculations etc...are based on what we observe and have rationally concluded from what we have observed.

    We have only osberved a finite occupied space Universe, and no where is there any evidence that suggests our finite occupied space Universe is infinite, except in some "theory" inference by you. You give little to nothing in the way of info or logicall arrived at conclusions for you thoughts.

    All systems and structures of within Universe, are finite. Humans have no evidence of any infinite systems or structures.

    When you have some evidence, info etc accompanied by a rationally logical set of comments, other than a skimpy( quasi-lame ) "there is a theory", please share. I've seen little of the latter three from you to date.

    I'm open to rationally logical comments based on observations etc....

    r6
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
     
  23. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Huh? Experiment? Sporading Quasi-lame Claims Is All Ive Seen River

    Huh? Sorry River, I have no idea what "experiemen" that you claim to have quoted, and if it was in your last response to me it was very to vague to even be observed by me,adn I doubt anyone.

    The below is just more of lot of what I think you have to offer as being of any valid consequence/significance in these last two or more replies, nil to nothing.

    Your offer some "theory" last time and nothing to add to it of any significance so, then as now, you have quasi-lame tidbits that have offer us no real information content or even a rationally logical process of arriving at such quasi-lame piece-mealed insignificant nothing much and nothing valid.

    I don't think you have much to offer so untill that time, I may have to ignore your comments of such little significance to this thread.

    r6

    Sorry River, you really don't have much to offer in rational, logical and evidentary information.

     

Share This Page