More on Infinity

n/a3
Offline
Junior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5230 by n/a3

Replied by n/a3 on topic Reply from

Infinity exists only in math. I hope there is no one here thinking an infinite universe is possible, in any way possible. I say this because most humans have no capability of seeing clearly farther than a mile or so, cannot hear low or high frequency sounds and cannot divide, multiple of get square roots of single digit numbers. Those very same people who cannot calculate the square root of 7 find it very easy to talk about infinity, which I find it remarkable indeed. Nobody knows what infinity would be like even if it existed apart from the mathematical sense which is really trivial amd is defined by the equation N=N+1

I prefer to talk about bounded and limited things and there are many of those left we don't understand. Our universe is one of them. very limited and bounded, very small and very young. Despite claims to the contrary I doubt if our universe is more than 20,000 years old. Think about that now...

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #4933 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: A beginning is a miracle. No beginning means no miracle. Are we experiencing a miracle here and now? If the universe has always been just as it is here and now, it follows that if we need no miracles here and now, there was never a need for a miracle.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Enrcio]: This argument above takes the value or truth or false depending on the value of the premise: Miracles are needed here and now, which can be true or false.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You missed a step. I previously invoked the "no miracles allowed in physics" axiom. So there is no ambiguity at this step. Miracles are not needed here and now because we have encountered no limits in explaining the here and now without miracles.

Here is my syllogism:
If every moment is (globally, although not in detail) just like the here and now; and if no miracles are needed for the here and now; then it follows that no miracles were ever needed. QED. -|Tom|-

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

Enrico
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5039 by Enrico

Replied by Enrico on topic Reply from

From TVF:

You missed a step. I previously invoked the "no miracles allowed in physics" axiom. So there is no ambiguity at this step.

....................................................................

Is it a miracle that "no miracles are allowed in physics" or is it not?

You probably define a miracle something out of the ordinary. One can define a miracle to be the ordinary experience and be as consistent as you think you are. Miracles need not to be a chaotic process. For a person 5.000 years ago, a pocket flashlight or watch would be a miracle. Today is common ordinary experience.

By using axioms one can prove almost anything. What justifies you for using the axiom of "no miracles are allowed in physics"? Using such axiom one can never claim a deduction is true as it relates to physical processes but only in the context of a truth table. This is fundamental in science but many do not and sometimes do not want to understand the difference.

One that says: "no miracles are allowed in physics"
and another saying: "Everything in physics is a miracle"

both have same deductive power since one cannot disprove the other because axioms of this kind using universal or null qualifiers are not subject to proving in the context of an axiomatic system.

Also, it is interesting to know that the proposition:

If no miracles are allowed in physics then everything in physics is a miracle

is a true proposition if one accepts as true the axiom that "everything in physics is a miracle". This is because an impication of the form (p impies q) is false only, if and only if, p is true and q is false but it is true otherwise.

In conclusion, using your axiom does not really prove anything since anyone else can define his axioms another way and prove the opposite. What you are doing is far from a deduction. It is called an abduction. It is very common for scientists to confuse deduction and abduction because of a lack of understanding of logic principles and procedures.

I am sorry to dissapoint you but logic has strict rules and there is no room for forgivness like when you play a game with your friend you can give a few points as a gift. Logic is not game and correct use of logic has been the primary and common element of all famous and sucessful scientists. All others must live with the contradictions implied by their own logic and this contradiction is naked to the trained eye.

Finito, end of story, thank you.

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

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 7 months ago #4937 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Infinity exists only in math.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Fact or opinion?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I hope there is no one here thinking an infinite universe is possible, in any way possible.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Sorry to disappoint, here is one.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I say this because most humans have no capability of seeing clearly farther than a mile or so, cannot hear low or high frequency sounds and cannot divide, multiple of get square roots of single digit numbers.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

On a clear night you can see a few galaxies out there, I believe that's farther than a mile or two. Ultrhigh frequencies don't exist because I don't hear them? Math is pointless because I can't calculate as well as a computer?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Those very same people who cannot calculate the square root of 7 find it very easy to talk about infinity, which I find it remarkable indeed. Nobody knows what infinity would be like even if it existed apart from the mathematical sense which is really trivial amd is defined by the equation N=N+1
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Argument from authority. Just because you don't comprehend it doesn't mean others can't.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I prefer to talk about bounded and limited things and there are many of those left we don't understand. Our universe is one of them. very limited and bounded, very small and very young. Despite claims to the contrary I doubt if our universe is more than 20,000 years old. Think about that now...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Are you a creationist? You say some of us are misguided for thinking the universe is infinite but you calmly throw out a 20,000 year old universe without a shred of evidence.

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

n/a3
Offline
Junior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5041 by n/a3

Replied by n/a3 on topic Reply from

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

Fact or opinion?

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

What do you think Einstein?

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

Sorry to disappoint, here is one.

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

This is a real amusing feeling...far from a disapointment

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

On a clear night you can see a few galaxies out there, I believe that's farther than a mile or two. Ultrhigh frequencies don't exist because I don't hear them? Math is pointless because I can't calculate as well as a computer?

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

Before you start hitting keys on your keyboard try to understand what the other side has to say. You response is a clear indication you don't even read carefully what you're responding to.

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

Argument from authority. Just because you don't comprehend it doesn't mean others can't.

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

Before using terminology you don't understand what it means try opening a book and read first what an "argument from authority" means. Did I claim any authority or anyone else's? I just stated the obvious and true fact that no one including you and I has ever had an "infinite" experience, physically or through intrumentation. Unless you've touched it or seen it Jeremy....or God wishperd it in your ear...."Jeremy my child...the universe is infinite...."

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

Are you a creationist? You say some of us are misguided for thinking the universe is infinite but you calmly throw out a 20,000 year old universe without a shred of evidence.

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

Yes Jeremy, I believe Donald Duck made the universe, it's 10 cubic meters in volume and 10 days old. Are you satisfied now? If you can, go ahead and prove I'm wrong.

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5231 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jeremy,

Funny close but I think you also have your work cut out proving your close.

Mark,

I cannot accept "infinity" as anything but a mathematical cunundrum. It has no place in physical reality. It is as unproveable +/- as a God. And like a God one must accept and follow their faith on this one.

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

Time to create page: 0.283 seconds