Infinite must exist

Infiniti sure does exist. It's a car.

whilst i would love to debate this, i feel i cannot.
to a person who cannot master his own language i feel that my efforts would fall upon deaf 'or dyslexic' ears

concieving = conceiving

conatains =contains

unfallible =infallible

simultaniously =simultaneously

i apologise if you native language is actually not english,but with the strength that you deny other's opinions i feel that you at least have a high enough understanding to be able to spell sufficiently

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
Also another concept is fairly simple. In all deductable logic every space must contain a space. And that space must conatain a space. For example IF our universe is finite and is contained.. what conatains it? ANd Would whatever conatained our universe also contain a space?

This simple and toally unfallible logic dictates that Space is indeed infinite.

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
...If In fact Space in Like an apple.... What encomapsses space? More SPace? More of something... All SPace is contained in Space... And the space copntaining that space must also be encompassed in space

These statements, from two of your posts, have led me to believe the following:
You believe (but have not shown) that every space must contain a space (a subset of itself, I presume.)
You believe you have stated this axiom when you say that "every space must contain a space.
Lastly, you have somehow, in a move that throws all logic out the window, come to the conclusion that, if "every space contains a space," then somehow every space must be contained by another space. This does not follow at all from your "every space contains a space" axiom.

Here's an example:
Please inform us of the name of the set that contains the set of all sets.

Originally posted by Tony_PorembaAlso the argurment that is everything exists on an infinite plane then nothing could traverse it. That just calls in two different approaches. The first being the theory of Prediction or ANy event occurring simultaniously or all future events have already came to pass. That theory in of itself is baseless. It cannot keep a solid base if it were bolted down . It fails when brought through Scientific Method and Deductible logic... which in case u do not know Deduces Circumstance and Evidence to prove, to the closest feasible and logical conclusion.

The other is that the future does not exist but is occurring at an allencompassing rate. That cause and effect.. though reliant on eachother , never cease as long as things change. And as is , from infinity til now everything has been changing ...

This last part is, to quote Mr. T, "Jibberjabber."

Like an earlier poster said, I don't wish to argue against the existence of infinity here. What I do wish is to find at least a semblance of logic in a post that sets out to logically deduce infinity's actual existence.

Harte

hehe, well Agent T, it was pretty late, and i had taken some sleeping pills, but the fact that all you did to correct my short falls was remind me how to spell a few words, i take it as a compliment: ). But im learning just like everyone else, and all feedback is welcome, just try to keep it civilized and all. But yea... ive been chatting for so long, it kinda runs over into other things. Anyway, please go on. i dont like preaching things that arent true, so if you know a completly valid reason why my point of view is incorrect, by all means, correct me.

No i am just not writing anything that is goign to be graded so I just type.


A do9t on a infinte line would not make an infiinite dot also... It would make a dot upon an infinte line. Otherwise the dot and the line would not be distinguishable.

As ioogle argument for "if 1 thing is finite there is no infinity, everything must be infinite for infinity" is baseless. What is the underlying logic in that retort?

Math... NUmbers are infinite as they have infinite potential. THta destroys your arguement. Also The confine of yourself and what you witness as being finite has no bearing on what lies beyond those confines. Just cause I cannot pour an infinite ammount of water into a glass doesn't mean I cannot pour more into a bigger glass.

hmm, well first off, how can you prove that math or numbers actually exist? last i checked numbers and theyre relation to each other were figments of the human imagination, created to make our surrounding environment more easily useful and understandable. true, given quantities of given material interact and react in relation to the circumstances they are introduced to, and the consequences of those interactions are predictable. however comparing the imagined number system, and its limitless quantity, to particulate matter as an example of proving matter to be similarly limitless is obviously an illogical argument. now saying the universe is infinite from the basis that it is "the totality of all that exists", and we as human beings (being physical creations therein) are incapable of understanding anything beyond it, is a logical argument. i think the biggest challenge all scientists and theologists and archeologists and astronomers and mathematicians and biologists have is that they are in fact human. and no matter how hard they try to create ideas and theories free from that influence, they will inevitally fall victim to theyre humanity, in one way or another.

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
A do9t on a infinte line would not make an infiinite dot also... It would make a dot upon an infinte line. Otherwise the dot and the line would not be distinguishable.

I think the last part of your statement sums it up best. Finite existance, and infinite existance can be understood as both being forms of existance, realities. those things within that form of existance are incapable of existing as or in any other form. the definition of our universe clearly defines that such an existance encompasses everything within it. the fact that anything in an infinite universe would itself be infinite, rules out the possiblity of such a thing existing in a finite universe. the fact that i am explaining my opinion to you, is proof that we live in a finite universe. because in an infinite plane of existance, there is either nothing or everything. it is not logical that somthing could exist in such an infinite universe with any distinction from that universe itself.

Do you see?

[edit on 3-5-2006 by ioogy]

How can u say that anything in an Infinite universe must also be infinite?


What axamples of logic and hypothesis does that run on other that u just saying so? How is that come even close to being logical?

The human ability is Infinite, a human can learn indefinitly and if it were not for death we would. Just cause what u see is not infinite( and u would never be able too) does not mean it doesn't exist. Lets say taht our universe is finite.... and there is a boundary... what liese behind that boundary? Wouldn't that be called something... even if it is space? Would that not also be contained if theree is another boundary?

Don't u see? All u are proprting is a view without any evidence regarding logic or Scientific method. Almost as it was concocted by thet "Reptilian guy" who says our leader are reptiles from another planet. It is baseless and laughable if u even decided to read it... I just tend to wish people would think of other things more useful.

The only thing u convinced me of is that people will believe anything to latch onto their belief, and not to have it wronged. LIke the CHristian god who in all hid Benevolence and Mercy tends to throw alot of poepl into hEll,, Destroying the Attribute given to him. Or the fact his messages are soo convuluted and Hypocritical that I could write a better Torah or Gospel. And if tell the future why can't he change it to eliminate suffering and why is he allowed to kill at birth or produce defects? It doesn't add up that way.

That was off subject but in a sense relates to your view that when your view is scrutinized and picked apart... it falls like a house of cards.

Oh yes Numbers are real... As reall as anything else you percieve.. as they are all parts of your imagination. After u die nothing of that sort will exist . Everything we percieve is just percieved and if there was not a soul to percieve it it becomes nothing, It loses all attributes and uses and shape and meaning. For nothing can give it that meaning. That is a bit Philisophical.. U should read Yung and some Eastern philosophy. Really profound stuff.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Tony_Poremba]

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
Lets say taht our universe is finite.... and there is a boundary... what liese behind that boundary? Wouldn't that be called something... even if it is space? Would that not also be contained if theree is another boundary?

What if there is nothing beyond that boundary? What if there isn't even space? As human-beings, that is impossible for us to conceptualize. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be.

Maybe the Universe IS infinite... maybe it goes on forever and we as human beings just can't conceptualize it. There are examples in math, like you said in an earlier post. What about the simple geometric concept of the "ray"? A line that starts at one point and goes on forever.... at least within this Universe.

It could also be that the Universe has a boundary and there is either something or nothing, not even space, on the other side. But if that was the end of the Universe, by definition there could not be a "inside" and an "outside" to the universe. So there could be no "space" or anything else on the other side... that is a paradox, no?
But paradoxes can exist in nature, at least according to our math. The reverse paradox of a Universe-boundary is an infinite paradox, which is at least theoritically possible in geometry (a ray) which directly applies to our 3-D universe.

I don't personally have the knowedge of physics that some of you guys might have, but I refuse to let myself even come to an opinion on the matter. Infinite or not. Each side carries with it some sort of presumed paradoxical quality. But ONE of them has to be true so one of the paradoxes has to be true. That means paradoxes CAN happen in our Universe which, in turn means, that EITHER models is possible.



[edit on 3-5-2006 by firebat]

posted by Enkidu

posted by Tony_Poremba: “. . everything is based upon cause and effect . . there cannot be an cause that bears no effect without a previous cause setting it in motion . . ad infinitum. [Edited by Don W]

That particular assumption is based on the completely unproven notion of linear, single-direction time. When you go macro-cosmic or micro-cosmic, the standard notions of linear time don't necessarily apply. That's old, mechanical Newtonian thinking. It's quite possible for there to be an effect and then a cause way on down the line somewhere, or no cause at all. Energy moving in various forms through a variety of potentialities. Our brains have a hard time understanding it, though. Once you give up the assumption of linear time, the answers start to come a lot easier. [Edited by Don W]

When I discovered that man had invented god and not the other way round, it made theorizing about this remarkable and extremely beautiful universe much easer. When Hubble noticed the Universe was expanding in all directions, that opened the door to modern astro-physics. Going backwards we have - well, those who do this sort of stuff - fixed the time for the Big Bang at 13.4 billion years ago.

I’m constantly reminded that ‘Bang’ in this context is not an explosion as in the atom bomb or a stick of dynamite. It means a fast expansion. Very very fast. This expansion produced a shock wave which traveled in front of the matter in the singularity, so that space was “created” ahead of the matter, into which space the matter following-on could ultimately expand. To produce the Universe we can view today. Aside: Sir Fred Hoyle opposed the original singularity theory and countered with his own ‘steady state’ universe theory. In his writings explaining his theory, he casually labeled the singularity theory as like a ‘Big Bang’ and it stuck. Almost as soon as his own theory was published, he “saw the light” and abandoned it and accepted the singularity theory.

Does the expansion of space continue? I have not read about that. My last input on this topic was that the rate of expansion of visible matter is increasing. So does that imply the Universe is infinitely large? No, in my opinion. It only requires that space be somewhat larger than the visible universe.

Beyond the “edge” of space, there is Nothing! Now for me that is as hard to grasp as infinity. Nothingness.

So is the Universe open or closed? Frankly, what I have read leads me to say the Universe is open. If the Universe is closed, we would have eliminated the god concept as a possible explanation altogether. It is just an INFINITE cycle. As in Hinduism. If it is open, as I have said, then we are indeed singular!


[edit on 5/3/2006 by donwhite]

I believe that the Infinite is a concept that no one truly understands except God, if there is a God.

Tony you said :

Also another concept is fairly simple. In all deductable logic every space must contain a space. And that space must conatain a space. For example IF our universe is finite and is contained.. what conatains it? ANd Would whatever conatained our universe also contain a space?

I ask, how can you count space ? And if you can't count space, how can you describe what is contained in it ? And therefore, how can you take it to be an example of the infinite ? Would it not be an example of zero rather than infinity ? Therefore, space is irrelevant. You also talked about what our Universe is contained in. But why are you giving the Universe a wall or boundary ? isnt universal expansion about galaxies spreading apart ( mass spreading apart ) ?

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
No i am just not writing anything that is goign to be graded so I just type.

You're not going to be graded. You're going to be read! By people who don't know you!

Don't you have enough respect for yourself and your readers to want to make yourself clear? If you don't, why should I waste my time on you? What you have to say seems as if it might be interesting, but I can't possibly tell for certain because I can't make head or tail of your writing.

If the writing is this muddled, most people will assume the writer is muddled too.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Astyanax]

posted by ioogy: “It's interesting to see that almost everyone who tries to attack and explain ideas such as infinitum, tries to do so with an intellect that simply isn't made to understand anything it can't deduce, break down, categorize, and in all reality, make finite. [Edited by Don W]

If God is omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent, then he, she or it, God, is infinite. As humans we are definitely not infinite, but instead, are finite. It follows the finite cannot know the infinite. Hence man cannot know God. I find classical Greek gods much easier to deal with, as they share all our human foibles. Both weakness and strengths.

The very notion of understanding infinitum is in itself a contradiction, in that labeling something in effect makes it finite. We as individual beings, as individual intellects prove that this "universe" in which we "live" is in fact finite, otherwise there would be no separation of anything. Proving something to exist beyond your ability to comprehend is not possible, therefore proving something exists beyond the "universe" (which is defined as "the totality of all things that exist") is in fact impossible.

We humans want to label what we do not know about our Universe as due to or related to the concept called “infinite.” Then, as our knowledge and theories expand, that which was once “infinite” has become to some extent, knowable and therefore, finite. A convention.

[edit on 5/3/2006 by donwhite]

God, Time and the Universe are infinite and therefore perfect. Given infinite time man shall never create anything perfect.

ermmm...

Somebody say my name?

If we are talking about such an abstract concept--why not bring Philosophy into the mix?

There is so much discussion on "Causuality". Ever heard of the boiling water example? Say you boil a pot of water..yesterday. Is it exactly the case that water HAS to boil, in the same conditions, the next day? No. The law of Causality is dependent on the concept that what's happaned before will happen again. Granted, the fundamental constants that exist in our Universe have remained the same for a while now (Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear, Electromagnetic, Gravity) but why cant they change? We humans rely so heavily on "memory" and "expierience"....but "Space" (and by that i mean the overall greater, platonic concept of the "Universe") is defined through human reason.

Ultimately..isnt it beyond human reason? So these concepts of "Infinite" or its antithesis, is in the end, meaningless. So is lanuguage. Call me an existentialist...

Call me stupid but i have a small question.

Ok so let's say the universe expands. Well if everything in that universe is contained then doesn't the space containing our universe have to expand? And if that expands then isn't more space being created? Or is it just stretching? If this happens then surely it means it can expand to infinity and so even though the universe is contained it is still infinite as it expands to create more space for the expanding spaces. That way there is always more and so always infinity.

On the other hands lets say that the universe will eventually contract. Well if it contracts and is contained then everything else containing would crunch in on it. Now if it all contracts back in then all the space connected to it must contract back, but once it's all contracted then surely by what you are saying there is always something containing the contraction. Wouldn't this mean it would contract forever and this would again mean you have infinity in the form of an infinite contraction?

So either way you have infinity? On the other hand i am truly stupid so i am probably missing something.

More importantly is the question of the term expansion. Scientist say the universe is expanding.. some say it is in fact collapsing.. due to the forces of gravity that the matter exerts on itself. However what is an expansion if there was and isn't a set boundary that the universe was conatained within originallly? That is a baseless notion also, as if a thought , object or system cannot be said to be "expanding " without first knowing the boundaries from which it has to exapnd.


As for my typing.. Obviously he knew what words to correct and most were typos which were speled correctly elsewhere in my reply. As long as the idea comes across I could care less.


As far as GOd being in align with this conversation. God himself.. as known throughout ISlam, Christianity and Judaism... it doesn't come together. There may be a God or gods howver the ideaology and concepts of those gods fall face first under scrutiny.

As far as "space" being unconceivable... here is a precise definition for u.

Space= Any volume of area that can or has the potential to contain any variant of manifestation including energy , matter and perception no matter how microscopic and/or macroscopic.

Like I said... if there were such a thing as nothingness any form of matter contained within it or containing it would be constantly trying to fill that viod. Thta is why I believe nothingness does not exist within or current systems of physics. All matter would be trying to rush in to fill that void as fast as it could.. causing total chaos and basically making it impossible for any form of order to form....
Unless there is a barrier. Some force conataining the matter, which would also consist of space and volume as it would envelope space and volume...


As for MR Harte... Do you know the name of the set which contains all other sets? Who said there were sets? What about a set being contained by a single volume? My Axiom does follow. As what you said to be hypocritical are actually the same statemnets with a couple words added.
All spaces must contain a space and must be contained by more space.
THat is the arguement for multi verse and or boundary theorists. And still there is not 1 example that shows this presumption false. A feeble attempt to pick apart words is all I sense from that.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Tony_Poremba]

Actually Imaginaryreality ... most scientist in fact believe in the infinite divisabilty of matter and energy. With regards to Eastern thought there are arguments against and for what is called the partless particle. I don't know too much on it but it basically states that no particle can be without have parts to cause its manifestaition. LIke an atome of a nucleus and it consiting of sub atomic and smaller particles as nuetrinos. As everything that is caused must have another reliant factor to manifest there can be no" single part" as it must be caused and created from other parts in order to project a reaction as all things are not static and are subject to change.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Tony_Poremba]

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
Actually Imaginaryreality ... most scientist in fact believe in the infinite divisabilty of matter and energy. With regards to Eastern thought there are arguments against and for what is called the partless particle. I don't know too much on it but it basically states that no particle can be without have parts to cause its manifestaition. LIke an atome of a nucleus and it consiting of sub atomic and smaller particles as nuetrinos. As everything that is caused must have another reliant factor to manifest there can be no" single part" as it must be caused and created from other parts in order to project a reaction as all things are not static and are subject to change.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Tony_Poremba]

I don't believe this is the case. Most scientists now accept that the electron is most likely the smallest thing. That is meant to be made of energy and that is the purest/smallest thing you will get. Of course it's a little early to say that absolutely and make the same mistake they did with the atom but it seems to be correct.

Did i say that there must be a single part? I can't find anywhere in my earlier post that said there must be one single part of anything.

As for the universe expanding, well everything is heading away from everything else, we know this as fact from observation. Now it seems logical that the universe is expanding, the arguement is still be discussed about the fate of the universe. Infinite expansion vs contraction and a big bang.

Im sorry for having to back track so far, but Tony, what exactly is your definition of scientific method? to my knowledge, it can be described as the accumulation of presumed facts based on the observance of specific events that have known or predictable input values. anything more than that, and you get into realms of mathematics, philosophies, theologies and so on. however, on such physically unprovable topics as infinity (by physically i mean the plane of existance that human beings drive cars around in), philisophical and religious beliefs hold just as much "scientific" base as any other method used to deduce factual evidence. so i'm just letting you know (whether you believe me or not), you will never be able to prove that infinity exists in a finite universe. all it takes to accept it, is a little selflessness, somthing hard to find among "scientists" and people who think they know somthing these days.