0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My contention is that infinity cannot be measured in units of anything, and eternity cannot be measured in units of time. At risk of being accused of repetition, I would say: infinity is not a very big number, in fact it is not a number at all, and eternity is not a very long time, it is not time at all. That’s probably as close as I can get to answering your question.

I assume time, as we perceive it, had a beginning.

How about an infinite time and dimension that is on the equivalent of a mobius strip. Continuous, joined up and unbounded. You would never get back to the same point even though it is connected.

I must be missing some deeper point here...You seem to be just saying... you can't measure the extent of infinity and you can't measure a total duration period for eternity

Observers, do they need a consciousness, and what defines a consciousness?

A arrow?

If I assumed the universe to be a representation of a quantum computer Which isn't that far from the idea of multiple universes created as a wave function breaks down, also assuming that this 'universe' contains it all. Would a observer need to be 'locked' (to be conscious) under a arrow?

How do we define consciousness?

Quote from: lean beanI must be missing some deeper point here...You seem to be just saying... you can't measure the extent of infinity and you can't measure a total duration period for eternity That's exactly what I'm saying. Tell me what you feel you have missed and let's see if we can sort it out.

You seem to be just saying... you can't measure the extent of infinity and you can't measure a total duration period for eternity, is that a surprise?

is that a surprise?

I'm inclined to think that no one will admit to being surprised.

I'm only surprised (as I think lean bean was) that you said it at all...

Is someone going to say: there are countable infinities; if you can count them, you can measure them?

Not exactly

Quote from: JeffreyH How about an infinite time and dimension that is on the equivalent of a mobius strip. Continuous, joined up and unbounded. You would never get back to the same point even though it is connected.With a mobius strip, as with a circle, you do come back to the same place. The time, of course, is different so you could argue that you were looking at different spacetime events each time round, but I'm a bit doubtful about the value of that. You could claim that your garden was infinite because you could keep walking round it without returning to the same spacetime event.

The point being with an infinite mobius strip you would need an infinite amount of time to get back to where you started. Whilst it would be theoretically possible in reality it would never be achieved.

... I'm interested in how these things progress and am wondering if there is a natural end to them.

Sometimes it seems as if the same old things are being discussed but the discussion remains only in the area of semantics.

What new stuff has been covered here since last week before I got sick and had to stay off the interent for a while. Thanks!

Quote from: Pmb on 24/09/2013 03:24:04... I'm interested in how these things progress and am wondering if there is a natural end to them.I suspect they go on for ever QuoteSometimes it seems as if the same old things are being discussed but the discussion remains only in the area of semantics.Agreeing the semantics is important to understanding what we're talking about.QuoteWhat new stuff has been covered here since last week before I got sick and had to stay off the interent for a while. Thanks!Not a lot. There was some talk about 'nothing' (can it physically exist if it is literally not something?), and time (what does it mean if time starts when the universe begins?) and eternity as timelessness.

Then aren't you just repeating yourself at this point?

Don't you get frustrated when it gets to where it is now?

Quote from: Pmb on 24/09/2013 15:40:38Then aren't you just repeating yourself at this point?In different ways, yes.QuoteDon't you get frustrated when it gets to where it is now?Yes, a little. On the other hand, with semantically messy subjects like this, I'm never sure I fully understand the other person's view, and they mine, so tackling it in different ways helps. It's also good thinking practice; and if it gets boring, one moves on

Quote from: Bill S on 22/09/2013 13:03:23Quote from: JeffreyH How about an infinite time and dimension that is on the equivalent of a mobius strip. Continuous, joined up and unbounded. You would never get back to the same point even though it is connected.With a mobius strip, as with a circle, you do come back to the same place. The time, of course, is different so you could argue that you were looking at different spacetime events each time round, but I'm a bit doubtful about the value of that. You could claim that your garden was infinite because you could keep walking round it without returning to the same spacetime event.The point being with an infinite mobius strip you would need an infinite amount of time to get back to where you started. Whilst it would be theoretically possible in reality it would never be achieved.

The difference and the interesting thing is that with the infinite mobius strip you have points that are opposite each other on different planes. In this scenario the two points have an interesting property. Gravitational effects experienced on one plane will have an equal and opposite effect on the other. While these can be considered to be an infinite distance apart and to all intents and purposes in a different universe. This results in a multi-dimensional spacetime concept where one universe can easily affect another. This is also one description of strings. Even if the strip were not infinite it could be expanding its spacetime.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/09/2013 17:40:54The difference and the interesting thing is that with the infinite mobius strip you have points that are opposite each other on different planes. In this scenario the two points have an interesting property. Gravitational effects experienced on one plane will have an equal and opposite effect on the other. While these can be considered to be an infinite distance apart and to all intents and purposes in a different universe. This results in a multi-dimensional spacetime concept where one universe can easily affect another. This is also one description of strings. Even if the strip were not infinite it could be expanding its spacetime.Mobius String Theory?

Just "passing through" with a quick question. What is the nature of Cantor’s “absolute infinity”?In terms of mathematical infinities, Cantor established not only that there were many infinities, but that there were infinitely many infinities. He established that there was no overarching infinity that included all other infinities. This he seems to have called “Absolute Infinity”. What this means is that he designated an “Absolute Infinity”, which he proved did not exist. Is there a paradox here?

There has to be a limit just because of the size of a finite universe, if that is what we are in.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 30/09/2013 00:03:56There has to be a limit just because of the size of a finite universe, if that is what we are in. If...

There has to be a limit just because of the size of a finite universe, if that is what we are in. There will be a physical limit past which a numeric cannot be represented as it would require more information than the physical universe can contain.

Infinity, I believe is an illusion because it really is everything and anything. For example 1 can be infinity and so can 50. I believe infinity is just the name for all the nameless numbers out there. So any number can be infinity

You can always add one to anything with a numerical value, making a bigger number, so therefore it can't be infinity.

Is adding guests to a fully occupied infinite hotel 'adding' to infinity?

... The idea of adding elements to a set CAN be performed on infinite sets without a problem, which is (part of) what's going on in Hilbert's hotel.

If Hilbert's hotel is infinite then it must contain everything within itself. Therefore all the new guests must already be in the lobby. If the number of new guests is infinite and the number of residents is infinite, then, both of these quantities being infinite and outside any numerical system they CAN be added together.

If Hilbert's hotel is infinite then it must contain everything within itself. Therefore all the new guests must already be in the lobby.

I suspect that David Hilbert had a sense of humour, and that he proposed the hotel idea just to see how many highly intelligent people would take it seriously and use it to support arguments about the physical world, in which it makes no sense at all. The only reason it appears to work is that you could never stop moving guests to higher number rooms; so you cannot actually accommodate more than the infinite number of guests you had to start with. You might argue that you would have eternity in which to perform the manoeuver, but in eternity you would already have done this an infinite number of times, and since there seems to be a distinct possibility that you cannot add to infinity, how can you perform the manoeuver again?

Or must a arrow be there, for consciousness to exist?

I doubt he meant anyone to take it seriously as something that physically exists.

I think this thread would really benefit from being split into two: