[andreasva (OP)]

Moderators - Please remove posts 251 & 259.  They are intended "to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

He's clearly having a tough time comprehending the difference between a "message" from a "thread topic" for open discussion.  And now he's attempting to digress this thread, because he simply doesn't like the topic.  He's threatened to arbitrarily re-post off topic messages, clearly out of spite at this point, and for the sole intent of digressing the thread.

He is being a troll by definition, and admission.   

I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.

[Bored chemist]

Asking you to explain what you mean is not trolling or thread hijacking.
I am asking you to comply with the forum's acceptable use policy.
"The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable."

from
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

[andreasva (OP)]

Asking you to explain what you mean is not trolling or thread hijacking.

reply 251 & 259 is not asking anything.

And this...

I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.

...is threatening more of the same

Please delete 251 & 259, and I will continue explaining, which I've done the past 261 posts.

Thank you

[Bored chemist]

reply 251 & 259 is not asking anything.

Nobody said they were.

And this...
Quote
I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.
...is threatening more of the same

I was indeed, "threatening" to ask you to explain what you meant, rather than just repeating something (which is obviously wrong)

Please delete 251 & 259

No.

I will continue explaining, which I've done the past 261 posts.

No, you have not.

[Kryptid]

What would be the point in that?

It isn't that there is a "point" to it, it's just that it would be just as valid as what you are saying. Someone can say 0%<∞<100% and have it mean the exact same thing as 0<∞<1. The number 1 can refer to a whole, but so can 100%. It's just a matter of preference on which you use.

[andreasva (OP)]

It isn't that there is a "point" to it, it's just that it would be just as valid as what you are saying. Someone can say 0%<∞<100% and have it mean the exact same thing as 0<∞<1. The number 1 can refer to a whole, but so can 100%. It's just a matter of preference on which you use.

You could I suppose, but I think it gets a little messy.  I consider 0 and 1 inverse states.  Both absolute, and both finite.  Equal and opposite.  They aren't physically real states either, only potential states.  0, obviously, does not exist.  It's absolute 0 more or less.  But I take a little further into full dimensional collapse of the entire universe to non existence. 1 is more like unwoven space-time.  I pulled the threads of time out of the fabric of space.  They're frozen states that exist in the potential of infinity.  0 and 1 lack the element of time.  0 also lacks space. 

Infinity is the woven fabric of space-time.  Space changes with time, because they are bound or woven.  It's an entirely present state, never aging, never tiring, repeating the same process over and over.  1>∞>0.  1 being the potential for something in our universe, ∞ being it's journey through life, and 0 being the end of that state. 

The universe is the highest order, and operates at 100% efficiency.  0<∞<Ι1Ι

I prefer 1 and 0 in the finite absolute sense.  It's cleaner. 

And understand, I'm using these values in reference to the state of the universe.  When I say 0 doesn't exist, I mean as a state of the universe.  Obviously, we're a bit more than nothing.  I assume that is implied in the context, but some people are void of anything resembling an imagination, and are completely unable to formulate an original thought unaided by google or wiki, or whatever it is they picked up through life's journey.  They may take the absence of 0 in the literal sense.  I suspect anyway. 

[Bored chemist]

0, obviously, does not exist.

Zero is the number of sisters I have.
Unlike them, it exists.

[andreasva (OP)]

What are numbers?  What is finite or *infinite?

To us, they're both concepts, but when we apply these concepts to the universe, they take on a different meaning.  It's very important to understand their meaning, precisely.

In math, a finite number is a static or fixed value, like 0 or 1.  An infinite value is marked by continual change, like pi, for example.  That's how we immediately differentiate finite from infinite numerically and mathematically in the real world.  Finite is the absence of change in a value mathematically.  Infinite is the constancy of change in a value mathematically.  Whether you're counting or calculating, continual change defines infinity, and the absence of change in value defines finite.

When I look at the classic or accepted mathematical definition of infinity, I don't know what it has to do with how we identify it in reality.  It's defined as a number, greater than any number that can ever be reached.  Some sort of imaginary number, I suppose.  I won't ever see this as the correct definition, because it's not grounded in the reality of how we differentiate finite from infinite numbers.  I don't even see the current definition as reality.  It's a contrived definition that doesn't align with the physical reality of how we differentiate finite and infinite numbers.  The current definition doesn't physically mean anything.  It's completely abstract or imaginary.  It is literally, meaningless.

One of the greatest questions asked about the universe is whether we are finite or infinite.  Understanding the true meaning of finite and infinite is crucial in making a determination of what the physical universe is, because it's no longer about numeric values.  Infinite and finite become potential states of the universe.  It's a greater meaning than just numbers.  It's what we are, and answers a significant question about our reality.  Do we leave it in the hands of an imaginary number, or base it on the physical reality we clearly understand and see with our own two eyes, change?

There's been quite a bit of controversy in the way I apply numbers to the universe, and the relevance of our physical numbering system and how that applies to the universe.  I'd like to set the record straight on this point. 

Technically, we only need two finite integers to perform all of our math.  0 and 1.  Sure, we'd lose a lot of short cuts, like squaring or cubing in a formula, but technically, all math can be performed within the space of 0 to 1.  Obviously wouldn't be a pleasant process.  Not something we would want to do, but everything we need is there.  We could literally replace our entire numbering concept with the decimals that lie between 0 and 1.   

Math is the art of reducing variables.  The universe is obviously following mathematics.  The universe obviously doesn't need math, because it is simply behaving in a manner consistent with our mathematics.  The universe also doesn't need our numbering system, because it can do everything it does within the space of 0 to 1, without performing a single calculation.  It just behaves that way, naturally.   

As I said, math is the art of reducing variables.  There's one thing you may or may not have noticed above.  Math requires two finite integers, minimum.  0 and 1.  So, when applying number values to the universe, 0 and 1 become a requirement, because without them, our universe couldn't behave mathematically.   

Looking at 0, it's pretty easy to apply to the universe as a potential state.  0 is the absence of everything, including physical dimension.  0 is also considered a natural finite and absolute value.  It's also a state that lacks both space and time.  The closest thing we have to a definition of 0 in physics is absolute 0.  We see this as theoretically impossible.  I would have to agree, seeing as we're here.  No, the universe is not in a 0 state.  The potential is there. 

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the above paragraph.  To me, the significance of being able to apply 0 to the universe is very important in our understanding, because it is potentially a physical reality.  The entire universe could be defined as 0, if it could ever reach that state.  One finite and absolute value could be an entire definition for the universe.  That's as real as it gets numerically and mathematically.  A null state of the universe defined by a finite and absolute number value of 0.

To me, I see it as the first indication as to why the universe is following mathematics.  But, as we see from above, we also need to close the loop, because math requires a second finite integer, bare minimum.  0 needs a comparison value to have any meaning. 0 needs a 1.

I will continue this portion of the discussion later, and leave it stet for now.  You gotta eat! 

*Please keep in mind, my definition of infinity is different from Googles definition, and this may confuse some people who lack the ability to think logically or independently, or are devoid of any critical thought.  My definition is pretty straight forward.  Infinite=constancy of change.  Where this could differ significantly is things like pi.  Anyone holding fast to the old definition set in the year 1650, would not consider pi infinite.  They may even go through the bother of posting a message, pointing out that my definition is wrong, because 4 is greater than pi.  Even more bizarre, they may even suggest I stop posting, because apparently, Google holds the key to the universe.  Not sure.  To be clear, my definition correctly encompasses all non resolvable's under the blanket of infinity, as they would take an infinite amount of time to resolve, while the value of the whole would be changing continuously over that time span.  I tossed out the imaginary, and inserted reality.  Change is hard for some people, even in 2019 apparently.           

[Bored chemist]

An infinite value is marked by continual change, like pi, for example

Pi is not infinite.
It is not a number greater than any countable number because 4 is a countable number and pi is not greater than 4.

You really should stop posting stuff that's plainly wrong.

[Kryptid]

Pi is not infinite.

It's not even infinite according to his own definition, because it isn't continually changing. The value of pi is very much a fixed value. It's the same now as it was yesterday.

[andreasva (OP)]

It's not even infinite according to his own definition, because it isn't continually changing. The value of pi is very much a fixed value. It's the same now as it was yesterday.

That's the tricky thing about space-time.  No two moments are the same.  I'm willing to bet if you started calculating right now, you'd notice the decimal changing the longer you tried to resolve it.  You can probably predict that change out to about 2.7 trillion decimal places.  I think that's as far as they've gotten currently.  I wonder where you'd be if you started on the problem yesterday...

[Kryptid]

That's the tricky thing about space-time.  No two moments are the same.  I'm willing to bet if you started calculating right now, you'd notice the decimal changing the longer you tried to resolve it.  You can probably predict that change out to about 2.7 trillion decimal places.  I think that's as far as they've gotten currently.  I wonder where you'd be if you started on the problem yesterday...

The fourth digit in pi is 1. That's not going to change regardless of when you started the calculation. The same is true for all of the other digits too.

[andreasva (OP)]

The fourth digit in pi is 1. That's not going to change regardless of when you started the calculation. The same is true for all of the other digits too.

So what you're saying is that all numbers are finite?  Are we back to that again?  So infinity=finite?

If we are, I fully agree with you.  infinity=constancy of change. Infinity is not "a number".

[Kryptid]

So what you're saying is that all numbers are finite?

According to your definition they would be, because all numbers are unchanging. According to the real definition, no.

infinity=constancy of change, not "a number"

Which means that pi is not "andreasva-infinite" because it isn't constantly changing. If I'm calculating pi, then I'm the one who's doing the changing because I can only focus on one digit of pi at a time. Pi itself couldn't care less what I'm doing, though. It is what it is and is unaffected by time.

[andreasva (OP)]

then I'm the one who's doing the changing

Now you're getting it!  Numbers only exist in our minds as a tool for understanding.

Finite=absence of change
Infinite=constancy of change

It would take an infinite amount of time to resolve pi.  That's what makes it infinite.  When you see the value continually changing without a resolution, you know it's infinite.  The number is irrelevant, but the concept of numbers can be applied to many things, so the resolution means something different depending on the application. 

The universe is either finite, or infinite.  Can't be both.  Space-time guarantees the constancy of change.  Every moment is different.

Finite and infinite have a greater meaning than numbers.     

[Bogie_smiles]

Finite=absence of change
Infinite=constancy of change

The universe may very well be infinite, so your claim doesn't seem to be under very heavy opposition. However, there are still many who believe that the universe is finite, and to them, the saying, "Finite=absence of change" must certainly seem wrong. They have a good case too, because when it comes to observations, the observable universe, our Hubble view, seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate. That is continual change in anyone's book.

[andreasva (OP)]

The universe may very well be infinite, so your claim doesn't seem to be under very heavy opposition. However, there are still many who believe that the universe is finite, and to them, the saying, "Finite=absence of change" must certainly seem wrong. They have a good case too, because when it comes to observations, the observable universe, our Hubble view, seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate. That is continual change in anyone's book.

There's a lot more to this than what I have so far.  I just can't seem to get out of this one topic.  No matter how many times I explain it, or how many different ways I explain it, it all comes back to some 400 year old definition of infinity written by a bunch of dead mathematicians.  I'm sure they were good at what they did way back when, but physics didn't really even exist at that point in time.  They didn't have the benefits of information.  They weren't doing science, they were doing math.  I've spent 35 years listening to physicists and scientists trying to explain their view.  They're all different.  Some didn't believe C was a limit of motion.  Some were off on holographic theory.  Some didn't believe in space-time.  Some believed in multiverses.  Many, and I mean a lot, don't buy the Big Bang.  They're all over the map.  Main stream just keeps regurgitating the same old same old, reinforcing theory that is more than likely just plain wrong.

My theory cuts a path right through all the conflicts, borrowing pieces.  It's a big puzzle.  We know the math is right, so the most likely place for an error is in the reasoning, and conflicts.   

I'd love to move forward, but it's like walking through mud right now.

I think the universe is way less complicated than we're making it out to be.  We're either finite, or infinite, and the only way to figure it out is with logic.  The problem is, logic requires consensus.  Do you agree with the reasoning, right? 

Think about this Bogie. What is finite to the universe?  Absolute nothing, which we can assign a value of 0.  That's the baseline for a finite universe, nothing.  And because we're following mathematics, we also need a 1, and that's it.  Math requires two opposing integers for comparison.  The common denominator for a finite universe would be the absence of time.  Ι1Ι = space without time, because change needs time.  The only thing left is infinite.  Infinity is the woven fabric of space-time, and neither 0 or 1 are present.  No 3 states can occupy the same universe at the same time.  And if we're following math, x=x.  We're infinite, always have been, and always will be.   

To me it seems so easy to arrive at the conclusion.  But then again, I've had a 10 year head start on everyone here. 

What will really cook some noodles around here is 3-dimensional motion and variable constants.  Why not though?  We can move 1 and 2 dimensions, why not all 3?   I think 3-dimensional motion is key.  That gives us a 1-dimensional direction of in and out, which is the flow of time.  We flow inwards towards 0 from 1.  Thermodynamics starts to play a big roll in defining the universe at that point.  We shed massless energy, which flows out, mass energy flows in.  It's a big continuous loop, with the universe running at 100% efficiency.  It will never stop, and never age.  Olber's heat death is the perfect solution for an infinite universe.  All hot massless energy goes out.  Cold mass energy goes in.

Anyway, I haven't even gotten to all of that yet, and I'm not sure I want to jump in with both feet yet.  I want to make sure this, 0<∞<Ι1Ι, is well defined. 

A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer.  We're caught in an unresolvable math problem, and the answer is infinity.   

[Kryptid]

It would take an infinite amount of time to resolve pi.  That's what makes it infinite.

Pi would still have the value that it does whether we were trying to resolve it or not. The circumference of a perfect circle divided by its diameter would still be pi even if humans did not exist. It would have a fixed, unchanging value whether humans existed to calculate it or not. That means nothing about pi is changing and therefore cannot be andreasva-infinite.

When you see the value continually changing...

Then you're not talking about pi, because it doesn't continually change.

A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer.

1/0 has no answer. No number of zeroes added together equals one, not even an infinite number of them.

[andreasva (OP)]

Then you're not talking about pi, because it doesn't continually change.

Sure it does, while you're calculating.  Would still take an infinite amount of time to calculate it, and each decimal would keep changing during the calculation. 

1/0 has no answer. No number of zeroes added together equals one, not even an infinite number of them.

It's undefined.  I didn't intend it for a debate topic. 

You are too hung on numbers.  They don't mean anything to universe, only to us.  The universe is simply following math, naturally.

[andreasva (OP)]

Pi would still have the value that it does whether we were trying to resolve it or not.

You're thinking too much like a human.  The universe doesn't understand pi, it lives it.  Every single time it runs across a situation that results in pi, it does it.  What pi tells me is that volume is in a constant state of change, because pi doesn't resolve.  The universe doesn't have the luxury of rounding like we do.  It just keeps trying to finish the problem, naturally. 

We have to round off to use pi, and force it to a finite value.  Pi is used everywhere in the universe, because basically, everything is built on spherical shapes, and curves. 

You keep focusing on numbers as we understand them, but the universe is only behaving in a manner consistent with mathematics.  It doesn't know numbers, it just does its thing.

I don't know why you keep doing that Kryptid.  Numbers do not matter to the universe, only us.  Our existence is more of a virtual experience.  We remember things.  The universe has no real memory, because it is always in the present.  Every moment is new, and it can't look backward or forward.  We have memory, and can look backward and predict forward.

When I say infinity isn't a number, it's because infinity is a physical reality, and numbers are simply a concept in our minds.  To hold fast to that stupid Google definition posted on this thread is borderline insanity in my view.  Infinity is real, numbers are not.     

Numbers are a tool for us, nothing more.  How we apply them is what matters.  We can assign the concept of a numeric value to a state, but numbers do not define that state.  The state is what it is.