[andreasva (OP)]

Can you describe your revelation, and explain the circumstances of it

I can't tell if you're being demeaning, or sincere, but I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It was April of 2008.  And it was certainly no revelation.  It was 25 years of pondering infinity and chat forums.  I finally flipped around the universe, and it all became clear.  I saw it.  It was a Eureka moment.  You're never absolutely sure you're right though, so I've kept pondering the mechanics, just to make sure. Tweaking things, adjusting, etc.  It all fits now.   

I can only do this in short bursts.  It's somewhat exhausting trying to present a new idea.  The first one through the fence always gets a little bloodied.  Change is bad.

I'm right Bogie_smiles, and I know it.  It looks weird, I know, but it's right.  Not all of it probably, but the big stuff I'm pretty confident about.  Haven't even got past 0, Ι1Ι, and ∞ yet.  Not sure when I'll move past this part.  Very slow going.  I understand.  I've been thinking about it for 10 solid years, and new people have 10 minutes invested.  They're right to be skeptical. 

[andreasva (OP)]

It sounds like you are saying that 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is equal to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 universes. That would make 1 hot dog = 1 universe.

Nope, not even close to what I'm saying. 

I just don't see any point in debating you anymore.

[Kryptid]

Nope, not even close to what I'm saying. 

Then why say anything about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs at all?

[andreasva (OP)]

Nope, not even close to what I'm saying. 

Then why say anything about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs at all?

Man you're hard headed.

The universe is ∞.

Remove the universe as we understand it, and you're left with a singular finite void of dimension.

Ι1Ι is the maximum magnitude of physical dimension, sans ∞.  It is a finite value.

Remove dimension and you're left with nothing, which is also a finite value.

0 is the absence of dimension, and by default the absence of ∞.  It is a finite value

That hotdog is a fraction of the whole (.00001 etc), but it is also a part of infinity.  That hot dog cannot be greater than itself.

These are the only 3 true real values in the universe.

0 < ∞ < Ι1Ι

[Kryptid]

That hot dog cannot be greater than itself.

Nor can the Universe.

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is <∞.

I still want to know what you meant by this. Why are you mentioning such a tiny fraction of a hot dog?

[andreasva (OP)]

Nor can the Universe.

If the whole basis of your argument is that I'm wrong, because that's what others have taught you, then we all may as well go back to church and call it a day. 

You know exactly what I'm saying Kryptid.

Something different is always going to look different. 

If you believe this:

 "The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark."

Then why are you debating me?  To boost your own ego maybe?

All that Olber proved was that his interpretation of an infinite universe doesn't work. That doesn't prove anything.  There's a lot of different ways to interpret an infinite universe, not just his way.  And if this is what science is basing their conclusions on, then they're simply confirming the same thing as Olber did.  This proved nothing. 

Obviously, our universe is not static. 

Obviously, all the matter in the universe is not infinitely old.

Obviously, there is not an infinite number of stars.

Obviously, the universe is physically not infinitely large in a static manner.

So what? We ruled out one possible version of an infinite universe.  Woohoo!  Great! 

Common sense tells us the universe is infinite, so lets keep going and find a version that does work. 

Science gave up on infinity, and have spent the past 100 years or so trying to prove a finite universe will work.  And guess what:  Mond, Many Worlds, Unikef, String Theory, Big Bang, Zero-Point, Pilot Wave, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....   

How's that working out for us?

[Bored chemist]

Infinity is not a defined state,

Guess again.
infinity
/ɪnˈfɪnɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state or quality of being infinite.
"the infinity of space"
synonyms:   endlessness, infinitude, infiniteness, boundlessness, limitlessness, unlimitedness, extensiveness, vastness, immensity; infinite distance
"she stared out into the infinity of space"
2.
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
"the transmission approaches 100% as the frequency tends to infinity"

[andreasva (OP)]

    Infinity is not a defined state,

Guess again.

Text book definitions don't mean anything where infinity is concerned, as applied to a state of the universe.

Nobody knows what it means.  Not you, and definitely not Olber.  That was his interpretation of an infinite universe, and that's it.  And I agree, if that's what an infinite universe looked like, it doesn't work.

I know you're a really smart guy Bored Chemist. 

You know as well as I do that infinity can only be defined through human reason.  To convert that interpretation to a hard mathematical definition is questionable at best.  We're talking about applying that concept to the universe and our reality, not numbers in our base 10 numbering system, which is also a concept. 

When you break down the universe, everything is a fraction of the whole, that sits between 0 and Ι1Ι.  Those are the only two real numbers that define the universe.  Infinity is everything in between.

It is the different between absolute nothingness, and absolute somethingness.     

What an infinite universe looks like is totally up for grabs.

Infinity is pass through knowledge, like god.   

If you choose to believe Webster has the answer, than there's probably not much point in you reading any further.

I do appreciate your input, sincerely. 

However, I respectfully reject the notion we converted human reasoning adequately to mathematical logic.   

[Bored chemist]

You know as well as I do that infinity can only be defined through human reason.

No I don't.
I recognise that the people of the planet Zog might also do it too.

When you break down the universe, everything is a fraction of the whole, that sits between 0 and Ι1Ι.

Actually, with an infinite  whole, fractions don't mean much.
Half of infinity is still infinity.

  Those are the only two real numbers that define the universe.  Infinity is everything in between.

No.

There are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1.
That is not the same as saying that infinity is in that range.
It is clearly bigger.

Infinity is pass through knowledge, like god.   

Two important things about God.
First, the word gets a capital letter in English.
Secondly, the word doesn't feature in science. If you start using it, you won't get taken seriously.

[andreasva (OP)]

There are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1.
That is not the same as saying that infinity is in that range.
It is clearly bigger.

Not so clearly bigger, but possibly getting bigger infinitely, and conversely, smaller. 

Have we solved pi yet?

Infinite is not finite.  And I know it sounds blatantly obvious, but think about it in the context of the universe. 

All that's needed to fulfill an infinite state, is the constancy of change. 

[andreasva (OP)]

Actually, with an infinite  whole,

Back to Olbers interpretation. 

A whole is finite, not infinite. 

[andreasva (OP)]

Bored Chemist ---

Infinity was never about the quantity of decimals that spew out in an unsolvable equation, it's the fact that every decimal changes the value of the whole you're calculating. 

Infinity = constant change. 

Mathematically, that's exactly what we see.  So when someone says the universe is infinite and static, they are mixing apples and oranges.  That's why steady state didn't work.  They assumed a finite infinity. 

How big the universe is, is irrelevant.  It is simply bigger than it was a moment ago.  And a moment ago, it was smaller than it is now.  Size does not mean anything.  We are not infinitely large, but we're not finite either.  There is no condition that can be described as infinitely big in the static sense. 

That's the misconception about infinity. 

[Kryptid]

If the whole basis of your argument is that I'm wrong, because that's what others have taught you, then we all may as well go back to church and call it a day.

No, you're wrong because math doesn't work the way you say it does.

Then why are you debating me?  To boost your own ego maybe?

Because you claim that one is greater than infinity when it isn't.

Common sense tells us the universe is infinite, so lets keep going and find a version that does work. 

Once upon a time, common sense told us that the Earth was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth.

Text book definitions don't mean anything where infinity is concerned, as applied to a state of the universe.

Then that means you had to change the definition of infinity in order to make your idea work. When you can change definitions, you can "prove" anything.

Nobody knows what it means.

You realize that "nobody" must include you too, right?

All that's needed to fulfill an infinite state, is the constancy of change. 

According to what definition (other than the one you invented)?

Size does not mean anything.  We are not infinitely large, but we're not finite either.

Then what aspect of the Universe are you claiming is infinite?

[andreasva (OP)]

No, you're wrong because math doesn't work the way you say it does.

That's an absurd accusation.  I never changed mathematics.  I changed the definition of infinity, which is defined logically, and based solely on human reasoning.   

I claim this definition:

-----
2.
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
-----

Inadequately defines infinity.  It is wrong.

Right here is the glaring flaw in the reasoning.  "a number".  Numbers are finite.  We're back to Olber.

Infinity is incalculable, and cannot be described in terms of assigning numeric values, countable or otherwise.

Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change

Tell me what math problem I destroyed there.

1+1=2

Because you claim that one is greater than infinity when it isn't.

No, I claimed the absence of finite is infinite.  You just can't seem to understand it, no matter how many times or different ways I explain it to you.

Once upon a time, common sense told us that the Earth was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth.

Yes, ironic.

Then that means you had to change the definition of infinity in order to make your idea work. When you can change definitions, you can "prove" anything.

I changed the definition of infinity because it is wrong.

You realize that "nobody" must include you too, right?

Kind of the point of creating a theory, isn't it?

According to what definition (other than the one you invented)?

Have you solved pi yet?

Then what aspect of the Universe are you claiming is infinite?

The entire universe in which we exist.

[Kryptid]

I changed the definition of infinity,

Thank you for finally admitting this.

No, I claimed the absence of finite is infinite.

You continually say |1| > ∞ > 0. So yes, you are saying that 1 is greater than infinity (unless you've conveniently changed the definition of > symbol as well).

The entire universe in which we exist.

So it's infinitely large, infinitely old, has an infinite mass, infinite charge, etc?

Have you solved pi yet?

Pi has an infinite number of digits in accordance with the traditional definition of infinity.

I changed the definition of infinity because it is wrong.

Then you need to come up with a new word to describe what you are talking about instead of using a word that already has a commonly-accepted definition.

Not a single person can say with any certainty, ∞>1, or ∞>0.

I just realized that you have contradicted yourself again earlier. In the above quote, you say that infinity being greater than zero is not certain. Yet you say the following in many other posts:

0<∞<Ι1Ι

Which you claim as part of your proof:

Or, we could just accept that the universe is infinite as we proved mathematically. 

How can you say claim that ∞ > 0 is not certain in one post and then use ∞ > 0 as a form of proof in another post?

[andreasva (OP)]

You continually say |1| > ∞ > 0. So yes, you are saying that 1 is greater than infinity (unless you've conveniently changed the definition of > symbol as well).

If only physical dimension was the state of the universe, its finite value could be defined as Ι1Ι. 

I've said this many many times, and many many different ways. 

The bottom line is, if the universe reached a finite state consisting only of dimension, change would cease, so that absolute finite state is greater than infinity.  This is inversely equivalent to 0, where change ceases. 

I stand by my reasoning. 

0<∞<Ι1Ι

[andreasva (OP)]

Quote from: andreasva on Today at 00:35:53

    Not a single person can say with any certainty, ∞>1, or ∞>0.


I just realized that you have contradicted yourself again earlier. In the above quote, you say that infinity being greater than zero is not certain. Yet you say the following in many other posts:

I have to be fair.  No, I cannot prove anything to anyone else.  It's infinity.

It was not a contradiction, it was an admission. 

Reasoning the problem logically is the only solution.  I trust my own judgement.

That does not change my stance.

I know it's right. 

[andreasva (OP)]

Then you need to come up with a new word to describe what you are talking about instead of using a word that already has a commonly-accepted definition.

Usually, when things stand in error, we correct the underlying problem.  No need to alter the verbiage, considering it's currently wrong and could confuse people. 

[andreasva (OP)]

I think this perfectly sums up all 117 posts.

Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change

If the universe lacked constancy of change, it would be finite.  Seeing as constancy of change is the observed natural order of the universe, it cannot be considered finite, and therefore, must be considered infinite.   

[Kryptid]

Seeing as constancy of change is the observed natural order of the universe, it cannot be considered finite, and therefore, must be considered infinite.   

Does that make a lava lamp infinite as well?