[andreasva (OP)]

The universe could care less about 2,

The universe doesn't care about anything (and, btw, the phrase is "couldn't care less"- think about it).
However, in this universe, we have, for example, planets in reasonably stable orbits.
That doesn't work unless the force of gravity falls with distance in inverse proportion to that distance raised to the power 2.
No other number works.
So, the universe is somewhere where 2 is really important.

Facts like that get in the way of your absurd idea that only 1 matters.

I never said numbers weren't important to us in understanding the universe, but as far as the universe goes, not so much.  Numbers are a tool, as I've said many times, but numbers do not constitute reality.

Still doesn't change the fact that this:

0<∞<1 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.

or logically this

(0;1) is an infinite set

Not that I think redundant sets are necessary to understand  the universe. 

[andreasva (OP)]

So I'll explain another way.

As I've said, I think the universe is situated between 0 and Ι1Ι, without rehashing everything.

Basically, 0<∞<Ι1Ι

We developed a numbering system, but it really just complicated our understanding of the underlying reality.  All these infinite sets are just redundant logic.

This is what the universe actually represents numerically, but it makes it very difficult to use decimals for math.
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0

So, we shifted the decimal place to the right, and called it our base 10 numbering system
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Then we add more decimals between the numbers.
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0

And shift them to the right again
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

And obviously we can keep doing this over and over again and again, expanding the resolution of the original set, but they're just subsets of the master set in the underlying reality.

Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set.  There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities.  And I've always found that notion nonsense my entire life.  infinity is infinity, not infinity 2, and 3, etc.  I find the notion of infinite finite sets of infinity insanity, not that breaking things into sets is inherently wrong.  On the contrary, whatever helps us understand the whole is best for us, but we've lost site of the original whole in the process, and think our counting system means something to the universe.

We exist as parts of the whole, and the parts are less than the whole. 

As I've repeatedly suggested, there are only 2 possible states for a universe, finite or infinite.  0 and Ι1Ι are the only natural finite values available to the universe, and we aren't either.  0 is the absence of space and time, and Ι1Ι is the absence of time, and infinity is the woven fabric of space-time, which is an infinitely variable state. 

Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change

Everything else we do mathematically is a man made invention to better understand the underlying reality, which is:

0<∞<Ι1Ι

We are the values which exist between the finite values of 0 and Ι1Ι.

Everything we added to the numbers are superfluous data, which only confuses the underlying reality.  There is only 1 master infinite number set in nature.  We made copies of the original to increase the resolution and better understand the details of the universe. 

[Bored chemist]

(0;1) is an infinite set

A set with two elements is very clearly finite.

This is what the universe actually represents numerically,

That statement does not mean anything.
The universe doesn't "represent" anything; it just is..

Incidentally, it seems to have missed your notice that almost all calculations are not done in base 10, but in base two.

Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set.  There's only one infinity,

That is exactly what Cantor showed to be false.

0 and Ι1Ι are the only natural finite values available

I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2
It only takes a moment's thought to see that it also uses pi. etc.

There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities.  And I've always found that notion nonsense my entire life. 

Just because you are not equipped to understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change

That's still obviously wrong because a lava lamp is finite.


Why do you keep posting the same stuff even though it has been shown to be wrong?
Are you some sort of troll, or do you just not understand that you are not really cleverer that all mathematicians in history?

[andreasva (OP)]

That's still obviously wrong because a lava lamp is finite.

A lava lamp is only finite through a segment of time from our perspective.  Before it existed, it was something else, and after it breaks, it will become something else. 

Energy cannot be created not destroyed, just transformed into something else.  Clearly understood in physics.  And it's also clearly understood that change is constant throughout the entire universe, mathematically, and by direct observation. 

It's manufacture value can be considered Ι1Ι, and it's expiration value 0.  Those are the only two finite moments in the life of a lava lamp.  Everything in between is infinite, because infinity=constancy of change. 

Finite means finite.  All the energy that makes up that lava lamp is not finite.  It is in a constant state of change from the moment it is manufactured.   

A set with two elements is very clearly finite.

No, not so clearly finite.  0 and Ι1Ι is theoretically impossible, so the potential that remains between them is infinite. 

That is exactly what Cantor showed to be false.

Cantor didn't prove anything about the universe.  He only proved there was an infinite number of sets in a man made numbering system.  As I've said, we can repeat 10 letters of the alphabet an infinite number of times with unique grunts between each cycle.  So what? 

There is only 1 infinity, and we're in it. 

I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2

Which we invented as a tool to understand the universe.  So what?  I never said it was a bad tool.  Quite the opposite actually.  The universe isn't made of numbers, it's made of energy, which behaves predictably for the most part.   

Just because you are not equipped to understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.

I understand it, I just don't agree with it.  Big difference.  That you can't understand this is the puzzle.   

Why do you keep posting the same stuff even though it has been shown to be wrong?

Nothing you've said indicates anything of the sort.  It is only your opinion. 

Are you some sort of troll

That's absurd.  You can't troll your own thread, but you can certainly have trolls frequent your own thread, pretending to be the supreme moderator of all knowledge. 

[Bored chemist]

Cantor didn't prove anything about the universe...

There is only 1 infinity, and we're in it. 

Cantor proved that there's more than 1 infinity- and one is bigger than another.

Nothing you've said indicates anything of the sort. 

Yes it does, but you don't understand it.

It is only your opinion. 

No, it's an opinion shared by others- which makes it one up on your opinion.

You can't troll your own thread,

No, but it's possible to start a thread just to troll the site.
Is that what you are doing?

[andreasva (OP)]

Cantor proved that there's more than 1 infinity- and one is bigger than another.

Even more ridiculous.  Now we have various sized finite infinities?  I thought infinity was "a number" greater than any countable number, and it was boundless?  So the smaller finite infinite sets don't really qualify as infinite, because they aren't greater than the mother of all infinity sets, and they're bound to a specific scale?

Cantor didn't prove anything about the universe, just our numbering system. 

You are certainly free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.  Including the magical flying spaghetti monster.

No, it's an opinion shared by others- which makes it one up on your opinion.

You know what they say about opinions.  I'm okay with it. 

[Bored chemist]

Even more ridiculous.  Now we have various sized finite infinities?

As I have said, it's not my fault that you do not understand that there are different sized infinite sets.

thought infinity was "a number" greater than any countable number, and it was boundless?

None of the infinities is a countable number (That's pretty obvious really).
So there's no problem with having two or more different ones.

Here's the story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor%27s_first_set_theory_article
(and please don't embarrass yourself by saying "it's just a theory").

Perhaps, when you find out more about infinities, you will understand that you have been talking nonsense throughout this thread.

[andreasva (OP)]

None of the infinities is a countable number (That's pretty obvious really).
So there's no problem with having two or more different ones.

No, not a problem in our invented numbering system at all, but it certainly doesn't prove anything about the universe.

We created a base 10 numbering system, which is clearly derived from the digits on our hands.  Could have easily been a base 5, or base 20, if we had chosen to do so. 

The base logic in any of those numbering systems is 0 and 1.  We essentially zoomed in 10x's, making it 10x more difficult to understand the universe, because we tossed aside that base logic we used to create the system.

Cantor only proved a base 10 redundant numbering system contains redundant infinities, as would any numbering system.   

Dial back the zoom, and you're left with a 0 and a 1.  That's reality.  Both of those values are finite, and what lies between them is infinite.  As I said, math is a process of reducing variables.  Our base 10 numbering system added an infinite number of variables to the base logic.  We did that.   

As I have said, it's not my fault that you do not understand that there are different sized infinite sets.

Not so hard to understand, just not something I choose to believe in for the universe.  That's a personal choice. 

(and please don't embarrass yourself by saying "it's just a theory").

I would never call it a theory.  He is right, there is an infinite number of infinities in our numbering system.  So what?  That most certainly doesn't cross over to the universe resembling some sort of fact.  That would be theoretical at best, and complete nonsense at its worst.  Besides, you seem to think we're finite, so it's a moot point, or that we're infinitely finite between the digits of our numbering system or something.  Not exactly sure what you think.   

You do not know this answer.  In fact, the question of whether or not the universe is infinite or finite is an open topic of debate. 

[Bored chemist]

.  In fact, the question of whether or not the universe is infinite or finite is an open topic of debate. 

Not since Olber.

We created a base 10 numbering system, which is clearly derived from the digits on our hands.  Could have easily been a base 5, or base 20, if we had chosen to do so. 

As I already pointed out (and you ignored- as you usually do for things that are important) we don't use base 10 for most of our maths.

I would never call it a theory. 

Then you would never  be right.

Cantor only proved a base 10 redundant numbering system contains redundant infinities, as would any numbering system. 

No, he showed that there are more irrational numbers than integers- this is true in any number base.

Both of those values are finite, and what lies between them is infinite. 

No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong.

He is right, there is an infinite number of infinities in our numbering system. 

Stop pretending that it's anything to do with the numbering system.

[andreasva (OP)]

Not since Olber.

It's a theory, not fact.  I don't agree with Olbers' Paradox.  It assumes a static state of infinity.  Static is finite, infinity is not.  We've been through this already.  We are not infinitely large, we are changing infinitely over time.  His assumptions about an infinite universe were wrong, which were adopted by science, and continue to be wrong.     

I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2

we don't use base 10 for most of our maths.

Okay

Then you would never  be right.

Wrong

No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong.

Based on your opinion, sure, it's wrong.

I have a different opinion, and see it as correct. 

This
0<∞<Ι1Ι
is logically equivalent to this
(0;1)

There's only 1 master set in the universe.  We added an infinite number of sets to the master when we zoomed in digitally.

[Bored chemist]

Whether you like it or not,Cantor's theory is a theory.
It's just silly to deny that.

It assumes a static state of infinity.

No, it says that the universe is not infinite in time- it had a beginning.
That's exactly the opposite of what you claim.

You keep failing to understand the basics.
You pretend that you know better, but you really haven't much clue.

I have a different opinion, and see it as correct. 

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

You are simply wrong
You misunderstood it, just like you misunderstood Cantor and Olber

[andreasva (OP)]

No, it says that the universe is not infinite in time- it had a beginning.

And that's wrong.  There is no beginning, and there is no end. 

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.

It is not infinitely large.  It is not infinitely old.  There are not an infinite number of stars.  It is not static. 

The universe changes infinitely over time.  Size and age are irrelevant in the context of the universe.  Means something to us obviously, as we view finite in terms of time segments.  The lava lamps life is a segment of time.             

I did not misunderstand anything.  I disagree. 

I'll say it once again.

This
0<∞<Ι1Ι
is logically equivalent to this
(0;1)

There's only 1 master set in the universe.  We added an infinite number of sets to the master when we zoomed in digitally.

[Bored chemist]

And that's wrong.  There is no beginning,

It started 13.799±0.021 billion years ago.
There really was a beginning.

I'll say it once again.

This
0<∞<Ι1Ι
is logically equivalent to this
(0;1)

It doesn't matter if you say it once or a thousand times.
It's still just as wrong as you were about Olber, Cantor, and the age of the universe.

[andreasva (OP)]

It started 13.799±0.021 billion years ago.
There really was a beginning.

As I explained, it means something to us. 

It doesn't matter if you say it once or a thousand times.
It's still just as wrong as you were about Olber, Cantor, and the age of the universe.

And this is a matter of opinion.

I said Olber was correct, in that he proved that his interpretation of an infinite universe wouldn't work.

I also said Cantor was correct, in proving our numbering system contains an infinite number of infinite sets. 

[Bored chemist]

As I explained, it means something to us. 

You explained little or nothing.
What "means something to us"?

[Bored chemist]

And this is a matter of opinion.

It is a matter of fact that you said "

I don't agree with Olbers' Paradox.  It assumes a static state of infinity. 

whereas Olber's work shows that the universe had a start, so it can't be static.
So, it is a matter of fact that you are wrong.

It is also a matter of record that you said "

Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set.  There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities. 

Whereas Cantor's work shows that there's more than 1 infinity so, once again, it's a matter of fact that you were wrong.
And, it's a matter of fact that you said "

There is no beginning,

but there is- about 14 billion years ago.

You keep saying stuff that is wrong.
Are you dumb, or trolling?

[andreasva (OP)]

You explained little or nothing.
What "means something to us"?

I said it was fairly simple to understand that we are infinite, if you base your reasoning on the mathematical fact that finite really does mean finite in the strictest definition, and x=x.  Infinity is the only option mathematically that offers variability.  And I think it's prudent to do so, because we are following math.  If something is truly finite from our perspective, it has either just begun, or came to an end.  Those are the only two finite conditions mathematically in our universe.  When a black hole forms for example, it is both the end of one state, and the beginning of another state.  The journey between two points is everything but finite.   

We view the universe in time segments.  It's ingrained reasoning, so it is difficult to get past.  I'm 54 for example, and will continue to age until I die, at which point I hit a finite limit of my existence.  I am then 0.

The universe is infinitely changing, so its existence is entirely in the present.  It is essentially a new universe every moment in time, because it is stuck in a single cycle of life and death, or between 1 and 0.  Its efficiency is 100%.  Ours is less than the whole.  Even the concept of a moment is somewhat misleading, because a moment implies a small time segment.  Time is analog, smooth and steady, as is the change.  It is seamless change over time.   

What we see is a segment of time coming to an end.  It is a limited view.  I'm guessing this range has to do with curved space, and where we're situated in the universe.  As I suggested, I see a spherical gradient of hot to cold working its way outward to inward.  We're drifting inward at a constant rate, as we continue to cool and condense, until we cease to exist at 0.  The universe though, will plod away like it's always done, never aging, never tiring, doing the same thing over and over.   

I never said it would be easy to understand the details, only that we're infinite.  Accepting we're finite is the easier path obviously, but not the right path to explore in my opinion.  We gave up too easy.  Olber only proved that one concept of an infinite universe wouldn't work.  And with the multiple directions we're headed now, and with the growth of ever more theory, finite isn't looking so good.  We're searching for the answer, and failing to move forward.  We are reaching the end of what we can physically observe, short of spending 100's of billions of dollars for more experimentation on the same problems that have eluded science for decades.  Science has taken a back seat to funding.     

[Bored chemist]

I said it was fairly simple to understand that we are infinite

We are not.
I may be a bit fatter than I was before Christmas, but I'm still finite.
Why do you start from a position that's obviously nonsense?
Do you see why that looks like trolling?

[andreasva (OP)]

but there is- about 14 billion years ago.

Yes, we were created about 14 billion years ago.  I'm not disputing that.  We had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end. 

[andreasva (OP)]

I may be a bit fatter than I was before Christmas, but I'm still finite.

Nothing about your existence is finite in the strictest definition of the word.  You change continually over time.  You will have two finite moments in your life, and the first, your conception, has passed.  The next, hopefully decades from now, will be your last finite moment. 

We quantify time segments into finite numeric values or perspectives to better understand the world around us.