[Bored chemist]

Nothing about your existence is finite in the strictest definition of the word. 

I expect to live less than 100 years.
In the real world, that's finite.

Yes, we were created about 14 billion years ago.  I'm not disputing that. 

You didn't "dispute" it, you contradicted it.

There is no beginning, and there is no end. 

Have you now realised one of your mistakes?

[andreasva (OP)]

I expect to live less than 100 years.
In the real world, that's finite.

finite=absence of change

Based on the way I am interpreting the meaning of finite in relation to the universe, and the way I've repeatedly explained it on this thread, there only two finite points in your existence.  The extreme beginning when you were conceived, which I place a finite value of Ι1Ι on, and the opposite extreme when you you die, which I place a finite value of 0 on. 

infinite=constancy of change
finite=absence of change

Your change is continuous from the time you exist, until the time you die.  You are a reflection of the what the universe is doing infinitely.

Ι1Ι represents the potential of your existence
0 represents the end of your existence

Ι1Ι>∞>0

You didn't "dispute" it, you contradicted it.

I clearly stated that we quantify the universe in finite time segments.  Time is not finite, it is infinite, but that most certainly doesn't mean we can't perceive a finite segment of time.  It's only a relative perception though, because your journey through life is the very definition of continual change.

So, no, I have absolutely not contradicted myself at all.  Your lack of understanding is not a contradiction on my part, it is simply your intentional unwillingness to understand it.

We do not have all the answers by any stretch of the imagination.

A finite universe is not proven, and is still an open topic of debate.  No one knows if the universe is finite or infinite.

For you to keep misleading people into believing it is solved, is absurd.  It's not solved.

I came up with this theory before I read Olbers' Paradox.  I find it a little more than coincidence that I not only saw his concept of an infinite universe wrong, but categorically wrong in all 4 aspects laid out in the original paradox.  All 4. 

The universe is not infinitely old.  The universe is not infinitely large.  The universe does not have an infinite number of stars.  The universe is not static.

In addition, the heat death portion of Olber appears to solve a problem I couldn't reconcile in my own theory.  I could not completely visualize how the matter was being continuously created in an infinite universe.   As I said, our universe is 1-dimensional in orientation.  It's inward to outward.  Anything at rest is moving more towards the inward direction.  Anything in linear motion is moving more towards the outward direction.  The faster you go, the more outward you travel.  Considering massless particles can travel at a sustained maximum velocity in the universe, all massless particles travel to the outer edge of the universe.  Mass particles cannot move in this manner, so they're headed the opposite direction, inwards.  Mass particles shed energy as they move in, and that massless energy moves out.  I see this as a potential cause for the hot plasma state discussed in the big bang, after the theoretical hyperinflation, which I disagree with.  The energy efficiency in this universal process is 100%.  We are less than the higher universal process, so our energy efficiency is less than 100%.     

So, I not only fully contradict Olbers' infinite universe in my own theory, I can borrow his results as valid in my own theory.  So, yes, I agree with Olber's conclusions, if an infinite universe worked like he assumed it did, but it doesn't in my view.  His conclusions fit mine perfectly. 

were created about 14 billion years ago.

Until we develop technology to travel out into the distant reaches of the universe and get a second perspective, we don't know what it means.  All we know is that we can see out about 13 billion light years give or take, and that everything within our range of view appears to be moving towards an end.

My best guess is that the night sky will dim in the farthest reaches of the universe, and everything in our galaxy will get sucked into the black hole in the center.  And then it will probably dissipate to 0.   

Have you now realised one of your mistakes?

Have you now realized your own mistakes?

[Kryptid]

finite=absence of change

By this definition, the numbers between 0 and 1 are finite since they aren't changing. They are what they are and don't become anything else. 0.34 doesn't change into anything else no matter how long you wait.

No one knows if the universe is finite or infinite.

This contradicts your previous claim that you have proven the Universe to be infinite. If no one knows, then that means your proof isn't a proof after all.

[andreasva (OP)]

By this definition, the numbers between 0 and 1 are finite since they aren't changing. They are what they are and don't become anything else. 0.34 doesn't change into anything else no matter how long you wait.

I've said many times, there are only two real finite values in the universe, both being absolute.  0 and Ι1Ι.  We are the infinite potential that lies between those two real values.  We experience the universe virtually. 

The numbers of course, are assigned values, correlating to absolute nothing and and absolute something.  Both are timeless states of existence and non existence, and only potential in nature. And that potential is infinite, which is us.  Infinity is the woven fabric of space-time, which results in the constancy of change.     

This contradicts your previous claim that you have proven the Universe to be infinite.

I suppose I would have to agree, that I may have unintentionally contradicted myself.  I can only prove it to myself, and offer my reasoning to others in the process.  I think I've said something to that effect many times.  What anyone else chooses to believe is up to them.  I have no control over what others think.  My personal view is that, my theory fits better than anything else on the market, so the probability is extremely high.  So high, that I consider it closer to fact than fiction. 

As I have stated though, I cannot prove it.

I've also said infinity can only be understood logically, because it is incalculable.   

So yes, I can only prove it to myself, and no one else.  If I contradict myself in the future, I apologize.  There's a lot of words flying around here.  Not hard to make a few errors in grammar and context. 

[Kryptid]

I've said many times, there are only two real finite values in the universe, both being absolute.  0 and Ι1Ι.

It's ironic that you say there are only two real finite values in the Universe, since you are using a number other than zero and one to describe them. If two is not a finite value, is it an infinite value?

[andreasva (OP)]

It's ironic that you say there are only two real finite values in the Universe, since you are using a number other than zero and one to describe them. If two is not a finite value, is it an infinite value?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.  We use numbers as a tool.  We assign values to things.  I'm assigning 0 to nothing, but nothing isn't a number in reality, anymore than 2.  If you'd like to label nothing as 2, that's up to you.  Wouldn't make a lot of sense though, because we'd have to reconfigure our numbering system to make 2 = 0 as we currently understand it. 

[Kryptid]

We use numbers as a tool. 

So the number two doesn't exist?

[andreasva (OP)]

So the number two doesn't exist?

You aren't making any sense.

[Kryptid]

You aren't making any sense.

You seem to be saying that zero and one are real numbers but two isn't. Is that what you are saying?

[andreasva (OP)]

You seem to be saying that zero and one are real numbers but two isn't. Is that what you are saying?

Technically, no numbers physically "exist".  All numbers as we understand them will cease to exist with our more than likely inevitable extinction.  Still don't know what point you're trying to make.

Numbers are a tool.  We can reduce the application of numbers down to 2 when describing the universe, 0 and 1, and then add the variability of infinity.   

Numbers are a tool. 

[Kryptid]

Technically, no numbers physically "exist".  All numbers as we understand them will cease to exist with our more than likely inevitable extinction.  Still don't know what point you're trying to make.

Numbers are a tool.  We can reduce the application of numbers down to 2 when describing the universe, 0 and 1, and then add the variability of infinity.   

Numbers are a tool. 

But do you consider zero and one to somehow be more real than two?

[Bored chemist]

finite=absence of change

So wrong that there's a song about it

One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so.

[andreasva (OP)]

But do you consider zero and one to somehow be more real than two?

I suppose, in a manner applicable to understanding the universe from a human perspective, that would be correct, to a very limited extent of what's actually real and what isn't.  All numbers are a tool.  Numbers are a concept created by man.  The base logic stems from the idea of something versus nothing, which can be assigned the numeric value of 0 and 1 as we understand numbers.  Without that basic understanding, you probably can't get to 2 or 3, or x=x.  Basically, you're a tree stump or a house fly, or some lower form of life in general. 

This has nothing to do with anything though, and you're clearly just trying to bait me.

Your time would be better spent trying to understand what I am saying, or playing fantasy football, if you're into that sort of thing, rather than wasting time trying to bait me on a pretty ridiculous question.

Clearly, in our minds, numbers exist as a tool in understanding many things, from the cost of a lava lamp, to the speed of light. 

[Bored chemist]

Your time would be better spent trying to understand what I am saying,

Then try explaining it rather than just posting stuff that's obviously not true.

[andreasva (OP)]

Now you're trolling Bored_Chemist.  Remove the post please.

[Kryptid]

This has nothing to do with anything though

Sure it does. How can you use a "less real" number (two) to describe "more real" numbers (zero and one)? What sense does it make to say that one integer is more or less real than another integer? They are all conceptual. They all have the same level of reality.

[andreasva (OP)]

Sure it does. How can you use a "less real" number (two) to describe "more real" numbers (zero and one)? What sense does it make to say that one integer is more or less real than another integer? They are all conceptual. They all have the same level of reality.

That depends on how you look at the problem I suppose.  0 is a pretty real value when applying it to nothing, and in the context that you would no longer exist.  Wouldn't mean anything to you anymore though, obviously, but for those left behind it may.  And conversely, 1 as applied to the potential of your existence, might be a very happy moment for your parents. 

But in general, all numbers are concepts derived from man.  How we apply them is what gives any of them meaning.  I'd like to have a million dollars for example, and that would be very real to me, all 1 million of them.  And if I only had $2.00 in my pocket, I'd be pretty close to broke.  Or when it's 32 degrees, it's cold.  All of these values are real to us, depending on our application of the numbers. 

Clearly you understand all this though, and in the context of applying 0 and 1 to the entire universe, yes, they're a bit more significant than the others.     

[Kryptid]

Clearly you understand all this though, and in the context of applying 0 and 1 to the entire universe, yes, they're a bit more significant than the others.     

But you can rephrase your argument using any numbers you want to. Instead of using 1 to describe the whole Universe, you could just as easily use 10 while saying everything between 0 and 10 represents your definition of infinity. If logic and concepts are all that matter and numbers are an arbitrary invention of man, then there is no one right or wrong way to write it down.

[andreasva (OP)]

But you can rephrase your argument using any numbers you want to. Instead of using 1 to describe the whole Universe, you could just as easily use 10 while saying everything between 0 and 10 represents your definition of infinity. If logic and concepts are all that matter and numbers are an arbitrary invention of man, then there is no one right or wrong way to write it down.

What would be the point in that?

0 = nothing
1 = something

Why on Earth would anyone start at 10?

I don't think I ever said numbers were an arbitrary invention (might have said that inadvertently, but it wouldn't have been entirely what I meant), so I'm not sure where you got the notion from.  Numbers are a logical invention of man.  Our choice of base 10 was derived from the digits on our hands, but could have just as easily been a base 5 system (1 hand), or base 20 system (hands and feet).  The choice in how to order them was somewhat arbitrary, but it clearly was a choice.  Units of 10 made the most sense.  Good choice.

The base logic starts with the concept of something versus nothing. 

[Bored chemist]

Now you're trolling Bored_Chemist.  Remove the post please.

Well there are probably stacks of definitions, but let's look at the one from WIKI

"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.".

So, the first criterion- the Troll starts the argument.
Well, you started the thread, so you meet that criterion.

What's next?

" to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"
Well, this is a science discussion community so posting stuff that's not science is a distraction. That's you bang to rights again.
Posting stuff that's plainly wrong  is also inflammatory and discordant.
The nonsense about infinity being mathematically less than 1 is nothing to do with the size of the universe, so it's off-topic.

And you are posting to an on-line community.

So, you meet every single criterion for being a troll.
Guess what?
I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.

Your time would be better spent trying to understand what I am saying,

Then try explaining it rather than just posting stuff that's obviously not true.