[Bogie_smiles]

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.

It is an admirable cause to fix what is wrong with science, and not a task to be taken lightly, or with inadequate preparation. You have to understand the roots of science, and give credit where credit is due. Disparagement of the highly talented and respected scientists over those 400 years is not a unique approach, unfortunately; but your application of it will be unique if you come up with even a single important contribution, so good luck and go for it.

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?

I do agree that if you have something worthwhile you should get on with it. I don’t agree, if what you are asking me is if good logic requires a consensus. Good logic rises above the current consensus, isn’t easily refuted, and sets a sequence of events into motion that will determine if it becomes the new consensus. You don’t get that by posting it in science forums. Is your material organized and ready to submit to journals?

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.

I like the saying: Anything finite, whether we are talking substance, space, or time, is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the infinite.

 
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. 

Lol! If you think that 10 years of contemplation, study, learning, thinking, etc., is considered ample rigor to make your conclusions credible, what would you say was the normal or average length of time that noted science professionals who have gained stature in the scientific community over those 400 years have dedicated to science in order to gain their reputations? I would bet it was more like 30 plus years of intense immersion, but I don’t have the actual statistics.

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.

Your hesitance makes me hopeful for you as a contributor. Perhaps by the time you jump in with both feet, you will have reevaluated your readiness. Prove that you understand the reasons why “history” has resulted in a great deal of respect for the dedicated members of the scientific community. Think before you jump in, and maybe test some of your ideas by submitting them in a science forum where the members already know you and respect you. Springing them on us cold is not starting on the right foot, IMHO. Then bring it to us with some credibility.   

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.   

I take back all of my concerns and unnecessary, arrogant advice. You had the answer all the time; 1/0 is a simple definition of infinity, and I agree. Do you want to leave it at that, lol.

[andreasva (OP)]

Lol! If you think that 10 years of contemplation, study, learning, thinking, etc., is considered ample rigor to make your conclusions credible, what would you say was the normal or average length of time that noted science professionals who have gained stature in the scientific community over those 400 years have dedicated to science in order to gain their reputations? I would bet it was more like 30 plus years of intense immersion, but I don’t have the actual statistics.

Let me rephrase that slightly.  35 years total.  10 years ago is when I had that moment, when it clicked, and I saw it.  Spent another 10 refining it.  I suppose it was one of those Eureka moments.  Rush of emotions, etc.  I just saw it. 

Maybe a slight tweak. 

    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.   

I take back all of my concerns and unnecessary, arrogant advice. You had the answer all the time; 1/0 is a simple definition of infinity, and I agree. Do you want to leave it at that, lol.

lol....  maybe a slight tweak.  "and the continuous resolution is infinity."

[Kryptid]

Sure it does, while you're calculating.

If you want to get technical, we never actually calculate pi, we only approximate it. Pi itself (I mean the real, actual pi, not our mere approximations of it), doesn't change.

You are too hung on numbers.  They don't mean anything to universe, only to us.

Then I could say the same thing about you being too hung up on zero and one, since those are numbers too.

Numbers do not matter to the universe, only us.

Then 1>infinity>0 doesn't matter to the Universe because it involves numbers.

[Bored chemist]

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...

That's just silly.
It makes as little sense as saying that , just because 2+2=4 today, you can't be sure that 2+2 will be 4 tomorrow.
Well, you can.
Face up to it; your ramblings never made sense and they have now reached the point of being self-contradictory.

[Bored chemist]

Spent another 10 refining it. 

And it falls apart as soon as a bunch of independent people look at it.

[andreasva (OP)]

Then I could say the same thing about you being too hung up on zero and one, since those are numbers too.

Kryptid, you know exactly what I'm implying.  The universe is behaving mathematically, not by choice, by nature.  We discovered numbers and math, then discovered the universe is behaving mathematically with our numbers, precisely.  To us, they mean something.  Many things.  They're a concept.  We can apply them to many things, and we do.   

You keep trying to bait me, and it isn't working.   

You can try to understand what I'm saying, or not.  Things change.  I'm redefining infinity to something more consistent with how we determine something is infinite, because it makes more sense to do so.  A completely fictitious number that can never be used is not useful to math or us, or in understanding the universe.  So, it doesn't mean anything.  We determine something is infinite when we can't resolve it.  Like counting infinitely, or increments of time, calculating pi, or 2/3.  What does a number greater do for us?  Nothing.  Infinity is not a numeric value, anymore than finite is a numeric value.  They are two potential states of the universe.  It's important to understand what all three mean when applying them together.  Infinity makes our numbers run on in a constant manner, and numbers don't define that state, they help us to understand that state.   

Finite and infinity have a greater significance than numbers.  The numbers help us to understand the states, not the other way around.  We can quantify a number, which can alter the meaning of a state.  A segment of time for example, does not make time finite.  It makes the segment of time as applied to something else we are analyzing virtually finite. 
Which is fine, but the number is not necessarily the definition of a finite state as applied to the universe.  it is only finite as a segment of time as we perceive it.   

[Bored chemist]

You keep trying to bait me, and it isn't working.   

No.
He's trying to get you to realise that you are wrong.
If you were not wrong you would not keep contradicting yourself (and, indeed, contradicting  reality).

  I'm redefining infinity

If you make up meanings for words then you can say anything and make it true.
But it isn't useful.

because it makes more sense to do so. 

Only to you.
The rest of us get on just fine with the proper definition.

A completely imaginary number

Do you realise that the phrase "imaginary number" has a meaning already and you are not using it correctly?

[andreasva (OP)]

« Reply #286 on: Today at 11:22:08 »

I changed it to fictitious.  Happy now?

[Bored chemist]

I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here.

Nobody said you had.

The problem is that if you change the definitions of words you can prove anything (as Kryptid and I have both pointed out) so it's meaningless.
So, for example, If I want to prove that black is white, all I have to do is redefine "black " to mean something that reflects light.

And them, for my "special" definition, black is white.
True, but meaningless.

[andreasva (OP)]

I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here.

Nobody said you had.

The problem is that if you change the definitions of words you can prove anything (as Kryptid and I have both pointed out) so it's meaningless.
So, for example, If I want to prove that black is white, all I have to do is redefine "black " to mean something that reflects light.

And them, for my "special" definition, black is white.
True, but meaningless.

The universe is either finite, or infinite. 

Does it make sense to say that the universe is "a number greater than any countable number"?

And in the context of finite, does it make anymore sense to describe the universe as 3, or 10?

Finite and infinite are states, not numbers.  We apply numbers to states.  I'm 54, does that mean 54 means me?

What makes sense is to logically say that the universe=x.  And in math, x=x.  Infinite is the only choice that offers variability, otherwise the universe can be any finite value we choose to make it, which makes no sense.  I'm applying the concept of numbers to two potential states of the universe.  The baseline for a finite universe is 0, or nothing.  Math requires a comparison value, so I give that next finite state an absolute value of 1, which is a reasonable thing to do.  The infinite state is wedged between two finite states.     

Infinite is the opposite of finite.  To force some fictitious singular (finite) value on one state versus the other, and define it as "a number greater than any countable number", is a contrived definition.

That most certainly is not the same as redefining colors. 

[Bored chemist]

The universe is either finite, or infinite. 

Does it make sense to say that the universe is "a number greater than any countable number"?

Nice try at a "bait and switch" there.
Don't do it again.

For those who were not paying attention, obviously, it doesn't make sense, but nobody said it did.
The "a number greater than any countable number" definition applies to infinity- which is a number.
But the universe isn't a number.
"Infinite" is not the same word as "infinity".
So, stop the straw man attacks.
They don't work.

That most certainly is not the same as redefining colors. 

Trying to redefine "infinity" as being the same as "infinite" is the same as redefining colours.
Did you not realise that?

[andreasva (OP)]

The "a number greater than any countable number" definition applies to infinity- which is a number

For those of you paying attention, here's the definition of infinite and infinity posted on my thread by you.

Don't mince words. 

And here's a little gem you dropped earlier, in which you use the definition of infinity for infinite.

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.

Do you want to retract that post?

Notice the mathematical definition in infinite?

in·fi·nite
/ˈinfənət/Submit
adjective
adjective: infinite
1.
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
"the infinite mercy of God"
synonyms:   boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, without limit, without end, never-ending, interminable, cosmic; More
antonyms:   limited, small
very great in amount or degree.
"he bathed the wound with infinite care"
synonyms:   very great, immense, supreme, absolute, total, real; More
antonyms:   very little
MATHEMATICS
greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
MATHEMATICS


And the definition of infinity.

in·fin·i·ty
/inˈfinədē/
noun
noun: infinity

    1.
    the state or quality of being infinite.
    "the infinity of space" 
and the mathematical conversion-- the "a number greater than any countable number" of space
and my definition-- the "constancy of change" of space
Which makes more sense?
    synonyms:   endlessness, infinitude, infiniteness, boundlessness, limitlessness, unlimitedness, extensiveness, vastness, immensity; infinite distance
    "she stared out into the infinity of space"
        an infinite or very great number or amount.
        plural noun: infinities
        "an infinity of combinations"
        synonyms:   infinite number, unlimited number, very great number, abundance, profusion, host, multitude, mass, wealth; More
        informalheap, stack, ton;
        informalshedload
        "an infinity of different molecules"
        antonyms:   limited number
        a point in space or time that is or seems infinitely distant.
        "the lawns stretched into infinity"
    2.
    Mathematics
    a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

They mean the same damn thing.  Ones an adjective and one is a noun.  That's the only difference between them.

And I'm the one changing meanings of words?  I'm not changing it, I'm realigning it with reality.

If we can apply a finite state to any static number, then we can most certainly apply infinity as a state to any dynamic number, such as pi.  That just makes sense, as they are opposite states.  Our numbering system is also infinite, but not any specific value in the entire numbering system, because it's not a number, anymore than finite is any specific value in our numbering system.  They're states that we apply to numbers, and vice versa.     

No matter which word you use, it makes no sense as applied to the current mathematical definition. 

I can't help it if they didn't realize they were applying finite and infinite states to numbers back in the 1600's.  As far as they were concerned way back when, the universe was infinite, and the idea of a finite universe would have been a completely foreign concept to them.  They're looking out at the infinite vastness, and thinking, geez, infinity must be greater than any number we can physically conceive of, so let's let make that the definition.  They were thinking numbers, not states.  They did not have the benefit of modern information, or Einstein, or Quantum mechanics, or redshifts, or expansion, or acceleration, which is all common knowledge today.

The standard definition doesn't take negative numbers into consideration either.  Back then they were thinking big and greater, not small and lessor.  We can count negatively equally as well as we can positively, and both directions are equally infinite.  Clearly the mathematicians who originally defined infinity were applying it as a definition to the vastness of the universe they assumed it would apply to, without understanding it was simply one possible state of the universe.  And they clearly didn't understand these as potential finite and infinite states for the universe, being applied to the concept of numbers.

[Kryptid]

We determine something is infinite when we can't resolve it.

So you've changed your definition for infinite? I thought you said that something is infinite if it is constantly changing? The inability to resolve something doesn't mean the thing you're trying to resolve is constantly changing. The ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter isn't constantly changing nor does it change at all.

[Bored chemist]

Do you want to retract that post?

No
Pi is a number, the Universe isn't.

[andreasva (OP)]

Pi is a number, the Universe isn't.

At least there's one thing we can agree on.

[Bogie_smiles]

Let me rephrase that slightly.  35 years total.  10 years ago is when I had that moment, when it clicked, and I saw it.  Spent another 10 refining it.  I suppose it was one of those Eureka moments.  Rush of emotions, etc.  I just saw it. 

Maybe a slight tweak.

lol....  maybe a slight tweak.  "and the continuous resolution is infinity."

I hear you, and a moment of realization is impressive and memorable.

You use the word resolution, saying, "And the continuous resolution is infinity.”

Do use “resolution” in that sentence to mean “the continuous solution is infinity” or to mean “a continuously improving focus is infinity”?

Please elaborate.

[andreasva (OP)]

You use the word resolution, saying, "And the continuous resolution is infinity.”

Do use “resolution” in that sentence to mean “the continuous solution is infinity” or to mean “a continuously improving focus is infinity”?

Interesting question.

I meant it more in the context of a continuous solution, but the word solution seems to feel more like there is one in my mind.  I chose continuous resolution because there is no solution to the problem, which is what makes it infinite.  No beginning, no end.  x=x, and x=∞.  Just a constant recycling of energy.   

However, I have imagined an increased focus apply to the nature of the problem as we drift inward.  As galaxies become less relevant to each other over time, gravitational energy gradually shifts inward becoming more locally focused, possibly accelerating the process in the end game.  It would increase at the inverse square over time, so it wouldn't be a straight line gain.  Kind of like focusing a beam on a flashlight.  Might have even described that on this thread somewhere, but I can't fully recall after so many post on a single topic.

Why do you ask?   

[Bogie_smiles]

Interesting question.

I meant it more in the context of a continuous solution, but the word solution seems to feel more like there is one in my mind.  I chose continuous resolution because there is no solution to the problem, which is what makes it infinite.  No beginning, no end.  x=x, and x=∞.  Just a constant recycling of energy.   

However, I have imagined an increased focus apply to the nature of the problem as we drift inward.  As galaxies become less relevant to each other over time, gravitational energy gradually shifts inward becoming more locally focused, possibly accelerating the process in the end game.  It would increase at the inverse square over time, so it wouldn't be a straight line gain.  Kind of like focusing a beam on a flashlight.  Might have even described that on this thread somewhere, but I can't fully recall after so many post on a single topic.

Why do you ask?   

I ask because I think that eureka moments can apply to “imponderables”; lol. By “imponderables” I mean the big questions of science and cosmology, like what caused the Big Bang? Or what were the preconditions to the big bang? Or did the universe come from nothingness? Or did God do it? Or do we eliminate that possibility because the scientific method does not consider the Supernatural as a valid explanation or solution.

The avenues of thought leading to realizations, and leading from them on to logical connections that come to mind as a result of them, are part of the ongoing thought processes we go through as we contemplate the universe, IMHO.

They tend to be memorable because they are meaningful parts of the way that we put together our own individual views of the universe. As we keep the process of individual science thinking going, things continually make more sense, and more known science comes into our own sphere of understanding, and if we keep thinking, the depth of our views are continually built on top of what we believed yesterday.

Probably we all go through spurts of progress in our thinking, and then there are the inevitable points where we have to go “back to the drawing board”. In that context, my view of your case is that you came to a point where you realized what infinite means, to your satisfaction, and you weren’t sure if what you just realized was unusual among science enthusiasts, or did you really come upon some new thinking, or at least some appreciation of the finer details of the meaning of finite and infinite, as it relates to the universe.

Just wondering if you have gone beyond the realization of what infinite means to you, and have connected it to the nature of the infinite universe in comparison to the observable portion in our Hubble view?

[andreasva (OP)]

Just wondering if you have gone beyond the realization of what infinite means to you, and have connected it to the nature of the infinite universe in comparison to the observable portion in our Hubble view?

I didn't have a spiritual awakening of any kind, if that's what you're asking.  I've always felt infinity was the engine that animated the universe, or gave it life.  I've always imagined it as a state of motion, like reaching out towards an edge, but never quite being able to touch it, or conversely, having it slip through your fingers as you try to hold it.  It was something that remained just out of reach no matter how hard you tried to touch the limits.  It kept feeling like motion. 

And also understand, I am not trying to impose my viewpoint onto anyone.  It's a choice to accept this version of the universe as I see it, and build upon it if desired.  Although I thinks it's mostly correct in concept, I cannot prove anything, and conversely, no one can disprove it.  I think I've laid out a pretty solid argument so far.  Unless of course, someone wishes to hold onto things we really don't understand to be fact, as much as we think we do.  The one thing I've learned over the years, the more you know the less you know to be fact.  Collectively, we do not know how the universe works, although we know how to manipulate things within it.  We're operators of the machine, but lack a fundamental understanding of how the machine really functions.  Mostly we understand things through repeated observation of how something behaves, and check that against math.  Then we take an educated guess, and call it a theory. 

Knowledge is a reducer.  The more you understand, the fewer questions remain.  In that sense, understanding how infinity interacts with the universe, shrunk it a bit for me.  You realize your time is truly limited, and all we really have is each other.  The universe is a mindless beast driven purely by mathematics.  It is completely indifferent to our existence, naturally speaking.  Our continued survival collectively is all that really matters to anyone in the end.  What meaning we derive from the survival process is up to us to decide.  Do we become as cold and calculated as the universe in our efforts to survive, or will we all finally come together and realize a common purpose and derive a common meaning we can all share from what we know?  We're definitely flailing at the moment. 

I was personally hoping more for a 0 sum game, with a repetitive cycling of the universe, hoping we were just repeating our lives over in time.  Pretty happy with mine, so I'd do another round.  What I see now is infinite time applied to the universe, with an infinite number of variables.  No two moments are alike, and no two lives are alike.  We are unique in time and space, infinitely.  Is there anymore than this?  No idea.  So, I certainly don't want to waste the life I know lies in front of me today.

We're starting to get a bit too philosophical for this thread though, so I'll leave it at that.         

[Bogie_smiles]

…

We're starting to get a bit too philosophical for this thread though, so I'll leave it at that.         

I think I recall you stating that you accept the Big Bang. If so, that was a very major physical event that took place ~14 billion years ago, and everything that we observe today is within an event horizon connected to that one big bang event. The observable portion of the expanding universe is often called our Hubble view. That is more generally accepted cosmology than is it philosophy.

If you see time and space as infinite with no beginning, and I thought that might have been your eureka moment, then the one big bang event that is generally accepted to have occurred would logically have had preconditions. I usually address that topic of preconditions to the big bang by asking, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bang events?” Maybe that is a bit philosophical, but not nearly as philosophical as saying that the existence of the universe is the result of “something from nothing”, or “God did it”, right? The “always existed” scenario holds the logical advantage among those three explanations for the existence of the universe.

If our big bang had preconditions, and if there have been multiple big bangs across infinite space and infinite time, then each such event might logically have been preceded by a big crunch that then collapse/banged into expansion, leaving an event horizon and an observable Hubble type of view that encompasses only a portion of one of the expanding big bang "arenas";  like we observe in our Hubble view.

I just wanted to share that thinking with you.