Infinity

[EricMartello]

The concept of infinity is nothing new, and in some cases it has a place...but as of late, I've been seeing things described as infinite where to me they just come across as a lame cop out for lack of knowing. I'm not a mathematician, and do not care to be, but I can smell a turd when it's there...and these people using infinity to make their theories work are all but clueless.

Case in point: Infinity is a dainty concept, but in the context of reality, it is the ultimate negation of any value - BUT, infinity is not like zero. Infinity is the only concept capable of simultaneously and completely describing everything AND nothing. Some examples...

Infinite Number Line
If you have a center point, zero, which extends infinitely in either direction, you are essentially describing a null value. An infinite number line is fine as a concept, but has no practical basis, because regardless of how far you go in either direction, your REAL position never changes. You may be quick to say "Zero is the middle", but when the line is INFINITE in both directions, there is no middle! You could make 301508 the "middle" number, it would work, but zero is the true definition of an infinite number line - it means nothing.

Infinite Time
Tick-tock! Like anything else, once you declare it is infinite, you instantly negate it completely. If time spans infinitely past, present and future - then essentially time does not exist. So what is time anyway? A flawed concept that many people work into their ideas...or is it really there, with tangible limits?

Infinite Scaling
Scaling is fun! Where do we fit in...let's start with our scale and say that's zero. At our scale, everything is as we naturally perceive it, but we can scale down to the molecular level, even further, to the atomic level, further still - to subatomic...

Is there a floor? LET'S HOPE THERE IS, but what if there is not? What if we can SCALE INFINITELY smaller or larger? This presents a problem, unless limits are imposed on scaling...but think about it: If we scale ourselves up to the universal level, we can now conceptualize the universe as being some sort of object we can hold. What is containing the universe itself? If our universe is some sort of enclosed microcosm, what is IT a part of? Nothing?

The fact is, there are no limits on how far we can scale, either way, and you may not want to believe it because you cannot test it or validate it...yet...but I can assure you that, infinite scaling means everything is nothing. It negates everything completely.

Understanding by Establishing Limits
Complex over-my-head math aside, what every scientist seeks to do is to LIMIT their understanding of what they are studying, because only by setting these limits, can they begin to create a system that "works" within these limits. The problem is that the system breaks if it ever needs to be applied to a situation beyond the scientifically imposed limits.

I'd like to hear what some of you guys think of my ideas here. I'm sure, you all will have a lot to say.

 

[esun]

I think all you said was that infinity is a mathematical construct that doesn't have any physical interpretations (e.g. you could scale an positive integer x to infinity by taking the limit as x approaches infinity in math, but scaling a toothpick to infinite length in the same manner has no physical meaning). Also, there's nothing wrong with defining zero on a number line, infinite or not. I could have a finite number line, say of length 20. That doesn't necessarily mean that 0 is in the middle, -10 is at the left side, and +10 is at the right side. I could as well define the left side to be 0 and the right side to be +20. Sure, it's arbitrary, but that isn't a problem necessarily.

BTW, this really is not HT.

 

[MrDudeMan]

the motivation behind this thread must have something to do with the responses to your posts in the quantum computing thread...

how can you "assure" me that infinite scaling means everything is nothing? we can all agree that there is something, which means it isn't nothing, thus what you have assured me of is not in need of validation because it is clearly untrue. your approach to understanding infinity is misrepresenting what it stands for in the context of mathematics. declaring something to have a value at an infinite time, for example a charging capacitor, definitely doesnt mean it is then defined to be nothing.

im sorry but i really dont find the idea of infinity reducing everything to nothing as having any merit at all. it doesnt make sense.

 

[Ruptga]

Infinity is the opposite of nothing, though it is confusing.

Say I have a box with a red dot in the middle and blue dots in two corners, these boxes surround each other in a checkerboard-type pattern and the pattern is infinite. How many blue dots are there? Double infinity? Yeah, infinity is a truly weird concept.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: esun
I think all you said was that infinity is a mathematical construct that doesn't have any physical interpretations (e.g. you could scale an positive integer x to infinity by taking the limit as x approaches infinity in math, but scaling a toothpick to infinite length in the same manner has no physical meaning). Also, there's nothing wrong with defining zero on a number line, infinite or not. I could have a finite number line, say of length 20. That doesn't necessarily mean that 0 is in the middle, -10 is at the left side, and +10 is at the right side. I could as well define the left side to be 0 and the right side to be +20. Sure, it's arbitrary, but that isn't a problem necessarily.

BTW, this really is not HT.

Infinity is a concept, not really a construct. It's more philosophical than mathematical, and what is the basis of science? Math, and what I am saying is that using the concept of infinity to make theories work is essentially invalidating them.

I never said there was anything wrong with defining zero, just said that on an infinite number line it is pointless to define any value, because either way you go, you are still in the "middle" of the line, so any number can be the middle - zero is just the most appropriate.

That's debatable, and I happen to disagree.

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
he motivation behind this thread must have something to do with the responses to your posts in the quantum computing thread...

how can you "assure" me that infinite scaling means everything is nothing? we can all agree that there is something, which means it isn't nothing, thus what you have assured me of is not in need of validation because it is clearly untrue. your approach to understanding infinity is misrepresenting what it stands for in the context of mathematics. declaring something to have a value at an infinite time, for example a charging capacitor, definitely doesnt mean it is then defined to be nothing.

im sorry but i really dont find the idea of infinity reducing everything to nothing as having any merit at all. it doesnt make sense.

Actually no, this is a seperate thread, otherwise I would have replied to that thread.

You say we can all agree that there is "something"....by saying that, what are you defining as something? What you perceive with your senses? Scaling infinitely, in any direction, means that no matter how far you go either way, you never really changed position at all.

A capacitor charges and discharges in a finite time, because their capacity is limited...I'm not sure why you would define charging as an infinite value...but this isn't really tied to what I'm talking about. You can use infinity to describe the distance of a circle. If you follow the perimeter of a circle and you do not define any reference points on that circle, you essentially have an "infinite" path...in doing so, the circumference of the circle becomes irrelevant, because whether it is big or small, you will keep following the path indefinitely, and at no point will you ever actually change position.

Think about the distance between the earth and the sun...it's what, 93,000,000 miles? Well, if you scaled down to say nanometers, how far is your sofa from your TV? If scaled up to a size where stars were relatively sized to us as atoms, then what? Suddenly, the massive star is sub-microscopic and its properties have scaled in proportion. Infinite scaling ultimately means that everything is nothing, because nothing ever changes. It's static, though our senses tell us otherwise.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Infinity is the opposite of nothing, though it is confusing.

Say I have a box with a red dot in the middle and blue dots in two corners, these boxes surround each other in a checkerboard-type pattern and the pattern is infinite. How many blue dots are there? Double infinity? Yeah, infinity is a truly weird concept.

Can you show me a picture of those boxes?

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Infinity is the opposite of nothing, though it is confusing.

Say I have a box with a red dot in the middle and blue dots in two corners, these boxes surround each other in a checkerboard-type pattern and the pattern is infinite. How many blue dots are there? Double infinity? Yeah, infinity is a truly weird concept.

Can you show me a picture of those boxes?

Of course it's just an example, it's impossible to show infinity on a finite computer screen

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/addavenger/boxes.jpg

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Actually no, this is a seperate thread, otherwise I would have replied to that thread.

You say we can all agree that there is "something"....by saying that, what are you defining as something? What you perceive with your senses? Scaling infinitely, in any direction, means that no matter how far you go either way, you never really changed position at all.

A capacitor charges and discharges in a finite time, because their capacity is limited...I'm not sure why you would define charging as an infinite value...but this isn't really tied to what I'm talking about. You can use infinity to describe the distance of a circle. If you follow the perimeter of a circle and you do not define any reference points on that circle, you essentially have an "infinite" path...in doing so, the circumference of the circle becomes irrelevant, because whether it is big or small, you will keep following the path indefinitely, and at no point will you ever actually change position.

Think about the distance between the earth and the sun...it's what, 93,000,000 miles? Well, if you scaled down to say nanometers, how far is your sofa from your TV? If scaled up to a size where stars were relatively sized to us as atoms, then what? Suddenly, the massive star is sub-microscopic and its properties have scaled in proportion. Infinite scaling ultimately means that everything is nothing, because nothing ever changes. It's static, though our senses tell us otherwise.

no, it doesnt. it gets close enough for all practical purposes, but it never reaches its actual capacity. at t = infinity, a capacitor is at "capacity" and not a moment before. that was my whole point.

also, the fact that we are able to discuss this concept over the internet on a computer is a clear indication to me that there is "something" that is consequently not nothing. your overall point makes absolutely no sense in any concept since we are even able to discuss it. zooming out to where stars are the "size" of atoms is nonsensical as well because they are still the size of stars, not atoms. the moon looks like a piece of change up there in the sky so is that really how big it is because thats how we see it? no, it is still the same size no matter where we are.

infinitely scaling means absolutely nothing in terms of anything with respect to changing what it is. it just means that the scale is infinite, so big stuff looks smaller and small stuff is too small to see, but that doesnt mean it isnt there. by your logic, atoms simply dont exist, which is obviously 100% false. again, this whole post makes no sense. what is your point?

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
no, it doesnt. it gets close enough for all practical purposes, but it never reaches its actual capacity. at t = infinity, a capacitor is at "capacity" and not a moment before. that was my whole point.

So you are saying that a capacitor can store an infinite amount of electricity? Or is it more like filling a cup with water, but not turning off the faucet, so water keep pouring in and overflows over the sides of the cup? Not exactly sure what you're saying here.

also, the fact that we are able to discuss this concept over the internet on a computer is a clear indication to me that there is "something" that is consequently not nothing. your overall point makes absolutely no sense in any concept since we are even able to discuss it. zooming out to where stars are the "size" of atoms is nonsensical as well because they are still the size of stars, not atoms. the moon looks like a piece of change up there in the sky so is that really how big it is because thats how we see it? no, it is still the same size no matter where we are.

How do you know that we are not nothing? What do you have to prove that anything is real? Because you can touch it? Smell it? Taste? See? For the sake of argument, let's say that you "existed" within the game Quake 3...I mean, really physically existed, and your "reality" was what the programmers of the game defined.

While not getting fragged every few seconds, you could analyze your environment from within the game. You'd start to see the limits imposed by the programmers, but wouldn't you wonder if there is something beyond those apparent limits? Maybe, reality extends beyond what you perceive it to be - and in fact it does, but you'd never know. The game becomes your reality, and the computer system running the game is the universe. As a programmed avatar within a game, can you devise a way to escape and exist beyond the confines of your universe?

Another point to consider: does time really pass for you, who exists in a game? If we ran a timedemo to test framerate, for the player it would seem to happen as quickly as the computer could process the demo, but for you it would seem normal, because everything that was going to happen, still happened. You see? IT doesn't matter of the demo actually took 100s or 1ns to run, either way it seemed the same to you, from your point within the game.

Now if you can understand what I'm trying to say, transpose that to our reality. How do you know that everything that could happen didn't already happen, but we just perceive it to be elapsing at a given rate, which we have named "time". Now consider the relative apparent speeds of things taking place along the infinite scale. Stars being born, and dying...to atoms and subatomic particles bouncing around.

infinitely scaling means absolutely nothing in terms of anything with respect to changing what it is. it just means that the scale is infinite, so big stuff looks smaller and small stuff is too small to see, but that doesnt mean it isnt there. by your logic, atoms simply dont exist, which is obviously 100% false. again, this whole post makes no sense. what is your point?

You're right, it means nothing, but not in the way you intend. I don't think you understand the concept I am trying to convey. Because of infinite scaling, it does not matter what the apparent physical properties of anything are, because they are negated along the scale.

Think about it, if we scaled down to some really really small fraction of a nanometer...what would we see? Let's say we scaled down to the point where an atom is the size of our universe. You follow? Now we are so small, that the atom is the size of our universe relative to us. Would it be infeasible to think that an atom could be a universe, but somewhere down the infinite scale?

Another interesting thing here is space...it doesn't seem to be affected by the scaling effect...it's almost like space is a constant, at least in the context of our universe.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Of course it's just an example, it's impossible to show infinity on a finite computer screen

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/addavenger/boxes.jpg

Yeah, I see what you mean now. Here's my take on this.

If you say this 2D grid is infinite in all directions, it would make sense to say the blue dots are 2 x infinity. But the thing about infinity is that it invalidates any number other than zero (which is also a concept, incidentally - we cannot imagine true nothingness any better than we can fathom infinity), so instead of 2 x infinity for the blue dots, you still just have an "infinite" number of dots. You can multiply infinity by any number other than zero, the result doesn't change - it's still infinity, just as anything multiplied by zero is nothing.

To make it easier to think of this problem, separate the dots from the boxes. You have an infinite number of dots, and an infinite number of boxes. Whether the dots are "in" the boxes or not is irrelevant in this context.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: EricMartello
If you say this 2D grid is infinite in all directions, it would make sense to say the blue dots are 2 x infinity. But the thing about infinity is that it invalidates any number other than zero (which is also a concept, incidentally - we cannot imagine true nothingness any better than we can fathom infinity), so instead of 2 x infinity for the blue dots, you still just have an "infinite" number of dots. You can multiply infinity by any number other than zero, the result doesn't change - it's still infinity, just as anything multiplied by zero is nothing.

You can't multiply infinity by anything because its not a number.

 

[PowerEngineer]

As you suggest, infinity is a mathematical concept -- not necessarily a physical one (although we've found that mathematics is very useful in describing our physical world).

Remembering that "zero" is an arbitrary point of reference for measurement of time or space, the Euclidian idea that the "line" stretching to infinity in both negative and positive directions does not bother me. It just underscores the concept that its choice is arbitrary.

It doesn't necessarily follow that physical space and time dimensions must also be infinite, and current space-time theories suggest they are not. The "Big Bang" theories posit a beginning of time as well as limits on the size of the universe, and string theory suggests there is a Plank Length that is the smallest increment of physical distance we can talk about. Like Newtonian physics, these Euclidian ideas provide us with very useful mathematical approaches to the physical world we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Bottom line, the mathematical and science descriptions of the real world are only approximations that we've found useful, and we keep them until we find better ones.

But these descriptions are something like a polygon's approximation of a circle. We may get better and better approximations (akin to more and more sides), but it will never exactly match (reality's) circle.

Unless the polygon has an infinite number of sides...

 

[esun]

This is sounding more and more like a "Theory of Knowledge" class. I think you may benefit from such a course (or perhaps a "Philosophy of Science" course). Your questions have no answers, but you can discuss them with smart people.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
no, it doesnt. it gets close enough for all practical purposes, but it never reaches its actual capacity. at t = infinity, a capacitor is at "capacity" and not a moment before. that was my whole point.

So you are saying that a capacitor can store an infinite amount of electricity? Or is it more like filling a cup with water, but not turning off the faucet, so water keep pouring in and overflows over the sides of the cup? Not exactly sure what you're saying here.

The rate of charge building up on the capacitor is dependent upon the amount of charge already built up. The more charge, the slower the rate of build up, hence the resulting exponential relationship that arises out of the differential equation. It will take infinite amount of time for that cap to get to full capacity but a finite amount of time to get close enough (and to fully discharge as well).

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
It doesn't necessarily follow that physical space and time dimensions must also be infinite, and current space-time theories suggest they are not. The "Big Bang" theories posit a beginning of time as well as limits on the size of the universe, and string theory suggests there is a Plank Length that is the smallest increment of physical distance we can talk about. Like Newtonian physics, these Euclidian ideas provide us with very useful mathematical approaches to the physical world we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

This explanation just still leaves me wondering, tho. As I can only perceive what my senses tell me are there, having a sense of time, beginning and end makes it much more rational in terms of understanding the universe.

But I have to ask, before the big bang, what was there? Not just that, but WHY was there anything at all? Why was there something which allowed the big bang to happen, and WHAT was it?

To me, it doesn't make sense that there would be some well-defined start for anything (which means there ultimately has to be an end). I do agree that this physical universe of which we are a part of has measurable extents in size, but I am sure there is more to it than meets our collective eye.

In a previous post, I suggested that if our physical size was scaled down to the point that the relative size of an atom is to us the size of our universe, it could mean that an atom IS a universe in a sense. You said a Plank Length is the smallest unit of physical distance we could talk about...but let's say we just have empty space with absolutely nothing in it...length becomes completely arbitrary.

Variation on that thought:
Lets' say this universe had a single star in it, and nothing else. Just one star. How big is that star? How small is that star? Without a point of reference, "size" is negated...this negation applies not only to the star, but that which it is composed of.

The only constant I see is space, which does not change based on your position on the infinite scale...it's a universal constant if there ever was one, but EVERYTHING else we can see, measure or otherwise detect is variable on the infinite scale.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: esun
This is sounding more and more like a "Theory of Knowledge" class. I think you may benefit from such a course (or perhaps a "Philosophy of Science" course). Your questions have no answers, but you can discuss them with smart people.

Yeah it is, I guess. You know, I like science and find it fascinating, but I don't like what comes across to me as overtly rigid mentality that a lot of scientists have. It's like they are hell-bent on making theories work, and they ignore what they cannot analyze.

This does work, I mean our technology shows that what we can understand, we can change, improve or create...but I'm more interested in what we don't know.

You say the questions I asked have no answer. That is true, if the answer you're looking for is some concrete, indisputable theorem or physical law...but if you approach from a different angle, it might start to make sense in its own way.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
The rate of charge building up on the capacitor is dependent upon the amount of charge already built up. The more charge, the slower the rate of build up, hence the resulting exponential relationship that arises out of the differential equation. It will take infinite amount of time for that cap to get to full capacity but a finite amount of time to get close enough (and to fully discharge as well).

Ok, I understand you now...and this is actually interesting, because it seems to correlate to what I've been saying. Theoretically, (and ignoring things like heat dissipation) if all the energy in the universe were converted into electricity, you could store it in a single capacitor.

 

[imported_Seer]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
The rate of charge building up on the capacitor is dependent upon the amount of charge already built up. The more charge, the slower the rate of build up, hence the resulting exponential relationship that arises out of the differential equation. It will take infinite amount of time for that cap to get to full capacity but a finite amount of time to get close enough (and to fully discharge as well).

Ok, I understand you now...and this is actually interesting, because it seems to correlate to what I've been saying. Theoretically, (and ignoring things like heat dissipation) if all the energy in the universe were converted into electricity, you could store it in a single capacitor.

No, you don't understand now, and no you couldn't Capacitors have a finite amount of energy they can hold (their capacitance), and it takes an infinite amount of time to put that much energy into the capacitor. Go here: http://www.ngsir.netfirms.com/englishhtm/RC_dc.htm I believe the top graph shows how much energy has been stored. Note that the graph is 1) asymptotic and 2) definitely finite.

Back on topic:

You aren't actually saying that "nothing exists," but rather only that there are no absolutes and that everything is relative. Reexamine your argument (you might want to look up nihlism) and come back.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
The rate of charge building up on the capacitor is dependent upon the amount of charge already built up. The more charge, the slower the rate of build up, hence the resulting exponential relationship that arises out of the differential equation. It will take infinite amount of time for that cap to get to full capacity but a finite amount of time to get close enough (and to fully discharge as well).

Ok, I understand you now...and this is actually interesting, because it seems to correlate to what I've been saying. Theoretically, (and ignoring things like heat dissipation) if all the energy in the universe were converted into electricity, you could store it in a single capacitor.

no, it cant store even close to infinite energy. it can store a very small amount, but it takes an infinite amount of time for it to actually hold all that it is physically capable of holding.

i still dont understand why you think scaling would result in nothing existing when clearly someone could right this very moment be observing the universe at an infinite scale, yet we are still currently existing. it is nonsensical to say the scale of which you observe something has anything to do with how big it actually is. it is the equivalent of looking at an atlas and using the legend that says 1 inch is a mile. your toothbrush is still the size of a toothbrush, but it just isnt visible at that scale. does that mean the toothbrush is now nothing? no.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: Seer
No, you don't understand now, and no you couldn't Capacitors have a finite amount of energy they can hold (their capacitance), and it takes an infinite amount of time to put that much energy into the capacitor. Go here: http://www.ngsir.netfirms.com/englishhtm/RC_dc.htm I believe the top graph shows how much energy has been stored. Note that the graph is 1) asymptotic and 2) definitely finite.

If it takes an infinite amount of time to fully charge a capacitor, that means that the charge current needs to be applied for an infinite amount of time as well, correct? Physically, I realize that capacitors are charged to an "effective" capacity, even if its not 100%, but since there is an exponential and inverse relation between charge and energy stored, and you said yourself it takes an "infinite" amount of time to charge...and you apply a charge for an infinite time, you would need an infinite supply of energy to maintain the charge - speaking hypothetically, of course.

Back on topic:

You aren't actually saying that "nothing exists," but rather only that there are no absolutes and that everything is relative. Reexamine your argument (you might want to look up nihlism) and come back.

I'm not really making an argument here, and you shouldn't think so. I'm stating what I've observed from my own perspective, and what I am looking for is other opinions of on the ideas I'm proposing that may help me expand my understanding.

Why do I say "nothing exists"? Because if everything, "all existence", is relative - relative to what? By scaling infinitely, you're always playing a game of catch-up. An atom is small relative to a star, but either one by itself with nothing else to compare it to - all physical properties no longer apply - therefore it is nothing. It's entirely ambiguous.

Now you could say that SPACE is finite, it's the playing field with defined boundaries. If space has boundaries, then everything I said kinda falls apart - BUT while space in the context of our universe may have boundaries, the space I am referring to is that which we define as existence. Not just the space in our universe, but the space that our universe exists within.

Back to my computer game analogy a few posts back...if the computer system is the universe, the space within the universe is the electrical pulses, and the space that contains that universe is the room that has your computer. Kinda like a matroska doll...but you see how the space within a universe is "incompatible" with the space that contains the universe. A programmed character cannot physically exist beyond his universe, but that doesn't mean it's not there or should be ignored.

I do not want to look up anything because I prefer to formulate my own conclusions with as little external influence as possible. If I happen to be similar or the same as existing ideas, that's a good sign for those existing ideas.

 

[herm0016]

all you need to understand is the fact that something can go on forever. look out into the blackness of space...can you see the wall at the other end? No. now think logically. are you looking at the end of the universe? sure. is there any way to know how far away it is? No. thus you need something to reference it to. your position. it is just continuous. it does not stop.
oh, good example.
stand 10 feet from your wall. now, go half way. you are at 5 feet. now go half way again. you are at 2.5 feet now go half way again. you are at 1.25 feet now keep doing this. keep just going half way to the wall. you never actually reach the wall. you can always divide that distance by 2, no matter how small it is. infinity is there to describe things that are continuous.

"I do not want to look up anything because I prefer to formulate my own conclusions with as little external influence as possible"
there is your problem: you cannot take other peoples ideas and formulate your own opinion.
I love to know a lot about whatever it is I am interested in at a time, but i always research many different views on the ideas to help me form my own ideas. this way i take advantage of other peoples research and scientific method.

everything is relative.
the difference is we have chosen some standards to judge things from, such as a line that in continuous and has a value of zero. you can move each direction on the line any number of any type of units no matter what they are relative to. a "line" is even defined as an infinity long set of points (points have no dimensions)with a constant slope. just as a circle is an infinite set of points that is equal distance from a specified point. this way even if you " scale down to atomic size" it will still be a circle, a continuous object. just as a line will always be a continuous object.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
It doesn't necessarily follow that physical space and time dimensions must also be infinite, and current space-time theories suggest they are not. The "Big Bang" theories posit a beginning of time as well as limits on the size of the universe, and string theory suggests there is a Plank Length that is the smallest increment of physical distance we can talk about. Like Newtonian physics, these Euclidian ideas provide us with very useful mathematical approaches to the physical world we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

This explanation just still leaves me wondering, tho. As I can only perceive what my senses tell me are there, having a sense of time, beginning and end makes it much more rational in terms of understanding the universe.

But I have to ask, before the big bang, what was there? Not just that, but WHY was there anything at all? Why was there something which allowed the big bang to happen, and WHAT was it?

To me, it doesn't make sense that there would be some well-defined start for anything (which means there ultimately has to be an end). I do agree that this physical universe of which we are a part of has measurable extents in size, but I am sure there is more to it than meets our collective eye.

In a previous post, I suggested that if our physical size was scaled down to the point that the relative size of an atom is to us the size of our universe, it could mean that an atom IS a universe in a sense. You said a Plank Length is the smallest unit of physical distance we could talk about...but let's say we just have empty space with absolutely nothing in it...length becomes completely arbitrary.

Variation on that thought:
Lets' say this universe had a single star in it, and nothing else. Just one star. How big is that star? How small is that star? Without a point of reference, "size" is negated...this negation applies not only to the star, but that which it is composed of.

The only constant I see is space, which does not change based on your position on the infinite scale...it's a universal constant if there ever was one, but EVERYTHING else we can see, measure or otherwise detect is variable on the infinite scale.

You start this thread (and this response) by observing that definable beginnings and ends make more sense to you than infinites, and then you seem to take exception to the suggestion that the universe had a beginning. Are you now arguing that time goes back infinitely far after all? And in closing you seem to say the space is infinite too. Are you arguing for or against the physical existence of infinities?

I will agree that measurement of length in a physical dimension requires some sort of ruler (and time some sort of clock). The presense or absense of other objects (e.g. just one star) does not mean that the star does not have physical dimensions (expressed perhaps in wavelengths of light generated by a particular electron transition for a hydrogen atom).

"WHY" is a question for religion or philosophy. Science seeks to describe what has happened (,is happening, and will happen) -- NOT why.

Let me suggest that what you (and every other human observer) have come to think of as "reasonable" based on the inputs from our senses can not necessarily to extrapolated into scales of time and space that are many orders of magnitude larger or smaller than what our senses can grasp. Our senses bauk at the idea that nothing can go faster then the speed of light; anyone who has tried to wrap their brains around Einstein's general relativity understands how its concepts run counter to our "common sense". And quantum physics is at least as unsettling when we get down to looking at the subatomic world. We must therefore proceed with caution when deciding what "makes sense" and what doesn't.

Which leads me to:

I do not want to look up anything because I prefer to formulate my own conclusions with as little external influence as possible.

The Greeks also believed that they could discern the nature of the world through thought alone. To their way of thinking, it was obvious that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones -- so obvious that this belief went untested until Galileo conducted physical experiments that proved otherwise. My point is that you always need to check your conclusions against the harshness of reality.

 

[imported_Seer]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: Seer
No, you don't understand now, and no you couldn't Capacitors have a finite amount of energy they can hold (their capacitance), and it takes an infinite amount of time to put that much energy into the capacitor. Go here: http://www.ngsir.netfirms.com/englishhtm/RC_dc.htm I believe the top graph shows how much energy has been stored. Note that the graph is 1) asymptotic and 2) definitely finite.

If it takes an infinite amount of time to fully charge a capacitor, that means that the charge current needs to be applied for an infinite amount of time as well, correct? Physically, I realize that capacitors are charged to an "effective" capacity, even if its not 100%, but since there is an exponential and inverse relation between charge and energy stored, and you said yourself it takes an "infinite" amount of time to charge...and you apply a charge for an infinite time, you would need an infinite supply of energy to maintain the charge - speaking hypothetically, of course.

No, wrong again. While its true that a current is being drawn across for an infinite amount of team, the current is asymptotic towards zero, and the integral of current from 0 to t=infinity has a finite amount (which is equal to the energy stored in the capacitor). This is of course ignoring heat dissipation, which would use up an infinite amount of energy if you were to let it run forever. Purely theoretically speaking, however, the energy is most definitely finite, and very much so. Not even high a lot of the time, and often very small.

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: Seer
Back on topic:

You aren't actually saying that "nothing exists," but rather only that there are no absolutes and that everything is relative. Reexamine your argument (you might want to look up nihlism) and come back.

I'm not really making an argument here, and you shouldn't think so. I'm stating what I've observed from my own perspective, and what I am looking for is other opinions of on the ideas I'm proposing that may help me expand my understanding.

Why do I say "nothing exists"? Because if everything, "all existence", is relative - relative to what? By scaling infinitely, you're always playing a game of catch-up. An atom is small relative to a star, but either one by itself with nothing else to compare it to - all physical properties no longer apply - therefore it is nothing. It's entirely ambiguous.

Now you could say that SPACE is finite, it's the playing field with defined boundaries. If space has boundaries, then everything I said kinda falls apart - BUT while space in the context of our universe may have boundaries, the space I am referring to is that which we define as existence. Not just the space in our universe, but the space that our universe exists within.

Back to my computer game analogy a few posts back...if the computer system is the universe, the space within the universe is the electrical pulses, and the space that contains that universe is the room that has your computer. Kinda like a matroska doll...but you see how the space within a universe is "incompatible" with the space that contains the universe. A programmed character cannot physically exist beyond his universe, but that doesn't mean it's not there or should be ignored.

I do not want to look up anything because I prefer to formulate my own conclusions with as little external influence as possible. If I happen to be similar or the same as existing ideas, that's a good sign for those existing ideas.

Just as i believe you did not look at my link, you aren't really listening to anyone here. You opened this thread with this statement:

I'd like to hear what some of you guys think of my ideas here.

You also had this in your post:

what I am looking for is other opinions of on the ideas I'm proposing that may help me expand my understanding.

Yet you conclude with this?!?!??

I prefer to formulate my own conclusions with as little external influence as possible

Are you really looking for peoples opinions, or do you just want everybody to nod their head and agree with you?

Anyways, you really should look up nihlism, you'd find it interesting. I fail to see how the existance of infinite scaling suddenly invalidates everything that exists. It simply means our definitions are relative to other things.

Also, the existance of such universal constants as G, c, the planck length, and quantized engergy totally turns your theories on their tales by absolutely specifying an absoluteness to the universe.

EDIT: Quotations fixed

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: herm0016
all you need to understand is the fact that something can go on forever. look out into the blackness of space...can you see the wall at the other end? No. now think logically. are you looking at the end of the universe? sure. is there any way to know how far away it is? No. thus you need something to reference it to. your position. it is just continuous. it does not stop.
oh, good example.
stand 10 feet from your wall. now, go half way. you are at 5 feet. now go half way again. you are at 2.5 feet now go half way again. you are at 1.25 feet now keep doing this. keep just going half way to the wall. you never actually reach the wall. you can always divide that distance by 2, no matter how small it is. infinity is there to describe things that are continuous.

The human mind needs limits to understand anything, and that is why we issue reference points, which allows us to make comparisons and create formulas that calculate results based on a given input criteria. I do not think that the universe we perceive as our reality is infinite, it's just really big...but I do think the universe is contained within something else, and that which contains it scales infinitely.

Your example is pretty good, but it's along the same lines as following the line of a circle without any points of reference on it. You can divide the distance you travel in half infinitely, as you stated. This ties into what I'm saying, because you essentially never move from the "middle" position.

there is your problem: you cannot take other peoples ideas and formulate your own opinion.
I love to know a lot about whatever it is I am interested in at a time, but i always research many different views on the ideas to help me form my own ideas. this way i take advantage of other peoples research and scientific method.

My thoughts are my own, and you have your way of learning and I have mine. I don't expect you to adopt my way, nor should you expect me to adopt yours. I do like to here what people say about my thoughts, and discussing it, which is why I started this thread.

everything is relative.
the difference is we have chosen some standards to judge things from, such as a line that in continuous and has a value of zero. you can move each direction on the line any number of any type of units no matter what they are relative to. a "line" is even defined as an infinity long set of points (points have no dimensions)with a constant slope. just as a circle is an infinite set of points that is equal distance from a specified point. this way even if you " scale down to atomic size" it will still be a circle, a continuous object. just as a line will always be a continuous object.

The act of defining something, thus imposing some sort of limits, constraints, paradigms or whatever, just gives us something to work with...but that isn't designed to explain the true fundamental level of what we know as existence. For EVERYTHING to be relative, there needs to be some sort of convergence point, where everything originates from. Big bang? God? Take your pick, because I doubt either of is as good an answer as the other.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
You start this thread (and this response) by observing that definable beginnings and ends make more sense to you than infinites, and then you seem to take exception to the suggestion that the universe had a beginning. Are you now arguing that time goes back infinitely far after all? And in closing you seem to say the space is infinite too. Are you arguing for or against the physical existence of infinities?

Of course they make more sense to me, I am human...my brain understands things much easier when there are defined limits! But the nice thing about the human mind is that it doesn't need to constrain itself to any one type of thinking or reasoning. It's not so much that I have trouble with the universe beginning, it's what was there BEFORE the universe ever came to be. SOMETHING must have been there, right? Otherwise, the universe is born of nothingness.

If we restrict our thoughts and analysis to within our universe, things work fine...I'm trying to figure out the whole picture, though. I would agree that our universe has bounds, but what is beyond those bounds? Not even a guess? Humor me, please.

I will agree that measurement of length in a physical dimension requires some sort of ruler (and time some sort of clock). The presense or absense of other objects (e.g. just one star) does not mean that the star does not have physical dimensions (expressed perhaps in wavelengths of light generated by a particular electron transition for a hydrogen atom).

In order to properly understand my example, you need to disregard what you may already know about stars. If all that exists is empty space, with a single star, that is all you can possibly know. I never stated what "size" you are relative to the star, did I? For all you know, the relative size of the star to you could be microscopic, or it could be "heavenly body" sized. You just assumed that, based on what you know now, that the star is going to be pretty big, pretty hot and pretty massive. Preconceived notions cloud true understanding, in my opinion.

"WHY" is a question for religion or philosophy. Science seeks to describe what has happened (,is happening, and will happen) -- NOT why.

This mentality is the Achilles heel of of science. It's very arrogant for any person to think that the everything fits into some constraints they create. I always laugh when I see scientists getting all upset that something doesn't fit their model...when they should be making the model fit.

What about you? Do you believe in science?

Let me suggest that what you (and every other human observer) have come to think of as "reasonable" based on the inputs from our senses can not necessarily to extrapolated into scales of time and space that are many orders of magnitude larger or smaller than what our senses can grasp. Our senses bauk at the idea that nothing can go faster then the speed of light; anyone who has tried to wrap their brains around Einstein's general relativity understands how its concepts run counter to our "common sense". And quantum physics is at least as unsettling when we get down to looking at the subatomic world. We must therefore proceed with caution when deciding what "makes sense" and what doesn't.

Where is it written or stated that anything needs to make sense, tho? Why does everything have to work out neatly or predictably, other than it's what works for us. Some people may be content sticking with what works...my quest is for true understanding, and I keep my mind open to many possibilities.

Which leads me to:

I do not want to look up anything because I prefer to formulate my own conclusions with as little external influence as possible.

The Greeks also believed that they could discern the nature of the world through thought alone. To their way of thinking, it was obvious that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones -- so obvious that this belief went untested until Galileo conducted physical experiments that proved otherwise. My point is that you always need to check your conclusions against the harshness of reality.

Of course, observation is the first step, testing it is the next...as far as our physical reality is concerned, but what I'm trying to understand is what's beyond our senses, our universe and possibly us. Remember that tou can't really say reality IS anything other than what your senses tell you it is...can you? Even if you bust out fancy tools and math, it's still just something you're understanding using some combination of your senses...it's more likely that our senses are there to LIMIT us, rather than to allow us to experience the true nature of existence.