(February 14, 2018 at 9:58 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Steve, have you tried heading over to google for some independent research?  Or are you just going to stamp your feet and demand someone take screen shots of every page in their physics and mathematics books for you, and if they don’t, claim victory?  That’s not how this works, lol.

Come on. Those two have backed themselves into a logical mess. All they have done for 10 pages is assert they are right. Don't you find it at all puzzling that they can't produce as single person that can articulate their theory of an infinite block of time? In a very convoluted way, they are using abstract concepts that were never meant to describe the real world according to the people who use them. 

I can't look up something on a theory that no one actually believes.

(February 14, 2018 at 11:18 am)SteveII Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 9:58 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Steve, have you tried heading over to google for some independent research?  Or are you just going to stamp your feet and demand someone take screen shots of every page in their physics and mathematics books for you, and if they don’t, claim victory?  That’s not how this works, lol.

Come on. Those two have backed themselves into a logical mess. All they have done for 10 pages is assert they are right. Don't you find it at all puzzling that they can't produce as single person that can articulate their theory of an infinite block of time? In a very convoluted way, they are using abstract concepts that were never meant to describe the real world according to the people who use them. 

I can't look up something on a theory that no one actually believes.

You're not paying attention perhaps.

Here's a YouTube video for you, since technical articles are understandably too much for you.





So he says it's a logical possibility at least, just like a finite universe is a possibility.

(February 14, 2018 at 10:56 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 10:48 am)SteveII Wrote: So, when you said there was such a thing as completed infinity of events, you are talking about real objects. Your justification is that mathematics has a useful (on paper) abstract concept like considering all of the natural numbers--which cannot be counted--as one thing. You don't see the difference?

Not just natural numbers, but all integers. And all real numbers as well.

What do you mean by cannot be counted as one thing? I'm not asking you to count anything. It's there, already complete. 

Provide a logical argument against actual infinity existing in reality, if you think there is a logical problem. Saying "married bachelor" is not good enough because we already showed you it's not the same thing.

Hilbert's Hotel:

Imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. All the rooms are full and a new guest walks in and wants a room. The desk clerk says no rooms are available.

Now imagine a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms. All the rooms are filled up so an infinite number of guests. A new guest walks up and wants a room. All the clerk has to to do is to move the guest in room #1 to room #2 and the guest from #2 to #3 and so on so your new guest can have a room #1. You can do this infinite number of times to a hotel that was already full.

Now imagine instead the clerk moves the guest from #1 to #2 and from #2 to #4 and from #3 to #6 (each being moved to a room number twice the original). All the odd number rooms become vacant. You can add an infinite number of new guests to a hotel that was full and end up with it half empty. 

How many people would be in the hotel if the guest in #1 checked out?

If everyone in odd number rooms checks out, how many checked out? How many are left?

Now what if all the guest above room number 3 check out. How many checked out? How many are left?

So from the above we get:
infinity + infinity = infinity
infinity + infinity = infinity/2
infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity / 2 = infinity
infinity - infinity = 3

Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd.

Also, this one matches what I believe about time:

Max Tegmark

(February 14, 2018 at 11:18 am)SteveII Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 9:58 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Steve, have you tried heading over to google for some independent research?  Or are you just going to stamp your feet and demand someone take screen shots of every page in their physics and mathematics books for you, and if they don’t, claim victory?  That’s not how this works, lol.

Come on. Those two have backed themselves into a logical mess. All they have done for 10 pages is assert they are right. Don't you find it at all puzzling that they can't produce as single person that can articulate their theory of an infinite block of time? In a very convoluted way, they are using abstract concepts that were never meant to describe the real world according to the people who use them. 

I can't look up something on a theory that no one actually believes.

Steve, I don’t think anyone is asserting they know that space-time is infinite; only that it’s not a logical contradiction, which has been clearly demonstrated.  And, while I’m not a physicist or a  mathematician, the concept of a completed infinity in mathematics is easily accessible to anyone with a smartphone and/or access to the internet.  I’m not sure what you’re still objecting to.

(February 14, 2018 at 11:23 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 11:18 am)SteveII Wrote: Come on. Those two have backed themselves into a logical mess. All they have done for 10 pages is assert they are right. Don't you find it at all puzzling that they can't produce as single person that can articulate their theory of an infinite block of time? In a very convoluted way, they are using abstract concepts that were never meant to describe the real world according to the people who use them. 

I can't look up something on a theory that no one actually believes.

You're not paying attention perhaps.

Here's a YouTube video for you, since technical articles are understandably too much for you.





So he says it's a logical possibility at least, just like a finite universe is a possibility.

Two things. First, he said that if the universe is finite in time and space, all of our calculations work. 

Second, he said that our best hope for an explanation is an infinite (in time and space) universe. He did not say that is what the theory is. He has no idea what that is but he realizes the consequences that if the universe is not eternal, an explanation is required for it. In other places he has called the universe a brute fact. By definition, if you consider something a brute fact, you have no explanation. 

So, did he explain your theory? NO. There is no theory. He has the same desire as you--to avoid a beginning. Except he is smart enough not to try to tell us how that would work.

Care to try again?

(February 14, 2018 at 11:25 am)SteveII Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 10:56 am)Grandizer Wrote: Not just natural numbers, but all integers. And all real numbers as well.

What do you mean by cannot be counted as one thing? I'm not asking you to count anything. It's there, already complete. 

Provide a logical argument against actual infinity existing in reality, if you think there is a logical problem. Saying "married bachelor" is not good enough because we already showed you it's not the same thing.

Hilbert's Hotel:

Imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. All the rooms are full and a new guest walks in and wants a room. The desk clerk says no rooms are available.

Now imagine a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms. All the rooms are filled up so an infinite number of guests. A new guest walks up and wants a room. All the clerk has to to do is to move the guest in room #1 to room #2 and the guest from #2 to #3 and so on so your new guest can have a room #1. You can do this infinite number of times to a hotel that was already full.

Now imagine instead the clerk moves the guest from #1 to #2 and from #2 to #4 and from #3 to #6 (each being moved to a room number twice the original). All the odd number rooms become vacant. You can add an infinite number of new guests to a hotel that was full and end up with it half empty. 

How many people would be in the hotel if the guest in #1 checked out?

If everyone in odd number rooms checks out, how many checked out? How many are left?

Now what if all the guest above room number 3 check out. How many checked out? How many are left?

So from the above we get:
infinity + infinity = infinity
infinity + infinity = infinity/2
infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity / 2 = infinity
infinity - infinity = 3

Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd.

infinity is not a number, lol.

The set of all positive integers is still the same size as the set of all even positive integers.

Also, what's 0/0? Or 6/0?

Is 0 logically absurd as well?

Leave Cantorian set mathematics to those who are qualified to work with it.

---

(February 14, 2018 at 11:50 am)SteveII Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 11:23 am)Grandizer Wrote: You're not paying attention perhaps.

Here's a YouTube video for you, since technical articles are understandably too much for you.





So he says it's a logical possibility at least, just like a finite universe is a possibility.

Two things. First, he said that if the universe is finite in time and space, all of our calculations work.

He also said it's still a problem nevertheless. 

Quote:Second, he said that our best hope for an explanation is an infinite (in time and space) universe. He did not say that is what the theory is. He has no idea what that is but he realizes the consequences that if the universe is not eternal, an explanation is required for it. In other places he has called the universe a brute fact. By definition, if you consider something a brute fact, you have no explanation.

I thought the argument we're trying to make here is that it is a logical possibility. What theory did you want exactly?

This exchange has been interesting.  From what I've seen, it has been conceded that humanity currently does not know whether space or time is actually infinite.  However, the concept of a complete infinity is logically consistent (if one wants to study advanced mathematics, then he or she needs to understand this), and this information can be obtained via books on set theory, discrete math, or analysis.  A key topic in real analysis is establishing that there are no holes in the real number line and that it is a complete infinity, which is a concept referred to as the axiom of completeness (any bounded non-empty subset of real numbers will always have a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound).

SteveII Wrote:Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd.

Have you considered that it may be the case that humanity is currently not advanced enough to understand an actual infinite?  How many of humanity's discoveries would have been lost had we written them off due to them appearing to be nonsensical/logically absurd?

(February 14, 2018 at 11:46 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 11:18 am)SteveII Wrote: Come on. Those two have backed themselves into a logical mess. All they have done for 10 pages is assert they are right. Don't you find it at all puzzling that they can't produce as single person that can articulate their theory of an infinite block of time? In a very convoluted way, they are using abstract concepts that were never meant to describe the real world according to the people who use them. 

I can't look up something on a theory that no one actually believes.

Steve, I don’t think anyone is asserting they know that space-time is infinite; only that it’s not a logical contradiction, which has been clearly demonstrated.  And, while I’m not a physicist or a  mathematician, the concept of a completed infinity in mathematics is easily accessible to anyone with a smartphone and/or access to the internet.  I’m not sure what you’re still objecting to.

What I am objecting to is not the concept of infinity. I'm fine with that. What I am objecting to is NO ONE believes it applies to the real world, real objects, real series of events--because successive addition will never get you to it. A simple article would prove me wrong. 

Even if you think it should (like Sean Carroll), there is no theory how to defeat the logic. You must accept it without explanation (brute fact). But that is not what Grand/Poly are suggesting. They think they are smarter than Sean Carroll and think it a settled question with the answer -- of course it works--no problem.

(February 14, 2018 at 12:00 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 11:46 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Steve, I don’t think anyone is asserting they know that space-time is infinite; only that it’s not a logical contradiction, which has been clearly demonstrated.  And, while I’m not a physicist or a  mathematician, the concept of a completed infinity in mathematics is easily accessible to anyone with a smartphone and/or access to the internet.  I’m not sure what you’re still objecting to.

What I am objecting to is not the concept of infinity. I'm fine with that. What I am objecting to is NO ONE believes it applies to the real world, real objects, real series of events--because successive addition will never get you to it. A simple article would prove me wrong. 

Even if you think it should (like Sean Carroll), there is no theory how to defeat the logic. You must accept it without explanation (brute fact). But that is not what Grand/Poly are suggesting. They think they are smarter than Sean Carroll and think it a settled question with the answer -- of course it works--no problem.

You're NOT paying attention!

polymath is arguing similar to Sean Carroll, in that he's not sure if space/time is infinite or not, but the bet is that it is.

And I make no claim that what I hold to is scientific in its entirety. My personal view is logical but not necessarily completely supported by scientific evidence, though it also doesn't contradict it either. So it's absurd that you want us to post a scientific theory that says this is what is the case, when no one said anything about a scientific theory.