Universe can't be infinite.

[TimeSeeker]

Check this out, Gaylord and devans99.

Remember this from the other thread, Gaylord?

This OP is typical of incompetent philosophers and their gaggle of wanna-be's. The remarkable thing about this thread is the large number of pinheads who responded as if the OP asked an intelligent, or answerable question.

Define what you mean by "God," and do so precisely. In other words, describe this entity in terms of its properties.

The precise definition of infinity is as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754
It is implemented in Python as per https://www.numpy.org/devdocs/reference ... #numpy.Inf

And so you can easily do stuff like:

from numpy import inf
print(inf + inf)
print(inf / inf)
print(inf + 5)
print(inf - 5)
print(inf * 0)
print(0 / inf)
print(1 / inf)

Go and run the code yourself over here: https://repl.it/repls/KnobbyMedicalLint

Welcome to Lambda calculus. Where proofs compute ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–How ... espondence )

I am not sure what mental gymnastics you are going to have to go through to reject the existence of infinity when it's right in front of you.
EXACTLY as you have defined its properties! Running on a Turing machine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus ) and everything!

[Greylorn Ell]

No, nitwit. 0 does not behave like infinity. 0 + 9 = 9 whereas infinity + 9 (or anything else) = infinity.

You exemplify the problem with this forum, in the person of one of the many philosopher wanna-be's who pretend to know more than they do. For shame on the lot of you and your pretentious ilk.

No, you fossil. Just because you did physics a century ago doesn't mean you have a clue what you are talking about either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–How ... espondence

∞ + 9 = ∞ is a AXIOMATIC truth.

That kind of shit stopped being relevant 300 years ago.
One person can ASSUME it's true, another person can ASSUME it is not!
Neither will run into any contradictions.

Now lets try this exercise in Lambda calculus/Type theory.

∞ + 9 = ∞ is a PROPOSITION!

True/false is a foreign notion. A proposition is either proven or not! So IF you can write an algorithm which evaluates the assertion THEN it is proven to be mathematically valid. And guess what. I CAN!

IF ∞ + 9 = ∞ THEN X + 0 = X ISOMORPHIC.

That is to say ANY equation containing ∞ makes all other numbers BEHAVE like zero. Context and interpretation!

And so ∞ + 9 + 10000 + 1000000000 = ∞
Because 9, 10000 and 10000 BEHAVE like 0 in context of ∞ .

Now IF you can tell the rest of us what you MEAN by "infinity" that would be great.

e.g define its TYPE in Lambda calculus. But you can't

Gödel's completeness theorem is a fundamental theorem in mathematical logic that establishes a correspondence between semantic truth and syntactic provability in first-order logic. It makes a close link between model theory that deals with what is true in different models, and proof theory that studies what can be formally proven in particular formal systems.

You are a peon like the rest of them "philosophers" who bow down to axiomatic truth.

Proofs compute.

If you REALLY meant infinity (as in ACTUAL infinity) you cannot evaluate ∞ + 9 but since you have gone ahead and evaluated (A.K.A COMPUTED) it. Apparently you think there is a way to do it.

Sorry, poop for brains. I attended a one hour seminar that explained "infinity mathematics." The actual math took only 10 minutes to learn, but that's too much time for nits like you to spend doing anything other that spewing your relentless bullshit, so I'd not expect you to take the trouble to learn anything that you do not already imagine that you know.

Just for the fun of it, is there anyone actually reading this crap who understands WTF this pinhead "TimeSeeker" is writing about?

Greylorn

[TimeSeeker]

Sorry, poop for brains. I attended a one hour seminar that explained "infinity mathematics." The actual math took only 10 minutes to learn, but that's too much time for nits like you to spend doing anything other that spewing your relentless bullshit, so I'd not expect you to take the trouble to learn anything that you do not already imagine that you know.

Just for the fun of it, is there anyone actually reading this crap who understands WTF this pinhead "TimeSeeker" is writing about?

Greylorn

Maybe you can't understand what I am saying because you lack the background knowledge to understand it?

But you can read, can't you? That's why I gave you a link to the relevant developments in logic (Curry-Howard isomorphism) so you can educate yourself.

And if it still doesn't make sense to you I can explain it to you like a 1st grader.

[Greylorn Ell]

Sorry, poop for brains. I attended a one hour seminar that explained "infinity mathematics." The actual math took only 10 minutes to learn, but that's too much time for nits like you to spend doing anything other that spewing your relentless bullshit, so I'd not expect you to take the trouble to learn anything that you do not already imagine that you know.

Just for the fun of it, is there anyone actually reading this crap who understands WTF this pinhead "TimeSeeker" is writing about?

Greylorn

Well, maybe you can't understand what I am saying because you lack the background knowledge to understand what I am saying.

But you can read, can't you? That's why I gave you a link to the relevant developments in logic (Curry-Howard isomorphism) so you can educate yourself.

And if it still doesn't make sense to you I can explain it to you like a 1st grader.

Great idea. Go ahead and explain it to a 1st grader or any other of your peers, then let me know how that works out for you.
Greylorn

[TimeSeeker]

Great idea. Go ahead and explain it to a 1st grader or any other of your peers, then let me know how that works out for you.
Greylorn

My peers understand it, Gaylord.

It is you, first graders, that need hand-holding on the last 100 years of developments in logic and constructive mathematics.

But really: "Mathematical modelling" is a much better phrase for a 1st grader such as yourself. Just think LEGO!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

[devans99]

Just for the fun of it, is there anyone actually reading this crap who understands WTF this pinhead "TimeSeeker" is writing about?

Greylorn

I think when confronted with logic, Timeseeker produces random messages not related to the OP:

∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0

Time and space are finite. This should be the end of the story Timeseeker.

[TimeSeeker]

I think when confronted with logic, Timeseeker produces random messages not related to the OP:

You should look in the mirror. Logic is what I am confronting you with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–How ... espondence
That you do not recognise it as logic is evidence of your ignorance.

∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0

Yes it does. So what? When you are dealing with infinities 1 = ~0 IN PROPORTION TO ∞. This is called Scale variance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance ) which is a concept which applied just fine when you calculated
lim x-> ∞ 1/x = ~0. What is ~0 ? What is 1 * ~0 ?


Either way - I am not the one arguing from ∞ + 1 = ∞ - YOU ARE. Because in reality there are no identities either. Two things are never the same as each other.

I am arguing from ∞ + 1 > ∞
It implies 1 > 0.

Time and space are finite.

Time has a BEGINNING. Can you show me its end?
Timespace is expanding. How is that "finite"?

This should be the end of the story Timeseeker.

It should, but it isn't

[Atla]

Just for the fun of it, is there anyone actually reading this crap who understands WTF this pinhead "TimeSeeker" is writing about?

Greylorn

I think when confronted with logic, Timeseeker produces random messages not related to the OP:

∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0

Time and space are finite. This should be the end of the story Timeseeker.

TimeSeeker is in a league of his own. We can long debate what's right or wrong, more likely or less likely, what makes more sense etc. But Timeseeker doesn't even have the ability to make sense.

[TimeSeeker]

TimeSeeker is in a league of his own. We can long debate what's right or wrong, more likely or less likely, what makes more sense etc. But Timeseeker doesn't even have the ability to make sense.

That's what happens when you are a slave of logic, Atla.

You don't even know how you've reached your own conclusions and what starting assumptions (AXIOMS!) you've accepted to get there.

Simply: Where did you start, where did you end up and what steps did take to the position you hold right now?
You only "make sense" when you ignore all the contingencies in your pre-suppositions

Mathematics is just a language. A system. And I think I am the only one here who understands systems theory.
You can't examine its parts without looking at the whole.

1+2-3+4 .....= -1/12

For certain pre-suppositions

More importantly. You have absolutely no clue what your own criterion for"making" and "not making" sense is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

[devans99]

I think when confronted with logic, Timeseeker produces random messages not related to the OP:

You should look in the mirror. Logic is what I am confronting you with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–How ... espondence
That you do not recognise it as logic is evidence of your ignorance.

∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0

Yes it does. So what? When you are dealing with infinities 1 = ~0 IN PROPORTION TO ∞. This is called Scale variance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance ) which is a concept which applied just fine when you calculated
lim x-> ∞ 1/x = ~0. What is ~0 ? What is 1 * ~0 ?


Either way - I am not the one arguing from ∞ + 1 = ∞ - YOU ARE. Because in reality there are no identities either. Two things are never the same as each other.

I am arguing from ∞ + 1 > ∞
It implies 1 > 0.

Time and space are finite.

Time has a BEGINNING. Can you show me its end?
Timespace is expanding. How is that "finite"?

This should be the end of the story Timeseeker.

It should, but it isn't

You are just out there man, wish I was on whatever you are on.

Scale variance relates to multiplication whereas we (I?) are discussing addition.

Please don't try to defend 1>0 either.

Curry correspondence: we can prove actual infinity is impossible in a Turing machine so how is this relevant at all?

Time has a beginning. That means Presentism is impossible if you think about it (IE what happened before the start of time). So Eternalism must be true. If you are Eternalist and Finitist then time must have an end.

Space is expanding, space time is not. Space time is static and eternal.

[TimeSeeker]

You are just out there man, wish I was on whatever you are on.

Scale variance relates to multiplication whereas we (I?) are discussing addition.

Please don't try to defend 1>0 either.

Curry correspondence: we can prove actual infinity is impossible in a Turing machine so how is this relevant at all?

Time has a beginning. That means Presentism is impossible if you think about it (IE what happened before the start of time). So Eternalism must be true. If you are Eternalist and Finitist then time must have an end.

Space is expanding, space time is not. Space time is static and eternal.

Listen. In this entire exercise you are appealing to consistency. You are following the law of non-contradiction it seems.
Forget my argument - you are missing far too much background knowledge to get to my position.

Instead - I'll just drive you to a contradiction in your own position and leave you befuzzled to figure out how you got there.

You said lim x-> ∞ 1/x = ~0

Can you tell me what 1 * ~0 = ?

[devans99]

You are just out there man, wish I was on whatever you are on.

Scale variance relates to multiplication whereas we (I?) are discussing addition.

Please don't try to defend 1>0 either.

Curry correspondence: we can prove actual infinity is impossible in a Turing machine so how is this relevant at all?

Time has a beginning. That means Presentism is impossible if you think about it (IE what happened before the start of time). So Eternalism must be true. If you are Eternalist and Finitist then time must have an end.

Space is expanding, space time is not. Space time is static and eternal.

Listen. In this entire exercise you are appealing to consistency. You are following the law of non-contradiction it seems.
Forget my argument - you are missing far too much background knowledge to get to my position.

Instead - I'll just drive you to a contradiction in your own position and leave you befuzzled to figure out how you got there.

You said lim x-> ∞ 1/x = ~0

Can you tell me what 1 * ~0 = ?

1 * ~0 ~ 0

[TimeSeeker]

You are just out there man, wish I was on whatever you are on.

Scale variance relates to multiplication whereas we (I?) are discussing addition.

Please don't try to defend 1>0 either.

Curry correspondence: we can prove actual infinity is impossible in a Turing machine so how is this relevant at all?

Time has a beginning. That means Presentism is impossible if you think about it (IE what happened before the start of time). So Eternalism must be true. If you are Eternalist and Finitist then time must have an end.

Space is expanding, space time is not. Space time is static and eternal.

Listen. In this entire exercise you are appealing to consistency. You are following the law of non-contradiction it seems.
Forget my argument - you are missing far too much background knowledge to get to my position.

Instead - I'll just drive you to a contradiction in your own position and leave you befuzzled to figure out how you got there.

You said lim x-> ∞ 1/x = ~0

Can you tell me what 1 * ~0 = ?

1 * ~0 ~ 0

This is not a valid number. Did you mean to type 1 * ~0 = ~0 ?

[devans99]

I meant:

1 * ~0 =~ 0

IE

One time approx 0 is approx equal to 0

[TimeSeeker]

I meant:

1 * ~0 =~ 0

IE

One time approx 0 is approx equal to 0

I see.

And what is lim x->∞ ~0/x = ?