Einstein on the train

[Atla]

An expanding infinite universe is of course a logical impossibility, someone here is making even Age look smart. Drawing a parallel between the infinity of the universe (which is a "real" infinite) and the various infinites of mathematics (which are made-up concepts) is pure nonsense.

A "real" infinite that isn't conceptual ?

Since you have access to "reality" through approximately the same faculties as all humans - which God revealed that "real infinite truth" to you?

You are once again claiming that the universe doesn't exist, which is the most self-defeating position in the entire history of human thought.

Congratulations

[Logik]

You are once again claiming that the universe doesn't exist, which is the most self-defeating position in the entire history of human thought.

Congratulations

If that's what you extracted from my words then...

Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability, if you use a ruler to measure a table you may also be using the table to measure the ruler.

Arguing for or against the universe's existence is inconsequential. It's not even wrong.

[-1-]

And can an infinite universe expand infinitely?

This is a purely geometrical question, but our minds are now focussed on what's happening in reality.

I think the crux is the "event horizon". If Einstein was right, and the speed of light is the maximum attainable speed, then the matter in the expanding universe we observe and know, must stop expanding once its speed of displacement attains the speed of light.

If, however, Einstein was not all that right, and I have no way to prove this, nor a wish or motivation to prove this, and in fact things (matter) can obtain speeds larger or faster than the speed of light, then we can't make any claims as to what happens on the other side of the event horizon.

[Scott Mayers]

The response of mine in your quote of me here was merely a followup supplemental post to the question I responded that expands on the term "Real Numbers" only.

The actual question you asked and I answered in the prior post was:

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:02 am
HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

...and I need you to respond to the understanding infinities of infinities challenge as it relates to everything of your congested questions.

Why do you NEED me to respond to that?

But, if you really NEED me to respond, then I will.

What is the challenge, exactly?

The question I posed was: HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

So, HOW does explaining the understanding of the infinities of infinities, which is in relation to numbers, help you to answer the question HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway? Either you can answer that question or you can NOT.

My question is in relation to IF the Universe is infinite, which means FOREVER MORE, then HOW could that GET BIGGER?

You don't understand how the math relates to the reality. It is based on a 'continuous' space, whether real or virtual. (math or real space)

If between any two integers, like 0 and 1, has an infinity of numbers, in real space the continuity of dividing it is also infinite. The same is true of a consecutive integral space, like between 1 and 2. Yet between 0 and 2, there is also an infinity of division, yet it is ALSO 2 times the infinity of the space between only a unit integer space. Thus you have a REAL space that has MORE than one simple infinity. This proves how you CAN still FIND more space than any given 'infinity' at some point in time.

The concept of infinities is DYNAMIC. The question of any "origins" is a question of dynamics because you require a time and space either to POP into sudden existence from nothing or be infinitely expanding NOT from an actual origin but a perceived one, similar to how real parallel railway tracks 'appear' to join at a point in a distance.

Now, given your hostility towards me from the start, the religious assumption of you is valid because you are resisting not only Will's NORMAL SCIENTIFIC explanation but my own in support of a prior theory, both of which are the limiting possibility types of 'origin' explanations given what we observe. You can't contest an 'origin' of space AND one that is infinite (non-origin type) of a Steady State explanation without expecting this contradiction to be answered EXTRA-SPACIAL, like that there is some greater world YOU KNOW that is sufficient to 'cause' our universe.

Thus, you MUST be attempting to pre-stage a religious argument FOR this 'extra-spacial' (and extra-special) origin. If you are not, then please tell me,

Do you believe an 'origin' to our Universe AND yet also believe our space to be 'infinite'? If so, you are precisely of the original Big Bang theorists position to which Fred Hoyle was insulting for an instantaneous creation of our Universe (as infinite now) without physical causation. The only alternative left is for you to hold the 'static' interpretation if this is NOT about some religious idea you have. The 'static' interpretation was a secular interpretation that is rational without an origin in space nor time. While it doesn't require a religious belief, it treated both time and space coexisting in the same way as the Steady State explanation.

However, if you are faithful of some 'origin' at all, you deny time itself as being infinite but not space, space to be infinite but not time, or both space and time to be DEFINED from some external 'cause' via a super-physical factor beyond our capacity to witness using physics alone.

Which is it?

It is a significant prerequisite YOU need in order to qualify for understanding anything you doubt.

But what do I doubt?

You are doubting ALL the possible physical theories it appears. While skepticism is a good thing, you are hiding some motivational reason for it OR would be investing in every effort to understand AT LEAST how the present science has determined that expansion is occurring.

The Universe is either infinite in size or finite. As far as I can SEE there is NO limit/boundary/edge to the Universe.

If you can SEE or KNOW of any limit/boundary/edge or finite to the Universe, then just say what this IS/COULD BE.

Also, IF you could explain HOW an infinite Universe could get bigger, then please just say that as well.

Infinities of infinities, especially in relation to things like numbers, really does NOT have much to do with some thing like the Universe Itself.

If infinite, how do YOU determine this for merely not 'seeing' it? If finite, it could still be too large for you to 'see' it. Why aren't you claiming an 'agnostic' position?

I already trust the infinite universe and only differ from the Big Bang interpretation as to an 'origin' in space or time, personally.

If you are only questioning how you can get MORE out of what it already infinite, you are assuming that the infinite size is 'finite' at all times in the same way the distance between 0 and 1 is 'finite' as a whole, yet can be still be divided 'infinitely'. You'd then have to also ask yourself how anything in our local world is 'finite' in the same way. After all, some universe CAN logically fit on the head of a pin if its own structures are infinitesimally divisible.

And if this simple math challenge is beyond you, then therein lies your confusion.

I did NOT even see what the math challenge was. Therefore, the math challenge must be beyond me, so WHERE is my confusion exactly?

And, what has my confusion, about a math challenge, got to do with you answering, or NOT answering; HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

If you understand the math part, at least you can understand that when relating real measures, there are infinities upon infinities that rationally explain how expansion CAN be a possibility. If you cannot even understand the logical problem about infinite MEASURES, you cannot even assert even an infinite universe let alone a finite one.

That is, if YOU WANT an answer, you need to first understand HOW it is even possible to express reality in mathematical modeling. Then you need to agree to the convention of using models with mathematics and logic to communicate what we observe in common.

I gave you a model (that illustration) which I thought helped express your concern. That IF we imagine an infinitely BOUND universe as a whole (like how the integers can have an an infinite division of parts in them), then any 'expansion' is identical to the components in them to be 'compressing' infinitely. This suffices to model what you are thinking. If the red squares that represent matter are just replaced with spaces they occupy, then the model shows that the space it occupies 'shrinks' if you look at the universe as one WHOLE. I don't know how to even represent what your thinking if you won't agree to some means to model what you mean in some mathematical or logical way.

You may be playing a game here and when I saw this at the end of your last long post to me, it may justify my skepticism with you

What game do you think I am playing?

And, what are you skeptic about exactly?

That you are acting 'skeptical' but appearing to simultaneously not be by your choice to deny any position as even potentially possible without proving them impossible as a potential yourself as well as:

here:

What I UNDERSTAND so far is there are seemingly a lot of contradictions and confusion between all of these ASSUMPTIONS, theories, models, et cetera being made up along the way.

I also UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE ALL of this confusion and contradictions are coming FROM.

Further to this understanding I also UNDERSTAND what I SEE and CAN explain it in a way that SHOWS how it ALL fits together like a puzzle to produce a CLEAR and BIG picture of the Truth of things. That is; IF any one is Truly interested.

I'm hearing a Southern Texan Holy Preacher's drawl in this response.

So what if you do?

Does the "accent" you hear, in my written words, affect the accuracy of what I write?

Are you implying some religious alternative to Cosmology? If so, I'm "interested" to know up front.

No. Do you hear some religious alternative to cosmology also, or do you just ASSUME that?

And, IF I was implying some religious alternative to cosmology, then would that affect how intently you would listen to what I was saying?

You appear contradictory yourself

That is perfectly fine. If you SEE any contradictions, then just point them out, and ask some clarifying questions, so then I could clear up things for you here.

and may be attempting to try the tactic of destroying foundations prior to proposing a Temple reconstruction project upon the ruins.

I could be doing this. But WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?

For the readers, this is another perfectly fine EXAMPLE of just HOW ASSUMPTIONS will distort one's ability to LISTEN TO and SEE the actual and real Truth of things.

What 'foundations' EXACTLY are you proposing here that I am attempting to destroy?

Let us SEE if they are actual and real foundations first.

I don't assume anything of you either. But you posited a comment that suggested you HAD some theory, if anyone would care to ask. If you do but lack understanding of the regular science involved, what else is there left but some non-scientific theory you have?

I'm going to try to explain how space can expand realistically but need to determine HOW you think first. If I can't present a model you cannot agree to first about how you may be thinking with charity, the onus is on you to posit your model of what you think is your normal model of reality. If you avoid the potential religious theory, I need a shareable understanding of what you think by giving your own proposed explanation of WHAT you see as normal about space and time.

Does it have a beginning in your view? (a time origin)
If so, can we have a finite origin but not a finite end?
Given if you think space infinite, can time be finite?

[Scott Mayers]

An expanding infinite universe is of course a logical impossibility, someone here is making even Age look smart. Drawing a parallel between the infinity of the universe (which is a "real" infinite) and the various infinites of mathematics (which are made-up concepts) is pure nonsense.

A "real" infinite that isn't conceptual ?

Since you have access to "reality" through approximately the same faculties as all humans - which God revealed that "real infinite truth" to you?

I think this it the crux of the argument that I think Age was referring to and why I am likely the one Alta may be referring to?

If something is hard to determine as 'real', we need something locally real to model. As for infinities, all we can compare locally to is infinitesimals as a model.

The ancients used the thought experiment of dividing something in half without limits. Some believed this could go on forever while others believed if this division pointed to a real nothing as a limit, then either nothing could exist for being made up of an infinite nothings, OR there IS some finite 'size' (atom) OR, a third way, that we can never know nor decide for the fact that both models are unable to be proven realistically.

'Infinities' are dynamic expressions, not actual finite realities as a 'static' factor. But we also have BOUND infinities, such as the infinitesimals between any two points we define as 'fixed'. So if we treat the ACT of dividing the infinitesimal space, this is indifferent to thinking the infinite time it would take to divide an infinitesimal space is a type of infinite action of an infinite space. Thus the ACT of expansion is the nature of things that change IN and infinite space infinitely in time as well.

If given all the possibilities plus the fact that we cannot logically decide (incompleteness, undecidable limits) then even the reality is itself limited from complete certainty when given multiple possibilities where each is not decidable with absolute certainty. Yet we still trust 'causation' as a local experience. Thus we trust that even if we do not KNOW the particular answer, we know it is certain that at least one of the possibilities exhausted to which we cannot decide is still the case but indeterminate because of our limitations only.

[Logik]

I think this it the crux of the argument that I think Age was referring to and why I am likely the one Alta may be referring to?

If something is hard to determine as 'real', we need something locally real to model. As for infinities, all we can compare locally to is infinitesimals as a model.

We are all familiar with; and talk about Mathematical infinities, even if we don't agree with them. We understand how infinities BEHAVE in equations and how they BEHAVE conceptually. We know how to manipulate infinities-as-symbols by a set of axioms we have contrived ourselves. We have even categorized infinities into countable and uncountable.

I am an ultrafinitist - I have no use for infinities. But I understand the axioms and that's sufficient to do the math.

Infinities are conceptual/abstract/symbolic/mathematical.

Which is fundamentally what you are saying here:

The ancients used the thought experiment of dividing something in half without limits. Some believed this could go on forever while others believed if this division pointed to a real nothing as a limit, then either nothing could exist for being made up of an infinite nothings, OR there IS some finite 'size' (atom) OR, a third way, that we can never know nor decide for the fact that both models are unable to be proven realistically.

My point is merely this. If we all have a conceptual agreement and understanding on "infinities" by virtue of having studies the same Mathematics. What is puzzling to me is that Atla is appealing to a yet-another kind of infinity - a "real" infinity, which is different to a Mathematical infinity (according to him).

An infinity that he understands and we don't.
An infinity that he has conceptualized and we haven't.
An infinity that he can't express in Mathematics or any other language.
An infinity different to the notions that you and I understand, yet a difference that Atla cannot explain.

Drawing a parallel between the infinity of the universe (which is a "real" infinite) and the various infinites of mathematics (which are made-up concepts) is pure nonsense.

OK. If he discovered a brand-new kind of infinity then Atla must be very very smart.

Too bad he can't communicate his smart ideas.

[Atla]

If something is hard to determine as 'real', we need something locally real to model. As for infinities, all we can compare locally to is infinitesimals as a model.

The universe is the "real", concrete one locally as well. Infinitesimals are purely abstract constructs, there's no reason to believe that they relate to the concrete universe, let alone expect the universe to correspond to them.

Pure backwards thinking.

[Logik]

The universe is the "real", concrete one locally as well. Infinitesimals are purely abstract constructs, there's no reason to believe that they relate to the concrete universe, let alone expect the universe to correspond to them.

Pure backwards thinking.

And yet you speak of "real" infinities.

Assigning properties like "infinite" and "expanding" to the universe is also backwards thinking.

You confuse the map with the territory.

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

[uwot]

STOP implying that you do NOT make assumptions, or that you make "efforts" to "avoid" making assumptions, when the opposite is obviously True.

Age, this is what assumptions look like:

The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.

You will note that they are your own that you have arrived at by ignoring the evidence generated by the most powerful observational tools ever built, and the opinion of the thousands of scientists with the education and intellect to interpret the findings. Instead you apparently believe that your ability to "SEE" is more reliable than all that hardware and brainpower. Not only do you provide no evidence that any of your assumptions are true, but you include assumptions that are mutually exclusive. Either "The Universe is made up of two fundamental things..." or "The Universe is one thing..." - it can't be both.
Now, be a good boy, stop wasting everyone's time and tell us how you know "The Universe did NOT have a beginning", or, as I suggested earlier, fuck off.

[Scott Mayers]

[This is a response I begun writing immediately after my last post to give an example of a 'real' infinity measured as a mathematical count ('virtual' for some) that can show the problem. I looked over the above posts and see that logik shares my understanding in essence if not in the particulars. As to Alta, read this to see if your opinion changes. I may still respond to the above more particularly after this is posted.]

If I want to try to prove that this sentence is some specific length of characters, I might ask that one count from "If" at the beginning of this sentence, to the end with the period, ".", including all spaces as a character.

Yet this 'count' has to be held in some place in your mind statically with meaning. The perfect meaning is relayed by representing some ideal object as some unit that holds this conceptual count. But do we see the whole count as unique? Does the concept of 100 things uniquely express some set of ideal objects in your mind to which you can map to the count of 'real' things, such as the number of characters of that sentence above?

Now we can reasonably state that we could technically create an infinitely long string of characters. But this requires an ACTION to literally do so. And we'd need an infinite amount of time to try. What would counter this other than someone or something simply stopping you from the ACTION forcing you to concede defeat or restart again? There is no 'real' disproof that can demonstrate that something is NOT infinite either.

But if you propose that there is only one unique 'infinite' sentence that could be written, your logic is missing the fact that one can take the supposed infinite sentence, exchange any one letter for another, and voila, you have a distinctly different infinite sentence.

So if you accept any infinity as a reality even just for guessing, this has to imply you must accept an infinity of infinities.

So you cannot doubt the possibility of an 'expanding' reality of some UNIQUE infinite space without questioning the possibility of the first infinity. If the first one is just a gamble itself, then gambling one ONE infinity is indifferent to a INFINITE infinities.

[Atla]

[This is a response I begun writing immediately after my last post to give an example of a 'real' infinity measured as a mathematical count ('virtual' for some) that can show the problem. I looked over the above posts and see that logik shares my understanding in essence if not in the particulars. As to Alta, read this to see if your opinion changes. I may still respond to the above more particularly after this is posted.]

If I want to try to prove that this sentence is some specific length of characters, I might ask that one count from "If" at the beginning of this sentence, to the end with the period, ".", including all spaces as a character.

Yet this 'count' has to be held in some place in your mind statically with meaning. The perfect meaning is relayed by representing some ideal object as some unit that holds this conceptual count. But do we see the whole count as unique? Does the concept of 100 things uniquely express some set of ideal objects in your mind to which you can map to the count of 'real' things, such as the number of characters of that sentence above?

Now we can reasonably state that we could technically create an infinitely long string of characters. But this requires an ACTION to literally do so. And we'd need an infinite amount of time to try. What would counter this other than someone or something simply stopping you from the ACTION forcing you to concede defeat or restart again? There is no 'real' disproof that can demonstrate that something is NOT infinite either.

But if you propose that there is only one unique 'infinite' sentence that could be written, your logic is missing the fact that one can take the supposed infinite sentence, exchange any one letter for another, and voila, you have a distinctly different infinite sentence.

So if you accept any infinity as a reality even just for guessing, this has to imply you must accept an infinity of infinities.

So you cannot doubt the possibility of an 'expanding' reality of some UNIQUE infinite space without questioning the possibility of the first infinity. If the first one is just a gamble itself, then gambling one ONE infinity is indifferent to a INFINITE infinities.

This seems to follow the same pattern: you screw around with abstractions about abstracions and arrive at the concept of an infinity of infinites, which is still just an abstraction and there's no reason to believe that it relates in any way to the concrete universe.

Totally backwards thinking. The universe is either infinite or it isn't, period.

[Logik]

So you cannot doubt the possibility of an 'expanding' reality of some UNIQUE infinite space without questioning the possibility of the first infinity. If the first one is just a gamble itself, then gambling one ONE infinity is indifferent to a INFINITE infinities.

Whether you realize it or not, you are making a postmodern argument

In a mathematical universe where infinities are allowed there is infinite meaning, and therefore interpretation becomes impossible.

[Logik]

The universe is either infinite or it isn't, period.

1 bit of information required to disambiguate your hypothesis.

Until you retrieve it: it's both and neither.

[Scott Mayers]

STOP implying that you do NOT make assumptions, or that you make "efforts" to "avoid" making assumptions, when the opposite is obviously True.

Age, this is what assumptions look like:

The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.

You will note that they are your own that you have arrived at by ignoring the evidence generated by the most powerful observational tools ever built, and the opinion of the thousands of scientists with the education and intellect to interpret the findings. Instead you apparently believe that your ability to "SEE" is more reliable than all that hardware and brainpower. Not only do you provide no evidence that any of your assumptions are true, but you include assumptions that are mutually exclusive. Either "The Universe is made up of two fundamental things..." or "The Universe is one thing..." - it can't be both.
Now, be a good boy, stop wasting everyone's time and tell us how you know "The Universe did NOT have a beginning", or, as I suggested earlier, fuck off.

Wow, you were holding your temper in well for a long time!

I'm anticipating he might respond with, "How did you determine that I'm a 'boy'? Why don't you ask me instead of assuming?"

We might be too harsh on him/her though. Obviously Age is investing in communicating and the problems of understanding reality as a whole are hard questions. I'm trying to be fair in understanding where (s)he is coming from. May I ask if the illustration I provided at least makes you think of what his/her position of disagreement may lie with (external to potential religious theories (s)he may be speaking about, of course)?

I'm uncertain (s)he understood the representational example. But maybe you might have some alternative model expressing this to his/her understanding better? I'm hoping my last post may be one, but the problem is not limited to his/her understanding alone.

[Scott Mayers]

[This is a response I begun writing immediately after my last post to give an example of a 'real' infinity measured as a mathematical count ('virtual' for some) that can show the problem. I looked over the above posts and see that logik shares my understanding in essence if not in the particulars. As to Alta, read this to see if your opinion changes. I may still respond to the above more particularly after this is posted.]

If I want to try to prove that this sentence is some specific length of characters, I might ask that one count from "If" at the beginning of this sentence, to the end with the period, ".", including all spaces as a character.

Yet this 'count' has to be held in some place in your mind statically with meaning. The perfect meaning is relayed by representing some ideal object as some unit that holds this conceptual count. But do we see the whole count as unique? Does the concept of 100 things uniquely express some set of ideal objects in your mind to which you can map to the count of 'real' things, such as the number of characters of that sentence above?

Now we can reasonably state that we could technically create an infinitely long string of characters. But this requires an ACTION to literally do so. And we'd need an infinite amount of time to try. What would counter this other than someone or something simply stopping you from the ACTION forcing you to concede defeat or restart again? There is no 'real' disproof that can demonstrate that something is NOT infinite either.

But if you propose that there is only one unique 'infinite' sentence that could be written, your logic is missing the fact that one can take the supposed infinite sentence, exchange any one letter for another, and voila, you have a distinctly different infinite sentence.

So if you accept any infinity as a reality even just for guessing, this has to imply you must accept an infinity of infinities.

So you cannot doubt the possibility of an 'expanding' reality of some UNIQUE infinite space without questioning the possibility of the first infinity. If the first one is just a gamble itself, then gambling one ONE infinity is indifferent to a INFINITE infinities.

This seems to follow the same pattern: you screw around with abstractions about abstracions and arrive at the concept of an infinity of infinites, which is still just an abstraction and there's no reason to believe that it relates in any way to the concrete universe.

Totally backwards thinking. The universe is either infinite or it isn't, period.

I used something 'real' here: characters that YOU can count on your screen. If these aren't real, neither is anything we observe.

For a different example? How do you determine any real length between any two points with any standard you choose? Let's say I were to ask you how far one city is from another, for instance. You begin in city A and may time yourself with some standard clock and using a fixed speed until you get to city B. But if you then come to me and show me your records of any number of trials, could I also not throw this 'data' back at you and say, what does this data 'prove'? It is not the 'real' thing!

You might ask me to take a trip with you to 'share' in the experience, as I'm trying to do with Age. But even then, once you and I got to city B, I might ask, how do we know we begun at city A? You might challenge our experience of it as now shared yet I can then throw back at you to prove that city A even exists from where we are other than our abstract memory of it. I might have a very short memory and so cannot conceptualize the memory of being in city A.

As to whether the universe is or is not infinite, I said that we can determine THAT the universe is one or the other but not necessarily WHICH. This might be something like saying of some closed box sitting on the floor in front of both of us, that we can be certain THAT the box contains either something specific, something unspecified or known, or even some relative 'nothing' (assuming there is at least space in it at least).

Now even if we agreed to the 'distance' between city A and city B on one trip, can we presume the distance at all times would remain so? Is it not possible that the distances themselves change in time? ....say like that even an Earthquake that might separate the two ever so slightly apart?

If so, you have a REAL proof of the possibility of 'expansion' (or 'contraction' of course), not simply an abstraction. The concept of space itself is hard to determine as 'real' without material objects restricting us or to the action of time we experience as objects in it that can count cycles as some 'measure' of such a distance.