Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

My sentiments exactly.

Answer the question.

You're talking about a set of what?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmeVpcOCTtk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[untermensche]

Feynman had his problems with infinity as well.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSNlt9183wE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[skepticalbip]

Just bedamned. You are back to repeating this shit again?
Yes, if a class of things exist the you can number a limited set of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

Now you are using count to mean to number all things in the class. Your "count" in the first statement has a different meaning that the "count" you are using in this question. If the question is if there can be an infinite number of things, then this mental masterbation does not even attempt to answer it.

To be able to count atoms one at a time does not mean that finding the sum of all atoms is possible.

I'm not sure Unter will get it. The. Difference between a countable finite set and a countable infinite set is that the latter only sometimes completes. Adding another 9 to .9999999... Never reaches 1. And yet in all math it behaves like 1. The "completion" of the infinite count is 1. (Read up on the math of radius of convergence, Unter.)

All true but the number of possible positive whole integers would be a closer math analogy of Unter's nonsense. If there is an infinite number of atoms then we can count them individually (or a limited set of them) but can never find the final sum.

 

[George S]

My sentiments exactly.

Answer the question.

You're talking about a set of what?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmeVpcOCTtk[/YOUTUBE]

Feynman expresses amazement that it requires figuring out infinite sums which pop up in the math. There is a sense in which the sum 1+2+3+4+... Sums to -1/12. Replacing the infinite sum with this yields real world correct predictions of the future. It is called renormalization. This series 1-1+1-1+1-... Sums to 1/2. The sum of. Squares 1+4+9... renormalizes to zero. That it works is what is amazing.

 

[George S]

Feynman had his problems with infinity as well.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSNlt9183wE[/YOUTUBE]

To believe that discrete geometry breaks down is to believe in the continuity of space-time. Between any two moments there are infinitely many.

 

[untermensche]

Feynman had his problems with infinity as well.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSNlt9183wE[/YOUTUBE]

To believe that discrete geometry breaks down is to believe in the continuity of space-time. Between any two moments there are infinitely many.

You have it exactly backwards.

If space can be infinitely divided then discrete geometry never breaks down. It holds true for infinite divisions.

Feynman doesn't say he is certain that space is not continuous. He only says that if you say it is continuous you end up with some troubling infinities.

 

[Kharakov]

The models don't describe reality. They describe how reality behaves, in a good enough fashion to make real world predictions. They do not describe what reality is.

Ohh, certain models do describe portions of reality rather exactly. Say someone's worldview includes an inaccurate model of models? They might say things like "reality cannot be described by models" simply because they don't understand that there are good ways to describe reality. The degree of freedom we have in our perception of reality, which includes our ability to focus on and be focused upon particular aspects of reality, indicates that reality itself cannot be nailed down by models that assume reality has only finite, or infinite, components.

Umm.. so you think something appeared from nothing. That's a sound bit of reasoning.

Where did your "substrate" come from?

It always exists. Do you really think "something from nothing" is more logical than "something that always exists"?

 

[untermensche]

It always exists. Do you really think "something from nothing" is more logical than "something that always exists"?

That's not an explanation. That's a dismissal.

It always existed because it always existed.

 

[skepticalbip]

It always exists. Do you really think "something from nothing" is more logical than "something that always exists"?

That's not an explanation. That's a dismissal.

It always existed because it always existed.

It doesn't explain because we don't know. It is one of the possibilities of reality. The other is that reality could be finite. An infinite reality is as possible as a finite reality. "God fearing" folk like the finite because it gives them a gap to squeeze their god into. Some philosophers like the finite for whatever mental quark they have and some philosophers like the infinite because of whatever mental quark they have. To try to argue that either "has to be" the case is arguing nonsense. Science generally takes the stand of "we don't know" but examines the "what if" in either case though some lean one way or the other in personal opinion.

 

[untermensche]

That's not an explanation. That's a dismissal.

It always existed because it always existed.

It doesn't explain because we don't know. It is one of the possibilities of reality. The other is that reality could be finite. An infinite reality is as possible as a finite reality. "God fearing" folk like the finite because it gives them a gap to squeeze their god into. Some philosophers like the finite for whatever mental quark they have and some philosophers like the infinite because of whatever mental quark they have. To try to argue that either "has to be" the case is arguing nonsense. Science generally takes the stand of "we don't know" but examines the "what if" in either case.

The question is; Is an infinite reality possible?

And that is what we are examining. I think there are some good arguments against it.

I've yet to hear a good argument HOW it is possible for an infinite reality to be possible, besides the fact that humans don't know everything. An argument from ignorance.

People have said over and over, It is possible. How is it possible? How is it possible for something to have always existed?

 

[skepticalbip]

It doesn't explain because we don't know. It is one of the possibilities of reality. The other is that reality could be finite. An infinite reality is as possible as a finite reality. "God fearing" folk like the finite because it gives them a gap to squeeze their god into. Some philosophers like the finite for whatever mental quark they have and some philosophers like the infinite because of whatever mental quark they have. To try to argue that either "has to be" the case is arguing nonsense. Science generally takes the stand of "we don't know" but examines the "what if" in either case.

The question is; Is an infinite reality possible?

And that is what we are examining. I think there are some good arguments against it.

I've yet to hear a good argument HOW it is possible for an infinite reality to be possible, besides the fact that humans don't know everything. An argument from ignorance.

People have said over and over, It is possible. How is it possible? How is it possible for something to have always existed?

If you had looked up the definition of the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance" as I have asked you to then you would see that this is a classical example of it.

Since either is possible (yet neither provable) an argument that we can't prove infinite time does not prove finite time.

 

[untermensche]

The question is; Is an infinite reality possible?

And that is what we are examining. I think there are some good arguments against it.

I've yet to hear a good argument HOW it is possible for an infinite reality to be possible, besides the fact that humans don't know everything. An argument from ignorance.

People have said over and over, It is possible. How is it possible? How is it possible for something to have always existed?

If you had looked up the definition of the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance" as I have asked you to then you would see that this is a classical example of it.

Since either is possible (yet neither provable) an argument that we can't prove infinite time does not prove finite time.

Great.

Now.

How is it possible?

 

[skepticalbip]

YES! It's possible, though not yet provable which.

Please look up that logical fallacy that I asked you to.

 

[untermensche]

YES! It's possible, though not yet provable which.

Please look up that logical fallacy that I asked you to.

I just want some argument showing how it is possible, instead of only a claim.

How is it possible for the infinite to be realized?

 

[Kharakov]

It always exists. Do you really think "something from nothing" is more logical than "something that always exists"?

That's not an explanation. That's a dismissal.

It always existed because it always existed.

Nope. Something always existed, because nothing does not do anything- including cause other things to exist. It's actually a tautology if you analyze it: nothing produces nothing, does nothing, is nothing, and has no effect, although the concept of nothing seems to make some idiots think that something came from nothing.

 

[ryan]

Do you really think "something from nothing" is more logical than "something that always exists"?

The scientific interpretation of Occam's razor (When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.) definitely favors your point, but the original version (Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.) definitely doesn't.

My head actually hurts right now. This is an evil topic.

 

[ryan]

If you had looked up the definition of the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance" as I have asked you to then you would see that this is a classical example of it.

Since either is possible (yet neither provable) an argument that we can't prove infinite time does not prove finite time.

Great.

Now.

How is it possible?

The answer is up to the imagination. There are probably many hypothesises that can be made.

 

[skepticalbip]

YES! It's possible, though not yet provable which.

Please look up that logical fallacy that I asked you to.

I just want some argument showing how it is possible, instead of only a claim.

How is it possible for the infinite to be realized?

Then if you don't want "proof" that it is real, then we can only make logical arguments from assumptions. The devil is in the assumption.

It is generally assumed that any effect had to have had a cause. This is the only experience we have ever witnessed in the real world. Even quantum fluctuations require a pre-existing spacetime for them to occur in. It would be an assumption opposed to experience to assume that there could be an uncaused cause.

So if we assume that spacetime had a beginning, the natural logical question would be, "What caused the beginning to happen?" If there was a cause for the beginning then what we thought was a beginning wasn't. It was just an effect of a prior cause. Ergo: spacetime is eternal.

An argument that time began requires making an assumption of an uncaused cause which is contrary to our experiences. However, "god folks" like the assumption because, for them, god was the original uncaused cause.

 

[untermensche]

That's not an explanation. That's a dismissal.

It always existed because it always existed.

Nope. Something always existed, because nothing does not do anything- including cause other things to exist. It's actually a tautology if you analyze it: nothing produces nothing, does nothing, is nothing, and has no effect, although the concept of nothing seems to make some idiots think that something came from nothing.

Are you referring to Lawrence Krauss?

- - - Updated - - -

Great.

Now.

How is it possible?

The answer is up to the imagination. There are probably many hypothesises that can be made.

I agree it will take what we call the imagination to come up with any argument.

I just would like to see an argument.

 

[untermensche]

I just want some argument showing how it is possible, instead of only a claim.

How is it possible for the infinite to be realized?

Then if you don't want "proof" that it is real, then we can only make logical arguments from assumptions. The devil is in the assumption.

It is generally assumed that any effect had to have had a cause. This is the only experience we have ever witnessed in the real world. Even quantum fluctuations require a pre-existing spacetime for them to occur in. It would be an assumption opposed to experience to assume that there could be an uncaused cause.

So if we assume that spacetime had a beginning, the natural logical question would be, "What caused the beginning to happen?" If there was a cause for the beginning then what we thought was a beginning wasn't. It was just an effect of a prior cause. Ergo: spacetime is eternal.

An argument that time began requires making an assumption of an uncaused cause which is contrary to our experiences. However, "god folks" like the assumption because, for them, god was the original uncaused cause.

You are saying there is no first cause simply to make your argument work.

You are making a statement about reality. "Definitely no first cause".

You are assuming what you claim to be proving.

What argument demonstrates there was no first cause?