The science of physical infinities is much less developed than the science of mathematical infinities. The main reason is simply that the status of physical infinities is quite undecided.
Although some have speculated that three-dimensional space is infinite, cosmologists generally believe that the universe is curved in such a way as to make it finite but unbounded—akin to the surface of a sphere.
In the light of the big-bang model of the origin of the universe, cosmologists generally believe that the universe has a finitely long past; whether it might have an endless future is an open question.
— Encyclopedia Brittanica on physical infinities
Is anything infinite in the physical world? Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result.
The universe could be infinite, both in terms of space and time, but there is currently no way to test whether it goes on forever or is just very big. — NewScientist on physical infinity
So, taking your "proof" to its logical conclusion, if you could encode all the information in the universe with a digital dataset - that is to say, a sequence of zeros and ones - then all you would end up with would be a bunch of zeros and ones. And since any zero or one is just like any other zero or one, it follows that there are only two distinct things in the universe, which repeat many times over. Brilliant!
There is a significant difference between full color, grayscale, and a picture that can only show black / white pixels. It doesn’t follow ‘there are only two distinct things in the universe’ from the ability to ‘encode all the information in the universe with a digital dataset’. You are obfuscating delimiters between different binary strings encoding many different things. What follows is just that any information can be encoded with a minimal set of only two bits, nothing more follows. — Zelebg
Last but not least, you would not be able to prove anything about infinity in the physical universe, because you cannot prove anything at all about the physical universe.
I just proved the number of unique things that can or will ever exist, both physical and imaginary, is finite. What part of the proof can you possibly doubt? — Zelebg
But that's just a quantitative difference that doesn't bear on the problem with your argument.
It is not a "proof" as meant by proof theory.
For that purpose, you first need to list the axioms in your theory.
I’m not sure if you are saying there is a problem with my argument or not. If there is, point to which statement of mine is supposed to be unwarranted. — Zelebg
are mistaking mathematics for a self-evident logical fact. In other words, the whole proof is an axiom, what part can you possibly doubt? — Zelebg
Doesn't it bother you that the number of distinct things in the universe is limited by an arbitrarily chosen resolution of your camera?
Could you please summarize what you have in mind as "the concept of time and eternity from Gödel (self-reference), and Turing," as well as "the paradox of time itself"? Thanks in advance.Have you considered the concept of time and eternity from Gödel (self-reference), and Turing? Or even the paradox of time itself? — 3017amen
I still do not see what those mathematical results have to do with "the concept of time and eternity."Gödel and Turing taught us about mathematics being incomplete & incomputable, and never ending, similar to irrational numbers and the modal logic paradox. — 3017amen
Sorry, I do not understand this sentence.With respect to time, another paradox of trying to define time also appears incomplete in its 'eternal way' of trying to measure same. — 3017amen
Thanks for the video. To me, the paradoxes identified by Aristotle and McTaggart are resolved by recognizing that the principle of excluded middle only applies to individuals, while time is continuous and therefore general. There are no discrete instants within time itself, they are artificial creations that we impose for the purpose of marking and measuring time. The present moment is always indefinite, blending seamlessly into the immediately past and future moments, yet itself neither past nor future.You may have seen this before: — 3017amen
Eternity usually means timelessness, or perhaps infinite time. I still see no connection with incompleteness and incomputability.Eternity equals no resolution. — 3017amen
Not in this thread, as far as I can tell.I explained earlier what the definition of abstract time is viz the concept of eternity. — 3017amen
What do you mean by "abstract" in this context? The present is certainly not eternal.Is that then, abstract and/or eternal? — 3017amen
or perhaps infinite time. I — aletheist
What do you mean by "abstract" in this context? The present is certainly not eternal. — aletheist
What do you make of it? — Zelebg
Faulty hypothesis — jgill
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.