There is no mystery. There is only curiosity and curiosity killed the cat.

What is a mystery anyway? It's simply the need to answer the 7 basic questions: who? what? when? where? which? how? why?

What is interesting is questions don't stop. Infinite regress. The mystery never ends.

It being likely we live within an infinite universe, — Anthony

Please make clear your understanding of "infinite." Too many people use the term without really knowing what it means. For example, we don't live in an infinite universe.

tim wood
2.1k

It being likely we live within an infinite universe, — Anthony


Please make clear your understanding of "infinite." Too many people use the term without really knowing what it means. For example, we don't live in an infinite universe. — tim wood

Anthony does not know if we live in an infinite universe or not...

...and neither do you, Tim.

Anthony does not know if we live in an infinite universe or not...

...and neither do you, Tim. — Frank Apisa

It's not the universe in question, it's the understanding of a word. Apparently you are one of those who do not understand the word. Or maybe it's a term of art for Anthony - in which case I'd like to know which art and what it means. Or maybe he just means it metaphorically. Up to him to say.

But here's part of what it means: as to number, whatever quality you can attribute, some lesser number already has that quality, or another way, something that is always greater then the thing you can specify. Now, just for fun, can you describe any aspect of the physical universe that cannot in principle be counted?

Please make clear your understanding of "infinite." Too many people use the term without really knowing what it means. For example, we don't live in an infinite universe. — tim wood

Thanks for the constructive feedback. Generically, I mean space may be unlimited. There's probably such a conception as space that's far enough away, we can think of it as infinite for our purposes, whether it really is or not. Pretty sure it's much bigger than most realize. Will humans ever travel one light year? Probably not.

tim wood
2.1k

Anthony does not know if we live in an infinite universe or not...

...and neither do you, Tim. — Frank Apisa


It's not the universe in question, it's the understanding of a word. Apparently you are one of those who do not understand the word. Or maybe it's a term of art for Anthony - in which case I'd like to know which art and what it means. Or maybe he just means it metaphorically. Up to him to say.

But here's part of what it means: as to number, whatever quality you can attribute, some lesser number already has that quality, or another way, something that is always greater then the thing you can specify. Now, just for fun, can you describe any aspect of the physical universe that cannot in principle be counted? — tim wood

Tim, this may come as a big shock...and may, in your opinion, disqualify me from commenting on matters like this...BUT...

...I actually do not know everything about every aspect of the "physical universe"...nor of existence itself.

There may be things that cannot be "counted"...in the sense I think you are using that word. And those "things"...in the sense that I think you are using that word, might be as out-of-touch to me (and other humans) as quantum mechanics is to a ferret.

The universe, Tim, may be infinite...or boundless or unlimited, if you want to play word-games...

...and it may be discrete or finite (as you choose to use those words.)

I do not know which it is.

I would bet big money that you do not either.

If you are asserting it is finite (or at least, not infinite)...the burden of proof is on you.

Have at it.

Generically, I mean space may be unlimited. — Anthony

It's more than useful - I'd argue essential - for coherence and meaning to take some care in distinguishing between so-called philosophical concepts and similar seeming concepts from the sciences. Often enough the "similarity" is just an admixture of confusion, ignorance, and wishful thinking, all of which are perfectly natural human traits and activities. In (mis-)use they're just a mistake, to start with. But if insisted upon, then a violence against both houses, science and philosophy.

The idea that space is unlimited begs specification. Even a definition of space. As a practical matter, for any practical application, sure. The Hubble Deep Space photos by themselves make clear that even just the visual universe will keep us all busy for quite a while. But in terms of infinite, with respect to any real meaning and understanding of "infinite," the visual universe in its entirety is as nothing - as zero - to anything infinite.

Basically what I mean, for the context of the OP, is (space) too far away to send a signal or message that obeys physics of spacetime locality as we know it. If one could somehow send messages outside of spacetime, then the difference that makes a difference wouldn't exist in the spacetime known by physics. Is there information which can exist outside spacetime, which, in turn, informs what is in spacetime?

If you are asserting it is finite (or at least, not infinite)...the burden of proof is on you.

Have at it. — Frank Apisa

You're a rhinoceros with quills, a duck's bill under your horn, and webbed feet. You say you're not? Prove it! The burden of proof is on you.

I imagine you have a problem with this. Anyone can assert anything and demand someone else prove that it's not the case, and absent proof the assertion must be accorded the respect of possibility - that would be you. But as to the infinite, it's not a case of cases to be proved, it's the understanding of the meaning of a word. Can you count a star? The sun, for example, is a star. Call it number one. What you're representing is that in principle, by definition, it is not possible to count the stars. Granted there are a lot of stars and that counting them might be physically difficult, but in principle they are countable, which means not infinite.

can you describe any aspect of the physical universe that cannot in principle be counted? — tim wood

What about change. The universe is undergoing change so every description is limited and smaller then the universe plus the next instance of change

Basically what I mean is too far away to get a signal or message that obeys physics of spacetime locality. — Anthony

Sounds reasonable to me. (I do not know enough physics to challenge it, but it seems to be the case, as I read.)

tim wood
2.1k

If you are asserting it is finite (or at least, not infinite)...the burden of proof is on you.

Have at it. — Frank Apisa


You're a rhinoceros with quills, a duck's bill under your horn, and webbed feet. You say you're not? Prove it! The burden of proof is on you.

I imagine you have a problem with this. Anyone can assert anything and demand someone else prove that it's not the case, and absent proof the assertion must be accorded the respect of possibility - that would be you. But as to the infinite, it's not a case of cases to be proved, it's the understanding of the meaning of a word. Can you count a star? The sun, for example, is a star. Call it number one. What you're representing is that in principle, by definition, it is not possible to count the stars. Granted there are a lot of stars and that counting them might be physically difficult, but in principle they are countable, which means not infinite. — tim wood

So...you think it is okay, reasonable, and logical for you to make a sweeping assertion about the nature of REALITY...and when called upon to meet the burden of proof that accrues...you can simply dismiss it out-of-hand.

Hummm.

That is an unusual position to take for someone participating in a discussion in an Internet forum.

But...if that is how you operate....go with it.

What about change. The universe is undergoing change so every description is limited and smaller then the universe plus the next instance of change — CaZaNOx

Are you asking how it can be counted? "In principle" covers that. Or are you arguing that it's not countable in principle.

I am arguing that change is an infinite property of the universe.
I would say it's continuous since the idea of turning off and on change (figuratively speaking) doesn't make sense, I am further arguing that it is a mechanism that always adds to the currently described view. Similar to Natural Numbers no matter what number you give there's always a bigger one. (If you want to view this as countable but not finite or not is up to you)

So...you think it is okay, reasonable, and logical for you to make a sweeping assertion about the nature of REALITY...and when called upon to meet the burden of proof that accrues...you can simply dismiss it out-of-hand. — Frank Apisa

Ok. Make a decision. Are you using "infinite" as metaphor for something? If so please make it clear what that might be. Or as it is defined? In which case, please justify - argue - your application.

Look up "Poincare's recurrence theorem." The idea is that the universe will eventually use up all its possibilities, and at that point will start to repeat. Nothing anyone has to worry about.

(If you want to view this as countable but not finite or not is up to you) — CaZaNOx

No not really. It's about what a word means. If you're not interested in that, then you're on your own, which means that you don't make sense (because you're speaking a similar-sounding but different language from everyone else). Granted the universe is big. "infinite" with respect to any practical consideration I can think of. But don't just claim it's infinite. As Frank says, make your case.

With this:

Basically what I mean is too far away to get a signal or message that obeys physics of spacetime locality. — Anthony

I think you did. You described what you meant. And it works for me, but it just is not infinite.

tim wood
2.1k

So...you think it is okay, reasonable, and logical for you to make a sweeping assertion about the nature of REALITY...and when called upon to meet the burden of proof that accrues...you can simply dismiss it out-of-hand. — Frank Apisa


Ok. Make a decision. Are you using "infinite" as metaphor for something? If so please make it clear what that might be. Or as it is defined? In which case, please justify - argue - your application. — tim wood

I am using it thusly:


extending indefinitely : ENDLESS
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinite

Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate
Oxford Dictionary
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/infinite

American Heritage Dictionary.
Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate.
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=infinite

but it just is not infinite. — tim wood

There is the limits of the known anent what is possible (or what seem possible or not) on one hand, and the infinite on the other. Although, we could say that a signal requires measurement or a receiver for it to be a signal. Then we see a communication forming between concepts of measurability and infinity. Then it becomes a matter of whether we might be unaware of unknown signals being measured by something (say, the body-mind) in a way we are unaware of from a place too far (perhaps outside spacetime delimitation) to be understood by known physics that govern spacetime locality. Quantum physics points us in some really strange directions in our attempt to understand the wave nature of electrons. The wave nature of matter, and superposition, hint at types of communication quantum physicists truly don't understand as yet. Standing waves appear to be quasi-holographic. Holograms contain the whole in the part, like Indra's Net. Hence I'm wondering if everything informs everything, if so, our body-mind would be no exception.

The idea is that the universe will eventually use up all its possibilities, and at that point will start to repeat. Nothing anyone has to worry about. — tim wood

Repeating creates infinity if it never stops. The nothing anyone has to worry about is just deflecting that this is the issue that we are discussing here and that it serves as counter argument against your position.

No not really. It's about what a word means. If you're not interested in that, then you're on your own, which means that you don't make sense (because you're speaking a similar-sounding but different language from everyone else). — tim wood

Again stop dodging the point.
The point I was addressing is that the universe contains infinite's, not countability (a word you used but never explained what you meant, not upholding your own standards).

I made a case for continuous properties that I am aware are part of Real numbers and are not viewed as countable.

However I made a weaker case with the set of Natural numbers that are defined as countable but infinite.
I highlighted the infinite and let the interpretation if N is countable or not up to you since you seemed to link countability to infinity which conventionally is not done. So to not use a negative interpretation and let you freeroom with your seemingly incoherent connection of the two distinct concept I said

it is a mechanism that always adds to the currently described view. Similar to Natural Numbers no matter what number you give there's always a bigger one. (If you want to view this as countable but not finite or not is up to you) — CaZaNOx

which highlights that I strictly purpose infinity and stick to the initial topic. With referring to your definition of infinity.

something that is always greater then the thing you can specify. — tim wood

The fun introduction you made was

Now, just for fun, can you describe any aspect of the physical universe that cannot in principle be counted? — tim wood

addressed by continuity. However since this doesn't matter I used a countable claim of infinity referring to N you endorse a incoherent usage of countability.

Granted there are a lot of stars and that counting them might be physically difficult, but in principle they are countable, which means not infinite. — tim wood

So I could like you say regarding countability

It's about what a word means. If you're not interested in that, then you're on your own, which means that you don't make sense (because you're speaking a similar-sounding but different language from everyone else). — tim wood

With the difference being that I A) didn't do what you accuse me of, B)Actually presented an argument (that isn't trivally self defeating) C) Actually addressed your post, instead of just derailing the conversation to you use "this term wrong" ergo your talking nonsense without backing up your claim.

Btw: I forgot to mention that I am actually really interested in your honest opinion about change and infinity and if possible why you have those opinions and how they look in an argumentative structure. I hope this isn't being forgotten but just in case it is I wanted to state it and that it was this interest that prompted the reply.

It appears to me these are all countable in principle. That is, not infinite. If that is what you mean, then fine. We have just refined what we're talking about so that we're both on the same page. A useful concept to keep in mind is the length of a path on the surface of a sphere.

tim wood
2.1k
↪Frank Apisa
It appears to me these are all countable in principle. That is, not infinite. If that is what you mean, then fine. We have just refined what we're talking about so that we're both on the same page. A useful concept to keep in mind is the length of a path on the surface of a sphere. — tim wood

I do not know if the universe is finite or infinite.

I suspect you do not either.

But if you are going to insist you do...then a burden of proof accrues.

Meet it or let's just end this thing.

There is no mystery. There is only curiosity and curiosity killed the cat.

What is a mystery anyway? It's simply the need to answer the 7 basic questions: who? what? when? where? which? how? why?

What is interesting is questions don't stop. Infinite regress. The mystery never ends. — TheMadFool

Mystery is wonder renewing itself. Curiosity can be satisfied. Which is why the cat is killed. Wonder is a deep and peculiar well, that retains the ability to understand, while never making conclusions.

I feel like questions would stop for curiosity. One can only handle so many conclusive answers before his understanding starts to overflow. Verily, though, the mystery never ends.

There is some sort of hard to define infinite regress built into the primary process of consciousness that's a province of wonder. Curiosity, and its questions are part of a secondary process by comparison . Wonder will take us places curiosity can't enter, like trying to understand the infinite regress in our self-awareness...something is aware of something aware of something aware of something aware....self-similar, yet different, all the way down. We may find out the more we're staring infinite regress in the face, the less we can say what it is we're looking at.

Btw: I forgot to mention that I am actually really interested in your honest opinion about change and infinity and if possible why you have those opinions and how they look in an argumentative structure. I hope this isn't being forgotten but just in case it is I wanted to state it and that it was this interest that prompted the reply. — CaZaNOx

On this topic I'm doing my best not to have an opinion. What I am on about is the meaning of a word and the possible misuse of the word with respect to its meaning, and the non-sense that can result from such mis-usage.

('Sfar as I know) if something, or any group of somethings, is discrete, then it can be counted. If it can be counted, then it is finite and not infinite. The essential concept here is countability. How many shoes do you own? You may own a lot of shoes, but for so long as each shoe can be counted and is counted, then the number of shoes you own is finite. What is counting? Matching each integer in order with the next shoe. (The idea of "the next" is important, too.) Are you familiar with diagonalization? Infinity is a technical concept, and apparently not well understood as that concept.

any group of somethings — tim wood

This "somethings" would require qualification. Some what? Some electrons, maybe? Electrons apparently are exactly the same. So when you count one you count them all. Even though they make up matter as far as we know, of the totality, every one is the same. This points to something fishy going on. Not sure what. It definitely is relevant what is being counted, moreso than the numbers tacked onto the quality of the "what.".

Repeating creates infinity if it never stops. — CaZaNOx

No it doesn't. You just keep counting.

The point I was addressing is that the universe contains infinite's, not countability (a word you used but never explained what you meant, not upholding your own standards). — CaZaNOx

No it doesn't. And countability just means that some set of thing can be counted, that is, set into some sort of order so that it - the elements of the set - can be paired with the integers in order.

I made a case for continuous properties that I am aware are part of Real numbers and are not viewed as countable. — CaZaNOx

Sorry i missed it, Where did you make that case? And please try to keep straight that you're applying non-physical (i.e., mathematical, for a guess) concepts to the world. There may be an infinite number of mathematical points between zero and one on the number line (actually not infinite but a number believed to be C, the number of the continuum). But there is no reason at all to suppose that holds true for the real world.

if something, or any group of somethings, is discrete, then it can be counted. — tim wood

Agreed on that.

If it can be counted, then it is finite and not infinite. — tim wood

Disagree. I gave the example of the natural Numbers a countable infinite set.

You may own a lot of shoes, but for so long as each shoe can be counted and is counted, then the number of shoes you own is finite. — tim wood

I am not objecting that finite sets are countable. I am saying countable does not imply finite since we know examples that are countable and infinite. One counterexample suffices to show that the implication you are trying to establish doesn't hold.

Are you familiar with diagonalization? — tim wood

Yes but we don't need it for N. We use it for Q and Q is diagonalizable, therefore counable but also infinite.

Are you saying the Natural numbers are
A) not countable
B) not infinite

Are you aware that this is your own position that basically no one holds?

Are you saying the Natural numbers are
A) not countable
B) not infinite

Are you aware that this is your own position that basically no one holds? — CaZaNOx

Yes the countable numbers are countable.
The cardinality of the set of counting numbers is called aleph-0, or aleph-naught, the first transfinite cardinal. To call that infinity is just a misuse of the word (because there are lots of larger transfinite cardinals).

No it doesn't. You just keep counting. — tim wood

Just to get it strait. Are you saying that something that repeats (forever without stopping) is not infinite? (Correct me if I misunderstood you)

No it doesn't. And countability just means that some set of thing can be counted, that is, set into some sort of order so that it - the elements of the set - can be paired with the integers in order. — tim wood

How is this related to the concept of infinity (=without an end). Can't you just keep on counting without end if the thing you are counting is countable but infinite?

Sorry i missed it, Where did you make that case? — tim wood

I made this case with change (I admit it was briefly) See:

I am arguing that change is an infinite property of the universe.
I would say it's continuous since the idea of turning off and on change (figuratively speaking) doesn't make sense — CaZaNOx

Note: The figuratively speaking is there because as it is written it would presuppose an agent which I am not doing.
You however are correct that I did not link it directly to real numbers. I only made a case for continuous change which I model (in my head) as Real numbers. I could however limit myself to a part of R that would contain more then one point and isn't discrete therefore still be infinite (in depth, not length).
In short I argue for continuous change, this in turn needs an continuous interval that is a subset of more then one points of R to be modeled. This would not be countable due to it being continuous.

And please try to keep straight that you're applying non-physical (i.e., mathematical, for a guess) concepts to the world. — tim wood

I disagree. I don't see change as a mathematical concept and rather a physical one. I model this however with math.
Also I have no trouble "keeping straight" that I use mathematical concepts. However I assumed this to be clear, like you assumed it to be clear that countability, or diagonalization refers to math.

Gravity is arguably action at a distance. The sun's radiation mutates genes from a distance. Lightning has been said to be triggered by particles emanating from exploded suns in distant galaxies. — Anthony

disclaimer: I am no physicist and don't pretend to be an expert. I have never taken so much as a single physics course. I've only done some casual reading and thinking about physics. In the following, I might make mistakes. Take my position with a grain of salt. If you find an error, I'd be happy if you'd correct my misunderstanding.

Gravity as understood by Newton was sometimes thought to be spooky action at a distance. And Newton was notoriously unhappy with this state of affairs. His law of gravity only described mathematically how bodies move in relation to each other. It said nothing about why they attract one another. Newton on the matter:

It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.[4]

— Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3

But Einstein seems to have solved the problem. His way of understanding gravity restored locality and removed any action at a distance.

One way to get some sense of how it works is the old trampoline model of spacetime. Understand that this is a very flawed analogy because it involves another gravitational pull downward. But put that concern aside for the moment. Put a heavy bowling ball in the center of the elastic sheet. Now put some marbles on the trampoline some distance from the bowling ball. Because the bowling ball makes a depression in the trampoline right where it touches it, the surface of the trampoline under each marble is tilted. So the marble starts to roll, as it would on any tilted surface. The bowling ball isn't magically pulling on the marbles at distance, without contact. The motion of marble is determined by geometric orientation of the surface underneath it. And the bowling ball only has an effect on the trampoline surface it is touching. Each small part of the trampoline surface is affecting its neighboring parts. So by a chain of little things touching their neighbors, the bowling ball has an indirect influence on the marble. Nothing nonlocal. It is like having a dog on a chain. When you pull the chain and yank the dog's neck, this isn't spooky action at a distance. One link pulls the next, which pulls the next, and so on. It is all local contact action. In Einstein's actual theory, it is all strictly geometric and local.

Isn't it interesting that we think of Einstein's theories as weird and Newton's as non-weird? If you look closer, it would seem that Einstein made things agree better with our intuitions! He restored some sanity to our picture of things!

Now, suppose I shoot an arrow at a deer. Is this nonlocal? No. I physically touched the arrow, imparted momentum to it, which carried it across space, whereupon it touches the deer.

Particles from the sun mutating genes can be thought of as being like the arrow situation. Not nonlocal. Neither the particle nor wave manner of modelling such things as photons arriving from the sun to influence atoms in cells is nonlocal.

Quantum entanglement is the most obvious reason why this proposition may be true. — Anthony

Quantum entanglement is often misunderstood. It doesn't let you send information faster than light. You can't communicate with it. If you could, you could violate causality and introduce contradictions into the world, thus violating the law of non-contradiction. You could do things analogous to killing your distant ancestor and thus not existing to kill your ancestor, in which case, your ancestor lives, in which case, your ancestor doesn't live...

If information can travel faster than light, effects can precede their causes and thus influence them.

See such things as a no-communication theorem: link

We don't really understand deeply what is going on with quantum entanglement. For one thing, the Everett interpretation paints quite a different picture of what is going on with it than other interpretations. There, it really isn't one thing influencing another. Rather, it is more of a matter of how states of the universe are inherited from ancestor states. This happens according to certain rules that make it the case that certain correlations will naturally be observed.

It is similar to how, if you take a pair of gloves and put each in a box (you don't know which is in which) and you send one far away, if you open the one you have, you instantly know whether the distant glove is a left or a right one. The glove you have didn't affect the distant one in any spooky way. And you can't determine before you open the box whether your glove is left or right. And thus, you can't determine whether the distant one is left or right. Since you can't determine which glove you have, you can't determine which glove is found in the distant box. And thus, you can't use this system to communicate. The entanglement situation is somewhat like this.

In the Everett interpretation, you might think of it like the following. If you have an entangled pair of particles and you measure the spin of one, you simply are discovering that you happen to be in the branch in which your particle is spin up (another copy of you in another branch presumably finds his particle spin down), and the rules are such that in a given worldline, where one of the particles is spin up, by a law of symmetry, the other must be spin down. So you also know that the distant particle is spin down. But before you measure your particle, you don't know if your particle is spin up or spin down. From your standpoint, it is completely random. And you can't determine the state of your particle in order to determine the complementary state of the other. So this doesn't allow communication.

Disappointing, I know, right?



Things can only causally influence things in their light cone, and only by local means, via some kind of contact action, whether you are dealing with waves or particles, both of which are thoroughly local. The very nature of waves is that each part of the wave is affecting its neighbors. Consider imparting wave motion to a rope. What about EM radiation in a vacuum since people have dispensed with the aether? Unless we use the virtual particle model here, I don't know how to understand this, frankly. Maybe it has to do with the following curious possibility:

In Einstein's theories, as you approach the speed of light, distance contracts. At the speed of light, the distance crossed is zero. So when an electron drops to a lower energy level and emits a photon, the "distant" electron receiving that photon and jumping to a higher energy level isn't really distant! It is as if a certain quantum of energy is simply being passed directly, by touching, from one electron to another, perhaps not unlike one billiard ball losing momentum to another ball when striking it, the energy simply passing from one ball to another. It is as if the electron in the distant star has literally touched the electron in your retina when you see distant starlight. The star has touched your eye. But because of the way spacetime geometry is affected by speed, the star as it is "now" cannot touch your eye. But the star as it was long ago in the past can touch your eye. You must be in the light cone. Things outside of one another's light cone are causally isolated.