Message 46 of 125 (556816) 04-21-2010 9:12 AM

Reply to: Message 45 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee 04-21-2010 4:26 AM

That is the general interpretation, that space and time are interconnected and exist regardless of the matter that may or may not exist within them. If objects themselves took their time with them, then wouldn't it be possible to put objects next to each other that have time passing at different rates?

But this brings up even more questions; it isn't cognitively consistent that you could be associating time as being inextricably intertwined with objects themselves. You already stated that you have no problem believing that time can continue on forever, but that you think objects cannot exist for eternity. For that to be so time must be able to continue without objects, otherwise time would necessarily end whenever those objects failed to make it to eternity.

You seem to be all over the map with this...

Let me put it this way: Start counting up starting at one. Will you ever have to stop? No, you can continue for infinity. But you obviously will never reach infinity, so... does this mean that there are a finite amount of numbers? Does this mean that numbers cannot continue on forever?

No. And it isn't that tough of a concept.

Message 47 of 125 (556857) 04-21-2010 12:46 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by Phage0070 04-21-2010 9:12 AM

I’m not sure that’s quite fair. As I said I'm a layman thinking out loud and trying to make sense of this. I don't claim to be an expert making a dogmatic argument. I may possibly have made some contradictory points in thinking this through, but I think I’ve been generally consistent.

But isn’t that exactly what relativity theory claims? Or at least if the 2 objects are moving relative to each other.

The concept I have is that there is a subtle but important difference between something that is infinite and something that is indefinite. My concept of your counting numbers is that it is indefinite not infinite. You can continue counting indefinitely (i.e. we cannot say if or when you will stop counting) but you cannot “continue for infinity”. As you say, you will never reach infinity, so how can you “continue for infinity”? An infinite amount of time is something that, by definition, can never be covered or reached. You can never count up to an infinite number. In fact, you can’t even begin to do so. It doesn’t even make sense to try. So if you look backwards on the same scale, for the same reason it doesn’t make logical sense to say that something could have existed from an infinite past to this moment. From an indefinite past, yes, that is theoretically possible. But nothing can have existed “forever” unless “ever” is finite.

Message 48 of 125 (556889) 04-21-2010 2:59 PM

Reply to: Message 47 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee 04-21-2010 12:46 PM

Not exactly; relativity is much more complicated, but it basically says that if something is moving in relation to another object then it would have a different passage of time. Objects that are unmoving in relation to each other would have the same frame of reference for time.

Lets say time goes on infinitely, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Now lets say we want to count the number of years in "forever"; this would take an infinite amount of time, right? Well it is a good thing that we have an infinite amount of time!

You can never count the number of years in forever because inherent in the definition of an infinite series is that it never ends. If you *could* ever reach then end then it wouldn't be infinite. So basically you have a problem with the concept of infinity. Or more precisely *counting* infinity, and for some reason if you cannot count it you think it cannot exist.

Message 49 of 125 (557000) 04-22-2010 5:01 AM

Reply to: Message 48 by Phage0070 04-21-2010 2:59 PM

Having thought about this further, if I did previously say that time might be infinite, or that something might continue to exist for an infinite time, that was a mistake in respect to my concept of infinity. I still prefer the definition "indefinite". As we both seem to agree, you can never reach infinity, so I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to time (i.e. time cannot be infinite).

If something has always existed, that would mean that it has spanned infinity. But if it is here now, it means that if time is reversed it would be possible to re-trace it's existence and reach infinity from this point. But I think we both agree that by definition it is not possible to reach infinity! We could never go to infinity in the future or the past, so it must be impossible for anything "from" infinity to get here. However long or far it travelled, it could never get here. If it ever did arrive, it will must have covered a finite distance and not an infinite distance.

It makes me think that infinity is just a concept that can't exist in reality.

Message 50 of 125 (557002) 04-22-2010 5:20 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee 04-22-2010 5:01 AM

Certainly. Personally I tend to just copy and past quotes and associated screen names and avoid using them in my post.

You keep mixing up assumptions of finite frames of reference and concepts because you are still struggling to understand the concept of infinity. This is not surprising as humans are intimately familiar with finite concepts and nature provides little hands-on experience with infinity.

However, my point went beyond that. Think of something you don't understand at all; this can be a hypothetical thing, or something in nature that you simply don't understand. Special and General Relativity for example, or quantum superposition and entanglement.

Think very carefully about this one question: Does your lack of understanding, in and of itself, have any bearing on if the phenomenon exists or not?

Message 51 of 125 (557009) 04-22-2010 6:58 AM

Reply to: Message 50 by Phage0070 04-22-2010 5:20 AM

Well, that's kind of my point. From an infinite past there is no starting point. That's why under my concept of infinity it doesn't even make sense to say that something could have arrived at this point from infinity. How could it travel to any point if it doesn't even start to move towards that point?

It seems like we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point to the end of infinity . There couldn't "be an infinite number of them" because you can't have an infinite number of anything. There may be an indefinite number of them.

I am no mathematician or physicist, and I don't know if you have any such qualifications, but with all due respect I still think it is you who is struggling with concept of infinity, and the subtle but important difference between infinite and indefinite.

In my opinion, no. Is that right or wrong?

Message 52 of 125 (557010) 04-22-2010 7:12 AM

Reply to: Message 51 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee 04-22-2010 6:58 AM

It isn't important that it is moving toward a point, or away from some point. The importance is that it is moving. The concept of time going infinitely forward and infinitely back removes the issue of a start or finish from the equation; all we are left with is the movement. If you can point out a compelling reason why time must start and stop then it would also be compelling reasons for it not being infinite, otherwise it isn't in conflict.

See, again with the proclamations. Why can we not have an infinite number of whole numbers for instance? Give me a reason, not just a claim of "Thats impossible!" without even the slightest hint of support.

You are confusing yourself with semantics of your own devising. Indefinite means that there is no defined limit; infinity therefore would be indefinite, so your distinction of the two is rather difficult to understand. It is like saying "It does not go on forever, it just has no end."

That is correct. So why does your central argument against the concept of infinity existing in reality seem to be "I can't count that high, so I cannot see it existing"?

Message 53 of 125 (557012) 04-22-2010 7:23 AM

Reply to: Message 51 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee 04-22-2010 6:58 AM

Here's a nice documentary on infinities, I've posted it here before, but I think it's appropriate again here.

Link here

Message 54 of 125 (557023) 04-22-2010 9:12 AM

Reply to: Message 52 by Phage0070 04-22-2010 7:12 AM

That is what I'm saying. Or probably it would be more exact to say:

"It does not go on forever, it just has no known end."

Nothing can "go on forever" because "go on" implies it doesn't ever reach an end, whereas "forever" literally means "all of time" and is therefore finite. If something has spanned all of time, it is no longer going on. Where does it go after "all"? If it continues to "go on" it hasn't yet spanned "forever/infinity".

Message 57 of 125 (557042) 04-22-2010 10:58 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee 04-22-2010 9:12 AM

Jeez, it is like debating a theist...

"I don't think infinity can exist because if you try to count up to infinity you never reach an end, which of course is directly contrary to the definition of infinity itself, so I am basically saying that I don't like the concept of infinity because it is infinite. But this makes sense to me because I'm going to redefine infinity for no reason!

Besides, nothing can exist forever because I have arbitrarily decided that time is finite so "forever" would be a quantifiable amount of time. This of course is proof of itself; if something goes on "forever", which is to mean without end, then by going on forever it *has reached* an end in "forever" (don't mind the blood from your nose, thats completely normal), and thus cannot have spanned infinity. So time must be finite based upon the irrefutable fact that circularity is the new black."

As a rule of thumb, any proof that depends on ruling out the possibility through definition is probably not a compelling proof. Arguing against infinity due to it being endless, or arguing that time must be finite "because it is" is similarly unacceptable.

Message 58 of 125 (557046) 04-22-2010 11:39 AM

Reply to: Message 57 by Phage0070 04-22-2010 10:58 AM

A bit harsh

I'm not sure if that's what I said, but anyway I think it will be a good idea at this point to take a break to consider everything you and everyone else has said. I'll get back to you in the near future.

Message 59 of 125 (557059) 04-22-2010 1:09 PM

Reply to: Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee 04-22-2010 9:14 AM

Sorry, can't embed it it seems, damn japanese site!

Message 60 of 125 (557222) 04-23-2010 11:55 PM

Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former. -Albert Einstein