Can "Infinity" ever be more than a mathematical abstraction?

[NotEinstein]

PSA: Guys and gals, over in the thread Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics our local resident heyuhua has managed to prove that infinity does exist! He has stated in no uncertain terms that space itself is infinite in size. Here is the most relevant part of his proof:

In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long.

So there, problem resolved, I suppose?​

 

[someguy1]

PSA: Guys and gals, over in the thread Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics our local resident heyuhua has managed to prove that infinity does exist! He has stated in no uncertain terms that space itself is infinite in size. Here is the most relevant part of his proof:


So there, problem resolved, I suppose?​

Can you please link the post you're referring to?

In any event, we can continuously (and homeomorphically, memap the entire real line to the open unit interval (0,1) and nothing really changes. So you could fit the entire real line in a shoebox. That's where I keep mine.

 

[NotEinstein]

Can you please link the post you're referring to?

It's post #579. The name of the thread is clickable in my post; it'll take you right to it. Also, you can click the little up-arrow in the top-bar of the quote.

In any event, we can continuously (and homeomorphically, memap the entire real line to the open unit interval (0,1) and nothing really changes.

Absolutely true.

So you could fit the entire real line in a shoebox. That's where I keep mine.

It's also not uncommon to map the entire complex plane onto a sphere. I'll see your shoebox, and raise you a football.

 

[Seattle]

I asked, not declared.

The number 2 appears, to me, to exist. It is also that infinite series - that infinite series is the number 2. They are equal to each other, two different ways of writing down the same thing. So if the one exists, so does the other.

I was asking whether the one existed, in the sense of this thread - i.e. as more than a mathematical abstraction.

Have we found the number two in the real world?

Every concept is found in the real world as that is all that there is but every concept isn't necessarily more than an abstraction.

You can't however write out an infinity series of numbers (without shorthand) in the real world. Two isn't a "thing", it represents a thing and is a mathematical abstraction.

Infinity, even in math, is just shorthand for "large numbers" and not this metaphysical concept that is now being assigned to it in physics.

 

[Write4U]

Opinions are rather irrelevant here.
What you'd need to do is to provide some logical reason based on some known fact.
But, I understand you won't do that.
So, instead, all you can do is express your opinion.
But opinions are irrelevant here.
EB

In an infity probabilism (uncertainty) is moot. In an infinite timespan all probabilities will become realized in the whole and every infinite division of the whole.

 

[Write4U]

That's where the confusion will inevitably happen. The different definitions of a word you'll find in a dictionary are always context-dependent.

I agree, but if the word has several context dependent definitions then if the context is known, the specific definition can be derived from the context, no?

Would you need to question the use of the word potential in any of the following?

Examples of potential in a Sentence

1. Doctors are excited about the new drug's potential benefits.
   
   
2. Critics say the factory poses a potential threat to the environment.
   
   
3. He is a potential candidate for president.
   
   
4. The project has potential risks.

The common denominator in every one of those examples is, "That which may become reality"
Therefore the use of the word potential is always in reference to ;

Definition of potential
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

• potential benefits

 

[Write4U]

Yes it is literally unreasonable if taken literally. Given that we can only use words to talk about the physical world, you may just as well ask whether the physical world may have word-like properties.

How do you know what is a physical structure or pattern? Our perception of solid physical matter is a relative experience, due to our size only. Some particle are so small they pass right through us and we don't even feel them, yet we are physical objects, no?
To those particles we do not even exist, they pass trough the spaces in our bodies. Yet the mathematical properties and behaviors of these particles can be identified and symbolically described with our mathematics.
At Planck scale there is more space than physicalness between particles. Nothing is solid at all, but are held together by the four fundamental forces, which produces the patterns which we call matter. But solidness as in adjoining infinitely small points is an illusion. There is always space in between.

 

[someguy1]

It's also not uncommon to map the entire complex plane onto a sphere. I'll see your shoebox, and raise you a football.

Haha. I'm an American. You mean a soccer ball!!

 

[Write4U]

Please learn what an ad hominem is; this isn't one.

Now this is a clear example of miscommunication... You claim that accusing someone of "lying" is not an ad hominem, I shall prove you wrong and that accusing someone of lying is an ad hominem.

A lie is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception. The practice of communicating lies is called lying, and a person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar.

Lies may be employed to serve a variety of instrumental, interpersonal, or psychological functions for the individuals who use them. Generally, the term "lie" carries a negative connotation, and depending on the context a person who communicates a lie may be subject to social, legal, religious, or criminal sanctions

Argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself

Do you still believe accusing someone of lying is not an ad hominem?
Really NotEinstein, there is no need for this. I need not lie to defend my point of view on a specific subject. I can be wrong due to ignorance of in-depth knowledge on the subject and have been told so several time in the course of discussions on many subjects, but I'll never lie just to win an argument, there is just no valuable information to be gained in that for either side.....

 

[Write4U]

PSA: Guys and gals, over in the thread Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics our local resident heyuhua has managed to prove that infinity does exist! He has stated in no uncertain terms that space itself is infinite in size. Here is the most relevant part of his proof: ​

heyuhua said:
In fact, if the space is finite, the whole mathematics collapses because the axis is infinitely long.

So there, problem resolved, I suppose?

​

True, but only if there exist a "permittive condition" beyond the boundary of space......

If not permitted, the axis will stop at the boundary of space. Any extension (even an imaginary extension) of any spacetime properties beyond the boundary of a finite space is by definition unknown and cannot be used to prove or disprove anything, IMO.

Moreover, if the shape of the universe is a manifold, there can be no single axis around which the various parts of the universe revolve, true?

p.s. after reading the link to the heyuhua posit, it seems we are in general agreement on the concept of a bounded spacetime.

 

[NotEinstein]

Haha. I'm an American. You mean a soccer ball!!

We're using different words for the same definition. But at least we know what the other is talking about.

 

[NotEinstein]

Now this is a clear example of miscommunication... You claim that accusing someone of "lying" is not an ad hominem, I shall prove you wrong and that accusing someone of lying is an ad hominem.
Do you still believe accusing someone of lying is not an ad hominem?

False; an ad hom is when you dismiss somebody's argument. What argument were you making?

Accusing somebody of lying can be an ad hom, but in this case (read carefully, I explicitly said that) it is not. I did not argue that you were wrong, because you are a liar, I simply said you lied.

And thus, your proving me wrong is proven wrong.

Really NotEinstein, there is no need for this.

Indeed. If you simply learned what words and terms meant, we wouldn't have to go through this every time.

I need not lie to defend my point of view on a specific subject.

Then why did you lie?

I can be wrong due to ignorance of in-depth knowledge on the subject and have been told so several time in the course of discussions on many subjects, but I'll never lie just to win an argument,

Let's look at this in more detail:
"What I am trying to say is that I have to go hunting for words with the definition of what I am trying to say."
"I use the common denominator present in all of the definitions."

The first sentence says you go looking for words with the correct definition. The second says the words you end up using have made-up, private definitions. So I must conclude that your hunting typically fails: you don't find a word, and thus the need to make something up.

I think that most definitely qualifies as a "lie by omission". You've left out a crucial bit of information from your first statement; namely that this hunt typically fails to find the correct words. It's misleading to leave that out. This, coupled with a lot of fallacies of equivocation, lead me to my accusation.

This is not "ignorance of in-depth knowledge on the subject". This is not knowing how language works. This is not knowing how communication works. This is not knowing how definitions work.

there is just no valuable information to be gained in that for either side.....

Yes, there is. It's extremely valuable to know if the other side is lying, or lying without the other side catching you. Have you ever heard of politics?

 

[NotEinstein]

True, but only if there exist a "permittive condition" beyond the boundary of space......

Since "beyond the boundary of space" in an incoherent statement (how can there be space beyond where there is space?), this is effectively word-salad.

If not permitted, the axis will stop at the boundary of space.

The concept of a growing axis is incoherent (for they cannot), so this is effectively word-salad.

Any extension (even an imaginary extension) of any spacetime properties beyond the boundary of a finite space is by definition unknown and cannot be used to prove or disprove anything, IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spacetime properties", and I'm quite sure this is not "by definition" unknown, but I agree with the general argument you make here.

Moreover, if the shape of the universe is a manifold,

Isn't it always, by definition? (At least in the context of GR.)

there can be no single axis around which the various parts of the universe revolve, true?

Erm, we're not talking about such an axis. It's the axis of a graph, not a rotational axis.

p.s. after reading the link to the heyuhua posit, it seems we are in general agreement on the concept of a bounded spacetime.

Who's "we"? You and heyuhua, or you and me?

 

[NotEinstein]

Okay then, you explain to me what definition of "function" Write4U is using in post #94, so that it is possible to equate it to "process".

(Seattle: Why do I get the feeling I'm not going to get an answer to this?)

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Philosophically, I don't rule out unicorns but scientifically I don't place much weight on them because there is no evidence for their existence.

have you heard of these ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

have you heard of these ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal


... how to put this concisely ...
(my opinion)
perceptual convergance of atypical concepts of cause and effect do not render simplistic functional formula for a darwinian form of entropy;
though some arguement may suggest its process to be binary in observable nature.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In an infity probabilism (uncertainty) is moot. In an infinite timespan all probabilities will become realized in the whole and every infinite division of the whole.

Probabilities have to be established. You need to observe occurrences to be able to infer probabilities that would have any value.
So how exactly would you go about determining probabilities over an infinite universe? It just doesn't make sense.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I agree, but if the word has several context dependent definitions then if the context is known, the specific definition can be derived from the context, no?

Sure but people won't understand if you yourself have a different context in mind when you use the word.
For example, let remind you of one of my previous posts, where I was asking you to explain Tegmark's use of the word "abstract":

This is what Tegmark says:

Tegmark said:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf
I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure.

..."our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure"?!
To me, that's pure gobbledygook. So, could you explain what that could possibly mean?
Here is a clue as to the problem. The definition of the word "abstract":

Abstract
adj
1. having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete
2. not applied or practical; theoretical
3. hard to understand; recondite; abstruse
4. (Art Terms) denoting art characterized by geometric, formalized, or otherwise nonrepresentational qualities
5. defined in terms of its formal properties: an abstract machine.
6. (Philosophy) philosophy (of an idea) functioning for some empiricists as the meaning of a general term: the word'man' does not name all men but the abstract idea of manhood

Which definition did Tegmark had in mind exactly?
I guess he might just as well have said that the universe doesn't exist for real. That it's just an idea.
I would say that before you get into serious stuff you better learn your English.
And that's just one word, line 4 in the abstract... Not a good start.

Tegmark's phrase "our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure" doesn't make sense because Tegmark is using the word "abstract" to specify the nature of a concrete thing, the physical universe, which is a contradiction.
So, please explain how it is possible for our physical world to be anything abstract or what it means for the physical world to be abstract.

Would you need to question the use of the word potential in any of the following?
The common denominator in every one of those examples is, "That which may become reality"
Therefore the use of the word potential is always in reference to ;

???
You're not making sense.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

How do you know what is a physical structure or pattern? Our perception of solid physical matter is a relative experience, due to our size only. Some particle are so small they pass right through us and we don't even feel them, yet we are physical objects, no?
To those particles we do not even exist, they pass trough the spaces in our bodies. Yet the mathematical properties and behaviors of these particles can be identified and symbolically described with our mathematics.
At Planck scale there is more space than physicalness between particles. Nothing is solid at all, but are held together by the four fundamental forces, which produces the patterns which we call matter. But solidness as in adjoining infinitely small points is an illusion. There is always space in between.

Irrelevant.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Now this is a clear example of miscommunication... You claim that accusing someone of "lying" is not an ad hominem, I shall prove you wrong and that accusing someone of lying is an ad hominem.
Do you still believe accusing someone of lying is not an ad hominem?
Really NotEinstein, there is no need for this. I need not lie to defend my point of view on a specific subject. I can be wrong due to ignorance of in-depth knowledge on the subject and have been told so several time in the course of discussions on many subjects, but I'll never lie just to win an argument, there is just no valuable information to be gained in that for either side.....

So, apparently you still want to use dictionaries when it suits you.
EB

 

[Seattle]

have you heard of these ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

have you heard of these ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal


... how to put this concisely ...
(my opinion)
perceptual convergance of atypical concepts of cause and effect do not render simplistic functional formula for a darwinian form of entropy;
though some arguement may suggest its process to be binary in observable nature.

Is this word salad?