Viability of foreverness

Thanks fresco.
I haven't read Fritjof Capra. I will check it out.

Since you guys are interested in mathematical modelling, I suggest you consider what you mean by the term "viability" in the thread title. Can "viability" be replaced by "acceptability", or "applicability" or "functionality" etc.
I ask this because one model I mentioned to JLN above, that of "Projective Geometry" in which "infinity" ("foreverness" ?) is considered to be a singularity approached in either direction (forward or backward) implying circularity. The model turns out to have been utilised by Paul Dirac in the development of the equations for quantum mechanics.

Quote:
"The finite four-dimensional doughnut model is for a flat universe."
sounds contradictory



No of course I'm sure Ora that you're quite right, it's merely a semantic matter. But if donut is finite and flat is infinite, it seems to say that the finite model is for an infinite Universe

I said that flat is infinite because the only likely model for a flat universe is an infinite model.

But there are unlikely models for a flat universe that are finite.


A flat universe can be finite if it is based on one of the unlikely models. But it is unlikely that the universe would be based on an unlikely model.

The four-dimensional doughnut model is one of those unlikely models. (It is the least unlikely out of all the unlikely models.)

dalehileman wrote:
But if donut is finite and flat is infinite, it seems to say that the finite model is for an infinite Universe

That does make sense somehow

Okay Ora, you're 'way beyond me here and so I apologize for my confusion

I'll try to keep that in mind

That seems to follow indeed

In short then you must find the infinite Universe most likely

You've stated that you don't find infinity forever at all troubling. But given same (of course also assuming the rules are the same throughout) would you agree with my preposterous (to me) speculation that at any moment there must be an infinite number of each and every possible Universe

........and if not why not

Thanks again Ora for your patience

I don't know what you mean by "flat", but that's my fault: I havn't made an effort to understand it. However, its seems to me that the one-dimensional point and the two-dimensional line exist only in our minds. Everything in our phenomenal world is three-dimensional, even the pencil marks (dot and line) on a piece of paper are really three dimensional if looked a with sufficient magnification. Ergo "the flat" is "infinite" in the sense that it is non-existent because of its two-dimensional nature; it exists only conceptually, not empirically.

the problem in his ways of picturing things, is what he doesnt get that the thing really steady there as object is the free result, so could b free reality or nothing but always relative to an individual freedom that would realize it and then become it with free ends so any else or other freedom too could be the reason of object valorisation or objective value

there is a lot of those kind, inherently and essentially they mean knowing objects to take from, that is why they want it finite in the inferior sense and love to picture infinity as nothing so they could mean becoming rich for real by possessing finites lives

but u have also the right kind, who by knowing smthg existence they become existing out in absolute terms, so true nothing to the fact they know about, while they could picture a sense of move to realize a relation with the free thing by recognizing its fact being existing so through the conception of relation that would be realized freely without changing anything there

infinite is never for realities, infinite is the speculations about free values that must b always the reference sources of free objects constancies values as existing facts
but reality is always about fresh move relativity realized proving that infinite values exist since reality with what cant b considered a thing
while the freedom is the present allowing it by confirming its possible relativity from being free abstractions of infinite values existing there

the present is the freedom value the more it is actively free the more the present is real, the present is never to anything

this is the complexity too hard to get especially when the mean is to keep itself out of all in order to deal with as knowing it all, it becomes impossible to know

the combination between freedom and infinite values is guaranteed by true existence presence only, so it is a certainty but also cant b reproduced even by itself

there is also a fact being called truth rights as the reason of existence freedom being an objective present always

infinite values is in concept the source of constancies

now when infinite values are realized this is called truth, the confirmation of the source as a fact abstractly existing

that truth which realized infinite values existence has the right to b free, since it realized else source existence not itself

so whatever one realize true it bbecomes free so existing right to realize smthg for it alone

"Most likely" is not a strong enough way to put it. The infinite model is the only one that is likely.

That's why when I started out, I just said "flat means infinite". It is technically possible for a flat universe to be finite, but it is so unlikely that I just discounted it as not being a real possibility.


There are a minority of scientists who think that the pattern of the cosmic microwave background radiation indicates that the universe is one of those unlikely finite models, but so far they don't have the evidence to present a convincing case.

It'll be fun if they do end up being right though. If they prove themselves right, I'll enjoy learning about it.






Yes, I agree that an infinite universe means that, if you go far enough, duplication is likely.

You'd have to go pretty far however.

Since infinity is pretty big, once having accept the usual rules of probability Ora, wouldn't you say instead, "certain" and in fact how would you get around the idea of an infinite number of each simultaneously and if you can't doesn't it bother you even just a teeny bit

I'm not confident enough in my level of knowledge to use the term "certain" in this case.

What if there is also infinite variability? And what if that infinite variability makes duplication unlikely even in an infinite universe?

All in all, given infinity I would say eventual duplication is likely, but I am far from certain about it.





Endless duplication in an infinite universe does not bother me.

You'd have to go a very great distance to achieve such duplication.

I just smiled and waved at my duplicate across all those endless lightyears and parsecs.

If he's out there, he must have been smiling and waving back at me.

Me nuthr but of course speculation of this sort is evidently one of a2k's purposes

It's really interesting Ora you should so conjecture because it's precisely my feeling also: That our common idea about probability is wrong, that there are different sizes of infinity, the one addressing its probability being infinitely less likely than the number of chances

In other words in an infinite Universe we can have an infinite number of units (say "visible universes") all vastly different

We might find slight similarities usu quite far apart

the idea of an infinite number of each simultaneously and if you can't doesn't it bother you even just a teeny bit

Not even a teeny bit

Very

duplications is to liars creations by using truth knowledge in cheapest ways, in truth there cant b same freedom reality or realisation bc truth existence is based on the principle of no one, so two for sure absolute freedom of extremities extremes superiority as the base of such free moves out of truth existence

that is how u have the dimension of the smallest free and the dimension of the biggest free out of truth realisations, qualities are totally else but also they can never b in touch in same dimension so only objective true perspectives is what allow true communication and free individualities kind of living while truth is the existence not them

and the sense is not anyone but the truest free individual positive superiority out of truth existence

the idea how two is essential to truth existence in absolute existence justifications

the most free justification, if truth is infinite superiority and there is one true so infinitely superior free out of truth particular infinity as else since not it constant fact or realisations,
the end is seen clearly so no existence forever as objective fact free

the end is subjective superiority and objective one which would become free one still no possible evolution

but when there is two true else freedom and of course the basic being truth infinite superiority, then objective existence is always from that trinity right fact
the two freedom have to b really free out of truth since there is other true free too, by having to b truly free they must keep being real to seek their freedom rights
also truth since there is two true at least it cant keep staying objective by realizin always more true individuals sense

and objectively about them, when there is two freedom true then true free realisation of one side would generate as a reaction of the other another free expression which would lead to objective reality outside of them both about the constant value end being relations of free realisations

i mean the copy of free is else free, so objective free is always

individual freedom cannot be objective itself, it must stay that freedom individually that is why if two individual freedom it is enough for always existence as objective truth

that is why duplications u mean pass by robotisation which is by killin freedom which is by killin truth which is by inventing ends which is by creating wills

but in facts duplicating is impossible, freedom is about being else constantly as free from all freedom already existing, which is principally truth existence resolving objective constant freedom in most positive relation to infinite superiority from truth freedom presence always upon that kind of constancy objects

so the freedom above all freedoms realities values and any other relative freedom which as u know any relative freedom like u cant but mean apparantly itself freedom value as the condition to mean objective value
and that is why despite the multitude of others down and ups there is no positive relations between u but in terms of hierarchy so force killing freedom as a system all agree upon
so kind of u accepting the fact that u cant bare each others freely

which is done by truth superiority, of course truth would give reality to the arguments asserting relation only with it so with objective existence so its freedom as to infinite superiority first
but noone react like me understanding the point of truth and its value in truth value but still why noone also differ relatively or try at least to relativise the point of truth that it get absolutely for truth existence rights first

try to do better to think for tomorrow that cant b but through betters n new stuff and possible and mostly free

No. Doesn't bother me.

You say that infinity is "pretty big". That gave me a chuckle. But you realize, of course, that infinity is not big; it's beyond size.

If I understand the principle of fractals properly, coastlines are infinite lengths. You will get a more precise result the smaller the yardstick is, and the smaller the stick, the longer the coastline.

Unimaginably

The axiom to which you refer requires sufficient time for everything that CAN happen to happen.

It can't happen an infinite number of times unless there is an infinity of time.

There is no extant evidence that infinite or multiple universes CAN happen.

I'd have thought the intuitively unacceptable posit is an endless universe given current scientific comprehension.


Your thoughts provide me with such gaeity that I'd suggest:

Lood, I wouldn't be too sure about that. It's true of course given a finite Universe with a limited "life"

However if the Universe is infinite then everything that can happen should happen even in a single "lifetime"

A finite Universe forever is equally troubling intuitively; there might be an infinite number of each possible Universe though they'd be spaced a bit further apart in time. Quite a bit

An observation that opens whole new bags of worms. Unless they're "simultaneous," the plural expression "infinite Universes" is contradictory

..while "multiple Universes" implies simultaneity

Laugh, there are several ways in which that supposition in its present form can be construed but I'd be happy to address it if you'd clarify
.