Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 01:29 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Let me ask.

What are you calling "reality" (if it isn't the things we observe and interact with)? This concept seems to be pretty important to you. My definition of reality has to do with what is scientifically, or qualitatively measurable or observable (either now or in the future).

I am curious if you have a better one.


Well...your definition brings into question a very important possible component.

Suppose the REALITY is that we humans will never be able to "scientifically or qualitatively measure or observe"...what actually IS.

Under those circumstances...using your "definition"...we would be required to disregard what could easily be the greater part of REALITY.

In any case, my comment earlier was to the point that NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIST would suggest that we have even defined and identified the entire of what exists (the true universe)...and we can only make comments about that part that we can define and identify.

Some scientists would (I suppose) suggest that the part we can identify (the results of the Big Bang) IS FINITE. We do not know if this thing (that which we call "the universe") is all that exists. If there is more...that "more" MAY BE infinite.

I was just stating the obvious...something most scientists would probably point out. I was not being a wise-ass.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 01:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You are questioning my definition of reality without offering your own definition of reality. Please define what you mean.

Quote:
Suppose the REALITY is that we humans will never be able to "scientifically or qualitatively measure or observe"...what actually IS.


What do you mean by the phrase "what actually IS" (if it has nothing to do with what we can measure or observe)? You are suggesting some absolute truth (of what "IS") without explaining what it means or how it is reached.

I have offered a definition of reality (which I may want to improve or even discard after discussion). But you are using a concept that you haven't even attempted to define.

If you can offer your definition of reality, then we can have a discussion.


Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 01:46 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are questioning my definition of reality without offering your own definition of reality. Please define what you mean.

Quote:
Suppose the REALITY is that we humans will never be able to "scientifically or qualitatively measure or observe"...what actually IS.


What do you mean by the phrase "what actually IS" (if it has nothing to do with what we can measure or observe)? You are suggesting some absolute truth (of what "IS") without explaining what it means or how it is reached.

I have offered a definition of reality (which I may want to improve or even discard after discussion). But you are using a concept that you haven't even attempted to define.

If you can offer your definition of reality, then we can have a discussion.





I am not "questioning" your definition of REALITY...I merely pointed out the shortfalls of using it. I was specific about what could happen using it.

When I use the expression "what IS"...I mean...what IS. Whatever it is...that is what I mean.

If you want to discuss this with me....fine. I enjoy your take on things. If you want to dictate the terms of the discussion...we may have a problem

Take the comments I've made and tell me your major objection...and I will defend (or possibly accept your objection and withdraw my comment.)
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 01:48 pm
@Frank Apisa,
My point is that the phrase "what is" is meaningless outside of observation and measurement.

Or do you have a non-circular definition for the phrase "what is".

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 01:54 pm
@maxdancona,
Okay fellas but getting back to the subject…..
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 02:01 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

My point is that the phrase "what is" is meaningless outside of observation and measurement.


Yes...I can see that, Max.

In my opinion, that is a serious defect in your reasoning.

There may be a whole bunch of stuff that humans will NEVER be able to observe or measure...and if they want to think that makes that stuff "meaningless" or less than real...they are kidding themselves.

Quote:
Or do you have a non-circular definition for the phrase "what is".




I'll stick with: REALITY IS....whatever it IS...no matter what it is and no matter how it got to be what it is.

That may indeed seem circular to you, Max, but to limit what IS to what puny humans can observe or measure leaves me shaking my head.

Honestly.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 02:01 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Okay fellas but getting back to the subject…..


This actually IS the subject. This impacts on every possible answer.
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 03:10 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I would also add that we have pretty good scientific evidence that the physical universe is not infinite.


What scientific evidence? I was under the impression that this is not known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws
0 Replies
 
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 03:30 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Okay fellas but getting back to the subject…..


I think it is fair to say there would be an infinite number of galaxies. Does there have to be an infinite number identical to our galaxy? -- I do not know that. Maybe? But I suspect the odds of there being one extremely similar to ours would be very likely. But for that galaxy to be the same, it would require all incoming fields into that galaxy to be identical to those entering our galaxy and so it is hard to imagine that happening. That would mean all light entering that galaxy from distant gallaxies would have to be the same, and so the surrounding galaxies would need to be identical to galaxies surrounding our galaxy. So it depends on how identical is good enough, because that kind of thinking can go on indefinitely.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 03:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Okay fellas but getting back to the subject…..

Quote:
This actually IS the subject. This impacts on every possible answer.
By "this" I assume you mean some aspect of "reality," whatever that means. Okay but let's make the common assumptions about reality, assuming the rest of the Universe is pretty much like what we're aware of

Apparently you guys are apparently getting pretty deep, 'way beyond me. But I wonder if you could explain how all this reality stuff bears on my math problem

0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 03:48 pm
@tomr,
Quote:
I think it is fair to say there would be an infinite number of galaxies.
That's the supposition upon which my q is based

Quote:
Does there have to be an infinite number identical to our galaxy? -- I do not know that. Maybe?
Well, that's the q

Quote:
But I suspect the odds of there being one extremely similar to ours would be very likely.
Considering the size of infinity don't you suppose it's quite certain

Quote:
But for that galaxy to be the same, it would require all incoming fields into that galaxy to be identical…..all light entering that galaxy from distant gallaxies would have to be the same….So it depends on how identical is good enough…..
Yes Tom that was pretty much what I had in mind with posting #….007 above. However an infinite number of those identical galaxies supposedly would have to be spaced pretty far apart so they couldn't interact. In any case, even given analog interactions as I suggested above, wouldn't there still be an infinite number so nearly identical that no form of measurement yet devised could detect the differences
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 03:52 pm
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Okay but let's make the common assumptions about reality, assuming the rest of the Universe is pretty much like what we're aware of


If we make this assumption, then there is convincing scientific evidence that the Universe is finite and has a finite number of galaxies (and stars and matter). My tangent with Frank was whether this was a reasonable assumption to make or not.



That I agree with, Max.

I certainly do not agree to the notion...but the conclusion that follows the notion seems dead on.
0 Replies
 
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 04:10 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Yes Tom that was pretty much what I had in mind with posting #….007 above. However an infinite number of those identical galaxies supposedly would have to be spaced pretty far apart so they couldn't interact. In any case, even given analog interactions as I suggested above, wouldn't there still be an infinite number so nearly identical that no form of measurement yet devised could detect the differences

O yeah you did pretty much say that in #....007.

The interaction between very distant galaxies would take time for individual particles and fields like gravity and light. So for however long it takes for the field to travel between galaxies would be the amount of time that those fields would not be a factor in the identicalness of twin galaxies.

Whether or not galaxies can be isolated from each other in this way depends on the origin of your proposed universe. If the galaxies originated great distances away from each other, then the distances would make it impossible for different galaxies to interact for some amount of time. However if the proposed universe is created from a big bang event then because no particle can travel faster than the speed of light, all particles will always be within the sphere of influence of every particle's field. In that case, galaxies surrounding twin galaxies would be important in determining their identicalness.

Galaxies in a big bang universe would also prone to entanglement. Whatever that is. (Since all particles at one time were close enough to become entangled.)
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 05:26 pm
@tomr,
Quote:
However if the proposed universe is created from a big bang event then because no particle can travel faster than the speed of light, all particles will always be within the sphere of influence of every particle's field.
That's an interesting conclusion. However doesn't Big Bang imply finiteness whereas my q assumes an infinity of space and matter

Again I'm not a proponent of infinity and in fact as I asserted above somewhere, it's my subliminal objection to the idea of identical galaxies that somehow rejects the notion
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 07:04 pm
@dalehileman,
There is no reason that both of these statements couldn't be true.

1) The universe is infinite in space and matter.
2) There is only one planet in the Universe with life.

(For the record, I don't believe that either of these statements are true, but logically both could be true at the same time.)


tomr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 09:21 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
That's an interesting conclusion. However doesn't Big Bang imply finiteness whereas my q assumes an infinity of space and matter


If the big bang comes out of a singularity, then it is not a very hard leap to go from finite mass contained in a point to infinite mass. The wikipedia link I gave above claims that an infinite universe is a possibility. There is some debate on what we can assume and why. I looked at a few physicsforums links and there are many different viewpoints about this:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=68413

Quote:
Again I'm not a proponent of infinity and in fact as I asserted above somewhere, it's my subliminal objection to the idea of identical galaxies that somehow rejects the notion


I honestly do not know whether an infinite universe can come out of a big bang or not. I think you make a good point that the galaxies very far away from a twin galaxy would have negligible effect on those galaxies. I think to the perspective of someone living on one of the twin galaxies everything would appear identical. That might even be the case for a sufficently large universe even though it is not infinite.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 09:53 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
I believe that according to physicists, the universe is not infinite, and contains a large, but finite number of stars, formed from the finite amount of matter produced in the Big Bang.

I haven't looked at what they have to say about the latest results from the Planck Space Observatory. But last I heard, the consensus was that the universe is infinite.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 09:55 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Keeping the following assumptions in mind: Infinite Universe of more-or-less uniform composition where the rules are the same throughout

Bad assumption. It looks like the rules drift, over great distances.

But given an infinite universe, if you travel far enough, the rules will drift back.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 09:56 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Think of it this way Dale.

Infinite numbers does not mean every possible number. I can give you an infinite number of integers that does not include the number 2. For that matter, I can give you an infinite number of integers that has no even numbers.

There is a difference though between "numbers" and "possibilities".

Yes, you can count forever. But that does not mean that there are infinite possibilities.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 09:57 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I would also add that we have pretty good scientific evidence that the physical universe is not infinite.

Unless the latest results from the Planck Space Observatory have overturned our current understanding, we have pretty good scientific evidence that the universe is infinite.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Infinity revisited
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/13/2020 at 10:59:12