|
|
|
|
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 3:06:23 PM |
That's again not properly true. The distance between 0 and 1 on the real number line is treated as 1. However, the number of points between them is infinite.
only theoretically. String theorists are discovering there may be a limit to the smallest measurements. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 3:20:46 PM |
I realise this is all above you. But really, it's all covered in the 1st year of a Maths degree.
It would have been nice if you elaborated further. Specifically:
There are plenty of models in mathematics that require an infinite universe, but with lots of fixed constants
and
Take Xeno's paradox. It's still a big problem in philosophy, and yet it deals with infinite measure.
Thats the only way I can think of the universe being infinite in anyway. As I see it, the infiniteness deals with infinite measure with certain fixed constants as limits... yeah I know first year math degree (I'm working on it). But from what I'm getting, an infinite universe does not require infinite constants. I'm confused because does that mean our universe is just an infinite linear line?
Also
Each probability covers a range of conditions, not a unique one. Take throwing a coin that can be heads of tails. Each probability is truly only due to a single instance of heads of tails. When we refer to any generalised probability of any general throw, the probability of heads is the total of all generalised throws against the total of all generalised probabilities of heads, which in total works out to be 1/2.
I am aware of this. Flip a coin infinitely and the probability remains a half. But thats not what I meant about all possibilities existing. What I mean is that you flip a coin for a certain time. The coin only gets to be flipped 3 times in that time and in that time you get HTH. If we model time along with the probability then I would say that the probability of getting the combination HTH in a certain amount of time is 1/8.
Since the agreement seems to be that time is infinite then when time allows for four flips we could get the combination HTHT and so on. I think the probability would be 1/n!+2. So in an infinite universe were all possibilities exist all time lines must exist. That means in the same universe where I flipped the coin 3 times and got HTH, I would also get HHH, or HTT, or THT (note that the order is important. At time 1 I got H for instance). But in this universe we are aware of we are only aware of 1 time line. So we get the single localized result of HTH.
I maybe mistaken and would love clarification, but from how I understand it an infinite universe requires infinite timelines. Even if a probability covers a set of outcomes, in an infinite universe those set of outcomes with time must all happen. Thereby making the probability 1 (a chocolate covered moon will happen if the set of probable outcomes allow it). It doesn't make sense to me that in our observable universe we observe a single probabilistic out come and not all of them at the same time. To me for an infinite universe to be infinite, finiteness cannot exist. A single time line cannot exist, there must be infinitely infinite time lines. In my thinking it goes like this. A container of oxygen is only a container of oxygen if all the particles within the container are oxygen. Mathematically if any algebraic equation is multiplied by a transcendental number then the result is also a transcendental number. So in an infinite universe all constants are infinite. Unless of course the universe is a system and is infinite in a defined way. I'm sure I'm understanding this incorrectly clarification on this would be great!
Keeping in line with the topic. If the universe is infinite then infinity doesn't just extend outward and inward. It extends everywhere in all dimensions. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 6:04:15 PM | After doing some research I think I can be a little clearer with my thoughts.
I will agree with what Stephen Hawking said about the universe in a brief history of time. The universe is finite but unbounded, if the universe is meant to mean "all that is". In this sense the only way the universe is infinite is if the mass of the universe is growing or shrinking. | |
|
1jamez
|
Joined: 3/21/2009
Msg: 29 | |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 6:44:17 PM | "I believe an infinite universe would still be bound by the precedences of allowances in probability. "
Do you subscribe to the possibility of eventuality?
Where during nothingness there was no time, to defies its very concept from inception in MY view. =) | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:02:54 PM | The universe is finite but unbounded,
yes, this is what the universe is. Many people are confused by this. Something can easily be finite, yet unbounded. Take the surface of the earth for instance. There are no boundaries on the globe Its unbounded. Yet its far from infinite. Space acts in the same way, whether it is curved, or weather its something like an old videogame screen where you go off one side, and appear on the other. But its still finite. How could something that started to expand a finite time ago be infinite? There's no rational way to believe that. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/21/2009 7:29:44 AM | RE Msg: 36 by lsdime:
That's again not properly true. The distance between 0 and 1 on the real number line is treated as 1. However, the number of points between them is infinite. only theoretically.
String theorists are discovering there may be a limit to the smallest measurements. Yes, I did mention that earlier. However, that still means that we have a minimum size of measurement, that the universe acknowledges can be split, but refuses to see as split. It means the universe is discrete, but still infinite, which makes it much harder to work with, because most of our tools for dealing with science are based on continuity.
RE Msg: 37 by exogenist:
It would have been nice if you elaborated further. Specifically: There are plenty of models in mathematics that require an infinite universe, but with lots of fixed constants
Take Xeno's paradox. It's still a big problem in philosophy, and yet it deals with infinite measure. Xeno asked a question: suppose you walk a mile, and it takes you an hour. Then how long will it take you to walk half a mile? Half an hour. So you could split that mile into 2 halves, each taking half an hour, making an hour in total. Now, split it again, and again, and again. At what point do you stop? If you never stop, eventually you will get to a series of infinitely small steps, each so small that their distance is zero, each taking no time to travel. Add up all the time taken to traverse all those zero-distance steps, and you have zero. Ergo, it should take no time at all to travel a mile.
On the other hand, if we reach a limit as to how far we can split a step, then effectively, we now see a step, in which we can conceive that it can be split, but in which the universe refuses to let it be split, which means travelling is more like a series of teleportations of these small steps, because we don't move through those steps, but rather magically transfer ourselves from one point to another, and then our whole concept of space and time is shown to be seriously flawed.
As I see it, the infiniteness deals with infinite measure with certain fixed constants as limits... yeah I know first year math degree (I'm working on it). But from what I'm getting, an infinite universe does not require infinite constants. One can construct many groups and rings with only a few constants. The whole group of integers can be constructed from just using 0 and 1, only 2 constants.
I'm confused because does that mean our universe is just an infinite linear line? Yes and no. An infinite number line is just a set of elements with a function that allows us to order them. Vector spaces are multi-dimensional sets with an ordering function on any one dimension. If you add a matrix to deal with ordering over multiple dimensions, which you can do arbitrarily, then any vector space can be converted into an infinite linear line.
I am aware of this. Flip a coin infinitely and the probability remains a half. But thats not what I meant about all possibilities existing. What I mean is that you flip a coin for a certain time. The coin only gets to be flipped 3 times in that time and in that time you get HTH. If we model time along with the probability then I would say that the probability of getting the combination HTH in a certain amount of time is 1/8.
Since the agreement seems to be that time is infinite then when time allows for four flips we could get the combination HTHT and so on. I think the probability would be 1/n!+2. So in an infinite universe were all possibilities exist all time lines must exist. That means in the same universe where I flipped the coin 3 times and got HTH, I would also get HHH, or HTT, or THT (note that the order is important. At time 1 I got H for instance). But in this universe we are aware of we are only aware of 1 time line. So we get the single localized result of HTH. That is a problem with the Mutiverse interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, as proposed by Hugh Everett, as an alternative to Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If every possible quantum state produces 2 universes, but we only see ours, then how can we know those other universes exist?
Nevertheless, in any one quantum decision in our universe, there are almost always multiple possible quantum states, and each one has a probability. Some appear to be almost infinite in origin. They might be limited to only finite possibilities. But only if there are finite exact positions that any quantum particle can occupy, and finite exact velocities that any quantum particle can occupy. Even if there is a limit to how far distances can be measured, that still doesn't mean that there aren't an infinite number of varieties of them. For instance, suppose that you can only take steps of a minimum size of 10cm each. That still doesn't mean you cannot take steps of 10.5 cm each, and even if it did mean thta you could only take steps in multiples of 10cm, that still leaves you with an infinite number of directions in a radial circle from your current position. All that means that any quantum particle could have an infinite number of positions, even if not over 1 step, but over 20. To have truly finite possibilities, one needs to have the universe arranged much like a Connect 4 set, with only a fixed number of exact positions being available to be occupied.
I maybe mistaken and would love clarification, but from how I understand it an infinite universe requires infinite timelines. Even if a probability covers a set of outcomes, in an infinite universe those set of outcomes with time must all happen. Thereby making the probability 1 (a chocolate covered moon will happen if the set of probable outcomes allow it). When Quantum Mechanics was first investigated, and its results made known, there were a lot of difficulties with it, because it would not fit with the Newtonian interpretation of the universe. Bohr and his colleagues therefore came up with what is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. However, Hugh Everett, a later physicist, came up with another interpretation, the Multiverse Interpretation, in which all possibilities become true, but only in different universes. Effectively, when you spin a coin, it doesn't come up with heads at all. Our universe doubles and splits. In one of these universes, heads came up. In the other, tails came up. In the Multiverse Interpretation, this happens every time a quantum interaction requires a multiple-probability state to collapse into 1 measureable state. But this is a little more complicated, because almost every atom has billions of such quantum decisions every second. What is more, each new universe is as valid as our own, and so every universe is spinning off lots more universes. Imagine that there are n universes NOW. Then in one second, there are at least n times 2 to the power of the number of interactive atoms in the universe times the average number of interactions per atom per second, which number in the billions at least. Even if the multiiverse began with only 1 universe, then still, if less than a year, there would be far more universes than the number of atoms in a billion billion billion billion universes.
It doesn't make sense to me that in our observable universe we observe a single probabilistic out come and not all of them at the same time. Not just you. The basic notions of set theory, which underpin nearly all of logic and all of science, require the Axiom of Choice, which claims that you CAN have multiple possible outcomes and still pick only one. It might seem odd to even think this is reasonable. But without it, everything we think is unprovable, including all of science, at least with our current views of science. So we don't really answer the problem by rejecting the Axiom of Choice, and if we can, it would almost certainly result in a science very different from our own.
To me for an infinite universe to be infinite, finiteness cannot exist. A single time line cannot exist, there must be infinitely infinite time lines. In my thinking it goes like this. A container of oxygen is only a container of oxygen if all the particles within the container are oxygen. Mathematically if any algebraic equation is multiplied by a transcendental number then the result is also a transcendental number. So in an infinite universe all constants are infinite. Unless of course the universe is a system and is infinite in a defined way. I'm sure I'm understanding this incorrectly clarification on this would be great! OK. Let's try a few examples:
1) IS a container of oxygen all oxygen? Nope. There is no way we could prove it, because there are too many particles to test. For instance, the molar mass of oxygen is 32.00 g per mole. However, a mole has 6.0221415×10^23 atoms or molecules of the substance being measured. So there are 6.0221415×10^23 / 32.00 = 0.18 x 10^23 molecules of oxygen in 1 g of oxygen. Oxygen has a density of 1,429 grams per litre. So there are 0.18 x 10^23 x 1,429 = 269 x 10^23 molecules of oxygen in 1 litre. So even in 1 cc of oxygen, there are 0.269 x 10^23 molecules, or 26 billion trillion molecules. Fancy checking every last molecule? Even if you tested 1 million molecules every second, it would take you over 850 million years. We only check if we can detect oxygen to 1 part in a million, or 1 part in a billion. But no container of oxygen is pure.
2) It's true that in normal scale arithmetic, that any finite number x any infinite number is infinite. However, just with one number, say 2, you can construct an infinite set, say 2^n, meaning 2,4,8,16,32,... and even go further and go backwards, 2/2=1, 1/2, 1/4, ... So many infinite sets are dependent on only a few constants. There is even a fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which shows that every group can be constructed from a finite number of constants. So it's not really true to say that infinite sets require an infinite number of constants, only an infinite number of values that result from manipulation and re-manipulation of the constants they are based on.
3) It's true that in normal scale arithmetic, that any finite number x any infinite number is infinite. However, infinity divided by infinity is called indeterminate, because 2 x infinity = infinity, and 3 x infinity = infinity, and even infinity x infinity = infinity. So when we divide infinity by infinity, the result could be 2, 3, or anything else, including infinity. So an infinite universe doesn't require any of its constants to be infinite at all.
I realise this makes the problem of infinity a lot more ambiguous. That's why when mathematicians talk about infinity, we tend to avoid talking about it directly, as it's hopelessly difficult to grasp. We usually talk about the limit of a function as it approaches infinity, say: x^2 as x-> infinity. Even then, we prefer to reverse it, and talk about it in terms of 1/x^2 as x->1/infinity = 0, because it's much, much easier to talk about 1/x^2 as x->0 and get some real results. In general, when we talk about infinity, it's far more useful to avoid talking about it directly.
RE Msg: 38 by exogenist:
After doing some research I think I can be a little clearer with my thoughts.
I will agree with what Stephen Hawking said about the universe in a brief history of time. The universe is finite but unbounded, That's a result of Einsteinian relativity, which is basically describes space-time as curved. One way to look at it is that we are all living on the surface of the Earth, but if we tried to travel around the Earth, we'd just keep walking forever, but would regularly keep passing back over the same point we started. However, the universe is a lot bigger, and it would take many lifetimes to traverse the length of the universe, and so this isn't quite as apparent as circumnavigating the Earth, which can be done in a plane in less than a month.
if the universe is meant to mean "all that is". It isn't. The universe, as we describe it, is only that plane in which we and other bodies of the universe travel. One might think of us as cells living on the surface of the skin of a human body. We can only travel along the skin, not up and down it. In this way, we can travel around and around, and see the universe as unbounded. We can also see the universe as being finite, for the surface of the body is finite. However, it would be foolish for us to say that this is all there is, for we know that if there is a surface, then there must be an inside to that surface, and an outside to that surface. It's just that we are currently unable to escape that surface. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/21/2009 8:24:12 AM | funny how so quickly it went from infinity to the universe being infinite.
I do not equate the two ideas. infinity is a seperate idea from the universe
it can be used in trying to describe aspects of the universe but not as a full description.
infinity can be both external and internal and all other directions or aspects you may conceive of.
infinity is infinite. [its the ability of the human brain to understand that is finite] | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:25:18 PM | What difference does it make really? None of us has the capacity to even imagine infinity, much less actually comprehend it. Even a near infinite universe is beyond our comprehension.
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. "
- Douglas Adams | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:43:10 PM | EDIT:
The reason is because that in an infinite world, everything that could possibly happen would eventually happen. Absolutely everything. I disagree--this statement is almost certainly false, in my mind. okay, and your reasoning? I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, but certainly not by authoritative statements. You need to use reasoning for what you say.
There just seems to be disagreement between us as to what "infinity" means in the context of this thread--based on the thread title and the OP, I assumed that it pertains to the size of the universe alone and nothing else, while it seems to me that to you, the word "infinity" encompasses all possibilities, as well. I disagree with what you said above mainly because I can imagine an infinitely large universe with finite mass, energy and "radius," if you will (for lack of a better measure of size and expansion)--everything beyond the ball of this radius, whether observable or not, is emptiness, but it extends to infinity in all spatial directions, as well as the positive temporal direction.
How could something that started to expand a finite time ago be infinite? There's no rational way to believe that.
If by "rational," you mean that it'd likely violate some law of physics, then you may be right.
However, in mathematics and in the case of theoretical models from within the realm of classical dynamics, for example, finite escape times are fairly common, meaning that dynamical systems can theoretically grow unbounded within a finite amount of time. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:56:51 PM |
unbounded within a finite amount of time.
in mathematical theory, i agree. But there is nothing to suggest that this describes reality. It can never be tested in our universe, as we are bound by a horizon, whose limit is determined by the speed of light..i.e...according to the physics we know, we can never observe anything past this horizon. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:11:21 PM | Just as I thought, there's simply no consensus over whether the geometry of the universe is finite or infinite, although it's entirely possible that I might be misconstruing what was stated in the following interview. Could it be that they're only discussing the possibility of the universe being bounded or unbounded as opposed to its already being infinite vs. finite?
I'd be interested in seeing what people make of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview
Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk
2 May 2001
This interview was conducted in 2001 at ESA's European Space Technology Centre (ESTEC) in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, during an international workshop to discuss the scientific programme of the Planck satellite. Here he clarifies the concept of 'flatness', and explains why we may never get to know whether the Universe is finite or infinite.
“Maybe there was already a history before the Big Bang”
ESA: The term ‘Big Bang’ suggests an explosion. But cosmologists often reject the concept of an explosion, why?
Joseph Silk: Cosmologists don't like the term explosion because it conveys the idea of sound, and it doesn't make any sense to think of it like that. But apart from that, the word explosion is valid. I think that the simplest description of how the Universe originated is an explosion, in the sense that it began from a very small volume and increased very rapidly. That is usually what you mean by explosion.
ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?
Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.
ESA: It sounds like a game of words, is it?
Joseph Silk: No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.
ESA: ‘Flat' seems to have a different meaning to non-scientists. By 'flat' we understand to be like a table, which has width. Does the Universe have width?
Joseph Silk: Flat is just a two-dimensional analogy. What we mean is that the Universe is 'Euclidean', meaning that parallel lines always run parallel, and that the angles of a triangle add up to 180o. Now, the two-dimensional equivalent to that is a plane, an infinite sheet of paper. On the surface of that plane you can draw parallel lines that will never meet. A curved geometry would be a sphere. If you draw parallel lines on a sphere, these lines will meet at a certain point, and if you draw a triangle its angles add up more than 180o. So the surface of the sphere is not flat. It's a finite space but it's not flat, while the surface of a torus is a flat space.
ESA: Planck will measure the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which carries information on the geometry of the Universe. Will we be able to find out if the Universe is finite or not?
Joseph Silk: Even if with our Cosmic Microwave Background data we can prove that the Universe is flat, we still won't know whether it's finite or infinite.
ESA: Then how are we going to know whether the Universe is infinite?
Joseph Silk: With great difficulty! We may never know it. If the Universe is finite, that means that in a two-dimensional geometry it would be like a torus. Now, think about a torus. In such a Universe, light travelling on the surface of a torus can take two paths: it can go around the sides but it can also go in a straight line. This means that if the Universe is like a torus, light can have different ways to get to the same point. You can have a long way and a short way. And that would not be true on a plane. But a torus means that space is more complicated. It would mean that when you measure the CMB you will see strange patterns on the sky, because the light from far away would not have come to us in quite a straight line because of the topology of the Universe. So the hope would be, eventually, to look for those strange patterns on the sky.
ESA: Will Planck be able to see those patterns?
Joseph Silk: In principle, yes. If the Universe is like a torus you can see something. If the Universe were finite it would be 100 times larger than the horizon, which is the distance the light has travelled since the Big Bang. That would correspond to the size of the 'doughnut' of the torus. We could in principle be able to measure that with Planck. On the other hand, if the Universe was truly infinite then we would see no signal at all from this peculiar thing. What we could really say in that case is that the Universe is larger than a certain size. But if it was finite it could be measurable.
ESA: What would be the size of the Universe if it was finite?
Joseph Silk: It could be as large as 100 times the horizon. That means that the Universe would be as much as a 100 thousand million parsecs, about 300 thousand million light years, if we could measure the topology.
ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that?
Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, if there was such a place, would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition. Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British astronomer Joseph Silk
Joseph Silk
Professor Joseph Silk
Head of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Born: 1943
Savilian Professor of Astronomy, University of Oxford. Previously tenured professor at the University of California at Berkeley, United States. Currently a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society and of the Royal Society, UK.
Most of his scientific research is related to the Cosmic Microwave Background and cosmology. He is author or co-author of more than 300 papers in refereed journals, as well as of many popular articles and books such as The Left Hand of Creation, Cosmic Enigmas and A Short History of the Universe. | |
|
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/24/2009 1:24:03 PM | Malc44,
I believe that the very definition of Infinity is that yes it does inward and outward, but also through everything/dimensions.
space is limitless .only the systems in it are of certain lenghth. both of which allow us to "measure" space and understand that it is limitless.
it is the nothingness of everything in it that allows us to "measure" it to our finite yet growing understanding of it being defined as limitless.
the term "infinite" is defined as to let us know it can not be truly defined/nmeasured
It is a free radical of science in this respect, to even encompass the thought of it being defined as undefinable.
but it also drives our curiosity to "See" how limitless the whole is.
it is the very essence of the nothingness of everything and the everything of nothingness put into an attempt to determine if it can be defined.
Dale | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:36:29 AM | When I think about infinity extending both inwards and outwards, I create an interesting visual.
I'll attempt to describe it.
In a 2D reality, it would look much like a Triangle [ > ]... because infinity is forever, at the tip of the triangle the process would reverse resulting in an opposite and equal triangle extending outwards from the tip [ >< ]... that would be the infinity inward extending back outwards. Now as I think about the larger picture, extending outwards forever, I see the larger sides of the triangles increasing in size until they smash into each other and wrap around forming an infinity sized circle on my paper [ 0 ].
So the center is infinity small and it inverts it's self back out to infinity large, creating a circle that is constantly in a state of smashing it's self a thunder.
Hope someone understand that, it's hard to describe visuals. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/30/2009 12:52:28 AM | It's quiet simple really! Finite beings can not understand anything Infinite and possible Vice Versa. If space is expanding at a faster acceleration then it must have had a contracting phase or singularity. Now the Multiverse or Many World theories are just our ignorance to explain where we came from. It isn't even considered science and can be put in the realm of Pseudoscience. They are no different then religion. So science is not fighting a battle with religion anymore but it is fighting itself. How Ironic!
So even if the Universe is possibly infinite (Outward and Inward) in all direction we would never know and since it can't be proven the question is Unanswerable. In mathematics Infinity is a common thing and that is the reason why we have established mathematics. It is to rule out infinities, to make numbers finite, or as close as we deem logical. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:24:24 PM | Storm,
I think that is something alog the lines of cellular regeneration.
In order to multiply it divides. The Universe is A live in what we would think of as encased viral life. Having the means to live even though it is not a life as we know it. it's own dna regenerates so slowly it can't be "measured". And yet it seems to us that it's not growing/living at all. And yet we can not say its alive / dead . It's comatose as it were.
when you think of it as walking toward someone, frontways, you are also walking away from his back side at the "same" speed. that is until you pass, then theoretically it begins again! until you meet him again. then at a different location, because you can't step on the same sspot twice. So , it repeats yet by definition it doesn't
Dale | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 6:32:49 AM | A little perspective on infinity.
Fleas can jump 8 to 10 inches high.
If you catch fleas when they're young and stick them under a 2 inch paper cup for awhile they'll never jump higher than that once you remove the cup.
What can you think of that is greater than infinity except the concept of something being greater than infinity?
Ifinity is an illusion created by the fear and want of a beggining and end, or the fear and want of no beggining or no end. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:05:54 AM |
right now there is a now. It exist and I exist in it.
That is just another statement (which would also require justification, or proof to be considered at all true or valid). Please prove the existence of "now" before you go off making other statements requiring justification.
Existance can exist with out non existance, but non-existance cannot exist or even non-exist with out existance.
Have fun proving that one! | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
