| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:21:27 AM | now as apposed to not now.
now exist because it is not not now.
not now cannot exist with out now.
The first line isn't even a sentence and is meaningless.
The second line should have an "s" ending "exists, but I'll take that as an innocent typo, however saying something exists because it exists is the most trivial of tautologies and says nothing.
Line three is yet another statement you'll have to justify (They're piling up - when do you start proving them?)
I'm not picking on you, but it is quite clear you have (like most people) an erroneous concept of what constitutes logic, or proof. Consequently, you (again like most people) are probably easily deceived because you lack training in truly critical thought. I urge you (as I urge most people) to train yourself in critical thinking. One of the best ways to get started is to turn off the idiot box and get a book of logic puzzles and/or crossword puzzles. The logic puzzles will help train your mind for critical thought and the crossword puzzles will improve your vocabulary & linguistic abilities. Both will "exercise" your brain in many ways, increase your attention span and help counter the hypnotic, dumbing-down effect of TV. | |
|
| |
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:43:24 AM | Who am I to say who is lacking in critical thought?
I do know that for everyone of your very long answers or questions it took me very little words to explain.
Isn't that the whole reason of math. To simplify problems down to one small answer? | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:46:04 AM |
don't think of it as a sentence but more like a math problem.
Even math must be expressed using rules of "grammar" that allow concepts to be communicated.
For instance, if I write "1+1", what am I saying mathematically? Am I saying (as you might have erroneously guessed) that "1+1=2", or am I saying that "one beside a one is eleven", or am I saying something else? Wrong in all cases! All I said was "1+1", which is meaningless in mathematics. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:53:00 AM | I don't have a degree in math.
Infact I'm only somewhat more educated than a highschool graduate at speaking the language of math, and applying it with my thoughts.
You who are more educated in this language than me should be able to decipher it.
not isn't that the line above a number or something like that? | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 10:00:12 AM |
I do know that for everyone of your very long answers or questions it took me very little words to explain.
Here too there is some misunderstanding. My "long answers" weren't answers; they were questions requiring answers. Your "explanations" were not the sort of answers I requested (which would have been some kind of justification for your statements) and therefore, didn't explain the rationale behind your statements. They therefore did not explain, so they weren't really "explanations."
(logical thought is a much trickier business than it first appears, but well worth the effort required to train yourself in it.)
Isn't that the whole reason of math. To simplify problems down to one small answer?
It is (or used to be) part of the nature of Man to reason and search for "patterns" and simplification. Mathematics probably arose from that, so I'd say your partly right that mathematics seeks to simplify, but I wouldn't be so bold as to state that as the essential purpose of mathematics; explanation and derivation of less obvious "truths" probably play at least as important a role as simplification. | |
|
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 10:14:32 AM |
not isn't that the line above a number or something like that?
"not" is negation. Just as in english, a "double negative" cancels them.
Let's go back to your sentence that I criticized:
"now exist because it is not not now."
cancelling, we get:
now exist(s) because it is now.
That sentence is presupposing the existence of what it is trying to state exists. The fallacy might be a bit more obvious if I substitute something else for "now":
A six-headed spaghetti monster exists because it is a six-headed spaghetti monster.
Eureka!!...Have I just proved the existence of six-headed spaghetti monsters?... Well, maybe not...I think there might be a flaw in my reasoning.
I guess I shouldn't feel too bad about it though...Rene Descartes made the same mistake with "I think therefore I am." the moment he started it with "I". | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 10:31:17 AM | If it states that it exist then it does.
You wanted me to prove now existed.
You wanted me to prove that now existed because infinity can't be proven.
You cannot prove that right now isn't happening. You can prove that the past may have never have happend. You can plug in any variable. Maybe you're just a conciousness having a memory injected into you and this is the go point from here.
There is no proof of a future because it doesn't exist. It only happens now. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 10:35:03 AM | A six headed spaghetti monster does exist. It exist in you mind.
It exist because you exist, therefore even what cannot exist can exist or not not exist.
That six headed spaghetti monster stemmed from you not the other way around. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 10:44:08 AM |
1=1
In english: "The number one is the number one"
It's good to have that reassurance, but it is so obvious it is called the axiom (self evident truth) of identity
Let's generalize the statement by using "x" (which could represent anything, and not just the number "1").
x=x
What is that mathematical statement saying (in english)? It is saying "a thing will always be equal to itself", or I suppose one could say "a thing is identical to itself". It may be said that the equality forms a binary relation (or mapping) of all elements of a thing to the thing itself. This is known as Peano's 1st axiom of equality, which demonstrates the "reflexivity" of equality. (Betcha didn't know a stupid little three character statement could get so complicated didja? - so much for "simplification" in math!) | |
|
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:02:37 AM | If it states that it exist then it does.
False.
You wanted me to prove now existed.
True
You wanted me to prove that now existed because infinity can't be proven.
False. (the existence of "now" has nothing to do with infinity)
You cannot prove that right now isn't happening.
True, but my inability to disprove the purported existence of "now" is not a proof that "now" exists.
You can prove that the past may have never have happend.
The word "may" makes it easy, because the past either may or may not have happened, so no proof is required. If you meant that I can prove that past never happened, I can't (but I'm OK with that; nobody else can prove it either).
You can plug in any variable. Maybe you're just a conciousness having a memory injected into you and this is the go point from here.
There is no point in "plugging in any variable" without some justification for doing so. As to what I might be, I haven't the foggiest idea. For all I know, I'm just a bit of software in a computer, running in a simulation of someone's virtual reality.
There is no proof of a future because it doesn't exist. It only happens now.
Now we're back to making claims that require justification. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:08:16 AM |
A six headed spaghetti monster does exist. It exist in you mind.
How do you know I exist, let alone my mind?
It exist because you exist, therefore even what cannot exist can exist or not not exist.
There is no proof that I exist. There is no logical sense in the rest of your sentence.
That six headed spaghetti monster stemmed from you not the other way around.
What evidence or logic can you produce to justify that statement? | |
|
| |
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:20:34 AM |
So you do agree 1=1 (yes I do.)
and now is now
the past is not now.
the future is not now.
but now is now.
Nice work!! Now you are thinking and communicating logically. Still not a proof though, just a series of logically true (if assumed to be appropriately defined) statements (preceded by a correct assumption). | |
|
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:29:59 AM |
If I am false then prove me wrong.
Why would I bother? You make no effort to prove yourself right and the onus is on you to support your claims with justification.
Infinity requires proof of a begginning and an ending.
No it doesn't, but if you really want one, I can give it to you. If you ask me nice, I'll take the trouble and provide you not only with proof of a beginning and ending to "infinity", but what they are as well. It's an old and childishly simple proof I seldom bother with, but I think I left it scribbled in a margin in one of my old journals.
Now just has to be now.
Who's arguing with that? I thought that was well established already. | |
|
| |
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:56:37 AM | wow, you guys are doing a great job of delving into buddhism.
To get back to tangible matters, M-theory (superstring theory), dictates that the plank length is the shortest length that exists. Even though you could theoretically say that 1/2 of a plank length must exist, it can never be examined. If the smallest, most elementary particles are the size of the plank length, then nothing below this level can ever be probed. And nothing can exist at lengths smaller than this (since the most elementary particles are this size or larger). For all practical purposes, smaller lengths do not exist. Of course, this is true only if string theory turns out to be correct. But string theory has ALOT of mathematical evidence. If the large hadron collider confirms extra curled up dimensions and supersymmetry, then it will be confirmed. Anyone who chooses not to believe it after that will be equivalent to evolution deniers.
As for infinity extending outwards, i think this is a trick question. It is widely accepted that our universe was a tiny size, a finite amount of time ago (around 15 billion years). So it can not extend to infinity. You will hear scientists saying that our universe may have no edge, no boundary. But this is not the same as infinity. On scales that we can measure, our universe appears flat, just as the earth appears flat near our house. But the earth is really round. And very likely our universe is also curved on large scales. So, just as you could walk forever around the earth and never reach a boundary, you can likely also travel in a "straight" direction through the universe and never reach a boundary. But this is not the same thing as infinity.
The universe is a weird place. When you look out in any direction, you are looking into the past. The farther out you look, the farther into the past. So, if you look far enough in any direction, what do you see? (in reality, we can't do that because the farthest parts of the universe are receding at such a speed that lightwaves from there will never reach us: i.e, our universe has an event horizon....we are essentially living on the inside of a giant black hole). But assume you could see past this cosmic event horizon. All the way to the "edge"....what would you see? Well, you'd see the oldest part of the universe.....the Big Bang!! We are completely surrounded by the Big Bang, in every direction...therefore, it is not a spacial boundary that surrounds us....in actuality its a boundary of time that surrounds us. This is counterintuitive and hard to comprehend, but its widely accepted by theoretical physicists. So, in light of this, the word infinity becomes meaningless. Its a word that can't even really apply to our universe, as it has boundaries we can't totally comprehend.
If you stop to think about it, the word INFINITY has alot of Newtonian connotations. Our universe is much stranger than newtonian physics. In our universe, the word infinity, as most people think of it, does not exist.
greg | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:11:07 PM | Isdime,
so what I believe you are saying, as I understand it, is that we are a minute part of a greater whole.
but what I'm trying to comprehend is that if that is so, does the greater whole have a boundary? and if so, then is it part of a greater whole that has an end, or does this just go on over and over.....?
Dale | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:17:17 PM | its possible that we are a minute part of a greater whole. Or its possible we are not. I'm not making any claim out what is "outside" our universe...the whole concept of "outside" is newtonian. I don't think anyone knows what that means.
If it turns out that there is "space" outside our universe, in my opinion there is no point arguing about it until the time comes when we can detect it (if ever). As humans, we are limited by what we can observe, so i think we have to figure things out one step at a time....lets figure out the "boundaries" of our universe first, then try to figure out a way to break them.
Because, for now, any statement regarding what is "outside" our universe is unfalsifyable. Its religion. That doesnt mean it will always be that way though. | |
|
Home
login 
