Infinite vs Finite Logic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2017, 05:00 PM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 04:46 PM)Saucy Jack Wrote:  Seems I misquoted Tyson a little. He said he calls it infinite because there's no reason to believe otherwise at the moment.

From our point of view yes, he is not wrong. But Krauss has a damned good argument from nothing too. I think they are both right.

You don't suffer infinite regress when it is temporarily on then temporarily off.

The finite part can be temporarily on, then temporarily off. The infinite part could be going between the two positions.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2017, 05:06 PM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 04:52 PM)Saucy Jack Wrote:  I was mainly checking that my logic was sound. The guy on Facebook was ascerting that if we don't know where the universe ends, that it is not finite by definition. I say that this is illogical. It's like saying the answer is either A or B but because we don't know whether or not it's A it has to be B.
I think you're spot on here. It's an argument from ignorance.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2017, 05:14 PM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 05:06 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(01-05-2017 04:52 PM)Saucy Jack Wrote:  I was mainly checking that my logic was sound. The guy on Facebook was ascerting that if we don't know where the universe ends, that it is not finite by definition. I say that this is illogical. It's like saying the answer is either A or B but because we don't know whether or not it's A it has to be B.
I think you're spot on here. It's an argument from ignorance.

QM never gives you paper vs plastic, not even cash vs debit vs credit vs check. QM is not as simple as the either/or propositions laypeople think.

I lean to "all this" being both infinite and finite depending on point of view.

I think "all this" is on for a while, decays to off, then becomes fuel for another big bang then is on again for a while.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2017, 05:20 PM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 04:48 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I would say you're right. There can not be an actual infinite. Infinite means of no specific quantity just bigger than any quantity we could ever count. However big the universe is, it is that big and only that big. However many galaxies there are there are that quantity and no more or no less. I think that the concept of infinity can only denote a potential to take a number series out indefinitely. It's the same with the concept "man". An infinite number of men can be subsumed by it, we could potentially keep integrating units into the concept forever, but however many men are in existence, there is that number and no more. Your debate partner's statement is obviously a non sequitur. If we don't know how many men are actually in existence, does this mean the number is infinite? I don't think so. It's too bad though because I'm not sure how many dollars are in my wallet right now without looking. I wish it meant that the number was infinite.Smile
Actually, when astrophysicists talk about the universe being (possibly) infinite, they mean it literally. An infinitely large volume of space, with possibly an infinite total amount of matter, including galaxies. They do not mean "just bigger than we could ever count," or anything like that.

(01-05-2017 04:48 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It hurts my brain trying to think of what the edge of the universe would be like. Is it a line we can't cross like a force field? Is it a barbed wire fence? Or is the universe expanding at such a rate that we could never get there? I don't know.
Relax your brain. If the universe is finite, there is no edge to it. The usual analogy that is given to illustrate this is that the three-dimensional space is analogous to the two-dimensional surface of a sphere. It curves back on itself. The surface of the sphere has a finite area, unlike, say, a flat plane that extends infinitely far away. If you travel along a straight line in the finite universe, you eventually come back near where you started, analogous to walking all the way around the sphere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like John Derderian's post
01-05-2017, 05:29 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2017 08:58 PM by John Derderian.)
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 05:14 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  I lean to "all this" being both infinite and finite depending on point of view.

I think "all this" is on for a while, decays to off, then becomes fuel for another big bang then is on again for a while.

This is not what the current models say. By the Standard Model, the universe is either finite or infinite. We just don't have enough information to know which it is yet, although people seem to be leaning toward infinite these days. It does not change back and forth. It is also not just a question of your point of view. There are real physical consequences of it being one or the other. By the Standard Model, if the universe is finite in spatial extent, it is also finite in time; it will eventually stop expanding and collapse back in on itself. If it is infinite in spatial extent, it is also infinite in time; it will continue expanding forever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like John Derderian's post
01-05-2017, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2017 06:13 PM by Brian37.)
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 05:29 PM)John Derderian Wrote:  
(01-05-2017 05:14 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  QM never gives you paper vs plastic, not even cash vs debit vs credit vs check. QM is not as simple as the either/or propositions laypeople think.

I lean to "all this" being both infinite and finite depending on point of view.

I think "all this" is on for a while, decays to off, then becomes fuel for another big bang then is on again for a while.

This is not what the current models say. By the Standard Model, the universe is either finite or infinite. We just don't have enough information to know which it is yet, although people seem to be leaning toward infinite these days. It does not change back and forth. It is also not just a question of your point of view. There are real physical consequences of it being one or the other. By the Standard Model, if the universe is finite in spatial extent, it is also finite in time; it will eventually stop expanding and collapse back in on itself. If it is infinite in spatial extent, it is also infinite in time; it will continue expanding forever.

I don't think it is either. If Neil is right and Krauss is on the right track, then why cant it be a fluctuation between on and off?

Why cant the finite be a temporary on, decay into off, be temporarily off, then bang into an on again?

I don't think that violates infinite regress.



If it collapses in on itself you are proving my point. It would be like turning the dimmer switch back to off. I AGREE with an infinite "all this" regardless. I simply don't agree with a infinite on or an infinite off.

I think "all this" is like the seasons changing. The seasons being finite, but the seasons changing being infinite.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2017, 06:44 PM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 06:04 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  I don't think it is either. If Neil is right and Krauss is on the right track, then why cant it be a fluctuation between on and off?

Why cant the finite be a temporary on, decay into off, be temporarily off, then bang into an on again?

I don't think that violates infinite regress.
It's not a matter of infinite regress. Fluctuating between finite and infinite is not consistent with the Standard model (or any current model as far as I know). General Relativity as it is currently understood says it is one or the other, period.

Krauss talks about vacuum fluctuations, in which small amounts of matter are created spontaneously and live for only a short time. This is not a mechanism for switching the universe between finite and infinite. I can't declare it definitively, not having read much of Krauss, but I would be *very* surprised if he actually suggested that the universe could fluctuate between finite and infinite in this way.

(01-05-2017 06:04 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  If it collapses in on itself you are proving my point. It would be like turning the dimmer switch back to off.
No. This collapse will occur only if the universe is already finite; it does not switch from finite to infinite, but remains finite always. If it is infinite, this collapse will not occur.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2017, 06:57 PM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 04:46 PM)Saucy Jack Wrote:  Seems I misquoted Tyson a little. He said he calls it infinite because there's no reason to believe otherwise at the moment.

That's a general consensus. As for philosophy, I don't think the infinite card plays.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2017, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2017 09:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 04:52 PM)Saucy Jack Wrote:  I was mainly checking that my logic was sound. The guy on Facebook was ascerting that if we don't know where the universe ends, that it is not finite by definition. I say that this is illogical. It's like saying the answer is either A or B but because we don't know whether or not it's A it has to be B.

If the universe is "expanding", and the expansion rate is increasing, the opposite of what the "the guy on Facebook" said, would seem to be "logical".
The problem with that is, what appears to be intuitive to human brains, is not how Reality, (necessarily) works.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-05-2017, 04:11 PM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 04:44 PM)Fireball Wrote:  
(01-05-2017 04:40 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Lawrence Krauss makes the argument that something can come out of nothing. I think it can be viewed akin to dead trees and leaves in the summer heat, one spark and you get a fire.

"Something from Nothing" is the fact of spontaneous formation of an electron-positron pair from a photon.

A photon isn't "nothing". It's a well-defined physical entity with measurable qualities.

More usually the example is a sudden appearance of energy/mass at a point in empty space. Although "empty space" is also a bit problematic. Yes

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: