I have to say, kudos for having an actual discussion with someone on youtube. I haven't been able to in years.
finite or infinite?
- Thread starter ezeroast
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry for my Grammar of lack of, it's not really my strong suit. there is nothing infinite that we can observe. but there are things such as space witch as far as we know has no end for all we know theres a sparky dragon that hands out cookies at the end and im not willing to take the trip to find out if it ever stops even if i do get a cookie so we may never know.ThreeWords said:
I wouldn't look up the statistic, but the chance of that happening would be roughly on the same level as the LHC causing a black hole, or quantum tunneling being detectable a meter away. i.e. zero.Tharwen said:
There is always a chance of something happening. But as physicists and mathematicians would say, if it's that low, it simply cannot happen. (Why can't can't seem to apply this idea to every concept is still beyond me. But even the best of the scientific minds show can be biased at times too.)
What? 'Effectively zero' is by no means the same as 'zero'. The universe is large enough that any chance that seems impossibly small to us is relatively significant on a universal scale. Don't just dismiss it because the chance of it happening in the tiny, tiny space we live on is near-zero.olicon said:
Nothing is infinite.
See what I did there?
In case you didn't, the space that the universe exists in is infinite, being nothing, but the actual physical parts of the universe are finite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
See what I did there?
In case you didn't, the space that the universe exists in is infinite, being nothing, but the actual physical parts of the universe are finite.
You watch different documentaries than I do. As far as I've heard, there's more entropy in the universe than was previously thought, due to supermassive blackholes, and the universe is looking at heat death. It's more disintegration than popping. Most of the other models violate the second law.xXAsherahXx said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Actually, the ruler thing was way off. You can measure things with the infinate ruler, as it would still have numbers.Nihilism_Is_Bliss said:
Actually a point could be made that the child is infact infinate, at least in theory.xXAsherahXx said:
Its resonable to assume that the child will stop growing at some point and may even begin to start shrinking. But until the time where he stops growing, he will continue to grow, so he could become any size, until he stops growing, he is possibly infinate (thats why I said infinate "in theory"), but it is incredibly unlikely.
The idea of something being "infinate in theory" could possibly solve the origional problem.
Lets consider the original argument:
"Ok there is a distance between 2 object BUT that distance is forever expanding, how is that not infinite?"
Looking at this from a mathematical point of view.
[Please note that I haven't done maths in a while and I don't even have a degree or any kind of advanced maths education so I'm going to use some very simple maths here. If anyone has a complex formula that proves me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn about it and admit I'm wrong, but I am fairly certain in my understanding so I am going to post it up.]
The original argument is that two objects are moving away from each other, now I have to presume that this is happening over time because otherwise I am dividing by zero and we have all seen the meme's of what happens then.
So as time increases, distance increases. Assuming this happens at a constant rate we can draw a graph that will show X as TIME and Y as DISTANCE and a straight line showing how the distance increases as time increases. Assuming that the two objects are maintaining momentum, i.e. they do not encounter friction or something that would slow them down, they maintain a constant rate. Even if this doesn't happen at a consistent rate (i.e. something happens to change the speed of one of the objects), the graph will still go on, even if at a slower rate. Assuming that nothing stops the objects moving directly away from each other and nothing stops time (No one invoke the wrath of Cthulhu or my pathetic maths will be useless!) the graph will go on and on and on and... you get my point don't you?
So the graph can go on to infinity, unless something prevents time or distance from increasing for some reason, so will the two objects moving away from each other. So the distance between the two is infinate.
HOWEVER!
If you stop time (lets say by taking a photograph or a snapshot of the two objects or somehow putting the entire space time continuum on pause) the objects will be a set distance away from one another and therefore finite, but only for that moment in time.
BUT!
Since no one mentioned taking a snap shot in time that last bit wasn't really important and I added it in to prevent someone from asking it later in case I forget what point I'm making.
ANYWAY!
My point is that IN THEORY the two objects are moving away from each other for a THEORETICALY infinite time over a THEORETICALLY infinite distance. So we can assume that they are in fact infinite, so my vote goes to whoever said that in the first place. (The double negatives in the original comment confused me so I won't name names.)
But anyway, you can't apply theory too the universe, this thing called real life gets in the way. So in theory, the two objects are infinite, but in real life its likely they will stop at some point. When they stop, you can measure them and they will be finite, until that point however, they can in theory be infinite.
I kind of want to point to Schrodinger's Cat for this point. Why? Because until we know for sure, we will not know... The objects are both finite and infinitely far apart. Arguments can be made for both sides that will be valid and logical. But until we know for sure, we will not know.
Also to anyone thinking of using something realistic and simple to prove me wrong, say for example two polo mints rolling away from one another, which can be measured with relative ease, I have to point to scale to back up my argument, I am trying to talk about an infinite distance being traversed for an infinite time by objects that remain constant for all eternity. This is the kind of size that makes a galaxy look pathetically small. For my point to look even possible, don't look at it realistically, look at it in theory and don't try and measure an infinite distance with finite measurements like metres or even light years.
Man these last paragraphs make me sound pretentious, or even like I know something about the inner workings of the universe... But just give it a read through because I honestly spent more time on this than it probably deserves.
Damned Youtube arguments... grumble grumble grumble...
Just to confuse matters for y'all a little more: Time has dependent existence. Were there no matter or energy in existence would there be time? Is time really anything more than an idea to relate to changes in the universe at different instances?
Infinite space is always fun to ponder. There's no answer, but I always like to follow this train of thought it's fun and thought provoking: You travel in your magic dirigible to the edge of the universe. You find a force field, a brick wall, or even nothing. That force field is the edge of the universe, but how can nothing exist behind it? Doesn't it have depth? Is the brick wall infinitely thick? Is there nothing, a vacuum, behind it and if so isn't that still something? Is Tupac hiding back there? Maybe we're engulfed in a Portal portal? Okay I'll stop now.
Infinite space is always fun to ponder. There's no answer, but I always like to follow this train of thought it's fun and thought provoking: You travel in your magic dirigible to the edge of the universe. You find a force field, a brick wall, or even nothing. That force field is the edge of the universe, but how can nothing exist behind it? Doesn't it have depth? Is the brick wall infinitely thick? Is there nothing, a vacuum, behind it and if so isn't that still something? Is Tupac hiding back there? Maybe we're engulfed in a Portal portal? Okay I'll stop now.
Though I don't think this will put the matter to rest, consider for a moment the fundamental ruls of mathematics in play.
First, rather than considering the (slightly) more mathematically complex example of area, instead consider something one dimensional: a number line.
This number line starts at zero and is expanding in the positive direction at a known rate. We can model this scenario using a simple equation: length = (rate of expansion) * (time elapsed). With this, if we can predict exactly how long this number line is simply by picking a point in the future.
One of the interesting things about arithmatic is that so long as both the rate of expansion and time use real numbers, the result is always going to be a real number. No matter how quick your expansion or how long a timeline you deal in the result is always a finite, measurable distance.
Of course, there is a problem with this very simple scenario: we don't know when, if ever, our length will find an end. Without boring anyone with calculus, we can use the concept of a limit into play. Here we find that our independent variable (time) could conceivably be any positive value from zero to infinity. Since we can't do math at infinity directly, we could leverage the concept of a limit. In this case, our equation may as well look something like this: result = constant value * variable. As our variable increases without bound (that is, travels towards infinity) we find that the equation has no limit - it too will increase towards infinity.
So, the question inevitably becomes, does this mean it is infinite or finite? The answer depends entirely upon the span of time. At any given instant (it doesn't matter when or where, any infinitesimal span of time will work) the value of this equation is a finite number of some size. Thus, the best answer is that the length is finite. Just because it will be infinite given infinite time means little for creatures dealing exclusively in the finite.
First, rather than considering the (slightly) more mathematically complex example of area, instead consider something one dimensional: a number line.
This number line starts at zero and is expanding in the positive direction at a known rate. We can model this scenario using a simple equation: length = (rate of expansion) * (time elapsed). With this, if we can predict exactly how long this number line is simply by picking a point in the future.
One of the interesting things about arithmatic is that so long as both the rate of expansion and time use real numbers, the result is always going to be a real number. No matter how quick your expansion or how long a timeline you deal in the result is always a finite, measurable distance.
Of course, there is a problem with this very simple scenario: we don't know when, if ever, our length will find an end. Without boring anyone with calculus, we can use the concept of a limit into play. Here we find that our independent variable (time) could conceivably be any positive value from zero to infinity. Since we can't do math at infinity directly, we could leverage the concept of a limit. In this case, our equation may as well look something like this: result = constant value * variable. As our variable increases without bound (that is, travels towards infinity) we find that the equation has no limit - it too will increase towards infinity.
So, the question inevitably becomes, does this mean it is infinite or finite? The answer depends entirely upon the span of time. At any given instant (it doesn't matter when or where, any infinitesimal span of time will work) the value of this equation is a finite number of some size. Thus, the best answer is that the length is finite. Just because it will be infinite given infinite time means little for creatures dealing exclusively in the finite.
Let me rephrase that.Tharwen said:
When the chance of something happening is that low (effectively zero), it's not considered negligible. It's literally considered to NOT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN in scientific community. I have always find it a little bit hypocritical, but I've made peace with it a long time ago.
Well, I guess you could call me a creationist, but I don't have a problem believing that an infinite God could create an infinite universe. Also, even though time has a beginning, our souls are eternal, so time would go on infinitely.
Neither OP nor the creationist are correct.
The "observable" universe is finite, Whether the universe is finite or not has not yet be determined.
Whether time is finite or infinite has not been determined either. According to big bang theory time starts at big bang. If we ignore anything happens before big bang then yes, time is finite in this universe. However there are some competing theories about the origin of universe where some propose otherwise and there are something else going on before the creation of this universe.
The "observable" universe is finite, Whether the universe is finite or not has not yet be determined.
Whether time is finite or infinite has not been determined either. According to big bang theory time starts at big bang. If we ignore anything happens before big bang then yes, time is finite in this universe. However there are some competing theories about the origin of universe where some propose otherwise and there are something else going on before the creation of this universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountableezeroast said:
I think you might want to study the foundations of mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_diagonalization
Then again, maybe you would rather study physics.
Is any physical "thing" infinite? That's an invitation to a philosophy-of-science debate on Quine and Duhem.
Is any mathematical "thing" infinite? Cantor says yes.
Interesting question. The idea of the infinite contained within the finite has always fascinated me, and there are places where this is actually the case. There are mathematical objects known as fractals that are "infinitely complex," meaning that no matter how far you zoom in on them or how far you zoom out, and no matter how big or small a section of the fractal you focus on, you will always find rich and intricate detail. Yet the fractal appears to occupy finite space (look up fractals on google images, particularly the Koch Snowflake--they're very pretty to look at).
Another example is a coastline. Coastlines are fractals in nature (there are LOTS of fractals in nature, actually), and even though England is finite in size its shoreline is essentially infinite in length. The way to visualize is like this: say you want to measure the length of the shoreline. You take a meterstick and start measuring, one meter at a time. You go all the way around the island and you get a value. But as you go, you notice that there are parts of the shoreline that are smaller than a meter, and because the meterstick is straight and can't curve you weren't able to include those smaller dips and divots in the value you got. So you decide to try again, this time using a smaller ruler--say, a 10 cm ruler. You're able to measure more accurately since you can measure more of the smaller dips and divots, and by the time you finish you notice that your value is longer than you got with the meterstick, because you were able to measure bits that you had to skip with the larger unit of measurement. But even with the 10 cm stick, you still notice that you are missing even smaller dips and divots. This will continue forever. Eventually you could measure the lengths of the individual grains of sand that comprise the coast. Eventually you could measure the molecular and atomic contours of the particles that comprise the sand. Eventually you end up at the quantum level. But each time you use a smaller unit of measurement and are therefore able to measure the length of the shore more accurately, that length gets longer. We don't know just how small things can get in the universe. Perhaps there is a limit. But if there isn't a limit (and with fractals there is no limit to how small or large the fractal can be), then the units you use to measure can get infinitely small, and therefore the shoreline ends up being infinitely long. Yet we can see the shoreline, and it appears to inhabit finite space.
Another example is a coastline. Coastlines are fractals in nature (there are LOTS of fractals in nature, actually), and even though England is finite in size its shoreline is essentially infinite in length. The way to visualize is like this: say you want to measure the length of the shoreline. You take a meterstick and start measuring, one meter at a time. You go all the way around the island and you get a value. But as you go, you notice that there are parts of the shoreline that are smaller than a meter, and because the meterstick is straight and can't curve you weren't able to include those smaller dips and divots in the value you got. So you decide to try again, this time using a smaller ruler--say, a 10 cm ruler. You're able to measure more accurately since you can measure more of the smaller dips and divots, and by the time you finish you notice that your value is longer than you got with the meterstick, because you were able to measure bits that you had to skip with the larger unit of measurement. But even with the 10 cm stick, you still notice that you are missing even smaller dips and divots. This will continue forever. Eventually you could measure the lengths of the individual grains of sand that comprise the coast. Eventually you could measure the molecular and atomic contours of the particles that comprise the sand. Eventually you end up at the quantum level. But each time you use a smaller unit of measurement and are therefore able to measure the length of the shore more accurately, that length gets longer. We don't know just how small things can get in the universe. Perhaps there is a limit. But if there isn't a limit (and with fractals there is no limit to how small or large the fractal can be), then the units you use to measure can get infinitely small, and therefore the shoreline ends up being infinitely long. Yet we can see the shoreline, and it appears to inhabit finite space.