Infinite

@Holiday20310401,

I'm just going to make a new thread about this.

@astrotheological,

Im staying here, I really am interested in what others have to say about my conception of infinity in its general form. I think that there is a strong linguistic tie with absolutes and infinity, both being physically asymptotic and syntactic rule sets.

I think that you will find more of the same if you start again, and your thread might be deleted since it is a repeat. We could be touching on some interesting concepts here:what is the general form of infinity? How are infinetsimal and infinitely 'large' operational sequences related;is there a general form such that by context we could have macroscopic and microscopic infinities defined as manipulations on the basic rule set? How do absolutes relate to infinity? Is there a general linguistic form to be elucidated upon here? Is there a system of linguistics which already exists which makes this form explicit showing words as rule sets/syntactic prompts as opposed to object-definite words?

@Zetetic11235,

Infinity is a convenient convention used to express the "assumed" repeating/endless sequence of whatever subject in question. I do no think we know something is infinite, or that it is not-we just assume so for functionality purposes in real life.

Time is another convention created by humans, so that there could be some regularity to life. There is no such idea of time without human input, molecules would still react, the planets would still rotate, but it would be neither forwards or backward progress, just motion as we define it.

@Artur phil,

Haha, nice thread. Lemme chime in if I dare...

Time is a concept we invented; we measure it by *other things*, but Time is a term only, invented by humans, to describe the frequency of events or intervals (regularity). Its just a word...

... as is "Infinity". This is but a word to describe the notion that something does not have an end, or does not terminate. It's a useful term, but just a word nonetheless.

We come up with words to describe concepts; but that doesn't mean they do or do not exist. Further, I'd think it a given to the thoughtful that "infinity" is something that can't be measured in any valid way. That something exists "forever" will forever remain a theory - until someone can measure it.

To prove this, I will now sit and stare at this pop can to see if it exists for all time. I can't really get back to you on my results; since, there'll be no point where I can say "There, See?! Told you this existed forever".

Just a concept; useful to communicate theories, but nothing more.

@Khethil,

Even if the pop can stayed there for an "infinite" amount of time, wouldn't the pop can carbonize just like a piece of paper when it starts turning yellowish in color?

@Artur phil,

Artur wrote:

There is no such idea of time without human input, molecules would still react, the planets would still rotate, but it would be neither forwards or backward progress, just motion as we define it.

... is star formation neither forward or backward progress? ... supernovas? ... the fact that the heavy elements form a larger fraction of the total mass of the universe today than they did at the big bang? ...

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

Well for example if a tree fell a thousand mile away and nobody was there to witness it then could you hear the tree fall? Ofcourse not but that doesn't mean that there was no sound created from the fall. We just can't hear it. We do have instruments that can tell us whether or not sound was created when nobody was there.

And ofcourse sound was created anyways.

Yes we can prove that the tree made a sound through logic, because normally if a tree fell you would hear a sound so that means that if another tree fell it and nobody was there to prove it made a sound, it still most likely made a sound.

But if we are all gone and there is nothing left on and from earth, than we can't prove that time and space wont end because we have no examples of it going on forever, because it has never happen and we don't have any totally correct prove that it is infinite.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Is infinitely dense the same as indivisible?

This thread makes me feel infinitely dense.

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... is star formation neither forward or backward progress? ... supernovas? ... the fact that the heavy elements form a larger fraction of the total mass of the universe today than they did at the big bang? ...

No matter what heavier elements form, or for that matter any reaction that proceeds, the terms forward and backward in relation to time are conventions to describe specific events. We, as humans, could have called elements that combine or stars that form backward progress, and it would in no way effect the reaction of elements, molecules, and compounds.

@Artur phil,

Artur wrote:

We, as humans, could have called elements that combine or stars that form backward progress, and it would in no way effect the reaction of elements, molecules, and compounds.

... so is there then any sense in which it can be said that there is objective time in which nuclear fusion occurs, molecules form from elements, planetary systems form from molecules, etc., and then human subjective time which is our (incomplete) perception of these events? ...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... so is there then any sense in which it can be said that there is objective time in which nuclear fusion occurs, molecules form from elements, planetary systems form from molecules, etc., and then human subjective time which is our (incomplete) perception of these events? ...

There is a lot of sense to use time to describe your mentioned processes, but I do not know what you mean by objective time? For me there is only one time, I suppose always subjective because we determine what time is.

I am open to the idea of having an unbiased human definition of time, but I cannot think of any universal example that supports this notion:sarcastic:.

@Zacrates,

Zacrates wrote:

Yes we can prove that the tree made a sound through logic, because normally if a tree fell you would hear a sound so that means that if another tree fell it and nobody was there to prove it made a sound, it still most likely made a sound.

But if we are all gone and there is nothing left on and from earth, than we can't prove that time and space wont end because we have no examples of it going on forever, because it has never happen and we don't have any totally correct prove that it is infinite.

Well then by using this logic can't you assume that the human race does not need to be alive in order for there to be something in existence.
Explain to me how time would end then.

@Artur phil,

Artur wrote:

There is a lot of sense to use time to describe your mentioned processes, but I do not know what you mean by objective time? For me there is only one time, I suppose always subjective because we determine what time is.

I am open to the idea of having an unbiased human definition of time, but I cannot think of any universal example that supports this notion:sarcastic:.

... I can't say that I know what could meet your requirements for a notion of objective time, so let me throw out two options and you can tell me if they have any bearing on what you're looking for:

1) Carbon-14 dating - carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope whose relative abundance is highly stable ... carbon 14 is taken up by living things in the very act of living ... as soon as a living thing dies, it stops taking up carbon 14 ... its remains can be tested for the amount of carbon 14 in the remains, which gradually decreases as the carbon 14 decays giving a reasonable estimate of the age of the remains.

2) Cesium clocks - a beam of cesium atoms emits a super-stable spectral frequency that can used as the timing source of a clock ... the expected error of such a clock is one second every 1,400,000 years.

... do either of those work as an objective notion of time?

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

Well then by using this logic can't you assume that the human race does not need to be alive in order for there to be something in existence.

Yes, all I am trying to say is that we can't prove that time will go on forever. Time may go on long after the human race ends, we just can't prove it won't end.

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... I can't say that I know what could meet your requirements for a notion of objective time, so let me throw out two options and you can tell me if they have any bearing on what you're looking for:

1) Carbon-14 dating - carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope whose relative abundance is highly stable ... carbon 14 is taken up by living things in the very act of living ... as soon as a living thing dies, it stops taking up carbon 14 ... its remains can be tested for the amount of carbon 14 in the remains, which gradually decreases as the carbon 14 decays giving a reasonable estimate of the age of the remains.

2) Cesium clocks - a beam of cesium atoms emits a super-stable spectral frequency that can used as the timing source of a clock ... the expected error of such a clock is one second every 1,400,000 years.

... do either of those work as an objective notion of time?

Good examples and I am very familiar with carbon dating, but after giving it some thought, I do not think there is an unbiased (no human intervention) form of time that exists in nature. After all, it is us humans that created seconds, minutes, years etc... so the human element is still present in both your examples. Perhaps, I am in search of an unattainable example. :bigsmile:

@Artur phil,

Artur wrote:

After all, it is us humans that created seconds, minutes, years etc... so the human element is still present in both your examples. Perhaps, I am in search of an unattainable example. :bigsmile:

... could very well be Smile

... having been prompted by this discussion to give it some thought, my own perspective is that while humans are indeed capable of invention, in this case the invention is merely one of description ... we perceive an objective phenomenon, and we call it time ... we go so far as to invent descriptive elements such as seconds, minutes, years, etc., in order that we might converse about and study the phenomenon, but that's as far as it goes ... the phenomenon is real; it's the description of the phenomenon that's invention ... that's my story and I'm stickin' to it :whistling:

@paulhanke,

Infinite density would not imply indivisibility, we cannot assume any physical laws here though, we are speaking on an entirely syntactic basis. Infinite is not a state of being, it is a process of induction. It is a rule set for a sequence of approximations. It is a string of directives by which a non terminating path of congruent actions is defined. There is no state of being infinite, infinity is a process which elicits a series of approximations.

There is a process which my mind goes through when I apply the rule set of infinity to it. Take a geometric series which gets smaller and smaller and represents the area under a line on a graph as it approaches the x axis, just a concave curve extending approaching yet asymptotic to the X axis. The approximation is a sum of say 1/(n^2) as n goes from 1 to infinity along the integers. We get 1/1, then 1/1+1/4=1.25, then 1/1+1/4+1/9=1.36111,then add 1/16=1.424, going out to the hundreth term we get 1.634, to the ten thousandth 1.644 ect. Thus we have an infinte sum with its components decreasing in a proportional way such that it is continually approximating a set limit number, namely Pi^2/6. We can derive this exact value due to the syntactic nature of mathematics. In actuality, if we could not use a syntactic loophole we would be stuck with a good approximation at best, and this is what we have in the general case. Even the cartiesian plane is an approximation to the mathematical syntax which it models.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Infinite density would not imply indivisibility, we cannot assume any physical laws here though, we are speaking on an entirely syntactic basis. Infinite is not a state of being, it is a process of induction.

Ok, but what makes you think indivisibility is a state of being? Scientists aren't really conclusive on this sort of thing, nor do they speculate enough on it.:listening:

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

Well for example if a tree fell a thousand mile away and nobody was there to witness it then could you hear the tree fall? Ofcourse not but that doesn't mean that there was no sound created from the fall. We just can't hear it. We do have instruments that can tell us whether or not sound was created when nobody was there.

And ofcourse sound was created anyways.

I respond to the above question as, "Does it even matter?"

If there is no observer, no, there is no way to prove it happened. But who cares?

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

Well then by using this logic can't you assume that the human race does not need to be alive in order for there to be something in existence.
Explain to me how time would end then.

There is actually a theory which suggests that the universe would not exist without an observer. I'll try to dig it up for you.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know