# An infinite number of objects and universes

setzer9999

Sun 30 May, 2010 09:42 am
@TuringEquivalent,
I do think it can't be built. The fact that it can't be built indicates that there is at least one configuration of the universe that is not possible. If there is a configuration that can't be, then there aren't infinite configurations, because then there is at least 1 subtracted from the infinite. You cannot subtract 1 from infinity.

I didn't want to go here, because my interest in this is purely about the logic of infinity, but, we've beaten that horse to death. There may actually still be confusion about what each of us is referring to as an infinite number.

So, anyway, if the number of universes are infinite, but there are some things that are impossible, like a machine that destroys a universe to which it doesn't belong, you have an infinite number of universes that doesn't include the impossible. At this juncture, I must ask the rare question: in this model, what universes aren't there though there are still infinite universes? Is there a universe made entirely out of blue jello? Is there a universe entirely filled with infinite naked fat people? If the number of universes are infinite, it doesn't seem to be that these universes are not the case, but in nature, having no stars, no planets, no atmosphere would disallow blue jello or naked fat people.

ughaibu

Sun 30 May, 2010 09:45 am
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;170842 wrote:
If there is a configuration that can't be, then there aren't infinite configurations, because then there is at least 1 subtracted from the infinite.
This is still false, you are misunderstanding the nature of the infinite, it has no connection to the notion of everything.

setzer9999

Sun 30 May, 2010 10:24 am
@ughaibu,
Please demonstrate how there can be infinite objects, but everything not be infinite. The statement doesn't make sense to me. This is why I pose that "sets" can be infinite, but the number of objects cannot.

Either the number of objects is infinite, or it isn't infinite. It doesn't seem to me that it can be both.

ughaibu

Sun 30 May, 2010 10:26 am
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;170855 wrote:
Either the number of objects is infinite, or it isn't infinite.
So what? Infinite doesn't mean all, or everything.

setzer9999

Sun 30 May, 2010 10:39 am
@ughaibu,
Again, I don't think our language dictates reality, the other way around, but this might be helpful. Which definition of infinite are we talking about here:

Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-nət\
Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite
Date: 14th century
1 : extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>
2 : immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience>
3 : subject to no limitation or external determination
4 a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers> b : extending to infinity <infinite plane surface> c : characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms <an infinite set> <an infinite series>

1. The number of objects cannot be endless at any given point. It can continue to grow indefinitely, but it can't "be" endless, because it would have to have an end at which it "be" endless. Nonsense.

2. The number of objects cannot be immeasurable, because a number is a measure.

3. The number of objects can't have no limit as a number is a limit.

4a. It is always greater than a number, never equal to a number, so it can't be a number.

4b. It never reaches infinity, it extends "to" infinity.

4c. This is the only infinity I say actually "exists" in nature because its a relationship, not a number.

And, in a sense, by saying that infinite doesn't mean everything, that implies that everything isn't infinte, which is the point I'm making in the first place.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 30 May, 2010 10:46 am
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;170842 wrote:
I do think it can't be built. The fact that it can't be built indicates that there is at least one configuration of the universe that is not possible.

Configuratin of what? Particles? Where did modal realism say each world is a configuration of particles?

Quote:

I didn't want to go here, because my interest in this is purely about the logic of infinity, but, we've beaten that horse to death. There may actually still be confusion about what each of us is referring to as an infinite number.

I am not confused at all.

Quote:

So, anyway, if the number of universes are infinite, but there are some things that are impossible, like a machine that destroys a universe to which it doesn't belong, you have an infinite number of universes that doesn't include the impossible.

This is a contradiction. If a machine is impossible, then it can` t destroy anything. Why do you think it can be build?

setzer9999

Sun 30 May, 2010 12:38 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
i don't think it can be built. That's the point.

And, if there aren't an infinite arangement of particles, there aren't an infinite number of objects.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 30 May, 2010 12:44 pm
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;170903 wrote:
i don't think it can be built. That's the point.

What is the point?

Quote:
And, if there aren't an infinite arangement of particles, there aren't an infinite number of objects.

Why is that? Modal realism do postulate infinite many worlds, but there is no "arrangement of particles". You make no sense here. Also, the machine can` t be build because there is no causal relation between worlds. You have something different.

ughaibu

Sun 30 May, 2010 12:45 pm
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;170860 wrote:
by saying that infinite doesn't mean everything, that implies that everything isn't infinte
If there is a collection of every thing, then that collection is finite, thus an infinite collection is bigger than a collection of everything. If there is an infinite collection, that collection is smaller than it's power set, thus an infinite collection is smaller than a collection of everything. As an infinite collection is both bigger and smaller than a collection of everything, the notions of infinity and everything are irreducibly independent.

setzer9999

Sun 30 May, 2010 12:53 pm
@ughaibu,
So how is that different than my position all along?

Infinity is not bigger than, smaller than, or equal to the number of objects. You didn't say the equal part in your post but implied it by saying that the two are independent of one another. So the number of objects is not equal to infinity.

If you don't have an infinite arrangment of particles, you can't have infinite pink plastic cups. If the arrangment of particles is finite, you can only have a finite number of plastic cups, because plastic cups are made of particles.

ughaibu

Sun 30 May, 2010 01:25 pm
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;170911 wrote:
the number of objects is not equal to infinity
If the number of particles is infinite, then it's infinite. That's all there is to it, and you have offered no coherent argument for or against this.

mark noble

Sun 30 May, 2010 04:07 pm
@ughaibu,
Hi,

Has anyone explored "set infinity"?
All matter in this (our) universe is of a given quantity (not infinite), but, let's assume this universe is but one subatomic particle among trillions upon trillions of other particles (parallel universes) making up the elemental matter of a much larger universe - itself, but one subatomic particle among trillions upon trillions - and so on and on... Infinite externals and infinite internals.

Would this allow for infinity to tick all the boxes?

Thank you, and think BIG...

Mark...

setzer9999

Tue 1 Jun, 2010 08:24 am
@mark noble,
The number of particles cannot be infinite, because infinity is not a number.

Trillions upon trillions... BIG... these are not infinite quantities. One is a specific amount, the other is qualitative. Neither represent infinity, as infinity is not a specific amount, nor is it bigger or smaller than any specific amount.

TuringEquivalent

Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:17 pm
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;171720 wrote:
The number of particles cannot be infinite, because infinity is not a number.

Trillions upon trillions... BIG... these are not infinite quantities. One is a specific amount, the other is qualitative. Neither represent infinity, as infinity is not a specific amount, nor is it bigger or smaller than any specific amount.

one cardinality is bigger than another. what do you say? If modal realism is true, then there is also infinite many worlds.

setzer9999

Wed 2 Jun, 2010 09:23 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Modal realism is popular, not truth. Even if it is true, the tenants of modal realism pose that all possible worlds are real, not that the worlds are infinite in number. You cannot have a universe where marbles are the size of atoms and atoms are the size of marbles, for example so that is one world that cannot be. One cannot be subtracted from infinity.

The argument that universes are causally isolated creates a self-defeating loop. If they are causally isolated, there must be something that causes them to be causally isolated. Thus, they are not causally isolated to begin with, but part of a larger system that keeps them isolated.

The many worlds theory poses that there are infinite realities due to possible worlds existing, and though it is not identical to modal realism, it approaches the topic in a similar manner. In stating that each possibility must be, there is yet another self-defeating loop. The possibility that another possibility is not realized is also possible. If it is possible that a flag be dyed red, for example, but it is also possible that that flag is NOT dyed red, which actually is? Not which is possible, but which actually is. I don't think it is a poverty to make the distinction between the possible and the real.

"Possible worlds" and the "real world" don't coexist. Saying that there "are" infinite worlds because there "are" infinite possible worlds is a contradiction in terms as far as I'm concerned. The possibilities exist, but the actualities do not necessarily exist. Describing something as being a possible world puts it in a category that can be described with infinity... as in that the possibilities are unbounded. The number of actual things at any given time is bounded, though the potential is not. Possibility, potential... these are unbounded, infinite. Objects and universes as they exist are finite, but as they might exist are infinite. I'm not the only one to say so either, Einstein and Hawking seem to agree.

TuringEquivalent

Wed 2 Jun, 2010 09:53 am
@setzer9999,
Code:
Quote:
Modal realism is popular, not truth. Even if it is true, the tenants of modal realism pose that all possible worlds are real, not that the worlds are infinite in number. You cannot have a universe where marbles are the size of atoms and atoms are the size of marbles, for example so that is one world that cannot be. One cannot be subtracted from infinity.

Weird, I guess you cannot read. I did not say "infinite in number", or "modal realism is true". I said "infinite", and "if modal realism is true". Guess you fail reading comprehension. The tiny little "details" matters.

Quote:

If they are causally isolated, there must be something that causes them to be causally isolated.

Actually no. The "causal isolate" is an assumption of the model, and models don ` t need to have any "cause". It needs only to reflect reality.

Also, it is not true that everything needs a cause. The electrons don ` t need a cause. If god exist, then the existence of god is not caused by anything. If fundamental laws exist, then it is also without cause. The fact that a state of affair is not caused is typical, and usually, because once you down to the ground state of reality, it just is.

Quote:
rest...

If i was you, i would focus on one or two arguments, and made it more convincing. I hate to correct you on tiny points, and that really sucks.
Focus on one idea you think is more convincing. That way, you don` t waste any more of my time.

setzer9999

Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:07 am
@TuringEquivalent,
I'm not wasting any of your time. You are free to not read.

Posing a question as a conditional statement does not make it immune to scrutiny. I read very well, and I am examining the ramifications of the conditional "If modal realism is true".

A model doesn't have to reflect reality. A model can be entirely flawed and not reflect reality in any way. A model is an artificial construct and is prone to error.

Yes, all things do have a cause. Sometimes, the cause is simultaneous and reciprocated between two or more elements. Cause and effect is not necessarily a function of time. Two things can be the direct cause for one another being, in unison. I'm sorry but your conclusion that some things are without cause is completely flawed. I don't usually call people wrong but just state my position, but in this, you are wrong.

Stating that my arguments are bad is of no value. Please elaborate as to how they are bad.

TuringEquivalent

Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:49 am
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;172109 wrote:
I'm not wasting any of your time. You are free to not read.

And to suggest that i agree with you? Hell no.

Quote:
Posing a question as a conditional statement does not make it immune to scrutiny. I read very well, and I am examining the ramifications of the conditional "If modal realism is true".

No, you don ` t read very well at all. If you did, you would not drop the conditional if.

Quote:

A model doesn't have to reflect reality. A model can be entirely flawed and not reflect reality in any way. A model is an artificial construct and is prone to error.

Fair enough..

Quote:
Yes, all things do have a cause.

No, it doesn` t. It is general agreed by modern philosophers that somethings don` t have causes. Things such as platonic objects. Categories in metaphysics. Fundamental laws of nature. Questions such as "why the world is the way it is?". Quantum objects collapses their wave function.....etc
any one of the above is an example. Do you want references? I can give it to you. What do want?

Quote:

Stating that my arguments are bad is of no value.

Why no value? It focus our attention on a single argument. You jumping around is what makes you so bad at this.

setzer9999

Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:29 am
@TuringEquivalent,
You may simply state that you disagree and then not read. You've already stated you don't agree. Not reading is not stating you agree.

I didn't drop the conditional if, again, I am examining the ramifications of the conditional.

All of the things you cite as not having causes have a cause. Causation doesn't necessitate that a specific other object is acting upon another. The cause is simply that which makes the opposite or other action impossible. This can be reciprocal, or directional.

The past two posts aside, I've been on topic. Discussing the nature of infinity, whether there are infinite worlds, etc. To discuss this in detail, the conclusions in counter-arguments for my position need to be addressed. I still don't see any evidence in the other posts, or in the models cited in them, that clearly delineates that there can be infinite "actual objects". I agree that potential is unbounded and infinite, but that is entirely different.

TuringEquivalent

Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:42 am
@setzer9999,
setzer9999;172148 wrote:
You may simply state that you disagree and then not read. You've already stated you don't agree. Not reading is not stating you don't agree..

I did read, and i disagree. The fact that you state something that is not the majority opinion, then most likely, you are wrong.

Quote:

I didn't drop the conditional if, again, I am examining the ramifications of the conditional.

you said "Modal realism is popular, not truth" as if to imply that i think modal realism is true.

Quote:

All of the things you cite as not having causes have a cause. Causation doesn't necessitate that a specific other object is acting upon another. The cause is simply that which makes the opposite or other action impossible. This can be reciprocal, or directional.

How is that? What is the cause of an 'abstract object'? What is the cause of 'brute facts'?

Quote:

rest...

Can you focus, instead of jumping around like craze? Is that so hard for you?
I