The dilemma of infinity

[Dogknox20]

No it doesn't; it just proves that infinity is not like any other number.

Altfish God live outside of time! To be ADDED to the body of Jesus means you would also live outside of time! You would live for eternity!

 

[Altfish]

Altfish God live outside of time! To be ADDED to the body of Jesus means you would also live outside of time! You would live for eternity!

OK, I can't accept that 'argument' but if that's what you believe, fine. I'll stick with the maths book rather than a holy book

 

[firedragon]

When I was a little boy I would sometimes wonder about what looks like empty black space in a starry night sky. Did it go on forever or did it end at some point? If it ended with a border then what is on the other side of such a border I wondered?

Consequently, in adulthood I concluded that humans are finite creatures who are incapable of unraveling the mystery of infinity when it comes to the known universe. Regardless of progress in scientific discoveries the inquiry of science has never solved the dilemma in explaining whether or not, and if so how, the universe is without end. My ultimate conclusion was humankind must only have finite capabilities and therefore, unaided by some kind of Deity, will never solve the dilemma in explaining the infinity of the universe.

Therefore, I concluded I must look to see what is offered in the realm of religion for answers since, as far as I could tell, only in that realm is infinity seriously dealt with, not only in regard to the universe but in regard to human existence as well. The dilemma then became the many human definitions of the nature of religion and conflicting human interpretations found even within a single religion.

Happily, I discovered the most recent religion on the scene that explains that all the major religions are part of a divine process which is referred to as progressive revelation by Messengers or Prophets sent by God.

As far as I know, infinity cannot be demonstrated empirically. It is only existing in maths and philosophy.

What I find quite interesting is how you started with infinity that lead to the Bahai faith. I don't see the connection there. Do you mean to say that you were searching for an answer to the problem of infinity and found it in the Bahai faith? If that is the case, how does "other religions" and the progressive revelation proposition belong in that equation?

I really dont understand. But if you have time, you could give an idea. Thanks.

 

[Dogknox20]

OK, I can't accept that 'argument' but if that's what you believe, fine. I'll stick with the maths book rather than a holy book

.
Altfish science tells you there was an intelligence design! Someone started the Big Bang! Things (the universe) are too complex for it all to fall together by accident! Man alone is here only because of things coming together perfectly in order!

 

[danieldemol]

.
Altfish science tells you there was an intelligence design! Someone started the Big Bang! Things (the universe) are too complex for it all to fall together by accident! Man alone is here only because of things coming together perfectly in order!

Science does not say there was an intelligent design of man or other species.

It does not say "someone" started the big bang.

It does not say things came together perfectly.

If someone told you science says that my best guess is they were ignorant at best and lying at worst.

In my opinion.

 

[Altfish]

.
Altfish science tells you there was an intelligence design! Someone started the Big Bang! Things (the universe) are too complex for it all to fall together by accident! Man alone is here only because of things coming together perfectly in order!

No it doesn't. That has been debunked so many times.
OK, if someone started the Big Bang and it was your god ... who created your god?

 

[Revoltingest]

Every mathematics student needs to understand the basics of infinity at some point. And it really isn't that difficult *if* you get the right definitions.

But there are 'paradoxes' involved: facts that are NOT contradictions, but *do* contradict our initial intuitions. That simply means you need to grow new intuitions.

For some examples of the complexities involved:

Imagine a line segment of finite length. How many points are on it? Well, between any two points, there is a mid point, and it is easy enough to see that the number of points corresponds to no counting number: it is infinite.

So, is the line segment finite or infinite? And the answer is that it is finite in length and infinite as a set of points.

All this means is that you need to be precise about your questions. You can't simply ask 'is this infinite?'. You have to ask in which *property* it is infinite: length, area, size of the set of points, etc.

Next, the notion of 'boundedness' is often brought up. Something 'bounded' is seen to be finite and 'unbounded' is infinite. And that is a really, really bad definition.

For example, that line segment is 'bounded'. It has edge points. But is a circle (the circle itself) bounded or unbounded? While the circle is the boundary of the disk, the circle itself is NOT bounded by some boundary. The same can be said of a spherical surface. And there are higher dimensional analogs of these, allowing for 'curved space' that is finite (in volume) and has no boundary.

So, would a finite volume space with no boundary be 'finite' or 'infinite'? It would certainly have an infinite collection of points (infinite in terms of size of set of points), it has a finite volume, and it has no boundary (one definition of being infinite).

Once again, there is a requirement to say which property you are talking about. And it is a good to separate out 'unbounded' from 'infinite'. Most people, when talking about infinite space are interested in the volume: is it finite or infinite? The fact that you can have 'curved space' that has no boundary and is still of finite volume is not noticed.

The next fact about infinite sets is that they don't work the same as finite sets do. Which should be no surprise, right?

Take the set of counting numbers:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ....

Now, take "half of it", the set of even numbers:

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ...

The two sets have the same 'number' of things in them. it is possible to pair off everything from the first set with everything from the second:

1 <--> 2
2 <--> 4
3 <--> 6
4 <--> 8
5 <--> 10
....
....
....

So, even though the set of even numbers is 'half the size' of the set of counting numbers, they are *also* the 'same size' because they can be paired off like this.

Once again, the point is that you need to be precise in your questions and answers. As *sets*, they are the 'same size'. As subsets of the counting numbers, we can look at 'density' and the density of the even numbers is 1/2 while that of all the counting numbers is 1.

I have to go to work, but I'll be back with more.

This reminds me that math is easy.
The problems arise sometimes when taught in a manner
ill suited to the student (seen that), or the student has the
belief that it's either hard or useless. (Seen that too.)
It can take a little time & effort, but it's more accessible
than many believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Science does not say there was an intelligent design of man or other species.

It does not say "someone" started the big bang.

It does not say things came together perfectly.

If someone told you science says that my best guess is they were ignorant at best and lying at worst.

In my opinion.

It might be a language issue.
To some Christianophones, "science" means "Bible".

 

[Twilight Hue]

What if the universe is a hypersphere, a three-dimensional surface of a four dimensional ball? Then it has no boundaries, any more than than the surface of a sphere has in three dimensions.

It does suggest a multiverse theory.

I would wonder what surrounds the sphere and what type of energy or matter 'contains' it as one would still need to address thermodynamics.

 

[Dogknox20]

Science does not say there was an intelligent design of man or other species.

It does not say "someone" started the big bang.

It does not say things came together perfectly.

If someone told you science says that my best guess is they were ignorant at best and lying at worst.

In my opinion.

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[Dogknox20]

No it doesn't. That has been debunked so many times.
OK, if someone started the Big Bang and it was your god ... who created your god?

Altfish That is just it.. "God always was" God lives OUTSIDE of time! WHO...

Altfish who created God? Answer is: God is the Creator of all things including Time!!

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[Polymath257]

Altfish God live outside of time! To be ADDED to the body of Jesus means you would also live outside of time! You would live for eternity!

Since life is a process, not a thing, it requires time. hence, to 'live outside of time' is non-sense as far as I can see.

 

[We Never Know]

Since life is a process, not a thing, it requires time. hence, to 'live outside of time' is non-sense as far as I can see.

Would you say to exist outside of time is non-sense?

I ask because either time always existed or the singularity existed outside of time.

 

[Polymath257]

.
Altfish science tells you there was an intelligence design!

Really? What refereed article comes to that conclusion? How many other articles have supported it with further evidence?

Someone started the Big Bang!

Why do you think this? In classical General Relativity, time *starts* at the Big Bang: there is no 'before it'.

Things (the universe) are too complex for it all to fall together by accident! Man alone is here only because of things coming together perfectly in order!

the term 'accident' suggests that there is an intelligence that planned something and yet something else happened. That is NOT what happens with an uncaused universe.

The universe has physical laws supported by the properties of the things in it. no 'intelligence' is required for this to exist. In fact, this type of thing must exist *before* there can be something as complex as an intelligence (one of the most complex types of things we know) to occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Sorry, ID is not a scientific theory. Not only that examples that tried to be scientific have been refuted.

But you can prove that it a scientific theory. If I am wrong you can show it by answering this question:

What reasonable test based upon the merits of Incompetent Design (it is clearly not Intelligent Design) could possibly refute ID?

If you cannot come up with a reasonable test it not only is not a scientific theory. There is no scientific evidence for it if you cannot come up with such a test.

 

[Polymath257]

Would you say to exist outside of time is non-sense?

I ask because either time always existed or the singularity existed outside of time.

Yes, I would. But then, the 'singularity' isn't a thing that exists. it is more a property of spacetime as we approach certain limits.

As an example, the north and south poles are coordinate singularities on the Earth: notice how all the longitude lines come together there? That is a singularity. Other types of singularities happen at black holes: the spacetime is curved enough that even defining most physical properties (including time)is no longer possible. The same is true for the Big Bang. The singularity is a *description* of why time cannot be extended further back. it isn't a thing in and of itself.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, I would. But then, the 'singularity' isn't a thing that exists. it is more a property of spacetime as we approach certain limits.

As an example, the north and south poles are coordinate singularities on the Earth: notice how all the longitude lines come together there? That is a singularity. Other types of singularities happen at black holes: the spacetime is curved enough that even defining most physical properties (including time)is no longer possible. The same is true for the Big Bang. The singularity is a *description* of why time cannot be extended further back. it isn't a thing in and of itself.

A singularity existed before the universe or it didn't.

Said singularity heated up and expanded before the universe existed or it didn't.

Said singularity existed, heated up and expanded before the universe existed creating the universe or it didn't.

 

[blü 2]

It does suggest a multiverse theory.

I would wonder what surrounds the sphere and what type of energy or matter 'contains' it as one would still need to address thermodynamics.

I can't say I've read anything directly on the problem. The most recent I can recall offhand was the speculation that the uneven distribution of stars might be due to the proximity to the region in question of a universe external to ours but inferentially (as least as I read it) sharing our matter-energy economy and rules of physics. That seems to imply that our universe has boundaries, and that other universes might be out there beyond nothingness, yet able at some much earlier time to influence our universe gravitationally.

None of which makes much sense to me ─ especially as I like to think, for no firm reason, you can't have dimensions without the energy of the vacuum ─ which wouldn't exist beyond the limits of our universe.

 

[Polymath257]

It does suggest a multiverse theory.

I would wonder what surrounds the sphere and what type of energy or matter 'contains' it as one would still need to address thermodynamics.

Why would anything need to 'surround' the sphere? It is, of course, a possibility, but it is not a necessity.

As for thermodynamics, it is crucial to note that thermodynamic 'laws' are ultimately statistical laws. Entropy increases because the probability of certain states increases over time. And that happens because the dynamics tends to push towards higher probabilities.

But this is NOT a necessary thing. We *know* of examples on a small scale where the second law of thermodynamics is broken. We can even predict the probability that this happens in any system.

In particular, there is a length of time called the Poincare recurrence time that *guarantees* the second law will be broken in some way by that time. This is an extremely long period of time, but it is a finite amount of time.

Think of it like this. The probability that all the gas molecules in a room will collect in one corner into a region an inch on a side is *very* **very** low. But given enough time it *will* happen. That means that the 2LOT is guaranteed to be broken by the time that happens.

The point is that the 2LOT is NOT a fundamental law, but is rather a derived, probabilistic law.

 

[Polymath257]

A singularity existed before the universe or it didn't.

Wrong. The singularity is a description of the geometry of spacetime. Nothing else.

Said singularity heated up and expanded before the universe existed or it didn't.

Said singularity existed, heated up and expanded before the universe existed creating the universe or it didn't.

You misunderstand what a singularity is. It isn't a 'thing' outside of spacetime. It is a *description* of the geometry of spacetime. it says the *geometry* of spacetime has certain characteristics.

No singularity 'heated up' or 'expanded'. No 'singularity' existed 'before the universe'.