The dilemma of infinity

[We Never Know]

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.

Just a quick question...
Multi-Universe's can't be ruled out. If they do exist, would the laws be the same in each universe?

 

[We Never Know]

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



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'.

According to science, the leading hypothesis, how did the universe come into existence?

 

[Polymath257]

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!!

So....special pleading to avoid the obvious conclusion.

And once again, if everything needs a cause, what was the cause of God?

If there are things that do NOT require a cause (like what you claim for your God), why does the universe need a cause?

Maybe ALL causes are within the universe and the universe is the only thing that is not caused?

 

[Polymath257]

Just a quick question...
Multi-Universe's can't be ruled out. If they do exist, would the laws be the same in each universe?

Good question. Of course,we don't know. Most multiverse theories have the same basic laws, but each universe has its own set of constants.

 

[Polymath257]

According to science, the leading hypothesis, how did the universe come into existence?

Again, we don't know. We don't even know if the phrase 'come into existence' even applies.

In General Relativity, there *is* no 'before the Big Bang'. Spacetime is an entity in which all causality happens and there literally is nothing else. There is no 'coming into existence' be cause there was no 'before'.

Now, the problem is that we *know* that GR is an incomplete description. That's where Quantum Mechanics comes in. And in our attempts to unify those two theories, we pretty much inevitably come up with multiverses of *some* sort.

In one popular version, the 'background' space is expanding, but unevenly. At the edge, some parts expand a little slower than other parts and so you get 'bubbles' forming at the edge. Those bubbles are new universes. Each bubble 'traps' the properties local to where it formed, even though the overall laws are the same throughout.

 

[We Never Know]

Again, we don't know. We don't even know if the phrase 'come into existence' even applies.

In General Relativity, there *is* no 'before the Big Bang'. Spacetime is an entity in which all causality happens and there literally is nothing else. There is no 'coming into existence' be cause there was no 'before'.

Now, the problem is that we *know* that GR is an incomplete description. That's where Quantum Mechanics comes in. And in our attempts to unify those two theories, we pretty much inevitably come up with multiverses of *some* sort.

In one popular version, the 'background' space is expanding, but unevenly. At the edge, some parts expand a little slower than other parts and so you get 'bubbles' forming at the edge. Those bubbles are new universes. Each bubble 'traps' the properties local to where it formed, even though the overall laws are the same throughout.

So the singularity and the big bang explanation are just BS?

"The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative | Space

 

[rational experiences]

Mathematics uses its own God first O.

Space is a hole only O. A thin plane emptiness.

So he would say Phi O owns the only correct measure of the infinite hole a thin space plane.

Hence mass energy could never be Phi.

He would however use the measure Phi to make holes himself in mass as he manipulated it's conversion.

Must having a hole removed mass first to own less of mass to convert said mass. Was his preached science law.

That said energy hence owned no number its measure as I keep removing it by equating a reaction just as a sun removes itself.

My earth technology was sun inferred. Why I get remainders. Nuclear waste.

As if a consuming sun didn't leave waste it would not even exist. It would be consumed in an instance.

Why I taught that space owned no measure as creation. So I taught it was a word infinite of no counting status.

Why I use words in scientific status asides from maths and symbols.

Hence science could never just be maths as I use words to explain to myself.

 

[We Never Know]

Mathematics uses its own God first O.

Space is a hole only O. A thin plane emptiness.

So he would say Phi O owns the only correct measure of the infinite hole a thin space plane.

Hence mass energy could never be Phi.

He would however use the measure Phi to make holes himself in mass as he manipulated it's conversion.

Must having a hole removed mass first to own less of mass to convert said mass. Was his preached science law.

That said energy hence owned no number its measure as I keep removing it by equating a reaction just as a sun removes itself.

My earth technology was sun inferred. Why I get remainders. Nuclear waste.

As if a consuming sun didn't leave waste it would not even exist. It would be consumed in an instance.

Why I taught that space owned no measure as creation. So I taught it was a word infinite of no counting status.

Why I use words in scientific status asides from maths and symbols.

Hence science could never just be maths as I use words to explain to myself.

2+2=4 in our universe.
If there are muti-universes 2+2 may equal something different.

 

[rational experiences]

2+2=4 in our universe.
If there are muti-universes 2+2 may equal something different.

O one body the God of science is the thin space plane only.

The space plane Phi he said owned all created energy mass already.

He never said Phi created the mass he said symbol of God O space was Phi by its infinite form that held all creation within it.

As believe it or not ego the O God body always existed in any formed form before a human did

So you only ever owned yourself.

Is that too difficult to accept after the many years of group cult family overthrow?

The only reality of a human observing their own behaviour.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, next installment.

Let's look at the 'size' of sets.

We need to start with the 'natural numbers'. These are ordinary counting numbers, starting at 0, so 0,1,2,3,4,5,...

We say a set is *finite* if there is some natural number that 'counts' the things in that set. So, for example, the set {1,2,3,4} has 4 things in it. So it is a finite set. The set of all numbers between 100 and 200, inclusive, has 101 elements in it, so it is finite.

A set which is not finite is said to be infinite.

So, the collection of ALL natural numbers, {0,1,2,3,4,5,..} is an infinite set.
The set of all even numbers is also infinite.

Now, we say two sets are the 'same size' if there is a way to pair them off. If two sets, A and B, are the same size, we write #(A) = #(B). In my previous post, I showed how the set of all natural numbers and the set of all even numbers are the 'same size' by this definition. This is true even thought the set of even numbers is a *subset* of the set of natural numbers.

And, in fact, this is a property that *characterizes* infinite sets: there is always a (proper) subset of the 'same size' as the whole set. This never happens for finite sets, but ALWAYS happens for infinite ones.

Next, we compare sizes. If a set A is the 'same size' as a subset of B, then we say that the size of A is less than or equal to the size of B. We write #(A)<= #(B). It is a theorem that if two sets, A and B, have both #(A)<= #(B) and #(B)<= #(A), then #(A)=#(B) using these definitions.

So, at this point, we have finite sets, where #(A)=n for some natural number n. And we have infinite sets for which this does not happen.

A natural question is whether all infinite sets are the 'same size'. And the answer is a definite NO.

To see this, we look at decimal numbers. A good example is pi, but so are the square root of 2, and others. These are numbers that have either a finite decimal expansion or an infinite one. But don't get too excited, the fraction 1/3 has an infinite expansion, 0.33333..... Those 3's never stop.

In fact, every fraction has a decimal expansion that eventually cycles. For example,
1/7=0.142857 142857 142857....
1/4 =0.25000000000....

But there are decimal numbers whose decimal expansion *never* cycles, like
0.1234567891011121314151617181920.....
where I am simply writing out each number in turn after the decimal point.

Anyway, the collection of all decimal numbers is a *larger* infinite size than the set of natural numbers!

I'll show you how to see this. Suppose I have a pairing of natural numbers and decimal numbers. I will give (the beginning of) a specific pairing, but I will try to keep the argument general. So suppose that

1 <--> 0.228487528047....
2 <--> 0.789872349879...
3 <--> 0.274729874987...
4 <--> 0.624976149879...
5 <--> 0.912879017912...
...
...
...

I wills how that no matter what pairing you have, you are guaranteed to miss some decimal number! here's how.

Construct a new number by letting it's first decimal digit be different than the first digit of the first number (avoid 0 and 9 for technical reasons). So, in my list above, I need the first digit to be different than 2. Let's pick 5.

Now, let the second digit be different than the second digit of the second number on the list. In this case, I want something different than 8, so I pick, say, 3.

Next, let the third digit be different than the third digit of the third number on my list. In this case, the third number has 4 as the third digit, so I pick something different, say 7.

Keep doing this. Let each digit of the new number be different than the corresponding digit of the corresponding element of my list.

In this case, I might get the number
.53724....

This number is nowhere on the list! it is different than the first number because it differs in the first digit. It is different than the second number because it is different in the second digit. it is different than the third number because it is different in the third digit. This continues and shows my new number is not on the list!

In other words, the two infinite sizes are different! It is easy enough to show one is smaller (by the above definition).

This generalizes. For *any* infinite set, there is an infinite set that is larger in size! So there are infinitely many sizes of infinite sets!

 

[Polymath257]

2+2=4 in our universe.
If there are muti-universes 2+2 may equal something different.

Why would you say that?

 

[Polymath257]

So the singularity and the big bang explanation are just BS?

"The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative | Space

The expansion is definitely true. That things are much more dense and hot as we go back in time is definite.

The problem is, once again, the term 'singularity' is a description of what spacetime looks like and NOT something 'outside of spacetime'.

In this particular case, the term 'singularity' describes the fact that the density, temperature, and curvature get larger and larger as we go back in time. The phrase 'emerged from the singularity' means precisely this.

But, yes, it is BS to talk about a singularity as a 'point' of infinite density or temperature. Thi sis one of my pet peeves in how the popular descriptions are given. It leads to a LOT of misunderstandings.

 

[rational experiences]

Some natural advice.

Science is a chosen human practice does not exist without a human practicing it.

Your claim creation is just a human stating some numbers. How come it mass physically exists before you do?

How do I know a human truth.

Once a long time ago human parents lived on earth naturally with family.

Not practicing science.

Natural is first.

Science is a liar the human teaching.

 

[We Never Know]

O one body the God of science is the thin space plane only.

The space plane Phi he said owned all created energy mass already.

He never said Phi created the mass he said symbol of God O space was Phi by its infinite form that held all creation within it.

As believe it or not ego the O God body always existed in any formed form before a human did

So you only ever owned yourself.

Is that too difficult to accept after the many years of group cult family overthrow?

The only reality of a human observing their own behaviour.

So being 2+2=4 in our universe.
If there are muti-universes does it equal the same?
Is 2+2=4 the same to isolated tribes, uncontacted tribes, autonomous indigenous people, etc?
In my opinion we created math and designed it to work with what we understand. Math has been designed to work.

 

[We Never Know]

Why would you say that?

Because we don't know if the same laws or math applies in a multi-universe, if they exist. We designed our math to work in our universe.

 

[We Never Know]

The expansion is definitely true. That things are much more dense and hot as we go back in time is definite.

The problem is, once again, the term 'singularity' is a description of what spacetime looks like and NOT something 'outside of spacetime'.

In this particular case, the term 'singularity' describes the fact that the density, temperature, and curvature get larger and larger as we go back in time. The phrase 'emerged from the singularity' means precisely this.

But, yes, it is BS to talk about a singularity as a 'point' of infinite density or temperature. Thi sis one of my pet peeves in how the popular descriptions are given. It leads to a LOT of misunderstandings.

What expanded?
What caused the expantion?
What did it expand into?
What did "it" exist in before the expansion?

There are too many unknowns to think we know.

 

[We Never Know]

The expansion is definitely true. That things are much more dense and hot as we go back in time is definite.

The problem is, once again, the term 'singularity' is a description of what spacetime looks like and NOT something 'outside of spacetime'.

In this particular case, the term 'singularity' describes the fact that the density, temperature, and curvature get larger and larger as we go back in time. The phrase 'emerged from the singularity' means precisely this.

But, yes, it is BS to talk about a singularity as a 'point' of infinite density or temperature. Thi sis one of my pet peeves in how the popular descriptions are given. It leads to a LOT of misunderstandings.

Can time exist without space?
Can space exist without time?
Have they both always existed?
Do we even know or just have ideas?

 

[rational experiences]

Father said be reminded you are only and just a human living on a stone planet inside of its heavens.

But you don't.

So you claim I add first to subtract to equals removal. You don't own anything in out of space yourselves.

Two. Two he says is my human science practiced belief.

Today on earth two god historic burnt pre masses as coal and irradiated crystal separated into dusts are bodily taken into destruction.

To get electricity. Two of.

You are a human yet mind possessed by science advice.

At the same time gas irradiation burning effects fallout causes sacrificed life. Humans.

Your God states inferred resources.

Your human self not any God is also sacrificed.

Three terms of concluded psyche science advice to your AI data says to you talking as a human theist said you also became a God resource. In the same causes.

And you believed it. Reason as you want anything of gods power.

Why you want a Human to be God and energy as you want electricity a third time.

Father warned you egotism in science owns no truth. And it won't stop lying.

 

[Hold]

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



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'.

Please define 'time', I define it as any change or activity ....is the geometry of spacetime ..non existence before the big bang?

 

[rational experiences]

Please define 'time', I define it as any change or activity ....is the geometry of spacetime ..non existence before the big bang?

If you state as a human thinking O Phi God the space plane owns no geometry itself.

Creation only one owns O God as mass no geometry either.

Man looks into humans cell.already owns irradiation.

Says I can see patterns geometry.

A cause as what used to exist was gone. Why he can see it by machine status. As machines man designed.

So you saw what you caused as an effect only.

Time you said is a Burning gas.

Alight it moves the O body as it is released out of said body.

Either slow colder gas or Fast burning gas yet both ignited to be alight.

Is light as time.

Clear yet pre burnt gas leaves darkness as it sits stationery held cold but clear. Evidence mass was removed by time as alight gases.