Is The Universe Infinite Or Finite ?

[futrethink]

neutralino.

Nowhere did I say anything about a finitely infinite existence!!

---Toe-may-toe or to-mah-toe. Are you going to argue that the orb, on the table, isn't a sphere or a ball or isn't what it is? Unbounded means for it not to be bound or to have no limitations. NO limitations. We can argue sematics, if you wish, but it will still be infinite.

Thus, I don't understand how you draw from the Moebius strip that an unbounded infinite surface is paradoxical.

---It just involves a change in perception and context. Just as the single cell that is a part of you is you, with a different way of looking at it, so can you go from the mobius to reality.
---A paradox is a paradox. A generality/objective that can be found in specific/subjective situations/contexts by looking/perceiving it a certain way. I apologize for the multiple words for description, but one word sometimes doesn’t describe enough of what I want to put forward, without having to write a book.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thanks for that answer Lloyd. Would you like to share your thoughts on Futrethink's thought on pi and the mobius strip as being paradoxical?

Best,

Pat

Hi Pat, I have clearly stated in other posts, that nature has no paradoxes. It is just the mind, in one of its many states of confusion, that sees paradoxes. Just as Ayn Rand stated; "When you seem to find a paradox, check your premeses. One of them is wrong." I concur.

Hi Futrethink, and to me, you are just creating your own false paradoxes. There's truly no such thing as a 2D surface. That's the abstract of the actual quantum structure you are either looking at, or imagining. It always takes 3D photons, in all visions, to display anything. That may be being picky, but there are far too many falsehoods created by imagining something real, and claiming it 2D, when in fact, the thinnest density memory or imagination, absolutely must be made of photons, or at the least projected by photons, from a real underlying atomic structure, subjectively or objectively.

And Neutralino, I see no differences between unbounded finiteness and infinity. If you choose to use your mind subjectively, when objective observations are available, that's up to you. I prefer the objective point of view, for all scientific quests, and the subjective I use for private personal feelings, only.

Regards,
Lloyd

[futrethink]

profpat.

Far beyond my limited brain to comprehend. But that's OK I am an accounting professor who has problems doing his own taxes.

---No biggie. I have only a grade ten education, with a few decades of reading whatever came my way.

In fact it might restore the T in the CPT symmetry violation

---Translation please? I am not fully acquainted with all the terms of philosophy. This is due to no actual schooling in such.

Since all reality is filtered through my eyes we'll always have subjectivity, but I think objectivity is also a part of my interpretation of the universe.

---Again, something that has a contradiction.
---That is what the singularity has to contend with: a subjective existence in balance with objective existence that is in balance with subjective nonexistence and is in balance with objective nonexistence. Four things that should contradict and cancel each other out.

[neutralino]

neutralino.
---Toe-may-toe or to-mah-toe. Are you going to argue that the orb, on the table, isn't a sphere or a ball or isn't what it is? Unbounded means for it not to be bound or to have no limitations. NO limitations. We can argue sematics, if you wish, but it will still be infinite.

There is actually a strict mathematical definition that differentiates between bounded and finite. However, to discuss it would mean introducing a fair bit of topology, and I don't think that would be welcome here! Still, you should take it from my example of the surface of the 3-sphere, that a finite unbounded model does make sense.

[futrethink]

Lloyd Gillespie.

It is just the mind, in one of its many states of confusion, that sees paradoxes.

---Then I must be very confused, because when I (for example) look at the sun, I see the paradox of it being light and dark at the same time.

[futrethink]

neutralino.

There is actually a strict mathematical definition that differentiates between bounded and finite.

---And as I’ve argued with others: mathematics has its limitations. All mathematics is is symbols used to describe a concept. Just as any other language can only say so much, there are points that cannot be made with math.

Still, you should take it from my example of the surface of the 3-sphere, that a finite unbounded model does make sense.

---I understand that it makes sense. It wouldn’t have an existence if it didn’t.

[Profpat]

profpat.
---No biggie. I have only a grade ten education, with a few decades of reading whatever came my way.
---Translation please? I am not fully acquainted with all the terms of philosophy. This is due to no actual schooling in such.
---Again, something that has a contradiction.
---That is what the singularity has to contend with: a subjective existence in balance with objective existence that is in balance with subjective nonexistence and is in balance with objective nonexistence. Four things that should contradict and cancel each other out.

Well you most read a lot, because you have a logical mind.

As far as T it stands for time reversal. And here is blurb;

Reversal (CPT) Symmetry

Three other symmetry principles important in nuclear science are parity P, time reversal invariance T, and charge conjugation C. They deal with the questions, respectively, of whether a nucleus behaves in a different way if its spatial configuration is reversed (P), if the direction of time is made to run backwards instead of forward (T), or if the matter particles of the nucleus are changed to antimatter (C). All charged particles with spin 1/2 (electrons, quarks, etc.) have antimatter counterparts of opposite charge and of opposite parity. Particle and antiparticle, when they come together, can annihilate, disappearing and releasing their total mass energy in some other form, most often gamma rays.

If you are interested in further study here is the site;
( http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html )

Best to all,

Pat

[neutralino]

neutralino.
---And as I’ve argued with others: mathematics has its limitations. All mathematics is is symbols used to describe a concept. Just as any other language can only say so much, there are points that cannot be made with math.

But, this is clearly not a limitation of mathematics, since I've just told you that there is a mathematical definition.

---I understand that it makes sense. It wouldn’t have an existence if it didn’t.

You understand that it makes sense, but then continue to believe that there are paradoxes in the phrase? Well, I don't see how you can do that!

[futrethink]

profpat.

As far as T it stands for time reversal.

---Okay, thanks. I understand that T in physics usually stands for time, but I wasn’t sure and didn’t want to make an incorrect assumption.
---Okay, just a quick question about the link about the two last paragraphs; is the implication there that they are searching for evidence of the advanced wave, the retarded wave or a point of stasis?
---Just trying to clarify it without having to do more searching for a different explanation that I will be able to filter properly.

[futrethink]

neutralino.

But, this is clearly not a limitation of mathematics, since I've just told you that there is a mathematical definition.

---Yeah. I agree that there is a mathematical definition. Does that mathematical description show every perception and context of what it is defining?
---You can translate every symbol of math into a word and all you change is the perception of the individual receiving the symbols/words.
---Words are just a language that is clumsier for most mathematicians and not quick enough. Describe bounded and finite in math and it will not change the reality: there will be limits to whatever you use those adjectives to describe/mathematical symbols on.
---It just makes it easier for two individuals to communicate an idea, if there is a similar understanding of the same word/symbol.

You understand that it makes sense, but then continue to believe that there are paradoxes in the phrase? Well, I don't see how you can do that!

---As a part of something’s objective existence is all the ways for it to be described and for those descriptions to help others perceive that concept in a similar subjective manner.
---Whether it is understood for something to be a paradox or not will not change what something is. Just how it is perceived and in time how it perceives itself.
---And I know where this is going to go, with that last sentence. I’ve had to go there before: This will continue on to be a discussion about the subjective definition of the concepts of perception, intelligence and what is/isn’t life.