Empirical Proof of Infinity

[RascalPuff]

Having perused THoR's venerable 'Infinity' thread, it is stated in Post #7 of his OP entitled 'Infinity'- by the thoughtfully sagacious ThoR, that 'Infinity is very difficult to empirically prove'; perhaps so, while Truly Yours approaches the enigmatic presence or absence of 'barriers' within that fairly well traveled issue: in consideration of the import of the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy (That matter can neither be created nor destroyed, however much it may transiently move about and/or morphologically mutate), that law establishes that the in situ universe as we know it, has fairly well existed - approximately as-is - for infinity.

Of course, Big Bangology continues to bask in its own academically soothing placebos and 'back ground radiation'.

Since, in the writings of Locke and Hume, it is agreed that 'Nothing begets nothing', it is *conversely and empirically established that, though the word 'never' may have its limitations, still, the chronological manifestation of universal matter is without limits, with regard to any question of 'when it began'... *Since what is presently manifest and measurable in regard to space, time and mass, has - in accordance with the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, and the definitions of Locke and Hume - always existed.

The concept of 'beginning' and 'end' is the (however blameless) equivocational anthropomorphic demand that the universe 'en toto' must comply with, say the (invariably limited) human perceptions and existential icons of the beginning and end of a yardstick, microsecond, inert & heavy mass and/or or interval between two or more points.

With the allowance of ongoing motions and mutations, matter, space 'and' time are comparable to, say, the amount of H20 (water) on and about planet earth - it moves around a lot and proceeds through changes of solid, liquid and gas, yet still it is exactly the same quantity of molecules of water in a constant state of metamorphosis and recycling.

In this case 'Maxwell's coffee', advertised as being 'good to the last drop' is a conventional breakfast, lunch and dinner decanted, foreordained, operantly conditiioned misunderstanding.

The subjected exemplary metaphor (of the constancy of this planet's water) is the objective observation of the incumbent perpetuity of the infinite, while the planet's water is finite, the planet itself continues to orbit, spin and hover as the colloquial speck of dust in the - however incomprehensibly limitless - universe.

In consideration of perceptions of 'size', or 'density', the microcosmically 'small' (inward) universe, is no less endless than the macrocosmically 'large' (outward) universe.

Indeed, Xeno's paradox, though it does in fact have its limitations as applied to the human perception of neutrons, protons and electrons; 'atomic & sub-atomic' structures and systems, et al, there is on the other hand, no limitation on the endless divisibility of microcosmic quality.

The concept of infinity is quantitatively contained only by our ability to accomodate its qualitative incomprehensiblity, in accordance with the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, and the applicable legacies of Hume and Locke.

(That is this keyboard's offering, and it's operator will abide by it until given alternative opportunity to understand otherwise. : )

[labelwench]

Originally posted by RascalPuff
(That is this keyboard's offering, and it's operator will abide by it until given alternative opportunity to understand otherwise. : )

It had never occurred to me to blame the keyboard, when upon review I sometimes find the words written under my avatar to be almost foreign to me. What was I thinking when I wrote that....? I have frequently credited my car radio with some of my musical selections, however.

With the allowance of ongoing motions and mutations, matter, space 'and' time are comparable to, say, the amount of H20 (water) on and about planet earth - it moves around a lot and proceeds through changes of solid, liquid and gas, yet still it is exactly the same quantity of molecules of water in a constant state of metamorphosis and recycling.

It has also crossed my mind that much of the water that has ever been in existence in this planet is now in a different stage of 'transition' and 'moving around a lot.'

The human body is largely comprised of water, and sustaining the human form of ambulatory water requires even more water, of potable quality, and therein lies the difficulty.

There is no shortage of water, as you point out, it is merely the ratio of what forms it happens to be in that has become unwieldy for the planet, perhaps.

Then again, I expect that nature is more than capable of 'recycling' the water in it's present ambulatory form, if it becomes necessary to restore homeostasis to the planet.

[Meem]

Anywhere in the universe would be my empirical proof of infinity. L, once upon a time, it was thought that all there was consisted of the milky way. Since then, (anywurs' in the universe) every place we look we find more galaxies. The rough, "lowball" estimate I believe is only about 200 billion or so. I think our galaxy borders on the average to under average size, until it has fully cannibalized a saggittarius galaxy of the dwarf class, perhaps maybe larger then?

So, in our 100,000 light-year diameter galaxy, there is an estimated 200 billion stars. Our solar system is supposedly, below average in size or planet count (and size) ... as well our sun. The rough number of solar systems possible, is something like 4 quadrillion. That's a 4 with 27 zeros behind it. It blows my mind that people still need more to really consider infinity. All of the numbers, if looking in the macro or micro verse are so ..... infinite .... we can never hope to prove or observe even the smallest fraction of things we consider.

When you get into the micro .... if atoms were lined up all nice and single file like, it would take about 100,000 to equal the width of a human hair, and which are 99.9% "empty space." A typical school room model of the solar system, if made to scale correctly ... with the sun being about the size of a tennis-ball .... Neptune would be over 200 yards away ... lol I mean think about that. And that's just our "lil-tiny" sub par system. How many atoms you think we could find in our solar system? lol .... I don't think there is a designation for a number that high, except infinity. If we took the sand from all the beaches on the planet, each grain, you would roughly have the number of possible stars in the universe ... as we guess it to be now. And people really wonder, "are we alone in the universe?" I just have to think, are you kidding me? lol

Then you could get those numbers even more insanely higher if you applied something like M-theory to it ... it's boggling if you're actually trying to make too much sense out of it.

Water, sand, stars, you, me, everything we recognize as having structure ... made of atoms. The transitions and cycles atoms and their parts go through again approach that silly word infinite.

If one wants to see proof of infinity, look anywhere would be my advice. But at the stars would be my suggestion.


(edit -I believe I am thinking planets with the 4 quadrillion, not systems)

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Hubble telescope focused on a dark area of the sky no larger than a grain of sand, gathering light for 11 days, and 10,000 galaxies were found.

[austintorn@aol.com]

It has occurred to me that what elemental things are eternal in duration, having neither beginning nor end, have no origin from other things, and thus their existence must be causeless, meaning as first causes. Indeed, things with no causes have nothing at all as their cause, but recently it has struck me that this can only mean than they come from ‘nothing’, and ever did, and always will. Although this has been going on forever, which is why we find nothing nowhere, there being field everywhere, it could be that these things are not the same exact and enduring things, but ever appear and annihilate in pairs, but not always and instantly appearing and then gone, for some ever get separated apart to always form existence.

The necessary zero-summation overall would be the cause of the conservation laws.

I always thought it odd that something could be around forever and specifically defined in its particulars without ever having been defined in the first place that never could be.

That takes care of eternity. The infinity part is that it would be going on everywhere. There can be no bounds or limits to Totality.

We really have to admit that there is literally nothing to make existence of.

We should then, for verification, look for a balance of opposites in existence.