[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing I believe you have the concepts of accuracy and precision confused as being numbers. Numbers only represent quantitatively, and thus their values represent the degree of accuracy or precision (aka, probability and uncertainty). Mathematics is a defined set of rules and thus it is not subject to the need for proof. Your name is Eric by definition, not by measure. Anything imaginary or nonexistent is beyond infinity or eternity.

Excellent observations, David.

thanks,

[Eric]

Hi Dave,

I will try to be clearer. When I say "a value >0", I'm not necessarily refering just to numbers.

The entire methodology of mathematics (geometry included) and physics as well, is based on the axiomatic system of logic. Theorems derived from axioms or in other words, proofs derived from assumption.

Is this not the case?

All I am saying, is this methodology has not and can not produce an Absolute. It's axiomatic nature is not rigorous enough to do it. Yes, we've been using it all along and it works to build things and go places to a high degree of certainty, but it is not capable of arriving at a certainty.

When it comes to a TOE, the entire community is scratching its head and I'm saying that this is the reason why.

A non-axiomatic system of logic begins with a certainty and ends with a certainty, without making one unimplied step in between. It also has to follow the rule of being non-circular, in that although it is circular, the very last certainty has to break the circle in an inwards direction, and be a certainty about a single uncertainty.

Anyone who believes this is impossible or that anything can be non-existent, will always run in to the problem of infinity, when it comes to arriving at a TOE.

I'm not saying this to find fault, but simply to state a case.

Eric

[dleviwing]

Eric;
Though it is safe to say that science cannot provide absolute certainty, it is not proper to say that since there is a sigma of uncertainty of 10^-43 , that there exists any significant property within that extremely small uncertainty range. The absolute laws of physics that apply to the large finite realm must also apply to the smallest finite realm. We cannot say that fundamental matter attains different properties just because the events are occurring beyond our ability to measure them. (aka M-theory) This also applies to realms too large to measure. Example: if the universe is able to expand at superluminal velocity, then the speed of light is not a limiting velocity; it is only a measured constant used to relate motion.

My objections to those who preach a believe system as a TOE, is that they are not willing to learn science and thus their criticisms of science and scientist, are pure opinions; like another thing that everyone has. Every scientist I’ve known has studied philosophies and religions, so they cannot be said to be speaking from ignorance yet theologians constantly proclaim that they don’t understand. Believe me, we DO.

[Eric]

Dave,

You'll notice I added a last line to my post while you were posting a response.

I am not finding fault. I'm simply stating a case for going beyond the limit that is holding us back.

–10^infinite–1(any number) is the problem. No matter how small (large) the assumption, it can not be said to be absolutely rigorous.

I am not so unfamiliar with science, that I can't say it does not deal with infinity rigorously.

All present references to absolute or infinite in mathematics are false. They are conveniences that can never represent reality. If mathematics or physics can not represent reality, then they are limited.

To hold them "on high" is no better than someone who holds their religion up as the truth.

We have to recognize our limits to go beyond them and we won't get to a TOE without going beyond our present limits.

This doesn't just apply to science, but philosophy and religions as well.

The intitial thing that all of these disciplines are lacking, is a non-axiomatic proof of an Absolute.

Eric

[Eric]

Let me also make one of the things I just said clearer.

–10^infinite–1(any number) means that now matter how small or early we theorize, there is no infinitesimally small (or infinitely large). I've seen many of the most respected theorists, when trying to describe a problem, casually say "well, we disregard this, of course", meaning the problem of infinity.

Mathematics does infinity an even greater injustice, by assuming the infinite set, transfinite, etc.

Because this is about a TOE, it is imperative that we do not disregard or fudge. If someone has a theory for a TOE and a question is asked and the only answer is "it depends", then it's back to the drawing board.

[dleviwing]

Eric;
When someone with an IQ of over 160 tells you that something can be disregarded, I would suggest you listen. In the reality of science and mathematics, infinity (or god) is a trivial, meaningless, concept; that’s why it is so easy to philosophize about it. It's all opinion! Do you really wish to waste time on such useless debates?


What is your real agenda here, Eric? Are you looking for scientific proof of god or just to prove that science cannot disprove his existence? It is the responsibility of those who say he exists that must provide the proof.

[Eric]

They're called "problematic" infinities. Trivial and meaningless they are not. They are disregarded because there's presently no way to incorporate them into theory.

I have no interest in proving that science can not disprove God. I have no interest in finding fault with science.

I have every interest in furthering science.

Since when does an integrated understandig of finite, infinte, relative, and absolute not have anything to do with science?

There is obviously "something" going on Dave. Why isn't there absolutely nothing? Do you know?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, I do agree with you that infinity is the loophole in science that all unbelievers will jump through, however unless you have a mathematical solution of a new whole math, I see no way other than science's present positions to resolve this. As Dave stated, at 10^-43cm or h Planck's constant, as the smallest measurement possible by science, anything below this level, except possibly thermal linear fields, would have negligable influence on our finite universe, and using the Hawking decay model, nothing of consequence changes at the macro level. Thus, we are only left with the skeptics against science, at these rediculously inconsequential measures, however I do think it worthwhile to pursue the scientific directions of discovery toward closing this final loophole of science___any serious scientific ideas? And BTW, everything between 10^-43 and R^80[i think] the size of the estimated macro universe, we have absolute understanding[as far as science goes so far] of, through the absolutely accepted laws and principles of physics, by the physicists and mathematicians working on the incompleted problem areas. It isn't complete understanding yet, but then again, nothing is complete. As Dave said, "We do know what we know." We'll learn the rest in time...

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by Eric They're called "problematic" infinities. Trivial and meaningless they are not. They are disregarded because there's presently no way to incorporate them into theory. I have no interest in proving that science can not disprove God. I have no interest in finding fault with science. I have every interest in furthering science. Since when does an integrated understandig of finite, infinte, relative, and absolute not have anything to do with science? There is obviously "something" going on Dave. Why isn't there absolutely nothing? Do you know?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Eric They're called "problematic" infinities. Trivial and meaningless they are not. They are disregarded because there's presently no way to incorporate them into theory.

Eric;
The problem is that INFINITY IS A THEORY and will remain so for all ETERNITY. It cannot be tested or given dimension. Don't try to give it more meaning or significance than what's stated in a dictionary.

[Eric]

Lloyd,

That's a nice concise response.

Jumping through the loophole of infinity, is not necessarily an act by an unbeliever. I realize it usually is and almost always, the jump drags infinity along with it and without any logical reasoning, labels it God.

The "redicuously inconsequential measurements" you refer to, are in fact, what is holding science back. Length, whether it be time or radius, are infinitely divisible or multipliable.

Present observation may suggest otherwise, but they're incomplete and so is theory. That's why science is still on a "TOE Quest".

Whether it's stated as such or not, what science is looking for is a theory and observation, that aren't relative. Right now, when we say "we know what we know", we also have to say "it depends".

Science is lacking an absolute reference point (frame of reference). This is not a put-down of science, but an accurate assessment of science.

Presently, science is convinced that in time, it can define the "what" and how the what operates, but it can never define the "why".

I'm saying, science can define the "why" and observe it as well. However, it takes a form of logic we haven't used yet. It takes a non-axiomatic, "only" logic. It takes a logic that doesn't begin with an assumption (axiom), but by disproving the greatest of all possible assumptions.

We all know that science has never assumed that "something" came from "nothing". It has only ever asked the question, "why or how is there something rather than nothing"? This is not a trivial or meaningless question. It is at the root of all of scientific inquiry.

We all know there is "something", but we can't define it. We can keep trying for as long as we want, but until we disprove "absolutely nothing" we can not prove "something". This may seem unnecessary, but is it?

Dave,

Infinity has a dictionary definition, but is not a theory or a part of theory. It lays in wait beyond our theories and is the downfall of every theory.

However, it's not impossible to incorporate it into theory nor for theory to begin with a non-axiomatic absolute.

Just as science includes multi-verse in its musings, it can not be said that it is limited to understand the nature of "the universe". It can only be said that it is limited to understanding "existence".

In doing so, it must rigorously disprove "non-existence" as existing.

Eric