does universe have a centre

[Profpat]

Hi Steve;

"...So, yes, we don't see time complete a single infinite thing, but the history it traces out arises from a timeless form and effectively preexisted time and in that sense it's a completed infinity and it neither has a beginning nor ending in time. It's pure logic,quantities and an infinite space that we consciously "paint" with qualities like time and colors..."

I view eternity outside of time, and and infinity outside of space. Time and space are measurable, infinity and eternity are not. They are conceptual ideas. .. "quantities and an infinite space".. are your quantities finite? When the universe began, there was a certain amount of mass/energy, no more, no less. These quantities are conserved, no more, no less, but infinity always demand one more unit of energy, one more unit of mass. But there are no more one more unit. As far as space or pi being infinite jury is still out and will never return with an affirmation that space is infinite, only that it has the potential to become infinite.

Best,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Jain Philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_philosophy
Jain Cosmology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_Cosmology

Much more sensible views than Aristotle...rrr

[Profpat]

Thanks for the link Lloyd, I like all ancient teachings.

If we look into the smallest sphere will we see infinity there?

[Profpat]

OOPS I kinda stretched the post sorry.
OK I fixed it.

[SteveA]

Awesome images - a few look like atomic orbitals . Telescopes and microscopes - I guess the same thing except they trade off between space for time.

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/NOF.HTM

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=2

Of course that appearance can also be due to trying to compress too much into a little brain and the greater diversity of properties aren't seen because of the need to compress things down to a comprehensible form (that's one of my assumptions - learning occurs as an extraction of commonalities but all things are unique in some sense, hence an "artificial" intermediate view of various classes of objects arises though this "quantized" form of description is never precise - it's just seeing internal limits.

Another interesting consider is that the commonalities seen in these learned forms could potentially represent properties associated with the learning itself (things tend to see aspects of themself when looking at everything else, hence common forms recognized or learned over time could represent properties of this learning over time ... just another potentially interesting idea).

[SteveA]

Thanks for the link Lloyd, I like all ancient teachings.

If we look into the smallest sphere will we see infinity there?

Hey, bring back the other images! Where did you stash them?

Actually, this image is particularly good. There's actually a rather simple (in some ways) formula that can pass a single line through this form. (I made images similar to these modulate dynamically to music for a laser show for a friend of mine and I called the class "Celestial Glory" too - perfect match).

It's basically an ellipse that's modulated in terms of rotation, amplitude and the ellipticity (? whatever you call the determining ratio of diameters for an ellipse) ratio at various harmonics, much like a chord of music. By altering those "timbres" of the sound, you can make this form change dynamically.

I built it from an old Xerox machine scanner bed - they have resonant/springy mirrors and it was the best class of object I could "squeeze" out of them because they could only resonate and couldn't draw arbitrary shapes. I think that's another example where something that's a natural limit can actually be a "springboard" (no pun intended) for something even better that wouldn't have been recognized otherwise.

Thanks for the image(s) (It's up to you if you want to put the others back up there, but it was a nice collection you had there)

[Profpat]

Actually the images would change from one to another but when I pasted it that didn't happen.

[SteveA]

I wrote a program to simulate the idea and here's an example of what one form of this "thread" can look like (it's better with a laser and morphing to music in real time ):



Look familiar?

[austintorn@aol.com]

I just thought I would share some of Aristotle's thoughts on the "potential" infinite vs the "actual" infinite.

Those were my view too, Prof, until I encountered the paradox of things or ‘things’ being or happening with no beginning, having been around forever up to now, which certainly appears to be a completed eternity.


I think there should exist a timeless form that never changed

I would agree, Steve, a timeless, lawless, even formless ‘form’ from which the definite was emited that then had time, size, amount, naure, and properties.


and it neither has a beginning nor ending in time

True, the causeless was the normal state of affairs ‘for all time’.

So, now what?

What are some of the implications?

No creation of the causeless (but secondary creaion, such as particles), so no Creator?

[Profpat]

Hi Austin;

I agree that God and/or energy is eternal.

Though I'm forced to agree with Aristotle's logic of not yet, nor ever

By definition I don't know how eternity or infinity could ever be completed. There is no completion only an on going process

Do you have any thoughts on this conundrum?

Best,

Pat

P.S. Maybe Gauss was right and it's just a figure of speech. It's not real, because it really can't be achieved. It's only conceptual.