While I don't generally find myself defending Veritas, the two issues aren't really comparable. The infinitesimal subdivision of a finite distance has been resolved in theoretical terms and also through physics - namely that the sub-atomic world *isn't* actually infinitely divisible.
That doesn't tell us if a given event taking place in the infinitely distant future will ever occur (how could it?). And if not, how could one that took place in the infinitely distant past have occurred?
The impossibility of an infinite time-scale hasn't been refuted.
In fact, you appear to *support* premise two.
It is the very fact that you *can* move your hand from A to B which distinguishes between potential infinites (abstract ideas) and actual infinites (material, quantifiable entities). You can move your hand because an infinite distance between them *only* exists as an idea.
Add to this the age of the universe as 15bn years plus the problem of an infinite past resulting in heat death!
Thats right infinity is a procces, and as such can exist just fine. Veritas argues beutifully that an 'actual' infinity of 'things' can't exist, much better than I can.
Ok, if space/time are infinite as dimensions then your premises are refuted by zenos arguments.
Your argument seems to be almost purely philosophical in the sense that you want to argue that a finite but boundless universe should be defined as an infinite universe.
How ever in strictly technical terms (as far as science is concerned) Science is built upon EMPIRICAL evidence.
Meaning that results are observable.
Reason would have of dismiss metaphysicals that can not be empirically varified.
This is the epistemological foundation used as the mold to form the sciences.
There comes a point where you are not talking about reality as being physical when you appeal to being able to traverse an infinite amount of dimensional points as a refution of zenos paradox.
First 'I' didnt have any premises in this video, so they cant be refuted, because they dont exist.
I would disagree and say a finite but boundless universe is an oxymoron.
Again you do 'NOT' seem to understand the word infinity, it refers to a 'PROCESS' not a 'NUMBER'. The words 'infinite amount' also amount to an oxymoron.
Inflationary cosmology does not assume a finite but boundless universe it assumes an infinite universe with finite matter/energy.
Also I had I thought you might appreciate, I was thinking if the fundamental forces of our universe are the result of phase transitions and are really the work of a single force, then what happens if our universe continues to expand and cool?
Might an even stronger expression of gravity manifest from another phase transition?
nothing can be finite and boundless, its like something being alive and dead at the same time, or an intelligent creationist; it cant happen.
The idea youve hit on, the fundamental four forces being connnected to something deeper, is the essence of modern field theories. The idea is that forces are nothing more than particles being exchanged, and particles are nothing but disturbances in 'fields'. Now because of the nature of field theories ot much is known about the fields themselves
Boundless simply means either A space time is negatively curved, B it is flat or C it is positively curved.
The term boundless simply means that in any such case one will not encounter a boundary.
Cosmology assumes that if you could traverse the universe faster than the rate of its expansion you will continue in infinitely on a single vector never reaching your starting point or until you reach the point you started from, never encountering a boundary.
well that seems fairly simple, how exactly does on come to that conclusion after examinig zenos paradoxes? maybe one could argue zenos paradoxes point towards the finite divisibility of space and time, but as to their extent I dont see how zenos paradoxes imply anything. Please enlighten me if Im mistaken in that conclution
it would take an infinite time unless the 'distance traversed' is finite, not "space" itself. All zenos paradoxes take place over a finite distance (race course paradox, aka my hand thing) or snapshots of time (fletchers paradox) I dont see how any of them can be extended to a universal scale. They only have to do with the divisable nature of space and time and weather or not it is infinitly divisable. If you can enlighten me as to how it is relevant to the exact opposite please try
It is most definatly NOT obvious to me at least. Just exactly what empirical evidence are you talking about, Red shifts? CMB light elements nucleosynthesis? Are these strong enough to warrant the word obvious, and then close the dor on the matter?
Space being infinitly regressive, now theres a new idea, where did that come from? Do you mean to imply something like the Big Crunch? You resolving this 'infinite regressive' space and time with GR is your own problem, one I wouldnt like!
look, to have an observer you need at least two frames of reference right? otherwise its a pointless distinction to make. And only in two frames of reference moving with different velocities does time become 'subjective' as I think you mean it. So if your talking about two frames of reference I would appreciate knowing where they are, theyre relative velocies and just what the 'observer' is observing before you make another statement like
"I am talking about observer subjective time of course"
your hand analgoy is wrong since you have to say that there is an infinite division of size: 0.0000->infinity0000.1. This is ofcourse possible in mathematics but not in reality. Planck length anyone????
What I don't understand about Kalam's aguement is how is the infinite time before my existece connected to me being able to exist at all? And even if Kalam is right about how there cannot be an infinite amount of events before now (implying a begining of the universe) then how could it of existed in the first place?
If he accept his arguement as true then we have 2 paradoxes:
1)You either have a finite universe that came out of nothing (which is an absurdity)
2)It was created by an eternal God, but an eternal God existing would contradict his own arguement that an event (such as creation of the begining of existence) could only of happen if there was a finite amount of time before the event.
Nicely done! I didnt even think far enough into 'lets assume his argument is true' to get to that, but it is a powerfull rebuttal of the kalam argument also, but is it any surprise that it contradicts itself?
But then by saying "space is discrete" I was simply saying that argument pertaining to the increments of space was pointless. Then you came and told me it was pointless because you didn't include time into your descriptions. Good work.
sorry! but the summary in the description is probably a more clear way to understand my refutation so you only miss out on hearing my ramblimg (not a bad thing!)
hahaha... i wasnt making fun of you... its just you had scratches on your forhead so i hoped that you werent a meth head =). I think youre very bright and unique and it would be sad. Well it would be sad anyway if you werent.
I really loved that hand example. The movement of your hand can be split into an infinite amount of small movements. Therefore it is a true example of infinity.
While I don't generally find myself defending Veritas, the two issues aren't really comparable. The infinitesimal subdivision of a finite distance has been resolved in theoretical terms and also through physics - namely that the sub-atomic world *isn't* actually infinitely divisible.
That doesn't tell us if a given event taking place in the infinitely distant future will ever occur (how could it?). And if not, how could one that took place in the infinitely distant past have occurred?
prodprod 1 year ago
The impossibility of an infinite time-scale hasn't been refuted.
In fact, you appear to *support* premise two.
It is the very fact that you *can* move your hand from A to B which distinguishes between potential infinites (abstract ideas) and actual infinites (material, quantifiable entities). You can move your hand because an infinite distance between them *only* exists as an idea.
Add to this the age of the universe as 15bn years plus the problem of an infinite past resulting in heat death!
Birdieupon 2 years ago
That's what veritas was getting at. Infinity can't exist it's JUST a concept
SaintJimmyI 3 years ago
Thats right infinity is a procces, and as such can exist just fine. Veritas argues beutifully that an 'actual' infinity of 'things' can't exist, much better than I can.
Tefer65i 3 years ago
Ok, if space/time are infinite as dimensions then your premises are refuted by zenos arguments.
Your argument seems to be almost purely philosophical in the sense that you want to argue that a finite but boundless universe should be defined as an infinite universe.
How ever in strictly technical terms (as far as science is concerned) Science is built upon EMPIRICAL evidence.
Meaning that results are observable.
Reason would have of dismiss metaphysicals that can not be empirically varified.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Sorry typo... reason would have us* dismiss...
This is the epistemological foundation used as the mold to form the sciences.
There comes a point where you are not talking about reality as being physical when you appeal to being able to traverse an infinite amount of dimensional points as a refution of zenos paradox.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
First 'I' didnt have any premises in this video, so they cant be refuted, because they dont exist.
I would disagree and say a finite but boundless universe is an oxymoron.
Again you do 'NOT' seem to understand the word infinity, it refers to a 'PROCESS' not a 'NUMBER'. The words 'infinite amount' also amount to an oxymoron.
Tefer65i 3 years ago
Inflationary cosmology does not assume a finite but boundless universe it assumes an infinite universe with finite matter/energy.
Also I had I thought you might appreciate, I was thinking if the fundamental forces of our universe are the result of phase transitions and are really the work of a single force, then what happens if our universe continues to expand and cool?
Might an even stronger expression of gravity manifest from another phase transition?
Could the crunch be revived?
Thoughts?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
nothing can be finite and boundless, its like something being alive and dead at the same time, or an intelligent creationist; it cant happen.
The idea youve hit on, the fundamental four forces being connnected to something deeper, is the essence of modern field theories. The idea is that forces are nothing more than particles being exchanged, and particles are nothing but disturbances in 'fields'. Now because of the nature of field theories ot much is known about the fields themselves
Tefer65i 3 years ago
Well quantum field theories have strong evidence that the speperate fields are simply symmetry broken versions of the same fundamental force.
I am not asking about this I already know about gauge symmetry and higgs fields.
I was asking about another possible symmetry break resulting in a stronger version of gravitation.
Finite in terms of energy/matter, not space-time dimensions.
Much of modern cosmology assumes that the universe is finite in terms of energy/matter.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Boundless simply means either A space time is negatively curved, B it is flat or C it is positively curved.
The term boundless simply means that in any such case one will not encounter a boundary.
Cosmology assumes that if you could traverse the universe faster than the rate of its expansion you will continue in infinitely on a single vector never reaching your starting point or until you reach the point you started from, never encountering a boundary.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
The fields may be in transition, but from what? and to what?
Mind you these theories do not preclude a finite expanding cosmological view (big bang)or a constant eternal infinite universe
Tefer65i 3 years ago
All time is observer subjective, unless the observer is ideal.
Time is a dimension.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
I am not sure if you are still talking to me or not, thinks for the info on redshifts though I love new ideas, well new to me any way.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
space and time are finite in our universe that was the relavence of the zeno paradoxs
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
well that seems fairly simple, how exactly does on come to that conclusion after examinig zenos paradoxes? maybe one could argue zenos paradoxes point towards the finite divisibility of space and time, but as to their extent I dont see how zenos paradoxes imply anything. Please enlighten me if Im mistaken in that conclution
Tefer65i 3 years ago
This argument shows that if matter travels through space then it would take infinite time unless space is finite.
You demonstrated that with your argument or hand analogy.
It is obvious that there is a limit or finite amount of space/time with regards to empirical observation in our universe.
So if space was infinitely regressive than by nature time should also be, I can see no way to resolve this and still maintain GR.
I am talking about observer subjective time of course.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
it would take an infinite time unless the 'distance traversed' is finite, not "space" itself. All zenos paradoxes take place over a finite distance (race course paradox, aka my hand thing) or snapshots of time (fletchers paradox) I dont see how any of them can be extended to a universal scale. They only have to do with the divisable nature of space and time and weather or not it is infinitly divisable. If you can enlighten me as to how it is relevant to the exact opposite please try
Tefer65i 3 years ago
It is most definatly NOT obvious to me at least. Just exactly what empirical evidence are you talking about, Red shifts? CMB light elements nucleosynthesis? Are these strong enough to warrant the word obvious, and then close the dor on the matter?
Space being infinitly regressive, now theres a new idea, where did that come from? Do you mean to imply something like the Big Crunch? You resolving this 'infinite regressive' space and time with GR is your own problem, one I wouldnt like!
Tefer65i 3 years ago
look, to have an observer you need at least two frames of reference right? otherwise its a pointless distinction to make. And only in two frames of reference moving with different velocities does time become 'subjective' as I think you mean it. So if your talking about two frames of reference I would appreciate knowing where they are, theyre relative velocies and just what the 'observer' is observing before you make another statement like
"I am talking about observer subjective time of course"
Tefer65i 3 years ago
your hand analgoy is wrong since you have to say that there is an infinite division of size: 0.0000->infinity0000.1. This is ofcourse possible in mathematics but not in reality. Planck length anyone????
Knowntje 4 years ago
are you honestly claiming to know what goes on in reality at scales even semi-comperable to the plank length? Nobel Prize anyone??
Tefer65i 4 years ago
The universe had a beginning, get over it.
Prophetes 4 years ago
Yea! Of course! How could I be so stupid!? great argument, Im convinced, ignore the above video
Tefer65i 4 years ago
What I don't understand about Kalam's aguement is how is the infinite time before my existece connected to me being able to exist at all? And even if Kalam is right about how there cannot be an infinite amount of events before now (implying a begining of the universe) then how could it of existed in the first place?
DaveDoggOwns 4 years ago
If he accept his arguement as true then we have 2 paradoxes:
1)You either have a finite universe that came out of nothing (which is an absurdity)
2)It was created by an eternal God, but an eternal God existing would contradict his own arguement that an event (such as creation of the begining of existence) could only of happen if there was a finite amount of time before the event.
DaveDoggOwns 4 years ago
Nicely done! I didnt even think far enough into 'lets assume his argument is true' to get to that, but it is a powerfull rebuttal of the kalam argument also, but is it any surprise that it contradicts itself?
Tefer65i 3 years ago
but... space is discrete. :)
Seregnaug 4 years ago 2
Its pointless talking about space or time seperatly if you are looking into the reality of things. Space-time is infinite
Tefer65i 4 years ago
Then your video is pointless. Or are you not attempting to look into what is real?
Seregnaug 4 years ago
it really was a foolish thing to say "the reality of things" whos to talk about such things with even a hint of certainty!
Tefer65i 3 years ago
But then by saying "space is discrete" I was simply saying that argument pertaining to the increments of space was pointless. Then you came and told me it was pointless because you didn't include time into your descriptions. Good work.
Seregnaug 4 years ago
its pointless for a whole raft of reasons, it mirrors the pointlessness of the argument Veritas pt forward, as it was intended to do
Tefer65i 3 years ago
infinity should be used to demonstrate limits
by taking something to the extreme we are able to find the extreme(hope that makes sense)
particlenumberfour 4 years ago
More gain. I'm at 11 on my computer, 11 on youtube and I can't hear you! Oh dear!
urbanelf 4 years ago
sorry! but the summary in the description is probably a more clear way to understand my refutation so you only miss out on hearing my ramblimg (not a bad thing!)
Tefer65i 4 years ago
hahaha... i wasnt making fun of you... its just you had scratches on your forhead so i hoped that you werent a meth head =). I think youre very bright and unique and it would be sad. Well it would be sad anyway if you werent.
chibanging 4 years ago
or i mean scratch on your brow or whatever that area is called.
chibanging 4 years ago
but why the hell do you look like you have cancer?
chibanging 4 years ago
because Im very very white! its true, red hair and all, burn soo quickly its not funny too!
Tefer65i 4 years ago
very bright! its great to find people like you!
chibanging 4 years ago
I really loved that hand example. The movement of your hand can be split into an infinite amount of small movements. Therefore it is a true example of infinity.
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
I liked that very much...
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago