Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #415636 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-16 12:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-23 12:04 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 152 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Is the universe infinite? David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 12:08 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 12:15 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? omnilobe@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 12:16 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 14:58 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 15:17 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 15:41 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 15:51 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 16:36 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 16:44 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 16:48 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 16:55 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 17:00 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 17:25 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 20:30 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 20:11 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 20:53 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 21:07 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-16 21:24 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 20:10 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-16 13:53 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 14:28 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 14:53 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 01:58 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 09:18 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-18 09:43 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 10:07 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-18 10:32 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 10:38 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-18 10:43 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-16 21:47 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 01:53 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-18 21:32 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 04:42 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 05:12 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-23 14:06 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-22 17:22 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-20 22:18 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-17 03:45 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-17 04:15 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-17 04:37 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-17 05:35 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-17 05:40 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-17 06:20 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-17 06:30 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-17 06:36 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 15:41 +0200
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-17 06:47 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 15:53 +0200
Re: Is the universe infinite? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-17 06:55 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-17 07:33 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-17 09:11 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 09:41 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 10:19 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 10:22 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 12:29 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 12:36 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:15 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 12:44 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 13:12 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:13 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 13:16 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 13:25 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 13:37 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:46 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 14:03 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 14:15 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 14:16 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 14:55 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 15:00 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 15:03 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 15:13 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 15:23 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 15:28 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 15:36 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 15:47 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 15:50 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 15:57 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 16:22 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:38 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2018-06-17 22:41 +0200
Re: Is the universe infinite? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-17 10:37 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 06:54 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 06:36 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 06:41 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 06:48 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 10:38 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-17 14:31 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Zeit Geist <Tucsondrew@me.com> - 2018-06-17 15:05 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 03:51 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 03:59 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 04:08 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 04:11 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 04:19 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 04:23 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 04:26 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 09:34 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 11:03 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 10:34 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 10:44 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 11:11 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 11:19 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? rarr.infin@gmail.com - 2018-06-17 17:51 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 21:32 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-19 10:11 -0400
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 09:07 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 12:52 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-20 19:53 -0400
Re: Is the universe infinite? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-20 22:19 -0400
Re: Is the universe infinite? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 23:25 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:30 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-21 04:05 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 04:41 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-21 10:25 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 11:57 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 12:11 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 12:39 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 12:52 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 14:14 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-21 09:32 -0400
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-21 10:34 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 11:00 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-21 18:26 -0400
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 16:06 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 08:39 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 16:09 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 16:36 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 16:41 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-22 02:13 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-22 07:47 -0400
Re: Is the universe infinite? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-22 05:20 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 05:36 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-22 06:02 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 06:12 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-22 06:15 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 06:18 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 06:19 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-22 06:24 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-22 07:11 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:13 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-21 20:51 -0400
Re: Is the universe infinite? FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 18:24 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 23:55 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? creatureoflightanddarkness@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 12:20 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 04:06 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 04:19 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2018-06-22 19:08 +0200
Re: Is the universe infinite? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-22 17:14 -0700
Re: Is the universe infinite? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-23 16:39 +0100
Re: Is the universe infinite? David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 12:04 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c703cf0-7fba-4ecf-986f-22e22b0d4a9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415636 |
The abstraction of an infinite set (e.g. the set of natural numbers) is the basis for mathematics as we know it, which in turn, is the basis for most if not all of modern science and technology. Whether or not the physical universe is infinite, this abstraction seems to be extremely useful in modelling physical reality. See "Infinity: The Story So Far" at my math blog at http://www.dcproof.com/Infinity.html There, I develop the notion of an infinite set by first the developing the non-numerical notion of its opposite, the finite set. Rather than Hilbert's fantastical Grand Infinite Hotel, I start with a more down-to-earth finite village and build from there. The finite set, it turns out can be defined as follows: ALL(s):[Set(s) => [Finite(s) <=> ALL(x0):ALL(f):[x0 in s & ALL(a):[a in s => f(a) in s] & ALL(a):ALL(b):[a in s & b in s => [f(a)=f(b) => a=b]] => EXIST(xn):[xn in s & f(xn)=x0]]]] where Set(x) means x is a set Finite(x) means x is finite Or equivalently: ALL(s):[Set(s) => [Finite(s) <=> ALL(f):[ALL(a):[a in s => f(a) in s] & ALL(a):ALL(b):[a in s & b in s => [f(a)=f(b) => a=b]] => ALL(a):[a in s => EXIST(xn):[xn in s & f(xn)=a]]] Then I define infinite to be the negation of finite to eventually obtain Dedekind's definition: ALL(s):[Set(s) => [Infinite(s) <=> EXIST(f):[ALL(a):[a in s => f(a) in s] & [Injection(f,s,s) & ~Surjection(f,s,s)]]]] where Infinte(x) means x is infinite Injection(f,x,y) means f is an injection (1-to-1) mapping set x to set y Surjection(f,x,y) means f is an surjection (onto) mapping set x to set y Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8010e8d4-b866-4828-8992-e335822fa1e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415636 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:08:55 PM UTC-7, David Petry wrote: > Q: Is the universe infinite? > > Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? > > Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, and if you've bothered to take calculus (or, "high school math") then that for most systems the finite doesn't suffice. Having that the sensible is only the qualia is somewhat an anthropocentric chauvinism. Or, the engineer's approximation is still a physicist's open system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16134f84-8619-4a09-9c3b-8d655cae41a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415645 |
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 2:28:09 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:08:55 PM UTC-7, David Petry wrote: > > Q: Is the universe infinite? > > > > Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > > > Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? > > > > Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, > and if you've bothered to take calculus (or, "high school math") > then that for most systems the finite doesn't suffice. > > Having that the sensible is only the qualia is > somewhat an anthropocentric chauvinism. > > Or, the engineer's approximation is > still a physicist's open system. That's not to say anthropocentrism is wrong - far from it - and indeed anthropocentrism as grounds for existence, experience, and reason is an informed, conscientious anthropocentrism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 01:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1eb958b-1c68-4197-9092-8baeb3b81080@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415645 |
For some the infinite is too much, because of black sky. Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 23:28:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ed567bf-5e7d-495d-9e3a-ffaba9cda19a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415758 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:58:51 AM UTC-7, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > For some the infinite is too much, because of black sky. > > Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 23:28:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, If you know lensing (gravitational or a la Fresnel) maybe you could "see" we're in the shadows of those. Also the Cosmic Microwave Background is rather uniform. Spacetime is quite totally smooth, there's no privileged beginning of time, and space goes on forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b56f2fbd-54cc-41ca-804d-71e357930957@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415779 |
On Monday, 18 June 2018 18:18:49 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:58:51 AM UTC-7, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > For some the infinite is too much, because of black sky. > > > > Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 23:28:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > > > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, > > If you know lensing (gravitational or a la Fresnel) > maybe you could "see" we're in the shadows of those. > > Also the Cosmic Microwave Background is rather uniform. > > Spacetime is quite totally smooth, there's no privileged > beginning of time, and space goes on forever. Firstly, we just don't know that: indeed, apparently you guys do not know the first thing about physics. But, secondly and most importantly, the universe of mathematics is in no way bound by the limits of the physical universe! Period. (Thinking that numbers are affected by the physical universe is another instance of a plain categorical error: abstract vs concrete to begin with.) HTH, Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52eb687c-e96f-4454-b7c5-42d35f38092a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415784 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Monday, 18 June 2018 18:18:49 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:58:51 AM UTC-7, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > For some the infinite is too much, because of black sky. > > > > > > Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 23:28:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > > > > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, > > > > If you know lensing (gravitational or a la Fresnel) > > maybe you could "see" we're in the shadows of those. > > > > Also the Cosmic Microwave Background is rather uniform. > > > > Spacetime is quite totally smooth, there's no privileged > > beginning of time, and space goes on forever. > > Firstly, we just don't know that: indeed, apparently you guys do not know > the first thing about physics. But, secondly and most importantly, the > universe of mathematics is in no way bound by the limits of the physical > universe! Period. (Thinking that numbers are affected by the physical > universe is another instance of a plain categorical error: abstract vs > concrete to begin with.) > > HTH, > > Julio Euh, some "strong Platonists" have that the consistency (or maintenance of causality and about conservation and symmetry in diversity and variety) of the mathematics and physics are same. This gets for example into "why 3-D" as a matter of conservation of numerical resources, about the continuum of things and about for example that "numbers" aren't just models of accessors but the equivalence classes of all the values. Mathematics _owes_ physics more proper systems explaining the discrete and continuous and infinities and infinitesimals (applied, in physics).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af535948-c21e-4d87-83bc-6625faad286b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415786 |
On Monday, 18 June 2018 19:07:41 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > On Monday, 18 June 2018 18:18:49 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:58:51 AM UTC-7, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > For some the infinite is too much, because of black sky. > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 23:28:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > > > > > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, > > > > > > If you know lensing (gravitational or a la Fresnel) > > > maybe you could "see" we're in the shadows of those. > > > > > > Also the Cosmic Microwave Background is rather uniform. > > > > > > Spacetime is quite totally smooth, there's no privileged > > > beginning of time, and space goes on forever. > > > > Firstly, we just don't know that: indeed, apparently you guys do not know > > the first thing about physics. But, secondly and most importantly, the > > universe of mathematics is in no way bound by the limits of the physical > > universe! Period. (Thinking that numbers are affected by the physical > > universe is another instance of a plain categorical error: abstract vs > > concrete to begin with.) > > > > HTH, > > Euh, some "strong Platonists" have that the > consistency (or maintenance of causality and > about conservation and symmetry in diversity > and variety) of the mathematics and physics > are same. Even in that case, you are talking of a level of discourse that is higher than both physics and mathematics. Ergo, YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN AND AS USUAL. > This gets for example into "why 3-D" as a > matter of conservation of numerical resources, > about the continuum of things and about for example > that "numbers" aren't just models of accessors but > the equivalence classes of all the values. > > Mathematics _owes_ physics more proper systems > explaining the discrete and continuous and > infinities and infinitesimals (applied, in > physics). A double mistake! - Mathematics needs nothing from physics, get that straight! The objects of (pure) mathematics are purely abstract, pure objects of thought, period. - As for physics, 1) note that *all* sciences use mathematics to a certain extent, so the pre-eminence of physics is already a hallucination, it's the fallacious pre-eminence of just what can be touched and the rest does not exist; OTOH, 2) this idea that mathematics has anything to say about physics is the same categorical error in the opposite direction: the as suggestive as immediately fallacious idea of "the mathematical universe"... Will you ever stop just blathering? Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2add5fa-a855-4572-8e5d-0bcacc119035@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415788 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:32:34 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Monday, 18 June 2018 19:07:41 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > > On Monday, 18 June 2018 18:18:49 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:58:51 AM UTC-7, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > For some the infinite is too much, because of black sky. > > > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 23:28:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > > > > > > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, > > > > > > > > If you know lensing (gravitational or a la Fresnel) > > > > maybe you could "see" we're in the shadows of those. > > > > > > > > Also the Cosmic Microwave Background is rather uniform. > > > > > > > > Spacetime is quite totally smooth, there's no privileged > > > > beginning of time, and space goes on forever. > > > > > > Firstly, we just don't know that: indeed, apparently you guys do not know > > > the first thing about physics. But, secondly and most importantly, the > > > universe of mathematics is in no way bound by the limits of the physical > > > universe! Period. (Thinking that numbers are affected by the physical > > > universe is another instance of a plain categorical error: abstract vs > > > concrete to begin with.) > > > > > > HTH, > > > > Euh, some "strong Platonists" have that the > > consistency (or maintenance of causality and > > about conservation and symmetry in diversity > > and variety) of the mathematics and physics > > are same. > > Even in that case, you are talking of a level of discourse that is higher than > both physics and mathematics. Ergo, YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN AND AS USUAL. > > > This gets for example into "why 3-D" as a > > matter of conservation of numerical resources, > > about the continuum of things and about for example > > that "numbers" aren't just models of accessors but > > the equivalence classes of all the values. > > > > Mathematics _owes_ physics more proper systems > > explaining the discrete and continuous and > > infinities and infinitesimals (applied, in > > physics). > > A double mistake! > > - Mathematics needs nothing from physics, get that straight! The objects of (pure) mathematics are purely abstract, pure objects of thought, period. > > - As for physics, 1) note that *all* sciences use mathematics to a certain > extent, so the pre-eminence of physics is already a hallucination, it's the > fallacious pre-eminence of just what can be touched and the rest does not > exist; OTOH, 2) this idea that mathematics has anything to say about physics > is the same categorical error in the opposite direction: the as suggestive as > immediately fallacious idea of "the mathematical universe"... > > Will you ever stop just blathering? > > Julio A "mathematical universe hypothesis" seems to be a feature of this "strong Platonism", if not necessarily a la Tegmark who coined a term. This is foundations and philosophical foundations I would agree. As for physics, the science, all the "hard sciences" are physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d6a9aeb-3298-4b58-b306-4552367be68d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415791 |
On Monday, 18 June 2018 19:38:54 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:32:34 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > On Monday, 18 June 2018 19:07:41 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > > > On Monday, 18 June 2018 18:18:49 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:58:51 AM UTC-7, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > For some the infinite is too much, because of black sky. > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 23:28:09 UTC+2 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > > > > > > > It's pretty well established that the finite doesn't suffice, > > > > > > > > > > If you know lensing (gravitational or a la Fresnel) > > > > > maybe you could "see" we're in the shadows of those. > > > > > > > > > > Also the Cosmic Microwave Background is rather uniform. > > > > > > > > > > Spacetime is quite totally smooth, there's no privileged > > > > > beginning of time, and space goes on forever. > > > > > > > > Firstly, we just don't know that: indeed, apparently you guys do not know > > > > the first thing about physics. But, secondly and most importantly, the > > > > universe of mathematics is in no way bound by the limits of the physical > > > > universe! Period. (Thinking that numbers are affected by the physical > > > > universe is another instance of a plain categorical error: abstract vs > > > > concrete to begin with.) > > > > > > > > HTH, > > > > > > Euh, some "strong Platonists" have that the > > > consistency (or maintenance of causality and > > > about conservation and symmetry in diversity > > > and variety) of the mathematics and physics > > > are same. > > > > Even in that case, you are talking of a level of discourse that is higher than > > both physics and mathematics. Ergo, YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN AND AS USUAL. > > > > > This gets for example into "why 3-D" as a > > > matter of conservation of numerical resources, > > > about the continuum of things and about for example > > > that "numbers" aren't just models of accessors but > > > the equivalence classes of all the values. > > > > > > Mathematics _owes_ physics more proper systems > > > explaining the discrete and continuous and > > > infinities and infinitesimals (applied, in > > > physics). > > > > A double mistake! > > > > - Mathematics needs nothing from physics, get that straight! The objects of (pure) mathematics are purely abstract, pure objects of thought, period. > > > > - As for physics, 1) note that *all* sciences use mathematics to a certain > > extent, so the pre-eminence of physics is already a hallucination, it's the > > fallacious pre-eminence of just what can be touched and the rest does not > > exist; OTOH, 2) this idea that mathematics has anything to say about physics > > is the same categorical error in the opposite direction: the as suggestive as > > immediately fallacious idea of "the mathematical universe"... > > > > Will you ever stop just blathering? > > A "mathematical universe hypothesis" seems > to be a feature of this "strong Platonism", > if not necessarily a la Tegmark who coined > a term. > > This is foundations and philosophical foundations > I would agree. It's foundations of mathematics on a side and of physics on the other. You just don't know what you are talking about when. > As for physics, the science, all the "hard sciences" > are physics. Scratch that too, it's not even wrong. You are welcome. *Plonk* Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 21:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pg4p5e$a4r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415636 |
On 6/16/2018 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote: > > Q: Is the universe infinite? > > Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? > > Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > Sci-Fi: _________________ If our universe is residing within a black hole that is contained within our parent universe, then it could be an infinite object. Say, our parent has many viable child universes contained in various hyper large black holes, and we are one of them... Well, that means our universe has children, and they have children, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and the child is _radically_ different. Lets say that there was no first star to create a black hole... Or, was there a single initial start that went Hyper HUGE BANG! _________________ Sorry... ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 01:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c1edf02-b413-4bc5-b239-a95a3f54510d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415670 |
What if at each distance we have some factal pattern, would the sky become black? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#/media/File:Olbers%27_Paradox.svg Am Sonntag, 17. Juni 2018 06:47:48 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 6/16/2018 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote: > > > > Q: Is the universe infinite? > > > > Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > > > Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? > > > > Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > > > Sci-Fi: > _________________ > If our universe is residing within a black hole that is contained within > our parent universe, then it could be an infinite object. > > Say, our parent has many viable child universes contained in various > hyper large black holes, and we are one of them... Well, that means our > universe has children, and they have children, and on and on. Time wrt > the parent and the child is _radically_ different. Lets say that there > was no first star to create a black hole... Or, was there a single > initial start that went Hyper HUGE BANG! > _________________ > > Sorry... ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pga10o$ujk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415757 |
On 6/18/2018 1:53 AM, bursejan@gmail.com wrote: > > What if at each distance we have some > factal pattern, would the sky become black? Humm... It do not think it would become black, or devoid of color if you will. Think of relating observation level to a zoom level. Observer A can see a lot of stars from his current point of view and device, however the voids that are seemingly black and lacking features suddenly become filled with other stars when one takes the time to zoom in and create a better apparatus.... ;^) Make any sense? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#/media/File:Olbers%27_Paradox.svg > > Am Sonntag, 17. Juni 2018 06:47:48 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 6/16/2018 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote: >>> >>> Q: Is the universe infinite? >>> >>> Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. >>> >>> Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? >>> >>> Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. >>> >> >> Sci-Fi: >> _________________ >> If our universe is residing within a black hole that is contained within >> our parent universe, then it could be an infinite object. >> >> Say, our parent has many viable child universes contained in various >> hyper large black holes, and we are one of them... Well, that means our >> universe has children, and they have children, and on and on. Time wrt >> the parent and the child is _radically_ different. Lets say that there >> was no first star to create a black hole... Or, was there a single >> initial start that went Hyper HUGE BANG! >> _________________ >> >> Sorry... ;^) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 04:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43a8bd84-5232-4ac6-a2e8-31f8d102a343@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415817 |
Should be possible to do something: "A different resolution, which does not rely on the Big Bang theory, was first proposed by Carl Charlier in 1908 and later rediscovered by Benoît Mandelbrot in 1974. They both postulated that if the stars in the universe were distributed in a hierarchical fractal cosmology (e.g., similar to Cantor dust)—the average density of any region diminishes as the region considered increases—it would not be necessary to rely on the Big Bang theory to explain Olbers' paradox. This model would not rule out a Big Bang, but would allow for a dark sky even if the Big Bang had not occurred." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#Fractal_star_distribution Am Dienstag, 19. Juni 2018 06:32:31 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 6/18/2018 1:53 AM, bursejan@gmail.com wrote: > > > > What if at each distance we have some > > factal pattern, would the sky become black? > > Humm... It do not think it would become black, or devoid of color if you > will. Think of relating observation level to a zoom level. Observer A > can see a lot of stars from his current point of view and device, > however the voids that are seemingly black and lacking features suddenly > become filled with other stars when one takes the time to zoom in and > create a better apparatus.... ;^) > > Make any sense? > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#/media/File:Olbers%27_Paradox.svg > > > > Am Sonntag, 17. Juni 2018 06:47:48 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > >> On 6/16/2018 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote: > >>> > >>> Q: Is the universe infinite? > >>> > >>> Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > >>> > >>> Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? > >>> > >>> Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > >>> > >> > >> Sci-Fi: > >> _________________ > >> If our universe is residing within a black hole that is contained within > >> our parent universe, then it could be an infinite object. > >> > >> Say, our parent has many viable child universes contained in various > >> hyper large black holes, and we are one of them... Well, that means our > >> universe has children, and they have children, and on and on. Time wrt > >> the parent and the child is _radically_ different. Lets say that there > >> was no first star to create a black hole... Or, was there a single > >> initial start that went Hyper HUGE BANG! > >> _________________ > >> > >> Sorry... ;^) > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 05:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88eb0714-b051-4abc-8438-cdf25bfd7adb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415824 |
Woa, fractal, multiverse and finite all in one: A new cosmological theory points to a smaller, simpler, finite universe Shortly before his death, Stephen Hawking left us his final legacy – a theory developed with physicist Thomas Hertog that tackles the problem of multiple, infinite universes. https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/129500_en.html > Should be possible to do something: > > "A different resolution, which does not rely on > the Big Bang theory, was first proposed by Carl > Charlier in 1908 and later rediscovered by Benoît > Mandelbrot in 1974. They both postulated that if > the stars in the universe were distributed in a > hierarchical fractal cosmology (e.g., similar to > Cantor dust)—the average density of any region > diminishes as the region considered increases—it > would not be necessary to rely on the Big Bang > theory to explain Olbers' paradox. This model would > not rule out a Big Bang, but would allow for a dark > sky even if the Big Bang had not occurred." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#Fractal_star_distribution > > Am Dienstag, 19. Juni 2018 06:32:31 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > > On 6/18/2018 1:53 AM, bursejan@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > What if at each distance we have some > > > factal pattern, would the sky become black? > > > > Humm... It do not think it would become black, or devoid of color if you > > will. Think of relating observation level to a zoom level. Observer A > > can see a lot of stars from his current point of view and device, > > however the voids that are seemingly black and lacking features suddenly > > become filled with other stars when one takes the time to zoom in and > > create a better apparatus.... ;^) > > > > Make any sense? > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#/media/File:Olbers%27_Paradox.svg > > > > > > Am Sonntag, 17. Juni 2018 06:47:48 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > > >> On 6/16/2018 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Q: Is the universe infinite? > > >>> > > >>> Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > >>> > > >>> Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? > > >>> > > >>> Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Sci-Fi: > > >> _________________ > > >> If our universe is residing within a black hole that is contained within > > >> our parent universe, then it could be an infinite object. > > >> > > >> Say, our parent has many viable child universes contained in various > > >> hyper large black holes, and we are one of them... Well, that means our > > >> universe has children, and they have children, and on and on. Time wrt > > >> the parent and the child is _radically_ different. Lets say that there > > >> was no first star to create a black hole... Or, was there a single > > >> initial start that went Hyper HUGE BANG! > > >> _________________ > > >> > > >> Sorry... ;^) > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-23 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pgmcoo$9as$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415825 |
On 6/19/2018 5:12 AM, bursejan@gmail.com wrote: > Woa, fractal, multiverse and finite all in one: > > A new cosmological theory points to a > smaller, simpler, finite universe Sci-fi again, sorry: ________________ There just might be an infinite amount of finite universes holding hands in the cosmic n-ary tree? Child nodes have a branch to their parent nodes. ________________ Wrt observation level, well, how good are your eyes? An observer with 20/20 vision can see much more fine grain detail that a person that just got lemon juice squirted into their eyes, or another person with terrible vision. Ahhh... Lets take the person with terrible vision... Okay, they cannot see that much detail, then they expose their eyes to prescription glasses. Argh! Now they have close to 20/20 and the world comes to life in vibrant detail and color. The person that had trouble seeing, uses a better device and now can see things that were previously "invisible" to them. This sure seems similar to us on Earth peering into previous voids, and not seeing shi%. Then, we put on our "glasses" and all of a sudden, we can see a shi% load of new galaxies in the void! > > Shortly before his death, Stephen Hawking left us > his final legacy – a theory developed with physicist > Thomas Hertog that tackles the problem of multiple, > infinite universes. > https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/129500_en.html > >> Should be possible to do something: >> >> "A different resolution, which does not rely on >> the Big Bang theory, was first proposed by Carl >> Charlier in 1908 and later rediscovered by Benoît >> Mandelbrot in 1974. They both postulated that if >> the stars in the universe were distributed in a >> hierarchical fractal cosmology (e.g., similar to >> Cantor dust)—the average density of any region >> diminishes as the region considered increases—it >> would not be necessary to rely on the Big Bang >> theory to explain Olbers' paradox. This model would >> not rule out a Big Bang, but would allow for a dark >> sky even if the Big Bang had not occurred." >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#Fractal_star_distribution >> >> Am Dienstag, 19. Juni 2018 06:32:31 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 6/18/2018 1:53 AM, bursejan@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> What if at each distance we have some >>>> factal pattern, would the sky become black? >>> >>> Humm... It do not think it would become black, or devoid of color if you >>> will. Think of relating observation level to a zoom level. Observer A >>> can see a lot of stars from his current point of view and device, >>> however the voids that are seemingly black and lacking features suddenly >>> become filled with other stars when one takes the time to zoom in and >>> create a better apparatus.... ;^) >>> >>> Make any sense? >>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#/media/File:Olbers%27_Paradox.svg >>>> >>>> Am Sonntag, 17. Juni 2018 06:47:48 UTC+2 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>> On 6/16/2018 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Q: Is the universe infinite? >>>>>> >>>>>> Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? >>>>>> >>>>>> Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sci-Fi: >>>>> _________________ >>>>> If our universe is residing within a black hole that is contained within >>>>> our parent universe, then it could be an infinite object. >>>>> >>>>> Say, our parent has many viable child universes contained in various >>>>> hyper large black holes, and we are one of them... Well, that means our >>>>> universe has children, and they have children, and on and on. Time wrt >>>>> the parent and the child is _radically_ different. Lets say that there >>>>> was no first star to create a black hole... Or, was there a single >>>>> initial start that went Hyper HUGE BANG! >>>>> _________________ >>>>> >>>>> Sorry... ;^) >>>> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-22 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pgk3rv$7hs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415824 |
On 6/19/2018 4:42 AM, bursejan@gmail.com wrote: > Should be possible to do something: > > "A different resolution, which does not rely on > the Big Bang theory, was first proposed by Carl > Charlier in 1908 and later rediscovered by Benoît > Mandelbrot in 1974. They both postulated that if > the stars in the universe were distributed in a > hierarchical fractal cosmology (e.g., similar to > Cantor dust)—the average density of any region > diminishes as the region considered increases—it > would not be necessary to rely on the Big Bang > theory to explain Olbers' paradox. This model would > not rule out a Big Bang, but would allow for a dark > sky even if the Big Bang had not occurred." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox#Fractal_star_distribution [...] It makes sense that the voids contain other stars. We just have to zoom in with better and better devices!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 22:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pgfcfv$b0f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415670 |
On 6/16/2018 9:47 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/16/2018 12:08 PM, David Petry wrote: >> >> Q: Is the universe infinite? >> >> Scientist: That question lies outside the purview of science. >> Science deals with what can be observed and experimentally tested. >> That question of whether the universe is infinite or not is best dealt >> with by philosophy or theology, if it is dealt with at all. >> >> Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? >> >> Concrete Mathematician: That question lies outside the purview of >> concrete mathematics. Concrete mathematics deals with what can be >> observed and experimentally tested (the experiments in concrete >> mathematics will be computational experiments). That question of >> whether the mathematical universe is actually infinite or merely >> potentially infinite is best dealt with by philosophy or theology, if >> it is dealt with at all. >> > > Sci-Fi: > _________________ > If our universe is residing within a black hole that is contained within > our parent universe, then it could be an infinite object. > > Say, our parent has many viable child universes contained in various > hyper large black holes, and we are one of them... Well, that means our > universe has children, and they have children, and on and on. Time wrt > the parent and the child is _radically_ different. Lets say that there > was no first star to create a black hole... Or, was there a single > initial start that went Hyper HUGE BANG! > _________________ To follow up with the total sci-fi angle... Some children of a parent universe might not produce child universes of their own, even though they grow interesting structures. Say a child universe created in a black hole does not have quite what it "takes" to create offspring of its own... Well, shi% happens. So, a universe tries to create a very large amount of children to try and overcome this issue, and keep its branch in the tree alive! within our parent universe, a special type of star went bang. We exist within the black hole, and grow! The "boundary" of our universe wrt observing from the inside out, is an infinite very fractal like event horizon! Perhaps, unfortunately, we are forever contained within. Points in the set do not escape the set... ;^o Sci-fi end... > > Sorry... ;^) ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 03:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d3dde97-f493-42f5-b8fa-73c33778f427@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415636 |
Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 21:08:55 UTC+2 schrieb David Petry: > Q: Is the universe infinite? Irrelevant for uncountability. All rational spatio-temporal instances are countable. > > Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? Mathematics is restricted to what can be described such that mathematicians can understand and think and talk about it. That restricts the set of thought-objects including mathematical ones to less than 10^50 on earth and to less than 10^80 in the accessible universe. These objects include delusional constructs like devils, angels, the flying spaghetti-monster and actually infinite sets. In true mathematics we use limits of potentially infinite sequences but nothing actually infinite. There is not the least application of transfinity anywhere. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 04:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <464a9f85-0fa2-48ed-8c34-a4f49d49c523@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415671 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 6:45:10 AM UTC-4, WM wrote: > Am Samstag, 16. Juni 2018 21:08:55 UTC+2 schrieb David Petry: > > Q: Is the universe infinite? > > Irrelevant for uncountability. All rational spatio-temporal instances are countable. > > > > Q: Is the mathematical universe infinite? > > Mathematics is restricted to what can be described such that mathematicians can understand and think and talk about it. That restricts the set of thought-objects including mathematical ones to less than 10^50 on earth and to less than 10^80 in the accessible universe. These objects include delusional constructs like devils, angels, the flying spaghetti-monster and actually infinite sets. > Again, the abstraction of an infinite set (e.g. the set of natural numbers) is the basis for mathematics as we know it, which in turn, is the basis for most if not all of modern science and technology. Whether or not the physical universe is infinite, this abstraction seems to be extremely useful in modelling physical reality. > In true mathematics we use limits of potentially infinite sequences but nothing actually infinite. There is not the least application of transfinity anywhere. > The notions of "potentially" or "actually" infinite sets are irrelevant in modern mathematics. Recall that we are STILL waiting for you to provide us with even a single example of an important proof in real analysis, algebra or number theory that requires these outdated notions. Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web