The Agnostic Thread

[Riao]

Turned 17 a few weeks ago

Just ... Cannot .... I mean .... how can....

Wait let me rephrase .....


DUDE!!!!

[WalrusesRN]

Turned 17 a few weeks ago

Just ... Cannot .... I mean .... how can....

Wait let me rephrase .....


DUDE!!!!

I'll take it your NOT a teenager then Riao?

[Jehan]

I'd just like to say to Ambrose re: the coin toss/infinity answer. You are starting to win me round slightly - I believe you are right, I suppose, to correct me that each of the unlikely possible outcomes could occur give an infinite number of tosses. By extension of your logical argument there could indeed (and must in fact) be gods of all shapes and sizes existing, somewhere in the infinite universe. I do not accept this though. Although the universe is infinite, I do not believe that matter is infinite within the universe. I prefer to subscribe to the "expanding balloon" model. In which case the universe we know expanded from a single point and time and space do not exist beyond the sphere of the balloon. Therein lies the problem - man finds the infinite nature of the universe so impossible to comprehend that at the edges all logic breaks down.

i said i wouldn't join in but this is far and away my favourite contemplation in physics, dimensions and the edge of the universe and such, i have so many questions that will probably be never answered that its ridiculous, i also subscribe to a expanding balloon type universe, although i would like to know why the expansion is accelerating , i was also thinking about dimensions expanding and such from the point of the big bang where they would have been infinitely curved to form this point of infinite density, the universe has no reason to have infinite mass, only that it came from a point of zero volume which makes sense since no spatial dimensions existed therefore you only have a point. but really, if the expansion of the universe comes down to dimensions expending then what's to say we would notice the expansion at all, if time slows down or speeds up its of no consequence to us at all, we would not notice since we are defined by time, likewise if the dimensions expand or contract is there any way we could measure this? i mean the rulers we use would expand or contract by the same amount so here's the question, how is the universe in expanded form any different from the universe in point form, lets take the hypothetical situation that there was a ruler in the point before the big bang, the big bang occurs the dimensions expand, but a person observing the ruler would have no way of telling that the universe is expanding since everything expands with it, so the situation for the observer hasn't really changed at all if the expansion is a result of expanding dimensions, unless of course matter and light are effected differently by those dimensions. So this leads me to consider how the universe expands and whether it expands into an already expanded space-time, obviously from the previous discussion if the expansion is due to the expanding dimensions we cant notice the expansion at all, so i was thinking that somehow the dimensions already exist and that the matter expands into it, but my argument is then flawed since i can only explain a point of infinite density by having the dimensions start off unexpanded, or infinitely curved, so the question remains does the universe expand due to dimensions expanding, or does it expand into already existing dimensions, and then you can consider the question of what is at the edge of the universe, if the universe is bounded by the limits of the dimensions then we should expect there to be literally nothing at all outside the universe and all that we can observe would exist inside its bounds, but then if the universe is expanding into pre-existing dimensions then one could theorise that something could exist there and the boundaries of the universe are the light sphere of the big bang.

also walrus you need to study limits, we use them to try and work with numbers that aren't defined.
And heavycola, i agree with applying occams razor to what comes before the big bang only if what lies before the big bang has no observable effect on what comes after, can we be sure of this? i mean if the big bang is explained by something that existed before the singularity expanded, then maybe some sort of quantum theory of gravity could explain the events before it.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I have to leave again until about 1 in the morning, but I have time to respond just to this:

I'm just going to let most of this stuff go over my head and learn about it later, but you say yourself that some schools of mathematics treat 0*infinity as 0 and others as undefined. So the basis of your argument hinges on an entirely different mathematical debate, no?

No, it doesn't. 1/0 is still infinity and 1/infinity is still 0. You won't find any school of mathematics which argues that.

But you can't treat infinite like you would a normal number - algebra isn't designed to deal with it. Calculus, on the other hand, is. Which means that 1/infinity can equal zero even though infinity*0 doesn't equal 1.

To prove that 1/infinity = zero, we can apply calculus in the same way we did for the 1/0. We will apply a "limit at infinity."

Look at the graph of 1/x again.



Now check out the x axis in quadrant I. As x gets very big, y gets very small, and very close to zero. Therefore, as x approaches infinity, y approaches zero.

In terms of equations, we get this: (again, forgive me, home-made)



Which simplifies to this:



Just like the one on the previous page, it's proven by Calculus.

Anyways, gotta run, see y'all later.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Just a note, more graphics added.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Ya im Agnostic to

[Riao]

I'll take it your NOT a teenager then Riao?

No. I haven't been for quite a while.

Now check out the x axis in quadrant I. As x gets very big, y gets very small, and very close to zero. Therefore, as x approaches infinity, y approaches zero.

But if x is infinite, y will never actually reach zero. So doesn't this actually show that 1/infinity /= 0? Perhaps I just can't wrap my head around this. (I've been struggling to figure out the concept of dividing any number into an infinite number. It just doesn't make sense to me. But then I didn't take calculus).

[Jehan]

i'm not sure it could make straight sense, the human mind can't comprehend infinity, so it shouldn't be able to comprehend a manipulation of infinity, or a process which results in infinity, but his graph does show what he is talking about, the strict definition of this limit would be that we can make y as small as we want, by making x sufficiently large, which translates to the limit as x approaches infinity is zero, likewise we can make y as small as we want, by taking x sufficiently close to zero, it comes down to the delta epsilon definition of limits, we're not talking about algebraically being zero, we're talking about calculus and limits, even though i just said all that i still can't really comprehend this, i just know that its the case.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I'll take it your NOT a teenager then Riao?

No. I haven't been for quite a while.

Now check out the x axis in quadrant I. As x gets very big, y gets very small, and very close to zero. Therefore, as x approaches infinity, y approaches zero.

But if x is infinite, y will never actually reach zero. So doesn't this actually show that 1/infinity /= 0? Perhaps I just can't wrap my head around this. (I've been struggling to figure out the concept of dividing any number into an infinite number. It just doesn't make sense to me. But then I didn't take calculus).

y will never reach zero, but then, x will never reach infinity. Because... infinity doesn't exist!

infinity = does not exist

You will NEVER find an x-value great enough to make the y-value zero! NEVER! Because no matter what number you pick, there will always be another number that is bigger. Because... infinity is a logical (and mathematical) fallacy!

[Neutrino]

But if you're an atheist, you MUST believe that it DID happen, and that something DID break through your barrier. Otherwise, you'd have a hard time explaining where matter came from.

And besides, who are we to be setting laws for other universes? There's no way you can even begin to prove that universes don't interact somehow. And, given that there are infinite of them, I don't see why some of them couldn't. Remember, infinite includes ANYTHING you can ever possibly imagine. (My proof for why there must be an infinite amount of universes, presuming there is no God, come from my post about where everything came from).

But then again, we must remember that infinite is a logical fallacy.

Actually, it isn't. It is anything you can imagine, under the constraints of applicable rules. The only reason the Coin-Flower example works is Quantum Theory (Everything is unpredictable on small scales, but tends to become more predictable the larger it gets, but never fully shakes off the unpredictability and so will occassionally do something really odd) As Walrus said, it is not unfesable that there is a barrier seperating the various universes and so no unpredictability will allow one universe to influence another (with the exception, maybe, of gravity).

all matter for the universe was created from a single point of matter, infinitely dense

What make you say this? Matter before the Big Bang couldn't be infinitely dense because there wasn't an infinite amount of it. It may have been confined to an infinitely small space, but to the best of my understanding this still dosen't make a finite amount of matter infinite.

There's a major flaw in the argument that energy has always existed simply because of the second law of thermodynamics.

What makes you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics has always existed?

Just to lend credence to Flashleg's argument: as long as there are fewer than 2 particles in a universe, no time and/or space is possible, for what is space but a measure of the distance of these two particles from eachother and what is time but a way of sorting a list of possible configurations for the particles? If the universe existed with nothing but energy in it for an infinite amount of time (even tough there was none), eventually something, whether pure chance or outside influence caused two particles to be created and so space and time were created.

To who it may concern (I can't be bothered to find the appropriate post/s): What would make you think that infinity/infinity = 0/1? To the best of my knowledge (I like that phrase ) infinity/ infinity = infinity. If you had infinitely many things and you gave them to infinitely many people, each person still gets infinitely many things. Once something becomes infinity, you can't un-infinitorise it, not matter how hard you try.

I only hope that my home made and only partly understood theories made sence to the rest of you

[Jehan]

well for your infinity on infinity problem you would have to use limits and l'hopitals rule, it all depends on which infinity got there first, so to speak, though i am assuming the infinity you are discussing is the product of some function or the result of a process. i agree with you on your ideas of time and space but that leads to my question which i posted in that horrendously long post before, which came down to is the singularity at the start a result of a lack of spatial dimensions and if so by what process do these expand. and does there "expansion" or "contraction" produce any noticeable change? i put expansion in commas cos i'm thinking its ridiculous to think of a dimension as expanding, since expansion itself is defined by dimensions.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Actually, it isn't. It is anything you can imagine, under the constraints of applicable rules.

This I'll answer with your own words:

What makes you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics has always existed?

Applicable rules are flexible, if we're under the presumption that multiple universes exist.

What make you say this? Matter before the Big Bang couldn't be infinitely dense because there wasn't an infinite amount of it. It may have been confined to an infinitely small space, but to the best of my understanding this still dosen't make a finite amount of matter infinite.

Of course, even this argument collapses on itself because infinite doesn't exist. And I don't believe anyone here subscribes to the idea that matter is infinite anyawys.

What would make you think that infinity/infinity = 0/1? To the best of my knowledge (I like that phrase ) infinity/ infinity = infinity.

infinity / infinity is undefined. Not zero, not one, not infinity, just undefined. But like Jehan said, if you're using infinity as a "mathematical construct" (in heavycola's words) in a derivative problem, then there are methods (most notably l'hopital's rule) to determine what infinity / infinity equals. In such problems, the answer can be anything: 0, 1, 3/4, 7, 8, 9.143, infinity, you name it. For our purposes, it's best just to call it undefined.

[Jehan]

how bout this, think of infinity as a never ending process rather then a destination one can reach, this way you avoid the stickiness of trying to think of how infinity interacts algebraically with other infinities, when you think of a problem involving infinities the infinity is not the key issue, but rather how the number became infinity.

[Neutrino]

Actually, it isn't. It is anything you can imagine, under the constraints of applicable rules.

This I'll answer with your own words:

What makes you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics has always existed?

Applicable rules are flexible, if we're under the presumption that multiple universes exist.

Hmm, probably should have thought before I typed that
Anyway, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is purely a local law; it dosen't have any effect beyond this universe and can probably be broken, or at least circumvented in areas which it does control. The hypothetical barrier, however, would not be.

Of course, even this argument collapses on itself because infinite doesn't exist. And I don't believe anyone here subscribes to the idea that matter is infinite anyawys.

How can god exist if infinity is impossible?

The only reason infinity seems so impossible to everyone is that our homonid forebrains were designed to cope with open savannah and not complex mathamatics

infinity / infinity is undefined. Not zero, not one, not infinity, just undefined. But like Jehan said, if you're using infinity as a "mathematical construct" (in heavycola's words) in a derivative problem, then there are methods (most notably l'hopital's rule) to determine what infinity / infinity equals. In such problems, the answer can be anything: 0, 1, 3/4, 7, 8, 9.143, infinity, you name it. For our purposes, it's best just to call it undefined.

To me, infinity / infinity = infinity seems like the most logical answer to me. If infinity x infinity = infinity, then why should / be any different?

Infinity is much like 1 in that respect, oddly.

[flashleg8]

all matter for the universe was created from a single point of matter, infinitely dense

What make you say this? Matter before the Big Bang couldn't be infinitely dense because there wasn't an infinite amount of it. It may have been confined to an infinitely small space, but to the best of my understanding this still dosen't make a finite amount of matter infinite.

Yes, you're right to correct me. I was mistaken here.

[Jehan]

wait why? density equals mass/volume, if volume equals zero then wouldn't it be infinite? if something is a point its volume is zero.

[Neutrino]

wait why? density equals mass/volume, if volume equals zero then wouldn't it be infinite? if something is a point its volume is zero.

But density is basically atoms per (insert unit of measurment here)3

If something were of infinite density, then it would need an infinite number of atoms in an infinitely small space. ('infinitely small' dosen't equal 0, anyway, it's just very, very close)

[flashleg8]

wait why? density equals mass/volume, if volume equals zero then wouldn't it be infinite? if something is a point its volume is zero.

Hmm, I'll try and check this. I'm really not sure now(!)

[Jehan]

if you have a singularity i was under the impression its volume is zero, and since anything positive/0 is infinity, the density is infinity.

[Neutrino]

if you have a singularity i was under the impression its volume is zero, and since anything positive/0 is infinity, the density is infinity.

But a singularity's volume isn't 0. If it were, it would make it rather difficult for anything to enter it, because it would also be required to have a volume of 0 and therefore any infalling matter would also become a Black Hole in it's final moments and the event horison would be ringing constantly.

[Jehan]

if you have a singularity i was under the impression its volume is zero, and since anything positive/0 is infinity, the density is infinity.

But a singularity's volume isn't 0. If it were, it would make it rather difficult for anything to enter it, because it would also be required to have a volume of 0 and therefore any infalling matter would also become a Black Hole in it's final moments and the event horison would be ringing constantly.

i thought we were talking about the singularity at the beginning of time, where the volume was in fact zero, well according to general relativity, which is the theory i am assuming we are working with since its the one which predicts singularities.

[Neutrino]

if you have a singularity i was under the impression its volume is zero, and since anything positive/0 is infinity, the density is infinity.

But a singularity's volume isn't 0. If it were, it would make it rather difficult for anything to enter it, because it would also be required to have a volume of 0 and therefore any infalling matter would also become a Black Hole in it's final moments and the event horison would be ringing constantly.

i thought we were talking about the singularity at the beginning of time, where the volume was in fact zero, well according to general relativity, which is the theory i am assuming we are working with since its the one which predicts singularities.

Ahh, I thought you were speaking of Black Hole type singlualities.

Still, infinitely smallness dosen't actually refer to the object (or space) in question being zero, just incredibly close to it.

[Jehan]

really? cos i'm working with the theory of the big bang singularity being all that was before dimensions were around, no dimensions suggests point of zero volume.

[Neutrino]

really? cos i'm working with the theory of the big bang singularity being all that was before dimensions were around, no dimensions suggests point of zero volume.

Hmmm, true...

I think the infinite smallness of the early universe made something also infinite, but I don't think it was density, because that would also have required an infinite amount of mass.

[Jehan]

no, just zero volume, and like a said, if there are no dimensions, or they are still infinitely curved along with the other 7 dimensions(M theory) then there can be no volume, so density is infinite.