kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Trying thinking of the surface area of a water droplet when you heat it up. Does it expand into the surrounding atmosphere (the air) or, nothing?
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
the air. ooo...that hit it outta the ballpark, let me tell you. My entire world view is shattered to lil itty bitty bits by that amazing analogy. <yawn>
Wrong analogy. What's the problem, can you not grasp the balloon example? In fact, the balloon, while a very nice analogy, is still two-dimensional, so it should be easier to grasp than the space-time question.
All of your examples still demonstrate you are thinking of nothing as something. What is worse, you are insisting that it is you who has the real grasp of the picture. Are you sure you are actually trying to figure this out? Or are you actually trying to keep from figuring it out? I am genuinely curious.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,334
Actually, infinite is the definition of not having a limit. Now, in math, you do try to find out if there is a finite limit as some variable goes to infinity, or if the "limit" is infinity, which is to say, unlimited.
And, as has been long realized by physicists, if the universe, regardless of size, is infinitely old, it should long since be clogged with infinitely bright light everywhere.
While observing something moving with respect to something else is sufficient to demonstrate time exists, is it required in order for time to exist? In a forest with no trees nor anything else, is time still ticking?
Within a hypothetically sealed universe, yes. But this matter and energy had to come from somewhere, didn't it? Something had to re-order it so it could re-distribute statistically via entropy. Or create it highly ordered ex nihilo.
Again, is the presense of stuff required for the existence of time? I don't think so.
Sure you can. There's an entire mathematical branch dedicated to "transfinite numbers", which are cardinal numbers, if unknown, that represent the magnitude of various infinite sets, such as the set of whole numbers (which is the same size as the integers and rational numbers), and the set of real numbers (which is infinitely larger, i.e. there is no way to map counting numbers to it) and so on.
These transfinite numbers are analyzed with respect to cardinality and ordinality.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Just try to answer the following questions:
Consider the suface of a balloon. Does it have an edge?
Think about what happens to the two-dimensional surface as the balloon expands. Does it expand into a surrounding two-dimensional surface?
No, all he's doing is putting "a skin" over the problem, to conceal it.
Hey, I'm willing to concede that we're living in a sort of Matrix, are you? In fact, this would give more credence to what you're saying, wouldn't it?
No, actually it stretches (gets thinner) to accomodate the expansion of the inside and the "diminishment" of the outside (volume) it is expanding into.
You are still thinking three-dimensionally. The problem is two-dimensional. This is why you are not seeing it.
Exactly true. But it is a complex number. And remember that the set of real numbers is a subset of complex numbers. Same way that the set of integers is a subset of real numbers.
I think Dr. Kitten said it much better and more precisely than I did, that while all operations are not defined for every number in the set of real numbers that doesn't mean they are not real numbers.
I would consider
1 * x = x
as doing nothing.
Your wording there is a bit wrong (sets of "x"). I think you see what I mean by that after you read ahead.
True and true. You are mixing here the concept of a number and a set.
Null set would be A = {}
While set which contains the real number 0 is B = {0} (Yes I'm still considering 0 as a number
)Absence of numbers is a null set which is completely different concept than 0.
Edit:
This just occured to me:
I think you can argue wether 0 is a natural number. I think mathematicians are not in an agreement wheter it is.
Set of natural numbers N = {1, 2, 3,...} Or N = {0, 1 ,2,...} depending on your view. Maybe you've heard about this argument and you are confusing things a bit. Set of natural numbers is a subset of integers. And 0 is in that set. There's no argument about that among mathematicians (I think).
Last edited:
Of course if we put it in this (holographic) "light" -- hmm ... -- God doesn't have to be any bigger than a man and, maybe He is Jesus Christ?Hey, I'm willing to concede that we're living in a sort of Matrix, are you? In fact, this would give more credence to what you're saying, wouldn't it?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, forget about what is inside or outside the balloon; we're not talking about that. For the purposes of the analogy we're only concerned with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon.
Does it have an edge?
When the balloon expands, does its two-dimensional surface expand into a surrounding two-dimensional surface?
Answer the first question, and then think about the implications of that answer as far as the second question is concerned.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Mojo,
isn't this fun...having to explain yourself in two threads at once TO THE SAME FRICKING GUY?
Lothian
should be banned
How long before Iacchus asks who is blowing up the balloon ?
The God of the Universe ...
The God of the Universe, if in fact there is one, must be pragmatic, in every single last detail or, this is what the Universe leads us to conclude. Perhaps this is why it's such a mystery, and we can't see Him, because His works are so practical and, "stand alone?" And yet, aren't these the very same attributes we would apply to the "Good Programmer?"
The God of the Universe, if in fact there is one, must be pragmatic, in every single last detail or, this is what the Universe leads us to conclude. Perhaps this is why it's such a mystery, and we can't see Him, because His works are so practical and, "stand alone?" And yet, aren't these the very same attributes we would apply to the "Good Programmer?"
Aphrodite? ...
bagtaggar
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 377
Perhaps this has been mentioned here, perhaps not, but it's something I brought up in another thread:
Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south pole. It's the wrong question to ask.
The Universe has a shape in spacetime, one that flares outward due to inflation. That shape ends at a singularity, a point at the "bottom" or beginning. If you think of it in terms of the sphere analogy with a north and south pole, and the longitudinal lines represent time, we exist on the surface of the sphere, as 2 dimensional beings.
It makes no sense to think of a causal relationship between some creator initiating the first "southness" of the sphere which preceded a movement north, much in the same way that it makes no sense to think about a creator initiating the begining or "beginingness" of the Universe. It's simply the border of the shape.
We don't quite know much if anything about the exterior construct this Universe 'rests' inside. Some physicists speculate that the Big Bang was actually the product of a collision between two multidimensional membranes.
Either way, talking about a creator before the Big Bang is as silly as talking about a creator south of the south pole. It's just the wrong way to look at it.
Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south pole. It's the wrong question to ask.
The Universe has a shape in spacetime, one that flares outward due to inflation. That shape ends at a singularity, a point at the "bottom" or beginning. If you think of it in terms of the sphere analogy with a north and south pole, and the longitudinal lines represent time, we exist on the surface of the sphere, as 2 dimensional beings.
It makes no sense to think of a causal relationship between some creator initiating the first "southness" of the sphere which preceded a movement north, much in the same way that it makes no sense to think about a creator initiating the begining or "beginingness" of the Universe. It's simply the border of the shape.
We don't quite know much if anything about the exterior construct this Universe 'rests' inside. Some physicists speculate that the Big Bang was actually the product of a collision between two multidimensional membranes.
Either way, talking about a creator before the Big Bang is as silly as talking about a creator south of the south pole. It's just the wrong way to look at it.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Excellent analogy.
Really, I always thought that was Space ... The Final Frontier.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
How is space south of the south pole?Really, I always thought that was, Space ... The Final Frontier.