The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Matthew Ellard]

Is it that easy though?

Yes it is that easy

If the Universe was finite wouldn't the starlight bounce upon its limit

The universe does not have a limit nor an edge. It is curved. In addition, you claimed light needs an energy input to maintain velocity. It doesn't. It goes forever.

You mentioned in the past that the singularity caused all dimensions

No. I said the big bang created dimensions and time. You denied time existed to allow the universe to expand. Remember that?

which somehow is expanding into "a non-dimensional nothingness"

The universe is not expanding into anything. It is creating its own dimensions. That is why there is no centre of the universe.

Shape of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

 

[Pixel42]

An infinite universe cannot be expanding from one big bang event. The universe is finite.

The point I was making was that the argument you quoted against the universe being infinite was negated by the discovery that the universe is expanding. That discovery does, as you say, bring other arguments against the universe being infinite into play.

Homogeneous cosmic background radiation defines its size.

The size of the observable universe, yes. We don't if there is anything beyond the observable universe. An infinite multiverse consisting of multiple finite universes like ours remains a possibility. I'm referring to level 1 of Tegmark's four levels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

[dann]

Why do you think that there is only one multiverse?!

 

[Pixel42]

Why do you think that there is only one multiverse?!

Because any number of multiverses = a single, bigger, multiverse.

 

[abaddon]

You rushed to conclusions, I was about to get ready to catch some z's, I have an early start tomorrow; then I said why leave something for tomorrow that I should probably do today, sure enough you posted your statement.

Perhaps you haven't been following, but the administrators delete the whole page for whatever they consider as characterization remarks; to avoid having my whole page deleted I ask you to please refrain from those.

A) It is not deleted.

B) "Addressing the argument not the arguer" is exactly what is happening here. That you don't like that is your problem. Nobody else's.

 

[abaddon]

The size of the observable universe, yes. We don't if there is anything beyond the observable universe.

Fascinating question, isn't it? Assuming the 13.8 billion years of our local universe, we can only see/detect out to a range of 13.8 billion light years. Taking expansion into account, that extends to approx. 47 billion light years. What exists just a little further than that? More? Nothing? The Restaurant at the end of the Universe?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The size of the observable universe, yes. We don't if there is anything beyond the observable universe. An infinite multiverse consisting of multiple finite universes like ours remains a possibility.

We don't really have to worry if there is a multiverse or even space pixies existing outside the observable universe, unless that is a requirement of a hypothesis or meets some sort of observed evidence. Obviously under Brane theory or string theory there may be 21, 11 or other actual dimensions. Multiverse is another theory in progress.

My simple aim, in this thread, is to establish what is observed in the current universe, so that tazanastazio is forced to show how his "infinities of infinities religion" theory explains it, as he claims he is using science.

Currently, tazanastazio claims photons need a continuous input of energy to maintain speed. He also claims there is no such thing as time and thus doesn't believe in velocity anyway, as velocity is a function including time. I simply can't get him to answer any direct question about his claims and he simply swaps from "God is infinite" to avoid answering questions.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

So let's get back to a skeptical and scientific rebuttal of tananatazio's posted claims.

Firstly, tananatazio made a clear claim that he used calculus to prove his "Infinities of infinities religion and did so by incorporating words

"CALCULUS PROVES INFINITY, I SIMPLY APPLIED IT TO EXISTENCE, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND MATTER NON OF WHICH COULD SPRING OUT OF AN ABSOLUTE NOTHING AND NOWHERE, AND FORM/EVOLVE FROM ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN FROM WITHIN THE INFINITE."

When asked to show us his actual calculations, tazanastazio simply ignored the question and then posted the equation for approximating velocity of an object in a linear path at any particular point in time.

𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0

Time does not exist

As this formula requires the input of time, and cannot introduce words into the equation, it is impossible that tazanastazio used this equation.

I directly ask tazanastazio again

1) Can you show us your calculation of "infinities of infinities" using calculus or not.

2) If not, is it reasonable for skeptics to assume you never did this?

 

[tazanastazio]

My simple aim, in this thread, is to establish what is observed in the current universe, so that tazanastazio is forced to show how his "infinities of infinities religion" theory explains it, as he claims he is using science.

Currently, tazanastazio claims photons need a continuous input of energy to maintain speed. He also claims there is no such thing as time and thus doesn't believe in velocity anyway, as velocity is a function including time. I simply can't get him to answer any direct question about his claims and he simply swaps from "God is infinite" to avoid answering questions.

So let's get back to a skeptical and scientific rebuttal of tazanastazio's posted claims.

Firstly, tazanastazio made a clear claim that he used calculus to prove his "Infinities of infinities religion and did so by incorporating words

"CALCULUS PROVES INFINITY, I SIMPLY APPLIED IT TO EXISTENCE, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY AND MATTER NON OF WHICH COULD SPRING OUT OF AN ABSOLUTE NOTHING AND NOWHERE, AND FORM/EVOLVE FROM ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN FROM WITHIN THE INFINITE."

When asked to show us his actual calculations, tazanastazio simply ignored the question and then posted the equation for approximating velocity of an object in a linear path at any particular point in time.

𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0

Time does not exist.

As this formula requires the input of time, and cannot introduce words into the equation, it is impossible that tazanastazio used this equation.

I directly ask tazanastazio again

1) Can you show us your calculation of "infinities of infinities" using calculus or not.

2) If not, is it reasonable for skeptics to assume you never did this?

..............

At first, Matthew Ellard's post seemed "Marry-Go-Roundy." But in further consideration and to be objective and honest with ourselves, a question merits a direct, clear and as precise an answer as possible.

Let us ALL be objective therefore:

Mathew asked for me to provide the equations I used in calculus that prove the philosophy of Infinitism ("the infinite infinities" within the Infinite), and to show how I applied such an equation and extended and extrapolated the idea to "words", concepts I would say, such as "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."

First of all when I say "infinite infinities" I mean infinitely unapproachable/unreachable/incalculable quantities as far as a finite, actual or even artificial intelligence, would ever be able to calculate. In addition when I refer to infinite infinities within the Infinite, I also refer to some infinitely unapproachable/unreachable/incalculable point inwards the infinite microcosm, in which matter is dispersed in its totality and it is completely and utterly transformed to energy. When I refer to the Infinite I also refer to the extension of the aforementioned infinities outwards the infinite macrocosm.

Second there is a plethora of such equations in calculus, but even one admissible would prove my point.

Therefore let's see if the equation used in calculus to approximate with as great a precision as possible the instantaneous velocity of an object at time t -> 0, should be admissible.

Mathew asked me directly; and by that I take it he asks me to provide a clear proof; a precise answer on how I used a calculus equation to prove the philosophy of "infinite infinities." My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used to provide an approximate/unreachable quantity, not a precise calculation of instantaneous velocity; which deems instantaneous velocity in itself an "infinity" within the Infinite; and the aforementioned equation uses an additional approximated/unreachable quantity, time t -> 0; which is another example of an "infinity" within the Infinite.

Matthew then questions my use of an equation that includes the quantity of "time" since I claimed that time does not exist. I take the question one step further; why did I also use the term "velocity" in the same equation? Does "velocity"/"speed with specified direction" exist? No, The only things that do actually exist that would in fact be described in the equation mentioned above, are "an Object, Movement, and Points of Reference.

Additionally in similar calculus equations that approximately/imprecisely calculate unreachable quantities (infinite infinities); what actually exists that would be described in those equations, is change to matter exposed in certain conditions, and the dilation/shrinkage/alteration of the fabric of space (particles that comprise space and void) due to gravity.

From the above, I conclude, that while we could never be able to use calculus to approximate the total population of animal species in the galaxy, or in a cluster of galaxies; or in the Universe, or cluster of universes; or within the Infinite; because we will never have the required data available for such a calculation; we can use calculus to approximate the population of Earth in a variety of reference points of time in the future. With that fact in mind, we could conclude that given specific data, we could calculate the population of living human-like species within a star system.

Also, light is energy and as such it does not travel on each own; it is instead passed on, transferred, absorbed, altered and further transferred (light/photons in my opinion is/are transferred/generated from particle to particle ).

Energy cannot be created or destroyed (1st Law of Thermodynamics), it alternates to matter and vice versa. What cannot be created or destroyed, can be nothing but infinite. It takes matter to use energy or transfer energy to form matter/create other form of matter; and it takes intelligence to design/set the process going. If you have infinite matter and infinite energy, and an infinity of processes set to have them alternating from one to another; in an extend an infinite process; there must be an infinite intelligence that has set the infinite processes/infinite process.

This is how I applied an equation of calculus out of the plethora of them (and the corresponding calculus graph of the equation with the tangent line that represents instantaneous velocity; along with chemistry and physics); this is how I used calculus and I extended/extrapolated it, to "words"/concepts to prove the existence of the Infinite.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Your OP is an apparently endless screed of bare assertions. I read as much as I could stand, but my eyes started to glaze over. Please quote the specific parts of your text in which you answer my points.
I am not bad-mouthing logic and reason. I assumed you were conversant with such things as Intelligent Design, in which religious believers attempt to use specious logic to prove the existence of their particular god, because they don't have any actual physical evidence. Obviously, I was wrong to assume you had this kind of knowledge.
However, as you have neither physical, empirical, experimental evidence, nor any kind of logical backing for your claims, it is safe to assume they are not worth consideration.
Feel free to take time off from your personal grudge-match with Matthew Ellard any time you like, and respond.

Got those quotes yet?

 

[tazanastazio]

Got those quotes yet?

I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:

Now you simply invent some numbers to make your already-settled conclusion look more like science. If you disagree, do please share how you arrived at these percentages.

A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet...

D) allows only for one/two possibilities:

1) The Universe was always there.
2) The Universe is infinite.

See Hawking's theory about that.

..........

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:

I scratch of choice "C) I don't know", because that choice automatically nullifies completely my chances to get the correct answer.

I scratched off choice D) initially because it was nullified by Hawking, and because in essence it is the same with choice A), depending how you see it; the Universe was always there as part of the infinite in one form or another; such as a singularity, or was formed by particles and it exists within the Infinite); Since choice D) is in essence the same with choice A), it is nullified in itself since it reads: "D) None of the above, something else happened."

I could allocate an equal amount of 50% to the other two answers, that's why I said at least 30-40%. Now based simply on the fact that from nothing, nothing happens, but we do have a Universe after all, I would take all the points from choice B), and allocate them to choice A), giving it at least 70 - 80%; but I personally would give that choice 100% based on all the considerations I have referred to so far in this thread.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Mathew asked for me to provide the equations I used in calculus that prove the philosophy of Infinitism ("the infinite infinities" within the Infinite), and to show how I applied such an equation and extended and extrapolated the idea to "words", concepts I would say, such as "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."

Yes. I have asked you five times and you refuse to do this and back up "the maths" you claimed proves your religion.

First of all when I say "infinite infinities" I mean infinitely unapproachable/unreachable/incalculable quantities as far as a finite, actual or even artificial intelligence, would ever be able to calculate.

That cannot be expressed as an equation and has nothing to do with calculus.

Try again.

Second there is a plethora of such equations in calculus.

No, There are no such equations in calculus. That's why economics uses statistics and economic formulas to determine saturation points and so on.

Try again

Therefore let's see if the equation used in calculus to approximate with as great a precision as possible the instantaneous velocity of an object at time t -> 0, should be admissible.

No. The equation you provided requires the input of time, which you deny exists, and approximates the velocity of an object in a straight line. It has nothing to do with "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."

My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used.

No you didn't.

Show us how you incorporated "existence" into the formula and introduced a zero value for time (which would cause the equation to divide by zero and become nonsensical)

It is clear to everyone reading this thread that you never used any form of calculus at all and that you simply pretended to had used mathematics.

As your entire religious claim is predicated on your use of calculus and that didn't happen skeptics and readers can fully dismiss your religious claim.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Let us be objective therefore:

Yes. Let us use objective mathematics. In a set of all possible things (infinite set of everything), that set would include "There is no god" and "There is a god"

Your "infinite of infinities" set simply negates itself and cannot be proof of anything as any conclusion is a non sequitur

Didn't you realise that until now?

 

[Steve]

I do so love threads like this. There is almost a mathematical precision to how the color, size and bolding of fonts increases along with the craziness of the posts.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used.

One very crazy part is that the above formula is used to approximate the momentum of a particle at one point on a line. It is a calculation leading towards Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in that you cannot know the exact location and momentum of a particle at the same time.

tazanastazio claims he somehow integrated the words "existence", "energy", "intelligence" and "matter."somewhere into the formula but can't say how.

Does that mean tazanastazio is claiming we can know the location of "intelligence" but not its velocity?

Where does he get his "infinities of infinities" solution from using this equation?

It is a very crazy claim and it is obvious he just picked a random formula from the internet.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:

Now you simply invent some numbers to make your already-settled conclusion look more like science. If you disagree, do please share how you arrived at these percentages.

..........

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:

I scratch of choice "C) I don't know", because that choice automatically nullifies completely my chances to get the correct answer.

No it does not, and I have already said why:

No, it doesn't. 'I don't know' is the start of the journey, not the end. Admitting you don't know something, as well as a useful exercise in humility, helps to define the area in need of further research or exploration.

Next:

I scratched off choice D) initially because it was nullified by Hawking, and because in essence it is the same with choice A), depending how you see it; the Universe was always there as part of the infinite in one form or another; such as a singularity, or was formed by particles and it exists within the Infinite); Since choice D) is in essence the same with choice A), it is nullified in itself since it reads: "D) None of the above, something else happened."

Again, I have already answered this:

No, it wouldn't. It would lead us to consider other options, alternative explanations, different perspectives, plus again leading to the idea that one doesn't know everything.

Did you actually read my post?

I could allocate an equal amount of 50% to the other two answers, that's why I said at least 30-40%. Now based simply on the fact that from nothing, nothing happens

That is not a fact, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you in this thread.

but we do have a Universe after all, I would take all the points from choice B), and allocate them to choice A), giving it at least 70 - 80%; but I personally would give that choice 100% based on all the considerations I have referred to so far in this thread.

So, as an answer to my point that you have simply made up numbers to make your prior conclusion sound more like actual science, you proceed to make up yet more numbers, which contradict your earlier made-up numbers.

How is this helping your argument? Do you think that actual science is done this way?

As I said before, in the post you either did not read or did not process:

And again you repeat your earlier error. You claim the universe must have a cause whilst maintaining that 'the Infinite' does not need one, without any justification at all.
Your appeal to 'reason' and 'a good bet' is just you stroking your own ego and trying to get us to go along with it.
Not going to happen, I'm afraid, at least not without more support that 'tazanastazio says so'.

Now, about those quotes you were going to provide from your OP, proving the existence of 'the Infinite': do you have them yet?

 

[Craig4]

I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:







..........

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:

I scratch of choice "C) I don't know", because that choice automatically nullifies completely my chances to get the correct answer.

I scratched off choice D) initially because it was nullified by Hawking, and because in essence it is the same with choice A), depending how you see it; the Universe was always there as part of the infinite in one form or another; such as a singularity, or was formed by particles and it exists within the Infinite); Since choice D) is in essence the same with choice A), it is nullified in itself since it reads: "D) None of the above, something else happened."

I could allocate an equal amount of 50% to the other two answers, that's why I said at least 30-40%. Now based simply on the fact that from nothing, nothing happens, but we do have a Universe after all, I would take all the points from choice B), and allocate them to choice A), giving it at least 70 - 80%; but I personally would give that choice 100% based on all the considerations I have referred to so far in this thread.

The fact that you are going through this exercise means that you don't know. Your tortured logic would not be required if you did know.

 

[Agatha]

I'll start with this statement, since it was clearer to me:
A) Something caused the cause of the Universe.
B) Nothing caused the cause of the Universe.
C) I don't know.
D) None of the above, something else happened.

One of the above must be correct, logic does not allow for a 5th possibility.

Choice C) "The I don't know" option, nullifies any chance for you to get it right.
Choice D) May be correct, but since we cannot think of what else it could be, propability would probably lead us to pick one of the other two choices; perhaps A and B choice share say 30-40% chance to be correct.
Choice B) gets us closer to say 30-40% correct, but given that there is a Universe, and everything else as far as we can see or think of, was caused by something else (even if an immediate factor was arbitrarily involved in between), choice A) sounds way more reasonable or at least a good bet...

D) allows only for one/two possibilities:

1) The Universe was always there.
2) The Universe is infinite.

See Hawking's theory about that.

If I was to allocate 100 points to the above choices, I would go about like this:
[snip pointless blethering]

You are still making the assumption - for which you have not shown any evidence - that the universe had a cause, and that that cause had a cause.

Saying that choice D is the same as choice A, when it is absolutely not the same, is fallacious. Eliminating "I don't know" because you don't like that answer is both fallacious and foolish. We don't always know the answers.

Substituting your own personal fantasy of a renamed god of the gaps is fallacious, foolish and false.

 

[tazanastazio]

Substituting your own personal fantasy of a renamed god of the gaps is fallacious, foolish and false.

I have not heard of this religion before, the "God of Gaps" you keep referring to. I'll look for it in the internet and see what common ideas there may be, as you claim, between the philosophy of that religion and my philosophic concept - Infinitism/The Philosophy of the Infinite; and I'll get back to you. For now I'll say what I have already said in my original post: the Infinite has no gaps.

Quoting from the original:

"The Infinite has no shape or size; no beginning or end; no limits and no gaps. "Nothing", "time" and "distance" do not exist for the Infinite; as it encompasses every unit, every stage, every existence and every concept. When humanity refers to the idea of "God", what other concept should have such characteristics attributed to, by humanity, other than the Infinite? Any other traditional god/superior intelligence/existence/being/entity concept would have evolved from the Infinite and would be finite. Every form of existence; every intelligence, energy and matter, form/evolve from the Infinite and de-form/dissolve into the Infinite...
..........
Infinite minute particles; perhaps spherical (no other shape would provide for better combinations to form matter, and no other shape of matter would provide for better fluidity within the infinite than the spherical), bring about every action and reaction, and all phenomena within the Infinite; such as matter, energy and intelligence; along with gravity, light and sound.

If "nothing" did exist, if even infinitely minute space of nothing truly existed, there would be no Infinite; since there would be limits/borders within it. Which means that the only seemingly infinite, had beginnings and endings. Yet existence, or particles and objects forming everything within the Infinite cannot form/evolve out of nothing. Therefore, nothing cannot exist at all and definitely cannot extend beyond the Infinite, for the Infinite to exist, and for everything else to exist within the Infinite. Yet, if "nothing" does not exists, what then explains space for fluidity within the Infinite? Could there be an Infinite Nothing within an Infinite Everything, how could that be possible when the existence of the one, would nullify the existence of the other? Surely there always has to be something for something else to form from, and there always has to be something for something else to be de-formed ( destroyed, be disposed of) into.

The concept of "nothing" simply serves the purpose for humanity to describe the invisible and the non-existing from humanity's perspective. Nothing is not a necessity for fluidity within the Infinite, since simply put, infinite matter turns to infinite energy and vice versa. Even any conceptual nothing is included within the Infinite and fails infinitely in comparison. A (0) simply denotes the separation of any line between two points, a negative and a positive side; yet any such side of any such line can further be divided to infinity. A person may wonder how large or how small something can really get? Infinitely large and infinitely small, as far as humans could ever not just measure, but conceive! For an object to actually become infinitely small, every particle, to the infinite minute ones as far as we humans can imagine, has to be discarded; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself. For an object to become infinitely large, it has to acquire all the energy and matter within the Infinite and become the Infinite Itself. A shape too is an object, since even a drawing on a piece of paper is drawn actually with three dimensional particles which comprise the surface of the paint/ink, on three dimensional particles which form the surface of the paper."

 

[Matthew Ellard]

"Nothing", "time" and "distance" do not exist for the Infinite

You keep contradicting your own words. Yesterday, you claimed you used this formula to prove your "Infinities of infinities" which specifically requires the input of time as a factor. Tell us what the "t" in the formula represents as an input?

My precise answer is that I used the equation 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0.→0, to prove that that equation is used.

As your religious claim is self contradicting, you should simply say "I made a mistake and will go away and try again another time".