Actual infinity and Cantor's paradox

[Certainly real]

I think the point is that there is no such thing as "outside the universe" especially since we agree that the universe is 3D infinite.

I am using the label 'universe' to find common ground with regards to that semantic that I call 'Existence' and you call 'universe'. I want it to be clear and not lost in discussion that the universe that originated from the Big Bang (the one that our scientists describe), cannot be that semantic we are discussing. Hence why I choose to say Existence/Universe (with a capital U) is at least 3D infinite. I cannot conceive of it being more than 3D. But I also do not conceive that it is absurd for it to be more than 3D in the same way that I conceive it to be absurd for something to be both round and square at the same time. Hence why I say, at least.

In any case, you didn't answer my question:

For you to be able to conceive of something as being limited, you must be able to conceive of a less limited version of it, do you not?

The answer is relevant to the point I'm trying to prove with regards to distinguishing between that which is truly infinite (completely unbound or unlimited), and that which is partially unbound or unlimited.

[MagsJ]

I think the point is that there is no such thing as "outside the universe" especially since we agree that the universe is 3D infinite.

I do not think that the two, are mutually exclusive.

[obsrvr524]

I think the point is that there is no such thing as "outside the universe" especially since we agree that the universe is 3D infinite.

I do not think that the two, are mutually exclusive.

So you think that there is something beyond infinitely far away? How can you get past infinite without just finding more infinite? Infinite has no end to get past.

[MagsJ]

I think the point is that there is no such thing as "outside the universe" especially since we agree that the universe is 3D infinite.

I do not think that the two, are mutually exclusive.

So you think that there is something beyond infinitely far away? How can you get past infinite without just finding more infinite? Infinite has no end to get past.

I guess you missed my post.. it was quite elaborate, where I said that Space and the Universe are not one and the same, but that the Universe is simply occupying a part of Space. If the Universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old, then that scenario makes sense, rather than saying there was nothing before.. which is an impossibility, so that just leaves the question.. how did Space come to be?

This:
“Ultimately, this means that we could only reach the edge of the observable universe if we develop a method of transport that allows us to either 1) Travel faster than the speed of light (something which most physicists think is impossible) 2) Transcend spacetime (by using wormholes or warp drive, which most physicists also think is impossible).”
Is hilarious..

[obsrvr524]

I guess you missed my post.. it was quite elaborate, where I said that Space and the Universe are not one and the same, but that the Universe is simply occupying a part of Space. If the Universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old, then that scenario makes sense, rather than saying there was nothing before.. which is an impossibility, so that just leaves the question.. how did Space come to be?

I think most people accept that "the universe" includes all space along with everything in it. But okay, you want to separate what we can see, the matter, and what we can't see, the relatively void space between.

And as to how the universe came to be - I have been utterly convinced that the universe has always been and will always be. Along with that is what I believe to be fact that there is no space that is not filled completely with some form of radiant energy or light - "no matter where you are in space, light comes into your eyes" so obviously light is there and everywhere else as well. No matter how far beyond a supposed confined universe you traveled you would be able to look back and see it. So again obviously you are still immersed in light.

And I imagine that if anyone could get to the proposed "edge" of the observable universe they would see almost the exact same thing as before they ventured there - there is no edge - only a limit to how far you can see. The supposed edge would merely move just as far away as it was before you started.

This:
“Ultimately, this means that we could only reach the edge of the observable universe if we develop a method of transport that allows us to either 1) Travel faster than the speed of light (something which most physicists think is impossible) 2) Transcend spacetime (by using wormholes or warp drive, which most physicists also think is impossible).”
Is hilarious..

Yes I saw that too. I forgave it because it said "observable universe". And I believe that both 1 and 2 are impossible.

[MagsJ]

I guess you missed my post.. it was quite elaborate, where I said that Space and the Universe are not one and the same, but that the Universe is simply occupying a part of Space. If the Universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old, then that scenario makes sense, rather than saying there was nothing before.. which is an impossibility, so that just leaves the question.. how did Space come to be?

I think most people accept that "the universe" includes all space along with everything in it. But okay, you want to separate what we can see, the matter, and what we can't see, the relatively void space between.

The Universe expanded into the space it now occupies, so that space was in existence prior to that event.

And as to how the universe came to be - I have been utterly convinced that the universe has always been and will always be. Along with that is what I believe to be fact that there is no space that is not filled completely with some form of radiant energy or light - "no matter where you are in space, light comes into your eyes" so obviously light is there and everywhere else as well. No matter how far beyond a supposed confined universe you traveled you would be able to look back and see it. So again obviously you are still immersed in light.

Isn’t that dependent on known scientific knowledge though, on the nature of light and distance etc?

And I imagine that if anyone could get to the proposed "edge" of the observable universe they would see almost the exact same thing as before they ventured there - there is no edge - only a limit to how far you can see. The supposed edge would merely move just as far away as it was before you started.

Is that because you support the notion that the Universe is infinite? because only then would your proposition hold any weight.

This:
“Ultimately, this means that we could only reach the edge of the observable universe if we develop a method of transport that allows us to either 1) Travel faster than the speed of light (something which most physicists think is impossible) 2) Transcend spacetime (by using wormholes or warp drive, which most physicists also think is impossible).”
Is hilarious..

Yes I saw that too. I forgave it because it said "observable universe". And I believe that both 1 and 2 are impossible.

I think that 2 is more of a possibility than 1.. CERN said that it was a possibility, and the back-story to CERN is a very interesting one indeed. The kind of intrigue, that floats my boat.

[Ecmandu]

Thought is the fastest thing in existence. You can leap to alternate realities that aren’t even billions of light years away... but an infinite number of light years away in a fraction of a second.

The argument is that everything is constrained by light, including neurons. We are so much more than neurons.

I’ve stated this before on the boards...

E=MC^2 is one of the greatest hoaxes in existence.

This is how you separate the sheep from the thinkers in existence: how exactly do you square the fastest speed? Duh? It’s impossible. The formula is literally impossible. Lots of people think they’re so smart, but they can’t see a basic thing like this: monkey see, monkey do.

[MagsJ]

_
Should I reply, by authority.. from my rack.

[obsrvr524]

The Universe expanded into the space it now occupies, so that space was in existence prior to that event.

I don't believe the universe ever "expanded" at all. It has always been infinite and always will be (thank James for my opinion on that ).

And as to how the universe came to be - I have been utterly convinced that the universe has always been and will always be. Along with that is what I believe to be fact that there is no space that is not filled completely with some form of radiant energy or light - "no matter where you are in space, light comes into your eyes" so obviously light is there and everywhere else as well. No matter how far beyond a supposed confined universe you traveled you would be able to look back and see it. So again obviously you are still immersed in light.

Isn’t that dependent on known scientific knowledge though, on the nature of light and distance etc?

Can you link me to the scientific experimental data that shows that through 1000s of independently verified trials involving a beginning of a universe and its expansion that our universe most likely developed that same way? I don't think so.

I think science has little to do with it. And I have read the arguments for and against the idea of an expanding universe theory. The expansionists seem to have jumped to a political/religious conclusion without uncontested evidence. And that is even without James' explanation of why the universe has always been 3D infinite. Add James into it and I can't believe anyone could ever rationally argue about it again - there can never be a "totally empty space".

And I imagine that if anyone could get to the proposed "edge" of the observable universe they would see almost the exact same thing as before they ventured there - there is no edge - only a limit to how far you can see. The supposed edge would merely move just as far away as it was before you started.

Is that because you support the notion that the Universe is infinite?

Yes - for the reasons above.

This:
“Ultimately, this means that we could only reach the edge of the observable universe if we develop a method of transport that allows us to either 1) Travel faster than the speed of light (something which most physicists think is impossible) 2) Transcend spacetime (by using wormholes or warp drive, which most physicists also think is impossible).”
Is hilarious..

Yes I saw that too. I forgave it because it said "observable universe". And I believe that both 1 and 2 are impossible.

I think that 2 is more of a possibility than 1.. CERN said that it was a possibility, and the back-story to CERN is a very interesting one indeed. The kind of intrigue, that floats my boat.

I wouldn't want your boat to sink or your bubble to burst so I will leave you with your fantasy.

[MagsJ]

The Universe expanded into the space it now occupies, so that space was in existence prior to that event.

I don't believe the universe ever "expanded" at all. It has always been infinite and always will be (thank James for my opinion on that ).

I am not referring to a big bang, but that our Universe is noted to be expanding outwards.. I am not claiming that there was a big bang, but that shouldn’t stop galaxies moving away from each other, due to... forces etc.

I think what is infinite is the space our Universe occupies, and stars (and planets) are continually created and spent within it, as has been observed.

And as to how the universe came to be - I have been utterly convinced that the universe has always been and will always be. Along with that is what I believe to be fact that there is no space that is not filled completely with some form of radiant energy or light - "no matter where you are in space, light comes into your eyes" so obviously light is there and everywhere else as well. No matter how far beyond a supposed confined universe you traveled you would be able to look back and see it. So again obviously you are still immersed in light.

Isn’t that dependent on known scientific knowledge though, on the nature of light and distance etc?

Can you link me to the scientific experimental data that shows that through 1000s of independently verified trials involving a beginning of a universe and its expansion that our universe most likely developed that same way? I don't think so.

Well.. we can see in a night’s sky, so I’m not disputing that space lacks light, as light would be travelling/being emitted all around our Universe.. like one big light-fest. I thought you meant bright light, so no need for me to answer the above.

I think science has little to do with it. And I have read the arguments for and against the idea of an expanding universe theory. The expansionists seem to have jumped to a political/religious conclusion without uncontested evidence. And that is even without James' explanation of why the universe has always been 3D infinite. Add James into it and I can't believe anyone could ever rationally argue about it again - there can never be a "totally empty space".

I reached this point regarding this situation, with Urwrong, a year or so ago.. I do not subscribe to the big bang theory (never have.. even at school.. well, it was just a theory), which left the Plasma theory of matter always having existed, and therefore creating our galactical-Universe and all that lies beyond.. be it more of our galactical-Universe, or something else. This I have previously stated.

And I imagine that if anyone could get to the proposed "edge" of the observable universe they would see almost the exact same thing as before they ventured there - there is no edge - only a limit to how far you can see. The supposed edge would merely move just as far away as it was before you started.

Is that because you support the notion that the Universe is infinite?

Yes - for the reasons above.

..because you think our Universe and Space are one and the same, so all existing matter equating to a/the only Universe? I’m defining the Universe as formed objects, not everything else. I see where we define the concept of the Universe differently now.

This:
“Ultimately, this means that we could only reach the edge of the observable universe if we develop a method of transport that allows us to either 1) Travel faster than the speed of light (something which most physicists think is impossible) 2) Transcend spacetime (by using wormholes or warp drive, which most physicists also think is impossible).”
Is hilarious..

Yes I saw that too. I forgave it because it said "observable universe". And I believe that both 1 and 2 are impossible.

I think that 2 is more of a possibility than 1.. CERN said that it was a possibility, and the back-story to CERN is a very interesting one indeed. The kind of intrigue, that floats my boat.

obsrvr524 said: I wouldn't want your boat to sink or your bubble to burst so I will leave you with your fantasy.

We’ve invented and discovered so much/the unthinkable in 100 years, so 2 may very well come to pass too.

[obsrvr524]

I don't believe the universe ever "expanded" at all. It has always been infinite and always will be (thank James for my opinion on that ).

I am not referring to a big bang, but that our Universe is noted to be expanding outwards.. I am not claiming that there was a big bang, but that shouldn’t stop galaxies moving away from each other, due to... forces etc.

I think what is infinite is the space our Universe occupies, and stars (and planets) are continually created and spent within it, as has been observed.

Ok but are you still saying that if we traveled out far enough there would be nothing but emptiness?

I don't see how there could be a single ball of forming and dissolving matter within an infinite void unless there was a big bang of some kind that started it. How do we get from infinite scope to only a finite amount of matter? I think if we accept that the universe has no bounds, is 3D infinite, we also have to accept that throughout that infinite scope there is infinite matter being formed and dissolved. So no matter how far away we traveled, we would see basically see the same thing - infinitely just more of the same.

Just from some debating I read many years ago on a different board the appearance of expansion came down to an increasing amount of dark matter or energy due to all of the radiantions from stars in our area and that causes the light to slow and turn more red. So from one year to the next it would appear as though stars are moving away from us as well as away from each other. The argument had been that the entire universe was suffering heat death and would eventually dissolve into just dark energy. But that argument has been shot down along with the big bang.

I don't really care what is true about it all. I just want to get a narrative that is truly coherent with all of the observations and thinking. James helped a lot with that - especially as to why the universe exists in the first place and what "God the Creator" really means.

I reached this point regarding this situation, with Urwrong, a year or so ago.. I do not subscribe to the big bang theory (never have.. even at school.. well, it was just a theory), which left the Plasma theory of matter always having existed, and therefore creating our galactical-Universe and all that lies beyond.. be it more of our galactical-Universe, or something else. This I have previously stated.

I think that answered my first question - there can never be a vast nothingness far far away but instead just more of the same - infinitely.

James went through some complicated maths about that and determined that eventually out there we would find another MagsJ who is thinking the exact same thing you are and having this exact same discussion. But they might reach a different end.

We’ve invented and discovered so much/the unthinkable in 100 years, so 2 may very well come to pass too.

I am sure there is a limit to what can be invented. Knowledge of prior ignorance makes a poor prophet.

[MagsJ]

I don't believe the universe ever "expanded" at all. It has always been infinite and always will be (thank James for my opinion on that ).

I am not referring to a big bang, but that our Universe is noted to be expanding outwards.. I am not claiming that there was a big bang, but that shouldn’t stop galaxies moving away from each other, due to... forces etc.

I think what is infinite is the space our Universe occupies, and stars (and planets) are continually created and spent within it, as has been observed.

Ok but are you still saying that if we traveled out far enough there would be nothing but emptiness?

I don't see how there could be a single ball of forming and dissolving matter within an infinite void unless there was a big bang of some kind that started it. How do we get from infinite scope to only a finite amount of matter? I think if we accept that the universe has no bounds, is 3D infinite, we also have to accept that throughout that infinite scope there is infinite matter being formed and dissolved. So no matter how far away we traveled, we would see basically see the same thing - infinitely just more of the same.

Just from some debating I read many years ago on a different board the appearance of expansion came down to an increasing amount of dark matter or energy due to all of the radiantions from stars in our area and that causes the light to slow and turn more red. So from one year to the next it would appear as though stars are moving away from us as well as away from each other. The argument had been that the entire universe was suffering heat death and would eventually dissolve into just dark energy. But that argument has been shot down along with the big bang.

I don't really care what is true about it all. I just want to get a narrative that is truly coherent with all of the observations and thinking. James helped a lot with that - especially as to why the universe exists in the first place and what "God the Creator" really means.

I reached this point regarding this situation, with Urwrong, a year or so ago.. I do not subscribe to the big bang theory (never have.. even at school.. well, it was just a theory), which left the Plasma theory of matter always having existed, and therefore creating our galactical-Universe and all that lies beyond.. be it more of our galactical-Universe, or something else. This I have previously stated.

I think that answered my first question - there can never be a vast nothingness far far away but instead just more of the same - infinitely.

James went through some complicated maths about that and determined that eventually out there we would find another MagsJ who is thinking the exact same thing you are and having this exact same discussion. But they might reach a different end.

We’ve invented and discovered so much/the unthinkable in 100 years, so 2 may very well come to pass too.

I am sure there is a limit to what can be invented. Knowledge of prior ignorance makes a poor prophet.

Inventing and finding, are two different things..

I guess I have yet to find my narrative, on what we have discussed thus far..

[obsrvr524]

I guess I have yet to find my narrative, on what we have discussed thus far..

Is that like a sophisticated way of saying - "I really don't know what the hell I have been talking about"?

[MagsJ]

I guess I have yet to find my narrative, on what we have discussed thus far..

Is that like a sophisticated way of saying - "I really don't know what the hell I have been talking about"?

The opposite, in-fact.. I know what I’ve been talking about.

For me, more of the same Space, does not equate to more of Our Universe within the entirety of Space.. apart from a continuity of the matter that Space is.. regardless of the discounting of red shift and the big bang. Not a paradox.

[MagsJ]

Dp