It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Infinity is illogical

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Astyanax
Are you really going to start that claim again considering you ran away the last time I tried to debate that with you? Apparently. Though I would accept a "as far as we know" to the beginning of your rather silly statement.

I don't run away from debates.

Your basic contention is always the same - to sum it up, it is that we don't know everything, therefore anything is possible. Well, I don't accept that. We may not know everything, but we do know quite a lot; and one of the things we know is that not everything is possible. Two ordinary material objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, for example, and this remains true no matter how many dimensions you decide spacetime must have.

I'm not saying infinity is illogical, by the way - merely that it is a concept, not an empirical reality. As you know, I am a materialist.

Take this to a more interesting level and then we'll see about a debate. How about showing us an infinite natural quantity?




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus mills
You're implying that infinity is somehow invalid because it is not physically manifested... yet you are arguing for the validity of a finite definition of Pi according to its description of a two dimensional object, which in themselves are not physically manifested. Using your own logic, there is no such thing as a circle in nature, because nothing in nature exists in two dimensions...

If this is an objection, then simply consider that Pi is also the ratio of the volume of a sphere (a three-dimensional object) to the cube of its radius.

A better argument might be the simple fact that perfect circles (or spheres) probably don't exist in nature anyway. At any rate, I don't suppose anybody's ever seen one. But it doesn't matter: let Pi be purely conceptual, just like infinity (see above). This conceptual Pi - conceived of as the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a Platonic, ideal circle - is still a finite quantity.

See, it's quite simple. If Pi were infinite, then its value would obviously be greater than any number we can conceive of. And it isn't. It' a value between 3.1 and 3.2.


Therefore the concept of a circle is invalid, and by regress, any concept such as Pi that tries to finitely define it is also invalid.

This is a regressive argument that terminates in the conclusion that all concepts are invalid. I choose - on excellent evidence - not to believe that.


Either infinity is just as valid as Pi, or neither are valid (according to your own logic).

As you've seen now, that does not follow. But in any case (again, see above) I am not arguing that infinity is an invalid concept. My education was scientific, and I know how useful the concept of infinity is in mathematics and things like classical optics. I am merely arguing that There are no infinite quantities in nature.


Could you please explain how you know this?

It's a truism in the physical sciences. Nothing of infinite dimension, of infinite energy, infinite mass, infinite momentum, etc, etc, has ever been observed. In some cases it's obvious that such things can't exist - infinite energy would consume the universe, infinite gravitation would condense it to a point, and so on. Infinite space doesn't seem so impossible, but I suspect that if space truly were infinite, then the establishment of local spatial relationships - that of the furniture in your bedroom, for example - would involve the privileging of frames of reference, which Special Relativity does not permit. However, that's an argument that shades over into the philosophical, and one I have little taste for.


Physical manifestation is not necessarily the only representation of truth.

Oh, I think it is. But then, I regard thought as a physical manifestion. I mean - isn't it?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tobiascore
I disagee about the processing capibilities.

So do I, for the reasons you gave. Moreover, if the 'real world' as perceived by humans required infinite processing capacity to simulate, then human brains would have to have infinite processing capacity. Which they don't, of course.




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
This conceptual Pi - conceived of as the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a Platonic, ideal circle - is still a finite quantity.


When you find the point at which Pi's decimal terminates to provide a 100% degree accuracy, then you may have some evidence to support this claim. Let me know when you find it...



See, it's quite simple. If Pi were infinite, then its value would obviously be greater than any number we can conceive of. And it isn't. It' a value between 3.1 and 3.2.


This does nothing other than highlight the limitation of mathematics. Infinity transcends mathematics. On one hand you're claiming it's valid to have an infinitely recurring decimal, yet on the other hand you're claiming it can't in fact be infinite in value. It's just an example of mathematicians having a hard time accepting the fact that their chosen science can't solve everything. As you say yourself, you choose to believe it. It doesn't matter how 'excellent' you arbitrarily decide the evidence is, if it doesn't solve everything 100%, then it's ultimately useless. Once again, let me know when you've 'solved' Pi.

The term 'greater' is a relativistic term (i.e. only greater in relation to some other defined quantity that is 'smaller'). The mistake you're making is in trying to apply it to something that is non-relativistic (infinity). Infinity has no quantifiable value, therefore using a relativistic term that implicitly requires a definable quantity is absurd.



This is a regressive argument that terminates in the conclusion that all concepts are invalid.


Not necessarily. If the regression is infinite, then it simply leaves the validity of any concept indeterminate, i.e. no evidence either way.



It's a truism in the physical sciences.


Would that be the physical sciences that have in no way been proved to be 100% accurate yet?



Nothing of infinite dimension, of infinite energy, infinite mass, infinite momentum, etc, etc, has ever been observed.


So the lack of observance of something is proof positive that it doesn't exist? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.



In some cases it's obvious that such things can't exist - infinite energy would consume the universe


Not necessarily. What if the universe is infinite? We'd simply have a paradox on our hands (the old 'what happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object' argument). Scientists don't like paradoxes though do they? It's because they imply science can't solve everything.



...would involve the privileging of frames of reference, which Special Relativity does not permit.


Oh yes, that theory which has not yet been proven to be 100% accurate. You're drawing conclusions from something that has not yet been proven to be true according to your own science. Once again, doesn't sound very scientific to me.



Oh, I think it is. But then, I regard thought as a physical manifestion. I mean - isn't it?


Oops, looks like you contradicted yourself again. If thought is a physical manifestation, then the 'thought' of infinity is automatically physically manifested by your own logic! I'm thinking about it right now, so according to you I'm physically manifesting it. Yet, you attest that infinity is not physically manifested. So which is it? Is thought physical, or non-physical? Are my thoughts part of nature, or not?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus mills

Originally posted by Astyanax
Pi is a finite quantity.

When you find the point at which Pi's decimal terminates to provide a 100% degree accuracy, then you may have some evidence to support this claim. Let me know when you find it...

You are mistaken twice over. First, you are confusing 'infinite' with 'indefinite'.

No one, even in theory, can calculate the volume of Earth's oceans to the last millilitre. Yet we know that they contain a finite quantity of water.

Your second error is to imagine that Pi is even indefinite, let alone infinite, in value.


On one hand you're claiming it's valid to have an infinitely recurring decimal, yet on the other hand you're claiming it can't in fact be infinite in value.

Pi is not an infinitely recurring decimal. That would be something like 4.3333... No, Pi is an irrational number.

There is no such thing as an infinite number. Infinity is not a number.

Check out those links; they may help you understand better.


mathematicians having a hard time accepting the fact that their chosen science can't solve everything.

My dear friend, this has been accepted since around the time of Pythagoras. Indeed, it was the discovery of irrational numbers like Pi that first illustrated to mathematicians the descriptive limits of natural numbers. But the exemplar wasn't Pi; it was an even better-known irrational number, the square root of 2. Like Pi, this is a decimal that never comes to an end. According to your ideas of infinity, the square root of two should also be infinite. But if you construct a right-angled triangle whose opposed sides are of the same length, is the hypoteneuse of infinite length? There it is, right in front of you on the paper, as finite as can be. Measure it. Do you get an infinite value?

* * *



If the regression is infinite, then it simply leaves the validity of any concept indeterminate, i.e. no evidence either way.

I did not say the regression was infinite, merely that the argument was regressive. As it is. It regresses to the terminal proposition 'all propositions are invalid', thereby negating itself.


The lack of observance of something is proof positive that it doesn't exist? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

You are entitled to you opinion; but if something is not seen to exist, and if furthermore its existence is not required in order to explain something that is seen to exist, then it is a pretty good assumption that it doesn't exist.


What if the universe is infinite? We'd simply have a paradox on our hands. Scientists don't like paradoxes though do they? It's because they imply science can't solve everything.

Yes, well, the truth is that we do not have a paradox on our hands. There is no source of infinite energy seen in the universe and the universe is not seen to be infinite.

It sounds as if you don't like scientists. That's your privilege, but you have no right to spread libels about them. Scientists love paradoxes. They don't regard them as setting limits to what science can solve; they regard them as signposts to where new knowledge lies waiting to be found. Science isn't about hoarding knowledge like holy writ; it's about finding out new things. Scientists aren't motivated by what they already know, but by what they don't.



Special Relativity... has not yet been proven to be 100% accurate.

Please provide one instance in which the predictions of Special Relativity have proved inaccurate. If you can falsify SR, there's a Nobel in it for you.


Oops, looks like you contradicted yourself again. If thought is a physical manifestation, then the 'thought' of infinity is automatically physically manifested by your own logic... Is thought physical, or non-physical? Are my thoughts part of nature, or not?

Your thoughts are part of nature. Thoughts are manifested physically - as brain activity. Infinity is 'manifested physically' as a pattern of electrochemical activity inside your brain. Not an infinite pattern; just a pattern of impulses that occurs when you think about infinity. No contradiction whatsoever.


Once again, let me know when you've 'solved' Pi.

The meat of ignorance is ill seasoned with sarcasm, believe me.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



First, you are confusing 'infinite' with 'indefinite'.


Err, no I'm not. I'm not saying Pi when expressed as a number is infinite. I'm simply saying that you have no proof that it isn't.



Pi is not an infinitely recurring decimal.


Sorry yes, that was my mistake in terminology.



There is no such thing as an infinite number.


I'm already aware of that. Yet you seem to be using arguments to disprove infinity that assume that it is a number. 'There are no infinite quantities in nature'. Since 'quantity' necessitates 'value', then your argument is moot. You are right, only by virtue of the argument itself being invalid.



My dear friend, this has been accepted since around the time of Pythagoras.


Yet you seem loathe to admit that the ideas you hold as 'truisms' might in fact be utterly wrong.



According to your ideas of infinity


Which ideas would these be? I haven't really expressed my ideas about infinity at all. I've simply tried to highlight that those that are making absolute statements about what it is or isn't, or whether or not it exists, may in fact be wrong. Forgive me if it seems my posts have implied that I know something, that would simpy be a mistake in my use of language. I remain agnostic about such subjects.



There it is, right in front of you on the paper, as finite as can be. Measure it. Do you get an infinite value?


Since the accuracy of the measurement can be infinitely divisible, would it not be more logical to say that the value of the measurement is indeterminate? Any assigning of an actual value will only be an arbitrary one based on an acceptance of an accuracy boundary.



I did not say the regression was infinite


I didn't say you did. I'm just highlighting the fact that it could be.



It regresses to the terminal proposition 'all propositions are invalid'


But is the proposition 'all propositions are invalid', a valid proposition? It would seem to me to be absurd to terminate regressive propositions with a proposition that is possibly indeterminate. Therefore, it's possible that the regression is infinite.



...then it is a pretty good assumption that it doesn't exist.


Yet still an assumption nevertheless? I'm fine with assumptions, I just object when people start claiming they are indisputable truths.



Yes, well, the truth is that we do not have a paradox on our hands.


Again, an absolute statement?



There is no source of infinite energy seen in the universe and the universe is not seen to be infinite.


Once again, I would argue that just because something is not seen, it is not absolute proof that it does not exist. There are plenty of things that have been shown to exist, yet defy current scientific theory. What you seem to be implying is that anything that has yet to be discovered does not yet exist. Do we only make it manifest by observing it? This of course is possible, but I would guess that you would not accept this premise, being that you are a materialist?



It sounds as if you don't like scientists.


On the contrary, I love scientists that are prepared to admit that everything they assume to be true may be totally wrong.



Science isn't about hoarding knowledge like holy writ


Unfortunately this has actually shown to be the case on many occasions throughout scientific history. They certainly didn't like it when Einstein came along and blew Newton's theories out of the water did they? It took them a while to accept it. I'm not implying you're guilty of this, but many 'scientists' have been.


cont...



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Scientists aren't motivated by what they already know, but by what they don't.


So on the one hand you're saying it's wrong of me to 'libel' scientists by making a sweeping statement, yet on the other you are doing just that. Just because one statement could be seen as negative, and one as positive, does not make the positive one more valid. Do you speak for all scientists when you say this, or just yourself?



Please provide one instance in which the predictions of Special Relativity have proved inaccurate.


It's not my duty to. They are the ones making the claims, the onus is on them to prove it, which they haven't yet. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it may not be right. What we must consider, is that to have a theory that answers everything, it must allow us to create our own 'existence/universe', otherwise it remains incomplete. I haven't seen any sign of this happening yet.



Your thoughts are part of nature. Thoughts are manifested physically - as brain activity. Infinity is 'manifested physically' as a pattern of electrochemical activity inside your brain. Not an infinite pattern; just a pattern of impulses that occurs when you think about infinity. No contradiction whatsoever.


So what you're saying is that thoughts are physical manifestations, but the things that we think about are not. It's an interesting argument, but it doesn't really answer the question. If thoughts don't manifest the thing we think about, then what actually are they and how does the thought itself connect with the 'thing' the thought is about? Is it even possible to separate the two? I guess this is a philosophical question though, which you already said you don't like getting into. But if you don't like getting into it, is this not an admission that there may be things that are not necessarily explainable by science? If science is about explaining everything, then how is it valid to ignore anything?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by spartacus mills
I'm not saying Pi when expressed as a number is infinite. I'm simply saying that you have no proof that it isn't.

But I have already proved it! You just haven't understood.

Pi is not 'expressed as a number'. Pi is a number, a finite number, and nothing else. Infinity is not a number.


You seem to be using arguments to disprove infinity that assume that it is a number. 'There are no infinite quantities in nature'. Since 'quantity' necessitates 'value', then your argument is moot. You are right, only by virtue of the argument itself being invalid.

Infinity is not a number but it is a quantity. Didn't you look at the links I offered you?


Infinity... is an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number. Source


I haven't really expressed my ideas about infinity at all.

You have expressed at least two ideas about it: first, that a set of entities exists whose value is infinite, and second, that Pi is one of them. Both ideas are wrong.


Those that are making absolute statements about what it is or isn't, or whether or not it exists, may in fact be wrong.

Hardly news. But just because an absolute statement may be wrong, it doesn't follow that it is. You have to disprove it first.


Forgive me if it seems my posts have implied that I know something...

You have, indeed, implied that you know some things about infinity, about absolute statements, about the failings of mathematicians and much else besides.


Since the accuracy of the measurement can be infinitely divisible, would it not be more logical to say that the value of the measurement is indeterminate? Any assigning of an actual value will only be an arbitrary one based on an acceptance of an accuracy boundary.

So, the keel of your own argument severally holed beneath the waterline, you swim for the life-raft I offered you a few posts ago when I mentioned that no-one has ever seen a perfect circle in nature. Welcome aboard!


I didn't say you did... But is the proposition 'all propositions are invalid', a valid proposition? It would seem to me to be absurd to terminate regressive propositions with a proposition that is possibly indeterminate. Therefore, it's possible that the regression is infinite...

You proposed an argument that automatically regresses (whether you like it or not) to the statement 'all statements are invalid', which is itself an invalid statement and nullifies the argument. There's nothing you can do about it - you can't halt the regression halfway.


I would argue that just because something is not seen, it is not absolute proof that it does not exist. There are plenty of things that have been shown to exist, yet defy current scientific theory.

Could you name one of these fabled things?


What you seem to be implying is that anything that has yet to be discovered does not yet exist.

No, I am stating that what shows no sign or need of existence can safely be assumed not to exist.


You're saying it's wrong of me to 'libel' scientists by making a sweeping statement, yet on the other you are doing just that.

I said nothing about sweeping statements. I said it was wrong to libel scientists. Or anybody else for that matter.



Please provide one instance in which the predictions of Special Relativity have proved inaccurate.

It's not my duty to. They are the ones making the claims, the onus is on them to prove it, which they haven't yet.

On the contrary, you are claiming that Special Relativity has not been proved, so the onus is on you to falsify it. You want proofs of SR? Go here. Prepare to be overwhelmed. SR has never been falsified.


What we must consider, is that to have a theory that answers everything, it must allow us to create our own 'existence/universe', otherwise it remains incomplete. I haven't seen any sign of this happening yet.

So the blueprint is identical with the finished artifact?



So what you're saying is that thoughts are physical manifestations, but the things that we think about are not.

When I think of my cat, I am thinking of a physical entity whose existence is independent of my thoughts. When I think of Frankenstein's monster, I am thinking of a nonexistent entity. It's as simple as all that. My ability to think about something does not bring it into existence. The blueprint is not the artifact. The thought is not its object.

Your other questions are not relevant to the matter under discussion, I'm afraid. As for philosophy, I am as fascinated by it as anybody, but compared to science it has two great drawbacks: first, truths about the world are not to be found in it except by accident, and even when found cannot be verified except by external, empirical means; second, that while it may contain some accidental truths, philosophy also contains all the error and falsehood of which human beings are capable.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Infinity is not a number but it is a quantity.


This is simply a semantic argument that serves only to prevent the mathematicians from ever accepting that they may be wrong. A quantity must be definable by a number. If it is not, then it is not a quantity. Saying it is an unbounded quantity is simply the equivalent of saying that it has no quanity. It's simply a limitation of human understanding. Like I said before, saying that infinity is 'greater' than something, in my opinion, shows a misunderstanding of what infinity is. Infinity is non-relativistic, therefore using relativistic terms to define it is moot.


You have expressed at least two ideas about it: first, that a set of entities exists whose value is infinite, and second, that Pi is one of them. Both ideas are wrong.


I don't recall explicitly making any such claim. If I did, then I apologise for my mistake. I claim Pi neither to be finite, nor infinite, simply that it's value when expressed as a number is indeterminate.


Hardly news. But just because an absolute statement may be wrong, it doesn't follow that it is. You have to disprove it first.


But is this not simply a matter of arbitrary opinion? On the one hand, one party must prove something, and on the other hand, the other party must disprove it. Deciding who is obliged to do which seems like purely a matter of opinion. I choose to do neither, since I don't believe either is possible.


So, the keel of your own argument severally holed beneath the waterline, you swim for the life-raft I offered you a few posts ago when I mentioned that no-one has ever seen a perfect circle in nature. Welcome aboard!


Hmmm, how do you say... patronising? You're not telling me anything I wasn't already perfectly well aware of. I hate to shatter your ego like that.


You proposed an argument that automatically regresses (whether you like it or not) to the statement 'all statements are invalid', which is itself an invalid statement and nullifies the argument. There's nothing you can do about it - you can't halt the regression halfway.


Except accept that it is paradoxical, and therefore not solvable, yet at the same time possibly solvable (by virtue of the nature of the paradox). My own theory involves a close examination of the nature of the paradox, but it is off topic, so I won't discuss it here.


Could you name one of these fabled things?


When I say things that have been shown to exist, I mean in the sense of within the framework of your own scientific theory, not according to my own knowledge, since I have none. But as an example, we could say dark matter. The amount of matter in the universe was not predicted by the theory, so the theory was changed to account for something for which there is a lack of observable evidence, but only hypothesising.


On the contrary, you are claiming that Special Relativity has not been proved, so the onus is on you to falsify it.


A circular argument, see above.


So the blueprint is identical with the finished artifact?


Are you stating that? Or are you saying I have? I guess the blueprint should allow us to create an 'existence', not necessairly that they are one and the same, although that could be the case as well. Like I said, there's no sign of that yet.

Anyway, I tire of this conversation. You clearly have your dogma, and nothing is going to sway you from that. I don't wish to. I don't know why I let myself get into these things, because my position on the matter is a position of agnostic absurdity anyway! Whatever your response may be (and I'm sure you'll have one), please don't expect a response from me. No offense intended or anything, and I feel no animosity whatsoever. Good luck with your future endeavors.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Unless Zero ain't a number he is right. Or unless numbers end at some point in both directions of zero he is right.

Infinity has to exist if anything is to exist at all.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I absolutely agree with that statement spy66. The present moment is a perfect example. It is also my understanding that the universe as a system, in order for complexity to arise and flourish, must be an open system in order for the entropy to dissapate, and therefore it is unbounded, but even if bounded, it is still bounded by infinite nothingness, and something cannot be something unless it is something within a contextual frame of reference.

And so, if the universe is framed by infinity, then by definition it is part of that infinity, and furthermore, if it's an information processing system, it has surely had more than enough time to become self aware, and all indication is that it is a consciousness generated geometrical construct.

So while the original poster may be off the mark in his rationale, his conclusions are correct. The infinity we find ourselves in, or infinity itself, since absent the something from which we evaluate it, it's not there, is real, alive, and self aware. One could say that it is God within whom we live, move, breathe and have our being.

The materialist monist isolate view, is dead.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

You are mistaken twice over. First, you are confusing 'infinite' with 'indefinite'.


God, in his infinite wisdom, created languages for Man to communicate his ideas to other Man, and the devil created synonyms to confuse Man.



Can you show the board an example where "infinite" and "indefinite" take on distinctly different meaning and when applied could cause a misunderstanding?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

then human brains would have to have infinite processing capacity. Which they don't, of course.


Yes you are correct saying that the processing power would not have to be infinite my statement was misleading. . . . ill still go with Dr. Tippler and say that civilization could process an infinite amount of data (meaning its processing capacity is infinite and cannot be maxed out not that there is an infinite amount of data to be processed) this could of course only be achieved with processors that worked on quantum principles and could be 1, 0, or 1 and 0 at the same time or if you prefer on, off, or both on and off

The human brain however would not need to process all the data available in the system. . . you cannot see beyond ultraviolet light you cannot hear above and below certain frequencies. . . yet these phenomina exsist The brain clearly doesnt process and infinite amount of data nor does it need to to function within the system

Now if the universe is infinite with infinite parallel worlds extra dimensions constantly changing perameters all the way down to the quantum scale then the computers processor would have to have equally infinite capabilities.

Now please mind the fact that i dont truely think of infinite in the philisophical sence but instead in the mathematical so most of what i just said is in my own opinion philisophical mumbo jumbo




[edit on 20-4-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by stander
Can you show the board an example where "infinite" and "indefinite" take on distinctly different meaning?


Hamlet:
O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space—were it not that I have bad dreams.

Guildenstern:
Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.

- Hamlet, Act 2, scene 2

Would those dreams indeed be ambition if Hamlet merely counted himself a king of indefinite space?

'Marmite keeps indefinitely' - slogan used by a brand of yeast extract. Had the manufacturers claimed that 'Marmite keeps infinitely', they would have been liable to prosecution for making false claims in advertising.

Want more?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


And every existing scientific "truth" has replaced an previous scientific "truth". Yet you think that stops with what is currently accepted as truth apparently.
And as to the larger question at hand, oh yes, expect a finite individual of a finite speices living on a finite planet to be truly able to 100% without a shadow of a doubt to find an infinite quality in nature. I am sure you would see the problems with that. But I think I have you're answer in a philosophical sense, the only inifinite quality to be found in nature is change, or Infinite Variability to make a poor attempt at sounding smart.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And every existing scientific "truth" has replaced an previous scientific "truth". Yet you think that stops with what is currently accepted as truth apparently.

No, only someone with very little understanding of how science works would think that.


And as to the larger question at hand, oh yes, expect a finite individual of a finite speices living on a finite planet to be truly able to 100% without a shadow of a doubt to find an infinite quality in nature.

I believe you're starting to repeat yourself.


But I think I have you're answer in a philosophical sense, the only inifinite quality to be found in nature is change, or Infinite Variability to make a poor attempt at sounding smart.

Actually, it sounds confusing. Why should this be my answer?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
No, only someone with very little understanding of how science works would think that.


All I have to say is this *though I would love to type soo much more*, I would appreciate it if you kindly kept such BS attempts at belittling me to yourself sir.


I believe you're starting to repeat yourself.


You appear to need it, not all of us can reconcile replacing enthusiasm for factuality.



Actually, it sounds confusing. Why should this be my answer?


Not very confusing, is not change the only constant in the universe? Short of mythical pre-big bang models and prophetic big freezes or etc?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Originally posted by Astyanax
No, only someone with very little understanding of how science works would think that.

All I have to say is this *though I would love to type soo much more*, I would appreciate it if you kindly kept such BS attempts at belittling me to yourself sir.

You misunderstand. Only a person with very little understanding of science would think that current scientific orthodoxy is once and for all true. You were accusing me of thinking that. I merely explained that I am not such a person.


Is not change the only constant in the universe?

Change is certainly pervasive throughout the universe. That doesn't make it infinite. The universe is not infinitely variable; the ambit of variability is at all times bounded by the laws of physics. The universe is full of constants: the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, the cosmological constant and so forth.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
One must forgive the ignorance of a materialist with a need to prove himself.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
accidentally double posted.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join