I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


is undebunkable - is God's province; separate from time and space which are merely earth-bound means of measure even of the cosmos. God is the author of the cosmos - hence beyond all measure.

As used by modern man the concept of infinity has relevance only in the field of philosophy. All modern philosophers support the theory of infinity - much to their discredit.

BTW - all reference to so-called Infinity as used in modern mathematics - is a charlatans trick. Its useful to scientific types when trying to hoodwink normal people.

edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but when it comes to this site, morals are irrelevant, only verifiable facts, of which you have none. If you want to hear the basis for my argument, all you have to do is pick up a few books on theoretical mathematics or even calculus from the local library. Also, I noticed that you brought up religion, which is also irrelevant. I really do not care what you think I "come off as." The fact of the matter is I am who I am and I am not going to change just because I offended someone on a forum. Capische?
P.S. Oh, and since it didn't sink in last time....you lose. Unless you have a better point to make than "because I said so!" Also, it's been well over 8 minutes and you're no closer to even having a solid thesis, let alone an educated argument for it. As for believing what I'm told....if you had read any of my previous posts in any other threads, you would know that that's the opposite of what I could be qualified as. Debunking for the sake of debunking is neither educational, nor is it rational. All it amounts to is a huge waste of time.
edit on 14/12/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)
edit on 14/12/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)


Thats it? Thats your argument? You lose? I'm not the one saying because I said so sir. You are. You keep contradicting yourself in your own posts, I'm not sure if you're being ironic or are completely daft. Either way its cause for good laugh. For that I thank you.

If you're being truthful, what we find in this, and probably any of your previous post is a complete lack of intelligence and honesty. I'm almost tempted to look through your posts just to keep laughing, but, like every word you've so far attempt to connect into a coherent sentence, all it amounts to is a huge waste of time.






edit on 14-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Nice try. Just so you know, oversimplifying things so that they make sense to our meager human intellect does not qualify as disproving anything. Arrogance never solves anything. You must ask yourself, who are we going to believe: scores of theoretical physicists and mathematicians, with oodles of proofs and peer-reviewed equations behind them, or you, with your arrogant bantering (with neither of the above in your favour btw)? You lose.


You confuse theoretical concepts with actual physical reality. Check this quick overview out. It took me 20 seconds to find it, which means that it's a fairly commonly held view of infinity by physicists and other academic professionals.


Theoretical applications of physical infinity

The practice of refusing infinite values for measurable quantities does not come from a priori or ideological motivations, but rather from more methodological and pragmatic motivations.[citation needed] One of the needs of any physical and scientific theory is to give usable formulas that correspond to or at least approximate reality. As an example if any object of infinite gravitational mass were to exist, any usage of the formula to calculate the gravitational force would lead to an infinite result, which would be of no benefit since the result would be always the same regardless of the position and the mass of the other object. The formula would be useful neither to compute the force between two objects of finite mass nor to compute their motions. If an infinite mass object were to exist, any object of finite mass would be attracted with infinite force (and hence acceleration) by the infinite mass object, which is not what we can observe in reality. Sometimes infinite result of a physical quantity may mean that the theory being used to compute the result may be approaching the point where it fails. This may help to indicate the limitations of a theory.

This point of view does not mean that infinity cannot be used in physics. For convenience's sake, calculations, equations, theories and approximations often use infinite series, unbounded functions, etc., and may involve infinite quantities. Physicists however require that the end result be physically meaningful. In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful result, a process called renormalization.

However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density. This is an example of what is called a mathematical singularity, or a point where a physical theory breaks down. This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist; it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing the situation properly. Two other examples occur in inverse-square force laws of the gravitational force equation of Newtonian gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. At r=0 these equations evaluate to infinities.


This was lifted from en.wikipedia.org... and the page's history doesn't show any controversy associated with any of it. This suggests that your claim that "scores of theoretical physicists and mathematicians, with oodles of proofs and peer-reviewed equations behind them" is not actually accurate concerning the existence of infinity, regardless of whether it's a circle that someone has drawn or any other manifestation of the same. Obviously, scientists aren't confused about the actual physical existence of infinity, which is what I also discovered as I was researching whether to accuse the scientific community of promoting infinity for whatever reason that might exist for them to do so. They don't promote it. They use the term as a shorthand placeholder to represent a degree or magnitude that can't otherwise be described. It's their acknowledgment of their own inability to know everything, and their determination to not let that fact affect what they can know.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gregorian
reply to post by NorEaster
 


is undebunkable - is God's province; separate from time and space which are merely earth-bound means of measure even of the cosmos. God is the author of the cosmos - hence beyond all measure.

BTW - all reference to so-called Infinity as used in modern mathematics - is a trick. Its useful to the scientific when trying to hoodwink normal people.

edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)


Duly noted. I don't believe in your god, but I respect your commitment to it.

Peace.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gregorian
reply to post by NorEaster
 


is undebunkable - is God's province; separate from time and space which are merely earth-bound means of measure even of the cosmos. God is the author of the cosmos - hence beyond all measure.

As used by modern man the concept of infinity has relevance only in the field of philosophy. All modern philosophers support the theory of infinity - much to their discredit.

BTW - all reference to so-called Infinity as used in modern mathematics - is a charlatans trick. Its useful to scientific types when trying to hoodwink normal people.


Only God may be considered Infinite, and even then He is actually beyond Infinity, because the term is just another form of measurement used by mere mortals in their somewhat feeble attempt to describe the ineffable.

I found it to be of some interest that the OP "NorEaster" chose to use the # 8 - an erect form of the standard mathematical sign for Infinity.


***Please note the edit in my post hence the 'bump.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If it cant exist. How can we exist?

If there is no physical infinite! were does our physical finite existence come from?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


We exist due to the default response to the existential survival imperative that insists that what exists must maintain that existence until it can't any longer. That's the absolute basis of physical reality. Infinity, as a potential even, doesn't serve any such requirement. In fact, the only requirement that infinity does serve is the human m,ind's need to label everything it does and doesn't understand. Those expanses that dwarf the mind's capacity to suitably appreciate are labeled "infinite" as a result. In truth, the human mind invented "infinity" to solve the dilemma of practical ignorance concerning the nature of the material realm.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gregorian

Originally posted by Gregorian
reply to post by NorEaster
 


is undebunkable - is God's province; separate from time and space which are merely earth-bound means of measure even of the cosmos. God is the author of the cosmos - hence beyond all measure.

As used by modern man the concept of infinity has relevance only in the field of philosophy. All modern philosophers support the theory of infinity - much to their discredit.

BTW - all reference to so-called Infinity as used in modern mathematics - is a charlatans trick. Its useful to scientific types when trying to hoodwink normal people.


Only God may be considered Infinite, and even then He is actually beyond Infinity, because the term is just another form of measurement used by mere mortals in their somewhat feeble attempt to describe the ineffable.

I found it to be of some interest that the OP "NorEaster" chose to use the # 8 - an erect form of the standard mathematical sign for Infinity.

***Please note the edits in my post hence the 'bump.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)


I used the #8 because the first part of the video is 6 minutes long and the 2nd part (where I deal with the concept of infinity) is 8 minutes long. I'm really not clever enough to put cryptic references within anything, but I appreciate the speculation that I might be.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If a physicist dies how long is he dead for? Forever, an infinite amount of time. That is an example of infinity I think.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


What about it? Is pi infinite? No. Endless? Possibly, but not infinite.

You're playing with words
. Endless is a synonym of infinite.

And you haven't answered yet this one: What about the infinite Fibonacci word?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Art is literally the human mind's attempt to preserve its identity beyond the moment, and hopefully to enable it to survive the death of its material brain.

Is there some official book or study you can point to which will support this statement, or is this merely a relative opinion piece?

I do art and have done art for my whole life, both parents and grandparents never had anything to do with it, so the whole theory of artistic skill being an evolutionary trait goes out the _ Also I personally, and the artists that I know, never have made art for the reason you state above. I do it, to do it, there is an inner itch to scratch and I personally could care less about preserving anything after death. Might have to rethink that one.



This is the logical impetus behind all human expression, and especially artistic expression. Raw survival of self. This is also the basis of the biological imperative, only in that case, it is the body's DNA directives that are demanding identity survival by way of extending that identity's reach beyond the physical confines of the corporeal whole.

relative opinion again huh? nothing you can link to huh?

I'll say that when a real good song comes on (definitely not the one in your vid) ....I can just really feel it with my soul, with my heart ...it's like the feeling of it transcends and short circuits the mind. Might want to look into that yourself because scientists are saying there is consciousness in the heart.



It is the fundamental yes versus no of "does it work or doesn't it?"

What you didn't account for is that sometimes there is a spontaneous doing, without thinking yes or no. Selflessly jumping into a burning building to save someone for example. OR running to an accident to help someone.... something I've done before (early in my life when I didn't care about fellow humans and was mostly selfish) ..and since then always wondered where did this impulse to help without thinking, without logic come from.

There is alot of holes you have to fill with your arguments and your lacking much mystical/spiritual insight into the nature of reality, like thousands of people world wide remembering having pre-existed prior to taking up a human body, NDE's, haunted houses that show electromagnetic spikes on certain instruments, and the sections of the brain which light up to those who operate in and experience the spiritual realms.


Reality really isn't mysterious. It's just the rinse-repeat scaling of extremely simple requirements being met by whatever it takes to meet those requirements.

Yes I agree to a certain extent. However, just like explaining quantum physics to someone in 2000 B.C. which would have gotten you blank stares, so too your missing out on a whole spiritual realm which gives you blank stares, yet science is just around the corner from quantifying it and when they do, you'll have to adjust your entire framework.

Logic evolves. The quantum branch of physics was beyond understanding to those who were here 4000 years ago. Just like those who experience the Infinite Now, timelessness, and embracing death transcend the logic and understanding of many today .....they will eventually catch up to the Spiritual



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
In the standard model, the possibility for infinity to exist certainly has not been disproved. You seem to be asserting that with our current level of physics infinity has been disproved, this is not the case.

There are many different theories of multiple dimensions and universes, the theory that there could be an infinite number of universes has not been disproved so infinity cannot be disproved.


In lay terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by D1ss1dent
What about the Mandelbrot?

The Mandelbrot set is a mathematical set of points whose boundary is a distinctive and easily recognizable two-dimensional fractal shape.

Sounds pretty finite to me.

And how far can it be zoomed in?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You may have to write a thread on how mathematics is a contrived system, and not something that pertains to physical reality. Because so far I don't think anyone here understands the point of your thread.

We know there are no perfect circles, straight lines, triangles or numbers throughout the entire universe, and that these are merely refinements of ideas to which we can refer for practical reasons, but only in the realm of mathematics, which as an axiom from which we can deduce proofs of infinity and so forth, is completely contrived. So maybe a refreshment of this fact is in order.

But then again that would be unnecessary, as all you'd need to do is point them to good ol' wikipedia.


Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") is the abstract study of topics encompassing quantity,[2] structure,[3] space,[2] change,[4][5] and other properties;[6] it has no generally accepted definition.[7][8]

Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry. Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932), David Hilbert (1862–1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. When those mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature.

(my emphasis)
Source

What is apparent in your thread in that too many people are putting all their faith in conjecture, and zero faith in the nature in which they exist. To me this is a very dangerous mentality and I'm glad you are calling people on it.

edit on 14-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The closest to Infinity that one may reach on this earth may just reside in a supreme awareness (non-awareness actually) of the 'present moment' as found and taught in the practice of Zen. And mind you - Zen will only bring one to a mere approximation of Infinity - through the practice of Buddhism - whose object is known as Nirvana.



Nota Bene: Prediction, or is a prophecy? In exactly 8 minutes this thread will self destruct to Infinity.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Would have been an astounding feat if you could Debunk debunking...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If it cant exist. How can we exist?

If there is no physical infinite! were does our physical finite existence come from?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


We exist due to the default response to the existential survival imperative that insists that what exists must maintain that existence until it can't any longer. That's the absolute basis of physical reality. Infinity, as a potential even, doesn't serve any such requirement. In fact, the only requirement that infinity does serve is the human m,ind's need to label everything it does and doesn't understand. Those expanses that dwarf the mind's capacity to suitably appreciate are labeled "infinite" as a result. In truth, the human mind invented "infinity" to solve the dilemma of practical ignorance concerning the nature of the material realm.


Finite doesn't serve the same requirements as the infinite. If it did there wouldn't be a finite existence. So the two can not be compared as having anything physical in common. Except that finite is formed by the infinite.

Energy is formed it is not infinite. Energies change all the time.

What ever the infinite forms it will always be finite.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I don't mean to be rude but there is also a mathematical proof that 1 equals 0. This does not mean that it's necessarily true. You can also have infinite number of decimal places from simple division such as 4 divided by 3.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Why can't any calculator or computer find the end if it isn't infinite?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by NorEaster
 


This thread is hogwash! HOGWASH I tell you! Just go to your closet, look under the couple of decades worth of shoes and old single socks, pull out that grey and black cube labled Nintendo Entertainment System, find your old copy of Contra, blow on it real good, probably blow on it again just for good measure, put it into the Nintendo Entertainment System, Press the power button, at the startup screen press: up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start.......... BOOOM!! Your debunking of infinite has just been debunked!

MOTF!


I have no idea what you think you just accomplished with this. Seriously. Maybe you have some brilliant point that you honestly believe your odd statement made, but it as certainly lost on your audience if I was your audience.


I thought my point was fairly brilliant! Not as brilliant as perhaps, trying to debunk infinity, but brilliant none the less.

MOTF!





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join