It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 9
8
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:42 AM

lol the basis of your knowledge lays in the idea that because humans do not live forever nothing does. given the fact you have only lived on one planet, in one small portion of the universe with only a limited amount of time in which humans have had the capacity to understand science i believe you are jumping to conclusions. Even given the amount of knowledge we humans have its a stunning display of ignorance to actually think you or anybody else has a freaken clue. We have progressed but the major answers allude us like the plague.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:42 AM

opps double post sorry
edit on 15-12-2012 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:45 AM
At most this proves that the universe is not infinite. Our universe is something "a packet of space/time", so since it is something, we can treat it like the variable "X" and it would be strange to say that "X" is infinite - so you are correct there, however, this is just speaking about the universe, this is not speaking about the omniverse - the "place" (for lack of a better word), where there is an infinite amount of parallel universes (multiverse).

By the way, if infinity doesn't exist, what is the largest number and what is the smallest? If something isn't infinite then it has a start and end point - but if that start point/end point is be continuously increased without end (highest number + 1 more, highest number + 2 more), then that seem to be the perfect description of infinity.
edit on 15-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:06 AM

The infinite can not describe anything within our existence. Our existence is nothing like the infinite. The physical laws that apply to our finite existence don't apply to the infinite.

The infinite is absolutely neutral. How can that be related to our existence? There is nothing neutral about our existence, because than our existence would be a mathematical constant.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by arpgme
At most this proves that the universe is not infinite. Our universe is something "a packet of space/time", so since it is something, we can treat it like the variable "X" and it would be strange to say that "X" is infinite - so you are correct there, however, this is just speaking about the universe, this is not speaking about the omniverse - the "place" (for lack of a better word), where there is an infinite amount of parallel universes (multiverse).

If this "omniverse" is ever proven to exist, then you can present it as a viable reality. At present, there is no such thing as an "omniverse". Just because some guy shows up on Discovery Channel with letters after his name, and starts describing something, it's not required that the thing he's describing actually exists. Theories aren't reality. They rarely ever are. They are suggestions, albeit well considered suggestions. The existence of an "omniverse" is such a suggestion, but it's only a suggestion. I'm not really interested in building new suggestion upon the vaporous platforms that other suggestions provide. That's not even as substantial as building upon a house of cards, because at least cards actually exist.

By the way, if infinity doesn't exist, what is the largest number and what is the smallest? If something isn't infinite then it has a start and end point - but if that start point/end point is be continuously increased without end (highest number + 1 more, highest number + 2 more), then that seem to be the perfect description of infinity.
edit on 15-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

Numbers are abstract concepts. Invented by human beings. They don't actually exist independent of the human mind that uses them to represent relative contextual relationships. Set Logic is the basis for mathematics and the application of numbers to represent potentials that exist solely within the intellect of one or more human minds. Set Logic is the actual physical impact of the relative contextual relationship between existent holons with a larger inclusive holon. Residual information that exists as a result of contextual precedence within that inclusive holon serves to enforce avenues of progressive development potential that are available for these two holons due to the nature of their relative contextual relationship. Mathematics (and numbers) is the art of examining the nature of these avenues and even predicting the avenues most likely to emerge as ongoing development.

In all cases, numbers and mathematics are extremely finite in nature. Exact, even. Infinity is to mathematics as "unsub" is to FBI Profilers. It's the label that represents a placeholder category that is used to store an unknown potential that - for the moment - isn't (yet) required knowledge relative to the focus of a specific line of inquiry. In Quantum Physics, Infinite smallness was eventually replaced by the quantum of action, and this is how Infinity (as a tool) is used by theorists and mathematicians. It's just a conceptual representation of an unknown quantity that serves until it's no longer needed.
edit on 12/15/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx

Infinity describes anything that cannot be quantified or valued at the current time. Yes, it is used as a placeholder term, but that does not give any more relevance to the OP, who assumes, from what I can gather, that nothing is unquantifiable.

I said "unknowable" - not "unquantifiable". These are two extremely dissimilar terms that represent two very dissimilar notions. Counting something isn't the same as understanding something. I think that we should be able to agree on that.

I honestly think that as human beings, there are some things that are just beyond our intellectual capability, which the OP refuses to acknowledge. Come to think of it, all the OP seems to be interested in doing as trash-talking anyone who disagrees with them. Just thought I would mention, as well, that Calculus is not theoretical, but was invented to solve problems which algebra could not. You guys can debate me all day long, but I take the words of Sir Isaac Newton(possibly one of the brilliant scientists to have ever lived) over anyone on this website any day of the week. I honestly could not explain what Newton says better than he can, so I would also relegate for anyone on the side of the OP to read some of his brilliant works before dismissing what I say as a "because I said so" argument. Also, university professors will fail an entire essay simply because Wikipedia is in the bibliography, so I would be more careful about your sources if I were you. I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, I am merely saying that there are better websites out there for information like this (NSF.gov or Science.gc.ca being the best two I can gather off the top of my head). Contrary to what the OP may think, I am not just pulling this out of my rear.
edit on 14/12/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: grammar

I disagree that the basics of physical reality are beyond our capacity to understand. I disagree because I've logically proven that the basics of physical reality can be known and described, and I've already published two editions of that effort. In fact, I'm working on a third, since actually explaining it in a manner that is accessible to the lay reader has proven to be more difficult than understanding it.

The minute specifics of progressive development can't be completely known, but that's due to the overwhelming range and complexity of progressive ramification as impacted by uncountable layers of contextual precedence within unimaginable varieties of reality sub-confines that are littered throughout the whole of physical reality. The truth is that the minute specifics of progressive development aren't all that important to know, because they're brought into existence as a direct result of the same primordial drivers that pull every development forward. All you really need to know is what's moving everything and the primordial qualifiers that steer what's moving.

Like I told one other poster, this is a cute video presentation that challenges the notion of Infinity as being an actual physical quality or quantity. It's not a dissertation. Maybe I should be flattered that you're insisting that I present a peer-reviewed music video (with academically approved reference footnotes) that I've set to two unique forms of poetic performance (traditional pulpit preaching and faux-swamp rap), but maybe it's more appropriate for you to lighten up a touch. Seriously. Did you really think that a 14 minute video was going to satisfy a phd requirement?

Besides, no one in academia believes that Infinity is a real physical reality. They all know better. Like I said in the video..

So, infinity? Why infinity?
Hell, it’s not like folks agree
that it’s something that they believe
But that’s the point
because you see,
it’s this split, it’s this divide
in a world that’s choosing sides,
where belief in the infinite
can tag you as faithful,
or hopeful and prayerful
or full of contempt for
those who, unlike you,
claim nothing is forever,
and then look down their noses
at you and your gods and
I just need you to know
exactly where I stand.
‘cause what I have right here is
nothing like you think it is

The belief in Infinity as a real physical property divides the whole of thinking people into two very distinct groups in the modern world. And that was the point of the video clip, since what I have could easily be mistaken by serious thinkers for just another load of mystical, spiritual philosophical blather, and I figure that this should make it clear that it's not. At least to a potential publisher, since a link to this would be a part of any proposal. Just trying to prevent anyone from wasting their time with me.

edit on 12/15/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
You mean that quanta are discreet and not continuous therefor there is no infinity as in infinite numbers between let's say 1 and 2?

Yes. The infinite gradient doesn't exist.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:14 PM

I think I can see what you're trying to say. Is it that in physics we have not observed the existence of infinity? If so that is a fair point to make, but it does not preclude the possibility for infinity to exist. Thus you have not 'debunked' infinity which I assume means to prove that it does not exist.
You must prove that time will end and so will the universe. You have not done this.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by QueenofWeird

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx

Actually, infinite is the description of anything which cannot be quantified, therefore it is not a value in and of itself, from what I can gather from Newton's Principia.

Well infinity is like a growth that goes on for ever, always one step extra.

Infinity is actually more expansive as a term than that. It's also a reduction that has no limits whatsoever. This is the logical fallacy revealed by the existence of the quantum.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by JimTSpock

I think I can see what you're trying to say. Is it that in physics we have not observed the existence of infinity? If so that is a fair point to make, but it does not preclude the possibility for infinity to exist. Thus you have not 'debunked' infinity which I assume means to prove that it does not exist.
You must prove that time will end and so will the universe. You have not done this.

The existence of the quantum unit has established a finite restriction within the physical realm. Infinity - by definition - is limitless, and cannot be restricted. The quantum of anything whatsoever (action, time, presence, it doesn't matter what the quantum represents) imposes a restriction of "smallness" within the physical realm, and this is literally impossible if physical infinity exists. Max Planck and Albert Einstein proved that Infinity doesn't exist. Einstein established the "photon" as the quantum packet of light, and won a Nobel Prize for doing so.

This is all old news, actually. I just realized that a large percentage of modern thinking people never realized that this had already been proven for over 80 years. It's gotten really nutty in recent years as quantum physics has been credited by legions of hucksters with allowing all kinds of impossible realities to exist.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:32 PM

Hove big is our existence?

Since the infinite does not exist, you must have a measurement/scale of hove big/large our existence is.

So hove large is finite existence?

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:40 PM

That is simply not the case. If it were there would be no modern theories of infinite universes etc etc etc. We don't know everything in physics. You are incorrect my friend. The standard model is incomplete and does not preclude the possibility for infinity in numerous ways to exist.

Dr Michio Kaku: There are many types of infinity.
If you think you know better fair enough but I don't think you do.

forums.philosophyforums.com...

By the way some things Einstein said have been found to be wrong, no one knows everything.

Einstein withdrew his constant with no small amount of embarrassment

www.slate.com...

Perhaps you should look into the current state of theoretical physics, there are many interesting theories which are designed to fit the standard model. No one is saying what you're saying because it's simplistic rubbish. I'm done.

You might find this interesting.
physics.aps.org...
edit on 15-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: spelling

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
1- Don't quit your day job, OP. I say that with all sincerity, though more than a little amusement.

2- You are aware that it isn't the 22nd yet, correct? I agree with you that the world probably will not end or whatever (I won't say WILL NOT with confidence, because I like to have an open mind and not discount possibilities I am not certain of. And I mean true certainty-- the kind you get when you're staring at tangible proof. Not the kind of egoistic faith in your vision of the world that a lot of so called "skeptics" seem to flaunt these days)

3- Why didn't you post the infinity thing closer to the beginning? It took what seemed like FOREVER (irony?) of listening to whining about the uncertainty of life, and your desire to understand and/or grasp everything, or whatever point it was you were trying to make there....

4- Disproving infinity is, IMHO next to impossible, if not impossible.

Are you considering only infinity by addition, or are you also considering infinity by division? If there is no such thing as infinity, please tell me the maximum number of hypothetical divisions one can make in something.

5- And this is really just my preference, but "perfect rhyme" is a horrible convention, far over-used in modern rap music, and makes a lyric sound lazy and terrible. Just saying.

Why are you so afraid of that which you don't understand? Why do you so desire to shove everything into your existing paradigm or knowledge? What scares you so much about not having all the answers?

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by digital01anarchy

lol the basis of your knowledge lays in the idea that because humans do not live forever nothing does. given the fact you have only lived on one planet, in one small portion of the universe with only a limited amount of time in which humans have had the capacity to understand science i believe you are jumping to conclusions. Even given the amount of knowledge we humans have its a stunning display of ignorance to actually think you or anybody else has a freaken clue. We have progressed but the major answers allude us like the plague.

Are you saying I should consider something possible despite all evidence to the contrary? Saying this is usually the last-ditch resort of those who wish to cling to whatever hope that the possibility of something like infinity existing allows.

It's also possible that there is a pink elephant orbiting the sun. Should I consider the possibility or should I discard the idea based on all evidence to the contrary? Is it more ignorant to entertain this possibility despite the contradictions or paradoxes or to induce otherwise?

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:28 PM

Originally posted by arpgme
At most this proves that the universe is not infinite. Our universe is something "a packet of space/time", so since it is something, we can treat it like the variable "X" and it would be strange to say that "X" is infinite - so you are correct there, however, this is just speaking about the universe, this is not speaking about the omniverse - the "place" (for lack of a better word), where there is an infinite amount of parallel universes (multiverse).

By the way, if infinity doesn't exist, what is the largest number and what is the smallest? If something isn't infinite then it has a start and end point - but if that start point/end point is be continuously increased without end (highest number + 1 more, highest number + 2 more), then that seem to be the perfect description of infinity.
edit on 15-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

The largest number is 9, the smallest is 1.

Any number past 9 isn't one thing, it is a series and repetition of numbers. One could lay an infinite amount of coffee cups side by side but only if he lived for an infinite amount of years and there was an infinite amount of coffee cups. In reality, there is only ten numbers: 0 - 9. Yes we can put those numbers side by side to make an even larger number, but it would involve using one of those numbers more than once, which outside of mathematics is a paradox, as there are no two things alike in the universe, there is only one 9 not two.

Infinity isn't a number, because as soon as it becomes a number it is finite. Infinity is the possibility of an amount, yet paradoxically, never an amount. It seems the only thing infinite is the amount of paradoxes we're willing to trudge through to believe there is something infinite.
edit on 15-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:30 PM
double post
edit on 15-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:17 PM

Originally posted by iwilliam
1- Don't quit your day job, OP. I say that with all sincerity, though more than a little amusement.

4- Disproving infinity is, IMHO next to impossible, if not impossible.

Forgive me if I simply take your "humble" opinion in stride and neglect to alter my view as a result. On the second point, you might want to do some research. You'll discover that no real physics supports your humble opinion. In fact, the elimination of the infinite gradient is what quantum physics initially succeeded in accomplishing. Not that you'd ever suspect such a thing if all you knew of quantum physics was the term being used as legitimate reference to "back up" the alleged plausibility of theoretical ramblings that amount to little more than flights of imagination.

Are you considering only infinity by addition, or are you also considering infinity by division? If there is no such thing as infinity, please tell me the maximum number of hypothetical divisions one can make in something.

If you actually bothered to listen to the silly little lyrics, you'd have already learned that infinity - having infinite qualities - is defined as

Having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude

And if you'd understood that definition, you'd never ask a question like "Are you considering only infinity by addition, or are you also considering infinity by division?" In fact, you'd immediately see the premise failure in a question like that, and wouldn't allow yourself to post such a question on a forum like this. You certainly wouldn't post it as if you're bemused at someone else's claim to have revealed Infinity to not actually exist as a physical reality item.

5- And this is really just my preference, but "perfect rhyme" is a horrible convention, far over-used in modern rap music, and makes a lyric sound lazy and terrible. Just saying.

Again, you slept right through the entire thing. The rhyming and meter scheme shifts constantly, and I know this is true because I had my friend Moezart Third-Eye check it for me before I committed it to audio. He's just been released on Universal Motown on 12-12-2012, and I trust his word on it more than yours. To say you failed on this point is an understatement.

Why are you so afraid of that which you don't understand? Why do you so desire to shove everything into your existing paradigm or knowledge? What scares you so much about not having all the answers?

I haven't got any fears at all. The academic world shares my view of the validity of the notion of physical infinity. You make a lot of bold statements, and yet you have no idea what the discussion is focused on. Physical reality. Physical reality's fundamental structure can be known, and the substructure - the unitary nature of physical reality - is already known. No one's scared of not knowing anything, and - your kind of insipid bloviations aside - the only controversy here is over whether this bizarre culture will ever allow the fundamentals of reality to taught without faith-based caveats that only serve to confuse people. That confusion strands more good and decent people within cruel and unusual circumstances, and it'd be great to finally rid this world of impossible thinking.

Thanks for checking in though. You allowed me to make a few points that I otherwise wouldn't have gotten to.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:40 PM

Originally posted by JimTSpock

That is simply not the case. If it were there would be no modern theories of infinite universes etc etc etc. We don't know everything in physics. You are incorrect my friend. The standard model is incomplete and does not preclude the possibility for infinity in numerous ways to exist.

Dr Michio Kaku: There are many types of infinity.
If you think you know better fair enough but I don't think you do.

forums.philosophyforums.com...

By the way some things Einstein said have been found to be wrong, no one knows everything.

Einstein withdrew his constant with no small amount of embarrassment

www.slate.com...

Einstein also saw Quantum Entanglement as "spooky action at a distance" and yet if given a few hours with you in a room with no exits and no phones, I could definitely convince you that my full explanation of what quantum entanglement is and why it occurs, is accurate and comprehensive. Einstein was a man of his times, and these are different times. That doesn't mean that the photon packet of light (the quantum of light) has been proven wrong. It hasn't been. Check out Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject to better understand how I see your reference to Einstein and other theorists whose theories have been successfully challenged.

Perhaps you should look into the current state of theoretical physics, there are many interesting theories which are designed to fit the standard model. No one is saying what you're saying because it's simplistic rubbish. I'm done.

Actually, I had a tough time finding any physics or mathematics material that didn't admit that Infinity is nothing but a conceptual placeholder meant to categorize any amount or degree that couldn't be readily quantified. Nowhere did I find any serious scientific reference to Infinity as being physically real. It wasn't until I got around to the Voodoo Metaphysics YouTube and Discovery Channel hucksters and their "theories" that I started finding assertions involving Infinity as actual and physically existent.

Yeah, the current state of theoretical physics is pretty "adventurous"and not very disciplined, but that's not my fault. I certainly wouldn't use some of that foolishness as reference to back up my own assertions. You can, but you do so at your own risk.
edit on 12/15/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/15/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:45 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Hove big is our existence?

Since the infinite does not exist, you must have a measurement/scale of hove big/large our existence is.

So hove large is finite existence?

Here....read this first. Then get back to me.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:59 PM

new topics

top topics

8