Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[untermensche]

Here's what the feeble-minded say about the difference between infinite time and counting aloud all the positive integers.

They say the difference is: infinite time could possibly be in the past.

They do not know how lost they are.

We've been there before...

You had all the time to explain yourself and you haven't. Countless people have died trying to get you to articulate something cogent. You're parroting yourself ad libitum. Nauseating. You never produce anything like an argument, a piece of knowledge, or even a piece of your own expertise. You're just parroting yourself without a fail. You have one absurd belief that infinity doesn't exist in the physical word and you have no proof whatsoever. You're only argument is to claim that the word "infinite" means without end, which is no even true, and if it was, it would still be an idiotic argument. It's a bit short to argue that infinity doesn't exist. You're attention span also is very short. No way anyone can have a rational debate with you. It always ends up in the same litany of your deadbeat mantra that an infinite past is impossible because "it would never complete".
(Thanks speakpidgeon..)

I have not failed because some third raters unfit to sharpen my pencils say so. The same third raters who had tried to claim the negative integers END at -1. The same third raters that claim any infinity can end. None can.

Tell me the difference between the time needed to recite all the positive integers and infinite time?

Is infinite time less time than the time needed to recite all the positive integers?

Or is it more?

Or is it the same amount of time?

If you don't know you have no business pestering somebody that does know because it is a very simple equivalence.

It is a very simple fact. It is impossible to ever recite all the positive integers. No matter how many you recited you would always have infinite more to recite. You would never have less than infinite more to recite.

The same is true of infinite time.

If you try to claim infinite time occurred before yesterday you are trying to claim some miracle happened. You are not making a reasonable claim.

If infinite time must pass before yesterday can occur then like trying to recite all the positive integers it is impossible.

 

[Jokodo]

And, no, you won't get out by saying that time is also quantized, and the speed of light is what you get when an entity moves one space quant per time quant. Quite the opposite: This would seem to imply that the only possible velocities are integer fractions of the speed of light!

                     /
                    /
                    \
                    /
                    \
                    /
                   /
                   \
                   /
                  /

As long as the left-right pattern doesn't repeat, you can have an irrational fraction of the speed of light.

Even that argument is overkill. If there really are quants of spacetime, they are almost certainly laid out in an amorphous glass rather than in a regular crystal structure; otherwise there would be observable macroscopic anisotropies.

Only if the three dimensions of space we perceive are actually all there is to it. If space has an infinite number of dimensions, every possible direction in our 3-d-space could correspond an axis of the crystal layout along one of those dimensions. Or maybe not, haven't worked this through. At any rate, I doubt this is where untermensche wants to be going, so for the purpose of discussing the empirical implications of his proposal, we'll ignore this implementation and assume you're right and space quants or nodes would be arranged in an amorphous, glass-like fashion.

There's still at least several huge problems with this, as far as I can see:

1) Preservation of momentum would be violated. A particle with non-zero mass moving at below c would remain motionless at one space quant before moving on again, whatever the mechanism by which it is determined when and where it moves on. (This could probably be solved by saying preservation of momentum is not a constant, intrinsic speed but a constant, intrinsic probability of making the next jump per time quant. But I somehow doubt that's a solution untermensche would find preferrable, what with all that "it's counterintuitive to me, therefore it can't be".)

2) Macroscopic objects moving through space would have the relative positions and distances of their constituent particles constantly shifting as they adapt to the changing base structure of space. This constant kneading should lead to a measurable heating of any object moving through a vacuum at high velocities, even without it being accelerated. Alternatively, such an object would slow down over time. Both effects should be well within the range of what we can observe.

3) Non-composite particles should move in essentially random directions. I'll illustrate with a model below. Ignoring the differences in size, all ".", "o", and "°" are just points in the grid of a glass-like discrete space.

o   °  .   o  °   o  °
   °  o  .   °  .  °   o  
°  o ° o  °   o  ° .  o

How would a particle moving from A to B know to which of the two Cs to continue it's journey to? (Assuming even that a particle that has come to a full stop and accelerates again ex nihilo would know to keep its general direction.) How would it, once at either of the Cs, know to steer back towards D to maintain its general direction rather than continue to either of the Xs?

o   °  X   o  °   o  °
   °  C  D   °  .  °   o  
°  A B C  X   o  ° .  o

This is not a problem for macroscopic objects consisting of thousands or millions individual particles and occupying thousands or millions of space quants at a time -- the effects are expected to cancel each other out. I don't see an easy way out for non-composite particles though.

I'm looking forward to untermensche demonstrating that the electron and photon are composed of thousands or millions of smaller particles! Either that, or that they indeed move randomly (which is, I guess, why the night sky is uniformly colored in a faint yellow and we can barely make out the moon without a significant amount of blur.)

4) I'm not even sure discrete space quants are compatible with the relativistic conception of space. I rather think they aren't. So, untermensche, since you are about to resurrect the theory of the ether, what's your take on the experiments that lead mainstream physics to abandon it?

(1) and (4) are theoretical problems. If you're right, Einstein and Newton have to be wrong, but that's their bad if you can show that they're wrong. (2) and (3) are empirical problems: Observations predicted under your account of reality that would otherwise remain mysterious. So a good way to convince reasonable people that you're right about space being discrete, untermensche, would be to show that you can explain everything Newton's and Einstein's models explain, and on top of this, you produce evidence for (2) and (3) which only you can explain.

 

[untermensche]

The question ultimately is: what exactly is moving and what does moving mean?

We have answers but they are not ultimate answers.

But we know a real infinity is an absurdity.

It is not something that can exist.

An infinity is a process not an object. You could have a process with no end to it but you could never have a completed infinity.

A completed infinity is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The question ultimately is: what exactly is moving and what does moving mean?

We have answers but they are not ultimate answers.

But we know a real infinity is an absurdity.

It is not something that can exist.

An infinity is a process not an object. You could have a process with no end to it but you could never have a completed infinity.

A completed infinity is a contradiction in terms.

Please, explain what is the conceptual difference between infinite time and counting all the positive integers.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There is none.

Infinite time implies infinite events. If there are no events then there is no way to say there is time. Time without events is also a contradiction.

Reciting all the positive integers is what infinite events would look like. You could use the reciting of any infinite series to show what infinite events would look like.

As we can clearly see infinite time is something that can never occur.

Just like you can never recite all the positive integers.

Even if you had as much time as you wanted.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is none.

Who knows?

Infinite time implies infinite events. If there are no events then there is no way to say there is time. Time without events is also a contradiction.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'll grant that. It really doesn't matter.

Reciting all the positive integers is what infinite events would look like. You could use the reciting of any infinite series to show what infinite events would look like.

Maybe, maybe not, but there's no good reason to accept this. None whatsoever.

Can you prove your extraordinary claim here?

As we can clearly see infinite time is something that can never occur.

No, nobody "can clearly see" that except if he has halucinations.

Just like you can never recite all the positive integers.

Vacuous statement. No relation to time unless you can prove there is one.

Even if you had as much time as you wanted.

Well, we could recite all positive integers if we had an infinite amount of time to do it. We could call out the name of one integer every hour starting from 1. In an infinite time we would have finished the job.

All very virtual, I'm afraid. We won't have an infinite time to do it.


_______________________

So, all crap, your point. Like always.

You claim things you don't know. You use reasoning that is not logical. You "see clearly" things you only see, like a seer. And that's all you have. And it's been going on and on for ages. Never one good argument. Never one good point. Always crap. Piles of it. Recycled crap, again and again.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Saying it does not matter that infinite time implies infinite events is just a lie.

Well, we could recite all positive integers if we had an infinite amount of time to do it.

No you can't.

And that is your misunderstanding.

You can never recite all the positive integers.

There is no end to them.

You cannot approach completing the recital.

No matter how many you recited

No matter how many you recited

No matter how many you recited

No matter how many you recited

You would ALWAYS have infinite integers you did not recite.

It is impossible to recite all the positive integers. You cannot reach the final positive integer. Even if you had endless time.

No infinity can complete.

 

[Jokodo]

The question ultimately is: what exactly is moving and what does moving mean?

Change of Position in Space relative to a reference frame.

We have answers but they are not ultimate answers.

Not ultimate, but partial answers. If you need to negate all of the Theory of Relativity along with all of Newtonian mechanics just because you can't wrap your Head around the idea that an infinite number of intermediate positions won't stop my fist from reaching your nose, you'll have to come up with something better to replace them.

But we know a real infinity is an absurdity.

It is not something that can exist.

An infinity is a process not an object. You could have a process with no end to it but you could never have a completed infinity.

A completed infinity is a contradiction in terms.

We all understand this stuff dosen' make Sense to you. The universe is under no obligation to do so.

 

[untermensche]

Change of Position in Space relative to a reference frame.

Change of position of what?

What are things made of?

What is space made of?

If you need to negate all of the Theory of Relativity along with all of Newtonian mechanics just because you can't wrap your Head around the idea that an infinite number of intermediate positions won't stop my fist from reaching your nose, you'll have to come up with something better to replace them.

Your hand cannot move an infinitely small distance. There is no such distance.

Your delusions of violence are an absurdity.

Relativity and Newtonian mechanics are not explanations of reality.

They are models of how reality works. Not what it is.

We all understand this stuff dosen' make Sense to you. The universe is under no obligation to do so.

I'm not talking to the universe.

And the universe never claimed a real infinity was possible.

The universe has provided no example of one.

Only deluded humans claim a real infinity is possible.

 

[Jokodo]

Change of position of what?

What are things made of?

What is space made of?



Your hand cannot move an infinitely small distance. There is no such distance.

Your delusions of violence are an absurdity.

Relativity and Newtonian mechanics are not explanations of reality.

They are models of how reality works. Not what it is.

Until someone comes up with a better one, they're among the best we have. Will you?

 

[untermensche]

They are not explanations of reality and never claimed to be.

They are models that describe how nature works.

They are not explanations of what nature is.

And most importantly they in no way say a real infinity is possible.

Infinity is an imaginary process. Not a thing that can be real.

 

[Jokodo]

They are not explanations of reality and never claimed to be.

They are models that describe how nature works.

They are not explanations of what nature is.

And most importantly they in no way say a real infinity is possible.

Infinity is an imaginary process. Not a thing that can be real.

They do say that there's an infinite numbers of intermediate positions between my fist and your face. A granular conception of Space is incompatible with either without major modifications.

 

[untermensche]

They are not explanations of reality and never claimed to be.

They are models that describe how nature works.

They are not explanations of what nature is.

And most importantly they in no way say a real infinity is possible.

Infinity is an imaginary process. Not a thing that can be real.

They do say that there's an infinite numbers of intermediate positions between my fist and your face. A granular conception of Space is incompatible with either without major modifications.

They say that because they make use of imaginary points. You confuse the models with the real thing.

Hint: Model has points, infinite points. Reality does not.

There are no points in the real world.

Two objects can only be so close to one another. They cannot move closer and closer infinitely.

As my head moves from your slow weak fist it moves in positive steps.

Not imaginary infinite steps.

 

[Bomb#20]

I worked with stuff.

Consider a pitcher throwing a baseball. Is the chemical energy in blood continuous or discrete? At a macroscopic level I could say there x.xx... joules/liter of ATP. At the molecular level ATP is discrete. The pitcher can only trasder energy to the ball in discrete steps. The steps are so small we treat the change in velocity of the ball as coninuous. Then ATP in the blood can only change one molecule at a time.

Sure; but you can't demonstrate a generalization by giving examples. It doesn't work that way. Beautiful theories are slain by ugly facts, not vice versa. The energy in blood can perfectly well be discrete at the same time the energy in cosmic rays is continuous. Deal with it. Don't just give me more examples of bound states.

Electrons are quantized. I can only change the voltage on a capaciter in steps of discrete electrons.

That's ridiculous. You know it's ridiculous, when you let your thinking catch up with your typing. So slow down, and check what you say for correctness before you post. Electrons are not a unit of voltage. You know this.

Instruments usually can not detect single electron changes, at the macro electric circuit level voltage appears continuous. In equations we use a real variable. Sometomes we need to know the quantityof electrons and convert volts to coulombs.

But how do you convert volts to coulombs? They're different dimensions, like converting meters per second to meters, which means to get from one to the other you have to multiply by some third quantity. To get from volts to coulombs you have to multiply by farads, the capacitance of your capacitor. So for volts to be discrete, it's not enough that coulombs be discrete -- you'd also need farads to be discrete. Quantum mechanics doesn't say farads are discrete. As far as we can tell, capacitance changes continuously.

https://socratic.org/questions/what...nergy-used-to-power-a-muscle-cell-in-your-arm

A common creationist attack on evolution is that it is faith based analogous to creationism. Depends on what you mean by faith. When you are on the takeoff roll why do you believe the jet will fly, baring a failure. For me I understand fluid dynamics and lift.

I'm sure you do; but you don't understand quantum mechanics. You keep making rookie mistakes.

I've dealt with this stuff on routine basis. What we do know of QM is that the models produce predicable results at the level we can measure. Transistors, lasers, solar cells. The faith is in the models which after being used for enough time people have confidnce in them. I have faith in Kircoff's Laws in electric circuuits because for over 200 years they have never failed. There is always the unknown.

In some areas in electronics QM is used daily. It is routine and trusted. Reality so far appears quantized. Nothing in science is absolute.

Some of reality so far appears quantized. The energies of cosmic rays appear not to be quantized. Electronics likewise appears to be part quantized and part continuous, and that's what QM predicts. Quantized charge, continuous current. It has to be that way, because QM is a bunch of PDEs with respect to time. You say you understand PDEs. How do you figure you can have a PDE relating discontinuous quantities?

 

[Bomb#20]

In science we do not prove hypotheses; we falsify them. Rational people believe things are probably real not when they're proven to exist but when well-supported theories imply they're real, based on accumulation of empirical evidence.

People do not believe things are real. They know it.

If you can observe it in some way it is real. There is no more to that.

Knowledge is, roughly, "justified true belief". People know things are real; therefore people believe things are real, and people are justified in believing things are real, and things are real.

Relativity and quantum mechanics both assert that space is infinitely divisible.

?

Neither can assert anything.

And quantum mechanics says the world is quantized.

Those sentences contradict each other. You understand that "say" and "assert" mean the same thing, don't you? Please try to apply logic to your own claims.

Quantum mechanics says some things in the world are quantized and others aren't. If you don't know this then you've been getting your notion of what it says from popularizations. Get an introductory textbook on QM and read it.

You confuse the models used in physics with reality.

Not at all. I wasn't making a claim about reality; I was making a claim about what the models claim about reality. It is of course entirely possible that QM and relativity are not correct, that they're only approximations. It's possible that time really is discrete and QM and relativity treat it as infinitely divisible only because that approximate model is easier to discover than a correct model. But the critical point that you keep missing is that the QM and relativity models do not claim to be only approximations. Even if time is really discrete, that doesn't in any way change the fact that QM says it's continuous or the fact that relativity says it's continuous. Neither your conviction that the whole world is quantized, nor even the whole world actually being quantized, if it is, have the power to stop relativity and quantum mechanics from saying that time is continuous. You are wrong about what QM says. QM does not say the world is quantized. If you think I'm mistaken, go get a bloody textbook.

The model is just something used to make a prediction. That is all it is. It is not a description of "reality". It is just a way to predict what "reality" will do. Nothing more.

Relativity says that if we make certain assumptions and use certain formula's we can make predictions. That is all it does.

That's an unfalsifiability engine. A flat-earther can use exactly the same line of thought to protect his flat-earth convictions from falsification by observation. He can always just say "The round-earth theory is just a mathematical model used to make predictions. That's all it is. It is not a description of reality. It is just a way to predict what "reality" will do. Nothing more. The world really is flat; it's just that pretending it's round happens to be a clever and convenient way to predict measurements with less calculation effort than using a correct theory."

And it does not prove the assumptions are true. It merely works with them.

Of course. In science we don't prove assumptions; we only falsify them. But theories are not just a way to predict what reality will do. They are also attempts to say what reality is. When Einstein developed relativity, he wasn't just saying "Computationally, you can get away with ignoring the luminiferous aether." He was saying "There's no such thing as the luminiferous aether." If scientists weren't trying to say anything about reality they wouldn't be scientists. They'd be engineers.

according to quantum mechanics, momentum is not quantized -- it can be divided endlessly

I don't believe that for a second.

You will very quickly get to a point where observable changes in momentum become quantized.

You might or might not be right about that; but you not believing quantum mechanics's claims doesn't change what it is that it claims. It is allowed to disagree with you. It might be wrong, but you have no grounds for imagining that it supports your contentions. It opposes your contentions. If QM is correct then momentum is not quantized. You will need to argue for your discrete universe opinion without QM's help.

You will not be able to observe, ever, infinite changes in anything. To observe it would take infinite time. Time that never ends in other words. It is an impossibility.

You will not be able to observe, ever, hydrogen turning into carbon in the center of the sun. We draw conclusions about what the world does on the basis of circumstantial evidence all the bloody time. The circumstantial evidence for infinite changes in momentum is the fact that (a) QM says so, (b) QM is the most accurate predictor of observation in the history of H. sapiens, and (c) for about a hundred years smart physicists have tried to think up a discrete theory for QM to be a mere approximation of, and they have failed. If there really are no infinite changes in momentum, why would facts a, b, and c be true?

What hypothesis explains QM's track record of beating all competitors better than the hypothesis that QM's assumptions about the universe are correct?

 

[steve_bank]

Well bomb, the quantization of charge is earblished and part of working theories.

I used to have a copy of Miililkan's book The Elecyton detailing his oil drop experiments, his experimental setup, and data from the early 20th century. The first demo of quantization of charge. There were competing theories to explain electric current, one being a kind of a fluid. The electron won out.

Qunatization of charge is black and white textbook. It is like arguing that a piece of steel is not comprised of discrete atoms.

Back circa 1900 xray diffraction of crystal structure materials showed a refular pattern of nodes separated by relatively large interatomic spacing. The fact that solid was an illusion actually caused some philisophical rumblings.

It appears pointless to post explanatory links for you. Get a basic book on electtric circuits.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well bomb, the quantization of charge is earblished and part of working theories.

I used to have a copy of Miililkan's book The Elecyton detailing his oil drop experiments, his experimental setup, and data from the early 20th century. The first demo of quantization of charge. There were competing theories to explain electric current, one being a kind of a fluid. The electron won out.

Qunatization of charge is black and white textbook. It is like arguing that a piece of steel is not comprised of discrete atoms.

Back circa 1900 xray diffraction of crystal structure materials showed a refular pattern of nodes separated by relatively large interatomic spacing. The fact that solid was an illusion actually caused some philisophical rumblings.

Dude, what the bejesus is wrong with you? Why do you consult your inner muse to decide what other people's claims are? Why don't you read what people say to you and respond to that? Which part of "Quantized charge, continuous current." don't you understand?

I did not disagree with Millikan. I did not disagree with established working theories. I did not disagree with any black and white textbook. I said charge is quantized!!! You are irrationally jumping from the correct premise that charge is quantized to the incorrect conclusion that current is quantized, and then, when people inevitably point out that you're wrong, you are deceiving yourself into believing that they denied that charge is quantized. Stop doing that. You are behaving like a South Park underpants gnome.

Step 1. Charge is quantized.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Current is quantized.

We ask "What's Step 2?" You answer "Step 1 is charge is quantized."

 

[steve_bank]

Well bomb, the quantization of charge is earblished and part of working theories.

I used to have a copy of Miililkan's book The Elecyton detailing his oil drop experiments, his experimental setup, and data from the early 20th century. The first demo of quantization of charge. There were competing theories to explain electric current, one being a kind of a fluid. The electron won out.

Qunatization of charge is black and white textbook. It is like arguing that a piece of steel is not comprised of discrete atoms.

Back circa 1900 xray diffraction of crystal structure materials showed a refular pattern of nodes separated by relatively large interatomic spacing. The fact that solid was an illusion actually caused some philisophical rumblings.

Dude, what the bejesus is wrong with you? Why do you consult your inner muse to decide what other people's claims are? Why don't you read what people say to you and respond to that? Which part of "Quantized charge, continuous current." don't you understand?

I did not disagree with Millikan. I did not disagree with established working theories. I did not disagree with any black and white textbook. I said charge is quantized!!! You are irrationally jumping from the correct premise that charge is quantized to the incorrect conclusion that current is quantized, and then, when people inevitably point out that you're wrong, you are deceiving yourself into believing that they denied that charge is quantized. Stop doing that. You are behaving like a South Park underpants gnome.

Step 1. Charge is quantized.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Current is quantized.

We ask "What's Step 2?" You answer "Step 1 is charge is quantized."

If you accept Milikan, the voltghe on a cap is dtermined by number of electrons. The charge on a cap can only change 1 electron at a time. You seem to be rejecting quntization of charge. Make up your mind, which is it? Current is elctrons per second as I stated.

 

[Juma]

Well bomb, the quantization of charge is earblished and part of working theories.

I used to have a copy of Miililkan's book The Elecyton detailing his oil drop experiments, his experimental setup, and data from the early 20th century. The first demo of quantization of charge. There were competing theories to explain electric current, one being a kind of a fluid. The electron won out.

Qunatization of charge is black and white textbook. It is like arguing that a piece of steel is not comprised of discrete atoms.

Back circa 1900 xray diffraction of crystal structure materials showed a refular pattern of nodes separated by relatively large interatomic spacing. The fact that solid was an illusion actually caused some philisophical rumblings.

Dude, what the bejesus is wrong with you? Why do you consult your inner muse to decide what other people's claims are? Why don't you read what people say to you and respond to that? Which part of "Quantized charge, continuous current." don't you understand?

I did not disagree with Millikan. I did not disagree with established working theories. I did not disagree with any black and white textbook. I said charge is quantized!!! You are irrationally jumping from the correct premise that charge is quantized to the incorrect conclusion that current is quantized, and then, when people inevitably point out that you're wrong, you are deceiving yourself into believing that they denied that charge is quantized. Stop doing that. You are behaving like a South Park underpants gnome.

Step 1. Charge is quantized.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Current is quantized.

We ask "What's Step 2?" You answer "Step 1 is charge is quantized."

If you accept Milikan, the voltghe on a cap is dtermined by number of electrons. The charge on a cap can only change 1 electron at a time. You seem to be rejecting quntization of charge. Make up your mind, which is it? Current is elctrons per second as I stated.

But current is measuring the speed of the charge. You can have as low current as you want by moving that single electron very, very, very slowly...

 

[steve_bank]

If you accept Milikan, the voltghe on a cap is dtermined by number of electrons. The charge on a cap can only change 1 electron at a time. You seem to be rejecting quntization of charge. Make up your mind, which is it? Current is elctrons per second as I stated.

But current is measuring the speed of the charge. You can have as low current as you want by moving that single electron very, very, very slowly...

Good question. Take an unconnected piece of copper wire. At a cross section thermal electrons are moving back and forth across it. The net charge crossing is zero. Thermal electrons are created by heat. Electrons move around being created and absorbed powered by heat. They are moving randomly any which way.

Place a voltage across the wire and a force in Newtons per meter appears across the wire creating a net drift of electrons through the wire. An electron does not enter the wire and appear at the other end. At any spot on a cross section electrons may be going one way or another, but there is a net drift in one direction and that is current. Current is coulombs per second.

The drift velocity is actually relatively slow .

https://study.com/academy/lesson/drift-velocity-electron-mobility-definitions-formula.html

Current is measured in different ways. The most common is to place a small precision resistance in series with the current and measure the voltage across it. From Ohm's Law Current = voltage/resistance.

Another is to measure the magnetic field with a transformer around the wire, AC current only. A third is using the Hall Effect.