The Immortal Mind

[Penguin]

You are both ignoring that there can't be an infinite number of worlds because the  universe isn't infinite.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed so however much there is....that's all there is.

Its probably a really big number....but not infinite.

You ignored the second sentence of my post.  I said that if the universe were infinite then there would be an infinite number of inhabited worlds.

flawed equations, there is no such thing as 1/3 of infinity. 

Actually, my equations are correct.

y=mx+b

If x is infinte, then y=m(infinity)+b

-Penguin

[mechanic]

why are you using linear equations?

[Penguin]

The linear equation is to express the idea of there being a certain portion of the universe that is inhabited, and a certain one that is not.  I am not quite sure whether the relationship would be logarithmic, however.

-Penguin

[mechanic]

But you are dealing with infinity, you suggest that infinity can be divided into thirds which I dispute. I don't understand that statement even in algebraic form. Maybe I'm too stupid. 

[mensa180]

You are both ignoring that there can't be an infinite number of worlds because the  universe isn't infinite.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed so however much there is....that's all there is.

Its probably a really big number....but not infinite.

We don't know that the universe isn't infinite.  Even if there isn't an infinite amount of matter, that doesn't mean there can't be an infinite amount of space.  Space isn't matter nor does it require it.  It can expand forever for all we know, and at the moment that rate of expansion is still speeding up.

[FireDrgn]

Your logic is flawed.  One refers to a specific number, which is unique.  Inhabited worlds is a category, which implies that if there were an infinite number of worlds, there would also be an infinite number of inhabited worlds, but their number would be relative to that of the uninhabited worlds.

For example:

For every one inhabited world, there are three uninhabited ones:

if y is the number of inhabited worlds, and x is the number of uninhabited ones, then;

y=x/3

If x=300, then y=100

If x is infinity, then y is one-third infinity.  This can also be turned into a system of equations:

z is the total number of worlds

z=y+x
y=x/3
x=z/4

Why is x equal to z divided by four? Because if the universe is three parts uninhabited to one part inhabited, then it is made up of four parts, of which the inhabited part is one.

-Penguin

My logic is flawed? I used your syllogism. There are plenty of logical reasons how we cant have an infinite number of worlds, thats not the point.

I dont see how if you have an infinite number of worlds that they all have to be inhabited? For it to be necessarily true you would not be able to imagine any worlds that dont have inhabitants.


You cant have both an infinite number of X worlds and Y worlds . If you have an infinite number of x worlds you can never get any y worlds because your never done with x worlds. Unless you have two infinite amounts of space. I have no problem with the concept of one infinite amout of space but not two.

You can only represent more than one infinite with  " language or math " you cant actually have it.

[Sonicblu]

Question

Space is expanding, into what? 

Remember infinity is not a number it is a concept. You can conceptualize  having an infinite number of red balls and a infinite number of blue balls ( lol )
So the worlds that are inhabited can be infinite can be conceptualized 
And the there can be a infinite number of uninhabited worlds. That can be conceptualized.
 It doesn't mean it exists.

Numbers don't exist they reference what could or does exist.

My guess is penguin has someone in the house that says post this it will fry there brains, or the kid has a we bit of genius.

Good one penguin <S>

Hey fire I think you only need to imagine one of those specific worlds of said group for it not to be infinite, is wrong somehow. Because you can't imagine a uninhabited world of a set of infinite inhabited worlds. You would be imagining a different set. You have already defined it as infinite.  You only have to imagine a specific number of worlds to make it not infinite. Any time you number a set makes it not infinite.
 

[Plawranc]

The universe is ever expanding as the result of the Big Bang... an explosion of that size will continue on and on until its momentum dissapates. (Which will be in an unfathomable amount of time)

Nothing is infinite, merely a cycle.

And Penguin. How many times must we argue on the same point.... if there is no use of emotion in life, argument, speech, thought.... than you are not living...

[Penguin]

The universe is ever expanding as the result of the Big Bang... an explosion of that size will continue on and on until its momentum dissapates. (Which will be in an unfathomable amount of time)

Nothing is infinite, merely a cycle.

And Penguin. How many times must we argue on the same point.... if there is no use of emotion in life, argument, speech, thought.... than you are not living...

This is math, it's as dry as it gets.  No matter how much you hate it, love it, or laugh at it, y=mx+b. 

Momentum does not dissipate in a vacuum.  You are confusing explosions on earth with those in space.  Remember Newton's Law: All objects in motion will remain in motion and all objects at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by another force.  For example, if I threw a hand grenade into an endless, empty vacuum, the shrapnel would continue on forever.  The same applies to the Big Bang.

However, your post may refer to proton decay.  In that case, the time is most certainly fathomable, and we have even established an approximate date for when half the protons in the universe will have decayed.  This is the protons' half-life, and each time we go through one, half the protons in universe will decay back into elementary particles.

The larger question remains.  What is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, and will its expansion continue to accelerate?  The current answer is dark matter, and if the expansion of the universe accelerates across the scale of matter, a Big Rip will occur.  A Big Rip is one of the possible ultimate fates of the universe, in which everything in the universe expands until even quarks themselves are torn asunder.

We'll be lucky to survive until the sun becomes a red giant, however, given the devastating effects of being sucked into a star.  We'll need to develop interstellar travel soon, since our population is expanding and we can't stay on this (albeit beautiful) rock forever.  The question becomes, can we overcome the technical hurdles in the way?  The future is fraught with danger, and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.

-Penguin

[mensa180]

Question

Space is expanding, into what? 

Remember infinity is not a number it is a concept. You can conceptualize  having an infinite number of red balls and a infinite number of blue balls ( lol )
So the worlds that are inhabited can be infinite can be conceptualized 
And the there can be a infinite number of uninhabited worlds. That can be conceptualized.
 It doesn't mean it exists.

Numbers don't exist they reference what could or does exist.

My guess is penguin has someone in the house that says post this it will fry there brains, or the kid has a we bit of genius.

Good one penguin <S>

Hey fire I think you only need to imagine one of those specific worlds of said group for it not to be infinite, is wrong somehow. Because you can't imagine a uninhabited world of a set of infinite inhabited worlds. You would be imagining a different set. You have already defined it as infinite.  You only have to imagine a specific number of worlds to make it not infinite. Any time you number a set makes it not infinite.
 

It isn't expanding into anything, this is a common misconception. 

[mensa180]

Penguin your logic is flawed, if there was no use for emotion, speech, argument, or thought, then they would not have evolved.  Clearly these traits were the best and most desirable at various points in time for our species.

If you're arguing that life is on the whole inconsequential in the scheme of the universe, then that is obvious and anyone would agree the universe doesn't care.

For someone who is trying so hard to be scientific your views of love are completely illogical.  It wasn't something we got "addicted" to and simple kept up.  The most 'loving' of our species were simply the ones that survived, and so that trait is now universal. 

Love, I agree, is hormones, electricity, and chemical gradients.  Every perception, thought, and feeling we have takes place in our brain.  Obviously love was evolutionarily useful.  It was more than simply keeping the male around to protect the mother.  It was everything: family structure, mother-child relationship, etc. 

Knowing that love and emotions are the result of chemistry, biology, and physics doesn't make them useless, obsolete, or subject to discard, and for me personally it doesn't make it any less magical.  I think it is just as wondrous and magical that real, identifiable things, atoms, quarks, etc, can create such incredibly complex and diverse biological creatures such as ourselves.

[Penguin]

You missed my point entirely, but you managed to create astrawman argument packed with eloquent emotional appeals.

• My views on love have nothing to do with this discussion (not that I am not happy to discuss them).
• I am not arguing that we are inconsequential (which is true, though)
• Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, though I'll happily take PM's on the subject

Nice haul Plawranc, you flamebaiter.

-Penguin

[mechanic]

I'm starting to think Penguin is Moot's shade account

[Penguin]

This frustrates me incredibly.  I'm sorry for shouting, but your post justifies it; WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THAT I'M A SHADE?

-Penguin

[Plawranc]

Hahah, anytime Penguin. You like taking the OP. I like causing the forum SAM sites to blast ya  how this game on the AH BBS boards works   

I am logical by nature, I think and rethink almost everything. However I have only recently grasped that logic and fact.. while practically applicable... are exactly that... nothing but practical..

To develop true understanding, all factors must be explored.. all variables accounted for.. that is scientific process. When dealing with humanity.. one simply cannot ignore emotions.. Love, Determination, Hatred.. they have been responsible for not only every single decision made.. but also the causes of that decision needing to arise. Humans, like all living things. Are afflicted with emotion, their mood, thought process, experiences and so forth.. make them inherently biased. Everything to do with humanity... is opinion and interpretation (good and evil for example)... not fact. Only Mathematics and Science are linear... everything else is open to interpretation.

Penguin you have not yet figured out the most important question of all..... It is not how that is important...

It is why.

I am not a science student, I think it is obvious that I am a humanities student. I do not deal with how, I deal with why. However that said I will attempt. Sticking to the scientific argument.

I understand newtons law. And I understand that. And I was speaking from a paper I read some time ago so you are more than likely correct on the proton decay. The details of the paper stated that the universe will expand, and then retract until the universe is crushed and destroyed and then reformed as the next universe. Like all scientific theory it is precisely that, theory. We have no idea what will actually happen, or how it will happen or even why it will happen. It just will or won't until we have the means at our disposal to see for ourselves.

And I think we deserve to have a squeakers unite moment on this one penguin because for the first time. We agree