This treads into semantics a bit which is a fucking miserable subject to me. I've been taught and probably always will say as x goes to infinity. But I think the most important idea from infinity is that it's not an object, just that whatever it's describing has no end. A cool thing related to infinity is Zeno's paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise Added link for simplicity. edit: Infinity? No not unless it was how I said, as a limit (or limit of integration). Generally it's infinite and infinitely. Like there's an infinite amount of area under the curve of 1/x (whose antiderivative is ln(x)) from 0 to infinity or there's an infinite amount of area from 0 to infinity of the function 1/sqrt(x).
So you are saying that you believe space is infinite, as in, one could travel endlessly in space. I assume you are saying this and perhaps that time is infinite. As for something "going to infinity", it is simply a manner of speech and how it can mean anything other than something extending infinitely, I do not know. Now you are making assumptions about how I think of this idea of infinity, which isn't surprising, but it's a strawman fallacy. You are misconstruing my meaning by applying your prejudged ideas of me to the words I use and defining them yourself in the way you think I would. This is wrong. The infinity and infinite game you are playing is one of semantics and is only drawing away from the real issue. For some reason it seems like someone is shoving an armadillo up your ass every single time someone mentions metaphysics, interestingly enough, you seem entirely clueless as to what that term means and have a distinctly blind hostility towards it. So I'm going to a do a really simple thing for you, I'm going to go on wikipedia and copy the first couple paragraphs on the metaphysics page and then paste it here. Okay? Okay. Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,<sup>[1]</sup> although the term is not easily defined.<sup>[2]</sup> Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:<sup>[3]</sup> What is ultimately there?\t What is it like? A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist<sup>[4]</sup> or a metaphysician.<sup>[5]</sup> The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g.,existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central focus of metaphysics, but this can be questioned. wtf is this? Oh shit, what's that about space and time? Ontology? Cosmology? Fundamental structure, nature and dynamics of the universe? Ah, but you don't have metaphysical beliefs, and ahh, that's not an armadillo up your ass, it's just your bullshit being uncovered.
I know it can be considered semantics, if it wasn't there couldn't be any argument over it.. but I like to try to be as literal as possible, at least when describing something. And I know I can be overly literal at times, but I don't feel like I am here. I think that the actually meaning of infinity, in overall society, has been butchered.. and people find in completely interchangeable with infinite. Don't really get the point of the tortoise race.. cause it wouldn't be one race, it'd be a series of races. Ones that are set up in favor of the tortoise.. but I don't really find that paradoxical. It seems a given that he'd never catch him given those conditions for each individual race in the series. If you had paid attention to everything, you'd have seen that I already addressed this when Norse wiki pasted this same thing.. lol, that's why I said you two are doppelgangers earlier, you're like two peas in a pod. As I said before, it used to be metaphysical and you personally can still put a metaphysical belief into it, but the scientific branch of cosmology has broken off into physical cosmology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology There is nothing metaphysical about physical cosmology.. unless you cram the metaphysical belief into it. Physical cosmology is physics.. and by definition, metaphysics is beyond physics.
I think the paradox is that a seemingly finite distance must be traveled over infinitely many divisions. As per 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16... you can travel half the distance to whatever point you're going to infinitely many times. edit: Oh shit meant to link Dichotomy paradox.
Makes sense now.. lol, the race paradox to me is not really paradoxical. It's set up to make Achilles wait to give the tortoise another head start every time he gets close to catching up.. of course he won't ever catch up even if given an infinite amount of time.
Funny you mention that even though i graduated college... you? Also Calphysics "...quantum physics predicts that all of space must be filled with electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations (also called the zero-point field) creating a universal sea of zero-point energy. The density of this energy depends critically on where in frequency the zero-point fluctuations cease. Since space itself is thought to break up into a kind of quantum foam at a tiny distance scale called the Planck scale (10-33 cm), it is argued that the zero point fluctuations must cease at a corresponding Planck frequency (1043 Hz). If that is the case, the zero-point energy density would be 110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun." http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html Bold emphasis mine
I did.. but it's been bout 10 years since I finished. Should probably get my ass back in it, but meh.. don't really need any kind of degree to work with dogs. Now.. Calphysics is a joke to physics. The zero point energy field is quantum woo, a theory that is meant to back up their quantum belief in God. You can't tell me that is isn't.. the man who runs Calphysics also hopes to prove God with science and that our consciousness is a connection to this God. It reminds me of Spinoza's God. He even has a book called The God Theory: http://www.thegodtheory.com/ http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Theory-Universes-Zero-point/dp/1578634369 I highly doubt that that would bother you, you were raised in an environment where religion and education was mixed.. but it is meant to give you an idea of where this "scientist's" motivation comes from. It is what always happens with science.. it branches out and discovers new knowledge, like quantum physics, and then people with a spiritual belief try to adopt the science into their belief to justify it. So now we have this new trend of people taking quantum woo and trying to claim it is quantum physics. And here is what quantum woo is: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo That is what the zero point energy field is.. quantum woo. Zero point energy is simply the lowest amount of energy a system can have.. if you took a glass of water and extracted all the energy that you possibly could, it would be in a zero point energy state. If you took a magnetic field and extracted all the energy possible, it would be a zero point energy field.. a field where you extracted all the energy from it that you possibly could. There is no all encompassing zero point energy field permeating throughout the universe.. cause obviously the universe still has energy throughout it that can be extracted and used. Only individual fields can become zero point energy fields.. and the idea that there is an all encompassing zero point energy field is someone's poor attempt to scientifically back up their belief in God. Here is another article written by Bernard: http://www.creationsmagazine.com/articles/C133/Haisch.html You have fallen prey to a "scientist" who is trying to use quantum physics to justify his belief in God.. which will always result in failure. They take pseudoscience and pass it off as science.. but instead you accuse science of being dogmatic, when it is the pseudoscience. Now that this has been moved out of the science section, I don't feel the need to harp on your general misunderstanding of science.. but I really do hope you at least consider the possibility that you are being duped by someone trying to scientifically prove their belief in God.
I think you are getting hung up on the term. Zero point field is synonymous with QED vacuum, vacuum state, quantum field, dirac sea etc. Likewise zero point energy is synonymous with vacuum fluctuations and probably a host of other terms. There may be slight differences but i dont have the in depth understanding of it to where it make a difference to me. That is my problem with physics, i love the field but i dont think they have it nailed down very well so a layperson, like myself, will come away with a twisted understanding. I think the interesting part, as we have discussed before, is that it 'all' seems to be made of energy. Why do 'particles' flow acrosss the field, if the field isnt energy, what is it? What makes up the field and what is that made of ad infinitum? As soon as we reach an 'end' we will still have to ask 'well why'. When i say God i dont refer to an anthropomorhic deity, i refer to the overarching infinite potential, the fundamental source of the existence we experience. It seems to me there must be an end to the question 'why?', an uncaused infinite source. Even if there were supernatural deities, they would not be the end of the question, and are not what I refer to when i say God. The end of the question lies in the infinite potential, unjustified/self-justified contradiction where logic fails, where all the human inventions fail to comprehend. I think its possible if humanity continues to evolve we could rise to understand more of this, but until we are infinite, we cannot understand the truly infinite. We all have unjustified axiomatic beliefs from which we construct an undertanding of reality, we also have science, to in a sense, reverse engineer the patterns we can uncover, to push our justification to a deeper understanding.
All those are pretty much theoretical models.. and are typically used to justify a 'theory of everything' where one tries to create a theory that accounts for the entire universe. Pretty much everyone that I've seen who tried to find justification in a theory of everything has a belief in God in one form or another. Like Einstein and Spinoza's God. And that's why I've said that philosophy deals with "why" and science deals with "how".. but the how the science uncovers, to me, IS the why. There is no point in referring to anything as God, especially when you're trying to take a scientific approach to life, because once you uncover what you thought of as God, you'll see that it isn't God and it is what it is. Before, God(s) were in the natural world.. controlling aspects of nature. As science uncovered the how of those natural occurrences, God got moved into the heavens. As we uncovered the hows of the heavens, like discovered that Jupiter is a planet and not a god, God got moved to beyond the universe. God is a place filler for knowledge.. and as your knowledge grows, you'll see the label of God no longer applies.. unless you a person who has put the belief in God to be beyond the universe. Right off the bat you're setting yourself up with this infamous dogma.. putting God where the only thing you'll have to justify it is belief and in a "location" where science can't touch it. It's like trying to dig in a hole that is already empty.. Philosophically, follow who ever you want.. but scientifically, if the scientist is personally trying to use science to justify their belief in God.. then you don't want their "science". Unless of course you share the same religious belief that they are trying to justify.
Its not a 'belief in God' in a religious sense like you seem to imply. You are god, i am god, energy is god, good is god, evil is god etc. All derived from the infinite potential. And the how does not answer why. How an electron cloud envelopes the nucleus gives no why. A standing wave has regions of differing pressures, that is how it gets its shape but doesnt explain why it is the way it is and not some other way. You are the one interjecting that a scientific approach is the proper approach. If that is so, how can you scientifically justify that claim? Btw i appreciate the toned down response, i dont see the need to sling insults.
If everything is god, what is the point of saying anything is god? It's like the saying "if everyone is special, than no one is".. and in order to say that someone (like me) how doesn't believe in god in any shape or form aside from a delusional creation of man, that is a belief. You might not have formed religious practices around the belief, not even sure how you would, but you are forming religious belief. You have to believe that I am god in order for you to say I am god, cause I am the only person who is me.. and I am not god. I most certainly does.. unless you believe that there is something more than will forever remain unseen that is influencing it. Once you learn all of the influences that go into how it is the way it is, you'll learn why it is the way it is. You can chose to ignore the how if it doesn't confirm your belief as to why.. but that's on you. It's like the appearance of life.. once we learn how life appeared, we will learn why it appeared. The answer to "why?" would be "because these specific, natural conditions allowed life to naturally appear". That won't stop the search for knowledge though.. you can continue with learning how/why those conditions came to be.. and then learn the how/why of what brought them about.. and so on and so on. This is my approach. Philosophy is used to asked the questions, science is used to provide the answers.. but all too often people ignore the science in light of their philosophy. That is the basis of most religious, metaphysical, immaterial, and supernatural belief systems.. ignoring the facts that contradict the belief.