Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[leroy]

Once again, that is simply false. Just ask anyone in a basic probability and statistics course dealing with continuous distributions.

Again, if you apply continuous distribution in infinit stuff, you have a probability of zero on each specific" point"

Which is just an other clue that tells us how absurd infinity is.

Absolutely, and the black and white charges would cancel, giving a scenario that is isomorphic to the integers.

Agree

 

[Polymath257]

Again, if you apply continuous distribution in infinit stuff, you have a probability of zero on each specific" point"

Yes.

Which is just an other clue that tells us how absurd infinity is.

No. It just shows that infinite set have different properties than finite ones.

Agree

So there is really no difference. The structures are identical.

 

[sayak83]

No, I f you have infinite samples then the probability of picking one sample is zero (not close to zero) but literally zero. Picking a volume where 99% of the atoms decayed is equally likely than picking a volme where only 1% of the atoms decayed . (in the same amout of time)

Which is why infinites are absurd.

As I said before, the correct measure of probability for a continuous random variable (one that can take infinite values) is not the probability mass function, which is only defined for a finite set of values, but the probability density function which does have finite values at any given value of the variable even for random variables that can take infinite values. The probability density function is first defined over an interval and then the limit of the interval length (delta x) is set to zero in order to define the probability density for any given value of the variable. Hence we get finite valued probability even for continuous random variables. Again, any basic probability course will cover this. A simple explanation is provided here,

14.1 - Probability Density Functions | STAT 414

Note that one of the most common types of pdf is the pdf of a normal distribution that is fully defined for any given value of x ranging from -infinity to + infinity.
Normal Distribution Formula - What Is Normal Distribution Formula?

Thus you are completely wrong here. Given a probability distribution we can exactly determine the probability of picking a volume where 99% of the atoms have decayed as well as the probability where 1% of the atoms have decayed even in a universe having infinite total volume.

 

[leroy]

No. It just shows that infinite set have different properties than finite ones.



al.

Ok then accept the implications of accepting infinite stuff.

For example that YEC and old earthers are equally likely to be correct

 

[Polymath257]

Ok then accept the implications of accepting infinite stuff.

For example that YEC and old earthers are equally likely to be correct

But that is false. Even in the context of an infinite universe, it is false.

 

[leroy]

But that is false. Even in the context of an infinite universe, it is false.

Well I elaborated my argument, please spot the exact point you think is false:

1 there are infinite planets

2 there are infinite possible ages (from 1 day old to infinite days old)

3 therefore there are infinite planets that are 6,000yo and infinite planets that are 4.5B years old (consider a margin of +-5% in both cases )

4 a fraction of the 6000yo planets would look old (just by chance atoms happened to decay faster)

5 this fraction would also be infinite

6 the amount of 6,000yo planets that look old is the same than the amount of planets that are really old (4.5B years old)

7 therefore the probability of living in a 6000yo planet that looks 4,5B years old is the same than the probability of living in a planet that really is 4.5B years old

8 therefore YEC and old earhters are equally likely to be correct.

 

[leroy]

As I said before, the correct measure of probability for a continuous random variable (one that can take infinite values) is not the probability mass function, which is only defined for a finite set of values, but the probability density function which does have finite values at any given value of the variable even for random variables that can take infinite values. The probability density function is first defined over an interval and then the limit of the interval length (delta x) is set to zero in order to define the probability density for any given value of the variable. Hence we get finite valued probability even for continuous random variables. Again, any basic probability course will cover this. A simple explanation is provided here,

14.1 - Probability Density Functions | STAT 414

Note that one of the most common types of pdf is the pdf of a normal distribution that is fully defined for any given value of x ranging from -infinity to + infinity.
Normal Distribution Formula - What Is Normal Distribution Formula?

View attachment 65729

Thus you are completely wrong here. Given a probability distribution we can exactly determine the probability of picking a volume where 99% of the atoms have decayed as well as the probability where 1% of the atoms have decayed even in a universe having infinite total volume.

You are dealing with potencial infinites (which are coherent and ok with me)

So yes with potential infinities you can do things like “probability distributions” but you cant have probability distributions with actual infinites, with actual infinites each “option” has a probability of zero. … so even if one alternative is 10 times more probable than the other 10*0 is still zero.

All probabilities are the same, (which is absurd, which is why one should drop infinities)

 

[rational experiences]

A day a human equates on a Planet with a heavens burning gas light one side and the other clear dark.

To say one day. Counting 12/12.

A human proposes by a humans standard of surviving as life about 100 years average. That non consuming bodies are billions of years old...by determined existing with lights presence.

You can't count dark by itself. Therefore you didn't. Yet men pretend they know it all so by human ego they must give an answer to their own question.

If you make space a plane it would be as the same position anywhere in the same moment.

 

[Polymath257]

Well I elaborated my argument, please spot the exact point you think is false:

1 there are infinite planets

2 there are infinite possible ages (from 1 day old to infinite days old)

3 therefore there are infinite planets that are 6,000yo and infinite planets that are 4.5B years old (consider a margin of +-5% in both cases )

4 a fraction of the 6000yo planets would look old (just by chance atoms happened to decay faster)

So far, so good.

5 this fraction would also be infinite

Actually, the number of such planets would be infinite. The fraction would be very small.

6 the amount of 6,000yo planets that look old is the same than the amount of planets that are really old (4.5B years old)

7 therefore the probability of living in a 6000yo planet that looks 4,5B years old is the same than the probability of living in a planet that really is 4.5B years old

And this is wrong. The cardinalities being the same does NOT imply the probabilities are the same.

8 therefore YEC and old earhters are equally likely to be correct.

Nope. Once again, you fail to grasp that cardinality (how many) is only mildly related to probability (likelihood). Two sets can be the same size in terms of cardinality, but be very different in terms of likelihood.

 

[leroy]

And this is wrong. The cardinalities being the same does NOT imply the probabilities are the same.



.

Well why not?

If you have the same number of red balls and blue balls and you select a ball randomly, the probability should be the same for any of the colors.

 

[Polymath257]

Well why not?

If you have the same number of red balls and blue balls and you select a ball randomly, the probability should be the same for any of the colors.

Nope. For example, if the number of blue balls is 9 times the number of red balls in every cubic kilometer, the probability of getting a blue ball will be .9 and that for a red ball will be .1 even if the total number of balls is infinite in both cases.

Again, the point is that cardinality is a very coarse measure of size. Probability is much more refined. it is quite possible to have the same cardinality but different probabilities.

You are accustomed to what happens for finite situations. For infinite cases, that intuition fails.

 

[leroy]

Nope. For example, if the number of blue balls is 9 times the number of red balls in every cubic kilometer, the probability of getting a blue ball will be .9 and that for a red ball will be .1 even if the total number of balls is infinite in both cases.

Again, the point is that cardinality is a very coarse measure of size. Probability is much more refined. it is quite possible to have the same cardinality but different probabilities.

You are accustomed to what happens for finite situations. For infinite cases, that intuition fails.

If you have 9 times more blue balls than red balls then the number of balls (cardinals) is not the same. (therefore the probability issent the same ether)

You are basically saying: you have the same number of red balls than blue balls, …………..but you have 9 times more blue balls than red balls, which is contradictory and absurd.

it is quite possible to have the same cardinality but different probabilities.

Well the example of the red and blue balls fails, because the cardinality is not the same in that example.

 

[Polymath257]

If you have 9 times more blue balls than red balls then the number of balls (cardinals) is not the same. (therefore the probability issent the same ether)

Nine times as many in each cubic kilometer. But the number of both red and blue balls is infinite.

You are basically saying: you have the same number of red balls than blue balls, …………..but you have 9 times more blue balls than red balls, which is contradictory and absurd.

Nope. Nine times infinity is infinity. Again, cardinality is a very poor measure of size. Probability is more refined.

Well the example of the red and blue balls fails, because the cardinality is not the same in that example.

Yes, actually, it is the same: both cardinalities are countably infinite. The cardinality of all multiples of 9 is the same as the cardinality of all natural numbers.

 

[sayak83]

You are dealing with potencial infinites (which are coherent and ok with me)

So yes with potential infinities you can do things like “probability distributions” but you cant have probability distributions with actual infinites, with actual infinites each “option” has a probability of zero. … so even if one alternative is 10 times more probable than the other 10*0 is still zero.

All probabilities are the same, (which is absurd, which is why one should drop infinities)

There is no such thing as potential infinity. What I discussed is the actual well defined probability density value for any random variable which actually does have an infinite number of actual values.
Thus, to take the age of planet example, if there are an infinite number of such planets having an infinite range of age values from 0 to infinity with the probability density function having, say the Rayleigh distribution, then we can exactly say what is the probability of finding a planet of age 4 billion years (+/- 0.000001 seconds,) when we pick a random planet out of this existing set of infinite planets.

 

[leroy]

Nine times as many in each cubic kilometer. But the number of both red and blue balls is infinite

Which is absurd, you cant add more balls and still have the same balls.


Besides I am confused, it seems to me that you already admitted that given infinite planets and infinite ages.

1 the probability of living in a 6000yo planet is zero

2 the probability living in a 4.5Byo planet is Zero

So the probabilities are the same so why arguing otherwise?

The cardinality of all multiples of 9 is the same as the cardinality of all natural numbers.

I'll ask you directly...do you think numbers are real objects ? Are you a platonist / realist ?

If not , then why are you still using numbers in your examples ?

 

[leroy]

There is no such thing as potential infinity. What I discussed is the actual well defined probability density value for any random variable which actually does have an infinite number of actual values.
Thus, to take the age of planet example, if there are an infinite number of such planets having an infinite range of age values from 0 to infinity with the probability density function having, say the Rayleigh distribution, then we can exactly say what is the probability of finding a planet of age 4 billion years (+/- 0.000001 seconds,) when we pick a random planet out of this existing set of infinite planets.

Your source treats infinity as a limit, something that tends towards infinity but never reaches infinity.

With Rayleight distribution you will never reach infinity, no matter how hard you try you will always deal with finite values , this is the definition of potential infinite.

You are not dealing with actual infinite in this examples

 

[Polymath257]

Which is absurd, you cant add more balls and still have the same balls.


Besides I am confused, it seems to me that you already admitted that given infinite planets and infinite ages.

1 the probability of living in a 6000yo planet is zero

2 the probability living in a 4.5Byo planet is Zero

So the probabilities are the same so why arguing otherwise?

But the probabilities of living on a planet whose age is 6000+-100 years is far, far less than the probability of living on a planet whose age is 4.5 +-.1 billion years.

The intervals make the difference.

I'll ask you directly...do you think numbers are real objects ? Are you a platonist / realist ?

If not , then why are you still using numbers in your examples ?

I don't think the number 2 is a 'real object'. ALL numbers are abstractions that can help us to model the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Which is absurd, you cant add more balls and still have the same balls.

More in the sense of 'subset' is different than more in the sense of cardinality.

So, yes, it *is* possible to have more in the sense of subsets and have the same size in terms of cardinality.

Your source treats infinity as a limit, something that tends towards infinity but never reaches infinity.

With Rayleight distribution you will never reach infinity, no matter how hard you try you will always deal with finite values , this is the definition of potential infinite.

You are not dealing with actual infinite in this examples

And if you start counting, you will never get to Graham's number. That doesn't make it potentially infinite.

 

[sayak83]

Your source treats infinity as a limit, something that tends towards infinity but never reaches infinity.

With Rayleight distribution you will never reach infinity, no matter how hard you try you will always deal with finite values , this is the definition of potential infinite.

You are not dealing with actual infinite in this examples

You do understand that infinity is not a number correct? When we say that an entity or a set in infinite we are saying something about the overall global properties of the set (cardinality basically), and not any number within that set. The concept of reaching infinity or getting to infinity is logically incoherent. The Rayleigh distribution is DEFINED over a set which is actually infinite and each element within the set has a coherent pdf value. Infinity is not an element of that set but a property of the set as a whole.
The idea of counting upto or reaching infinity is just nonsense.

 

[leroy]

You do understand that infinity is not a number correct?

Yes exactly that is my point, the claim that “infinit seconds” occured before the big bang is absurd because infinity is not a number. Agree? Yes?

When we say that an entity or a set in infinite we are saying something about the overall global properties of the set (cardinality basically), and not any number within that set. The concept of reaching infinity or getting to infinity is logically incoherent.

yes that is my point you should join me and try to convince @Polymath257 that reaching infinity is incoherent

The idea of counting upto or reaching infinity is just nonsense.

Yes, that is had always been my point, we agree with each I have no idea why we where discussing as if we where on disagreement (I thought you were affirming the opposite) … who knows maybe I was confusing you with someone else for all this time……………but we agree and you are on my side.

(polymath is the one who disagrees with us)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]