Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257 you may love circular reasoning and asserting same thing over and over again, but not gonna entertain this infinite cycle you keep repeating. You don't grasp it, it's fine. You are arguing over nothing. Either the analogy holds or it doesn't. You conjecture past that, and try to make things confusing for no reason. We all know if infinite chain was going it would be going. We are trying to see if such a chain is possible. You can assert it all you want though if it makes you feel better. As usual, you attack the conclusion and miss the argument.

And it *is* possible *if* it is always going. Do you understand that?

My reasoning isn't circular. It is simply using what I know about infinite sets.

I grasp your argument, but find it flawed because it assumes aspects of infinite sets that are not true (for example, that there must be a start).

 

[Polymath257]

He said imaginary numbers. They are used in math, but have no reality. It's a tool.

So is language and all of math. But it is a *useful* tool for understanding our universe.

Imaginary numbers are *essential* for quantum mechanics to work.

if a and b are described by wave functions, it is possible to form another wave function described by a+bi.

 

[Link]

And it *is* possible *if* it is always going. Do you understand that?

My reasoning isn't circular. It is simply using what I know about infinite sets.

I grasp your argument, but find it flawed because it assumes aspects of infinite sets that are not true (for example, that there must be a start).

My argument says there is no start about an infinite series of events. It's the same with commanders, none on top if infinite series. Of course, you are talking about time and commanders, but the point is wait condition is made analogous to time. Kind of circular to talk about time when the whole point of the analogy was to make an analogy towards time. It makes no sense.

But I don't expect you to understand what I just said, instead, gonna repeat what you always repeat. Attack on conclusion and make it as if you are addressing the argument when you are not.

 

[Link]

So is language and all of math. But it is a *useful* tool for understanding our universe.

Imaginary numbers are *essential* for quantum mechanics to work.

if a and b are described by wave functions, it is possible to form another wave function described by a+bi.

There is no disagreement. Comp sci major myself, we have to calculate using concepts of infinity and set theory right? So I don't disagree. But you never address what a person is saying, always say something side ways and twisting.

Imaginary numbers are a tool in math. They don't exist in reality. They are helpful to calculate things about reality. But they don't exist.

 

[Polymath257]

My argument says there is no start about an infinite series of events.

Yes, understood.

It's the same with commanders, none on top if infinite series.

Yes, understood.

Of course, you are talking about time and commanders, but the point is wait condition is made analogous to time. Kind of circular to talk about time when the whole point of the analogy was to make an analogy towards time. It makes no sense.

But the commands happen in time. They proceed from one commander to the next.

But I don't expect you to understand what I just said, instead, gonna repeat what you always repeat. Attack on conclusion and make it as if you are addressing the argument when you are not.

The state of the system isn't fixed. It changes over time because each commander orders the next one. To exclude time means no orders can be given, even for finitely many commanders.

I am explicitly showing *how* it is possible to avoid your conclusion. And yes, it involves an infinite regress. But it also shows that no contradiction is proved.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no disagreement. Comp sci major myself, we have to calculate using concepts of infinity and set theory right? So I don't disagree. But you never address what a person is saying, always say something side ways and twisting.

Imaginary numbers are a tool in math. They don't exist in reality. They are helpful to calculate things about reality. But they don't exist.

The same is true for the number 2.

 

[firedragon]

Because they are, by far, the best explanation we have with the most evidence and support?

Still, don't pretend it's absolutely proven fact.

 

[Link]

Okay @Polymath257.

I'm going to try because at least, you changed the assumption, that I was assuming there is a start.

This itself will make me try to make you understand. The point of analogy is to set up things to mimic something else to prove something. Do you agree or disagree?

I'm going to make the following argument:

A chain going and going is only possible if an infinite chain is possible.

Let's make premises:

A Chain going and going possible (c)
Infinite chain possible (p)

If p then c.

These premises are different okay. But they are closely related.

I would say the inverse also true.

If c then p.

But if you can't see this is a tautology. And asserting it just stating one or the other.

Since we are talking about the possibility of the chain (infinite chain), we can't assert either of these since it's tautology already and would be circular reasoning.

A chain if going and going is just another way to assert "infinite chain is possible" and re-asserting. It might look clever with words, and you might try to make it as there is a different option, but it's asserting the contested thing we are discussing.

Now you already state the analogy holds, so something telling me, your mind is making you resort to this rather then seeing the obvious, that the analogy proves by setting up the scenario for the analogy, that infinite series in time is also impossible.

The whole point of an analogy is that if holds, the argument is proven. So if you disagree with the analogy, then show where it's wrong. Otherwise, stop tricking yourself and others from something that is supposed to help facilitate mental clarity.

 

[HonestJoe]

Imagine you are existing eternally. You transcend time. You want to create a universe.

Can you create an infinite chain of cause and effects. I say it's impossible. You can't create the world without a start and end point. You can only created with limitations.

You are assuming it is possible for anything to exist outside the universe but if the universe itself is the infinite chain of cause and effect, that isn't possible. Literally everything would be within the universe, within that chain.

On that basis, the concept of it being created is meaningless, as are the concepts of it starting or ending. There are no limitations, it just is.

In the analogy, imagine infinite amount of commanders existing and you need higher rank to give an order, when all of them are different ranks. The problem is that no highest exists, and so we know no command will start. You keep delegating it to one higher.

That is because you're think of it temporally, taking time for each order to be transferred. If the universe is infinite though, time is no limitation. We perceive cause and effect as a sequence through time but from the point of view of the universe as a whole, all causes and effects just exist.

There is no overarching flow of time that applies to the entire universe, time is just how we can have a finite perception of the infinite universe. It's a bit like when you look out of a window, you only have a limited view within the limits of the window frame. The rest of the world still exists though, it's just beyond your ability to perceive it.

The analogy is to you can mentally grasp the infinite chain in time, with something easier.

I totally get what you're trying to do with the analogy and I sympathise with the difficulties of wrapping your head around the whole concept, but in order to make your analogy, you're removing key elements of the concept. It's like making it easier to draw a cube by just viewing it straight on so it looks like a square. Easier to draw but doesn't actually represent the key details of the cube any more.

 

[leroy]

no. i do not grant that.

Well then how can you possibly perform that task? How can you select a random number between 0-1?

I agree that you won't get a zero probability event from a finite selection.

But, if there were 5 queens and an infinite number of ace of spades, then the probability of getting 5 queens would be zero, but still possible.

Íll say that getting 5 queens (or even 1) would be conclusive evidence that there is a finite amount of ace

 

[leroy]

And yet, complex numbers (involving i) are crucial for the development of quantum mechanics, for the modeling of wave phenomena, and for many other aspects of the real world.

Infinity is regularly used in physics as well as math. Negative numbers are ubiquitous, especially with our understanding of charge.

Granted, nobody is denying that imaginary numbers, negative, numbers, infinites, etc. are usefull mathematical tools that help us solve real life problems.

But in reality you cant have

-4 balls in a room nor i+2 elephants nor an infinite amount of chocolates.

 

[leroy]

Yes they can. Any structure that is logically consistent can certainly exist. The logical relationships of quantum mechanics cannot exist without imaginary numbers. So they do exist in the real world. Gravitational potential energy has negative values...so negative numbers also exist and is crucial to reality.

So is it possible to have -2 elephants in a room?


Yes negative numbers and imaginary numbers are useful tools, but in the real world you cant have -1 elephant nor i+3 elephants.

If I have 10 USD and I buy something that is worth $11 you could say that I owe 1usd and you can even claim that I have $-1 usd, but that doesn’t mean that I literally have -$1usd in my wallet , the negative number is a useful just a representation of my debt, but not somethign that literally excists.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay @Polymath257.

I'm going to try because at least, you changed the assumption, that I was assuming there is a start.

So you are or are not assuming there is a start? If you do, then your conclusion follows. I agree to that. But that is also what needs to be proved.

This itself will make me try to make you understand. The point of analogy is to set up things to mimic something else to prove something. Do you agree or disagree?

Not to prove, but to make it seem more reasonable. But yes.

I'm going to make the following argument:

A chain going and going is only possible if an infinite chain is possible.

Clearly wrong: a circular chain is a counterexample. But let's see your argument.

Let's make premises:

A Chain going and going possible (c)
Infinite chain possible (p)

If p then c.

So your argument has three assumptions? That is what it means to be a premise, after all: that it is an assumption.

These premises are different okay. But they are closely related.

Yes. And, in fact, the third follows from the other two.

I would say the inverse also true.

If c then p.

Converse, not inverse. But under the first two premises, it is also true.

But if you can't see this is a tautology. And asserting it just stating one or the other.

What is the tautology? That having p and c gives p-->c and c-->p? Yes, that is a tautology.

Since we are talking about the possibility of the chain (infinite chain), we can't assert either of these since it's tautology already and would be circular reasoning.

Right. But you are attempting an argument by contradiction. In an argument by contradiction, you assume the hypothesis and the negation of the conclusion and get a contradiction by some argument.

A chain if going and going is just another way to assert "infinite chain is possible" and re-asserting. It might look clever with words, and you might try to make it as there is a different option, but it's asserting the contested thing we are discussing.

OK.

Now you already state the analogy holds, so something telling me, your mind is making you resort to this rather then seeing the obvious, that the analogy proves by setting up the scenario for the analogy, that infinite series in time is also impossible.

You claimed a contradiction. But in the scenario given, there is no contradiction. You don't get to assume there must be a start if you are trying to get a contradiction because, as you pointed out, there is an equivalence.

The whole point of an analogy is that if holds, the argument is proven. So if you disagree with the analogy, then show where it's wrong. Otherwise, stop tricking yourself and others from something that is supposed to help facilitate mental clarity.

I do not disagree with the analogy. I disagree that the scenario you gave proves what you claim even within that scenario.

 

[Polymath257]

Granted, nobody is denying that imaginary numbers, negative, numbers, infinites, etc. are usefull mathematical tools that help us solve real life problems.

But in reality you cant have

-4 balls in a room nor i+2 elephants nor an infinite amount of chocolates.

No, but you can have an atom with a charge of -2. And if you have wave functions a and b, you can create a+bi physically.

And if you have that atom, it literally has a charge of -2.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then how can you possibly perform that task? How can you select a random number between 0-1?

Flip a coin, then flip another coin 1/2 a second later, then another 1/4 of a second later, then another 1/8 of a second later.Put the resulting sequence of H and T into binary form and get a real number between 0 and 1.

Íll say that getting 5 queens (or even 1) would be conclusive evidence that there is a finite amount of ace

And that is against the hypothesis I gave. There is no contradiction.

 

[sayak83]

So is it possible to have -2 elephants in a room?


Yes negative numbers and imaginary numbers are useful tools, but in the real world you cant have -1 elephant nor i+3 elephants.

If I have 10 USD and I buy something that is worth $11 you could say that I owe 1usd and you can even claim that I have $-1 usd, but that doesn’t mean that I literally have -$1usd in my wallet , the negative number is a useful just a representation of my debt, but not somethign that literally excists.

And you cannot have gravitational potential energy with positive field values. Just as positive numbered relational exist and is a measure of some types of stuff, negative and imaginary numbered relational values exist and is a measure of other kinds of stuff in the universe. Just because humans learnt of the positive relational stuff earlier than the other types does not mean that one is more real than the other.
What a strange position!

 

[leroy]

No, but you can have an atom with a charge of -2. And if you have wave functions a and b, you can create a+bi physically.

And if you have that atom, it literally has a charge of -2.

Granted i and negative numbers are useful.


But you can't have -2 atoms

 

[leroy]

Flip a coin, then flip another coin 1/2 a second later, then another 1/4 of a second later, then another 1/8 of a second later.Put the resulting sequence of H and T into binary form and get a real number between 0 and 1.[E]

Sure but at any moment of time I will only have a fine amout of possible options because there will always be a finite amout of coin flips

And that is against the hypothesis I gave. There is no contradiction.

Well if we play poker and I tell you that according to my "model" the probability of you winning is "0"
And then you win , then you would naturally conclude that my model is wrong.

In the same way if our model tells you that the probability of getting a queen is zero and you get a queen, you should conclude that the model is wrong

 

[Polymath257]

Granted i and negative numbers are useful.


But you can't have -2 atoms

Not necessary for -2 to be real.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure but at any moment of time I will only have a fine amout of possible options because there will always be a finite amout of coin flips

Well if we play poker and I tell you that according to my "model" the probability of you winning is "0"
And then you win , then you would naturally conclude that my model is wrong.

In the same way if our model tells you that the probability of getting a queen is zero and you get a queen, you should conclude that the model is wrong

And that conclusion only happens in finite situations. It fails in infinite situations. There is no contradiction there.