Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[leroy]

Not necessary for -2 to be real.

Depends on what you mean by -2 but the fact is that you can’t have -2 number of things , despite the fact that mathematically you can represent them.

The point is that from the fact that something can be represented mathematically it doesn’t follow it can excist in the real world.

Ergo the fact that you can represent infinite with consistent math doesn’t show that initiate can exist you need to provide additional evidence, and such evidence has not been provided.

 

[leroy]

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

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

Me: infinite sets can’t exist in the real world (you can’t have an infinite number of things) because it leads to the absurdity that events with zero probability can happen.

You: yes events with zero probability can happen

Me: how?

You: well all you need is an infinite set.

To me this sounds quite circular.

 

[leroy]

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!

I don’t deny anthiything that you have said, all I am saying is that you cant have a negative number of things nor i+2 things nor an infinite number of things (despite the fact that you can make mathematical and useful model with these entities)

I having problems in finding a point of disagreement with you, have I said anything that you disagree with?

 

[leroy]

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

Yes and I can only flip a coin an finite amount of times, so the task of selecting a random number between 0-1 remains impossible,

So once again in the real world how can anyone select a random number between 0-1? (You can´t it´s an impossible task)

 

[leroy]

Lots of people have thought that. But it seems not to be the way the universe works, at least as far as current knowledge of it goes.

Personally, I find quantum indeterminacy quite aesthetically attractive. The idea that there are some things we can't know exactly, not even in principle, seems to fit human experience and to encourage a sobering humility, I find.

Well if our current knowledge leads to the absurd conclusion that a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, in my opinion one most conclude that there must be something wrong in our knowledge rather than simply accepting that a cant is simultaneously dead a and alive.

Why cant we simply assume that there are hidden variables that “we don’t know yet” what they are? It seems to me the most obvious conservative answer,

I am just sharing my inexpert thoughts, I simply find it surprising that scientists would rather accept wild and storage interpretations rather than simply concluding that maybe there is something missing in the puzzle.

I mean if we find a 10Myo human fossil, scientists would conclude that something happen (we don’t know) that gave the appearance of and old age // scientists wouldn’t jump to conclude that a the fossil belongs to a time traveler.

Scientists tend to go for conservative explanations, QM seems to be a rare exception.

 

[Polymath257]

Depends on what you mean by -2 but the fact is that you can’t have -2 number of things , despite the fact that mathematically you can represent them.

The point is that from the fact that something can be represented mathematically it doesn’t follow it can excist in the real world.

Ergo the fact that you can represent infinite with consistent math doesn’t show that initiate can exist you need to provide additional evidence, and such evidence has not been provided.

No actual numbers exist in the real world. The number 2 does not exist in the real world.

The question is whether the mathematical concepts are *useful* for describing the real world.

The number 2 is useful for counting: we can have 2 apples.

The number -2 is useful: we can have a charge of -2.

Some of the various forms of infinity are useful: it is possible that space is infinite in extent or that time is. Such possibilities often make our analyses simpler.

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t deny anthiything that you have said, all I am saying is that you cant have a negative number of things nor i+2 things nor an infinite number of things (despite the fact that you can make mathematical and useful model with these entities)

I having problems in finding a point of disagreement with you, have I said anything that you disagree with?

And yet you can have charges of -2 or baryon number of -2.

You can have a wave function with a phase factor of i with respect to another.

And it is quite possible that space is infinite in extent. This is not known, but it actually seems likely.

The point is that numbers are not only used for counting.

 

[Polymath257]

Me: infinite sets can’t exist in the real world (you can’t have an infinite number of things) because it leads to the absurdity that events with zero probability can happen.

You: yes events with zero probability can happen

Me: how?

You: well all you need is an infinite set.

To me this sounds quite circular.

There are two separate questions:

1. Can infinite sets exist in the real world?

2. Can events with probability 0 actually happen?

Given the existence of infinite sets, it *is* possible for events with 0 probability to actually happen. You see that as an absurdity, but have not explained why it is absurd. And, in fact, in the context of infinite sets, it is quite logical and straightforward.

So the real question is the first: can infinitely many things actually exist in the real world?

Alternatively: why is it absurd that probability 0 events can actually happen?

The two main situations where it seems likely that real world infinities can exist are in space and in time.

Spatially, our universe is very close to being flat. If it is flat or negatively curved, it is infinite in extent (although most of that infinite extent will always be beyond our ability to see). In this case there would also be infinitely many stars, for example.

Temporally, it is open whether the past is infinite, but it seems very likely that time is infinite into the future. So, on ce again, an infinite number of things would exist over time.

So, other than your claim that 0 probability events cannot happen, what is your argument against there being infinitely many things?

 

[exchemist]

Well if our current knowledge leads to the absurd conclusion that a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, in my opinion one most conclude that there must be something wrong in our knowledge rather than simply accepting that a cant is simultaneously dead a and alive.

Why cant we simply assume that there are hidden variables that “we don’t know yet” what they are? It seems to me the most obvious conservative answer,

I am just sharing my inexpert thoughts, I simply find it surprising that scientists would rather accept wild and storage interpretations rather than simply concluding that maybe there is something missing in the puzzle.

I mean if we find a 10Myo human fossil, scientists would conclude that something happen (we don’t know) that gave the appearance of and old age // scientists wouldn’t jump to conclude that a the fossil belongs to a time traveler.

Scientists tend to go for conservative explanations, QM seems to be a rare exception.

It doesn't lead to that conclusion: Schrödinger's cat was a joke*. As @Polymath257 explained earlier in this thread, hidden variable theories don't work. In science, observation trumps intuition or aesthetic preference.

The reason science accepts the strangeness of QM is because it has always correctly predicted, without fail, what we should expect to observe. And it has been tested to death.

So yes, your inexpert thoughts are not surprising. Einstein, after all, had the same difficulty. But it looks as if Heisenberg, who actually took his inspiration from Einstein's earlier approach to relativity, throwing away all preconceptions and focusing only what the observations implied, was on the right track.

The philosophical arguments about how to interpret QM will go on, but nobody has yet found any fault with what it predicts about the behaviour of nature.


* In case you've not heard this before, Schrödinger and Heisenberg are in a car and get pulled over for speeding. The policeman asks Heisenberg, who is the driver, "Have you any idea how fast you were going?", to which Heisenberg replies: "None at all, officer, but I knew exactly where we were". The policeman sighs and says, " OK, well let's take a look at this vehicle." He walks round, kicks the tyres, opens the boot (trunk in US-speak) and exclaims: "Hey, do you realise you've got a dead cat in here?". To which Schrödinger replies: "Well, we do NOW."

 

[Polymath257]

Yes and I can only flip a coin an finite amount of times, so the task of selecting a random number between 0-1 remains impossible,

So once again in the real world how can anyone select a random number between 0-1? (You can´t it´s an impossible task)

Prove it to be impossible.

It has been suggested, for example, that using someone falling into a black hole it might be possible to have an infinite number of events happen in one frame during a finite time period in another.

can you show that to be impossible?

 

[Polymath257]

Well if our current knowledge leads to the absurd conclusion that a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, in my opinion one most conclude that there must be something wrong in our knowledge rather than simply accepting that a cant is simultaneously dead a and alive.

That isn't what happens: it is 50% alive and 50% dead. Which is undetermined. It is probabilistic (and the probability almost certainly collapses for something the size of a cat).

Why cant we simply assume that there are hidden variables that “we don’t know yet” what they are? It seems to me the most obvious conservative answer,

If you have local hidden variables (so no causality faster than light, which would imply causality backwards in time), then the failure of Bell's inequalities show this to be impossible.

I am just sharing my inexpert thoughts, I simply find it surprising that scientists would rather accept wild and storage interpretations rather than simply concluding that maybe there is something missing in the puzzle.

And all suggestions that there is something missing that anyone has come up with fail in the real world. Now, maybe someone will come up with an alternative, but the actual, real world results we have observed suggest otherwise. At the very least, our notions of causality would have to be drastically changed.

I mean if we find a 10Myo human fossil, scientists would conclude that something happen (we don’t know) that gave the appearance of and old age // scientists wouldn’t jump to conclude that a the fossil belongs to a time traveler.

Scientists tend to go for conservative explanations, QM seems to be a rare exception.

Actually, it is quite conservative given what we have actually observed. You are, of course, free to speculate about alternatives, but finding an alternative that agrees with the observations that have actually been made has not yet happened.

And, if someone did that, they would be famous quite quickly, so there is a HUGE motivation for anyone with an idea along this line to get it out there. There would be the standard push-back to be sure the idea actually plays out as claimed and to see what the idea says about the actual experiments that have already been done. But that is what any new theory needs to go through.

 

[leroy]

There are two separate questions:

1. Can infinite sets exist in the real world?

2. Can events with probability 0 actually happen?

Given the existence of infinite sets, it *is* possible for events with 0 probability to actually happen. You see that as an absurdity, but have not explained why it is absurd. And, in fact, in the context of infinite sets, it is quite logical and straightforward.

So the real question is the first: can infinitely many things actually exist in the real world?

Alternatively: why is it absurd that probability 0 events can actually happen?

The two main situations where it seems likely that real world infinities can exist are in space and in time.

Spatially, our universe is very close to being flat. If it is flat or negatively curved, it is infinite in extent (although most of that infinite extent will always be beyond our ability to see). In this case there would also be infinitely many stars, for example.

Temporally, it is open whether the past is infinite, but it seems very likely that time is infinite into the future. So, on ce again, an infinite number of things would exist over time.

So, other than your claim that 0 probability events cannot happen, what is your argument against there being infinitely many things?

patially, our universe is very close to being flat.

Flat universe would only imply that the universe is very big or very precisely FT not necessarily infinite.

Temporally, it is open whether the past is infinite, but it seems very likely that time is infinite into the future. So, on ce again, an infinite number of things would exist over time.

The future would be potentially infinite, which is ok, I don’t see any evidence for an infinite past (care to show some)

The universe began to exist at the big bang 13- 14B years ago. Is there any evidence that contradicts this claim? why insisting in an infinite past? is there anythign that cant be expalained with an finite past, that would be explanied if the universe is infinite?........

So, other than your claim that 0 probability events cannot happen, what is your argument against there being infinitely many things?

This one example seems good enough to me,

Yes I think there are other absurdities related to infinity y but this one example is my best example, and I don’t want to add complexity to this conversation

Alternatively: why is it absurd that probability 0 events can actually happen?

Seems true by definition. it´s not just counterintuitive, mathematically if an event has probability zero, the event will never happen.


All the real world examples that you shared imply an impossible task (me trowing a coin an infinite number of times)

 

[Link]

To me this sounds quite circular.

He is doing circular reasoning with me, I tried to point it out to him, but he doesn't budge.

 

[sayak83]

I don’t deny anthiything that you have said, all I am saying is that you cant have a negative number of things nor i+2 things nor an infinite number of things (despite the fact that you can make mathematical and useful model with these entities)

I having problems in finding a point of disagreement with you, have I said anything that you disagree with?

There are some properties (like quantity of matter or things) that require positive numbers. There are other properties (like potential energy or wave function of quantum systems) that require negative numbers and imaginary numbers. None of them is more or less "really existant" than the other. Which leads to the general point....any mathematically and logical consistent system can potentially be actualized in reality. Infinite mathematics is one such and we can certainly have a universe that requires transfinite mathematics to describe it's spatial or temporal extent. To say that it cannot just because our ordinary intuitions are unfamiliar with how infinities work is unjustified.

 

[Polymath257]

Seems true by definition. it´s not just counterintuitive, mathematically if an event has probability zero, the event will never happen.

No, it is not true by definition *if* there are infinitely many possible outcomes. And, mathematically, this is also the case.

So, your claim that 'probability 0 means impossible' relies on the hypothesis that no infinity is possible OR it is an independent hypothesis in its own right.

All the real world examples that you shared imply an impossible task (me trowing a coin an infinite number of times)

If space is infinite (which is likely), then the probability of our planet orbiting this particular star is zero. And yet it happens.

Flat universe would only imply that the universe is very big or very precisely FT not necessarily infinite.

Not sure what you mean by FT in context. But yes, a flat or negatively curved universe would be infinite, not simply 'very big'.

 

[Polymath257]

He is doing circular reasoning with me, I tried to point it out to him, but he doesn't budge.

No, it is not. For example, I disagree with the claim in the commander example that having no start means that no order is ever given.

Can you prove this statement without *first* assuming no infinite regress occurs?

I bet you cannot do so. Which means that *you* are the one having the circular argument. You assume that no infinite regress is possible in your argument to show none is possible.

 

[Link]

No, it is not. For example, I disagree with the claim in the commander example that having no start means that no order is ever given.

You create a different scenario. You create a scenario when not all have this wait condition, but rather, at least one does not. You put in real time, where infinite already don't have wait condition and infinite have it. Or at least one does not have the condition in current time.

The point of creating this wait condition, is not to show, this is only scenario possible to imagine. It's to make analogous to time and previous events leading to other events.

Sure, if you change, the condition of the analogy, it won't apply. But the analogy is to tell us something about time.

The analogy of commanders, we don't know by itself if infinite time is allowed or not. But we know by the scenario if all have that wait condition (not some or one don't), then no commands will be given.

We assumed nothing of infinite regress possible or not possible. The first scenario is it's impossible regardless if infinite chain is possible or not.

The second scenario makes an analogy to show infinite chains of events in the past leading to other events in time, or infinite moments in time itself, is impossible. It does so by applying the condition to time and setting up an analogy. If the analogy does not fail, it proves what it intended.

Talking about a different set up of a different analogy is not helpful. Your set up is not useful to see if infinite chain is possible or not. It's mere asserting it is. Yes, if the chain was going with infinite previous events leading to infinite future events it would be infinite chain. This is just same as saying an infinite chain is possible. I showed that in a tautology the two statements are exact same, since they are double implications. This is best explained they are just rephrasing the same thing.

So I assume nothing while you are attacking conclusion and being frankly silly.

 

[Polymath257]

You create a different scenario. You create a scenario when not all have this wait condition,

No, I do not. In my scenario *every* commander waits until the previous commander gives an order.

but rather, at least one does not.

Nope, EVERY commander has the wait condition.

You put in real time, where infinite already don't have wait condition and infinite have it. Or at least one does not have the condition in current time.

Not quite. At any particular time, there are infinitely many that have *already* given their order and infinitely many that have not yet been ordered. But there is no start time.

At a previous time, the set of commanders that have already ordered would be a proper subset of those for a later time.

The point of creating this wait condition, is not to show, this is only scenario possible to imagine. It's to make analogous to time and previous events leading to other events.

And my scenario has that wait condition: every commander waits to be ordered. There is no first commander to give an order.

Sure, if you change, the condition of the analogy, it won't apply. But the analogy is to tell us something about time.

I agree. And the analogy holds both ways.

The analogy of commanders, we don't know by itself if infinite time is allowed or not.

Right. So you don't get to assume it is not.

But we know by the scenario if all have that wait condition (not some or one don't), then no commands will be given.

And that is precisely what I dispute. If you think it is true, please prove it.

We assumed nothing of infinite regress possible or not possible. The first scenario is it's impossible regardless if infinite chain is possible or not.

Wrong. if an infinite chain is possible, then the scenario is possible.

The second scenario makes an analogy to show infinite chains of events in the past leading to other events in time, or infinite moments in time itself, is impossible. It does so by applying the condition to time and setting up an analogy. If the analogy does not fail, it proves what it intended.

Yes, I understand and agree that the analogy holds.

Talking about a different set up of a different analogy is not helpful.

But I am NOT setting up a different analogy. I am giving a situation where

1. Every commander waits until given an order.

2. There is no first order given.

3. At any point in time, there are infinitely many that have given orders and infinitely many that have not.

4. As time goes on, more orders are given.

Your set up is not useful to see if infinite chain is possible or not. It's mere asserting it is. Yes, if the chain was going with infinite previous events leading to infinite future events it would be infinite chain. This is just same as saying an infinite chain is possible. I showed that in a tautology the two statements are exact same, since they are double implications. This is best explained they are just rephrasing the same thing.

Yes. And now you have to give an argument saying it is impossible. You *claim* that no orders are given by the commanders.

Prove it.

So I assume nothing while you are attacking conclusion and being frankly silly.

Prove that no order is ever given in *your* scenario.

 

[leroy]

No, it is not true by definition *if* there are infinitely many possible outcomes. And, mathematically, this is also the case.

So, your claim that 'probability 0 means impossible' relies on the hypothesis that no infinity is possible OR it is an independent hypothesis in its own right.



If space is infinite (which is likely), then the probability of our planet orbiting this particular star is zero. And yet it happens.



Not sure what you mean by FT in context. But yes, a flat or negatively curved universe would be infinite, not simply 'very big'.

So, your claim that 'probability 0 means impossible' relies on the hypothesis that no infinity is possible OR it is an independent hypothesis in its own right.

IT´S AN independent hypothesis, in my view even if infinite sets where possible, the claim “events with zero probability are impossible” would still be true

It seems easier to “deny” that random events can occure, that way you can have both infinite and probabilities grater than zero

If space is infinite (which is likely), then the probability of our planet orbiting this particular star is zero. And yet it happens.

For example if earth didn’t “picked” a random site (but rather some places are more likely than others) you could have both infinite and avoid the absurdity of “events with probability zero can happen”

 

[Polymath257]

IT´S AN independent hypothesis, in my view even if infinite sets where possible, the claim “events with zero probability are impossible” would still be true

All I can say is that flies in the face of much of probability theory from the last 80 years (since Kolmogorov).

But sure, go ahead and assume it if it makes you feel better.