On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 7:35:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2020, at 11:06, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:03 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> >> If infinite distances makes you squeamish I don't see how you can 
>>> consistently embrace infinite outcomes. And besides this is not 
>>> mathematics, in physics nothing is provably infinite, nobody has ever 
>>> found an infinite number of anything.
>>>
>>
>> *> It's not a matter of, or a case of being squeamish with infinite 
>> outcomes. I just don't see how cosmologists can claim the universe is flat 
>> -- which means infinite in spatial extent -- if it starts small and expands 
>> for a finite time.*
>>
>
> Infinity is not a number, infinity is a process that evolves in time.
>
>
> That is Aristotle potential infinite. Cantorial actual infinities are 
> treated by sets in set theory, and behave like numbers (we can add them, 
> but it is not commutative, we can multiply them, exponentiate them, etc.
>
> It is doubtful that there are actual infinities in the observable realm, 
> and if we are machines, that is a priori undecidable. Now, with a non 
> mechanist theory of mind, all notions are open.
>
>
>
> If a cosmologists says the universe is infinite he means that a pulse of 
> light will keep getting more distant from its starting point and never 
> return. I don't know if the universe is infinite or not but I see nothing 
> obviously absurd with the idea. 
>
>
>
> It is easy to prove that the physical (observable) universe has to be 
> infinite, and contains non computable elements once we bet on Mechanism in 
> the cognitive science. And without mechanism, also, but for very different 
> reason.
>
>
>
> And when cosmologists say the universe started at a singularity what they 
> mean is it started at a place they don't understand, they never claimed to 
> know everything. In physics "singularity" doesn't mean infinite density or 
> zero volume, it means "our theories break down here and produce ridiculous 
> results”.
>
>
> Yes, and to invoke a singularity in an explanation is not much different 
> than invoking a god or a primary universe. That explains nothing and such 
> terms designates our ignorance.
>

*What's your problem? No one invokes "singularity" as an explanation of 
anything; other than the fact that any theory which has one, cannot be 
applicable at the space-time point of its occurrence.  AG*

>  
>

> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  John K Clark
>  
>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3wK2pNXnHkVEPa9jKsdxk0ObNciXtWbgRL8_ZJRQ4Dgw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3wK2pNXnHkVEPa9jKsdxk0ObNciXtWbgRL8_ZJRQ4Dgw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ae10f811-a8e1-4226-9a71-54bb410260fb%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to