# Re: accelerating universe and Leslie constraints/What's..

Gina Miller (echoz@hotmail.com)
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 11:32:47 PST

Gina

>From: "Ross A. Finlayson" <RAF@tomco.net>
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: accelerating universe and Leslie constraints/What's..
>Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 22:33:39 -0500
>
>Infinity is a tricky concept to handle. We can visualize infinity
mathematically,
>but there is no infinite quantity of anything or else it would be
everywhere.
>
>Infinity can be approximated by it's place in this equation:
>
>lim 1/oo=0
>
>The term "lim" means the limit approximation, "oo" is the infinity
symbol.
>
>Here is a reference to the CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics
>
>http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/math/Infinity.html
>
>This referenced page is talking about scalar infinity, that is,
infinity in terms
>of the rest of the numbers, and in one dimension. There are multiple
dimensions,
>so considering infinity in terms of multiple dimensions is
exponentially more
>confusing. I don't fully understand infinity in multiple or an
infinite number of
>dimensions.
>
>EWyatt794@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Can there be an infinite space? Can there be an infinite time? Can
there *be*
>> an infinite anything? I lean toward no. (Despite my utter lack of
scientific
>> credentials)
>>
>> To exist is to have a particular identity (This has been put as
"Existence is
>> Identity"). So, to have identity is to be a *particular* thing. And
to be a
>> *particular* thing is also to not be anything else. So, to be is to
be
>> something and not anything else.
>>
>
>I would disagree to some extent. Things change, people change. At a
given time,
>we might consider a thing to be a particular thing, but at a different
time, it is
>different.
>
>
>>
>> The trouble comes in when we discuss all things (the universe). The
question
>> is "What isn't it?". Its fairly easy (in my view) to say that it *is*
>> everything. But to be is to be something and also to not be anything
else. So,
>> what isn't it?
>>
>
>I would say that, among other things, it isn't the emotions and
spiritual content
>of humanity, but a hard-core atheist might counter that those are
simply complex
>biochemical reactions.
>
>It is pretty much everything that would ever be considered, and those
things which
>are not wholly of our universe take place in our universe, unless they
don't, in
>which case they don't. I realize this is a circular argument, but
don't see a
>simpler way to explain my understanding of said situation. Things
beyond our
>"universe", in terms of energy or matter, are the subject of this
>
>>
>> A conceptual distinction would be "It isn't what isn't", but that is
just a
>> boring tautology and doesn't help too much. But, if we try a little
>> rephrasing, you could say "It is everything" and switch it to "It
isn't
>> nothing." So, as I posted before, as nothing doesn't actually exist
(nothing
>> isn't a type of thing, it is "no-thing"), we can say that nothing
exists
>> outside the universe.
>>
>> So, does this create an infinite universe? Again, I'm gonna go with
no.
>> Identity is finity. That is to say, to be is to be limited. There
are borders
>> and ends and beginnings. And, as the universe is, it is limited.
>>
>
>That is limiting. We can empirically prove certain things, and, for
example,
>reproduce most chemical reactions with accuracy. That is on the real
scale.
>
>>
>> Now, as a final bit of ignorance confession, I have about no
mathematical
>> knowledge and virtually no scientific learning (apart from books I
>> just as Aristotle made sense to himself, but looks pretty silly next
to
>> empirical proof, I'm willing to accept a cunning and empirical
refutation. Or
>> any refutation, really, that works out.
>>
>>
>> William
>
>I don't really offer a refutation because it's based upon point of
view. My point
>of view is that mathematical infinity exists and the Infinity reference
page
>listed above has been updated since I posted the Identity Expression
Statement,
>lim 1/oo=0, to sci.math.moderated on March 11, 1999.
>
>http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/qs.xp?QRY=%7Eg+sci.math.moderated&OP=dnquery.xp&ST=QS&DBS=2
>
>The Identity Expression Statement is about mathematical identities and
numerology,
>not personal identity, which makes us each individuals.
>
>Ross F.
>
>--
>Ross Andrew Finlayson
>202/387-8208
>http://www.tomco.net/~raf/
>"C is the speed of light."
>
>

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com