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

Gina Miller (
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 11:32:47 PST

Good link Ross. Thanx

>From: "Ross A. Finlayson" <>
>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
>but there is no infinite quantity of anything or else it would be
>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
>Here is a reference to the CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics
about infinity:
>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
>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
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> The trouble comes in when we discuss all things (the universe). The
>> 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
>> nothing." So, as I posted before, as nothing doesn't actually exist
>> isn't a type of thing, it is "no-thing"), we can say that nothing
>> outside the universe.
>> So, does this create an infinite universe? Again, I'm gonna go with
>> 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
>reproduce most chemical reactions with accuracy. That is on the real
>> Now, as a final bit of ignorance confession, I have about no
>> knowledge and virtually no scientific learning (apart from books I
read). So,
>> just as Aristotle made sense to himself, but looks pretty silly next
>> empirical proof, I'm willing to accept a cunning and empirical
refutation. Or
>> any refutation, really, that works out.
>> Thanks for reading,
>> 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
>listed above has been updated since I posted the Identity Expression
>lim 1/oo=0, to sci.math.moderated on March 11, 1999.
>The Identity Expression Statement is about mathematical identities and
>not personal identity, which makes us each individuals.
>Ross F.
>Ross Andrew Finlayson
>"C is the speed of light."

Get Your Private, Free Email at