Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Physical infinity

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, NameYourAxioms said:

"Finite" is not a measurement. It makes no reference to a unit.

 Saying "This pencil is 3 times longer than that one" is an objective verifiable statement unlike the example you gave "this is long".

Finite is the opposite of Infinite, in the same sense that Long is the opposite of Short, or Heavy is the opposite of Light.

 

The central point that I'm making is that neither finite or infinite are Ontological, they are Epistemic.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finite means limited. It is a metaphysical fact that the amount of gold on planet earth is finite. This would be a metaphysical fact whether human consciousness existed or not.

How much gold exists on planet earth is a matter of measurement which requires human consciousness and is therefore epistemological.

See the difference now?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NameYourAxioms said:

Finite means limited. It is a metaphysical fact that the amount of gold on planet earth is finite. This would be a metaphysical fact whether human consciousness existed or not.

How much gold exists on planet earth is a matter of measurement which requires human consciousness and is therefore epistemological.

See the difference now?

 

But is the amount of gold in the Universe limited?

Edit:  A quick Google search tell us that some 78,000 tons of material makes it's way to the Earth each year. And since gold did not form on the earth, some of this 78,000 tons must contain some gold.  So the amount of gold on the Earth is not finite.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, all the gold in the universe is finite (limited) per the Law of Identity.  EVERYTHING that exists is limited. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity because "infinite" means a quantity without any specific identity. 

The universe- the entirety of that which is- neither came into being (from what?) nor can go out of existence.

Matter is indestructible, it changes forms but it cannot cease to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NameYourAxioms said:

Speed is a measurement (distance divided by time, such as miles per hour) and, therefore, epistemological.

You claim "Speed" is only a measurement... a measurement of *what* in reality?

An epistemological measurement has as its object some aspect of metaphysical reality, no?  If you consign the concept "speed" to the epistemological what then do you identify as its object in metaphysical reality to which it refers?  Care supply some label (i.e. a word) for it?

If your premise that "speed" is only epistemological is true, what does that imply about momentum (a physical quantity or attribute possessed by entities)?  What property does an entity posses (you need to supply a word for it) and has identity, which manifests itself in what you eventually measure as "speed"? 

How do you keep in your mind the distinction between the attribute or property in reality possessed by entities and your identification of them in terms of some measurement?

 

Consider that if you measure some aspect of reality, and that measurement is continually changing, you know that the aspect of reality you have identified by your measurement is continually changing.  In a case where the aspect of reality possesses a magnitude, it also is continually changing, i.e. it has an identity which continually changes.

Are you claiming all continually changing properties or attributes of reality with magnitudes are not metaphysical but instead merely epistemological?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speed is a measure of motion. Motions are metaphysical actions of entities. Speed is a measurement of that motion and, therefore, epistemological.

Motion is what it is independent of human consciousness. Measurement is an act of human consciousness making it epistemological.  

Measurement, the essential purpose of mathematics, ultimately involves an identification of a quantitative relationship between concretes.

Man, wishing to understand motion, measures it using the following epistemological device: Speed = Distance divided by Time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from IToE Exact Measurement and Continuity, p. 192.

AR: I have made it clear and this is really only common sense - that when you perform a process of measurement you take a ruler and you decide this is the standard you are going to use.

[....]

AR: The fact that we isolate a unit is precisely the point I had in mind when I wrote - let me quote this because it is relevant - " A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members. 

Measurements are existents, and they have a separate, concrete reality apart from that which they measure.  This is true for counting One, Two, Three, Four.... (The words being either written or spoken out loud or to oneself), and it is true for Force, Mass, Acceleration, etc.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NameYourAxioms said:

Speed is a measure of motion. Motions are metaphysical actions of entities. Speed is a measurement of that motion and, therefore, epistemological.

Motion is what it is independent of human consciousness. Measurement is an act of human consciousness making it epistemological.  

Measurement, the essential purpose of mathematics, ultimately involves an identification of a quantitative relationship between concretes.

Man, wishing to understand motion, measures it using the following epistemological device: Speed = Distance divided by Time. 

"Motion" as you put it is a broad and vague term. 

Does the metaphysical property "motion" of an entity have identity? 

Is the identity of the "motion" of an entity at time A when we "measure" its speed at 10MPH , different in reality from the "motion" of the entity at time B when we "measure" its speed at 20MPH?

 

As a part of reality, does your "motion" need to exist as particular, concrete, and specific.  In other words, although motion can have any magnitude and direction in general at any time it must exist having a specific magnitude and direction?  Or does it remain... identy-less until measured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motion cannot have a magnitude or direction. Objects are in motion.  

Motion is not an entity; it is an action of an entity. Attributes, motions, and relationships cannot exist without entities.  

Motion does not exist by itself. Things are in motion relative to each other.

The error you are making is called reification. Reification is the fallacy of taking an aspect of a thing (motion) as if it were capable of a separate existence. You are trying to make an action of an entity (motion) into a substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, New Buddha said:

But is the amount of gold in the Universe limited?

Edit:  A quick Google search tell us that some 78,000 tons of material makes it's way to the Earth each year. And since gold did not form on the earth, some of this 78,000 tons must contain some gold.  So the amount of gold on the Earth is not finite.

Ummm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NameYourAxioms said:

Motion cannot have a magnitude or direction. Objects are in motion.  

Motion is not an entity; it is an action of an entity. Attributes, motions, and relationships cannot exist without entities.  

Motion does not exist by itself. Things are in motion relative to each other.

The error you are making is called reification. Reification is the fallacy of taking an aspect of a thing (motion) as if it were capable of a separate existence. You are trying to make an action of an entity (motion) into a substance.

Motion does not exist apart from entities.  I never claimed such.  It exists as an attribute or property of entities (more than one) in a relationship (of distance over time).

The error of reification has not been made.  "Motion" was first mentioned by you as a point regarding what exists independent of human consciousness.

5 hours ago, NameYourAxioms said:

Motion is what it is independent of human consciousness.

Do you hold that attributes and properties of systems of entities such as "distance" between object A and object B and relative "motion" between them are not metaphysical?  i.e. are you claiming A and B moving away from each other at 10 MPH is not metaphysically distinct from A and B moving away from each other at 20 MPH?

Do you hold that all such properties, attributes, relationships between existents are merely epistemological?  If so is the knowledge thereof valid i.e. having some referents in reality and if so.. what in reality are the referents?  Can you identify them with a label or a word?

And what finally could possibly "be" (i.e. exist) independent of human consciousness, other than something of metaphysical reality?

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, if you have some point to make let's get on with it.  You have done nothing but carpet bomb me with a never-ending stream of questions, many of which are completely unrelated to my statement that "Infinity cannot exist per the Law of Identity." If you believe that the universe is infinite, then out with it.  Either explain to me why you believe that the Law of Identity is false or why you believe that an infinite universe would not violate the Law of Identity.  I will not play this game any longer with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NameYourAxioms said:

Distance is not a property of an entity as you say. That is absurd.  Neither is motion. You are wrong on both counts.

Distance is a relationship between separate entities.  

Motion is an action of a metaphysical entity. It is not a property.

 

Again you misunderstand.  Distance is not a property of an object in isolation.  As a relationship it must be property of objects (plural).  If you prefer, a system of objects... and if you do not like the word "property" or " attribute" to characterize the system, then lets use the word "aspect".  In any case, relationships in reality such as distance between and relative motion between objects are metaphysical aspects of those systems of objects.

Do you take a relationship in reality between two objects such as distance to be metaphysical?  Do you hold that metaphysically there is no difference between a system of object A and object B spaced apart by 5 inches and a system of object A and object B spaced apart by 10 inches? 

Are all relationships between objects in a system are not metaphysical what are they?  If we can identify them in reality what can they be other than metaphysical?

 

So... to take you up on your definition if motion as an "action" not a "property".  Do you hold that a system of object A and object B in a state of "acting" to move away from each other at 10mph is metaphysically different from a system of object A and object B in a state of "acting" to move away from each other at 20mph?

 

BTW have you read ITOE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NameYourAxioms said:

Look, if you have some point to make let's get on with it.  You have done nothing but carpet bomb me with a never-ending stream of questions, many of which are completely unrelated to my statement that "Infinity cannot exist per the Law of Identity." If you believe that the universe is infinite, then out with it.  Either explain to me why you believe that the Law of Identity is false or why you believe that an infinite universe would not violate the Law of Identity.  I will not play this game any longer with you.

Stop running and I will believe you are not the one playing games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have asked me 30 questions in one day.  That is beyond ridiculous.  I'm not answering one more G-D question.  Get to the damn point.  State your case or this conversation is over.

1. Question:  How would you address the statement: In the 10 seconds it took my car to accelerate from 0 mph (relative to the pavement) to 55 mph, my car travelled at different speeds, in fact an infinite number of speeds between 0 mph to 55 mph."

2. Is the statement true or false or meaningless and why? 

3. Could it be corrected by tweaking language? 

4. Is there something fundamentally different about trying to speak of aspects of something continuous versus speaking of discrete things?

5. Are you saying "speed" is epistemological rather than metaphysical?

6. What about "distance" (as a relationship between two entities)?

7. You claim "Speed" is only a measurement... a measurement of *what* in reality?

8. An epistemological measurement has as its object some aspect of metaphysical reality, no? 

9. If you consign the concept "speed" to the epistemological what then do you identify as its object in metaphysical reality to which it refers? 

10. Care supply some label (i.e. a word) for it?

11. If your premise that "speed" is only epistemological is true, what does that imply about momentum (a physical quantity or attribute possessed by entities)? 

12. What property does an entity posses (you need to supply a word for it) and has identity, which manifests itself in what you eventually measure as "speed"? 

13. How do you keep in your mind the distinction between the attribute or property in reality possessed by entities and your identification of them in terms of some measurement?

14. Are you claiming all continually changing properties or attributes of reality with magnitudes are not metaphysical but instead merely epistemological?

15. Does the metaphysical property "motion" of an entity have identity? 

16. Is the identity of the "motion" of an entity at time A when we "measure" its speed at 10MPH , different in reality from the "motion" of the entity at time B when we "measure" its speed at 20MPH?

17. As a part of reality, does your "motion" need to exist as particular, concrete, and specific. 

18. In other words, although motion can have any magnitude and direction in general at any time it must exist having a specific magnitude and direction? 

19. Or does it remain... identy-less until measured?

20. Do you hold that attributes and properties of systems of entities such as "distance" between object A and object B and relative "motion" between them are not metaphysical? 

21. i.e. are you claiming A and B moving away from each other at 10 MPH is not metaphysically distinct from A and B moving away from each other at 20 MPH?

22. Do you hold that all such properties, attributes, relationships between existents are merely epistemological? 

23. If so is the knowledge thereof valid i.e. having some referents in reality and if so.. what in reality are the referents? 

24. Can you identify them with a label or a word?

25. And what finally could possibly "be" (i.e. exist) independent of human consciousness, other than something of metaphysical reality?

26. Do you take a relationship in reality between two objects such as distance to be metaphysical? 

27. Do you hold that metaphysically there is no difference between a system of object A and object B spaced apart by 5 inches and a system of object A and object B spaced apart by 10 inches? 

28. Are all relationships between objects in a system are not metaphysical what are they?  If we can identify them in reality what can they be other than metaphysical?  

29. Do you hold that a system of object A and object B in a state of "acting" to move away from each other at 10mph is metaphysically different from a system of object A and object B in a state of "acting" to move away from each other at 20mph?

30. BTW have you read ITOE?

Edited by NameYourAxioms
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NameYourAxioms said:

You have asked me 30 questions in one day.  That is beyond ridiculous.  I'm not answering one more G-D question.  Get to the damn point.  State your case or this conversation is over.

Consider the possibility that your assertions may not be as straightforward as you consider them to be.

Agreed that distance and speed are not properties of their respective entities, but the fact that two entities are a specific distance apart, and/or are moving at a specific speed apart from one another, (or a distance between two entities is increasing at an ever-increasing speed) allows for an extended sense of property to be derived from the differences observed by consciousness in these relational aspects.

Is the law of identity only applicable to entities? Is the quantity of 5 an entity or a relationship? Does 5 have an identity? Where does 5-ness exist? (Corvini captured this quite nicely by pointing out that 5 refers to the relationship of a group to one of its members regarded as a unit.)

One can fully embrace and endorse the law of identity and yet still have unresolved questions with regard to specifics? Identification is not implicit in identity.

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2016 at 2:09 PM, NameYourAxioms said:

Infinity cannot exist per the Law of Identity.  Everything that exists is finite. Infinity in a metaphysical sense is an invalid concept; there is no actual infinity.

Let me see if I can't address the point that I believe that you are making.

We acquire knowledge by a process of differentiation and integration.  We differentiate between trees, flowers, vines, grass, etc., and integrate them into the broader concept of "vegetation".  We differentiate between vegetation and animals, and form the broader concept of "living organisms".  We differentiate between living and non living matter.

However, when it comes to the Universe in toto, we cannot differentiate if from things that are not part of the Universe, nor can we we integrate it into a broader concept of one of many Universes.

It is improper to state that the Universe is either "finite" or "infinite" in an Ontological sense.  We can, however, make use of the epistemic concepts "finite" and "infinite" as they apply to sub-systems within the Universe.

Edit:  The above is an example of Russell's Paradox.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

However, when it comes to the Universe per se, we cannot differentiate if from things that are not part of the Universe, nor can we we integrate it into a broader concept of one of many Universes.

Where does this leave those of us that consider "Universe" as being synonymous with "existence"? (barring evidence being provided by those who assert the "existence of many Universes" positive?)[esp. with an implicit admission that we cannot integrate the evidence of the senses into a broader concept of "one of many Universes.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Where does this leave those of us that consider "Universe" as being synonymous with "existence"? (barring evidence being provided by those who assert the "existence of many Universes" positive?)[esp. with an implicit admission that we cannot integrate the evidence of the senses into a broader concept of "one of many Universes.]

The Universe IS synonymous with "existence".  However, our abstractions are "economical condensations" of knowledge, required by our limited working memory (think crow epistemology).  A quote from Ernst Mach's The Economical Nature of Physical Inquiry.  See page 186.  Mach was instrumental in giving Einstein the insight to his formation of Relativity Mechanics:

"The goal which it (physical science) has set itself is the simplest and most economical abstract expression of facts.

When the human mind, with its limited powers, attempts to mirror in itself the rich life of the world, of which it itself is only a small part, and which it can never hope to exhaust, it has every reason for proceeding economically.

In reality, the law always contains less than the fact itself, because it does not reproduce the fact as a whole but only in that aspect of it which is important for us, the rest being intentionally or from necessity omitted."

Regarding "evidence being provided by those who assert the "existence of many Universes"?  I'm assuming you are referring Everett's Many-worlds interpretation of QM?  For this, there is no evidence.  It is an artifact of the mathematics.  It is reading ontology into the equations.  If this is what you are referring to, you might like the following Carlo Rovelli Lecture.  I believe I'm posting a link near to the issue that you are raising.  It a great lecture.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Stop running and I will believe you are not the one playing games.

Yeah, you keep flooding NameYourAxioms with questions. I mean they're relevant, but it isn't really avoiding questions to not answer that. You seem to have a point, so it'd make more progress to state it outright by this point. Seems like NameYourAxioms is careful about what to say, we don't need to assume any one of us is the student or the teacher.

RE universe: I think it's important to distinguish all that exists as a concrete, from all that exists at all and is valid. Say "happiness" isn't a concrete, but as an existent, it is real. I personally use the term universe for all concretes, existence for ALL aspects of reality. With that, I'd say "physical infinity" would imply a concrete existence or a property of individual objects. Infinity exists as part of existence (it can be reduced to perception by going down levels of abstraction), but not as part of the universe (infinity has no direct perceptual referent; no thing HAS infinity).

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, New Buddha said:

The Universe IS synonymous with "existence".

 

10 hours ago, New Buddha said:

It is improper to state that the Universe is either "finite" or "infinite" in an Ontological sense.

The "nor" did not leap out at me regard to multiple universes.

Do you think it improper to hold that the law of identity applies to the Universe as well?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

 

The "nor" did not leap out at me regard to multiple universes.

Do you think it improper to hold that the law of identity applies to the Universe as well?

I'm not sure what the first sentence above even means.  It doesn't appear to be grammatically correct.  You made a statement about the existence of many Universes -- and I tried to best of my ability to respond.  I'm not a mind reader.  Why don't you elaborate on what you mean.  There is no reason for short, "one-liners" about such a complex subject as infinity or multiple Universes.

I introduced Russell's Paradox into a post about infinity.   Are you trying to make a point with your questions?  Russell came across this paradox when he a Whitehead were writing the Principia -- and it forms a very important part of modern mathematics.  Much of the Principia was an attempt to formalize/resolve the work of Cantor.  And I happened to see a relationship between Russell's Set Theory Paradox and Rand's epistemology that stresses that concept formation is via integration/differentiation -- and, furthermore,  that Concepts are "stored" in "Folders".  If you think I'm wrong about this, then please explain why.

It wasn't until after I made my post that I saw that Gran Minnow also made a similar post regarding Set Theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"However, when it comes to the Universe per se, we cannot differentiate if from things that are not part of the Universe, nor can we we integrate it into a broader concept of one of many Universes."

Nor, here, as I read it, means it cannot be integrated into a broader concept of one of many Universes. I took it as an assertion of a positive, in that multiple universe exist. Hence the point that evidence would be required to substantiate such would be inapplicable.

As to your sensitivity to the law of identity as it relates to infinity, it is applicable to the "folder" metaphor for concepts—provided the mental file folder is labeled appropriately and sufficiently cross referenced.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:46 PM, NameYourAxioms said:

Look, if you have some point to make let's get on with it.  You have done nothing but carpet bomb me with a never-ending stream of questions, many of which are completely unrelated to my statement that "Infinity cannot exist per the Law of Identity." If you believe that the universe is infinite, then out with it.  Either explain to me why you believe that the Law of Identity is false or why you believe that an infinite universe would not violate the Law of Identity.  I will not play this game any longer with you.

 

Consider a system in reality of object A and object B, moving relative to one another such at time 1 they are moving at 10mph WRT one another and after constant acceleration at a later time 2 they are moving at 20mph WRT one another. 

1.  The metaphysical "aspect" of the system which is relative motion at any time between time 1 and time 2, has metaphysical identity, i.e. it exists, is particular and everything else metaphysical identity of some aspect of entities implies.  This is also true of the aspect of the system referred to as the distance between  object A and B... at any time it also is an aspect of the system of entities which has metaphysical identity.

2.  At every time between time 1 and time 2 in respect of the relative motion as well as the distance, the metaphysical identity of the system, is different and distinct from the metaphysical identity of the system at every other time between time 1 and time 2.

3.  One can identify and count a number of various metaphysical states of the system, e.g. "the number of all the times the system is such that object A and object B are an even multiple of 1cm apart from each other".  "the number" is a valid concept and it is ascribable because it is finite.

3.  If one were to attempt to characterize "the number" of ALL of the different metaphysical states between time 1 and time 2 one would be in error as there is no number.  Put a different way you would not be able to count all the different metaphysical states, or no matter what number you choose (any arbitrary large integer number) there are "more" distinct metaphysical states which actually occurred between time 1 and time 2.  i.e. there are "more" metaphysical states than any finite integer quantity.

4.  In an attempt to characterize, i.e. extend the concept of the "the number" of states from particular specific kinds of finite cases (multiples of 1 cm, etc.) which can be counted, to enable one to label, in terms of quantity, "all" of the metaphysical states actually occurring between time 1 and time 2, one refers to the "the number" of all the states as "infinite".  Although this technically is an error as "infinity" is not "a number", it is more like progressively adjusting the sentence

A "The number of metaphysical states" is meaningless when referring to "all" the states of the system between time 1 and time 2 -> "the number" does not exist.  "All" the distinct states, while being progressively enumerated, is always larger than any finite number.

B "The number of metaphysical states" is undefined, but also "larger" than any number.

C "The number" of metaphysical states that actually occurred is infinite.

 

In this way "infinite" or "infinity" are relevant concepts when referring to objective metaphysical reality, at least in this particular instance.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...