Forum Replies Created

Andy, I can accept your premise without necessarily agreeing with it. However, below I will quote (with quote marks) some sections and state my problems with them. At the end, I suggest taking your thesis one step further than you have:
“[e] – [+e] = [0]
And what this tells us is there is literally no different between the two halves of energy, confirming we are made from one thing, absolute space.
[e] = [+e]”
&
“Our universe is infinite by default, because through deductive reasoning we know we aren’t [1] or [0]. Infinity is all that remains to describe it.
[0] < ∞ <[1]
[0] is the absence of space. [1] is the absence of [0]. ∞, our universe, is in neither state. We should know, because we exist.”
I still hold that that notation is not defined clearly enough.
“All I can say to anyone imagining I’m wrong, show me something else that physically exists. After nearly 100 years (modern science) of theory and smashing atoms, has anyone in the scientific community found a single gram of some other raw material to build a universe? The answer is no, clearly and unequivocally. Falsify me. Point out some other fundamental physical ingredient in the universe. Show me.”
This seems like circular reasoning which rules out disagreement with your current thinking. Someone, not me, might point ot “energy” and sing your methodology build the unioverse from energy and Yes, you would say thatt’s not consistent with your thinking, but So what?
“Our universe is not spatially 3dimensional, it is spatially 1dimensional. What gives us the perception of three dimensions is the addition of motion and time, and the separation of like energy. Everything we observe is made from points of matter. We observe the universe center out from these points. Space, motion, and time, are all bound together. These are not independent dimensions. There is no temporal dimension. Motion cannot occur without space, and time cannot occur without motion, and we cannot experience space without motion and time. Space is the primary physical dimension. Motion is the secondary active derivative dimension. Time is the third perceptual derivative dimension. Motion and time do not physically exist, they occur in space.
Our primitive view of the universe imagines empty space. We imagine geometry and shapes. We imagine endless space. These things are real to us, because we see shapes built from points of matter. Our mind plays connect the dots, and draws smooth imaginary lines and planes and shapes to fill in the gaps. These 3D shapes don’t physically exist, they are a construct of points traveling along a 1dimensional path, inward or outward, and our imagination. A human being is made up of about 7 octillian points of matter, all moving inward.
Really think about how we are physically deciphering our environment. We see the universe through collisions of matter, but we don’t actually see the universe. Each collision represents a point to point impact along a 1dimensional path. Our mind reinterprets these collisions as substance and builds imaginary images of shapes so we can interpret the world around us. The human eye is estimated to be around 576 megapixels. A tad better than a 12 megapixel iPhone.
We are derived from a single point of existence. Space. [1]. The underlying space from which we are derived has no definable mathematical dimensions or geometrically describable shape or scale. It is simply a point, and we are a product of that point. The motion, position, alignment, quantity, and timing, etc., of those points, is what defines geometric shapes in our minds. We can build things out of these points in the real world, because these points align in an array of various fundamental structures that clump together. It gives these individual points the illusion of substance, where there is only space.”
I see no logic in the above paragraphs regarding degrees of dimensionality – just unjustified speculation.
“I am not wrong.”
There way too much of the above which only serves to foster close mindedness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I direct you to my thoughts on “time”. I think and hope that you will see ourselves as kindred spirits. I think my reference below adds, or subtracts, another dimension to your thesis! See https://youtu.be/mm_pFfyweIc

Andy, to me you wrote, ”
… You may like the math definition you propose, but it\’s just one more definition to prove my hypothesis. Infinity is undefined in science, and literally meaningless as is currently understood.Here\’s a quick search on another definition for infinity.
Mathematics
– a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).“I agree. “Infinity” is a formal math construct so I do use the formal math/academic definition which you correctly state does NOT map to science. There is no science definition of “infinity” other than the math definition. Because of that, you take on the task of redefining “infinity” for use in the sciences. Maybe you will or have come up with a definition for a useful construct in science, BUT it needs to be named something new (i.e., something other than “infinity) – especially where your parameters “constant” and “changing” are NOT integral to the construct of (math/academic) “infinity”.
Separately, I’ll note that a colloquial or loose definition of “infinity” should NOT replace math’s exacting definition in science.

Since “Infinity” seemed to play a prominent role in a few recent CNPS presentations, it’s good that a forum discussion has been opened on that topic. Greg Volk has long been a strong advocate for making sure that terminology is used correctly and that when people discuss a topic, they agree on the key terminology, so that they are not talking at cross purposes. Throughout the ages, infinity was discussed by philosophers and mathematicians. The formal definition of “infinity” as an abstract math construct was popularized by Georg Cantor at the end of the 19th century and is the definition accepted by Academia. Basically, it says that “infinity is greater than any integer”. Admittedly, “infinity” can be used in an informal, watered down, colloquial way such as meaning “boundless”, “endless” or “an extremely large number of something”. However, I will stick with the formal, academic meaning of infinity as an abstract math construct.
As such, by definition, “infinity” is not a valid construct for describing the real, physical world. I used to think, in an offhand way, that “time” might the one exception and might be considered “infinite”, however, I later realized that view was doubly invalid. However, if one uses “infinity” in the informal, colloquial sense, then the terms “infinity” can be used in physics, but one must make clear exactly what one’s personal use of the term means and that one is NOT using the formal academic definition of “infinity”.
I see below that Andy has thought about this topic for many years, indeed decades, and has thought about it deeply. If I misrepresent him, Andy can correct me. However, it seems to me that Andy came to the same conclusion that I did, namely, one cannot use the formal definition of “infinity” and apply it to the physical world. In fact, he says that “infinity” is so inherently meaningless for the physical world, that it must be redefined for use in physics. So his redefinition of “infinity’ is along the lines of “infinity” means “an extremely large number of something”, but Andy provides much more rigor than that colloquial phrase. I have suggested to Andy that it might be clearer if he gave his “new” construct a new name rather than redefining “infinity”.
However, before putting the above online, I thought it prudent to ask Dennis Allen, a retired math professor and author of “The Reality Oriented Mathematician”, if he thought “infinity” was applicable to physics and his view was 100% in sync with my view. Further, I spoke with a most respected member of the CNPS and that person agreed with my view as well.
So, as critical thinkers, we must be sure to give proper analysis to this topic regardless of how firmly bound to one view or another we may be AND we must be clear about the meaning of the term “infinity” that we are using.
Incidentally, as far as I have found, the term “infinitesimal” is defined in terms like:
Adjective: extremely small (e.g., nanoscopic, barely perceptible, invisible to the naked eye
OR
Noun (MATHEMATICS) : an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.
Thus, unless one is using the term “infinitesimal” with some other definition, “infinitesimal” is unrelated to the formal meaning of “infinity”.