Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

[Gibsense]

Interesting discussion. Exciting even.
Introducing the Flatlander description was ace (if only I could have done it as well in my post re hyperspheres)
Melding it all together (philosophically not with much backup) I would describe reality as:

• Our universe as a hypersphere (analogy - blowing a balloon up flatlanders on the surface) - surface is 3d
• Time = radial expansion. The time here is a radial expansion not involving travel in a spatial environment. (this assumption gives a realistic Hubble Constant)
• The star in a black hole is at the supposed singularity (nearly)
• The space from a black hole event horizon to its star is time equivalent (reverse of our white hole)
• A feeding Black Hole powers the expansion of the associated White Hole Bubble universe.
• BH>WH>BH>WH. Black Hole via Quantum Fluctuation to White Hole (Observable /Bubble universe/hypersphere)
• Mobius/Klien Bottle, Strip-style Super Universe containing our white Hole + numerous other similar universes (avoids turtles on the back of turtles on the back of turtles) because the white holes contain black holes and so on.
• When we say "Observable Universe bear in mind - 1. It has an event horizon working oppositely to a Black Hole EH. Thereby expanding instead of compressing. 2. 3d space is often described as flowing into a black hole. 3. As per the 'Flatlander Descriptions' you can explore the space 'forever' but it is bounded nevertheless. 4. Information is not 'lost' maybe (the amount of stuff entering the BH comes out in the WH)

Hope this intrusion is useful

 

[Helio]

Here's a quote from Descartes in his Principia philosophiae (1644) that I find interesting:

“We should not try to understand infinity, but consider anything as indefinite, where we find no boundary.” He felt "infinity" views should be reserved for God.

 

[billslugg]

Consider two intersecting lines in a plane. As they are made more parallel, the intersection moves outward. As they become parallel, they no longer intersect. What happened to the intersection point? The lines do not have ends, the intersection point has to go somewhere. The only geometry that can answer the question would be two giant hoops, but then the lines wouldn't be straight.

 

[Classical Motion]

To my way of reasoning, in order for two intersecting lines in a plane to become parallel, the intersection point would have to grow and become a line. A linear parallel intersection.

 

[Helio]

Consider two intersecting lines in a plane. As they are made more parallel, the intersection moves outward. As they become parallel, they no longer intersect. What happened to the intersection point? The lines do not have ends, the intersection point has to go somewhere. The only geometry that can answer the question would be two giant hoops, but then the lines wouldn't be straight.

This looks like a twist in the Zeno paradox. The rate of the outward point’s movement increases exponentially and allows for separation and the turtle will score a touchdown. Calculus allows this.

 

[Atlan0001]

This looks like a twist in the Zeno paradox. The rate of the outward point’s movement increases exponentially and allows for separation and the turtle will score a touchdown. Calculus allows this.

Achilles and the tortoise, SPOL and the traveler. The speed of light may tie the traveler at the finish line but will never beat the traveler to the finish line. Now someone might try to say how wrong that is because light always gets to the finish line first. My answer will be, was it concurrent time, aka a future time that got there first or was it a past history, concurrency, the future history, only arriving at the finish line (on the nose of observation via light and light speed) at one the same time 'with' the traveler?

Someone might say I'm trying to play magical tricks because that light was just emitted at just that time? So it had no time, had only the slightest time, to become a past history, much less light seconds worth of past history . . . much less billions of light years worth of past history. Achilles will never beat this tortoise to the finish line. Asymptote!

Asymptote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Atoms squished closer together than ever before, revealing seemingly impossible quantum effects

Using a clever laser technique, scientists have squished pairs of atoms closer together than ever before, revealing some truly mind-boggling quantum effects.

www.livescience.com

Asymptote: Close. Closer! CLOSER! but no cigar! Never a cigar! . . . Though "observational relativity" will always tell a different story, that intersection was/is always reached there at a point, at some point, "at a distance." Always?! More fool observational relativity.

One example of never always, I think:
Position and superposition, asymptotically exist. And never the twain, one!

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio:
“We should not try to understand infinity, but consider anything as indefinite, where we find no boundary.” He felt "infinity" views should be reserved for God."

Or, as I have suggested on several occasions, as its true mathematical meaning of n/zero, where n is any number. Along vaguely similar lines (keeping away from the forbidden 'r' word) use of infinity in any (other) non mathematical context just means immeasurably large, e.g., number.

Apropos of nothing in particular, I have seen it suggested mathematics is at the basis of reality, although I would not subscribe to this personally.

Mathematical universe hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio:

The lines do not have ends, the intersection point has to go somewhere.

No, it is a mathematical fiction, so the lines do not "have to" go anywhere.
Alternatively, you can consider infinity - since this has only only a (pure) mathematical meaning. You might think of parallel lines meeting at infinity. It has the same twisted logic as division by zero. In any real sense you cannot do either.

If any really sane civilisation ever exists, it will incorporate general semantics, and 90% of 'normal' communication would be regarded as thoughtless nonsense.

Vide "Science and Sanity" by Alfred Korzybski.

a philosophical approach to language, developed by Alfred Korzybski, exploring the relationship between the form of language and its use and attempting to improve the capacity to express ideas.

Unfortunately we all have some way to go.


Cat