Outer Space/Inner Space (formerly known as Infinite bigness/infinite smallness)

[Michael Varn]

I need to get something straight. What is the deal with all this stuff about relative scale universes inside of the DNA molecules inside of our bodies? There is a video on Youtube that goes into someones eye all the way into the DNA molecules of the retna cells, and guess what shows up? An entire universe with galaxys.Iam not makeing this up. This stuff is fun to talk about when you are drunk, but I have seen this concept in commercially released cosmology and astronomy literature going all the way back to high school science class back in the 1980's. What?

Who in the heck came up with this stuff? Is it real? Because if it is, it would be a very profound human discovery. However, something tells me that this stuff is strictly some form of artistic license on the nature of infinity. It has nothing to do with science, right?

 

[COLGeek]

Don't believe everything you find on the Internet.

 

[Michael Varn]

Don't believe everything you find on the Internet.

Let me clarify my thought here. Is inner space infinite like outer space? In other words, infinite outer space is intuitive. In order to prove this you only have to consult the most basic math there is: simply start counting whole numbers beginning with the number 1.

Proff of infinite outer space is the fact that there is never a last number when you are counting whole numbers. Now as to the nature of infinity, you can never stop counting period! So the essence of infinity is not set, it's always in motion, like the expansion of the universe.

Now infinite inner space is much harder for me to wrap my head around, because it is not intuitive. Conventional wisdom says if anything gets to small, and it continues to get smaller, it will éventually cease to exist. Because smallness will lead to nothingness. Therefore it's not infinite. So, can you continue to make fractions of anything forever? So theoretically, is it possible that there could actually be something smaller than the smallest known things according to science, like quarks or superstrings? Now this is quantum level stuff, and this is definitly out of my pay grade. There is nothing intuitive about quantum theory or mechanics. So if anyone wants to continue this conversation, please use laymans terms!

Thanks!

 

[Atlan0001]

I'm relatively new here myself but I've unleashed a torrent I'd forgotten I have.

How big is "infinite" and how small "infinitesimal"? That is exactly like asking how big and how small is "finite"? Thank you, I've never once in my life until this moment of coming across your thread thought to ask myself or anyone just how big can finite ever get, and in turn just how small can it get?

Infinitesimal means 'infinitely small' as opposed to infinite. Infinitely ... small. "Infinite", now it can [qualify] either as a lot or a little of whatever. Phrase: "It has an infinite quality to it." What does it mean? Does it mean its bluer than blue, or redder than red? Does it mean its hotter than hot, or colder than cold? Does it mean '+1', as in someone telling you the number is 10 and you come back with +1. They go, "then the number is 11." and you come back with "+1" (to infinity). How rich is richer than rich? Infinitely rich. How poor is poorer than poor? Infinitely poor, aka infinitesimally rich.

So now, what, or how, is infinite bigness / infinite smallness (aka infinitesimal) to be qualified? The answer is bigger (infinite) than big (finite), and smaller (infinite / infinitesimal) than small (finite). Comparatively speaking though, infinite as opposed to infinitesimal is something different all together because, therein, there is no finiteness, as we define it, whatsoever to that question and comparison. Wrap your head around this: Having left out finite, however infinite you go (up, up, up, and out) in anything, a number or quality, the only down and in from there is infinitesimal. And on the other side, however infinitesimal you go (down, down, down, and in) the only up and out from there is infinite.

Two infinites can cancel to finite. Two infinitesimals can cancel to finite. Infinite and infinitesimal do not cancel to finite. They turn in to one another, they wrap in to one another, to 'infinite' (or to 'infinity', however you want to put it),

The more interesting question is how much greater, bigger or smaller, either up and out, or down and in, than any particular finite can finite go? That question develops a boundarylessness to the particular finite. A "boundaryless finite" is still finite, but with a heck of a 'potential' for infinite.

Chaos Theory goes into the problem with grainy detail (finite) versus overall smoothness (infinity). Grainy detail layer (finite), and up and out to an overall layer of smoothness (infinite). But if you think it ends there, you've got another think coming. Up, up, and out of [that] layer of smoothness, according to Chaos Theory, you discover you've realized yet another layer of grainy detailing (of finite over infinite!). Up, up, and out, of that layer of grainy detailing, only to discover yet another layer of infinity's smoothness. And on and on to 'infinity' (monotonously). If you then get the feeling you're spinning your wheels, you're exactly right. No matter the hyper-spatiality of the layering, the reduction is to two, layer(s) of finite grainy detail, and layer(s) of infinitely smooth. And you discover that the two are an exact match...that they are exact equals (Finite ||| Infinite / infinitesimal... Finite mass ||| Infinite mass (Big Crunch) / infinitesimal mass (Big Hole / Vacuum / Space).... Finite universe(s) ||| Infinite Universe / Infinitesimal Universe.... The two are an exact match... they are exact equals (because [infinite / infinitesimal] turns to itself; circles to itself; wraps into itself.... But still is infinite / still is infinitesimal, always)).

And by the way, "turns to itself"; [turn to], [to turn], is literally 'en trope'; gk 'tropos' (turn); en-tropy; entropy: The turn or wrap of infinite / infinitesimal to/into itself (infinite to/into infinitesimal) (infinitesimal to/into infinite). Now why didn't I include the Big Bang, and the energy of the Big Bang, in [my (!)] explanation of infinite / infinitesimal above? I included the Big Crunch and its mass...? Because the Big Bang and its energy do not belong to Chaos Theory's layer(s) of 'infinite smoothness'. they belong to its layer(s) of 'finite grainy detail'. A matter of 'Time' rather than 'Space'. A matter of 'Energy' rather than 'Mass'. A matter of [time-energy] rather than [space-time] and/or [mass-energy] ... and/or [mass-space]. The biggest, and/or smallest 'Mirror' vacuum energy of them all. Facing in the Mirror (Big Gravity's Big bent Mirror), a double ended (Bookended) Beginning to Time; facing to >|0|< (facing in to '0'-point (Now) (the End of Time, as Stephen Hawking once put it, though not quite as I put it here)). For a 'finite' (rather than an 'infinite'), you can't get more 'hyper-finite' than that.

 

[Catastrophe]

Nothing real is infinite large or small.

Infinity is a mathematical construct defined as division by zero.

Anything infinite IMHO is semantic drivel.
It has become an adjective meaning very big.

Don't waste your life chasing after mathematical illusion.

 

[Michael Varn]

Nothing real is infinite large or small.

Infinity is a mathematical construct defined as division by zero.

Anything infinite IMHO is semantic drivel.
It has become an adjective meaning very big.

Don't waste your life chasing after mathematical illusion.

To clarify my thought about inner space and fractions of the whole:

If you take any object and cut it in half you then have two parts of the whole. Then you take these two fractions, cut them in half, and then you have four parts of the whole.

Can this process of creating smaller and smaller fractions go on forever? Like from 4 to 8 and then from 8 to 16 and so on. In other words can there be infinte numbers of parts or fractions of the whole?

 

[Catastrophe]

NO! Becauses in reality there comes a time when you cannot continue to cut in half. Your microscope is not powerful enough and your knife is not fine enough.
REALITY ceases there. Any more talk about cutting in half is imaginary and is just waffling in the air. Its like counting. Instead of counting 1, 2, 3, why not count one trillion, 2 trillions, 3 trillions nd get there faster. You can spend all your life counting, but you will never get to infinity. OK Count 1 infinity … 2 infinities ...3 infinities …
You still ill not get there.

Why don't you imagine winning a million dollars and then go and spend it in REALITY?

It is exactly the same talking about infinities.

Please don't waste your lives on semantic delusion.

Cat








.
.

 

[Atlan0001]

To clarify my thought about inner space and fractions of the whole:

If you take any object and cut it in half you then have two parts of the whole. Then you take these two fractions, cut them in half, and then you have four parts of the whole.

Can this process of creating smaller and smaller fractions go on forever? Like from 4 to 8 and then from 8 to 16 and so on. In other words can there be infinte numbers of parts or fractions of the whole?

Look up 'Chaos: Making a New Science', by James Gleick. It's for the layman, like me, and I assume you, and should interest you very much.

 

[Catastrophe]

"there be infinte numbers of parts or fractions of the whole?"

you can also imagine winning a million dollars and spending it.

At your peril!

There is a difference between reality and imagination, even when mediated by semantics.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Look up 'Chaos: Making a New Science', by James Gleick. It's for the layman, like me, and I assume you, and should interest you very much."

Can you give me a couple of sentences to show what you mean?

How does it contradict my point?

 

[Catastrophe]

"It's for the layman, like me, and I assume you, and should interest you very much."

Depends what you mean by layman.

I have a University B.Sc. and a long lifetime of interest in cosmology and astronomy as well as chemistry and engineering.

Thanks anyway for the reference. I am searching background.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

BTW in the spirit of well meaning:

I thoroughly recommend "Science and Sanity" by Korzybski.

Easy things like "The map is not the territory" meaning that words are not on themselves reality. Some words may offer a workable interface with reality, some words will deceive.

It is a great treatise on distinguishing the difference!

 

[Catastrophe]

From your post:

"If you then get the feeling you're spinning your wheels, you're exactly right."

You are exactly right (maybe not in the way you meant?).
This is what happens when words cease to help you in expressing reality because you have reached the boundary with sanity (in a medical sense, not derogatory) and are confused because words and real experience cease to gibe.

There is no reality in infinite or infinity. Your knife is not sharp enough.

 

[Atlan0001]

"It's for the layman, like me, and I assume you, and should interest you very much."

Depends what you mean by layman.

I have a University B.Sc. and a long lifetime of interest in cosmology and astronomy as well as chemistry and engineering.

Thanks anyway for the reference. I am searching background.

Cat

"Layman" is relative term. I have no professional credentials for what, here, I do, though I've studied practically all of my life, and more concentratedly for thirty years. But I've studied history and practically everything having do with it, particularly the people and peoples, and especially the professionals in many of the professions, for 66 of my 73 years. I don't have much of an I.Q., just an I.Q. of142. So when I've read what professionals write, I've also read the professional, the human, in the material I've read. I started out pretty good at it, and after 66 years of continuously doing it, I'm experienced and reasonably expert at it. I've "proved" in life and career fields, in all I've chosen to be and do. And I've chosen practically everything I've been and done, including being a lifelong reader and student (never stopping learning, including learning people). I'm very satisfied with who I am.

Upon occasion I've been asked by university graduates I've worked with and for in my fields and time, including some who were themselves scientists that enjoyed talking and debating with me, why is it, so often, I could keep on "jumping into manure and coming up smelling like a rose." Well, the fictional character Sherlock Holmes once wrote that, "From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it."

Also, not at all necessarily concerning you so please don't be offended, this from Albert Einstein, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds..." Not at all humbly, I consider myself one of those "great spirits." Stop trying to profile me, to pigeonhole me, you won't succeed.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well we are similar in many ways. I am 81 so I have just a few more years of reading than you and when my IQ was last measured it was, shall we say, relatively high
I have also been able to read in a couple of other languages. BTW I am English.

Whilst I appreciate what you say, we are supposed to be discussing infinity, which is very much in my neck of the woods. What are your comments so far on my posts?

 

[Atlan0001]

Well we are similar in many ways. I am 81 so I have just a few more years of reading than you and when my IQ was last measured it was, shall we say, relatively high
I have also been able to read in a couple of other languages. BTW I am English.

Whilst I appreciate what you say, we are supposed to be discussing infinity, which is very much in my neck of the woods. What are your comments so far on my posts?

My comment so far on your posts? We are too far apart, even in approach. You talk "words" and "semantics", and "Science and Sanity" by Korzybsky.

To use your own "words" back to you, whilst I appreciate what you say, we are supposed to be discussing infinity, which is very much in my neck of the woods.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, my good Sir, why have you come into the Cosmology Section in a thread entitled
"Infinite bigness/infinite smallness" if you do not want to discuss infinity?

I hope to see you again in a thread where we may have more equal discussion

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

Nothing real is infinite large or small.

Infinity is a mathematical construct defined as division by zero.

Anything infinite IMHO is semantic drivel.
It has become an adjective meaning very big.

Don't waste your life chasing after mathematical illusion.

Infinity is a mathematical construct defined as division by zero.

No, this is not the definition of infinity. I could not find any where giving your definition.

I found only the following definitions;

time or space that has no end

unlimited space, time, or amount, or a number large beyond any limit

the quality of being infinite

unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : BOUNDLESSNESS

a transfinite number (such as aleph-null)

Infinity, the concept of something that is unlimited, endless, without bound.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Infinite regression i think is the meaning of the post.
Is it possible things get smaller forever and at some point entire universes exist in the tiny. Sure but no evidence of gravity on the sub sub atomic shows so i think what we live in (the 99.999% nothing ) is an example of the tiniest things can be already. JMO
The quantum world although has it's possibilities that infinite regression can continue downward forever and gravity of the smaller simply isn't strong enough to leak to us.

I've been thinking more about infinite order in forever.
Galaxies of universes in a grander universe, itself just 1 universe galaxy in a universe etc.
Infinite regression order of forever.
If we have more than 1 universe and forever as the time scale order will happen.

 

[David-J-Franks]

To clarify my thought about inner space and fractions of the whole:

If you take any object and cut it in half you then have two parts of the whole. Then you take these two fractions, cut them in half, and then you have four parts of the whole.

Can this process of creating smaller and smaller fractions go on forever? Like from 4 to 8 and then from 8 to 16 and so on. In other words can there be infinte numbers of parts or fractions of the whole?

You can't keep cutting real things in 1/2 you'll eventually come up against basic particles such as quarks and gluons and if (a very big if) they exist, strings.

The fun doesn't there because you can divide numbers into ever-decreasing fractions all the way down to infinitely small. And even add them all together again.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Infinite regression i think is the meaning of the post.
Is it possible things get smaller forever and at some point entire universes exist in the tiny. Sure but no evidence of gravity on the sub sub atomic shows so i think what we live in (the 99.999% nothing ) is an example of the tiniest things can be already. JMO
The quantum world although has it's possibilities that infinite regression can continue downward forever and gravity of the smaller simply isn't strong enough to leak to us.

I've been thinking more about infinite order in forever.
Galaxies of universes in a grander universe, itself just 1 universe galaxy in a universe etc.
Infinite regression order of forever.
If we have more than 1 universe and forever as the time scale order will happen.

Infinite regression order of forever.
If we have more than 1 universe and forever as the time scale order will happen.

What does this mean?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

What does this mean?

The quantum world has it's possibilities that each fluctuation area is a universe.
No real reason universes cant continue to be smaller other than going beyond quark size.
Then again if quarks are made of something smaller or not really part of the behind the scene universe then it's possible.
I doubt it's part of reality but since we know so little about the reality of the quantum world anything is possible.

Interesting to think that each drop of water could be infinite universes that regress forever.
IMO just a thought experiment and homer simpsons brain

 

[Catastrophe]

David, you have provided your own answer:

"

Infinity, the concept of something that is unlimited, endless, without bound."

CONCEPT . . . . . . . . . not reality

 

[Atlan0001]

I need to get something straight. What is the deal with all this stuff about relative scale universes inside of the DNA molecules inside of our bodies? There is a video on Youtube that goes into someones eye all the way into the DNA molecules of the retna cells, and guess what shows up? An entire universe with galaxys.Iam not makeing this up. This stuff is fun to talk about when you are drunk, but I have seen this concept in commercially released cosmology and astronomy literature going all the way back to high school science class back in the 1980's. What?

Who in the heck came up with this stuff? Is it real? Because if it is, it would be a very profound human discovery. However, something tells me that this stuff is strictly some form of artistic license on the nature of infinity. It has nothing to do with science, right?

If humans had never reached beyond their grasp we would still be in trees and caves. If life nature itself had never reached beyond its grasp it would still be hanging on in a mud hole of origin simply awaiting extinction, if not already extinct.

The fictional character Sherlock Holmes' analogy about a drop of water applies. If humans had never thought of things bigger than their little local environment, we would never have spread over the world, much less reached to Space. And humans would never have evolved into the more complex, more mind differentiated, more 'spatial', beings they are. Would never have become spatial beings, spatial thinkers, imperatively needing (unrealized by a lot of humans) spatial frontiers.

To have an entire universe of galaxies and more in one's mind's eye is nothing to a creature of the universe frontier at large. It means, to many of us on Earth, we are the unborn ripe to be born. To loosely translate Michio Kaku, humanity has multiplied its numbers a million-fold in the last two million years. Some simpleton is going to think that's really a lot, maybe too many, too much. But its nothing to this: Humans have increased in energy two million fold, average per every man, woman and child, living in that same amount of time. One million fold of that two million fold increase in energy acquiring to humanity in just the last seventy-five years of that two million years. Not only have we vastly increased in energy average per every man, woman and child living, we have equally, per human, vastly increased in 'Space Age' structure, infrastructure, reach, powers, needs and wants. We are an entity at the point of having the limbs and organs, energy and powers, needs and wants, to birth outside this womb world. If we don't begin to birth, if we refuse to birth, we will destroy ourselves and this world. And we cannot halt that inevitability. The natural law is grow or die and it is immutable.

And the only frontier we can birth to is Space. Mars is already not enough. Mars and all the few worlds capable of colonization are already not even close to being enough. Only Space itself is enough...and for deep into the future more than enough.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Now infinite inner space is much harder for me to wrap my head around, because it is not intuitive. Conventional wisdom says if anything gets to small, and it continues to get smaller, it will éventually cease to exist. Because smallness will lead to nothingness. Therefore it's not infinite. So, can you continue to make fractions of anything forever? So theoretically, is it possible that there could actually be something smaller than the smallest known things according to science, like quarks or superstrings? Now this is quantum level stuff, and this is definitly out of my pay grade. There is nothing intuitive about quantum theory or mechanics. So if anyone wants to continue this conversation, please use laymans terms!

Try visiting Youtube and watching some of the clips showing and explaining Mandelbrot sets, "A picture paints a thousand words!"