Infinity defines itself

[SteveKlinko]

Time is a tough one. But more and more I have come closer to the conclusion that Time as a separate Phenomenon does not exist. Time is an artifact of the motion and Interaction of Physical Objects. Physical Objects can be Stars and Planets or Atoms and sub atomic Particles. Without a Physical Universe there can be no concept of Time because Time is not real and only exists as the relationship between Physical Objects. So before the Big Bang there was no Time and therefore no Infinite past. There is only always the eternal Now. The upshot of all this is that Time Travel is impossible because the phenomenon of Time does not exist and there is nothing to Travel back or forward in.

I agree with most of what you say here, and well said it is. Especially the part about Time Travel! Then again, if we revisit Infinity, "time travel" is not possible in the like Hollywood sense, and yet, since "the eternal now" (love that!) is all there is, Infinity would mean it's possible for all "nows" to exist simultaneously, and therefore in every moment, and so you could "travel" per se to any 'now'...if you knew how. Or more like you could simply be in whatever now you want.

This leads to why (outside science) things like deja vu happen.

Anyways, "There is only always the eternal Now." sounds like an argument *FOR* Infinity rather than against! hah. Can you see how I interpret it like that?

Anything is possible, but I think there is only one Eternal Now. I don't think that even a pure Conscious Mind unconnected to any Physical Exitance could travel to other Nows. I don't think all Nows Exist at the same time. But this is my thinking.

Deja Vu is not real, as if just because something seems familiar, that you are really experiencing something again. Next time you have Deja Vu try to concentrate on the Feeling of familiarity. The whole Deja Vu Experience is just that, it is an Experience of familiarity disconnected from any reason for familiarity.

[PaulEBenjamin]

Time is a tough one. But more and more I have come closer to the conclusion that Time as a separate Phenomenon does not exist. Time is an artifact of the motion and Interaction of Physical Objects. Physical Objects can be Stars and Planets or Atoms and sub atomic Particles. Without a Physical Universe there can be no concept of Time because Time is not real and only exists as the relationship between Physical Objects. So before the Big Bang there was no Time and therefore no Infinite past. There is only always the eternal Now. The upshot of all this is that Time Travel is impossible because the phenomenon of Time does not exist and there is nothing to Travel back or forward in.

I agree with most of what you say here, and well said it is. Especially the part about Time Travel! Then again, if we revisit Infinity, "time travel" is not possible in the like Hollywood sense, and yet, since "the eternal now" (love that!) is all there is, Infinity would mean it's possible for all "nows" to exist simultaneously, and therefore in every moment, and so you could "travel" per se to any 'now'...if you knew how. Or more like you could simply be in whatever now you want.

This leads to why (outside science) things like deja vu happen.

Anyways, "There is only always the eternal Now." sounds like an argument *FOR* Infinity rather than against! hah. Can you see how I interpret it like that?

Anything is possible, but I think there is only one Eternal Now. I don't think that even a pure Conscious Mind unconnected to any Physical Exitance could travel to other Nows. I don't think all Nows Exist at the same time. But this is my thinking.

Deja Vu is not real, as if just because something seems familiar, that you are really experiencing something again. Next time you have Deja Vu try to concentrate on the Feeling of familiarity. The whole Deja Vu Experience is just that, it is an Experience of familiarity disconnected from any reason for familiarity.

Nice, thank you for that perspective on Deja Vu. I like it. And it's applicable to a lot.

Back to Infinity: If there is only the Eternal Now, but that is not proof enough itself for the existence of Infinity, how is it Eternal is defined for the "Eternal Now"?

[SteveKlinko]

Time is a tough one. But more and more I have come closer to the conclusion that Time as a separate Phenomenon does not exist. Time is an artifact of the motion and Interaction of Physical Objects. Physical Objects can be Stars and Planets or Atoms and sub atomic Particles. Without a Physical Universe there can be no concept of Time because Time is not real and only exists as the relationship between Physical Objects. So before the Big Bang there was no Time and therefore no Infinite past. There is only always the eternal Now. The upshot of all this is that Time Travel is impossible because the phenomenon of Time does not exist and there is nothing to Travel back or forward in.

I agree with most of what you say here, and well said it is. Especially the part about Time Travel! Then again, if we revisit Infinity, "time travel" is not possible in the like Hollywood sense, and yet, since "the eternal now" (love that!) is all there is, Infinity would mean it's possible for all "nows" to exist simultaneously, and therefore in every moment, and so you could "travel" per se to any 'now'...if you knew how. Or more like you could simply be in whatever now you want.

This leads to why (outside science) things like deja vu happen.

Anyways, "There is only always the eternal Now." sounds like an argument *FOR* Infinity rather than against! hah. Can you see how I interpret it like that?

Anything is possible, but I think there is only one Eternal Now. I don't think that even a pure Conscious Mind unconnected to any Physical Exitance could travel to other Nows. I don't think all Nows Exist at the same time. But this is my thinking.

Deja Vu is not real, as if just because something seems familiar, that you are really experiencing something again. Next time you have Deja Vu try to concentrate on the Feeling of familiarity. The whole Deja Vu Experience is just that, it is an Experience of familiarity disconnected from any reason for familiarity.

Nice, thank you for that perspective on Deja Vu. I like it. And it's applicable to a lot.

Back to Infinity: If there is only the Eternal Now, but that is not proof enough itself for the existence of Infinity, how is it Eternal is defined for the "Eternal Now"?

It's not as if Now lasts in Time forever. Now is Timeless. A Now of 1 Million years ago and a Now of 1 Million years in the future are the same Now as the Now when you read this and the same Now as when I wrote it.

[PaulEBenjamin]

I agree with most of what you say here, and well said it is. Especially the part about Time Travel! Then again, if we revisit Infinity, "time travel" is not possible in the like Hollywood sense, and yet, since "the eternal now" (love that!) is all there is, Infinity would mean it's possible for all "nows" to exist simultaneously, and therefore in every moment, and so you could "travel" per se to any 'now'...if you knew how. Or more like you could simply be in whatever now you want.

This leads to why (outside science) things like deja vu happen.

Anyways, "There is only always the eternal Now." sounds like an argument *FOR* Infinity rather than against! hah. Can you see how I interpret it like that?

Anything is possible, but I think there is only one Eternal Now. I don't think that even a pure Conscious Mind unconnected to any Physical Exitance could travel to other Nows. I don't think all Nows Exist at the same time. But this is my thinking.

Deja Vu is not real, as if just because something seems familiar, that you are really experiencing something again. Next time you have Deja Vu try to concentrate on the Feeling of familiarity. The whole Deja Vu Experience is just that, it is an Experience of familiarity disconnected from any reason for familiarity.

Nice, thank you for that perspective on Deja Vu. I like it. And it's applicable to a lot.

Back to Infinity: If there is only the Eternal Now, but that is not proof enough itself for the existence of Infinity, how is it Eternal is defined for the "Eternal Now"?

It's not as if Now lasts in Time forever. Now is Timeless. A Now of 1 Million years ago and a Now of 1 Million years in the future are the same Now as the Now when you read this and the same Now as when I wrote it.

Yes that makes sense. So Infinity to you is something that requires Time. As in it's a measure of events beginning and ending in a certain observable sequential order, only Infinity means this 'sequential order' had no beginning and ending and is thus impossible? Because if that is the case, then 'Now' being Timeless would put it in the same arena as Infinity, yes? Hm..perhaps The Eternal Now, being all there is, both proves and disproves Infinity simultaneously? Or rather, it's not "infinity" as in "no beginning no ending" but does indeed persist "infinitely" because there simply is nothing else.

[PaulEBenjamin]

Bah, sorry, I re-read what I wrote and I realized I did not convey a thought quite accurately:

Instead of the "Because if that is the case..." sentence as written above, I meant more like this:

Because we agree Time does not exist, if Infinity requires time, then I can see how Infinity would not exist from that perspective, of course!

[SteveKlinko]

Bah, sorry, I re-read what I wrote and I realized I did not convey a thought quite accurately:

Instead of the "Because if that is the case..." sentence as written above, I meant more like this:

Because we agree Time does not exist, if Infinity requires time, then I can see how Infinity would not exist from that perspective, of course!

Yes, Time Infinity does not exist. But also, Distance Infinity, and Size Infinity do not exist. Even Space Infinity does not exist. So, no Infinite Universes.

[PaulEBenjamin]

Bah, sorry, I re-read what I wrote and I realized I did not convey a thought quite accurately:

Instead of the "Because if that is the case..." sentence as written above, I meant more like this:

Because we agree Time does not exist, if Infinity requires time, then I can see how Infinity would not exist from that perspective, of course!

Yes, Time Infinity does not exist. But also, Distance Infinity, and Size Infinity do not exist. Even Space Infinity does not exist. So, no Infinite Universes.

But what do you think of my last statement up there: "Hm..perhaps The Eternal Now, being all there is, both proves and disproves Infinity simultaneously? Or rather, it's not "infinity" as in "no beginning no ending" but does indeed persist "infinitely" because there simply is nothing else."

Does that make sense. It's not so much that Infinity itself exists as a 'thing' I suppose (ie, defined by the lack of a beginning and ending boundry) and yet, The Eternal Now is, by perhaps a different definition, Infinite.

[SteveKlinko]

Bah, sorry, I re-read what I wrote and I realized I did not convey a thought quite accurately:

Instead of the "Because if that is the case..." sentence as written above, I meant more like this:

Because we agree Time does not exist, if Infinity requires time, then I can see how Infinity would not exist from that perspective, of course!

Yes, Time Infinity does not exist. But also, Distance Infinity, and Size Infinity do not exist. Even Space Infinity does not exist. So, no Infinite Universes.

But what do you think of my last statement up there: "Hm..perhaps The Eternal Now, being all there is, both proves and disproves Infinity simultaneously? Or rather, it's not "infinity" as in "no beginning no ending" but does indeed persist "infinitely" because there simply is nothing else."

Does that make sense. It's not so much that Infinity itself exists as a 'thing' I suppose (ie, defined by the lack of a beginning and ending boundry) and yet, The Eternal Now is, by perhaps a different definition, Infinite.

You are trying to put the Now into some sort of Time framework by saying that the Now persists Infinitely. Things Persist with changing Time but the Now has nothing to do with Time. The Now does not Persist, it merely just Is. So the Now does not prove or disprove Infinite Time because the Now is not related to Time which is an ever changing thing.

[PaulEBenjamin]

Bah, sorry, I re-read what I wrote and I realized I did not convey a thought quite accurately:

Instead of the "Because if that is the case..." sentence as written above, I meant more like this:

Because we agree Time does not exist, if Infinity requires time, then I can see how Infinity would not exist from that perspective, of course!

Yes, Time Infinity does not exist. But also, Distance Infinity, and Size Infinity do not exist. Even Space Infinity does not exist. So, no Infinite Universes.

But what do you think of my last statement up there: "Hm..perhaps The Eternal Now, being all there is, both proves and disproves Infinity simultaneously? Or rather, it's not "infinity" as in "no beginning no ending" but does indeed persist "infinitely" because there simply is nothing else."

Does that make sense. It's not so much that Infinity itself exists as a 'thing' I suppose (ie, defined by the lack of a beginning and ending boundry) and yet, The Eternal Now is, by perhaps a different definition, Infinite.

You are trying to put the Now into some sort of Time framework by saying that the Now persists Infinitely. Things Persist with changing Time but the Now has nothing to do with Time. The Now does not Persist, it merely just Is. So the Now does not prove or disprove Infinite Time because the Now is not related to Time which is an ever changing thing.

Ah I like that! So experiencing evidence that things existed in some different state (alive or dead, one color in an old picture but a different color in the 'present', etc.), is only when assuming Time is real. That thing existing in some other state in relation to Time is irrelevant because in the Eternal Now, that thing is now dead and not alive, or a different color than in the picture. And the state it is in Now is all that truly matters.
Correct?

[SteveKlinko]

Yes, Time Infinity does not exist. But also, Distance Infinity, and Size Infinity do not exist. Even Space Infinity does not exist. So, no Infinite Universes.

But what do you think of my last statement up there: "Hm..perhaps The Eternal Now, being all there is, both proves and disproves Infinity simultaneously? Or rather, it's not "infinity" as in "no beginning no ending" but does indeed persist "infinitely" because there simply is nothing else."

Does that make sense. It's not so much that Infinity itself exists as a 'thing' I suppose (ie, defined by the lack of a beginning and ending boundry) and yet, The Eternal Now is, by perhaps a different definition, Infinite.

You are trying to put the Now into some sort of Time framework by saying that the Now persists Infinitely. Things Persist with changing Time but the Now has nothing to do with Time. The Now does not Persist, it merely just Is. So the Now does not prove or disprove Infinite Time because the Now is not related to Time which is an ever changing thing.

Ah I like that! So experiencing evidence that things existed in some different state (alive or dead, one color in an old picture but a different color in the 'present', etc.), is only when assuming Time is real. That thing existing in some other state in relation to Time is irrelevant because in the Eternal Now, that thing is now dead and not alive, or a different color than in the picture. And the state it is in Now is all that truly matters.
Correct?

I don't think the Now state is all that matters, but it is what we are stuck with. We are aided by having Memory. Our Memories can record past states, but Memories are accessed in the Now. In the Now you can know the Dead thing was Alive. But if you wanted to know how long ago it died you would need to use some other Physical Process to compare it to. You could have counted how many times the Earth rotated on its axis. This is the relationship between two Physical Processes. But there is no actual Time Phenomenon that exists apart from the relationships between Physical Objects and Processes. Without Physical Objects and Processes there is no Phenomenon of Time. If we can say there was nothing before the Big Bang then we can say that there was no Phenomenon of Time before the Big Bang. There was no Infinite past and not even a 1 year, or 1 day, or 1 second past before the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was no Matter, Energy, or Space, and therefore no Time. This is because Time is merely the relationship between and within Matter, Energy, and Space.

[PaulEBenjamin]

I don't think the Now state is all that matters, but it is what we are stuck with. We are aided by having Memory. Our Memories can record past states, but Memories are accessed in the Now. In the Now you can know the Dead thing was Alive. But if you wanted to know how long ago it died you would need to use some other Physical Process to compare it to. You could have counted how many times the Earth rotated on its axis. This is the relationship between two Physical Processes. But there is no actual Time Phenomenon that exists apart from the relationships between Physical Objects and Processes. Without Physical Objects and Processes there is no Phenomenon of Time. If we can say there was nothing before the Big Bang then we can say that there was no Phenomenon of Time before the Big Bang. There was no Infinite past and not even a 1 year, or 1 day, or 1 second past before the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was no Matter, Energy, or Space, and therefore no Time. This is because Time is merely the relationship between and within Matter, Energy, and Space.

Sorry, when I said "all that matters" I'm not talking about relative importance of events to an individual (whether past or present), I mean more along the lines of "it's all there really is so always start from there". Importance of events should, in my opinion, be set by how they relate to the Now instead of -- what humans usually do -- set them based on things that no longer exist, or possibly don't exist at all (eg, other people's perceived opinions, whether obvious or not).

Anyways, so I'm all good with Time not existing except as by how matter, energy, space, etc. relate to one another. Totally on board with that. However, I'm confused why you seem so certain that nothing existed before the Big Bang. How is it you are defining the Big Bang?

[SteveKlinko]

I don't think the Now state is all that matters, but it is what we are stuck with. We are aided by having Memory. Our Memories can record past states, but Memories are accessed in the Now. In the Now you can know the Dead thing was Alive. But if you wanted to know how long ago it died you would need to use some other Physical Process to compare it to. You could have counted how many times the Earth rotated on its axis. This is the relationship between two Physical Processes. But there is no actual Time Phenomenon that exists apart from the relationships between Physical Objects and Processes. Without Physical Objects and Processes there is no Phenomenon of Time. If we can say there was nothing before the Big Bang then we can say that there was no Phenomenon of Time before the Big Bang. There was no Infinite past and not even a 1 year, or 1 day, or 1 second past before the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was no Matter, Energy, or Space, and therefore no Time. This is because Time is merely the relationship between and within Matter, Energy, and Space.

Sorry, when I said "all that matters" I'm not talking about relative importance of events to an individual (whether past or present), I mean more along the lines of "it's all there really is so always start from there". Importance of events should, in my opinion, be set by how they relate to the Now instead of -- what humans usually do -- set them based on things that no longer exist, or possibly don't exist at all (eg, other people's perceived opinions, whether obvious or not).

Anyways, so I'm all good with Time not existing except as by how matter, energy, space, etc. relate to one another. Totally on board with that. However, I'm confused why you seem so certain that nothing existed before the Big Bang. How is it you are defining the Big Bang?

I'm not certain of anything, but from the Science of the Big Bang I think they say there was nothing before the BB. I don't even really know if the BB actually happened, but you have to start somewhere and with some educated assumptions.

[heracleitos]

If you look at the axiom if infinity ( in ZFC set theory), it says that it assumes the existence of the fully-inducted set of natural numbers.

The natural numbers themselves do not exist in the physical universe. The set of natural numbers is unbounded, while the universe itself is assumed to be bounded. Hence, these things have incompatible shapes.

The axiom of infinity is certainly a useful construction brick in Set Theory, but not one that could make sense in any theory that would try to describe the physical universe.

[SteveKlinko]

If you look at the axiom if infinity ( in ZFC set theory), it says that it assumes the existence of the fully-inducted set of natural numbers.

The natural numbers themselves do not exist in the physical universe. The set of natural numbers is unbounded, while the universe itself is assumed to be bounded. Hence, these things have incompatible shapes.

The axiom of infinity is certainly a useful construction brick in Set Theory, but not one that could make sense in any theory that would try to describe the physical universe.

Exactly, there are no Infinities in the Physical Universe. No Black Holes with Infinite density, no Infinite past, and no Infinite etc.