Creation ex nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />The infinite series explaination does not answer the fundamental question: <i>How do you cross the street without traversing the infinite?</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You do traverse the infinite.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Or to put it differently: <i>Since traversing the infinite is impossible, how does one cross an infinitely composed finite distance?</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ignoring your premise and addressing your question: Each distance step is traversed in a comparably small time step, as Larry showed. The ratio of distance interval to time interval remains constant for all steps, however small. So the infinite distance series and the infinite time series both have a finite sum which is reached in a finite time. Hence, motion is possible. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You have only shown that an infinitely composed particle decomposes <b>to</b> Nothing (x/infinity = 0). You have not shown that an infinitely composed particle is composed <b>of</b> Nothing (0 * infinity = x, x &lt;&gt; 0). The second does not follow from the first and is in fact false. For if 0 * infinity = x for any x &lt;&gt; 0, then 0 * infinity = y where y &lt;&gt; x. But then x = 0 * infinity = y, so x = y which is inconsistent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Huh?
I've shown that there are no particles in the Meta Model, because the fundamentality of it's design is nothing. Forget that there are any particles at all, because how could they <font color="red"><b>be</b></font id="red"> in the first place, under the Meta Model premise?

Skarp, here is a clue there has to be a pressure gradient between a 1 + to infinity and a 1 - to infinity for UNIVERSE to even exist; otherwise zero motion, zero mass, and zero time. Logically space must be infinite, there may be an infinite number of scales, yet scales may have boundary zones and be finite, so then where is the zero point located between the positive and negative motion of Universe?

If we can answer that question then we may be able to begin to see how our scale interacts with positive and negative infinities at sub atomic scales (our scale has boundaries, yet may approach an infinity within the atomic scales as a cascade towards and away from a zero point).

John

Jrich, let's see if I'm with you, on your problem with Tom crossing a road. I see him on the curb, here's a pciture of him, [8D]

Hi Tom, you are at point one on the transfinite set zero to one. But, let's say that we are at point one now. So we are going to change the signs of our proper fractions. Proper fractions are countable. We are not so much going to walk as converge to zero across this road. Our belt and braces is that we are going to divide the countable set (aleph null) by our time uncountable set (aleph one) A countable infinity divided by an uncountable infinity is zero.

After gettting Tom across the road, I steal his wallet [] This is to leave him infinitely perplexed, the show must go on as they say [][8D][}]

I found this book on the web. Just started looking at it and it looks good for teh maths layman to get into. Mind it's about six meg to download. The top book in the list.

onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/boo...ubc&key=Set%20theory

Hi Skarp
Not sure if I read you correctly, but I also see a problem here:
A. we can never reach zero in an infinite series - therfore infinite series are only potenial and NOT actual
B. we can reach the end of an infinite series (as the example with 0 to 2 steps) - therefore infinite series ARE actual

Are we alowed to have it both way?

And to TVF
An infinite universe is a miracle by your defenition, since it is a state withot a cause. saying that it always existed its in a way just dodging the ball, you might as well say that the first cause (the almighty or what ever other name you wish to name it) existed for ever and cause/create the universe. again are we alowed to have it both way?

modu

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Those who come to this discussion without a background in the study of infinities are at a severe disadvantage, and tend to rebel at the notion that infinities have applicability to the real world. It is a natural first reaction. But as long as they don't take it to the extreme that Fopp did and start to question logic itself, I prefer to give each of them the benefit of the doubt.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I never questioned logic. What I meant was to question you're assertion that anyone who do not have a background in the study of infinities (whatever that means) is at a "severe disadvantage". As you said yourself, it can be difficult to unlearn something even if it's wrong.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What we can't do here is teach "Infinities 101". We can provide the references and answer questions, but it is up to the participants to inform themselves or not, according to their personal priorities.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You're talking as if the definite answer to this is written in a book somewhere. What you should have been able to understand by now is that I'm questioning the content of the book itself.