The Inter Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

SteveKlinko wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
If you really want to go back to the most elementary thing in the Universe it has to be Space

I think Space is a thing so that we could have had 4D Space or 3D Space or 2D Space
The most elementary thing in the universe is not space but energy because with
out any energy to cause the actual expansion of space there would be no space

Other dimensions of space could exist but we would not our selves exist to
experience them as we can only exist in three dimensions and nothing else
That could be. Do you think there can be Energy without Space
There is energy without space for virtual particles pop in and
out of existence from a state of absolute nothing all the time
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm We are a Physical thing and we are a Conscious thing. I can conceptually separate the two things.
I'm assuming you mean we can know who we are as a conceptual object? which appears to separate the knower from the known?
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm The two things are connected somehow.
They are connected only in the knowledge of conceptual opposites. Otherwise there is no separation there. There is only subject (not thing) objectifying itself (thing)..yes, or no ?

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmSo if we can study the Physical thing then we should be able to study the Conscious thing. We know that the Conscious thing is correlated with the Physical thing.
I'm not sure about this Steve. The physical thing being an illusory concept of consciousness. It would be like the contents of consciousness(concepts) looking for consciousness, when already consciousness is knowing and the source of all concepts. A concept cannot know it's source, but the source can know a concept.

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm I always like to go back to something simple like how is it that we experience the color Red? We know two things: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red Experience happens.
The colour Red...is an experience of consciousness, it's an illusory reflection of light. No thing (concept) has ever experienced consciousness as I've already explained above. The Red experience is an appearance of no thing Consciousness only...yes, or no?

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm The question is how do the Neurons Firing result in a Conscious experience of Red? This is the David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness.
It's only hard because it (consciousness)can't be seen or located, meaning that it must be everywhere and nowhere as one whole thing interacting with itself only. Consciousness is not in and of itself an experience, an experience is an appearance in it...that only it has, there is no separate thing to have the experience of consciousness... because all experiences are inseparable from the experiencer consciousness. It appears there are separate experiences of this and that...but that's the illusion in the sense a shadow is inseparable from the light. There is only this..and that is only ever this.
Sounds too obvious and simple I know.. :wink:

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmScientists will not study this because it seems to require a special status for Consciousness that is possibly outside of Science.
Yes, and believe it or not Steve, what is used to study anything is consciousness, there is nothing outside of it to study, no objective world exists except as a reflected image of the imageless consciousness.


SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmThey sweep this Problem under the rug with statements like the Brain creates a Model, or a representation, or an Association to create the Conscious experience.
That model has an uncanny resemblance to a computer...whereby invisible data from it's memory chip inside is made manifest as knowledge and recognisable images and symbols when electricity surges through the mechanism from outside...and without that electricity, nothing can be seen or known...but any knowing automatically becomes known as the electricity makes contact with the stored memory, so it's as if, the light is re-cognizing itself as and through it's own memory store.

When awareness (father)knows sensation(mother) consciousness is born (son) < it takes 3 to tango ..lol :) < all the same interconnected no / things.. appearances of that which has no beginning or end...the eternal source of everything.

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmThese are always dodges that don't explain the thing.
Perhaps, but what cannot be known cannot be known. I see it very simply, any relative idea about the absolute would be absurd. Only the absolute has absolute knowing.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmThey are just giving the Problem another name.
Yes, all they do is replace one illusion with another.If the truth had wanted to be known it would have been known by now. Humans cannot handle the truth.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm But this does not mean I think that Consciousness wont be studied and explained some day. I just try to get people to think outside the box on Consciousness.
Well Steve, the only thing outside the box is the content of the box...no thing has moved ...also worth considering is supposing we do one day explain consciousness...that would have terrifying consequences for reality, because then one would be able to build a machine that could potentially take over the world and destroy all biological life as we know it....not a good idea, if that came to fruition we'd be constantly at war with our own creation...remember the film '' I Robot ''

Hmm, like that is ever going to happen eh..I think nature was very wise when she decided not to make copies.. :wink:


.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:27 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
We are a Physical thing and we are a Conscious thing. I can conceptually separate the two things. The two things are connected somehow. So
if we can study the Physical thing then we should be able to study the Conscious thing. We know that the Conscious thing is correlated with the
Physical thing. I always like to go back to something simple like how is it that we experience the color Red ? We know two things 1 ) Neurons Fire
and 2 ) a Red Experience happens. The question is how do the Neurons Firing result in a Conscious experience of Red ? This is the David Chalmers
Hard Problem of Consciousness. Scientists will not study this because it seems to require a special status for Consciousness that is possibly outside
of Science. They sweep this Problem under the rug with statements like the Brain creates a Model or a representation or an Association to create
the Conscious experience. These are always dodges that do not explain the thing. They are just giving the Problem another name. But this does
not mean I think that Consciousness wont be studied and explained some day. I just try to get people to think outside the box on Consciousness
The problem with studying consciousness from a scientific perspective is that it is not possible to do so in an objective sense. That is because
one has to be conscious in order to study it which inevitably compromises the methodology. So using consciousness to study consciousness is
ultimately self defeating. To truly study something objectively one has to be outside of it not inside it. Exactly the same problem occurs in
Quantum Mechanics where the act of observing affects the position or momentum of particles. So true objective observation is impossible
What you say is true but it is all we can do at this point. It doesn't mean we should stop trying.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:02 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

The most elementary thing in the universe is not space but energy because with
out any energy to cause the actual expansion of space there would be no space

Other dimensions of space could exist but we would not our selves exist to
experience them as we can only exist in three dimensions and nothing else
That could be. Do you think there can be Energy without Space
There is energy without space for virtual particles pop in and
out of existence from a state of absolute nothing all the time
We can not do a test to see if a Virtual Particle pops out without Space. Any test we can do must take place in our already existing 3D Space. So the Particle must pop out in the context of Space.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:25 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm We are a Physical thing and we are a Conscious thing. I can conceptually separate the two things.
Dontaskme wrote:I'm assuming you mean we can know who we are as a conceptual object? which appears to separate the knower from the known?
No, I simply mean I am aware of a separate Conscious existence from the Physical existence. I know you understand that. I was just stating it for the Physicalists that might read this.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm The two things are connected somehow.
Dontaskme wrote:They are connected only in the knowledge of conceptual opposites. Otherwise there is no separation there. There is only subject (not thing) objectifying itself (thing)..yes, or no ?
I don't think the Physical and the Conscious are opposites, they are just different things. I'm not sure about the Subject/Object. All I can say is that the Physical Mind (Brain) has Neural Activity that results in Conscious experience. How this happens is what I am interested in. Nobody knows the answer to this.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmSo if we can study the Physical thing then we should be able to study the Conscious thing. We know that the Conscious thing is correlated with the Physical thing.
Dontaskme wrote:I'm not sure about this Steve. The physical thing being an illusory concept of consciousness. It would be like the contents of consciousness(concepts) looking for consciousness, when already consciousness is knowing and the source of all concepts. A concept cannot know it's source, but the source can know a concept.
I didn't mean that I think the Physical thing is an illusory concept of Consciousness. Or are you stating this?
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm I always like to go back to something simple like how is it that we experience the color Red? We know two things: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red Experience happens.
Dontaskme wrote:The colour Red...is an experience of consciousness, it's an illusory reflection of light. No thing (concept) has ever experienced consciousness as I've already explained above. The Red experience is an appearance of no thing Consciousness only...yes, or no?
I agree with that completely.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm The question is how do the Neurons Firing result in a Conscious experience of Red? This is the David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Dontaskme wrote:It's only hard because it (consciousness)can't be seen or located, meaning that it must be everywhere and nowhere as one whole thing interacting with itself only. Consciousness is not in and of itself an experience, an experience is an appearance in it...that only it has, there is no separate thing to have the experience of consciousness... because all experiences are inseparable from the experiencer consciousness. It appears there are separate experiences of this and that...but that's the illusion in the sense a shadow is inseparable from the light. There is only this..and that is only ever this.
Sounds too obvious and simple I know.. :wink:
I agree with most of what you say here. But I think you are implying a collective Consciousness that I have not realized yet.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmScientists will not study this because it seems to require a special status for Consciousness that is possibly outside of Science.
Dontaskme wrote:Yes, and believe it or not Steve, what is used to study anything is consciousness, there is nothing outside of it to study, no objective world exists except as a reflected image of the imageless consciousness.
I agree we study the World with Consciousness. All we are is Consciousness but there could still be an Objective World out there.

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmThey sweep this Problem under the rug with statements like the Brain creates a Model, or a representation, or an Association to create the Conscious experience.
Dontaskme wrote:That model has an uncanny resemblance to a computer...whereby invisible data from it's memory chip inside is made manifest as knowledge and recognisable images and symbols when electricity surges through the mechanism from outside...and without that electricity, nothing can be seen or known...but any knowing automatically becomes known as the electricity makes contact with the stored memory, so it's as if, the light is re-cognizing itself as and through it's own memory store.
This is what Science thinks right now. That there is only the Physical Mind and there is no Conscious Mind. Never mind an Inter Mind that might connect the two.
Dontaskme wrote:When awareness (father)knows sensation(mother) consciousness is born (son) < it takes 3 to tango ..lol :) < all the same interconnected no / things.. appearances of that which has no beginning or end...the eternal source of everything.
Three to Tango, Good one. I'll have to think for a while about things that have no beginning and are eternal.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmThese are always dodges that don't explain the thing.
Dontaskme wrote:Perhaps, but what cannot be known cannot be known. I see it very simply, any relative idea about the absolute would be absurd. Only the absolute has absolute knowing.
Absolutely.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pmThey are just giving the Problem another name.
Dontaskme wrote:Yes, all they do is replace one illusion with another.If the truth had wanted to be known it would have been known by now. Humans cannot handle the truth.
Some Humans can but most can't.
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm But this does not mean I think that Consciousness wont be studied and explained some day. I just try to get people to think outside the box on Consciousness.
Dontaskme wrote:Well Steve, the only thing outside the box is the content of the box...no thing has moved ...also worth considering is supposing we do one day explain consciousness...that would have terrifying consequences for reality, because then one would be able to build a machine that could potentially take over the world and destroy all biological life as we know it....not a good idea, if that came to fruition we'd be constantly at war with our own creation...remember the film '' I Robot ''

Hmm, like that is ever going to happen eh..I think nature was very wise when she decided not to make copies.. :wink:
The ultimate goal of Evolution might be to produce an organism that is smart enough to build a Conscious Machine. Humans being what we are will build that Conscious Machine if it is possible.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:01 pm ...
Steve, thanks for the feedback...I'm right with you on this stuff, we're both just putting our stuff out there. And you know it's so refreshing to be exchanging similar ideas with each other and with others, although I don't see many joining in ..I wonder why?..never mind.. we're not trying to deflate ideas here, we're trying to lift them up to be examined aren't we just..yes we are... I feel you are a passionate guy who likes to go large on his subject rather than go home, as for me, I'd rather just go home period... :wink: (just kidding!)..it's great to hear other view points on this and it doesn't matter whether there is agreement or disagreement, we're all in this together, we all go down with the same sinking ship at the end of the day..and as they say, not one person wins the game of survivor. . . for now!! ..but watch this space, nothing is impossible eh? ..if nature can build a conscious being then so can we eh? I'm going to be right here with you Steve supporting your ideas, don't worry about the weird stuff that comes off of my lips.. :oops:

If it does become possible to crack the consciousness code Steve then perhaps we will be able to arrange it that we humans can live forever...is that appealing to you or not? ..and then of course there's all that weird stuff about Transhumanism .

Anyway Steve, I was having a search through the innernet today and I found this website. Apparently there is this book titled '' The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness '' which claims to have closed the mysterious gap.

Wow, would you believe it. The gap has been closed.

I haven't read the book yet, but I am tempted to have a look just to be curious.

Best regards. Jane.


http://www.dspguide.com/InnerLightTheory/Main.htm
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

Steve wrote: '' I didn't mean that I think the Physical thing is an illusory concept of Consciousness. Or are you stating this?''
Yes, I said that Steve, I didn't mean that you'd implied it.

All I'm saying here is agreeing with the Vedantist position that consciousness is not a thing but knows things as they arise in it, things being concepts of course, including the concept consciousness.

Which point to the idea of consciousness being an illusion too. Oh my god, my brain is in a spin...help, wtf, where am I, what am I?
Image
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:24 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:01 pm ...
Steve, thanks for the feedback...I'm right with you on this stuff, we're both just putting our stuff out there. And you know it's so refreshing to be exchanging similar ideas with each other and with others, although I don't see many joining in ..I wonder why?..never mind.. we're not trying to deflate ideas here, we're trying to lift them up to be examined aren't we just..yes we are... I feel you are a passionate guy who likes to go large on his subject rather than go home, as for me, I'd rather just go home period... :wink: (just kidding!)..it's great to hear other view points on this and it doesn't matter whether there is agreement or disagreement, we're all in this together, we all go down with the same sinking ship at the end of the day..and as they say, not one person wins the game of survivor. . . for now!! ..but watch this space, nothing is impossible eh? ..if nature can build a conscious being then so can we eh? I'm going to be right here with you Steve supporting your ideas, don't worry about the weird stuff that comes off of my lips.. :oops:

If it does become possible to crack the consciousness code Steve then perhaps we will be able to arrange it that we humans can live forever...is that appealing to you or not? ..and then of course there's all that weird stuff about Transhumanism .

Anyway Steve, I was having a search through the innernet today and I found this website. Apparently there is this book titled '' The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness '' which claims to have closed the mysterious gap.

Wow, would you believe it. The gap has been closed.

I haven't read the book yet, but I am tempted to have a look just to be curious.

Best regards. Jane.


http://www.dspguide.com/InnerLightTheory/Main.htm
Thank you for the support. That book was a great find. Sounds like what I have been trying to say. I bought it on Amazon. It's on the way.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:38 pm
Steve wrote: '' I didn't mean that I think the Physical thing is an illusory concept of Consciousness. Or are you stating this?''
Yes, I said that Steve, I didn't mean that you'd implied it.

All I'm saying here is agreeing with the Vedantist position that consciousness is not a thing but knows things as they arise in it, things being concepts of course, including the concept consciousness.

Which point to the idea of consciousness being an illusion too. Oh my god, my brain is in a spin...help, wtf, where am I, what am I?
Image
The thought of thinking can do that to you.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:58 pm Thank you for the support. That book was a great find. Sounds like what I have been trying to say. I bought it on Amazon. It's on the way.
I'm really excited for you Steve. Never give up on following your dream.

It's all y/our dream anyway :wink: ...dreams are real :wink:

I'm going to read the free download. Looks like a great read...will persevere with your paper too. :D
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:03 am The thought of thinking can do that to you.
Yeah, thoughts have a funny way of messing with us. Do we think thoughts or does thought think us? :idea: :?

One thing we do know for absolute certainty for sure, thoughts are not our thoughts, they do not belong to anyone. :D

Same goes for sight, seeing does not belong to anyone.

There is no one running the universe...? and yet so easily we give our power away to others. That's why I don't believe a single word that comes out of a politicians mouth.

I'm not a rebel or anything, I'm just wide awake, and can see through all the BS

I trust only in the one that brought me here. :D
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:55 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:03 am The thought of thinking can do that to you.
Yeah, thoughts have a funny way of messing with us. Do we think thoughts or does thought think us? :idea: :?

One thing we do know for absolute certainty for sure, thoughts are not our thoughts, they do not belong to anyone. :D

Same goes for sight, seeing does not belong to anyone.

There is no one running the universe...? and yet so easily we give our power away to others. That's why I don't believe a single word that comes out of a politicians mouth.

I'm not a rebel or anything, I'm just wide awake, and can see through all the BS

I trust only in the one that brought me here. :D
To tell you the truth I don't know what a thought is. I concentrate on a narrow piece of the Consciousness puzzle. I think the Visual experience is a good place to start. I am hoping that after I understand that then I will be able to pursue more abstract things like thought itself.

The book was interesting but ultimately disappointing. It was not really about Inner Light like the Conscious Light from the Inter Mind. The Inner Light title was just borrowed from a Star Trek episode and had more to do with Virtual Reality than Consciousness. The book basically gives Consciousness a new name, Limited Sub Reality, and says it has solved the Problem of Consciousness. How do we experience this Limited Sub Reality? That is the Explanatory Gap in this Theory. That is also the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:57 pm To tell you the truth I don't know what a thought is. I concentrate on a narrow piece of the Consciousness puzzle. I think the Visual experience is a good place to start. I am hoping that after I understand that then I will be able to pursue more abstract things like thought itself.
Steve, I think the whole idea of a ''human self'' in pursuit of how it experiences itself as it appears is also an abstract thought in consciousness.

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:57 pmThe book was interesting but ultimately disappointing. It was not really about Inner Light like the Conscious Light from the Inter Mind. The Inner Light title was just borrowed from a Star Trek episode and had more to do with Virtual Reality than Consciousness. The book basically gives Consciousness a new name, Limited Sub Reality, and says it has solved the Problem of Consciousness. How do we experience this Limited Sub Reality? That is the Explanatory Gap in this Theory. That is also the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Yeah, I kind of thought that would be what the book was about, it seems this idea is very common. But when it comes to explaining how the limited sub-reality machine experiences itself the way it does ..there is no explanation. And my guess is simple.. how could it be explained? who would be able to do that...how can infinity ever be explained by a finite thing?

Steve, if each of our finite minds originates from the same infinite field of consciousness, then wouldn't an explanatory gap be a breach of that consciousness, which is just another word for infinity? is there any thing that can breach infinity? which by my logic would be impossible?
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:07 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:57 pm To tell you the truth I don't know what a thought is. I concentrate on a narrow piece of the Consciousness puzzle. I think the Visual experience is a good place to start. I am hoping that after I understand that then I will be able to pursue more abstract things like thought itself.
Steve, I think the whole idea of a ''human self'' in pursuit of how it experiences itself as it appears is also an abstract thought in consciousness.
I agree
SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:57 pmThe book was interesting but ultimately disappointing. It was not really about Inner Light like the Conscious Light from the Inter Mind. The Inner Light title was just borrowed from a Star Trek episode and had more to do with Virtual Reality than Consciousness. The book basically gives Consciousness a new name, Limited Sub Reality, and says it has solved the Problem of Consciousness. How do we experience this Limited Sub Reality? That is the Explanatory Gap in this Theory. That is also the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Dontaskme wrote:Yeah, I kind of thought that would be what the book was about, it seems this idea is very common. But when it comes to explaining how the limited sub-reality machine experiences itself the way it does ..there is no explanation. And my guess is simple.. how could it be explained? who would be able to do that...how can infinity ever be explained by a finite thing?
Imagine a 1 inch square and then imagine the square getting larger and larger until it is a 12 inch square. Now let the square shrink back to 1 inch. The size is recoverable. Now let the square get larger and larger until it is infinitely large. This is impossible because the square will never be able to attain that size. Let's say we could get the square to be infinitely large then what would we have? When the square is infinitely large its sides will not be found in the universe anymore. It effectively disappears out of the universe. You would not be able to shrink it back because it is effectively gone. The size is not recoverable. Ironically the square becomes something less than it was when it is infinitely large. This is why I am skeptical of infinite things in general.
Dontaskme wrote:Steve, if each of our finite minds originates from the same infinite field of consciousness, then wouldn't an explanatory gap be a breach of that consciousness, which is just another word for infinity? is there any thing that can breach infinity? which by my logic would be impossible?
But the Explanatory Gap is between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind, not between a Conscious Mind and some larger Conscious Mind.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:36 pm Imagine a 1 inch square and then imagine the square getting larger and larger until it is a 12 inch square. Now let the square shrink back to 1 inch. The size is recoverable. Now let the square get larger and larger until it is infinitely large. This is impossible because the square will never be able to attain that size. Let's say we could get the square to be infinitely large then what would we have? When the square is infinitely large its sides will not be found in the universe anymore. It effectively disappears out of the universe. You would not be able to shrink it back because it is effectively gone. The size is not recoverable. Ironically the square becomes something less than it was when it is infinitely large. This is why I am skeptical of infinite things in general.
I just happened to read this. I haven't followed this thread to this point. But mathematically it's trivial to map an infinite length to a finite one. We teach it in high school trigonometry. It's the arctangent function. Here's its graph:

Image

As you can see, it maps any point on the infinitely long x-axis to a point in the finite interval (-pi/2, pi/2).

In general if you have some transformation that maps a finite interval to an infinite one, if the transformation is invertible then you can go back the other way.

This is trivial mathematics. It's not any kind of esoteric higher math. It's high school trig. If you can stretch a finite line segment to an infinite length, you can go back the other way by applying the inverse transformation.

I don't know what impact this has on your thesis, since I haven't followed the thread. But if your claim (that infinite lines can't be shrunk to finite ones) was material to your thesis, your thesis stands refuted.

By the way if you are "skeptical about infinite things," what do you make of the familiar counting numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...

Do you disbelieve in their existence or importance?
Post Reply