Immanent Geometry and Infinity
>>>... what if there exists an immanent "geometry" of events? For example, event #3 spawns six different events, and each of these six spawn other events which may include (i.e. repeat) earlier events.<<<
There also is the possibility that if the set of all present events is zero, then by what logic is it argued that the past is not an infinite regress of events with a negative value? And that they are an actual infinite? Cosmol.txt argue there cannot be an infinite set of events between "zero" and any one negative (past) value. However, there can be a FINITE number of events between a negative (past) event and the present without destroying the logic of an infinite past.
Andrew
Hello, Andrew.
>> There also is the possibility that if the set of all present events is zero, then by what logic is it argued that the past is not an infinite regress of events with a negative value? And that they are an actual infinite? <<
This point may be too subtle for me. I think you are saying it is possible that either 1) the present does not exist (that is, there is no interface between past and future), or 2) that there is no future for the past to interact with (and only the past exists). Either way: past, present and future, as I understand the terms, are interpretations of physical particle organizations. By this definition, the present (or past, or future, or immanent existence - take your choice) is the sum of all elementary particles and the relationships among them. I personally cannot conceive of a practical present containing no events.
I don't know if this comment addresses your response. If not, please define "the set of all present events is zero" and "events with a negative value" and I'll try again.
>> However, there can be a FINITE number of events between a negative (past) event and the present without destroying the logic of an infinite past. <<
For sure, on this point we agree.
Tony Giovia
>>>I think you are saying it is possible that either 1) the present does not exist (that is, there is no interface between past and future), or 2) that there is no future for the past to interact with (and only the past exists).<<<
It has been my observation that only the present exists, and only the present has ever existed. The world of matter and energy seems to act and inter act only in the specific context of NOW. The past is only what the NOW has been, and the future is only what the NOW will do or be.
>>>...please define "the set of all present events is zero" and "events with a negative value" and I'll try again.<<<
There seems to be a lot at stake in some of these discussion regarding the concept of "infinity." The "God" advocates seem to attach a great deal of importance to it, and I am just trying to understand it.
For me, the "Big Bang" happened, and we aren't quite sure what to say about anything prior to that event. At the very least, the Big Bang was an event. The question is, were there events prior to it? If you say no, then you can't talk about anything meaningful prior to it. If you say yes, then we are faced with the consideration of an infinite regress of events.
Assigning a value of zero to the NOW is simply a mental device for thinking about it. If time is really a "line" of events, then I think an infinite regress is not only possible, but probable.
Andrew
Andrew,
>> There seems to be a lot at stake in some of these discussion regarding the concept of "infinity." At the very least, the Big Bang was an event. The question is, were there events prior to it? If you say no, then you can't talk about anything meaningful prior to it. If you say yes, then we are faced with the consideration of an infinite regress of events. <<
If :
1) Logic is a method of inclusion and
exclusion (the fitting together or organization of definitions); and
2) analogy is a method of definition; and
3) one assumes everything is
related to everything else via the Big Bang (any individual thing is included
in the set of all things created by the Big Bang),
then "chicken and egg" paradox-type questions ( infinity, God's "unliftable" rock) form the physical boundaries of logic and analogy; that is, paradoxes showcase two ideas, one of which apparently can never be included in the set of the other (The chicken came before the egg, the egg came before the chicken).
>> If time is really a "line" of events, then I think an infinite regress is not only possible, but probable. <<
I'd like to argue that time is not necessarily linear, and that this non-linearity, if true, has implications for any definition of infinity.
Elsewhere in this thread I have given my reasoning for an immanent geometry of "events"; by events I include all manifestations of energy, including ideas. Such a physical geometry would apparently allow both "serial" and "multiple" access to the data structure of energy particles composing the universe.
I say an immanent geometry apparently allows multiple access because it does allow for multiple pathways of differing lengths between two events. Serially, event 1 causes event 2, 2 causes 3, etc. But what if event N spawns six different events (as winning the lottery spawns multiple events), and each of these six spawn other events which may include (i.e. repeat) earlier events. And what if one of these repeated events is event # 1? (Consider particles randomly splitting and then recombining into new "events" - it seems reasonable to assume that over time events will re-occur.)
Event 1 then re-starts a parallel process concurrent with the "parent" process - like the Multiple Big Bang theory, parallel universe theories, and so on. My point is simply that there are possibly many physical pathways (as opposed to a single serial pathway) between any two events, including pathways through physical dimensions (parallel processes) connected via shared events.
The implications of this scenario on definitions of infinity become apparent. For example, assume that some newer events are conceptually far removed from earlier events. Then we would call "finite" any connection (pathway) between these events that we can define (map), and "infinite" any connection that we can't define.
In this context "infinite" takes on a practical definition of "a non-defined connection between particular events", where the connection is non-defined either because:
1) the literal mapped connection between particular events cannot be defined ("The chicken came before the egg; The egg came before the chicken."); or
2) the path is clear but one or both of the particular events cannot be identified ("The set of all even numbers.").
Tony
>>>I'd like to argue that time is not necessarily linear, and that this non-linearity, if true, has implications for any definition of infinity.<<<
Well, if we think of time as the measurement of events, then something has to happen before something else happens. In this sense, time is merely a mental construct enabling us to think of sequential events. I believe when it's all said and done, we are going to find existence simply exists, and matter has simply changed form(s) eternally.
Whether or not one event spawns six events which come about to repeat the "first" event of this series, the two similar events are not the "same" events. But who knows? I still cannot imagine going backwards "in" time when I view time as "in" (and only possible) with preexistence, or an eternal existence.
We may quibble and quarrel about the nature of existence, but we cannot disregard the fundamental primacy of it.
Andrew
Hello, Andrew. I'll make this brief.
>>> Well, if we think of time as the measurement of events, then something has to happen before something else happens. In this sense, time is merely a mental construct enabling us to think of sequential events ... I still cannot imagine going backwards "in" time when I view time as "in" (and only possible) with preexistence, or an eternal existence. <<<
Going "backward" or "forward" in time is, of course, only relative to a frame of reference. As you say elsewhere, "Existence simply exists".
>>> Whether or not one event spawns six events which come about to repeat the "first" event of this series, the two similar events are not the "same" events. But who knows? <<<
I had hoped to make this point less speculative. First, I should have said "equivalent", not "same" (where same means identical in time and space). Second, by "event" I mean a power relationship - a mathematically descriptive formula that describes the relationships of all the particles participating in the event. It is therefore the power relationship that re-occurs, which
re-starts the cycle in a different particle environment (leading to a different series of events).
I just wanted to clarify these points. Thanks.
Tony
>>>I just wanted to clarify these points. Thanks.<<<
And a sensible job at that.
Andrew