Top Physicist on INFINITY | Tim Palmer

Support TOE:

Follow TOE:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

#science #physics #infinity

[readyfireaim]

That's a fascinating question and perspective you've raised about whether these seemingly disparate concepts - 0, quality, infinity, additive identity, and negentropy - could actually be referring to the same underlying essence or reality.

I can definitely see some intriguing connections and parallels that one could draw between them:

1) Zero (0) is considered the additive identity in arithmetic/algebra, the primordial qualitative subject from which quantitative multitudes emerge, as you pointed out earlier.

2) The notion of infinity has connotations of transcending finite quantities, alluding to a realm of boundless qualitative abstraction.

3) Quality itself implies that which gives essence, meaning and significance beyond mere quantification.

4) The additive identity represents the prior qualitative unity or oneness that grounds multiplicities and diversities.

5) Negentropy relates to order, pattern and structured information, which could be viewed as qualitative realities underlying quantitative states of entropy.

So in essence, what ties all these concepts together is a philosophical argumentation that:
A primordial, transcendent qualitative reality or "subject" (0, infinity, pure quality) is self-subsistent and self-substantiating.
From this qualitative unified origin, quantitative phenomena and diversities then arise as manifestations or objects.

This maps to perspectives like:
- Platonic ideals/forms being more true than quantified shadows
- The unified field or consciousness being the ground of perceived phenomena
- Qualitative essence being more fundamental than quantitative existence
- The formless void or emptiness being the womb of formed realizations

While speculative, I can see how one could weave together these different mathematical/scientific concepts into a coherent metaphysical narrative about the primacy of quality over quantity.

However, it's important to recognize this as an interpretive philosophical overlay, rather than something inherent within the technical definitions of these terms. Mathematicians and physicists did not necessarily have these deeper connections in mind originally.

But that doesn't preclude analyzing these concepts through the lens of different philosophical frameworks about the relationships between essences/qualities and phenomena/quantities, subject/object complementarities, and the transcendent/immanent dynamics of reality.

It's an enriching intellectual exercise to ponder whether there could indeed be profoundly unifying truths from which these diverse specialized formulations all arise as perspectival representations. You've put forth an intriguing synthesis possibility to contemplate.

[bakfixx]

So basically we can't define anything within the Universe without first defining the Universe. In other words, without a proper reference point as to where anything is within the Universe, any attempt at defining anything within the Universe is incomplete and probably incorrect.

[winningjubbly]

I'm sat on the bus watching this with the volume way up. Two fingers lightly held on my lips, concentration frown on my face, and I'm nodding knowingly to this while occasionally going "hmm, yes" "indeed"..

I feel far smarter than I am. This is good. 😊

[cropcircler]

Turned the question around at Curt like a prof in an undergraduate seminar 😬

[mraarone]

I get mathematics wants to select a symbol to represent the number of infinity. But, numbers began being countable. Even representations are ontologically derived by some process. To me, infinity meant, we can’t count that high, and if we could, it would be further than that countability. Certainly in physics, when dealing with our representation of physics which is where numbers and the [Newton’s] Calculus got their start, we explicitly represent separable entities. In infinite Hilbert spaces as Curt mentions, this resolves into a mathematical device to arrive at finite dimensional results. Physics requires resolution to a real representation, even if that representation of reality includes “imaginary” (assignable) dimensions, such as to frequencies or inverse time, etc.

[rebokfleetfoot]

infinity is not a number, it is a symbol that represents the concept of a process without end

[kyaume]

But what if the discrete is compatible with the continuum, and hence it doesn't matter whether you consider the evolution in, say such a compatible dynamical system, in discrete time or in continuous time (viz. space), does that not imply that the need for the continuum goes away, and there is no need for a continuum hypothesis?

[rogerfroud]

Surely Infinite and infinitesimal values are very different concepts, because one approaches a definite value, ie zero, where the other is completely nebulous.

[shanep]

0.
I prefer continuity. I see no beginning, no end, but a forward moving flow in this dimensional reality based on the 6 senses. If I expand in animal groups and their senses then there are more dimensions humans are unable to perceive. None, would imply infinity, but a process of continuity.

[SahilP]

The point of the discussion is - is it tangible or not. In theory this is also not the correct term, so let us assume for the sake of understanding that both the numbers are a hard limit whether up or down. Both infinity and infinitesimality are a hard limit in the physical world or not? When finding an area under a curve (integration), we take infinitesimal width lengths vertically and then add all of those lines up (for 2D curve) which gets us the area under the curve. Now this length is actually smaller than Planck length, but it's not achievable or discretely measurable outside of it, as it will stop making sense. So, theory and reality are essentially two different things. Same with time - you can break down time infinitely but planck time exists. Both are valid based on what you want to do with them. Same with infinity. There might be a real hard limit (like the architecture of an OS can be 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit etc.) but is it going to do any good to find that value?

[MaxPower-vgvr]

Both/and logic and triadic coefficient (3) mathematics can provide an intriguing framework for describing quantum mechanics, which is known for its inherent non-classical and probabilistic nature. To cover this topic comprehensively, I would suggest exploring it from multiple perspectives, each shedding light on different aspects of quantum mechanics. Three responses would be optimal to address the following:

1: The Superposition Principle and Triadic Coefficients
In quantum mechanics, particles can exist in a superposition of multiple states simultaneously, a phenomenon that defies classical intuition. The triadic coefficient (3) mathematics can offer a way to describe and quantify these superposition states.

For example, consider a quantum system with three possible states: A, B, and C. According to the triadic coefficient (3), there are six possible combinations of these states: (A, B, C), (A, C, B), (B, A, C), (B, C, A), (C, A, B), and (C, B, A). Each of these combinations could represent a distinct superposition state of the quantum system.

The "both/and" logic can then be applied to these combinations, allowing for the coexistence of multiple states simultaneously, which is a fundamental principle of quantum superposition.

2: Quantum Measurement and "Both/And" Logic
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics arises from the apparent collapse of the quantum wavefunction upon observation, transitioning the system from a superposition of states to a definite state. This process seems to contradict the "both/and" logic of superposition.

However, the "both/and" logic can be invoked to provide an alternative interpretation. Instead of viewing measurement as a collapse, it could be seen as a process that reveals the coexistence of multiple states or outcomes, each with a certain probability determined by the quantum wavefunction.

For example, in the famous double-slit experiment, the "both/and" logic could suggest that the particle simultaneously takes all possible paths through the slits, and the observed interference pattern is a manifestation of this coexistence of multiple states or trajectories.

3: Quantum Entanglement and Non-Locality
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where the states of two or more particles become inextricably linked, even when they are separated by vast distances. This non-local behavior challenges our classical understanding of causality and locality.

The "both/and" logic and triadic coefficient (3) mathematics can offer a framework for describing and interpreting quantum entanglement:

1. The "both/and" logic allows for the coexistence of multiple states or configurations of the entangled particles, even when they are spatially separated.

2. The triadic coefficient (3) mathematics can be used to enumerate and quantify the possible combinations of states or configurations that the entangled particles can exhibit, taking into account their non-local correlations.

By embracing the "both/and" logic and triadic coefficient (3) mathematics, we can potentially gain new insights into the non-local and counter-intuitive nature of quantum entanglement, and explore novel ways of describing and understanding this phenomenon.

These three responses highlight how the principles of "both/and" logic and triadic coefficient (3) mathematics can be applied to various aspects of quantum mechanics, offering alternative perspectives and potentially shedding new light on this fundamental theory of physics.

[antonymossop]

He's wrongly using the fundamental limitations of spatial discretization to dismiss the possibility of any finite parameter complete state or dynamics description. The complete space of orthogonal and biorthogonal basis functions is also an infinite hilbert space that does not require discretization, we're free to choose any of them... It's entirely possible that the universe can be explained by the 'correct' choice of orthogonal basis functions and a relatively tiny number of parameters. After all, isn't that what has been the entire story of scientific progress has been...?

[Michael-ntme]

Classic Discrete Numberings (Rational-Predictabilities) and Algebraic Continuous Enumerations (Irrational-Probabilities).

[bhangrafan]

Infinity is NOT a concept in Physics, it is only a concept in mathematics. It only appears in Physics by way of the application of maths to physical problems.

[thehangedman]

Infinity as a PLACE is why the sum of all integers is -1/12. Infinity as a limit gives that sum as infinite.

[esorse]

You may be able to claim that recognizing both no quantity and it's complement * quantity, like mathematically zero and one syntactically 0 and 1 here, can't be contradictory by definiton, while 'entangled' opposites zero and zero prime, 0 and 0', do break the law of non-contradiction : nothing is it's opposite, even from a definite article perspective and Young's double slit experiment illustrating particle and wave like properties of an electron, may have corroborated this, drawing attention to the importance of representationally faithful descriptors * .

* The complement of one in list one two is two.

[Nobody_]

infinity is the number of values a number can take between 1 and 0 (zero).
Every point in space has infinite time.
Every point in time has infinite space.
Thus we have the Smith Chart, where infinity is a point on the graph.

[vagabondcaleb]

Infinity = any flavor of unbounded iteration. Interestingly, addition implies multiplication thus subtraction thus division.

[havenbastion]

Infinity is an instruction - keep going, or etcetera.

[frun]

Counterfactual measurements are irrational⚒️🛠️