> Chris, >> >> Hey Roger ~ sorry for the belatedness of my reply >> >> Roger: No problem. I know there were a lot of other passionate > discussions going on here lately! > ------------- > > >> I really like your idea of imagining your mind growing to infinite size, >> but I agree it sounds pretty hard. I'm going to give it a try. Your head >> doesn't blow up, does it? :-) As you said, maybe people visualizing the >> infinitely small and infinitely big will eventually meet. >> >> Yes, in the sense of our universe being the perspective, of being, from >> inside a black hole. The universe shares some compelling properties with >> black holes; both are defined by their event horizons and both have >> histories bounded by moments of origin. >> >> Roger: Agreed. In a way, if the initial existent entity that made the >> universe is the one previously called the "absolute lack-of-all", it's kind >> of like a black hole, or singularity. >> > ------------------------ > Actually, thinking about it, I see problems with an infinitely fine zero-dimensional entity, as well, even as a pure abstraction, when taken to an infinite degree of fineness of scale of its address in space-time. In a physical sense, as a smallest address of space time, how small can small be? And as a point of origin our laws of physics break down at some scale… how point-like was the Big Bang – at a scale of less than 10^(-35), do we really know?
Even as a pure mathematical entity – with no corresponding point particle entity -- one can make an argument against an infinitely small point, existing even in a purely mathematical abstract realm, by noting that there exists a reverse symmetrical property between the scale of the points grain size (e.g. radius for example) and the information required to address it. The smaller the addressed scale becomes, the bigger the information set that is required in order to hold its address also becomes. If the rate at which the required address size increases, matches the rate at which increasingly fine scaled points can be defined then an infinitely small point would require an infinitely large address space in order to be defined. On the other hand, if the rate of growth in address space is less than the rate of increasingly fine grained scale point definition then perhaps it doesn’t matter. Roger: It seems to me, too, that there are problems with zero dimensions, or point particles. I've never understood why physicists don't question the idea of a zero-dimensional point particle. Oh well. ---------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
