Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[OngBonga]

It's only vague because you fail to see it's not.

[OngBonga]

"Vague" is an interesting word for you to throw out there. I mean it's subjective... what's vague for you might not be for me. So your assertion that it's "vague" only exposes your lack of clarity.

[Poopadoop]

"Vague" is an interesting word for you to throw out there. I mean it's subjective... what's vague for you might not be for me. So your assertion that it's "vague" only exposes your lack of clarity.

No, it exposes your lack of clarity.

[OngBonga]

No, it exposes your lack of clarity.

Not from my point of view.

[Poopadoop]

Any definition that includes two mutually exclusive possibilities is ill-defined. Whether you misinterpret that as clarity is a separate issue.

[OngBonga]

I mean I understand perfectly well that zero and infinity are polar opposites of the same coin. Much like time/space, energy/matter, electricty/magnetism etc. You think that it's vague to say the present is either zero seconds or infinite, I say it's only vague because you fail to grasp the point. A singularity is both zero and infinite, it just depends how you measure it.

[OngBonga]

Any definition that includes two mutually exclusive possibilities is ill-defined. Whether you misinterpret that as clarity is a separate issue.

Here is where you lack clarity.

[Poopadoop]

Here is where you lack clarity.

That was where you lacked clarity, you mean. You assumed i knew a singularity could be both 0 or infinite.

Edit: That of course assumes you know what you are talking about when you refer to a singularity and aren't just making shit up as you go along.

Edit 2: Even if you do know what you're talking about, you have to admit 'either 0 or infinite' is not exactly a precise definition.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Past, present, or future is not the same for all observers; the order of events is not the same for all observers.

What is the same for all observers is causality. Any events that happen in different orders to different observers can only have one causal link. Meaning that whatever the order of events, all observers agree on which events could have caused other events and which could not.

E.g. we might observe 2 supernova in "close succession" and wonder whether the first one caused the 2nd one. We may find that the supernova were separate in time by 1 year, but that the stars which exploded were 4 light years apart. The closer start was first to blow. Thus we know that no information about the first supernova had even reached the 2nd star before it reached us, so the 2nd star's explosion could not be caused by the first star's explosion.

I suspect that the "present" is well defined in GR, but that definition is nowhere near what any non-physicist would mean when they talk about the present.

A particle in a superposition of states has, at the same instant of time, 2 mutually exclusive properties. An electron cannot be spin up if it is spin down, but a pair can be in a superposition of spin up and spin down, and the pair allowed to separate. Now, each electron still exists in a superposition of states until it interacts with something which alters that.

The ability to simultaneously exist in mutually exclusive states is a fundamental property of matter.

[MadMojoMonkey]

X [apples] has not ever been reproducibly observed to equal Y [oranges], yet.
Not even when X = Y.

0 volume is not the same as 0 density, or any amount of density, even infinite.

0 volume is certainly not equal to infinite volume; similarly for density.

[OngBonga]

0 volume is certainly not equal to infinite volume

But something that has zero volume is infinitely small. Something that has >0 volume is not infinitely small. Zero is infinity.

[Poopadoop]

ITT Ong tries to defend maths and ends up disproving it.

[OngBonga]

Maths can help me out. What's the sum of all the possible negative and positive numbers?

[OngBonga]

Edit: That of course assumes you know what you are talking about when you refer to a singularity and aren't just making shit up as you go along.

I think I know what I'm talking about when I refer to a singularity, at least from a cosmology point of view. It's not easy to describe, but I'll try... a region of spacetime in which a mass of >0 occupies a volume of 0, caused by the inability of light to escape the gravitational influence of the mass.

But it doesn't really matter, I was using the word in a metaphorical sense when applied to my idea of what the "present" is... a singularity in time. Like a black hole, it is zero when observed from outside, but from inside it is infinite. We're in the present, and it will always be the present, we observe it as infinite, because we always observe the present. Even though we know the past existed, and the future will exist (unless you're poop, then the future will merely probably exist). If we look at the present in a manner which takes into account the future and the past, the present is zero, which is why it is not definable in terms of nanoseconds.

Thus, the present is both zero and infinity, depending on how you measure it.

[OngBonga]

Maths can help me out. What's the sum of all the possible negative and positive numbers?

I'd like to think poop is working on this.

[Poopadoop]

I'd like to think poop is working on this.

Haha I want MMM to answer.

[Poopadoop]

I think I know what I'm talking about when I refer to a singularity, at least from a cosmology point of view. It's not easy to describe, but I'll try... a region of spacetime in which a mass of >0 occupies a volume of 0, caused by the inability of light to escape the gravitational influence of the mass.

But it doesn't really matter, I was using the word in a metaphorical sense when applied to my idea of what the "present" is... a singularity in time. Like a black hole, it is zero when observed from outside, but from inside it is infinite. We're in the present, and it will always be the present, we observe it as infinite, because we always observe the present. Even though we know the past existed, and the future will exist (unless you're poop, then the future will merely probably exist). If we look at the present in a manner which takes into account the future and the past, the present is zero, which is why it is not definable in terms of nanoseconds.

Thus, the present is both zero and infinity, depending on how you measure it.

Kind of like how someone can make zero sense to an outside observer, yet infinite sense to themselves? Ya, I think I get it.

[OngBonga]

So alright, I'm bored of this now, I'll just pull out my trump card.

By claiming to know that I can't know the future, you're claiming you do. You're saying that you have enough information to make the determination that it is impossible for me to know. Your position is defeated by paradox. Knowing that you can't know, that is knowing, and thus you can't know that you can't know.

I'm making perfect sense, fwiw.

[Savy]

Maths can help me out. What's the sum of all the possible negative and positive numbers?

0*. His many of the infinite infinite sums that don't sum to 0 would you like me to post? I could post 0 and you assume I posted infinite, proving you wrong.

*I assume thus is true as you can pair off every number to cancel out, definitely true of Integers and I assume of all real numbers but infinity does some weird stuff and I'm unsure if my proof requires those numbers to be countable.

It's also worth noting that infinite sums can do some strange strange things and different methods of equating them give different answers.

[Savy]

Equating is a terrible use of word but my mind fails to think of the correct term.

[Poopadoop]

By claiming to know that I can't know the future, you're claiming you do.

False. I'm claiming no-one can. Big difference.

You're saying that you have enough information to make the determination that it is impossible for me to know. Your position is defeated by paradox. Knowing that you can't know, that is knowing, and thus you can't know that you can't know.

I'm making perfect sense, fwiw.

You're making infinite sense. Or 0 sense. Either way it works cause they're the same thing in your universe.

I'm not claiming to know that any specific prediction you make about the future will be false. For all I know it may be true. What I'm claiming is that you can't make any such prediction with 100% certainty. I am claiming a previously unknown effect could arise that disproves your prediction, because what has not been observed is unknown to anyone.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Maths can help me out. What's the sum of all the possible negative and positive numbers?

I'd like to think poop is working on this.

Haha I want MMM to answer.

To solidify ImSavy's answer, that sum is 0 due to the fact that, while there are an uncountable infinity of numbers between any 2 numbers, there is always exactly a 1:1 mapping of any negative value to its positive counterpart. This holds equally true for the Complex numbers.

ImSavy's note that summing over infinity can yield strange results, and sometimes those results can differ, depending on how the problem is conceived and solved is appropriate.
E.g. it is rather easy to prove that the sum of all the positive integers is -1/12, and that result is used in certain QM solutions to yield accurate predictions. It's not intuitive at all, but it works.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But something that has zero volume is infinitely small. Something that has >0 volume is not infinitely small. Zero is infinity.

You are defining infinity as identical to infinitely small.
Might as well be saying that lightning is the same as a lightning bug.

Infinity is a concept of unendingness. To use this concept as an adverb for smallness is definitely a colloquialism which adequately expresses your meaning, while not really holding true to the concept of unendingness. It's turned on its head to actually mean a concept of unbeginningness.

Your poetic license is not valid in this state.

[Poopadoop]

Your poetic license is not valid in this state.

In Ong's world, it's all about saying 'checkmate'. The fact that he's playing checkers is irrelevant to him.

[OngBonga]

I'm not claiming to know that any specific prediction you make about the future will be false.

This is a prediction about the future.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Like a black hole, it is zero when observed from outside, but from inside it is infinite.

What is "it?" Are you certain it's the same it both times?

Regardless, whoever told you that was making it up. Ain't nobody observed inside an event horizon, let alone a singularity. The math falls apart at the singularity, and that's just GR. GR has no exclusive dominance on this corner reality since QM really needs to be included, and ... uhhh ... we're working on that, but it's slow going.

Or, I mean... publish your findings and live long enough to be awarded your Nobel Prize in Physics.

We're in the present, and it will always be the present

No.
You're in your present.
I'm in my present.
The sun is in its present.
Each of our clocks move at different rates. There is no single spacetime coordinate which we share exactly, so there is no meaningfully objective present to talk about. Each particle exists in its own present, and those presents are uniquely related to each other. Those relations are unique. I mean: there is a unique spacetime coordinate for every particle in the universe, and the magnitude of the spacetime between any 2 particles is the same for all observers.

We're in the present, and it will always be the present, we observe it as infinite, because we always observe the present.

A) Who the hell is "we," and why did they choose you as their spokesman? I did not receive the memo.
B) You can't possibly observe the present, because you are a chemical machine which uses electro-chemical signals to harness and interpret your sensory data and then to perform your thinky-thoughts on. You can only actually be aware of the immediate past, even under the best circumstances.
C) That's not even accounting for the fact that the events you perceive aren't even in that order for all observers, so who are you to say which happened first or last or simultaneously in your present? Your present is unique to you, but all presents are equally unique in that regard.

Also, what do you mean by, "we observe it as infinite?"
Do you mean we observe the present to be unending?
Would you say it's fair to interpret this as saying that we observe space and/or time and/or spacetime to be unending (unbounded)?
If so... how do you mesh that with the presence of event horizons and singularities? These seem like clear boundary conditions on the observable universe.

Even though we know the past existed, and the future will exist (unless you're poop, then the future will merely probably exist).

I can only support poopadoop's position vis-a-vis the probable future.

If we look at the present in a manner which takes into account the future and the past

You mean GR.

the present is zero, which is why it is not definable in terms of nanoseconds.

Thus, the present is both zero and infinity, depending on how you measure it.

Shit. I get what you're saying, here, dude.

The integral of ANY FUNCTION over a null domain is always zero.

integral{ ANYTHING, from [ongbonga] to [ongbonga] + [delta_ongbonga] } = 0
if [delta_ongbonga] = 0.

By stating the time-width of the present is 0, you undercut any ability to extrapolate what the flow of time is like based on anything in the present.

[OngBonga]

You are defining infinity as identical to infinitely small.

Why is this inappropriate? There is more than one infinity. It's just assumed that it's big, but that isn't so.

[OngBonga]

The math falls apart at the singularity...

Oh don't give me this crap. OUR maths falls aprt, not THE maths. Physics can explain perfectly well what's going on inside a black hole, we merely don't understand how to apply the maths yet. I'm sure (though not 100% certain) we will one day.

You're in your present.
I'm in my present.

Yep, that's because we're in different regions of spacetime. Remember my definition is me, now, in this region of spacetime. But it's all good because relativity takes care of this, or to use another word... maths.

Each of our clocks move at different rates.

Sure, but the present isn't about how fast our clock move relative to one another. The present is a singularity, remember! It's not a nanosecond that we both experience differently, relative to one another.

Also, what do you mean by, "we observe it as infinite?"
Do you mean we observe the present to be unending?

Unedning, sure. From an outsider's point of view, my "present" is a singularity. From my point of view, it isn't, because it is constant.

B) You can't possibly observe the present, because you are a chemical machine which uses electro-chemical signals to harness and interpret your sensory data and then to perform your thinky-thoughts on. You can only actually be aware of the immediate past, even under the best circumstances.

This is good, I'll need some time to counter this.

C) That's not even accounting for the fact that the events you perceive aren't even in that order for all observers, so who are you to say which happened first or last or simultaneously in your present? Your present is unique to you, but all presents are equally unique in that regard.

Relativity can take care of this. My "present" is a region in spacetime, not merely an instant in time. So what happens away from my region of spacetime is not my present, it is my future.

[Poopadoop]

Quote Originally Posted by poop
I'm not claiming to know that any specific prediction you make about the future will be false.

This is a prediction about the future.

No, it's a claim about knowledge.

[OngBonga]

You're predicting that I can never know the future. That is a prediction about the future.

[OngBonga]

Sort your paradox out while I sort out the problem of experiencing something a nanosecond after observing it.

[Poopadoop]

Why is this inappropriate? There is more than one infinity. It's just assumed that it's big, but that isn't so.

Zero is not a value, it's the absence of value. Infinity is a value whose magnitude is unending. Not the same thing.

[Poopadoop]

You're predicting that I can never know the future. That is a prediction about the future.

It's a prediction about the knowledge you have right now.

[OngBonga]

It's a prediction about the knowledge you have right now.

So you accept that in the future, I might be able to predict the future? How can you say that I already can't?

[Poopadoop]

Sort your paradox out while I sort out the problem of experiencing something a nanosecond after observing it.

My paradox is not a paradox; you just fail (or refuse) to grasp it.

Your paradox is not a paradox either; it's a proven fact. Any observation you make must of necessity pass through your neural processing network, which takes time. Thus you cannot observe the present unless you expand it's definition to include the recent past.

[OngBonga]

Zero is not a value, it's the absence of value. Infinity is a value whose magnitude is unending. Not the same thing.

You're missing the point. Zero is infinitely small. Something that exists and has volume of >0 is not infinitely small. A singularity is infinitely small. It is zero is volume, that is why it is infinitely small. Because it is zero. Give it volume, and it is not infinitely small.

Infinity (the big one) is not a value either.

[Poopadoop]

So you accept that in the future, I might be able to predict the future? How can you say that I already can't?

You may in the future become prescient. I can't rule that out. But until that happens you aren't prescient.

[OngBonga]

Your paradox is not a paradox either; it's a proven fact. Any observation you make must of necessity pass through your neural processing network, which takes time. Thus you cannot observe the present unless you expand it's definition to include the recent past.

So everything I observe is the past... but the instant in time of which I am aware, this is not the past. Merely the events I witness.

[OngBonga]

You may in the future become prescient. I can't rule that out. But until that happens you aren't prescient.

Then you can't rule out that it has already happened.

[Poopadoop]

You're missing the point. Zero is infinitely small. Something that exists and has volume of >0 is not infinitely small. A singularity is infinitely small. It is zero is volume, that is why it is infinitely small. Because it is zero. Give it volume, and it is not infinitely small.

Infinity (the big one) is not a value either.

I don't believe there is such thing as infinitely small in mathematics. I think you're applying a colloquial phrase to the universe as if it's existence in the vernacular equates to its existence in maths.

0 is non 'infinitely small' because 0 is nothing.

[OngBonga]

Of course there is infinitely small in mathematics. If there isn't, then it's a flaw in our understanding of mathematics. I have given an example of something that is infinitely small... a singularity.

[Poopadoop]

Then you can't rule out that it has already happened.

No, but I have no evidence to think it has either. The probability you are currently prescient is > 0 in my eyes; though I'm skeptical as to why you aren't at the racetrack then instead of talking nonsense on the internet.

[Poopadoop]

Of course there is infinitely small in mathematics.

Ok there is, but it refers to immeasurably small. That's not the same as non-existent.

[OngBonga]

No, but I have no evidence to think it has either. The probability you are currently prescient is > 0 in my eyes; though I'm skeptical as to why you aren't at the racetrack then instead of talking nonsense on the internet.

Because I'm not claiming to be psychic. I'm merely claiming that the laws of physics, that maths, will hold forever.

[OngBonga]

Ok there is, but it refers to immeasurably small. That's not the same as non-existent.

Who said "non-existent"?

So you're claiming that a singularity has a volume slightly above zero, we just can't measure it?

[Poopadoop]

Because I'm not claiming to be psychic. I'm merely claiming that the laws of physics, that maths, will hold forever.

That's not the same as being able to observe the future though...

IOW your claim is not based on an observation but on induction (assuming what has been true before will be true in the future) and thus it is a prediction, not a certainty.

[Poopadoop]

Who said "non-existent"?

So you're claiming that a singularity has a volume slightly above zero, we just can't measure it?

A volume of 0 means no volume. Infiinitely small is a number that is so small we can't measure it. Infinitely small > 0.

[OngBonga]

A singularity, by definition, has a volume of zero.

You can argue that the singularity doesn't exist, but you can't argue it has volume. If it has volume, it ceases to be a singularity.

[OngBonga]

Infinitely small > 0.

Nope.

[Poopadoop]

Nope.

Yup.

Next argument?

[OngBonga]

For example...

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

This is a finite number. Any value you give to be that is lower than this, but higher than zero, is not infinitely small.

[OngBonga]

Your argument is the same as...

Inifnitely big < infinity

[Poopadoop]

I'm going to trust the dictionary on this one as opposed to your non-expert opinion:

in·fin·i·tes·i·mal (ĭn′fĭn-ĭ-tĕs′ə-məl)
adj.
1. Immeasurably or incalculably minute.
2. Mathematics Capable of having values approaching zero as a limit.
n.
1. An immeasurably or incalculably minute amount or quantity.
2. Mathematics A function or variable continuously approaching zero as a limit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Infinitely+small

[OngBonga]

lol "appraoching zero".

That's a bullshit definition that merely exposes our complete lack of understanding of what infinity is.

Anything "appraoching zero" has a value above zero, thus it is not infinitely small.

[OngBonga]

A volume of 0 means no volume.

So there is nothing inside a singularity?

[OngBonga]

I can only accept poop's position on infinity if he rejects the gravitational singularity as a viable concept in the universe.

[Poopadoop]

lol "appraoching zero".

That's a bullshit definition that merely exposes our complete lack of understanding of what infinity is.

Anything "appraoching zero" has a value above zero, thus it is not infinitely small.

On the contrary. It exposes your lack of understanding of what infinity is.

Please go read a maths text and then come back and tell us how sorry you are for wasting our time.

[Poopadoop]

Wanna talk about your brain and your experience of 'the present' now?

[Poopadoop]

I like to think Ong is online shopping for a maths text right now.

[OngBonga]

Maths won't tell me anything conclusive about infinity because it doesn't exist as a mathematical value, merely a mathematical outcome. The problem isn't maths, it's our understanding. I feel that your lack of understanding is more profound than mine because you're attempting to assign a value to infinity.

[OngBonga]

I like to think Ong is online shopping for a maths text right now.

If "shoppping for a maths text" is a methaphor for buying weed, then you're bang on.

[Poopadoop]

Maths won't tell me anything conclusive about infinity because it doesn't exist as a mathematical value, merely a mathematical outcome. The problem isn't maths, it's our understanding. I feel that your lack of understanding is more profound than mine because you're attempting to assign a value to infinity.

The problem is you're making up your own definition and sticking to it in the face of contrary evidence. That's not maths failing you, it's you failing maths.

And that pain you feel between your ears is your prefrontal cortex fighting with your limbic system about knowing you're wrong and not admitting it.

[OngBonga]

I'm not wrong about >0 not being infinity. Where is the "infinitely small" line drawn? I can say it's 0.1, anything smaller is infinitely small. Obviously, that's a crock of shit, because 0.05 is not infinitely small. Any value greater than zero that you claim is "infinitely small" is not infinitely small.

[OngBonga]

Actually, the problem is that you think infinitesimal means infinitely small. It doesn't. It's merely a quantity that we can't measure.

Is a singularity infinitely small, or infinitesimal?

[OngBonga]

The difference between infinitesiaml and infinitely small is that with better accuracy we could meaure something that we call "infinitesimal", at which point it ceases to be infinitesimal. Something infinitely small, for exmaple a singularity, will never be measured as having a value, because it has none.

[OngBonga]

Something infinitely small, for exmaple a singularity, will never be measured as having a value, because it has none.

To expand on this, I don't have 100% certainty about this, because I am not certain that singularities actually exist in nature. They might be infinitesimal, rather than infinitely small, and we just don't known it yet.

But there is a distinction between the two.

[Poopadoop]

Honestly, go read something written by a mathematician and try to keep an open mind. I'm done repeating myself.

[OngBonga]

What the fuck would a mathematician know about infinity? He is bound by our flawed understanding of maths. I wanna talk to a philosopher.

[OngBonga]

I can make another prediction about the future...

Any number that is halved will return a non-zero value.

That's why any value above zero is not infinitely small. It can always be halved.

[OngBonga]

I can also say that space will always exist. I can say this because "always" is a measure of time; it is infinite time, all of it. Time is a direct consequence of space, it is space. So as long as the word "always" has meaning, there is time, and therefore there is space.

[OngBonga]

You can't argue against that one. We're talking about predicting the future, right? The future only exists in the context of space and time. Anything beyond the realm of spacetime is not the "future", and as such is an irrelevance to this discussion.

The future is the spacetime we are destined to observe. I can say with 100% certainty that in the future there will be space. If there is no space, then it is not the future.

[Poopadoop]

Any number that is halved will return a non-zero value.

Correct (at least at the time I was writing this).

That's why any value above zero is not infinitely small. It can always be halved.

Infinity's not a specific value, it's a concept. It means 'immeasurable' or 'undefined' .

Infinitesimal means 'immeasurably small', infinity means 'immeasurably large'.

0 is measurable because it's exactly halfway between 1 and -1.

If a mathematical function returns a value with a limit of 0, that means as the input value gets larger, the output value gets closer and closer to 0 but never reaches it. It instead becomes infinitesimal.

For example, if you have a series in which x= 1/y where y = {1, 2, 3...}, x approaches 0 but never equals it. The output goes on and on to 1/infinity or 'infinitesimal'. You can't say what infinitesimal is (it has no value) because if you did that would mean we could define it and it wouldn't be infinitesimal!

[Poopadoop]

I can also say that space will always exist. I can say this because "always" is a measure of time; it is infinite time, all of it. Time is a direct consequence of space, it is space. So as long as the word "always" has meaning, there is time, and therefore there is space.

What makes you so sure our understanding of the interdependence of space and time is the correct one?

[OngBonga]

Infinity's not a specific value, it's a concept. It means 'immeasurable' or 'undefined' .

Infinity does not mean "immeasurable". It is not a specific value, but it is a specific concept. Something that is currently immeasurable might later become measurable. That does not mean it went from infinity to non-infinity. It does not mean "undefined". That's a pretty broad word that means anything that is yet to be defined, such as the temperature of the tea I will shortly be drinking. It certainly won't be infinite.

What makes you so sure our understanding of the interdependence of space and time is the correct one?

How do you measure velocity? Distance over time. If you can find me a way of measuring velocity without time and space being integral to the measurement, then I might be prepared to accept space and time are not interdependant.

[Poopadoop]

Something that is currently immeasurable might later become measurable.

By that logic we may someday be able to assign a value to infinity.

Stop. Talking. Shit.

That does not mean it went from infinity to non-infinity. It does not mean "undefined". That's a pretty broad word that means anything that is yet to be defined, such as the temperature of the tea I will shortly be drinking. It certainly won't be infinite.

Saying infinity is undefined != saying everything that is undefined is infinity.

That's like saying an orange is a fruit = saying all fruits are oranges.

How do you measure velocity? Distance over time. If you can find me a way of measuring velocity without time and space being integral to the measurement, then I might be prepared to accept space and time are not interdependant.

Present tense.

Again you're making the mistake of assuming all these things we infer are true based on past observations are immutable. You don't have enough evidence to conclude that.