NationStates Jolt Archive

Sheesh, the ignorance of some people here is staggering. It is basic economics folks. Wealth is not finite. (Nor is it the guranteed result of hard work or an education)

But it is entertaining to watch people discuss something they know nothing of. Please - carry on!

Actually, considering the fact that the ammount of energy and matter in the universe is finite then that would limit the ammount of wealth that can be generated, no? Thus wealth may be increased, but only to a point.

eh?

Actually, considering the fact that the ammount of energy and matter in the universe is finite then that would limit the ammount of wealth that can be generated, no? Thus wealth may be increased, but only to a point.
No, you are incorrect, considering wealth is not only a product of resources.

try again

bzzzt!

Actually, considering the fact that the ammount of energy and matter in the universe is finite then that would limit the ammount of wealth that can be generated, no? Thus wealth may be increased, but only to a point.


Oooh, you're good.

No, actually not, considering wealth is not only a product of resources.
Wealth is limited by resources. You can produce efficient products, but even they use materials and energy in construction. New ideas are great money makers, but without the materials and energy to put them into use they're worthless.

Wealth is limited by resources. You can produce efficient products, but even they use materials and energy in construction. New ideas are great money makers, but without the materials and energy to put them into use they're worthless.

No, you are incorrect. There are plenty of ways to acquire wealth which do not require or consume resources. Just ask Oprah.

Keep trying!



BZZZT!

Sheesh, the ignorance of some people here is staggering. It is basic economics folks. Wealth is not finite. (Nor is it the guranteed result of hard work or an education)

But it is entertaining to watch people discuss something they know nothing of. Please - carry on!

On the subject of ignorance and basic economics....

Every monetary system maintains a certain amount of 'currency' in the available 'pool', to limit it's relative value, and to control the resource.

Thus, at any gven point, the 'material' of wealth is finite.

Every resource has a maximum potential, at any given point. A level beyond which it cannot be harvested, without being replenished (if that resource can even be replenished.

Thus, at any given point, the material 'basis' of wealth is finite


What you are looking at, is 'numbers'. Inflation is not the same as a real increase. Devaluation is not the same as a real decrease.

"Wealth" is a concept. If you are talking about the concept of wealth, then yes - it IS infinite. However, if you are talking about the reality... wealth is only as 'infinite' as the resources it represents.

But wealth beyond a certain point becomes meaningless. Similarly the mindset that profit is supreme and nothing is sacred in the pursuit of more profit is having a severe detrimental effect on society. For example drug companies pantenting genes and DNA, news companies that twist public perception and companies that produce unethical products like landmines and chemical warfare agents.

keep trying!


BZZZT!
You already lose to physics. Unless you mean imaginary wealth which is a fiction of people's own imaginations, like "a wealth of knowledge," then you might be more correct.

No, you are incorrect. There are plenty of ways to acquire wealth which do not require or consume resources. Just ask Oprah.
Oprah's wealth

1) TV show. Requires cheap electricity.

2) Oprah magazine. Requires wood pulp and cheap energy to mass produce.

3) Oprah book club. Worthless without the above two.

Is this one of those 'Mothers love' wealth things? Cos that doesn't count.

Oprah's wealth

1) TV show. Requires cheap electricity.

2) Oprah magazine. Requires wood pulp and cheap energy to mass produce.

3) Oprah book club. Worthless without the above two.

4) The attention of stupid people that find her entertaining.

4) The attention of stupid people that find her entertaining.
Now that is infinite.

Actually, considering the fact that the ammount of energy and matter in the universe is finite then that would limit the ammount of wealth that can be generated, no? Thus wealth may be increased, but only to a point.
I thought we were all living in an infinite universe...

On the subject of ignorance and basic economics....

Every monetary system maintains a certain amount of 'currency' in the available 'pool', to limit it's relative value, and to control the resource.

Thus, at any gven point, the 'material' of wealth is finite.

currency is not the same as wealth.

BZZT!

Every resource has a maximum potential, at any given point. A level beyond which it cannot be harvested, without being replenished (if that resource can even be replenished.

Wealth is not created solely by non-renewable resources.
BZZT!


Thus, at any given point, the material 'basis' of wealth is finite


You mean a measure of wealth at any given time is finite, not the future potential of wealth. Theres a difference. It is no different than saying all the rain fallin on anyday is finite, therefore the amount of rain which will ever fall is finite. Without resorting to ridiculous extreems that statement is false - just asi yours.

BZZT!


What you are looking at, is 'numbers'. Inflation is not the same as a real increase. Devaluation is not the same as a real decrease.
-completely misses your point

"Wealth" is a concept. If you are talking about the concept of wealth, then yes - it IS infinite. However, if you are talking about the reality... wealth is only as 'infinite' as the resources it represents.
Wealth is no more a 'concept' than is the rain from my prior example.


BZZT!

Now that is infinite.
so goddamn true:p

You already lose to physics. Unless you mean imaginary wealth which is a fiction of people's own imaginations, like "a wealth of knowledge," then you might be more correct.

If you wish to reteat to the sanctuary of the absurd then I have already won. Goodnight.

I thought we were all living in an infinite universe...
I thought that most people agreed that the universe was finite. Where's the extra matter and energy comming from? Fluctuations in the quantum field only yield virtual particles that anihilate each other within tiny fractions of a second. Hawking's radiation makes black holes evaporate. The limited ammount of energy threatens the universe with heat death.

Great, what wealth are you referring to?

"Wealth of information?" Information is finite because everything else is finite.
"Wealth of knowledge?" See above.
"Wealth of love?" As finite as life.

Oprah's wealth

1) TV show. Requires cheap electricity.

2) Oprah magazine. Requires wood pulp and cheap energy to mass produce.

3) Oprah book club. Worthless without the above two.


All of which exist in abundance and none of which act as a reasonable limiting factor, or a factor at all, on the value of Oprah content - which IS the factor which has created most of her wealth.

sorry - BZZT!!!

Great, what wealth are you referring to?

"Wealth of information?" Information is finite because everything else is finite.
"Wealth of knowledge?" See above.
"Wealth of love?" As finite as life.


The only way you can win is to retreat to the absurd. Enjoy yourself.

I win.

All of which exist in abundance and none of which act as a reasonable limiting factor, or a factor at all, on the value of Oprah content - which IS the factor which has created most of her wealth.

sorry - BZZT!!!
Of course they exist in abundance, but not in unlimited quatities. Without the resources necessary for the distribution of her ideas (content) her ideas cannot generate wealth. I never said that wealth was severely limited. It is abundant and we can stretch resources to generate wealth more efficiently, but resources and wealth are simply not infinite. There are limits on them. Therefore wealth is finite. Your thread title claims that it's not. You're wrong.

Of course they exist in abundance, but not in unlimited quatities. Without the resources necessary for the distribution of her ideas (content) her ideas cannot generate wealth. I never said that wealth was severely limited. It is abundant and we can stretch resources to generate wealth more efficiently, but resources and wealth are simply not infinite. There are limits on them. Therefore wealth is finite. Your thread title claims that it's not. You're wrong.


et tu brute?

must you retreat also to absurdity? I thought better of you. There are plenty of other examples where the wealth people have created are not limited by resources (unless you consider absurd presumptions. )

The whole point of this thread is, the zero-sum folks who assume one persons wealth requires anthers poverty are just as absurd as every attempt to disprove my statement.

Sheesh, the ignorance of some people here is staggering. It is basic economics folks. Wealth is not finite. (Nor is it the guranteed result of hard work or an education)


Prove it.

I thought that most people agreed that the universe was finite. Where's the extra matter and energy comming from? Fluctuations in the quantum field only yield virtual particles that anihilate each other within tiny fractions of a second. Hawking's radiation makes black holes evaporate. The limited ammount of energy threatens the universe with heat death.
I don't see how the black holes' "evaporation" prooves that we live in a finite universe. There is not enough matter in the observable universe to curve space into a closed space. Perhaps you've heard about the "soccerball theory" and that's why you say the universe is finite?

et tu brute?

must you retreat also to absurdity? I thought better of you. There are plenty of other examples where the wealth people have created are not limited by resources (unless you consider absurd presumptions. )

The whole point of this thread is, the zero-sum folks who assume one persons wealth requires anthers poverty are just as absurd as every attempt to disprove my statement.
Absurdity? I think not. Just realism.

There may come a time when lack of resources puts a cap on wealth generation. Realizing that now will help us prepare for when it happens. Also, realizing that fact brings a greater understanding of science, which is always good. Science creates wealth. Learning about science and it's limits helps maximize the wealth that can be created.

currency is not the same as wealth.

BZZT!


Completely missed the point, my friend.


Wealth is not created solely by non-renewable resources.
BZZT!


Again, completely missed the point.

Don't respond to what you think my posts mean... respond to what they say.



You mean a measure of wealth at any given time is finite, not the future potential of wealth. Theres a difference. It is no different than saying all the rain fallin on anyday is finite, therefore the amount of rain which will ever fall is finite. Without resorting to ridiculous extreems that statement is false - just asi yours.

BZZT!


Even your own example cotravenes the limitation you try to set on it. The amount of rain that will ever fall is finite.

Again, though, you miss the point.


-completely misses your point


I've noticed a pattern.


Wealth is no more a 'concept' than is the rain from my prior example.


If you cannot tell the qualitative difference between a 'resource' like rain, and a resource like 'wealth', I hardly think you are in a position to be arguing on the matter.


BZZT!

Annoying, pointless, and assumes you are an expert on a subject that you actually have no way to prove your 'superiority' on.

Overall, you are not scoring well.

Of course they exist in abundance, but not in unlimited quatities. Without the resources necessary for the distribution of her ideas (content) her ideas cannot generate wealth. I never said that wealth was severely limited. It is abundant and we can stretch resources to generate wealth more efficiently, but resources and wealth are simply not infinite. There are limits on them. Therefore wealth is finite. Your thread title claims that it's not. You're wrong.
I believe Bozzy's point is that, and he said as much himself, that wealth is not dependant on non-renewable resources. If given your point that wealth is dependant on resources, and that hasn't been established for certain yet, and those resources is renewable, then there is no potential limit.

Electricity, as long as there is air currents, water currents, rain fall, and the sun shining, there can always be electricity.
Paper pulp, a very renewable resource.

The ultimate point is... there isn't an imaginary limit to wealth. Someone else getting more wealth does not preclude or limit my own accumulation, or anyone elses, of same.

Prove it.

It is self demonstrating - so far nobody has hit a natural ceiling beyond which wealth cannot grow. There are also plenty examples, some I have already shared, which demostrate that the twin brother argument - zero sum - is false as well.

Now put that in your pipe.

Wealth is most definitely not finite. Aside from the fact that most resources are infinitely renewable, the wealth created through things like technological innovation, intellectual property, and human skill/productivity are both infinite and actually increase the rate at which wealth can be produced.

Now, there can be "limits" to the actual generation of wealth due to social, economic, or political factors (i.e. a dark age or devastating catastrophe), but ultimately the capacity to generate wealth is infinite.

I don't see how the black holes' "evaporation" prooves that we live in a finite universe. There is not enough matter in the observable universe to curve space into a closed space. Perhaps you've heard about the "soccerball theory" and that's why you say the universe is finite?
Why I think the universe is limited.

1) I accept the "big bang" theory because so far evidence points to it being correct. Thus timespace is expanding at a given rate. If you outrun the expansion you reach the limit of our universe. Maybe you exit one side and pop back in through another. I'm not sure.

2) We don't see any mechanism in action that is generating new matter and energy. As I stated in an earlier post, virtual particles forming from fluctuations in the quantum field dont' count because they mutually anihilate each other. Even if a black hole captures the antiparticles, the net ammount of matter remains fixed as the escaping particles are balanced out by the evaporation of the black hole.

I'm no physicist. I'm just an interested layman. From what I've read, the universe seems finite and most physicists seem to agree. I haven't really read any popular science books that claim it's infinite.

Absurdity? I think not. Just realism.

There may come a time when lack of resources puts a cap on wealth generation. Realizing that now will help us prepare for when it happens. Also, realizing that fact brings a greater understanding of science, which is always good. Science creates wealth. Learning about science and it's limits helps maximize the wealth that can be created.

You wouldn't be related to that guy who proposed closing the patent office "because everything that can be invented already has been."

Your argument has the same validity.

I believe Bozzy's point is that, and he said as much himself, that wealth is not dependant on non-renewable resources. If given your point that wealth is dependant on resources, and that hasn't been established for certain yet, and those resources is renewable, then there is no potential limit.

Electricity, as long as there is air currents, water currents, rain fall, and the sun shining, there can always be electricity.
Paper pulp, a very renewable resource.

The ultimate point is... there isn't an imaginary limit to wealth. Someone else getting more wealth does not preclude or limit my own accumulation, or anyone elses, of same.
When the cost of that electricity becomes too high many of the wealth generating applications become unprofitable. Petrolium and coal are limited. Nuclear much less so, but still limited. If we must rely on wind, hydroelectrical and solar, and we run up against laws of physics that limit how efficient a given industry can be, we run up against a limit on wealth generation.

You wouldn't be related to that guy who proposed closing the patent office "because everything that can be invented already has been."

Your argument has the same validity.
Not true. That's not what I'm saying at all. We're not that close to the limit of what is physically possible, but as we progress, we will come closer and closer. Please don't use strawman arguments.

Annoying, pointless, and assumes you are an expert on a subject that you actually have no way to prove your 'superiority' on.

Overall, you are not scoring well.


Aww, sorry that your ass hurts from gettg kicked so hard.

And yes, I do happen to be an expert on the subject of irrefutable fact. Sorry that you find it so unfamiliar.

When the cost of that electricity becomes too high many of the wealth generating applications become unprofitable. Petrolium and coal are limited. Nuclear much less so, but still limited. If we must rely on wind, hydroelectrical and solar, and we run up against laws of physics that limit how efficient a given industry can be, we run up against a limit on wealth generation.
The limits you mention on wind, water current, hydroelectrical and solar, are limits on the rate of wealth generation, not a limit on wealth itself.

The rate of wealth generation would be capped by resource limitation, but not the total ammount of wealth possible.

Not true. That's not what I'm saying at all. We're not that close to the limit of what is physically possible, but as we progress, we will come closer and closer. Please don't use strawman arguments.


It wasn't a strawman - it was funny. It was also pointing out absurdity quite effectively.

The limits you mention on wind, water current, hydroelectrical and solar, are limits on the rate of wealth generation, not a limit on wealth itself.

The rate of wealth generation would be capped by resource limitation, but not the total ammount of wealth possible.


Actually, they are what is called reduction to the absurd, and best ignored.

It is self demonstrating - so far nobody has hit a natural ceiling beyond which wealth cannot grow. There are also plenty examples, some I have already shared, which demostrate that the twin brother argument - zero sum - is false as well.

Now put that in your pipe.

That is because you are considering a form of 'wealth' that has no meaning... it is just a concept, that you are treating as though it were somehow relevent.

If the world has limited resources.

If one person has more of this 'concept' we call 'wealth', at ANY given time, he or she commands access to a greater proportion of the possible resources.

Thus - someone who has less of this 'concept' we call wealth, at ANY given time, has LESS access to possible resources.

You appear not to be able to differentiate between 'numbers' and what they represent.

got to go. C-yall

The limits you mention on wind, water current, hydroelectrical and solar, are limits on the rate of wealth generation, not a limit on wealth itself.

The rate of wealth generation would be capped by resource limitation, but not the total ammount of wealth possible.
Are you arguing that wealth can only be created and never destroyed? If that is true, then slower but sustained wealth generation will yield infinite wealth, but for that to be true we'd need something approaching 100% efficiency in recycling so that things that count as wealth today, like the computer I'm using, dont' end up in a landfill.

It wasn't a strawman - it was funny. It was also pointing out absurdity quite effectively.
No, it's a strawman because it had nothing to do with my point of view. Your guy claimed that we had reached the limit of what is possible. I didn't. I only claimed that there is a limit, and that point of view is supported by what we know of our universe.

Aww, sorry that your ass hurts from gettg kicked so hard.

And yes, I do happen to be an expert on the subject of irrefutable fact. Sorry that you find it so unfamiliar.

If you wish the debate to continue, you may wish to start acting a little more mature, my friend.

Your "Bzzts" and "ass-kick" comments are actually detracting from your alleged 'point'... which, to be honest, is the goal... I believe.

Your assertions to expertise are hollow rhetoric. If you can't back it up, feel free not to waste your time typing it.

got to go. C-yall

Absuridity exposed, the troll vacates?

Why I think the universe is limited.

1) I accept the "big bang" theory because so far evidence points to it being correct. Thus timespace is expanding at a given rate. If you outrun the expansion you reach the limit of our universe. Maybe you exit one side and pop back in through another. I'm not sure.
Or maybe you simply arrive somewhere where there is no matter yet(except for you, of course). Or maybe you see other universes created by other Big Bangs. Nobody really knows.

2) We don't see any mechanism in action that is generating new matter and energy. As I stated in an earlier post, virtual particles forming from fluctuations in the quantum field dont' count because they mutually anihilate each other. Even if a black hole captures the antiparticles, the net ammount of matter remains fixed as the escaping particles are balanced out by the evaporation of the black hole.
The fact that the ammount of matter doesn't change doesn't mean that that matter is infinite or finite. It's not an argument in such a discution.

I'm no physicist. I'm just an interested layman. From what I've read, the universe seems finite and most physicists seem to agree. I haven't really read any popular science books that claim it's infinite.
I'm not a physicist either (what would be the odds for two physicists to meet on an internet forum? :)). Personally, I have heard claims supporting both positions, but I find the 'infinite' side more convincing (and appealing, at the same time).

Or maybe you simply arrive somewhere where there is no matter yet(except for you, of course). Or maybe you see other universes created by other Big Bangs. Nobody really knows.


The fact that the ammount of matter doesn't change doesn't mean that that matter is infinite or finite. It's not an argument in such a discution.


I'm not a physicist either (what would be the odds for two physicists to meet on an internet forum? :)). Personally, I have heard claims supporting both positions, but I find the 'infinite' side more convincing (and appealing, at the same time).
My understanding is that past the edge there is no timespace for any matter, including you, to occupy.

Um, if the ammount of matter doesn't change how can it be anything but finite?

Well, there are some people with a solid physics background in this forum. Maybe they'll come around and enlighten us.

It is self demonstrating - so far nobody has hit a natural ceiling beyond which wealth cannot grow. There are also plenty examples, some I have already shared, which demostrate that the twin brother argument - zero sum - is false as well.

Now put that in your pipe.

Others have already pointed out that there are "natural ceilings". But that's besides the point.

It's up to you to prove that there are none. Saying "nobody has hit any" is no proof.

My understanding is that past the edge there is no timespace for any matter, including you, to occupy.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Um, if the ammount of matter doesn't change how can it be anything but finite?
But the 'change' has nothing to do with the 'ammount'. That's the whole thing.

If I give you 50 dollars and the ammount of dollars you have doesn't change, then you have 50 dollars (a finite number). If I give you an infinity of dollars (you wish :D), and the ammount of money you have doesn't change, then you have an infinity of dollars. The fact that the ammount of money you have doesn't change has nothing to do with the ammount you have.

Well, there are some people with a solid physics background in this forum. Maybe they'll come around and enlighten us.
My last encounter with 'pure' physics was in my second year of university, three years ago. Any help would be welcomed. :)

Theres a difference. It is no different than saying all the rain fallin on anyday is finite, therefore the amount of rain which will ever fall is finite. Without resorting to ridiculous extreems that statement is false - just asi yours.

Are you claiming that either on a given day at some point in the future an infinite amount of rain will fall, or that there are an infinite number of days where there will be finite amounts of rain? Neither seems to agree with what science tells us of the cosmos.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html


But the 'change' has nothing to do with the 'ammount'. That's the whole thing.

If I give you 50 dollars and the ammount of dollars you have doesn't change, then you have 50 dollars (a finite number). If I give you an infinity of dollars (you wish :D), and the ammount of money you have doesn't change, then you have an infinity of dollars. The fact that the ammount of money you have doesn't change has nothing to do with the ammount you have.


My last encounter with 'pure' physics was in my second year of university, three years ago. Any help would be welcomed. :)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4250

I think that we're just better off saying we don't know for sure. I can see how, according to the model you posted, the universe might be infinite, and there are other models that show it as being finite. (see link above)

Either way it's fun, in a frustrating way, to ponder these things.

WRT the OP, there are still limits to what resources we can access to create wealth. The speed of light barrier, the laws of thermodynamics that prevent perpetual motion machines, and the fact that eventually the sun will no longer support life on this planet are pretty solid barriers to unlimited wealth production.

The only way you can win is to retreat to the absurd. Enjoy yourself.

I win.
I declare shenanigans. Call the police.

Don't know much about economic's but if the matter in the universe is finite, which it appears to be, then if you owned everything then you could not get any more wealth as everything and every action would belong to you.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4250
The "soccerball theory"! :)

I think that we're just better off saying we don't know for sure. I can see how, according to the model you posted, the universe might be infinite, and there are other models that show it as being finite. (see link above)

Either way it's fun, in a frustrating way, to ponder these things.
It is certainly interesting. But I don't feel frustrated I don't know everything. I feel happy there's more to be known.

WRT the OP, there are still limits to what resources we can access to create wealth. The speed of light barrier, the laws of thermodynamics that prevent perpetual motion machines, and the fact that eventually the sun will no longer support life on this planet are pretty solid barriers to unlimited wealth production.
There are limits, but none of the things you mentioned limits the ammount of wealth which can be eventually gathered. They only limit the rate at which we can accumulate it:

- the speed of light poses a serious challenge, but subluminic spaceships could still overcome it; hopefully, FTL travel will be discovered;

- if the universe is infinite, then 80% (or whatever the efficiency of a particular machine) of an infinity is still an infinity;

- the sun will die, but there are others; if the universe is infinite, an infinity.

If the universe is indeed infinite, then the ammount of wealth to be generated potentially is also infinite. If its finite, then we can start having a real argument :). Until we know for sure, I think the whole debate is purely theoretical. The ammount of wealth we are currently generating is certainly only an infinithesimal fraction of the ammount which could be generated even in a finite universe.

P.S. Vetalia had made some good observations a couple of pages ago. I felt I have to mention that.

Don't know much about economic's but if the matter in the universe is finite, which it appears to be, then if you owned everything then you could not get any more wealth as everything and every action would belong to you.
But what if it's not? ;)

Edit: part II of my answer:Wealth is most definitely not finite. Aside from the fact that most resources are infinitely renewable, the wealth created through things like technological innovation, intellectual property, and human skill/productivity are both infinite and actually increase the rate at which wealth can be produced.

Now, there can be "limits" to the actual generation of wealth due to social, economic, or political factors (i.e. a dark age or devastating catastrophe), but ultimately the capacity to generate wealth is infinite.

Don't know much about economic's but if the matter in the universe is finite, which it appears to be, then if you owned everything then you could not get any more wealth as everything and every action would belong to you.

Ahhh... but there is an infinite amount of potential intellectual property.

got to go. C-yall
*applauds*
Bravo B0zzy.

No, you are incorrect, considering wealth is not only a product of resources.

Of course it is. There's a finite amount of matter, energy, and information in the universe. Wealth is value, which is directly proportional to, and thus limited by, resources. Energy, ideas, material objects, anything you can possibly imagine that's covered by the concept of 'wealth' is dependent upon matter, energy, and/or information. Ergo, while the amount of potential wealth in the universe is not identical to the amount of resources, the finite amount of resources limits net wealth to a fixed quantity.

Really, that fixed quantity is itself declining, as well. Entropy, you know? It degrades structure, patterns, and organization, the essence of information, and it causes energy and matter to be essentially lost to the vacuum in the form of heat. Heat Death, and all. So there's a declining finite amount of net potential wealth in the universe....

Of course it is. There's a finite amount of matter, energy, and information in the universe.

Technically there are an infinite number of ways of expressing the information though, and these are covered by intellectual property laws, and as such are closely related to the matter of wealth.

Really, that fixed quantity is itself declining, as well. Entropy, you know? It degrades structure, patterns, and organization, the essence of information, and it causes energy and matter to be essentially lost to the vacuum in the form of heat. Heat Death, and all. So there's a declining finite amount of net potential wealth in the universe....

But at the same time, it is possible to reverse entropy...however, we have yet to be able to do that on a large enough scale to seriously reduce it on any but the smallest scale. That doesn't mean we couldn't in the future, but for now you are correct.

The conservation of matter/ Energy does not mean that wealth is finite. Let's take a treee that is chopped down and pulped to paper and then a man writes say something called Principia Mathematica on ut that other's read and learn to use matter and energy more efficiently. While not producing matter or energy he has exerted energy upon a bit of mater and in turn saved energy and matter by orders of magnitude. While matter/energy is a finite constant knowledge and invention are not. So to reach a finite point of wealth creation one would also have to arrive at a finite ammount of knowledge. In other words if we run out of wealth it can only be because we have either ceased to learn or become Omniscient.

Ahhh... but there is an infinite amount of potential intellectual property.

Which is not the same as 'wealth', and has no intrinsic 'value'.

Which is not the same as 'wealth', and has no intrinsic 'value'.

But it has potential value, which is why wealth can be infinite.

But it has potential value, which is why wealth can be infinite.

No - because potential value only influences 'wealth' in as much as it can affect the intrinsic value of real resources.

Thus, if other resources are finite, even infinite intellectual property (which is a concept I still am not willing to accept) must have a limiting factor.

You seem to be falling into the same trap as the original poster... a confusion over what wealth 'is'.

But it has potential value, which is why wealth can be infinite.
Now I don't know a thing about economics, but assuming that man cannot live on knowledge alone and assuming that matter/energy etc. is finite but knowledge/ invention is infinite, won't the value of intellectual property tend towards zero when the limit on other resources is reached?

Sheesh, the ignorance of some people here is staggering. It is basic economics folks. Wealth is not finite. (Nor is it the guranteed result of hard work or an education)

But it is entertaining to watch people discuss something they know nothing of. Please - carry on!
Has anyone else noticed that every post this guy makes involves sneering at people who will disagree with him, and calling them ignorant idiots?

Has anyone else noticed that every post this guy makes involves sneering at people who will disagree with him, and calling them ignorant idiots?

It's like having something to back up your arguments, but much easier - because it doesn't need any evidence...

Actually, considering the fact that the ammount of energy and matter in the universe is finite then that would limit the ammount of wealth that can be generated, no? Thus wealth may be increased, but only to a point.
Wealth can only be obtained when there is something to obtain it from. If you own everything, then you can't get any richer.

Let's say I buy 100 shares of XYZ stock. One day, the company stock posts a gain. That means that I have gained wealth. In order for this 'Conservation of Finite Wealth' principle to be true, someone has to lose wealth as a direct result of my gain. Right? Where did that happen?

i think the first post covered it.

wealth is neither finite nor infinite, or atleast in our current situation.

Let's say I buy 100 shares of XYZ stock. One day, the company stock posts a gain. That means that I have gained wealth. In order for this 'Conservation of Finite Wealth' principle to be true, someone has to lose wealth as a direct result of my gain. Right? Where did that happen?

Once again, a failure to understand that wealth is a concept.... that it means nothing, on it's own... that it is just the numerical scale by which we assay the transfer of resources.

Look at it objectively. You own stock. Your dividend 'value' increases.... what was the 'resource' change?

If we take this to extremes... let us imagine an oversimplified model.

You wish to invest in Company A.

Company A has one resource... let's say, it's an apple.


This resource depreciates, perhaps. Ten days after you buy stock the apple 'value' is half of what it was when you invested.

How much apple is there in the Company A warehouse?


The dividend value on this resource increases, perhaps. Ten days after you buy stock, Company A declares a 'gain' of 50%.

How much apple is there in the Company A warehouse.


You and I both want to invest in Company A, but you have more wealth than I, and manage to exclude me from the limited market.

You now have access to the resources owned by Company A....

And now, both of us are hungry. Which of us is going to eat?

Once again, a failure to understand that wealth is a concept.... that it means nothing, on it's own... that it is just the numerical scale by which we assay the transfer of resources.

Not a damn thing is going to be profitable if that apple just sits in the warehouse. I'm certainly not going to get a dividend and my stock is certainly not going to gain. More likely, the company will go out of business and no one profits except the lawyers.

Now, let's look at the way this should work. My company buys apples from a grower. I assume we all realize that apples are seasonal and that my company can buy from different growers to ensure a year round supply.

My company has a radically different process in its acquisition and shipping that makes its apples really desirable. The company buys and sells apples like no one else. They do declare a dividend for stock holders. That's great. The stock also steadily gains.

Your example is flawed, mine is not. Who loses in my example?

Wealth is finite.
There is a finite amount of resources in the world.
There are a finite amount of ideas.
There is a finite amount of space.
A finite number times a finite number times a finite number is a finite number.

In order for this 'Conservation of Finite Wealth' principle to be true, someone has to lose wealth as a direct result of my gain.Only if the amount of wealth has been capped out. This hasn't happened yet, and it is unlikely that it ever will - but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

Wealth is finite.
There is a finite amount of resources in the world.
There are a finite amount of ideas.
There is a finite amount of space.
A finite number times a finite number times a finite number is a finite number.

Only if the amount of wealth has been capped out. This hasn't happened yet, and it is unlikely that it ever will - but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

I can with finite numbers and finite math create a Hyperbola which extend on it's asymptote into infinity. I don't even have to use large finite numbers. Pi is an infinite finite number. Zeno of Aquilla proved that even one contains an infinity.

Not a damn thing is going to be profitable if that apple just sits in the warehouse. I'm certainly not going to get a dividend and my stock is certainly not going to gain. More likely, the company will go out of business and no one profits except the lawyers.

Now, let's look at the way this should work. My company buys apples from a grower. I assume we all realize that apples are seasonal and that my company can buy from different growers to ensure a year round supply.

My company has a radically different process in its acquisition and shipping that makes its apples really desirable. The company buys and sells apples like no one else. They do declare a dividend for stock holders. That's great. The stock also steadily gains.

Your example is flawed, mine is not. Who loses in my example?

Wow... totally missed the point.

I can with finite numbers and finite math create a Hyperbola which extend on it's asymptote into infinity. I don't even have to use large finite numbers. Pi is an infinite finite number. Zeno of Aquilla proved that even one contains an infinity.

I think we are talking 'finite' and 'infinite' in terms of extremes, rather than as spaces between integers...

No - because potential value only influences 'wealth' in as much as it can affect the intrinsic value of real resources.

Thus, if other resources are finite, even infinite intellectual property (which is a concept I still am not willing to accept) must have a limiting factor.

But intellectual property also provides a means towards increasing the efficency of the consumption of resources, which extends the limiting factor (the amount of real resources) to an increasingly higher level.

Eventually, we'd hit a limit because of the amount of matter in existence (although we don't really know if the amount of matter is constant 100%). However, the possibility of wealth to be infinite exists, but is limited by the amount of physical matter.

I can with finite numbers and finite math create a Hyperbola which extend on it's asymptote into infinity. I don't even have to use large finite numbers. Pi is an infinite finite number. Zeno of Aquilla proved that even one contains an infinity.You're thinking of irrational numbers...pi is an irrational number, but it is not infinite. Certainly 1 contains an infinity, I mean it technically is 1.000000000000 and so on into infinity. But that also doesn't make it an infinite number.

Let's say I buy 100 shares of XYZ stock. One day, the company stock posts a gain. That means that I have gained wealth. In order for this 'Conservation of Finite Wealth' principle to be true, someone has to lose wealth as a direct result of my gain. Right? Where did that happen?
While I think wealth is infinite (or close enough to it that it might as well be), *for your example stock,* losers would be the short sellers, and other likely losers would include those who bought the stock of any competitors whose stock dropped, and those who were too chicken to play the stock market at all...

The conservation of matter/ Energy does not mean that wealth is finite. Let's take a treee that is chopped down and pulped to paper and then a man writes say something called Principia Mathematica on ut that other's read and learn to use matter and energy more efficiently. While not producing matter or energy he has exerted energy upon a bit of mater and in turn saved energy and matter by orders of magnitude. While matter/energy is a finite constant knowledge and invention are not. So to reach a finite point of wealth creation one would also have to arrive at a finite ammount of knowledge. In other words if we run out of wealth it can only be because we have either ceased to learn or become Omniscient.

That just shows that the net potential wealth in a given amount of matter is hugely greater than the amount of matter itself. That doesn't mean it isn't finite. Also, "knowledge and invention" are finite. Information is no more infinite than matter or energy, and there's a fixed, though unimaginably vast, quantity of possible algorithms and informational matrices.

But intellectual property also provides a means towards increasing the efficency of the consumption of resources, which extends the limiting factor (the amount of real resources) to an increasingly higher level.

Eventually, we'd hit a limit because of the amount of matter in existence (although we don't really know if the amount of matter is constant 100%). However, the possibility of wealth to be infinite exists, but is limited by the amount of physical matter.


First - diminishing returns. Even if you can continue to come up with 'intellectual resources' that increase the 'efficiency' of 'real' resources... you are up against something less than a perfect mathematical progression.

Going back to my earlier apple, I can make the apple feed twice as many people quite easily, by the application of my intellectual property... but what about feeding four people.... what about eight?


Second - most 'intellectual property' is not going to be revolutionary. Most of it is not going to even be significant. Hell, MOST 'intellectual property' is probably going to be bad teenage poetry.


Third - You see the limiting factors on resources... that is clear in your post... and yet you don't seem to be seeing that 'wealth' and 'resources' are not automatically connected. Indeed - if one looks at the model of all resources being eventually used up, one will see that the highest 'wealth' that is ever likely to exist, is the point at which there is almost NO resource of any kind left.

'Wealth' is infinite, because it is not 'real'

The resources represented by 'wealth' are NOT infinite, but they are disproportionately spread due to the application of the concept we call 'wealth'.

I think we are talking 'finite' and 'infinite' in terms of extremes, rather than as spaces between integers...

Well I am I'm not sure Jello there was. He claimed through a mathematical proof (mathematics being a model the map is not always the territory) to prove that wealth is finite. So I disproved his math.

Well I am I'm not sure Jello there was. He claimed through a mathematical proof (mathematics being a model the map is not always the territory) to prove that wealth is finite. So I disproved his math.No, you simply misunderstood my math.

That just shows that the net potential wealth in a given amount of matter is hugely greater than the amount of matter itself. That doesn't mean it isn't finite. Also, "knowledge and invention" are finite. Information is no more infinite than matter or energy, and there's a fixed, though unimaginably vast, quantity of possible algorithms and informational matrices.

Not even then. Because the law of conservation of matter/ energy is dependant upon our current understanding of the universe. Which is once again a function of knowledge and innovation. Which once again has come no where close to reaching it's finite potential. Now for instance we are using the product of both resourses and innovation ( a computer) to expand our abilities in knowledge and innovation. If this results in further conservation of resourses then we have once again made the total available finite larger. It is conceivable that at a certain point we may reach a innovation that violates the conservation of matter energy. many things tthata in the past were impossible have become comonplace.

No, you simply misunderstood my math.

I'd say you misunderstand your math.

Well I am I'm not sure Jello there was. He claimed through a mathematical proof (mathematics being a model the map is not always the territory) to prove that wealth is finite. So I disproved his math.

No - you misunderstood the 'infinite'. Jello showed a mechanism that illustrates why there could be no 'infinite bigness'... and you showed that there could be 'infinite complexity'.

Let's say I buy 100 shares of XYZ stock. One day, the company stock posts a gain. That means that I have gained wealth. In order for this 'Conservation of Finite Wealth' principle to be true, someone has to lose wealth as a direct result of my gain. Right? Where did that happen?

No, someone has to lose something when you gain something only if wealth is finite and constant. I am no economist, but I do recognize a fallacy when I see one.

No - you misunderstood the 'infinite'. Jello showed a mechanism that illustrates why there could be no 'infinite bigness'... and you showed that there could be 'infinite complexity'.

The mechanism was flawed in that it was mathematical and the mathematics was flawed. If you want more specifics read any of the other posts I've made on the subject. Knowledges effect upon resourses can potentially form what mechanically and mathematically would be an asymptote.

When you consider that even infinity is finite, paradoxically by its own definition, the point is moot.

How is infinity finite? Simply put, the very number-label 'infinity' ascribes a value to whatever is infinite, and anything that has a specific value is finite. Tah dah! Wealth is both infinite and finite.

Aside from the fact that most resources are infinitely renewable

um, i'd like to introduce you to our friends the laws of thermodynamics

the wealth created through things like technological innovation, intellectual property, and human skill/productivity are...

absolutely limited by the amount of matter and energy in the universe. and, at a more quickly reached level, by the amount of resources and energy available to any particular individual. no energy = no ideas.

The mechanism was flawed in that it was mathematical and the mathematics was flawed. If you want more specifics read any of the other posts I've made on the subject. Knowledges effect upon resourses can potentially form what mechanically and mathematically would be an asymptote.

Saying it is asymptotic does not explain how the mechanism suggested would be flawed. Indeed, my explanation above, showing diminishing returns for increased 'intellectual resource' shows an asymptotic profile that entirely supports Jello's mechanism.

When you consider that even infinity is finite, paradoxically by its own definition, the point is moot.

How is infinity finite? Simply put, the very number-label 'infinity' ascribes a value to whatever is infinite, and anything that has a specific value is finite. Tah dah! Wealth is both infinite and finite.

You have'nt read Godel...

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra Certainly 1 contains an infinity, I mean it technically is 1.000000000000 and so on into infinity. But that also doesn't make it an infinite number.[/QUOTE]

No that was'nt Zeno's proof at all.

No that was'nt Zeno's proof at all.Then what was his proof? Was it the 1 =.99repeating proof?

So, if I get this right, there is a finite amount of wealth, but is so massive that it will never be reached?

Both sides win.

You have'nt read Godel...
I hadn't, but even after reading some of his work (His proof was basically the equivalent of "This sentence is false." ), even though you can't technically prove "infinity is finite" without being able to observe infinity, our definition of infinity makes it finite. It was more of an Idiot's Guide to This Thread. (Not calling anyone in this thread an idiot, except possibly B0zzy since s/he offered no proof or examples whatsoever to the effect of his claim, only against it.)

Saying it is asymptotic does not explain how the mechanism suggested would be flawed. Indeed, my explanation above, showing diminishing returns for increased 'intellectual resource' shows an asymptotic profile that entirely supports Jello's mechanism.

Jello said in short that since there were three finites that an infinite product was impossible. I cited off of the top of my head a handfull of finites that have produced infinites. Since one counterexample is sufficient to disprove a theory then a handfull is overkill. Now resourses (we'll stop splitting hairs on that OK? Matter and energy are essentially the same thing) are finite and innovation can act upon them to increase or decrease their overall value but the general trend is an increase which is actually accellerating in rate as we move forward in time.
This does not mean that wealth is infinite. But as long as inovation is a function acting upon wealth we can eexpect wealth to increase until A) omniscience is acheived thus ending innovation. b) we develope a mechanic that violates the conservation of matter energy. c) We run out of resourses.
Now given that the total resourses are huge and that we've only exploited a tiny ammount of them we can say that in all likelyhood wealth will continue to expand in the near future. We can say it is possible that there is a finite ammount available. But we cannot PROVE that it is finite as we are not omniscient.

Then what was his proof? Was it the 1 =.99repeating proof?

No that if you travel 1/2 of a distance and then repeat as necissary then you never reach the end. Basically what I'm saying is that just because you are using finite numbers dose not mean you will not end up with an infinite product. All infinites are derived from finite numbers.

So, if I get this right, there is a finite amount of wealth, but is so massive that it will never be reached?

Both sides win.

well, except that the one side is wrong and managed to miss the other side's point in the process.

I hadn't, but even after reading some of his work (His proof was basically the equivalent of "This sentence is false." ), even though you can't technically prove "infinity is finite" without being able to observe infinity, our definition of infinity makes it finite. It was more of an Idiot's Guide to This Thread. (Not calling anyone in this thread an idiot, except possibly B0zzy since s/he offered no proof or examples whatsoever to the effect of his claim, only against it.)

I was refering to his late work in Set Theory. 'Infinity and the Mind is a great layman's text on it...

well, except that the one side is wrong and managed to miss the other side's point in the process.

Yes but we forgive you.......

No that if you travel 1/2 of a distance and then repeat as necissary then you never reach the end. Basically what I'm saying is that just because you are using finite numbers dose not mean you will not end up with an infinite product. All infinites are derived from finite numbers.That's not an infinity. If you can measure the total distance, then you can measure 1/2 the distance, and so forth. The total distance isn't infinite, and neither is the amount of distance that you travel each time.

There are plenty of ways to acquire wealth which do not require or consume resources.

name one

So, I won't read the whole thread...but have we started defining "wealth" yet?

Seems to me like that is a good place to start - but looking at Page 1, it doesn't seem like B0zzy is actually after defining anything...just after being arrogant and obnoxious.

I was refering to his late work in Set Theory. 'Infinity and the Mind is a great layman's text on it...
Well then, don't I feel silly? ^^; Google holds all the answers, but requires that you know what you're looking for. Oops!

Back to relevance, it still doesn't refute the fact that our definitions of 'infinity' and 'value' (as in the value of a number, not wealth value) make infinity finite. We may not be able to prove that it's true in true infinity, but our definition of infinity proves it as well as it can be proven in regards to this discussion, I think.

That's not an infinity. If you can measure the total distance, then you can measure 1/2 the distance, and so forth. The total distance isn't infinite, and neither is the amount of distance that you travel each time.
Okay, so you have 1 distance unit. You travel 1/2 distance unit. You then travel 1/2 of 1/2 distance unit, then 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 distance unit. That one distance unit contains an infinity, because you can travel 1/2 the remaining distance infinitely and NEVER reach the full distance.

Okay, so you have 1 distance unit. You travel 1/2 distance unit. You then travel 1/2 of 1/2 distance unit, then 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 distance unit. That one distance unit contains an infinity, because you can travel 1/2 the remaining distance infinitely and NEVER reach the full distance.It contains an infinity, yes, but it is not itself an infinity.

That's not an infinity. If you can measure the total distance, then you can measure 1/2 the distance, and so forth. The total distance isn't infinite, and neither is the amount of distance that you travel each time.

Nope you can't measure it becuase if you measure at say 3/4 you're wrong because it is now 7/8 which is also wrong because it is now 15/16.... The borders of the English Island are also infinite. Because if you measure to the precision of kilometers you will get a smaller distance than if you measure by meters. And if you measure by meters you get a smaller distance than if you measure by centimeters. But this is a digression. You origional statement that the product of finites cannot be infinite is provably false as all infinites are derived from finites....

It contains an infinity, yes, but it is not itself an infinity.
Never said it WAS an infinity, all that was said was that it CONTAINS an infinity.

it doesn't seem like B0zzy is actually after defining anything...just after being arrogant and obnoxious.

par for the course

No, you are incorrect, considering wealth is not only a product of resources.

try again

bzzzt!
Assuming that we will forever be limited to this universe, than of course wealth is finite, for a very, very, very, large definition of finite. Mind you, we're probably not within 20 orders of magnitude of any theoretical limit of wealth.

Jello said in short that since there were three finites that an infinite product was impossible. I cited off of the top of my head a handfull of finites that have produced infinites. Since one counterexample is sufficient to disprove a theory then a handfull is overkill. Now resourses (we'll stop splitting hairs on that OK? Matter and energy are essentially the same thing) are finite and innovation can act upon them to increase or decrease their overall value but the general trend is an increase which is actually accellerating in rate as we move forward in time.
This does not mean that wealth is infinite. But as long as inovation is a function acting upon wealth we can eexpect wealth to increase until A) omniscience is acheived thus ending innovation. b) we develope a mechanic that violates the conservation of matter energy. c) We run out of resourses.
Now given that the total resourses are huge and that we've only exploited a tiny ammount of them we can say that in all likelyhood wealth will continue to expand in the near future. We can say it is possible that there is a finite ammount available. But we cannot PROVE that it is finite as we are not omniscient.

You are skipping across a finite/infinite dichotomy.

If I can prove that a temperature scale can go upwards indefinitely... does that logically mean that the same scale can ALSO go downwards indefinitiely? If a thing can tend towards infinitely hot... does that support a logical 'infinite cold'?

Jello was talking about a finite scale of extent. You have thrown some examples of infinite intervals.

The one neither proves nor disproves anything about the other... like Is aid, you were dealing with the wrong 'infinite'.

About the matter/energy thing... I'm not sure I've seen any hairsplitting... where did you think that took place?

You are right - we can tend towards further innovation that will enhance the return from an individual unit of resource - but, as I argued, you are actually looking at a diminishing return mechanism. Anything you see as 'increasing rate' in that mechanism, is aberration, on the overall curve. A blip, no more.

The ONLY thing you've said, which CAN lead to infinite resources, or even near-infinite resources... is if we manage to somehow subvert the principles of conservation of mass. But that is not a mathematical construct we can deal with... and has no bearing on a system that has ONLY demonstrated operating on conventional, non-anomolous, principles.

Last point - even if there WERE infinite resources... we can likely not access anything but a fraction of them... in terms of spatial AND temporal limitations.

Thus - not only are resources finite, but they are effectively VERY finite.

Nope you can't measure it becuase if you measure at say 3/4 you're wrong because it is now 7/8 which is also wrong because it is now 15/16.... The borders of the English Island are also infinite. Because if you measure to the precision of kilometers you will get a smaller distance than if you measure by meters. And if you measure by meters you get a smaller distance than if you measure by centimeters. So? There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2...but that doesn't mean that 1 and 2 are infinites, nor are any of the individual numbers between them.

But this is a digression. You origional statement that the product of finites cannot be infinite is provably false as all infinites are derived from finites....Technically speaking, yes, but also no. If you assign specific values to the three finite numbers, multiply them, and then assign a specific value to that number, then that product is a finite number, as infinity is by definition a number without a specific value.

So? There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2...but that doesn't mean that 1 and 2 are infinites, nor are any of the individual numbers between them.

Technically speaking, yes, but also no. If you assign specific values to the three finite numbers, multiply them, and then assign a specific value to that number, then that product is a finite number, as infinity is by definition a number without a specific value.
Infinity is a number without value, but as soon as you ascribe the value of infinity to something, that something becomes finite because it has a fixed value.

Infinity is a number without value, but as soon as you ascribe the value of infinity to something, that something becomes finite because it has a fixed value.That's not quite true, there are provably multiple infinities. For instance, there are an infinite amount of rational numbers, and an infinite amount of irrational numbers, but there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. I can't adequately explain the proof, though.

That's not quite true, there are provably multiple infinities. For instance, there are an infinite amount of rational numbers, and an infinite amount of irrational numbers, but there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. I can't adequately explain the proof, though.
For the purposes of this thread:

1. Wealth is infinite.

2. Wealth has a fixed value.

3. Wealth is finite.

Even if there were multiple infinities, anything infinite is also finite, since anything that has a fixed value is finite, is it not? And I don't quite see how there can be multiple values of infinity, since infinity is the one number without a value. Or am I just misinterpreting you? ^^;

You are skipping across a finite/infinite dichotomy.

If I can prove that a temperature scale can go upwards indefinitely... does that logically mean that the same scale can ALSO go downwards indefinitiely? If a thing can tend towards infinitely hot... does that support a logical 'infinite cold'?

Jello was talking about a finite scale of extent. You have thrown some examples of infinite intervals.

The one neither proves nor disproves anything about the other... like Is aid, you were dealing with the wrong 'infinite'.

About the matter/energy thing... I'm not sure I've seen any hairsplitting... where did you think that took place?

You are right - we can tend towards further innovation that will enhance the return from an individual unit of resource - but, as I argued, you are actually looking at a diminishing return mechanism. Anything you see as 'increasing rate' in that mechanism, is aberration, on the overall curve. A blip, no more.

The ONLY thing you've said, which CAN lead to infinite resources, or even near-infinite resources... is if we manage to somehow subvert the principles of conservation of mass. But that is not a mathematical construct we can deal with... and has no bearing on a system that has ONLY demonstrated operating on conventional, non-anomolous, principles.

Last point - even if there WERE infinite resources... we can likely not access anything but a fraction of them... in terms of spatial AND temporal limitations.

Thus - not only are resources finite, but they are effectively VERY finite.

1. Well while we can't prove that temperature does'nt go down infinitely we can say that going down infinitely (well anywhere past 0K) would violate the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM.
2. Interval or extent it does'nt really matter can you rpovide an infinite of either type that is not produced by finites? Or are we having a spiritual discussion refering to some mystical definition of infinite? If not we are discussing marthematical infinites which are produced by finites.
3. I meant differentiating between matter and energy. Basically by treating them as one common function I thought I could make things easier to type.
4.How on earth can you see the upward trend in wealth as a 'blip'? it has been a constant throughout recorded history. Now I can admit that overall recorded history is a blip. Is that what you meant?
5. Part of your 'blip is that the same laws you invoce (conservation of mass et al) were, "Not mathematical constructs we could deal with" mere decades ago in that 'blip' we like to refer to as recorded history.
6.I'd argue that even the fraction we have available are enough to continue to expand our expandable resourse (knowledge) for centuries. And If you can consider how far we've reached in the last century that is quite sufficient to conserve quite a bit more and gain access to even more and well damn it all we're headed towards that asypmtote again.

So? There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2...but that doesn't mean that 1 and 2 are infinites, nor are any of the individual numbers between them.

Technically speaking, yes, but also no. If you assign specific values to the three finite numbers, multiply them, and then assign a specific value to that number, then that product is a finite number, as infinity is by definition a number without a specific value.

Well let me simplify my objection for you. Derive for me an infinity without using finite numbers.

For the purposes of this thread:

1. Wealth is infinite.

2. Wealth has a fixed value.

3. Wealth is finite.

Even if there were multiple infinities, anything infinite is also finite, since anything that has a fixed value is finite, is it not? And I don't quite see how there can be multiple values of infinity, since infinity is the one number without a value. Or am I just misinterpreting you? ^^;I don't agree with point 1.

It's not quite that if a number has a value it is finite. Take, for instance, the classic parable of infinity:

What's infinity mean?
Well, think of the highest number you can think of. Then add 1. Then add 1. Then add 1. Keep going, and going, and going. That's infinity.
Oh.

That's true, it is infinity. That's a value. But if someone took the highest number they could think off, added 1 for a while, and then stopped, that new number that they had would not be infinity.

Well let me simplify my objection for you. Derive for me an infinity without using finite numbers.

A mathematical fallacy is at work here...

You seem to be claiming that: if you can prove an infinity is formed of finite component - then finite components MUST produce infinities.

My table has four legs.
A dog has four legs.

Therefore, my table is a dog.

I don't agree with point 1.

It's not quite that if a number has a value it is finite. Take, for instance, the classic parable of infinity:

What's infinity mean?
Well, think of the highest number you can think of. Then add 1. Then add 1. Then add 1. Keep going, and going, and going. That's infinity.
Oh.

That's true, it is infinity. That's a value. But if someone took the highest number they could think off, added 1 for a while, and then stopped, that new number that they had would not be infinity.
If the original poster and those who defend wealth's infinity are correct, point 1 is true. But by our definition of infinity, and the properties of something that has value, it is therefore finite.

My point is, the point of the thread is moot, since we're dealing with imperfect definitions of wealth and infinity. Well, perhaps just infinity, but nobody's still determined what KIND of wealth we're talking about.

A mathematical fallacy is at work here...

You seem to be claiming that: if you can prove an infinity is formed of finite component - then finite components MUST produce infinities.

My table has four legs.
A dog has four legs.

Therefore, my table is a dog.

Not at all. And if you'd have answere my roigional question I'd have gotten around to that. The answer is of course that you cannot derive an infinite without using finites. This does not prove that all finites produce infinites only that all infinites are the product of finites. But rather that infinites are a type of product that fintes produce. So to say that because it is composed of finites that a system CANNOT produce an infinite (as you claimed) is incorrect. I did not say that because a system is composed of finites it WILL produce an infinite.
My pet is an APBT
APBT's are dogs
Therefore the statement that, "you're pet cannot be an APBT because it is a dog" is false.

Well let me simplify my objection for you. Derive for me an infinity without using finite numbers.That's not what infinity is. Infinity is when you stop using finite numbers. Infinity isn't the result of finite numbers, it is the absence of them.

That's not what infinity is. Infinity is when you stop using finite numbers. Infinity isn't the result of finite numbers, it is the absence of them.

Ah so you were nt speaking of a mathematical infinity perhaps a spritual or metaphysical infinity? I'll not debate religion to you. Perhaps you are a budhist and beleive that wealth and resourses are merely 'Maya'. Or a Marxist who beleives that logic is only applicable when it is framed in marxist thought? Religions and mysticism is fascinating to me....

OK, I've looked through most of this thread, and a lot of it has devolved into snarkiness.

Has the original poster at any point defended his thesis that wealth is not finite by means other than attempting to represent obnoxious noises (bzzzt!!) in writing and telling people that they "lose?"

Has anyone pointed out that just because something is indefinite does not mean that it is infinite? That while there may be no appreciable limit to the amount of wealth that may be generated that's not the same as wealth existing in infinite amounts, even potentially infinite amounts?

I haven't even seen a single post that presents a cogent argument for how wealth might be infinite, or even indefinite. I've seen some half-hearted and self-satisfied swipes at the arguments that argue that there must be a limit to the wealth that exists in the world because there's only so much matter and energy in it. But I haven't seen a single post that points out how wealth might trancend these barriers. If I were to base my opinion on the matter on nothing other than this thread I'd be forced to concede that wealth must indeed be finite, because no one who believes otherwise has the brains to explain how.

OK, I've looked through most of this thread, and a lot of it has devolved into snarkiness.
Yep

Has the original poster at any point defended his thesis that wealth is not finite by means other than attempting to represent obnoxious noises (bzzzt!!) in writing and telling people that they "lose?"
Dunno

Has anyone pointed out that just because something is indefinite does not mean that it is infinite? That while there may be no appreciable limit to the amount of wealth that may be generated that's not the same as wealth existing in infinite amounts, even potentially infinite amounts?
Yep someboddy did. Sorry you missed it.

HasI haven't even seen a single post that presents a cogent argument for how wealth might be infinite, or even indefinite. I've seen some half-hearted and self-satisfied swipes at the arguments that argue that there must be a limit to the wealth that exists in the world because there's only so much matter and energy in it. But I haven't seen a single post that points out how wealth might trancend these barriers. If I were to base my opinion on the matter on nothing other than this thread I'd be forced to concede that wealth must indeed be finite, because no one who believes otherwise has the brains to explain how.
Can't blame you for not reading the whole thing. Once again sorry you missed it.

Nope you can't measure it becuase if you measure at say 3/4 you're wrong because it is now 7/8 which is also wrong because it is now 15/16.... The borders of the English Island are also infinite. Because if you measure to the precision of kilometers you will get a smaller distance than if you measure by meters. And if you measure by meters you get a smaller distance than if you measure by centimeters. But this is a digression. You origional statement that the product of finites cannot be infinite is provably false as all infinites are derived from finites....

See - exactly the same thing again..

Once again, you seem to thing dogs can be trained to be tables.

The borders of the English Island are not infinite... they are very finite... but you can measure them with infinite finesse.

This is the point I made before, about your previous responses... and you still don't seem to have 'got it' that there is an inconsistency.

OK, I've looked through most of this thread, and a lot of it has devolved into snarkiness.

well, it didn't have far to fall from it's noble beginnings.

See - exactly the same thing again..

Once again, you seem to thing dogs can be trained to be tables.

The borders of the English Island are not infinite... they are very finite... but you can measure them with infinite finesse.

This is the point I made before, about your previous responses... and you still don't seem to have 'got it' that there is an inconsistency.
He's using the right proof, in the wrong way. I'd direct you to my explanation of this theory/proof/whatever you want to call it, but I lost track of where it is now.

Essentially, s/he's trying to say you can go half the remaining distance across England, then half the remaining distance again, and so on, infinitely as you're travelling, and as long as you're only going half the remaining distance, you'll never reach the other side. An easier analogy would be radioactive half-lives. If the half-life of a radioactive rod is 10 years, then every 10 years it will be half as radioactive, but it will never stop being radioactive. Okay, perhaps that isn't a better analogy, because eventually the atoms would all be depleted, but do you see what the point is?

The thing is, I don't think he quite fully understands what he's trying to explain, or he's incapable of finding the proper words to describe it to a critic, kind of like a genius with only a first grade education trying to explain quantum theory. Doesn't have all the words to describe it, but knows what it means.

1. Well while we can't prove that temperature does'nt go down infinitely we can say that going down infinitely (well anywhere past 0K) would violate the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM.


Thus - it is illogical to assume that, just because one set of numbers are present (an infinite series tending towards an infinite upper limit, in this case), the same MUST be true for another set of numbers.


2. Interval or extent it does'nt really matter can you rpovide an infinite of either type that is not produced by finites? Or are we having a spiritual discussion refering to some mystical definition of infinite? If not we are discussing marthematical infinites which are produced by finites.


It matters a great deal. You are stating a principle about infinite extremes, basing it on observations about infinite intervals. And, not in an 'inverse-square' fashion, either.


3. I meant differentiating between matter and energy. Basically by treating them as one common function I thought I could make things easier to type.


The issue hadn't yet arisen had it? You thought you could make things easier, by multiplying the complications?


4.How on earth can you see the upward trend in wealth as a 'blip'? it has been a constant throughout recorded history. Now I can admit that overall recorded history is a blip. Is that what you meant?


Well... that is true... but that is not what I said, and neither is your other 'version': "the upward trend in wealth as a 'blip'" didn't feature, at all, in my post.


5. Part of your 'blip is that the same laws you invoce (conservation of mass et al) were, "Not mathematical constructs we could deal with" mere decades ago in that 'blip' we like to refer to as recorded history.


Conservation of mass is a construct we could have dealt with. Equations are not that new. (You know why we call them 'equations', yes?)


6.I'd argue that even the fraction we have available are enough to continue to expand our expandable resourse (knowledge) for centuries. And If you can consider how far we've reached in the last century that is quite sufficient to conserve quite a bit more and gain access to even more and well damn it all we're headed towards that asypmtote again.

Again you invoke the asymptote, without (again) expalining how you believe it means anything in this particular case...

See - exactly the same thing again..

Once again, you seem to thing dogs can be trained to be tables.

The borders of the English Island are not infinite... they are very finite... but you can measure them with infinite finesse.

This is the point I made before, about your previous responses... and you still don't seem to have 'got it' that there is an inconsistency.

I think you are failing to get it. I am not saying that dogs can be trained into tables (well I'm sure a taxedermist could do it) I was merely producing of some examples of how infinites can be derived from finites. I am unaware of any case where they can be derived without finites. It has occured to me that the only place we do encounter descriptions of the infinite is within the innovations and inventions of our minds. So perhaps we can now say that all infinites occur within our intellect so that ellement is the set from which infinites infinites are a subset. Perhaps then we are dealing with an interaction between infinites and finites.....

He's using the right proof, in the wrong way. I'd direct you to my explanation of this theory/proof/whatever you want to call it, but I lost track of where it is now.

Essentially, s/he's trying to say you can go half the remaining distance across England, then half the remaining distance again, and so on, infinitely as you're travelling, and as long as you're only going half the remaining distance, you'll never reach the other side. An easier analogy would be radioactive half-lives. If the half-life of a radioactive rod is 10 years, then every 10 years it will be half as radioactive, but it will never stop being radioactive. Okay, perhaps that isn't a better analogy, because eventually the atoms would all be depleted, but do you see what the point is?

The thing is, I don't think he quite fully understands what he's trying to explain, or he's incapable of finding the proper words to describe it to a critic, kind of like a genius with only a first grade education trying to explain quantum theory. Doesn't have all the words to describe it, but knows what it means.

Oh no - I 'get' that... it's just that 'internal infinites' and 'external infinities' are not - of necessity - related.

Sure - your Carbon 14 half-life will have an (effectively) infinite set off reductions....

But, there is not infinite Carbon.


Sure - you can measure the British Isles in infinitely smaller and smaller steps...

But, the distance around the island is still a finite distance.


Sure - you can use the resources of available space in infinitely more efficient processes...

But, there is still a finite limit to resources.

And THAT is the important one - the finity of resources. Not to mention the fact that diminishing returns means you CAN'T really use all the resources in infinitely more efficient processes.

I think you are failing to get it. I am not saying that dogs can be trained into tables (well I'm sure a taxedermist could do it) I was merely producing of some examples of how infinites can be derived from finites. I am unaware of any case where they can be derived without finites. It has occured to me that the only place we do encounter descriptions of the infinite is within the innovations and inventions of our minds. So perhaps we can now say that all infinites occur within our intellect so that ellement is the set from which infinites infinites are a subset. Perhaps then we are dealing with an interaction between infinites and finites.....

And what does that say about the 'infinite' resources at our disposal?

Thus - it is illogical to assume that, just because one set of numbers are present (an infinite series tending towards an infinite upper limit, in this case), the same MUST be true for another set of numbers.

I di not say that it must only that it could and does. So you agree that stating that a system is composed of finites in no way means that it cannot produce infinites? Well then we agree that Jello was wrong there's a start.

It matters a great deal. You are stating a principle about infinite extremes, basing it on observations about infinite intervals. And, not in an 'inverse-square' fashion, either.
I was merely stating some infinites that are derived from finites. If there is one that is not derived from finites then please ellucidate me.


The issue hadn't yet arisen had it? You thought you could make things easier, by multiplying the complications?

Well I was jumping ahead and assuming we were all familliar with relativity. If you'd like to contend that matter and energy cannot be lumped together then please once again enlighten me.

Well... that is true... but that is not what I said, and neither is your other 'version': "the upward trend in wealth as a 'blip'" didn't feature, at all, in my post.

What 'upward trend' were you refering to? Or can we skip that and agree that the function of innovation operating on resourses does indeed create an upward trend and leave it at that?

Conservation of mass is a construct we could have dealt with. Equations are not that new. (You know why we call them 'equations', yes?)

Unlikely. Explain it to an ancient egyptian Pharo.

Again you invoke the asymptote, without (again) expalining how you believe it means anything in this particular case...
Youa re mistaking potentiality for proof. I am stating that the potentiality is there.

And what does that say about the 'infinite' resources at our disposal?

It says that the innovative drive that creates infinites can produce infinite WEALTH out of finite resourses. CAN not DOES. As I said before we are neither omniscient nor out of resourses so it remains potential not provable.

Oh no - I 'get' that... it's just that 'internal infinites' and 'external infinities' are not - of necessity - related.

Sure - your Carbon 14 half-life will have an (effectively) infinite set off reductions....

But, there is not infinite Carbon.


Sure - you can measure the British Isles in infinitely smaller and smaller steps...

But, the distance around the island is still a finite distance.


Sure - you can use the resources of available space in infinitely more efficient processes...

But, there is still a finite limit to resources.

And THAT is the important one - the finity of resources. Not to mention the fact that diminishing returns means you CAN'T really use all the resources in infinitely more efficient processes.
Never said that there was an infinite amount of carbon 14, or that the distance across or around Britain is infinite. There is, however, an infinity within the distance, in the half -> half of half -> half of half of half way of measuring. If you only ever travel half the distance remaining in one step, you never reach the other side, even at the end of infinity. There's a finite amount of space, but up to the limit of it, there is an infinity. And as I said, the radioactive decay was a bad example because it would run out, not go to infinity, whereas going half the remaining distance would never run out.

I do agree, though, that this has little, if anything, to do with whether or not wealth is infinite. In fact, I've already shown how either our definition of 'infinite' is imperfect or wealth is, in fact, finite, and the latter looks more probable. I just thought I'd step in to explain the basis of what s/he was trying-but-failed to explain properly. I don't like getting too involved in debates these days, I just offer my two cents and clarify what I can, as humbly as I can in case I explained it wrong or explained the wrong thing.

It says that the innovative drive that creates infinites can produce infinite WEALTH out of finite resourses. CAN not DOES. As I said before we are neither omniscient nor out of resourses so it remains potential not provable.

And again with the 'wealth'.... I wish people would stop arguing over the symbols, and look at what they mean.

As I pointed out, 'wealth' is a concept, that actually maximises at the point closest to the destruction of ALL (available) resources.

On the subject of ignorance and basic economics....

Every monetary system maintains a certain amount of 'currency' in the available 'pool', to limit it's relative value, and to control the resource.

Thus, at any gven point, the 'material' of wealth is finite.

Every resource has a maximum potential, at any given point. A level beyond which it cannot be harvested, without being replenished (if that resource can even be replenished.

Thus, at any given point, the material 'basis' of wealth is finite


What you are looking at, is 'numbers'. Inflation is not the same as a real increase. Devaluation is not the same as a real decrease.

"Wealth" is a concept. If you are talking about the concept of wealth, then yes - it IS infinite. However, if you are talking about the reality... wealth is only as 'infinite' as the resources it represents.
incorrect, your simply looking at what we know as world fiat currencies. currencies representing material things, like the gold standard, cannot be inflated, and can grow in real value. also wealth is not necessarily material, the text i am currently writing may have no material value, but that does not mean it does not have value. i would consider ideas part of my wealth.

incorrect, your simply looking at what we know as world fiat currencies. currencies representing material things, like the gold standard, cannot be inflated, and can grow in real value. also wealth is not necessarily material, the text i am currently writing may have no material value, but that does not mean it does not have value. i would consider ideas part of my wealth.

Consider away.

It is unlikely that your, no-doubt erudite, codification is going to feed you on a cold, lonely night, however.

You are, perhaps unknowingly, actually making the very same point as me, however.

The concept of 'wealth' is entirely disconnected from the 'currency' or the 'material' which it represents.

The real, material resources are finite, and can only be sourced in so many directions at any given time. The 'concept' means nothing, in 'real' terms, and can happily double every day.

Consider away.

It is unlikely that your, no-doubt erudite, codification is going to feed you on a cold, lonely night, however.

You are, perhaps unknowingly, actually making the very same point as me, however.

The concept of 'wealth' is entirely disconnected from the 'currency' or the 'material' which it represents.

The real, material resources are finite, and can only be sourced in so many directions at any given time. The 'concept' means nothing, in 'real' terms, and can happily double every day.
i guess thats pretty fair, and the problem here is in the definition and use of the word 'wealth'. i suppose i chose 'value' as a synonym, and ideas certianly can be 'valuable'. ideas can also increase the 'value' of materials, however, the value of a material in the most physical sense, is probably fixed (well...unless.....lets not get into too much physics)

And again with the 'wealth'.... I wish people would stop arguing over the symbols, and look at what they mean.

As I pointed out, 'wealth' is a concept, that actually maximises at the point closest to the destruction of ALL (available) resources.

I've yet to see you point that out anywhere. I realize that that is the rhetoric spouted (any lie told long enough and loud enough?) by some ellements but functionally it's untrue. If I create a widget that uses 20% less material or runs on 20% fuel or a process for manufacturing widgets that requires 20% less of either. I create wealth. By an application if invention upon mass and energy.

Wow... totally missed the point.
I guess that means the point wasn't made that well. Try again.

Eventually we will all die off and the idea of wealth will no longer bother us, so what's the point?

Which is not the same as 'wealth', and has no intrinsic 'value'.

Oil, land, water and oxygen themselves have no intrinsic value, no?

Oil, land, water and oxygen themselves have no intrinsic value, no?


Those are commodities, wealth is basic economics. Finite wealth? Meaning finite economics?? So limited economics?

There is a finite amount of resources in the world.
There are a finite amount of ideas.
There is a finite amount of space.
That's where I couldn't read any more this thread. I just whant to know something. Who and when has demonstrated that "there is a finite ammount of resources, there are a finite ammount of ideas and there is a finite ammount of space"? Have I been so out of touch with the world?

Those are commodities, wealth is basic economics. Finite wealth? Meaning finite economics?? So limited economics?


???

Are you claiming that oil, land, water and oxygen do have intrinsic value?

well land and oxygen you cant really...sell...well land yes...but not in the terms of value, if we are talkign about economic value then yes, they do have some value, but if there is something i dont understand then...yeah i need to learn something lol

Are you claiming that oil...[has] intrinsic value?

now that would be an interesting position to see someone hold in environmental ethics

well land and oxygen you cant really


Oxygen:

Uh-huh. People sell it, people buy it.

http://www.portalmarket.com/oxybar.html

"Patrons can pay US 12 dollars for 20 minutes' worth of over 90% pure, commercial-grade oxygen."

__________

I don't think we need really examine the question of whether people buy and sell land in too much detail to make a decision on that subject.

well im confused about this whole essential to nature value? You cant really put value on something essential for nature, but you can still sell oil, and land. Hence the whole oil trading and everything, land can be bought but thats very rare, i just dont see how the essential to nature value kind of thing...whats essential to nature and whats essential to run a nation are kind of different. We use oil to run cities, cars, etc. and how its essential to nature kind of have many differences.

land can be bought but thats very rare

You don't get out much do you? Ever heard tell of those arcane and esoteric establishments called 'estate agents'? Land is bought and sold every minute of the day.

incorrect, your simply looking at what we know as world fiat currencies. currencies representing material things, like the gold standard, cannot be inflated, and can grow in real value. also wealth is not necessarily material, the text i am currently writing may have no material value, but that does not mean it does not have value. i would consider ideas part of my wealth.

And assuming the universe is finite (or at least contains a finite number of atoms) there is an upper limit to the amount of information that can be stored in the universe. Meaning that there will at some point be no more room for new ideas.

And assuming the universe is finite (or at least contains a finite number of atoms) there is an upper limit to the amount of information that can be stored in the universe. Meaning that there will at some point be no more room for new ideas.
if you really wanna get into it, given the amount of energy (atoms are a little large if you wanna be this technical) in the universe (who said the number is fixed for that matter, but well assume there is), the number of different orders of 'information' possible is virtually limitless....ok how about infinity-1

I've yet to see you point that out anywhere.

Jolt has a search function. Just search my recent posts, in this thread.

I guess I just assumed you had been reading my responses.


I realize that that is the rhetoric spouted (any lie told long enough and loud enough?) by some ellements but functionally it's untrue.


Wow... rude, much? Spouting rhetoric.... fair enough.... but, to call it a lie? When you have done nothing to offer even the slightest contrary evidence?

Balls of Brass, my friend.

How, exactly, is it untrue? The rarity of a product or resource 'increases it's value'... thus, the point at which a resource MUST be at its' maximum value.... must be...? (Hint: you can use your asymptote for this one...)


If I create a widget that uses 20% less material or runs on 20% fuel or a process for manufacturing widgets that requires 20% less of either. I create wealth. By an application if invention upon mass and energy.

Your grasp of physics is sorely lacking, my friend. You might want to think about harvesting your resources in terms of diminishing returns, efficiency, and reaction.

As I've stated before - if we are making leaps and bounds in the efficiency and return on resource harvesting at present, it is just a blip on a trend downwards.

Let me give you a real world example.... see whether you can comprehend the 'real' value of a resource.

Imagine an underground natural reservoir of water. Let us sketch a capacity of 100 billion gallons of water.

Imagine that reservoir is being emptied at roughly 100 million gallons a day, to feed part of a cities water demand.

Let us further imagine that the aquifer is being refreshed at a rate of a million gallons a day. (Which is an unfeasibly high refresh rate).

Without sitting down to do the precise calculations... we can pretty easily see that our reservoir is going to be low, or drained after 3 years, yes?

Now - let us look at the water we are drawing from that aquifer. The first year, we are draining pretty much crystal-clear 'spring' water. Our processes to make it drinkable are efficient, cost relatively little, and are needed in only small amounts.

The second year, the water we are draining is the water that has been stirred-up by the pumping process, the water that has come through the aquifer refresh, and the water that had more 'material' in it. Our processes are much less efficient now (not just because our 'machinery is getting older)... as many of our treatments now have to deal with solid material which reacts with our chemicals and provides 'shelter' to pathogens. Our chemical dosage is MUCH higher, and, therefore much more expensive.

The third year, the water we are draining is heavy with suspended solids. Because we have lowered the water level, we are now getting salt-water intrusion. Because the aquifer is so dry, our 'refresh' from the surface has accelerated... pulling fertilisers, petroleum waste, and other 'surface chemicals' into the reservoir. The fertiliser waste means we now have organic material GROWING in our reservoir. Our old processes are now almost useless. Disinfection doesn't kill disease, it just hits the algae. Filtration just can't pull out enough material. Our water has too much salt, and we need to find some way to desalinate it, which is expensive. Not to mention the fact that our disinfectants now react with the petroleum wastes to produce lethal byproducts, and the unfiltered soild material has a risk of carrying disease like giardia and cryptosporidium.

So - now, not only is our treatment expensive and inefficient, but we actually have to 'post-treat' our water as well.

In our fourth year, our resource is useless.... we have to find a new resource, and spend all that capital again to set up a new process.


This is a 'real world' example. This is how resources 'work' in the real world. And, this is why 'wealth' is just a concept, and has no rational bearing on the 'value' of a resource.

I guess that means the point wasn't made that well. Try again.

Perhaps.

Maybe I can expand upon it a little later.... right now, I'm too busy with other responses.

Perhaps, if you went back and reviewed it in the meantime... now knowing that I think you've missed the point?

Sheesh, the ignorance of some people here is staggering. It is basic economics folks. Wealth is not finite. (Nor is it the guranteed result of hard work or an education.

I just think its great that when some people read a book or two by famous and intelligent economists, they assume anyone who has not, or anyone who disagrees with some of the things that they have read (disagreement requires some thought) is "staggeringly ignorant". Good, healthy attiude.

As there is a finite amount of matter/energy, there is a finite amount of resource to be exploited to create wealth and thus wealth itself if finite.

Actually, considering the fact that the ammount of energy and matter in the universe is finite then that would limit the ammount of wealth that can be generated, no? Thus wealth may be increased, but only to a point.
A "point" which probably will never be reached by the human race.

Oil, land, water and oxygen themselves have no intrinsic value, no?

Actually, yes, they do. They have the intrinsic value of being 'worth' their exact weight/mass in that particular resource.

A gallon of oil is 'worth' a gallon of oil.

A "point" which probably will never be reached by the human race.

It dosn't matter wheater or not we could ever feasibly use all the wealth that exists, hich we almost certainly can't. The point is that wealth is finite.

I see nobody has answered this:There is a finite amount of resources in the world.
There are a finite amount of ideas.
There is a finite amount of space.That's where I couldn't read any more this thread. I just want to know something. Who and when has demonstrated that "there is a finite ammount of resources, there are a finite ammount of ideas and there is a finite ammount of space"? Have I been so out of touch with the world?
I hope America has woken up so I can get an answer.

A "point" which probably will never be reached by the human race.

Which is, indeed, another thing that makes it 'finite'.

We only have access to a fraction of 'all' resources... and we only have a temporary permit to stay here.

I see nobody has answered this:
I hope America has woken up so I can get an answer.
I don't know about Ideas or space, but since matter/energy cannot be created (as far as we know) there is a finite amount of it.

Perhaps.

Maybe I can expand upon it a little later.... right now, I'm too busy with other responses.

Perhaps, if you went back and reviewed it in the meantime... now knowing that I think you've missed the point?
And I have. My reply was terse, but not intentionally offensive. I'm not going to box myself into a corner by accepting an example that can't work. I restated the example and offered you a chance to comment on that. You chose not to. Fine.

Let's look at your thesis statement, which is not as ambiguous as your following example.

Once again, a failure to understand that wealth is a concept.... that it means nothing, on it's own... that it is just the numerical scale by which we assay the transfer of resources.

My gain in wealth is not due to any transfer of resources. It is a measure of the value of the company. How the company increased it's value is irrelevant, provided it used legal business practices to do so. All shareholders, except the short sellers, participate equally in the gain of wealth, yet no assets need to be transferred.

For a great example of company value increasing without respect to actual activity, look at Amazon.com. The company didn't show a profit for years after going public, yet the business model was so compelling that the company value continued to increase. That's the kind of stuff that makes wealth a limitless quantity, rather than a fixed quantity that is only re-distributed. Wealth is directly related to value and value is really just in the eye of the beholder.

I see nobody has answered this:
I hope America has woken up so I can get an answer.

Let's see if I can help:

"That's where I couldn't read any more this thread. I just want to know something. Who and when has demonstrated that "there is a finite ammount of resources, there are a finite ammount of ideas and there is a finite ammount of space"? Have I been so out of touch with the world"?

Yes, apparently you have been out of touch.

If all mass in the universe (or energy, whichever) has to be conserved, then there can only be a finite amount of resources.

If all reasoning beings (most notably, for this example, we humanoids) have only finite tenure in our universe, and can only manage a finite amount of synaptic iterations, then there can only be a finite amount of ideas.

If space conserves mass (or energy) it doesn't matter how far the borders stretch, the volume delineated by those borders can only have a finite 'amount' of space - if you look at the fact that the attenuation of 'space' just increases, with expanding borders.

Effectively, the 'volume' of space can increase, but the 'mass' will effectively remain constant.

Yes, apparently you have been out of touch.

If all mass in the universe (or energy, whichever) has to be conserved, then there can only be a finite amount of resources.

If space conserves mass (or energy) it doesn't matter how far the borders stretch, the volume delineated by those borders can only have a finite 'amount' of space - if you look at the fact that the attenuation of 'space' just increases, with expanding borders.

Effectively, the 'volume' of space can increase, but the 'mass' will effectively remain constant.
But the 'change' has nothing to do with the 'ammount'. That's the whole thing.

If I give you 50 dollars and the ammount of dollars you have doesn't change, then you have 50 dollars (a finite number). If I give you an infinity of dollars (you wish :D), and the ammount of money you have doesn't change, then you have an infinity of dollars. The fact that the ammount of money you have doesn't change has nothing to do with the ammount you have.
Besides, I see I have to stress my previous question: Who and when has demonstrated that "there is a finite ammount of resources, there are a finite ammount of ideas and there is a finite ammount of space"? Have I been so out of touch with the world"?

If all reasoning beings (most notably, for this example, we humanoids) have only finite tenure in our universe, and can only manage a finite amount of synaptic iterations, then there can only be a finite amount of ideas.I separated this paragraph from the rest of your text because it adresses a somehow different problem. My answer is that in an infinite universe (which hasn't been proven or disproven so far), you can have an infinity of humans/intelligent beings.

It dosn't matter wheater or not we could ever feasibly use all the wealth that exists, hich we almost certainly can't. The point is that wealth is finite.
The point is that for all practical purposes, wealth is infinite. :p

I see nobody has answered this:
I hope America has woken up so I can get an answer.
I suspect that what they are referring to is "the law of diminishing returns" when applied on a global scale. Yes, there is a limited amount of land ( to use one example ). Yes, there is a limited amount of arable land. Yes, as more and more of the available arable land is preempted for other purposes, the cost of land in general increases. Yes, there will come a point in time when the price of land becomes prohibitive, all other things being equal. Fortunately, "all other things" are subject to a multitude of variables, such as declining birth rates, technological developments permitting more effective use of available land, etc.

You don't get out much do you? Ever heard tell of those arcane and esoteric establishments called 'estate agents'? Land is bought and sold every minute of the day.

That would be homes, and yes i do get out very often because i know what you are saying, but thats not what i meant. Im talking about international commodities, land of one country is not sold to another just because one country wants to have it as land.

The point is that for all practical purposes, wealth is infinite. :p

I think the point is that Bozzy is such a troll that it's fun to prove him wrong, even only on technicalities.

I suspect that what they are referring to is "the law of diminishing returns" when applied on a global scale. Yes, there is a limited amount of land ( to use one example ). Yes, there is a limited amount of arable land. Yes, as more and more of the available arable land is preempted for other purposes, the cost of land in general increases. Yes, there will come a point in time when the price of land becomes prohibitive, all other things being equal. Fortunately, "all other things" are subject to a multitude of variables, such as declining birth rates, technological developments permitting more effective use of available land, etc.
Exactly. What I didn't understand was why so many people were certain we're living in a finite universe with finite resources. Not even the best scientists are sure of that! Also, the fact is that this whole discution is purely theoretical, since there is a huge ammount of resources in the universe. There are, how many, 200 billion stars in our galaxy? And a similar number of galaxies has been observed so far. I dare say the human race needs not worrying because of a lack of resources.

That would be homes, and yes i do get out very often because i know what you are saying, but thats not what i meant. Im talking about international commodities, land of one country is not sold to another just because one country wants to have it as land.

Louisiana Purchase?

Nations buy, sell, and lease land to one another all the time. Especially during the height of European colonialism. Nations will sell land to finance wars, buy land to exploit resources, trade land for mutual gain, lease land for temporary use, etc. etc. The US currently pays several sovereign nations in order to maintain military bases on their soil.

I think the point is that Bozzy is such a troll that it's fun to prove him wrong, even only on technicalities.
BZZT! :D Just kidding. The whole 'bzzt' thing was quite annoying, I must agree.

Besides, I see I have to stress my previous question:

I separated this paragraph from the rest of your text because it adresses a somehow different problem. My answer is that in an infinite universe (which hasn't been proven or disproven so far), you can have an infinity of humans/intelligent beings.

Logically, the universe is 'finite', even if it's 'area' is not.

If it started with a finite amount of matter, spread over a very small area, and now covers a much larger area, the amount of matter is still finite.

If you want to suggest an INFINITE universe, then, you are going to have to back that claim. In this case, the burden of proof is on your side.

Thus - it is actually fairly safe, under current conditions, to assume a finite universe.

And, while an an infinite number of sentient beings MAY be possible, it is far from probable, based on our experience of sentient beings, thus far.

Although - thinking about it, since our universe is going to have a finite duration - the 'infinite' beings (of any kind, intelligent or otherwise) is actually not possible.

Exactly. What I didn't understand was why so many people were certain we're living in a finite universe with finite resources. Not even the best scientists are sure of that! Also, the fact is that this whole discution is purely theoretical, since there is a huge ammount of resources in the universe. There are, how many, 200 billion stars in our galaxy? And a similar number of galaxies has been observed so far. I dare say the human race needs not worrying because of a lack of resources.

How many stars can you reach?

You cannot, logically, include any resource that exists beyond your grasp.

We can't even harness most of the resources at our disposal, in any efficient or meaningful way.

Ah so you were nt speaking of a mathematical infinity perhaps a spritual or metaphysical infinity?Nope, I was speaking of mathematical infinity.

From www.dictionary.com

Finite:Having bounds; limited
Infinite:Having no boundaries or limits.

Therefore, infinity is the absence of boundaries or limits, and not the result of having boundaries or limits.

Logically, the universe is 'finite', even if it's 'area' is not.

If it started with a finite amount of matter, spread over a very small area, and now covers a much larger area, the amount of matter is still finite.

If you want to suggest an INFINITE universe, then, you are going to have to back that claim. In this case, the burden of proof is on your side.

Thus - it is actually fairly safe, under current conditions, to assume a finite universe.
But when was it demonstrated that the universe started with a finite ammount of matter? (and do we know for sure that 'our' Big Bang was the only one? it's a SF question, I know :p) I see many unproved statements being uttered here. I'm not saying it's 100% sure we live in an infinite universe, but I simply don't understand the certainty of those who hold the opposite.

And, while an an infinite number of sentient beings MAY be possible, it is far from probable, based on our experience of sentient beings, thus far.

Although - thinking about it, since our universe is going to have a finite duration - the 'infinite' beings (of any kind, intelligent or otherwise) is actually not possible.
Again, who demonstrated our universe will have a limited duration?

The point is that for all practical purposes, wealth is infinite. :p

or, more accurately, wealth is absolutely finite but we haven't gotten to any of the various limits of it yet. and in the meantime, wealth at any particular instant is a (technically) knowable finite quantity.

or else i suppose we could hold that wealth is completely imaginary and meaningless.

How many stars can you reach?

You cannot, logically, include any resource that exists beyond your grasp.

We can't even harness most of the resources at our disposal, in any efficient or meaningful way.
I think we were talking about the potential wealth, for lack of a better word. That's why we were talking about the entire universe. Otherwise, we could have restricted our discution to what we can do on Earth. And besides, the fact that we can't reach the stars now doesn't mean we will never be able to do that.

But when was it demonstrated that the universe started with a finite ammount of matter? (and do we know for sure that 'our' Big Bang was the only one? it's a SF question, I know :p) I see many unproved statements being uttered here. I'm not saying it's 100% sure we live in an infinite universe, but I simply don't understand the certainty of those who hold the opposite.

the universe isn't infinite because if it was then the night sky would contain an infinite amount of stars, completely covering it with light. when they calculate the amount of mass in the universe, not only is it a finite number, it's actually a bit too low for some people's tastes and they figure there must be some sort of undected dark matter in addition to the already detected dark matter.

And besides, the fact that we can't reach the stars now doesn't mean we will never be able to do that.

which is why we all opted to save time and move right on to the upper bound and avoid arguing about local limits. the existence of the upper bound is plenty to undermine the original thesis.

the universe isn't infinite because if it was then the night sky would contain an infinite amount of stars, completely covering it with light.

Ah, but this is also dependent on the age of the universe: if the universe was only x years old, then we would only see the light from stars within x light years.

the universe isn't infinite because if it was then the night sky would contain an infinite amount of stars, completely covering it with light. when they calculate the amount of mass in the universe, not only is it a finite number, it's actually a bit too low for some people's tastes and they figure there must be some sort of undected dark matter in addition to the already detected dark matter.
Bodies Without Organs has already given part of the answer. In addition, the scientists are still trying to figure out the mass of the universe. We don't even know for sure whether there were other Big Bangs except for our own. What I said is that we don't know for sure too many things about the universe. I repeat that I'm not saying that the universe is infinite of that its mass is infinite. But I also can't accept as proven statements such as "the universe is finite", "the ammount of mass in the universe is finite", "the ammount of energy is finite", "the universe will have a limited duration" etc.

which is why we all opted to save time and move right on to the upper bound and avoid arguing about local limits. the existence of the upper bound is plenty to undermine the original thesis.
I agree, provided the existence of that upper limit is demonstrated (which hasn't happened so far). ;)

But when was it demonstrated that the universe started with a finite ammount of matter? (and do we know for sure that 'our' Big Bang was the only one? it's a SF question, I know :p) I see many unproved statements being uttered here. I'm not saying it's 100% sure we live in an infinite universe, but I simply don't understand the certainty of those who hold the opposite.


Again, who demonstrated our universe will have a limited duration?

Well... I don't recall ever mentioning a Big Bang... or any other prime cause. I just said that at the origin, we assume a finite mass. Why should I make that assumption? Simple mathematics, actually.... since the mass seems (from what we can observe) to be moving out from one roughly central point, we can fairly safely assume it must have all orginated at one point.

The force for outward expansion must have been proportionate to the amount of mass thus generated, in whatever area.

Thus - the simple fact that our universe is NOT expanding at infinite speed, implies that a finite mass must have existed at the initiation.

It is by no means CERTAIN that there wouls have been finite mass... no more than it is CERTAIN that our universe must eventually 'fail'... but it is not CERTAIN, from one second to the next, that I will turn into a mongoose, either.

I just assume I won't, based on the trends in recent turning-into-a-mongoose activity.

*squeek*

I think we were talking about the potential wealth, for lack of a better word. That's why we were talking about the entire universe. Otherwise, we could have restricted our discution to what we can do on Earth. And besides, the fact that we can't reach the stars now doesn't mean we will never be able to do that.

Also doesn't mean we will, though... does it.

Is it logical to assume that we can harness infinite resources (if there even are infinite resources), if we have no mechanism for harnessing those resources?

I just said that at the origin, we assume a finite mass. Why should I make that assumption? Simple mathematics, actually.... since the mass seems (from what we can observe) to be moving out from one roughly central point, we can fairly safely assume it must have all orginated at one point.

The force for outward expansion must have been proportionate to the amount of mass thus generated, in whatever area.

Thus - the simple fact that our universe is NOT expanding at infinite speed, implies that a finite mass must have existed at the initiation.
I do not understand.

Also doesn't mean we will, though... does it.

Is it logical to assume that we can harness infinite resources (if there even are infinite resources), if we have no mechanism for harnessing those resources?
Potential. That's the word I used. Potential. The discution was about the total ammount of wealth which could be generated. That's why the first people to argue that wealth is not infinite said the universe is finite.

I do not understand.

No?

Okay - if the outward expansion of our universe STARTED at one key point, because of the necessity for 'the-mass-to-not-be-all-in-the-same-place', we can actually tell something about the amount of mass, just from the expansion rate of the universe.

e.g. Here is our proto-universe:

o

The amount of space is (almost) infinitely small, certainly inproportion to the volume of the mass... because we are talking about an instantaneous and spontaneous generation of mass (from the finger-of-god, or from our Big Pop, or whatever).

So.... when I draw my proto-universe, the size of the blob, is representing how much MASS is present.

. = tiny mass

o = small mass

O = big mass

X = infinite mass (I can't find a lemniscate symbol, here)


Now, remember, we are assuming the same rough VOLUME for the starting point, just a differing MASS...

The velocity 'generated' by the mass exploding away from itself, in this almost-infinitely-small space, is illustrated:

< . > small amount of mass, small amount of acceleration.

< < o > > slightly larger mass, larger acceleration.

< < < O > > > much larger mass, much larger acceleration.

< < < < < < < X > > > > > > infinite mass, infinite acceleration.


Thus, the simple fact that we do not observe outward expansion at infinite velocity... implies that infinite acceleration was never applied.

And, infinite acceleration would have been the theoretical result of infinite mass.

So - LESS than infinite velocity = finite starting mass.

Potential. That's the word I used. Potential. The discution was about the total ammount of wealth which could be generated. That's why the first people to argue that wealth is not infinite said the universe is finite.

But, what 'wealth' does a 'potential' resource generate, if it can never become a 'REAL' resource?

The fact that I keep saying we are restricted to much closer resources, is an example of just how 'finite' our resources are. I mean - they are finite ANYWAY, but the amount we can actually harness is a much lower finite number.

Well...wealth is infinite in the sense that the value of an investment can continually grow. However, in the end every source of wealth has to come from another person and that eventually leads back to natural resources. And since resources are finite... (For example: Oprah gets her money from a lumberjack. The lumberjack gets his money from his employer. His employer gets his money from...the lumber.)

Regarding your first post (I'm not quoting it because it's quite big), I don't understand the necessity of an infinite mass to expand with an infinite speed. Even if it were so, I still can see some problems:

- what do we do about the speed of light? The laws of Physics as we know them state nothing can exceed it. Maybe you meant that the mass will be propelled initially with an infinite force, which would translate to a speed = c?

- the speed we see now is not necessarily the original speed of the Big Bang. Some think the expansion is acelerating. Some think the opposite. Either way, it's not the original speed.

But, what 'wealth' does a 'potential' resource generate, if it can never become a 'REAL' resource?
It is potential because we don't know if we'll be able to harness it or not. Since we don't know, you can't say "it can never become a 'REAL' resource".

The fact that I keep saying we are restricted to much closer resources, is an example of just how 'finite' our resources are. I mean - they are finite ANYWAY, but the amount we can actually harness is a much lower finite number.But if the resources are not finite (and you haven't convinced me that they are), then a finite proportion of an infinity is still an infinity.

It's getting really late, so this will probably be my last post. I can feel my reasoning capacities are already becoming impaired. :)

Louisiana Purchase?

Nations buy, sell, and lease land to one another all the time. Especially during the height of European colonialism. Nations will sell land to finance wars, buy land to exploit resources, trade land for mutual gain, lease land for temporary use, etc. etc. The US currently pays several sovereign nations in order to maintain military bases on their soil.


its still rare now a days, its more like renting land for military bases. All in all, its commodities none the less.

We don't even know for sure whether there were other Big Bangs except for our own. That's an interesting theory, I've never heard it before. But unless you're asserting that there were infinite Big Bangs, the point still remains that wealth must be finite.