Infinte Regress Timeline...

[another1]

I like the "slice" touch in the debate. Pardon me for interrupting, by the way. A slice in a rolodex of slices would be part of my thinking. I like the term "slice of life", and wonder if the inception of the term was more thought out than people may think. I was bent on "tier", but slice is a little closer to the point that seems to be forming in this interesting thread. I would consider a slice that is more of an echo than a frozen, stationary thing. Still, slice is pretty nice. Somewhere at some point I read on my screen that we are all slices of ourselves in an imaginary state. That triggered my Christian values and made me consider making each slice even, considering slice would be plural, which it would have to be for a constant reality to appear to occur. Good deeds and faith come into play when I start thinking that I'm a slice of the past, future and possibly the illusion of the present. Where the slice was diced from doesn't relate to time as anyone I've encountered has diced out in a way that I could fully understand. Your sciences and book smarts have helped me slightly. Language limiting vivisection of time and reality is explained in a blurry section of an altered, yet very profound book called The Holy Bible, and it could benefit the participants of any debate of this nature.

The anesthesia that most people seem to be under regarding this exact topic turns my stomach, so thank you for moving your fingers to battle the illusion of time. My thought is that time is a self-imagined entity and all that appears to occur due to it's spell, and is supported by another entity called language, which autonomously limits the components of time as we understand it to maintain order. This could make the conversation that seems to be forming meaningless. I'd like to think not because I enjoy reading what you have to say.

Congratulations though, fall has appeared to arrive through a psychic field that we assume to share under the seemingly impenetrable wing of time. That is, assuming that you are you. I may not be me, that is why I say this. I could be time masturbating without the ability to have an orgasm. Time just spanks away with endless lube and stares at still pictures of the possibility of us (itself) for what would be considered sexual stimulation. Is father time a chronic masturbator waiting for the perfect image to bring him to climax? Good luck, time. Erectile dysfunction is a bitch. Trust me, I know about that at least. The clock is stroking and it is time to eat, so please slice this up some more because I would like to misunderstand and convolute the debate in any way possible. Chronic keyboard masturbation is a bitch also.

 

[untermensche]

No. Your continual poor understanding.

Change has nothing to do with mathematics. Your position in space and time has nothing to do with mathematics.

Mathematics is what we use to abstract change and position into a system where change can be quantified and therefore predicted.

When moving through space the inertial reference frame of an object does not change.

We wouldn't use the math if it didn't work to predict the future accurately.

There is a reference frame for the object's surroundings. It provides the background against which movement may be judged. There is another reference frame moving (relative to surroundings) with the object. In this reference frame the object is at rest and all else moves. One frame in which each particle is at rest. Permantly.

An inertial frame of reference is an abstraction. A straight line is an abstraction. They don't really exist, like infinity.

 

[ryan]

I would say that when frames of reference are defined mathematically it is possible for there to be an infinite amount of them. We have figured out methods to use infinity in mathematics.

And we have also figured out a way to use math in physics. Sometimes the math makes the predictions.

To say there is an infinite amount of frames of reference is possible assumes that there can be infinite amounts of change. It assumes what it claims.

No, theories of relativity only claim there are an an infinite number of reference frames; they don't assume it. A theory that builds onto special relativity will assume an infinite number of reference frames exists. Theories of relativity assumes other postulates.

 

[skepticalbip]

When moving through space the inertial reference frame of an object does not change.

We wouldn't use the math if it didn't work to predict the future accurately.

There is a reference frame for the object's surroundings. It provides the background against which movement may be judged. There is another reference frame moving (relative to surroundings) with the object. In this reference frame the object is at rest and all else moves. One frame in which each particle is at rest. Permantly.

An inertial frame of reference is an abstraction. A straight line is an abstraction. They don't really exist, like infinity.

Gotta love that... thanks.

Anything you don't like or can't understand can just be declared as non-existent by fiat.

 

[untermensche]

And we have also figured out a way to use math in physics. Sometimes the math makes the predictions.

Physicists have figured out ways to abstract the real so they can use mathematics to make predictions.

Reducing situations to mathematics is a form of abstraction.

No, theories of relativity only claim there are an an infinite number of reference frames; they don't assume it. A theory that builds onto special relativity will assume an infinite number of reference frames exists. Theories of relativity assumes other postulates.

The theories are mathematically based. So the properties of mathematics apply. And one of the properties of mathematics is that infinities exist.

 

[untermensche]

An inertial frame of reference is an abstraction. A straight line is an abstraction. They don't really exist, like infinity.

Gotta love that... thanks.

Anything you don't like can just be declared as non-existent by fiat.

It is not a matter of not liking something.

It is only a matter of knowing what things are.

Inertial frames of reference do not exist in reality. They are an abstraction of reality. A reduction of reality to something that is useful.

 

[ryan]

Physicists have figured out ways to abstract the real so they can use mathematics to make predictions.

Reducing situations to mathematics is a form of abstraction.

And the abstractions make correct predictions of the real world.

No, theories of relativity only claim there are an an infinite number of reference frames; they don't assume it. A theory that builds onto special relativity will assume an infinite number of reference frames exists. Theories of relativity assumes other postulates.

The theories are mathematically based. So the properties of mathematics apply. And one of the properties of mathematics is that infinities exist.

Using math does not mean it is totally based on math. When I said "calculus based", I meant that calculus is used for learning the physics in the textbook. Some textbooks simplify the material without using calculus.

Einstein based special relativity on exactly two postulates. The first one is that nothing can travel faster than light, and the second one is that every reference frame has the same laws of physics. That same textbook verifies this in the same chapter as I referenced earlier.

 

[untermensche]

And the abstractions make correct predictions of the real world.

This goes back to my point about the models. Just because the models are good enough to make predictions does not mean the models represent reality perfectly.

It only means they represent reality close enough to make real world predictions.

The theories are mathematically based. So the properties of mathematics apply. And one of the properties of mathematics is that infinities exist.

Using math does not mean it is totally based on math. When I said "calculus based", I meant that calculus is used for learning the physics in the textbook. Some textbooks simplify the material without using calculus.

Einstein based special relativity on exactly two postulates. The first one is that nothing can travel faster than light, and the second one is that every reference frame has the same laws of physics. That same textbook verifies this in the same chapter as I referenced earlier.

The models are not just the mathematics.

I just think some people look at aspects of the models and then claim that those aspects must apply to that which the model tries to describe.

Infinity shows up in the models, because mathematics is used in the models, so people claim that infinity must also exist in the real world. Even though no infinity can be observed.

 

[ryan]

This goes back to my point about the models. Just because the models are good enough to make predictions does not mean the models represent reality perfectly.

It only means they represent reality close enough to make real world predictions.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up to me; it may help your argument with someone who thinks that math explains everything. I just finished explaining how math alone doesn't explain theories of relativity.

Using math does not mean it is totally based on math. When I said "calculus based", I meant that calculus is used for learning the physics in the textbook. Some textbooks simplify the material without using calculus.

Einstein based special relativity on exactly two postulates. The first one is that nothing can travel faster than light, and the second one is that every reference frame has the same laws of physics. That same textbook verifies this in the same chapter as I referenced earlier.

The models are not just the mathematics.

I just think some people look at aspects of the models and then claim that those aspects must apply to that which the model tries to describe.

Infinity shows up in the models, because mathematics is used in the models, so people claim that infinity must also exist in the real world. Even though no infinity can be observed.

Okay, but I am not saying that.

 

[Kharakov]

You are implying the models are a perfect description of reality as opposed to an adequate description.

Your understanding and insight into the nature of what you read has once again blown my mind.

I'll just put the relevant part of what I wrote here: "If your imaginary construct is an accurate description of reality, the construct corresponds to reality (it may not have a 1 to 1 correspondence, however)."

I was implying the existence of a perfect model,without a 1 to 1 correspondence?

Eternal (infinite) existence of a substrate that gives arise to all being (finite and infinite) is real. The finite existence of evolving forms within the substrate is real. The infinite existence of evolving forms is real.
Both finites and infinites are real. Both are also imaginary.

You can't say some imaginary "substrate" has existed for infinite time anymore than you can say the universe has. It is just a dishonest argument. A theological argument.

Umm.. so you think something appeared from nothing. That's a sound bit of reasoning.

 

[Juma]

Unter: get back on track: present a concise and complete argument for why the number of atoms must be finite.

 

[untermensche]

Unter: get back on track: present a concise and complete argument for why the number of atoms must be finite.

I've presented it.

If an atom exists it can in theory be counted. It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

 

[untermensche]

Your understanding and insight into the nature of what you read has once again blown my mind.

I'll just put the relevant part of what I wrote here: "If your imaginary construct is an accurate description of reality, the construct corresponds to reality (it may not have a 1 to 1 correspondence, however)."

I was implying the existence of a perfect model,without a 1 to 1 correspondence?

Then we are in agreement.

The models don't describe reality. They describe how reality behaves, in a good enough fashion to make real world predictions. They do not describe what reality is.

Umm.. so you think something appeared from nothing. That's a sound bit of reasoning.

Where did your "substrate" come from?

 

[Juma]

Unter: get back on track: present a concise and complete argument for why the number of atoms must be finite.

I've presented it.

If an atom exists it can in theory be counted. It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

Easy. Numbers are countable and infinitely many.

 

[George S]

Unter: get back on track: present a concise and complete argument for why the number of atoms must be finite.

I've presented it.

If an atom exists it can in theory be counted. It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

An infinite sequence is considered "countable" when it can be placed in a 1-1 correspondence with (1,2,3,...).

The real numbers cannot be so arranged. When you try there are always many missed.

 

[skepticalbip]

Unter: get back on track: present a concise and complete argument for why the number of atoms must be finite.

I've presented it.

If an atom exists it can in theory be counted. It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

Just bedamned. You are back to repeating this shit again?
Yes, if a class of things exist the you can number a limited set of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

Now you are using count to mean to number all things in the class. Your "count" in the first statement has a different meaning that the "count" you are using in this question. If the question is if there can be an infinite number of things, then this mental masterbation does not even attempt to answer it.

To be able to count atoms one at a time does not mean that finding the sum of all atoms is possible.

 

[untermensche]

I've presented it.

If an atom exists it can in theory be counted. It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

Easy. Numbers are countable and infinitely many.

A number is not in my formulation a "countable" entity.

I cannot see it or measure it. It has no dimension. It exists neither in time or space. It is a concept.

 

[George S]

I've presented it.

If an atom exists it can in theory be counted. It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

Just bedamned. You are back to repeating this shit again?
Yes, if a class of things exist the you can number a limited set of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

Now you are using count to mean to number all things in the class. Your "count" in the first statement has a different meaning that the "count" you are using in this question. If the question is if there can be an infinite number of things, then this mental masterbation does not even attempt to answer it.

To be able to count atoms one at a time does not mean that finding the sum of all atoms is possible.

I'm not sure Unter will get it. The. Difference between a countable finite set and a countable infinite set is that the latter only sometimes completes. Adding another 9 to .9999999... Never reaches 1. And yet in all math it behaves like 1. The "completion" of the infinite count is 1. (Read up on the math of radius of convergence, Unter.)

 

[untermensche]

I'm not sure Unter will get it. The. Difference between a countable finite set and a countable infinite set is that the latter only sometimes completes. Adding another 9 to .9999999... Never reaches 1. And yet in all math it behaves like 1. The "completion" of the infinite count is 1. (Read up on the math of radius of convergence, Unter.)

Set of what?

I don't think you get it.

 

[George S]

My sentiments exactly.