Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

You didn't answer my question. How would you have convinced them with "logic"?

The question is for some other thread.

Just because people display normal skepticism without evidence is not evidence they have a problem.

It isn't a matter of normal skepticism. It is a matter of holding a world view contrary to reality.

Their problem in accepting was a world view that made the idea of landing on the moon absurd. It wasn't that they understood what the moon was but were skeptical of us landing there. You have the same problem with your world view that real infinities are impossible so any suggestion otherwise is absurd.

 

[ryan]

Counting is practical. It is something humans do. But humans are limited as to much they can count due to limited lifespans.

Or maybe I still don't understand your "counting" argument.

I am talking about a property of the thing being counted. Not the human activity of counting it.

The property of being countable is used specifically here and it means the property of being observable and observed as a discrete entity.

A thing either has the property of being countable or it doesn't have the property of being countable.

If something has the property of being countable it can in theory be counted. This is not to say it is possible to actually count it. There may be physical, but not logical barriers to counting it.

So if we look at any group of things that have the property of being theoretically countable we must say the group is finite since every member of it can theoretically be counted.

You can't have the property of being countable and exist in any amount that couldn't be counted. To say something has the property of being countable yet exists in a group that can't be counted is a logical contradiction.

"Couldn't be counted" by who, or what?

You seem to jump back and forth about what countable means. From what I put in bold, it appears that you mean it as a human act. What does "countable" mean if it is not by humans.

Maybe you don't need to use the words "counted" and "countable".

 

[untermensche]

The question is for some other thread.

Just because people display normal skepticism without evidence is not evidence they have a problem.

It isn't a matter of normal skepticism. It is a matter of holding a world view contrary to reality.

Their problem in accepting was a world view that made the idea of landing on the moon absurd. It wasn't that they understood what the moon was but were skeptical of us landing there. You have the same problem with your world view that real infinities are impossible so any suggestion otherwise is absurd.

When you begin to imagine real infinities you constantly run into contradictions and logical inconsistencies, like the idea of infinite time having already passed in the past.

Imagine a hotel with infinite rooms.

Just with this first step we run into all kinds of problems. A hotel with infinite rooms requires infinite space to contain it. It will have infinite mass and it would require infinite workers infinite years to build it, from infinite materials expending infinite energy.

Just considering the idea spins us off into insurmountable problems.

 

[skepticalbip]

It isn't a matter of normal skepticism. It is a matter of holding a world view contrary to reality.

Their problem in accepting was a world view that made the idea of landing on the moon absurd. It wasn't that they understood what the moon was but were skeptical of us landing there. You have the same problem with your world view that real infinities are impossible so any suggestion otherwise is absurd.

When you begin to imagine real infinities you constantly run into contradictions and logical inconsistencies, like the idea of infinite time having already passed in the past.

Imagine a hotel with infinite rooms.

Just with this first step we run into all kinds of problems. A hotel with infinite rooms requires infinite space to contain it. It will have infinite mass and it would require infinite workers infinite years to build it, from infinite materials expending infinite energy.

Just considering the idea spins us off into insurmountable problems.

MOst of the logical inconsistencies and contradictions you see are in your head and in your constructing scenarios that have nothing to do with the idea or with reality but have to do with your twisted concept of infinity.

It's sorta like the old argument that rockets can't work in space because there would be nothing for the thrust to push against - an argument based on a mistaken idea of how rockets and reality work.

The moon is not an unreachable light in the sky.

 

[untermensche]

I am talking about a property of the thing being counted. Not the human activity of counting it.

The property of being countable is used specifically here and it means the property of being observable and observed as a discrete entity.

A thing either has the property of being countable or it doesn't have the property of being countable.

If something has the property of being countable it can in theory be counted. This is not to say it is possible to actually count it. There may be physical, but not logical barriers to counting it.

So if we look at any group of things that have the property of being theoretically countable we must say the group is finite since every member of it can theoretically be counted.

You can't have the property of being countable and exist in any amount that couldn't be counted. To say something has the property of being countable yet exists in a group that can't be counted is a logical contradiction.

"Couldn't be counted" by who, or what?

You seem to jump back and forth about what countable means. From what I put in bold, it appears that you mean it as a human act. What does "countable" mean if it is not by humans.

Maybe you don't need to use the words "counted" and "countable".

To be countable is a property of some thing.

Do you comprehend this much?

Can you see that a thing is either countable or not countable? You can either see it as a discrete entity or you can't.

 

[untermensche]

When you begin to imagine real infinities you constantly run into contradictions and logical inconsistencies, like the idea of infinite time having already passed in the past.

Imagine a hotel with infinite rooms.

Just with this first step we run into all kinds of problems. A hotel with infinite rooms requires infinite space to contain it. It will have infinite mass and it would require infinite workers infinite years to build it, from infinite materials expending infinite energy.

Just considering the idea spins us off into insurmountable problems.

MOst of the logical inconsistencies and contradictions you see are in your head and in your constructing scenarios that have nothing to do with the idea but have to do with your twisted concept of infinity.

It's sorta like the old argument that rockets can't work in space because there would be nothing for the thrust to push against - an argument based on a mistaken idea of how rockets and reality work.

The moon is not an unreachable light in the sky.

So you think the idea of infinite energy is only a problem in my imagination?

If you do then you've never seriously considered the idea.

 

[skepticalbip]

MOst of the logical inconsistencies and contradictions you see are in your head and in your constructing scenarios that have nothing to do with the idea but have to do with your twisted concept of infinity.

It's sorta like the old argument that rockets can't work in space because there would be nothing for the thrust to push against - an argument based on a mistaken idea of how rockets and reality work.

The moon is not an unreachable light in the sky.

So you think the idea of infinite energy is only a problem in my imagination?

If you do then you've never seriously considered the idea.

Re-read.

Real infinities does not mean that everything imaginable has to or can go to infinity.

 

[Juma]

MOst of the logical inconsistencies and contradictions you see are in your head and in your constructing scenarios that have nothing to do with the idea but have to do with your twisted concept of infinity.

It's sorta like the old argument that rockets can't work in space because there would be nothing for the thrust to push against - an argument based on a mistaken idea of how rockets and reality work.

The moon is not an unreachable light in the sky.

So you think the idea of infinite energy is only a problem in my imagination?

If you do then you've never seriously considered the idea.

So you have? Then please share your wisdom: what is the problem with infinite energy in an infinitee jniverse?

 

[surreptitious57]

The numbers in an infinite set cannot all be counted because they either extend from a finite point to infinity such as with the infinite set of all positive integers or from infinity to infinity such as with the infinite set of all real numbers. There is not enough time to calculate every number in an infinite set even if it was done at the speed of light. It is only possible to count a sub set of numbers in an infinite set anywhere in the set. This proves that what in theory is countable is not countable in actuality. The most famous example of this is pi which has been calculated to twenty thousand decimal places by computer. But as it is an irrational number and so extends to infinity that is nowhere near the end because in point of fact there is actually no such thing It may be the most accurate value to date but it is not the absolute value. If it were a rational number it could be calculated in full but since it extends to infinity this is not possible either in theory or in actuality

 

[untermensche]

So you think the idea of infinite energy is only a problem in my imagination?

If you do then you've never seriously considered the idea.

Re-read.

Real infinities does not mean that everything imaginable has to or can go to infinity.

No, but saying one thing is infinite many times brings with it the need for other things to be infinite as well.

If we say that matter is infinite and matter takes up space then we also say that there must be infinite space to contain it. But the infinite space must somehow be a larger infinity since matter isn't completely filling it. But space and time are thought to have begun at the big bang. So it also means that space has expanded infinitely in a finite time.

We imagine one infinity and we end of with several and infinities of different sizes.

It's a mess.

 

[ryan]

"Couldn't be counted" by who, or what?

You seem to jump back and forth about what countable means. From what I put in bold, it appears that you mean it as a human act. What does "countable" mean if it is not by humans.

Maybe you don't need to use the words "counted" and "countable".

To be countable is a property of some thing.

Do you comprehend this much?

Can you see that a thing is either countable or not countable? You can either see it as a discrete entity or you can't.

It seems as though you are equating "countable" with "finite". "Countable" if and only if "finite". In other words, if countable, then finite. And if finite, then countable.

If not, then can you please define "countable" without using a human agency.

 

[untermensche]

So you think the idea of infinite energy is only a problem in my imagination?

If you do then you've never seriously considered the idea.

So you have? Then please share your wisdom: what is the problem with infinite energy in an infinitee jniverse?

According to Lawrence Krauss the modern belief is the total energy of the universe is zero.

So there are problems with speculations of the existence of infinite energy.

In what universe?

 

[Juma]

So you have? Then please share your wisdom: what is the problem with infinite energy in an infinitee jniverse?

According to Lawrence Krauss the modern belief is the total energy of the universe is zero.

So there are problems with speculations of the existence of infinite energy.

If the total energy of the universe is 0 then we can any number of universes and still have a total energy of 0.

It is even possible that we could have infinitely many universes and the energy sum would still be 0.

So again: if we can have an finite amount of atoms and still have total energy 0, why cannot we have infinitely many atoms?

 

[skepticalbip]

So you have? Then please share your wisdom: what is the problem with infinite energy in an infinitee jniverse?

According to Lawrence Krauss the modern belief is the total energy of the universe is zero.

So there are problems with speculations of the existence of infinite energy.

In what universe?

It is ironic that you cite Krauss as an authority (even though you don't understand what he is saying) and yet can ignore that he does not discount the possibility of time extending infinitely into the past.

 

[untermensche]

To be countable is a property of some thing.

Do you comprehend this much?

Can you see that a thing is either countable or not countable? You can either see it as a discrete entity or you can't.

It seems as though you are equating "countable" with "finite". "Countable" if and only if "finite". In other words, if countable, then finite. And if finite, then countable.

If not, then can you please define "countable" without using a human agency.

I'm not equating countable with anything. I'm defining it.

A thing is countable if it can be observed in some way and is discrete, that is, it can be distinguished as a separate thing.

That's it. That's countable.

Can you see that anything can only either be countable or uncountable in this definition? Both criteria have to be met for something to be countable. If they are not met the thing is uncountable.

Do you understand that much?

- - - Updated - - -

According to Lawrence Krauss the modern belief is the total energy of the universe is zero.

So there are problems with speculations of the existence of infinite energy.

In what universe?

It is ironic that you cite Krauss as an authority (even though you don't understand what he is saying) and yet can ignore that he does not discount the possibility of time extending infinitely into the past.

I do understand what he is saying.

When he says the total energy of the universe is zero I understand. I understand it is not infinite.

 

[skepticalbip]

According to Lawrence Krauss the modern belief is the total energy of the universe is zero.

So there are problems with speculations of the existence of infinite energy.

In what universe?

It is ironic that you cite Krauss as an authority (even though you don't understand what he is saying) and yet can ignore that he does not discount the possibility of time extending infinitely into the past.

I do understand what he is saying.

When he says the total energy of the universe is zero I understand. I understand it is not infinite.

Read.

 

[ryan]

It seems as though you are equating "countable" with "finite". "Countable" if and only if "finite". In other words, if countable, then finite. And if finite, then countable.

If not, then can you please define "countable" without using a human agency.

I'm not equating countable with anything. I'm defining it.

A thing is countable if it can be observed in some way and is discrete, that is, it can be distinguished as a separate thing.

That's it. That's countable.

Can you see that anything can only either be countable or uncountable in this definition? Both criteria have to be met for something to be countable. If they are not met the thing is uncountable.

Do you understand that much?

Okay, I get it now; we can move on.

Now that I think I understand your argument, here is a new inquiry.

Let's delve into time and distance. Let's say that D = the smallest length possible, maybe (1 Planck length)*10^(-100). Now my question: does half of the Planck length exist (my attempt of a proof by contradiction)?

 

[untermensche]

Let's delve into time and distance. Let's say that D = the smallest length possible, maybe (1 Planck length)*10^(-100). Now my question: does half of the Planck length exist (my attempt of a proof by contradiction)?

The question is not does half the distance exist.

The question is; Would moving such a distance even mean anything?

Would you actually move if you only moved that much?

You can't call not moving because movement has not occurred the same as moving.

 

[ryan]

Let's delve into time and distance. Let's say that D = the smallest length possible, maybe (1 Planck length)*10^(-100). Now my question: does half of the Planck length exist (my attempt of a proof by contradiction)?

The question is not does half the distance exist.

The question is; Would moving such a distance even mean anything?

Would you actually move if you only moved that much?

You can't call not moving because movement has not occurred the same as moving.

Point taken.

Would it be fair to say that an object would basically jump from the beginning of D to the end of D in some very small ratio of a Planck time?

 

[Juma]

The question is not does half the distance exist.

The question is; Would moving such a distance even mean anything?

Would you actually move if you only moved that much?

You can't call not moving because movement has not occurred the same as moving.

Point taken.

Then would it be fair to say that an object basically jumps from the beginning of D to the end of D in some very small ratio of a Planck time?

Yes. But the whole thing is very hypotetical. Unter is blurring the subject by introducing his magical word "meaningful". Who is to judge what is meaningful or not?

Whether something is discrete or continuos is not discovered by measuring the smallest possible change directly, but by other means. The realization that radiation is delivered in quanta from the spectrum of black body radiation is a famous example.