Is the concept of infinity real or imaginary?

[untermensche]

Mathematically infinity means arbitrarily large. Many say it is ultimately the highest counted number plus one (n+1). So if it can be counted it is a number other than infinity. However if it can't be counted, that is separation has a minimum time between increments (base  Planck units) then it can't be logically counted in infinitesimal increments (less than Plank's base unit for that physical dimension) it has to be infinite.

The idea of "infinitesimals" is another imaginary mathematical concept.

You can't prove something is real by claiming it has imaginary qualities.

I don't think some people understand the difference between the mathematics we use to model the universe and the real thing.

The models are abstractions of the real thing we use to make predictions.

They are abstractions and they make use of imaginary concepts like infinity.

To not understand this is amazing.

 

[untermensche]

If I claim that the Tooth Fairy is imaginary do I have to defend that claim?

A tooth fairy that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years would have a very diminished probability of existing, but it wouldn't be 0. Infinity must go unnoticed, and it would be unnoticed. So your claim is unfalsifiable.

I didn't claim I could prove the Tooth Fairy is imaginary.

I said the rational conclusion is that it is imaginary until proven otherwise.

Just like infinity.

 

[ryan]

A tooth fairy that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years would have a very diminished probability of existing, but it wouldn't be 0. Infinity must go unnoticed, and it would be unnoticed. So your claim is unfalsifiable.

I didn't claim I could prove the Tooth Fairy is imaginary.

I said the rational conclusion is that it is imaginary until proven otherwise.

Sure, I have no issue with that. But for some reason you were saying that if it is only initially imaginary, then it does not exist stance.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't claim I could prove the Tooth Fairy is imaginary.

I said the rational conclusion is that it is imaginary until proven otherwise.

Sure, I have no issue with that. But for some reason you were saying that if it is only initially imaginary, then it does not exist stance.

My stance has been consistent.

Your understanding of my stance is still partial if you think it is rational to apply imaginary concepts like infinity to real entities like time.

 

[ryan]

Sure, I have no issue with that. But for some reason you were saying that if it is only initially imaginary, then it does not exist stance.

My stance has been consistent.

So are you still saying that infinity does not exist? Because that was the whole reason I started debating with you.

Your understanding of my stance is still partial if you think it is rational to apply imaginary concepts like infinity to real entities like time.

But I can imagine an object that has never existed and then make it exist, say, a water balloon inside a larger helium balloon inside an even larger helium balloon. The imagination can predict, simulate, rationalize, etc. and is sometimes right.

 

[untermensche]

My stance has been consistent.

So are you still saying that infinity does not exist? Because that was the whole reason I started debating with you.

I am saying the rational position for concepts that can't be shown in any way to be real is that they are imaginary.

Concepts can't just imagined to be real. Or hypothesized to be real. They actually have to be shown in some way to be real or they are considered imaginary.

Is Zeus real or imaginary?

 

[ryan]

So are you still saying that infinity does not exist? Because that was the whole reason I started debating with you.

I am saying the rational position for concepts that can't be shown in any way to be real is that they are imaginary.

Of course things that only are known to exist in the imagination are imaginary. Nobody will argue that. This is a different argument.

Concepts can't just imagined to be real. Or hypothesized to be real. They actually have to be shown in some way to be real or they are considered imaginary.

Is Zeus real or imaginary?

First was dragons, then tooth fairies now Zeus. Zeus is less likely than the tooth fairy. So I would say that something that is not physically possible is on a whole other level of unlikely.

But there is no known physical reason why infinity can't exist. Moreover, observations show properties that are necessary for a space-time continuum to exist. So that last part seems to help its chances more.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying the rational position for concepts that can't be shown in any way to be real is that they are imaginary.

Of course things that only are known to exist in the imagination are imaginary. Nobody will argue that. This is a different argument.

Concepts that can't be demonstrated to exist, like infinity, are considered imaginary until proven otherwise.

In deciding if something is real or imaginary we do not start by assuming the thing is real and place the burden on those claiming it is imaginary to prove it. We do not say to those claiming Zeus is real that we will assume Zeus is real until somebody can prove he is not.

We say Zeus is imaginary and the burden is on the one claiming he is real.

That is how we rationally examine concepts.

Except for the concept of infinity to some, who have strange double standards for examining concepts.

Is Zeus real or imaginary?

First was dragons, then tooth fairies now Zeus. Zeus is less likely than the tooth fairy. So I would say that something that is not physically possible is on a whole other level of unlikely.

But there is no known physical reason why infinity can't exist. Moreover, observations show properties that are necessary for a space-time continuum to exist. So that last part seems to help its chances more.

This is a song and dance and when I see it I know I am not dealing with somebody being honest.

One more chance.

Is Zeus real or imaginary? Which one. Not neither.

 

[ryan]

Of course things that only are known to exist in the imagination are imaginary. Nobody will argue that. This is a different argument.

Concepts that can't be demonstrated to exist, like infinity, are considered imaginary until proven otherwise.

I just said that I agree with that, and I would never disagree with it.

But you must answer my question to see whether or not we are actually even in a disagreement anymore.

Are you still willing to say that infinity must not exist?

In deciding if something is real or imaginary we do not start by assuming the thing is real and place the burden on those claiming it is imaginary to prove it. We do not say to those claiming Zeus is real that we will assume Zeus is real until somebody can prove he is not.

We say Zeus is imaginary and the burden is on the one claiming he is real.

I agree, but that's not the conversation you and I are having.

First was dragons, then tooth fairies now Zeus. Zeus is less likely than the tooth fairy. So I would say that something that is not physically possible is on a whole other level of unlikely.

But there is no known physical reason why infinity can't exist. Moreover, observations show properties that are necessary for a space-time continuum to exist. So that last part seems to help its chances more.

This is a song and dance and when I see it I know I am not dealing with somebody being honest.

One more chance.

Is Zeus real or imaginary? Which one. Not neither.

I don't know; just like I don't know if the universe will ever have a tooth fairy in it. But if I had to make a guess, I would say no just because my feeling is of less than a 50% probability. If I felt something were at a 51% chance of existing then I would say it exists; then what? I don't see how this side conversation is relevant.

 

[untermensche]

Is Zeus real or imaginary?

I don't know; just like I don't know if the universe will ever have a tooth fairy in it. But if I had to make a guess, I would say no just because my feeling is of less than a 50% probability. I don't see how this side conversation is relevant.

That is a formula for deciding nothing.

We need a rational formula. Not one that decides nothing. One that requires some kind of evidence to make claims.

So we have a choice.

We can say that all claims are real until proven imaginary.

Or we can say that all claims are imaginary until proven real. The way you prove something is real is by giving evidence of its existence.

If we want to make a rational decision, or at least have a rational consideration, we have to chose one.

If we just say over and over that "we don't know" then we get nowhere and a bunch of imaginary concepts are taken seriously. We have an absolute mess.

 

[ryan]

I don't know; just like I don't know if the universe will ever have a tooth fairy in it. But if I had to make a guess, I would say no just because my feeling is of less than a 50% probability. I don't see how this side conversation is relevant.

That is a formula for deciding nothing.

We need a rational formula. Not one that decides nothing. One that requires some kind of evidence to make claims.

So we have a choice.

We can say that all claims are real until proven imaginary.

Or we can say that all claims are imaginary until proven real. The way you prove something is real is by giving evidence of its existence.

If we want to make a rational decision, or at least have a rational consideration, we have to chose one.

If we just say over and over that "we don't know" then we get nowhere and a bunch of imaginary concepts are taken seriously. We have an absolute mess.

Nope, having a 3rd option between certainties in a spectrum is more specific and rigor/precision should never be avoided if it doesn't have to be. If it has to be avoided, fine, but for the collective knowledge of humankind, maximum rigor is king.

 

[untermensche]

That is a formula for deciding nothing.

We need a rational formula. Not one that decides nothing. One that requires some kind of evidence to make claims.

So we have a choice.

We can say that all claims are real until proven imaginary.

Or we can say that all claims are imaginary until proven real. The way you prove something is real is by giving evidence of its existence.

If we want to make a rational decision, or at least have a rational consideration, we have to chose one.

If we just say over and over that "we don't know" then we get nowhere and a bunch of imaginary concepts are taken seriously. We have an absolute mess.

Nope, having a 3rd option between certainties in a spectrum is more specific and rigor/precision should never be avoided if it doesn't have to be. If it has to be avoided, fine, but for the collective knowledge of humankind, maximum rigor is king.

It is not a certainty. We do not end up with certainties. We end up with some things that can be proven to be real and some that cannot.

It is a rational way to look at concepts so you can make distinctions.

Your method is to never decide anything about anything. It is complete folly.

 

[ryan]

Nope, having a 3rd option between certainties in a spectrum is more specific and rigor/precision should never be avoided if it doesn't have to be. If it has to be avoided, fine, but for the collective knowledge of humankind, maximum rigor is king.

It is not a certainty. We do not end up with certainties. We end up with some things that can be proven to be real and some that cannot.

It is a rational way to look at concepts so you can make distinctions.

Your method is to never decide anything about anything. It is complete folly.

The ends of the spectrum, from certain of the negative to certain of the positive would rarely be used. For example, the certainty of the positive would be of my own existence or tautologies.

Nothing in science is certain. Laws, theories, hypothesises are all floating around in the spectrum of uncertainty. Why not be honest with our limited and imperfect understandings of things?

 

[untermensche]

It is not a certainty. We do not end up with certainties. We end up with some things that can be proven to be real and some that cannot.

It is a rational way to look at concepts so you can make distinctions.

Your method is to never decide anything about anything. It is complete folly.

The ends of the spectrum, from certain of the negative to certain of the positive would rarely be used. For example, the certainty of the positive would be of my own existence or tautologies.

Nothing in science is certain. Laws, theories, hypothesises are all floating around in the spectrum of uncertainty. Why not be honest with our limited and imperfect understandings of things?

This isn't science. It is simple reason.

A concept is considered imaginary until some evidence showing otherwise. EVIDENCE. Not claims.

And it is totally irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities. There is no logic or argument that permits it.

So the mere act of trying to apply the imaginary concept of infinity to ANYTHING real is absolute insanity and the people that try to do it should be dismissed as religious nuts.

 

[ryan]

The ends of the spectrum, from certain of the negative to certain of the positive would rarely be used. For example, the certainty of the positive would be of my own existence or tautologies.

Nothing in science is certain. Laws, theories, hypothesises are all floating around in the spectrum of uncertainty. Why not be honest with our limited and imperfect understandings of things?

This isn't science. It is simple reason.

A concept is considered imaginary until some evidence showing otherwise. EVIDENCE. Not claims.

And it is totally irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities. There is no logic or argument that permits it.

So the mere act of trying to apply the imaginary concept of infinity to ANYTHING real is absolute insanity and the people that try to do it should be dismissed as religious nuts.

Can you explain more about what you mean by it being irrational to "apply imaginary concepts to anything real"? Like wouldn't I have to only give one example, like I did a couple weeks ago, to falsify this claim?

 

[untermensche]

This isn't science. It is simple reason.

A concept is considered imaginary until some evidence showing otherwise. EVIDENCE. Not claims.

And it is totally irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities. There is no logic or argument that permits it.

So the mere act of trying to apply the imaginary concept of infinity to ANYTHING real is absolute insanity and the people that try to do it should be dismissed as religious nuts.

Can you explain more about what you mean by it being irrational to "apply imaginary concepts to anything real"? Like wouldn't I have to only give one example, like I did a couple weeks ago, to falsify this claim?

To apply means to claim the entity possesses the quality.

So to apply an imaginary quality to a real entity is like saying a tree is all knowing.

Or saying the universe is eternal.

And yes all you have to is give one counter example. But with evidence not merely claims. With something real, not speculations.

 

[ryan]

Can you explain more about what you mean by it being irrational to "apply imaginary concepts to anything real"? Like wouldn't I have to only give one example, like I did a couple weeks ago, to falsify this claim?

To apply means to claim the entity possesses the quality.

So to apply an imaginary quality to a real entity is like saying a tree is all knowing.

Or saying the universe is eternal.

And yes all you have to is give one counter example. But with evidence not merely claims. With something real, not speculations.

Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant by "apply". So this seems like a dualism presupposition because you require a mental and physical, but that's okay because you are talking to a dualist, me.

Now that we have taken dualism as an assumption, we can continue.

I agree that imagined things are not of the same "quality" as the physical. So I agree with you here. I just don't know why a mental construction can't predict a physical construction the same way we predict everything else with our imagination.

What is the problem?

 

[bilby]

To apply means to claim the entity possesses the quality.

So to apply an imaginary quality to a real entity is like saying a tree is all knowing.

Or saying the universe is eternal.

And yes all you have to is give one counter example. But with evidence not merely claims. With something real, not speculations.

Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant by "apply". So this seems like a dualism presupposition because you require a mental and physical, but that's okay because you are talking to a dualist, me.

Now that we have taken dualism as an assumption, we can continue.

I agree that imagined things are not of the same "quality" as the physical. So I agree with you here. I just don't know why a mental construction can't predict a physical construction the same way we predict everything else with our imagination.

What is the problem?

Pure ignorance.

'Applying imaginary qualities to real entities' describes a sizable fraction of all technological advance - including, ironically, the invention and design of many of the components untermensche is using to broadcast his abject ignorance around the planet.

But once someone is determined not to know about things that make them feel uncomfortable, you have no chance of ever getting through to them. So I advise you to give up on this hopeless case.

 

[beero1000]

Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant by "apply". So this seems like a dualism presupposition because you require a mental and physical, but that's okay because you are talking to a dualist, me.

Now that we have taken dualism as an assumption, we can continue.

I agree that imagined things are not of the same "quality" as the physical. So I agree with you here. I just don't know why a mental construction can't predict a physical construction the same way we predict everything else with our imagination.

What is the problem?

Pure ignorance.

'Applying imaginary qualities to real entities' describes a sizable fraction of all technological advance - including, ironically, the invention and design of many of the components untermensche is using to broadcast his abject ignorance around the planet.

But once someone is determined not to know about things that make them feel uncomfortable, you have no chance of ever getting through to them. So I advise you to give up on this hopeless case.

I like the shift from "logic" and "reason" to "evidence".

Dem goalposts...

 

[ryan]

Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant by "apply". So this seems like a dualism presupposition because you require a mental and physical, but that's okay because you are talking to a dualist, me.

Now that we have taken dualism as an assumption, we can continue.

I agree that imagined things are not of the same "quality" as the physical. So I agree with you here. I just don't know why a mental construction can't predict a physical construction the same way we predict everything else with our imagination.

What is the problem?

Pure ignorance.

'Applying imaginary qualities to real entities' describes a sizable fraction of all technological advance - including, ironically, the invention and design of many of the components untermensche is using to broadcast his abject ignorance around the planet.

But once someone is determined not to know about things that make them feel uncomfortable, you have no chance of ever getting through to them. So I advise you to give up on this hopeless case.

My post to Unter doesn't even make sense because I am just totally confused about the point. Usually Unter has good rebuttals, at least with me, but I really don't get this one.

The mind's models are applied to everything we do, from predicting the amount of gas it will take to drive to point b to imagining a recipe that may never have existed in the universe and making it.