Understanding infinity

[Perspicuo]

Beautiful.

 

[beero1000]

Getting ready for another thread on infinity.

No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor has created.

 

[fromderinside]

+1

 

[Kharakov]

+1

That makes no difference.

 

[DBT]

+1

That makes no difference.

Adding more to Infinity, pffffft.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Getting ready for another thread on infinity.

We would need an infinity of time to discuss the fine points of infinity and we don't have it. Life's so short. Ask Cantor, the idiot. Makes my heart bleed.

No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor has created.

Ok, that's a solution. Plenty of time there. An infinity of it. If you believe in Paradise.


Anyway, even in Paradise, a being with only limited memory capacity could not understand an infinite universe.
Or could he?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

+1

That makes no difference.

Ach, allegedly, it depends on how you want to go about counting your chips.
Creative countability, you may want to call it.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

That makes no difference.

Ach, allegedly, it depends on how you want to go about counting your chips.
Creative countability, you may want to call it.
EB

You're thinking like a banker. I've got all the chips, so I might as well say I have one more because they can't possibly check...

 

[fromderinside]

Ach, allegedly, it depends on how you want to go about counting your chips.
Creative countability, you may want to call it.
EB

You're thinking like a banker. I've got all the chips, so I might as well say I have one more because they can't possibly check...

Are you saying the chips can't count? Its important to know that this pile of chips is greater than that pile of chips even though neither is countable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ach, allegedly, it depends on how you want to go about counting your chips.
Creative countability, you may want to call it.
EB

You're thinking like a banker. I've got all the chips, so I might as well say I have one more because they can't possibly check...

The trick is fungibility. There is no one particular dollar on bank accounts. You can have a particular dollar bill in your hand but you only have a certain amount of dollars on your bank account.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You're thinking like a banker. I've got all the chips, so I might as well say I have one more because they can't possibly check...

The trick is fungibility. There is no one particular dollar on bank accounts. You can have a particular dollar bill in your hand but you only have a certain amount of dollars on your bank account.
EB

Two separate arguments which are right. both arguments are off point. Restructure. Kharakov you and another have all the chips then Speakpigeons' fungibility works. Speakpigeon if there are only two participating as the 'bank' then one or the other has more chips. Which can be resoloved when one runs out when competing with the other for something else.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The trick is fungibility. There is no one particular dollar on bank accounts. You can have a particular dollar bill in your hand but you only have a certain amount of dollars on your bank account.
EB

Two separate arguments which are right. both arguments are off point. Restructure. Kharakov you and another have all the chips then Speakpigeons' fungibility works. Speakpigeon if there are only two participating as the 'bank' then one or the other has more chips. Which can be resoloved when one runs out when competing with the other for something else.

Any difference on any bank account is no dollar bill. As we should know by now.

We can apply another theory on which we agreed a few week ago: we don't know when a model is true of the material world.

I could reach for a French poet, Charles Baudelaire, discussing "Les Paradis artificiel" in 1860.

Also, I found an almost verbatim confirmation of my argument (and juma's) against Beero's claim in his thread about infinity. The process specified does not reach 12:00 and is not specified at 12:00. Only unspecified assumptions about reality can allow us to decide what may be going on at the limit.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Two separate arguments which are right. both arguments are off point. Restructure. Kharakov you and another have all the chips then Speakpigeons' fungibility works. Speakpigeon if there are only two participating as the 'bank' then one or the other has more chips. Which can be resoloved when one runs out when competing with the other for something else.

Any difference on any bank account is no dollar bill. As we should know by now.

We can apply another theory on which we agreed a few week ago: we don't know when a model is true of the material world.

I could reach for a French poet, Charles Baudelaire, discussing "Les Paradis artificiel" in 1860.

Also, I found an almost verbatim confirmation of my argument (and juma's) against Beero's claim in his thread about infinity. The process specified does not reach 12:00 and is not specified at 12:00. Only unspecified assumptions about reality can allow us to decide what may be going on at the limit.
EB

I wonder why there is a limit specified. On, its the point at which measurement becomes infinitesimal, known beyond any need to reduce further. Whatever.

The point is infinities can be evaluated, compared, in a sense absolutely measured satisfactorily and meaningfully be included in computations and equations with meaning.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I wonder why there is a limit specified. On, its the point at which measurement becomes infinitesimal, known beyond any need to reduce further. Whatever.

I don't know of any measurement that's actually infinitesimal. You mean very very small, right?

It is my point that you can specify a limit without specifying a value for the function to take at that limit. To then further decide of the value of the function at the limit you therefore need further assumptions. If they are left unspecified then the value is also indeterminate, including possible non-existence.

The point is infinities can be evaluated, compared, in a sense absolutely measured satisfactorily and meaningfully be included in computations and equations with meaning.

Well, well, well, will you calm down now? We have models using functions where the question arrises of the value at certain limits where the function is not directly calculable. We always have to assume there that the value at the limit is the limit of the values. Often, this makes physical sense. However, any infinity is possibly only in the model. It does not work in particular in case where there is in fact no infinite number of possible values. An example where it didn't work was when Max Plank saw that black body temperature, calculated on the assumption that quantities of energy could be infinitesimal, didn't match measurements, which led to quantum physics.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I don't know of any measurement that's actually infinitesimal. You mean very very small, right?

It is my point that you can specify a limit without specifying a value for the function to take at that limit. To then further decide of the value of the function at the limit you therefore need further assumptions. If they are left unspecified then the value is also indeterminate, including possible non-existence.

The point is infinities can be evaluated, compared, in a sense absolutely measured satisfactorily and meaningfully be included in computations and equations with meaning.

Well, well, well, will you calm down now? We have models using functions where the question arrises of the value at certain limits where the function is not directly calculable. We always have to assume there that the value at the limit is the limit of the values. Often, this makes physical sense. However, any infinity is possibly only in the model. It does not work in particular in case where there is in fact no infinite number of possible values. An example where it didn't work was when Max Plank saw that black body temperature, calculated on the assumption that quantities of energy could be infinitesimal, didn't match measurements, which led to quantum physics.
EB

Yeah. I meant incalculable. Still properties exist which permit calculable calculations relative to other incalculable entities or numbers and the target incalculable entity.

For instance a calculating system developed to make sense out of what can't be measured by finding limits that are manipulable and discrete that very productively lets us explore that world for new stuff to better explain that for which we already have data.

Interesting how limits work isn't it. As our abilities to produce data nearer Planck's base units our abilities to measure things going on in the Quantum Mechanical world become better.

It is my guess there is another set of units using energy about which we do not yet know that will be a scale factor lower proportional to the scale factor minimums existing at the time Planck and Einstein produced QM.

What I'm saying is that another system will replace QM when we understand those things we can now begin to measure and to use in exploring still more elusive stuff and that will depend on our ability to use models which wrap an explanatory envelope around then extending from the envelope we now understand.

In any case we've moved way beyond anything humans exhibit as behavior meaningful to other humans.

 

[beero1000]

We would need an infinity of time to discuss the fine points of infinity and we don't have it. Life's so short. Ask Cantor, the idiot. Makes my heart bleed.

No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor has created.

Ok, that's a solution. Plenty of time there. An infinity of it. If you believe in Paradise.


Anyway, even in Paradise, a being with only limited memory capacity could not understand an infinite universe.
Or could he?
EB

So, you really don't like Cantor, huh?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Interesting how limits work isn't it. As our abilities to produce data nearer Planck's base units our abilities to measure things going on in the Quantum Mechanical world become better.

There's nothing infinite at all in "data nearer Planck's base units". It's called precision.

It's the question of whether it will always work which re-introduces infinity into a perfectly innocent problem.

It is my guess there is another set of units using energy about which we do not yet know that will be a scale factor lower proportional to the scale factor minimums existing at the time Planck and Einstein produced QM.

What I'm saying is that another system will replace QM when we understand those things we can now begin to measure and to use in exploring still more elusive stuff and that will depend on our ability to use models which wrap an explanatory envelope around then extending from the envelope we now understand.

As I understand it finding some smaller quantum scale is out of the question.

All we can do now is try to understand QM better and maybe discover new consequences from first principles. That's where "we are all idiots" may come in to fuck our best plans.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We would need an infinity of time to discuss the fine points of infinity and we don't have it. Life's so short. Ask Cantor, the idiot. Makes my heart bleed.


Ok, that's a solution. Plenty of time there. An infinity of it. If you believe in Paradise.


Anyway, even in Paradise, a being with only limited memory capacity could not understand an infinite universe.
Or could he?
EB

So, you really don't like Cantor, huh?

No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor created (David Hilbert). Never mind it's all artificial.

Cantor thought his theory was given to him by God. How sweet!

No, I like him very much for his ideas. I really do. But "existence" in maths and logic (Ǝx) doesn't mean anything like existence in the real world.

Also, many mathematicians seem happy with some kind of existence as abstraction. It gets tougher though as soon as we want to know whether something exists in the material world.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

There's nothing infinite at all in "data nearer Planck's base units". It's called precision.

It's the question of whether it will always work which re-introduces infinity into a perfectly innocent problem.

No its approaching a limit through use of better technology. Yes the better technology produces better precision, but it also continues to bring us closer to those base constants.

As I understand it finding some smaller quantum scale is out of the question.

All we can do now is try to understand QM better and maybe discover new consequences from first principles. That's where "we are all idiots" may come in to fuck our best plans.
EB

Another system in my view is not a smaller quantum theory, rather it's probably a multidimensional system whereby we might find ways to interact with those dark areas permitting us to improve instrumentation much further.

Finally human research has put us at the doorstep of discriminating a TOE from ST. So yes. We've done it. Well, maybe not. There is that Dark stuff we find, while being beyond our ability to interact with it, is interfering with our models of physics. n-dimensional physics anyone? Idiocy anyone?