Perspicuo
Veteran Member
Beautiful.
That makes no difference.
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.Getting ready for another thread on infinity.
Ok, that's a solution. Plenty of time there. An infinity of it. If you believe in Paradise.No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor has created.
Ach, allegedly, it depends on how you want to go about counting your chips.
That makes no difference.
Ach, allegedly, it depends on how you want to go about counting your chips.That makes no difference.
Creative countability, you may want to call it.
EB
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.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.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...
EB
Any difference on any bank account is no dollar bill. As we should know by now.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.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.
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 don't know of any measurement that's actually infinitesimal. You mean very very small, right?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.
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.The point is infinities can be evaluated, compared, in a sense absolutely measured satisfactorily and meaningfully be included in computations and equations with meaning.
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.
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.The point is infinities can be evaluated, compared, in a sense absolutely measured satisfactorily and meaningfully be included in computations and equations with meaning.
EB
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.No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor has created.
Anyway, even in Paradise, a being with only limited memory capacity could not understand an infinite universe.
Or could he?
EB
There's nothing infinite at all in "data nearer Planck's base units". It's called precision.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.
As I understand it finding some smaller quantum scale is out of the question.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.
No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor created (David Hilbert). Never mind it's all artificial.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?
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.
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