What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[Kharakov]

Someone should ask untermensche how many directions a camera pointed upwards from the surface of the Earth faces in one rotation of the Earth.

 

[untermensche]

Someone should ask untermensche how many directions a camera pointed upwards from the surface of the Earth faces in one rotation of the Earth.

How small is a "direction"?

Because a "direction" infinitely small will be a "direction" of ZERO length.

In other words no direction at all.

 

[beero1000]

Someone should ask untermensche how many directions a camera pointed upwards from the surface of the Earth faces in one rotation of the Earth.

How small is a "direction"?

Because a "direction" infinitely small will be a "direction" of ZERO length.

In other words no direction at all.

Now I'm curious. What, exactly, do you think the 'length' of a 'direction' is?

 

[Kharakov]

All directions are discrete. They are not lengths. They are not arcs of a circle, or sides of a polygon.

How many directions does a camera face when it is spun around 1 complete revolution? Keep in mind that any direction only points to a single line of points in front of the camera.

How many directions does the camera face?

 

[Kharakov]

How small is a "direction"?

Because a "direction" infinitely small will be a "direction" of ZERO length.

In other words no direction at all.

Now I'm curious. What, exactly, do you think the 'length' of a 'direction' is?

 

[untermensche]

How small is a "direction"?

Because a "direction" infinitely small will be a "direction" of ZERO length.

In other words no direction at all.

Now I'm curious. What, exactly, do you think the 'length' of a 'direction' is?

The length is how much of the 360 degree circle it occupies.

It's 360 degrees. But a real 360 degrees, not an imaginary one.

How many times can you divide it?

An infinite division is a length of ZERO degrees.

 

[beero1000]

Now I'm curious. What, exactly, do you think the 'length' of a 'direction' is?

The length is how much of the 360 degree circle it occupies.

It's 360 degrees. But a real 360 degrees, not an imaginary one.

How many times can you divide it?

An infinite division is a length of ZERO degrees.

How much of the circle does "North" occupy?

 

[untermensche]

The length is how much of the 360 degree circle it occupies.

It's 360 degrees. But a real 360 degrees, not an imaginary one.

How many times can you divide it?

An infinite division is a length of ZERO degrees.

How much of the circle does "North" occupy?

It can't be ZERO degrees.

That is nothing.

 

[beero1000]

How much of the circle does "North" occupy?

It can't be ZERO degrees.

That is nothing.

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

 

[untermensche]

It can't be ZERO degrees.

That is nothing.

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

If it is a direction it must occupy some part of the circle.

It cannot occupy ZERO degrees of the circle.

That is a direction that cannot be read.

On a compass are there any parts of the circle that represent ZERO degrees?

 

[ryan]

Does the Easter bunny or infinity (infinitely long lengths or quantity in any of the 4 dimensions) break the laws of physics?

Imaginary objects exist only in minds or as symbols.

The laws of the universe have no connection except they allowed a brain to evolve capable of having thoughts.

That's right, and that's why we have to choose our axioms/postulates. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume physical laws and theories as axioms since we both have appealed to science many times in this thread.

Is it fair to use the laws and theories of physics as axioms in order to see if infinity is logically possible for this universe (since it is quite easy for it to be logically possible in a constructed universe by just assuming infinity is true)?

 

[ryan]

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

If it is a direction it must occupy some part of the circle.

It cannot occupy ZERO degrees of the circle.

That is a direction that cannot be read.

On a compass are there any parts of the circle that represent ZERO degrees?

Zero degrees represents zero degrees.

 

[untermensche]

Imaginary objects exist only in minds or as symbols.

The laws of the universe have no connection except they allowed a brain to evolve capable of having thoughts.

That's right, and that's why we have to choose our axioms/postulates. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume physical laws and theories as axioms since we both have appealed to science many times in this thread.

Is it fair to use the laws and theories of physics as axioms in order to see if infinity is logically possible for this universe (since it is quite easy for it to be logically possible in a constructed universe by just assuming infinity is true)?

This has been said several times.

In science it takes evidence to claim something is possible.

If you bring talk of infinity into a scientific discussion of what is possible in the universe you need evidence to make a case.

- - - Updated - - -

If it is a direction it must occupy some part of the circle.

It cannot occupy ZERO degrees of the circle.

That is a direction that cannot be read.

On a compass are there any parts of the circle that represent ZERO degrees?

Zero degrees represents zero degrees.

Where would you find it on the compass?

 

[beero1000]

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

If it is a direction it must occupy some part of the circle.

It cannot occupy ZERO degrees of the circle.

That is a direction that cannot be read.

On a compass are there any parts of the circle that represent ZERO degrees?

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

 

[untermensche]

If it is a direction it must occupy some part of the circle.

It cannot occupy ZERO degrees of the circle.

That is a direction that cannot be read.

On a compass are there any parts of the circle that represent ZERO degrees?

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

All directions are the same thing.

But if you are a direction you must occupy some part of the circle.

Zero degrees is not a part of the circle.

 

[beero1000]

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

All directions are the same thing.

But if you are a direction you must occupy some part of the circle.

Zero degrees is not a part of the circle.

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

 

[untermensche]

All directions are the same thing.

But if you are a direction you must occupy some part of the circle.

Zero degrees is not a part of the circle.

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

I'm saying all directions must occupy some part of the circle.

If North is a direction it must also.

Zero degrees is not a part of the circle.

No direction can be said to point to something not a part of the circle.

You simply don't understand the difference between being able to have zero degrees of an imaginary circle and not being able to have it as part of something real.

 

[ryan]

That's right, and that's why we have to choose our axioms/postulates. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume physical laws and theories as axioms since we both have appealed to science many times in this thread.

Is it fair to use the laws and theories of physics as axioms in order to see if infinity is logically possible for this universe (since it is quite easy for it to be logically possible in a constructed universe by just assuming infinity is true)?

This has been said several times.

In science it takes evidence to claim something is possible.

If you bring talk of infinity into a scientific discussion of what is possible in the universe you need evidence to make a case.

That's not right. Science does not consider everything impossible until it is shown to be possible scientifically - that doesn't make sense.

We are talking about logical possibilities for this universe. Now, can we use laws/theories as axioms?

If it is a direction it must occupy some part of the circle.

It cannot occupy ZERO degrees of the circle.

That is a direction that cannot be read.

On a compass are there any parts of the circle that represent ZERO degrees?

Zero degrees represents zero degrees.

Where would you find it on the compass?

At 0 degrees, that is if the compass has degrees on it too.

 

[beero1000]

So are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

I'm saying all directions must occupy some part of the circle.

If North is a direction it must also.

Zero degrees is not a part of the circle.

No direction can be said to point to something not a part of the circle.

You simply don't understand the difference between being able to have zero degrees of an imaginary circle and not being able to have it as part of something real.

Well, you've gone all squirrelly all of a sudden. Realized a problem with your assertions?

Or will you give me a straight answer to my question: Are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

Attacking me based on what I don't understand won't help you now, I haven't made any claims, just asked questions. You backed yourself into that corner quite nicely all on your own.

 

[untermensche]

I'm saying all directions must occupy some part of the circle.

If North is a direction it must also.

Zero degrees is not a part of the circle.

No direction can be said to point to something not a part of the circle.

You simply don't understand the difference between being able to have zero degrees of an imaginary circle and not being able to have it as part of something real.

Well, you've gone all squirrelly all of a sudden. Realized a problem with your assertions?

Or will you give me a straight answer to my question: Are you saying that North isn't a direction or that North takes up a non-zero amount of degrees?

Attacking me based on what I don't understand won't help you now, I haven't made any claims, just asked questions. You backed yourself into that corner quite nicely all on your own.

North is no different from any direction.

And no direction can take up zero degrees. That is meaningless gibberish in the real world.