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

[ryan]

Okay, but just saying it's so is not going to help your case.

Think of infinity as a quantity of something that we know already exists. If one apple exists, then it isn't a leap to think that 2 can exist. If 2 apples can exist, then ... The universe might max out with apples, but then again it might not - we don't know yet.

Infinite apples would not fit in infinite universes.

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite apples would not fit in infinite universes.

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know if the number is finite or infinite. No human knows.

You do know that infinity is not a number. It is a concept. The concept of limitlessness of numbers without end.

Can there be something real that is limitless?

Not uncountable, actually without limit?

How would that work?

 

[untermensche]

I think some people have a great deal of difficulty in understanding that what you can do conceptually with infinity in mathematics cannot be done in reality with anything.

Between any two imaginary points infinite imaginary points can theoretically exist.

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

 

[beero1000]

What new idiocy is this?

How much space would infinite apples occupy?

Please be specific.

The exact amount.

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

They would take up an infinite amount of space. Begging the question again?

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

That's an extraordinary assertion that is completely unsupported, as usual, and incompatible with the two most well-evidenced physical theories in history. But you've made the proclamation already, so the only option is to blindly press on, right?

 

[untermensche]

How much space would infinite apples occupy?

Please be specific.

The exact amount.

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

They would take up an infinite amount of space. Begging the question again?

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

That's an extraordinary assertion that is completely unsupported, as usual, and incompatible with the two most well-evidenced physical theories in history. But you've made the proclamation already, so the only option is to blindly press on, right?

You make no points to comment on.

You have some undisclosed displeasure.

I suspect some silly irrationality you want to hold onto.

 

[beero1000]

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

They would take up an infinite amount of space. Begging the question again?

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

That's an extraordinary assertion that is completely unsupported, as usual, and incompatible with the two most well-evidenced physical theories in history. But you've made the proclamation already, so the only option is to blindly press on, right?

You make no points to comment on.

You have some undisclosed displeasure.

I suspect some silly irrationality you want to hold onto.

I'm gonna need a new irony meter. AGAIN.

I don't suppose you want to expand on how your proposed discretized space-time handles the implied Lorentz symmetry violations? Y'know the 'no-go theorems' that loop quantum gravity and string theory proponents have to work really hard to overcome (thus far unsuccessfully) when they try to handle the same?

Or you could just keep asserting your claims are 'logical' and 'rational'. That's an option too, I guess.

 

[untermensche]

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

They would take up an infinite amount of space. Begging the question again?

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

That's an extraordinary assertion that is completely unsupported, as usual, and incompatible with the two most well-evidenced physical theories in history. But you've made the proclamation already, so the only option is to blindly press on, right?

You make no points to comment on.

You have some undisclosed displeasure.

I suspect some silly irrationality you want to hold onto.

I'm gonna need a new irony meter. AGAIN.

I don't suppose you want to expand on how your proposed discretized space-time handles the implied Lorentz symmetry violations? Y'know the 'no-go theorems' that loop quantum gravity and string theory proponents have to work really hard to overcome (thus far unsuccessfully) when they try to handle the same?

Or you could just keep asserting your claims are 'logical' and 'rational'. That's an option too, I guess.

Are you three years old?

Do you think spewing the names of a few unproven theories you probably don't understand is some kind of answer?

You have nothing.

Except some strange ignorance that the mathematical concept of infinity is real in some way.

 

[beero1000]

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

They would take up an infinite amount of space. Begging the question again?

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

That's an extraordinary assertion that is completely unsupported, as usual, and incompatible with the two most well-evidenced physical theories in history. But you've made the proclamation already, so the only option is to blindly press on, right?

You make no points to comment on.

You have some undisclosed displeasure.

I suspect some silly irrationality you want to hold onto.

I'm gonna need a new irony meter. AGAIN.

I don't suppose you want to expand on how your proposed discretized space-time handles the implied Lorentz symmetry violations? Y'know the 'no-go theorems' that loop quantum gravity and string theory proponents have to work really hard to overcome (thus far unsuccessfully) when they try to handle the same?

Or you could just keep asserting your claims are 'logical' and 'rational'. That's an option too, I guess.

Are you three years old?

Do you think spewing the names of a few unproven theories you probably don't understand is some kind of answer?

You have nothing.

Except some strange ignorance that the mathematical concept of infinity is real in some way.

Reading comprehension is important. You wanna try going through what I said again? Maybe try to understand what it means before retorting?

 

[untermensche]

Reading comprehension is important. You wanna try going through what I said again? Maybe try to understand what it means before retorting?

Tell me how unproven theories prove anything is possible?

It seems to me you are desperate to change the subject.

How do we conclude something is possible?

With evidence?

Or with conjecture?

 

[ryan]

Why not? I mean, what we know about infinity from analyzing it from a mathematical perspective says infinite apples can fit inside infinite universes. Let each object in a countably infinite set of objects match to each object in another countably infinite set. Let one set represent each universe and the other represent each apple. You will have a one-to-one correspondence all the way through.

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

It doesn't matter, as long as each apple fits inside each universe.

 

[untermensche]

What do we know about infinite apples?

How much space would they fill?

They are not imaginary like numbers and points. Each one takes up space.

It doesn't matter, as long as each apple fits inside each universe.

Put an apple in a universe and you still have another apple, forever.

When exactly does the "fit" occur?

Are you saying you "fit" them all at once by magic?

 

[ryan]

It doesn't matter, as long as each apple fits inside each universe.

Put an apple in a universe and you still have another apple, forever.

When exactly does the "fit" occur?

Why does a human always have to be the architect and observer? The speed at which a human observes or acts should not be equivalent to what the limits of everything is. A purely objective perspective may observe infinity because it doesn't have to wait; it sees all that exists simultaneously. It wouldn't have to wait for infinity to run out like a point of view would.

 

[untermensche]

Put an apple in a universe and you still have another apple, forever.

When exactly does the "fit" occur?

Why does a human always have to be the architect and observer? The speed at which a human observes or acts should not be equivalent to what the limits of everything is. A purely objective perspective may observe infinity because it doesn't have to wait; it sees all that exists simultaneously. It wouldn't have to wait for infinity to run out like a point of view would.

You want to invoke magic as your explanation.

 

[ryan]

Why does a human always have to be the architect and observer? The speed at which a human observes or acts should not be equivalent to what the limits of everything is. A purely objective perspective may observe infinity because it doesn't have to wait; it sees all that exists simultaneously. It wouldn't have to wait for infinity to run out like a point of view would.

You want to invoke magic as your explanation.

Objectivity is magic? Good-bye to science then

 

[untermensche]

You want to invoke magic as your explanation.

Objectivity is magic? Good-bye to science then

No. You're saying if we magically put infinite apples into infinite universes we have proven infinity is something real.

 

[beero1000]

You want to invoke magic as your explanation.

Objectivity is magic? Good-bye to science then

untermensche and science have never been on good terms...

See for instance, his recent claim that:

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

When I pointed out that that claim creates a real problem with Lorentz invariance in relativity, one that quantum gravity and string theorists have been trying (and failing) to reconcile, he went off on a tangent about 'unproven theories' and my lack of understanding.
Welp, relativity is pretty well evidenced in science, and Lorentz invariance has been thoroughly checked experimentally, so

Of course, he might be right that I'm a 3 year old with no understanding of these theories. My PhD is in discrete geometry, so I'm definitely not an expert in the field. My college roommate's PhD is in quantum field theory, so he definitely is. I could ask him, or I could just ask around the physics department at the university where I hold a faculty position. I wonder what they'll say...

 

[ryan]

Objectivity is magic? Good-bye to science then

No. You're saying if we magically put infinite apples into infinite universes we have proven infinity is something real.

Read my post. Take humans out of it, so that we, or any other point of view, have nothing to do with it. Think about it objectively. Objectively there is not this one first, then that one, then that one .... There is just everything at once.

 

[untermensche]

Objectivity is magic? Good-bye to science then

untermensche and science have never been on good terms...

See for instance, his recent claim that:

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

When I pointed out that that claim creates a real problem with Lorentz invariance in relativity, one that quantum gravity and string theorists have been trying (and failing) to reconcile, he went off on a tangent about 'unproven theories' and my lack of understanding.
Welp, relativity is pretty well evidenced in science, and Lorentz invariance has been thoroughly checked experimentally, so

Of course, he might be right that I'm a 3 year old with no understanding of these theories. My PhD is in discrete geometry, so I'm definitely not an expert in the field. My college roommate's PhD is in quantum field theory, so he definitely is. I could ask him, or I could just ask around the physics department at the university where I hold a faculty position. I wonder what they'll say...

So if a bird flies from one spot to another there are multiple shortest routes?

That sounds absurd.

How many shortest routes can the bird fly?

- - - Updated - - -

No. You're saying if we magically put infinite apples into infinite universes we have proven infinity is something real.

Read my post. Take humans out of it, so that we, or any other point of view, have nothing to do with it. Think about it objectively. Objectively there is not this one first, then that one, then that one .... There is just everything at once.

Talking humans out of it leaves many universes with no apples.

How do they all get there?

 

[beero1000]

untermensche and science have never been on good terms...

See for instance, his recent claim that:

Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists.

When I pointed out that that claim creates a real problem with Lorentz invariance in relativity, one that quantum gravity and string theorists have been trying (and failing) to reconcile, he went off on a tangent about 'unproven theories' and my lack of understanding.
Welp, relativity is pretty well evidenced in science, and Lorentz invariance has been thoroughly checked experimentally, so

Of course, he might be right that I'm a 3 year old with no understanding of these theories. My PhD is in discrete geometry, so I'm definitely not an expert in the field. My college roommate's PhD is in quantum field theory, so he definitely is. I could ask him, or I could just ask around the physics department at the university where I hold a faculty position. I wonder what they'll say...

So if a bird flies from one spot to another there are multiple shortest routes?

That sounds absurd.

How many shortest routes can the bird fly?

- - - Updated - - -

No. You're saying if we magically put infinite apples into infinite universes we have proven infinity is something real.

Read my post. Take humans out of it, so that we, or any other point of view, have nothing to do with it. Think about it objectively. Objectively there is not this one first, then that one, then that one .... There is just everything at once.

Talking humans out of it leaves many universes with no apples.

How do they all get there?

Dude, we live on a sphere. Think for a second, do multiple shortest routes still sound 'absurd'?