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

[ryan]

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...

Yeah, I have no idea. I just have first-year physics (going for a degree in chemistry).

But I do know for sure that Unter's quote that you quoted, "Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists." is just simply not true. I posted this quote earlier from a NASA PhD fellow in astronomy (from Harvard and Berkley) says,

"It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.".

from https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

Now I don't know exactly why Dr. Sten Odenwald gives a continuum the benefit of the doubt, but he does and being part of NASA's math and science educational programs gives me confidence in him. So I don't know where Unter gets the idea that there is "a finite smallest distance" between 2 real points in space.

 

[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...

Yeah, I have no idea. I just have first-year physics (going for a degree in chemistry).

No worries. A simplification might be that, according to special relativity, lengths contract as we travel at higher relative velocities. So, if there is a non-zero minimal length, what happens if we travel a bit faster? It's a major problem for constructing a discretized theory of gravity, one that untermensche apparently thinks is no big deal.

But I do know for sure that Unter's quote that you quoted, "Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists." is just simply not true. I posted this quote earlier from a NASA PhD fellow in astronomy (from Harvard and Berkley) says,

"It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.".

from https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

Now I don't know exactly why Dr. Sten Odenwald gives a continuum the benefit of the doubt, but he does and being part of NASA's math and science educational programs gives me confidence. So I don't know where Unter gets the idea that there is "a finite smallest distance" between 2 real points in space.

Well, it might be true. It's just that (literally) no one has been able to reconcile it into a solid quantum theory of gravity yet, so his claim of certainty is definitely unfounded.

 

[untermensche]

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...

Yeah, I have no idea. I just have first-year physics (going for a degree in chemistry).

But I do know for sure that Unter's quote that you quoted, "Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists." is just simply not true. I posted this quote earlier from a NASA PhD fellow in astronomy (from Harvard and Berkley) says,

"It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.".

from https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

Now I don't know exactly why Dr. Sten Odenwald gives a continuum the benefit of the doubt, but he does and being part of NASA's math and science educational programs gives me confidence in him. So I don't know where Unter gets the idea that there is "a finite smallest distance" between 2 real points in space.

If a finite space does not exist between two places how do you move from one to another in a finite amount of time?

There is only so much I can buy.

 

[ryan]

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.

Why can't there be apples and no people???

How do they all get there?

This question is from YOUR spatial and temporal point of view, not an objective one.

And using a point of view, yours for example, if you always have to have an answer of how, then that will never end either.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Why can't there be apples and no people???

Then you're claiming every universe somehow has an apple.

How would you know that?

 

[ryan]

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...

Yeah, I have no idea. I just have first-year physics (going for a degree in chemistry).

But I do know for sure that Unter's quote that you quoted, "Between any two real points in space a finite smallest distance exists." is just simply not true. I posted this quote earlier from a NASA PhD fellow in astronomy (from Harvard and Berkley) says,

"It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.".

from https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

Now I don't know exactly why Dr. Sten Odenwald gives a continuum the benefit of the doubt, but he does and being part of NASA's math and science educational programs gives me confidence in him. So I don't know where Unter gets the idea that there is "a finite smallest distance" between 2 real points in space.

If a finite space does not exist between two places how do you move from one to another in a finite amount of time?

There is only so much I can buy.

Here's my reasoning to all this (beero1000 close your eyes). First, do you agree that a continuous finite space would have an infinite number of positions from left to right (like a number line)?

- - - 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.

Why can't there be apples and no people???

Then you're claiming every universe somehow has an apple.

How would you know that?

Whaat??? Aren't we doing a thought experiment? Let every universe have an apple.

 

[untermensche]

Whaat??? Aren't we doing a thought experiment? Let every universe have an apple.

You are avoiding all the implications of "infinite apples" by appealing to this magical solution.

I am claiming "infinite apples" is not something real.

No matter how you try to deal with them you have to appeal to some other infinity and magic.

 

[beero1000]

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?

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

Are we just pretending this doozy never happened?

 

[ryan]

Whaat??? Aren't we doing a thought experiment? Let every universe have an apple.

You are avoiding all the implications of "infinite apples" by appealing to this magical solution.

I am claiming "infinite apples" is not something real.

No matter how you try to deal with them you have to appeal to some other infinity and magic.

Why do you start with claims like, "Infinite apples would not fit in infinite universes." and then just jump to "infinite apples is not something real".

Will you respond to my other post?

 

[untermensche]

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

We live on something that is sphere-like.

Maybe the shortest distance isn't achievable but between any two points around a sphere there is only one shortest distance.

Sometimes it is through the sphere.

 

[untermensche]

You are avoiding all the implications of "infinite apples" by appealing to this magical solution.

I am claiming "infinite apples" is not something real.

No matter how you try to deal with them you have to appeal to some other infinity and magic.

Why do you start with claims like, "Infinite apples would not fit in infinite universes." and then just jump to "infinite apples is not something real".

Will you respond to my other post?

I use the thought of infinite apples not even fitting into infinite universes to try to show how imaginary these concepts are.

You can't even talk about infinite apples unless you also claim that infinite universes exist too.

I'm sorry if I don't respond to every point you make.

 

[beero1000]

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

We live on something that is sphere-like.

Maybe the shortest distance isn't achievable but between any two points around a sphere there is only one shortest distance.

Sometimes it is through the sphere.

Doubling down, I see, with a side of goalpost shifting. You really do have a pathological inability to admit your mistakes, huh. You should see someone about that.

 

[ryan]

Why do you start with claims like, "Infinite apples would not fit in infinite universes." and then just jump to "infinite apples is not something real".

Will you respond to my other post?

I use the thought of infinite apples not even fitting into infinite universes to try to show how imaginary these concepts are.

Yes, and a 10 legged horse is imaginary too, but that doesn't mean it can't exist.

 

[untermensche]

We live on something that is sphere-like.

Maybe the shortest distance isn't achievable but between any two points around a sphere there is only one shortest distance.

Sometimes it is through the sphere.

Doubling down, I see, with a side of goalpost shifting. You really do have a pathological inability to admit your mistakes, huh. You should see someone about that.

In other words I am right.

You have a strange absurd belief that mathematical concepts like infinity are real.

Since you can't support that nonsense I am forced to deal with madness like this.

- - - Updated - - -

I use the thought of infinite apples not even fitting into infinite universes to try to show how imaginary these concepts are.

Yes, and a 10 legged horse is imaginary too, but that doesn't mean it can't exist.

Is a horse with legs imaginary?

Infinity is totally imaginary. There is NOTHING real about it.

 

[ryan]

I use the thought of infinite apples not even fitting into infinite universes to try to show how imaginary these concepts are.

Yes, and a 10 legged horse is imaginary too, but that doesn't mean it can't exist.

Is a horse with legs imaginary?

Infinity is totally imaginary. There is NOTHING real about it.

There is something real about it, specifically the objects in question. Apples/particles are real; the max quantity is unknown. So there is something real about an infinite number of whatever we know exists.

 

[untermensche]

I use the thought of infinite apples not even fitting into infinite universes to try to show how imaginary these concepts are.

Yes, and a 10 legged horse is imaginary too, but that doesn't mean it can't exist.

Is a horse with legs imaginary?

Infinity is totally imaginary. There is NOTHING real about it.

There is something real about it, specifically the objects in question. Apples/particles are real; the max quantity is unknown. So there is something real about an infinite number of whatever we know exists.

Infinity is not real.

You saying real things can somehow exist in this imaginary state of infinity is unsupported by anything.

For something to be logically possible the possibility can't be a purely imaginary state.

It is not logically possible I will wake up tomorrow and be a god.

It is not logically possible time will somehow assume this imaginary state of infinity.

 

[bilby]

Infinite apples would not fit in infinite universes.

What new idiocy is this?

It's not new; It's just the same old idiocy, unchanged since an infinite time ago (or so it seems).

 

[bilby]

What new idiocy is this?

How much space would infinite apples occupy?

Please be specific.

The exact amount.

You appear to think that this is a clever response, and that the difficulty others have in answering this challenge demonstrates how everyone except you is deluded into believing stupid things.

This guy has much the same attitude:



And you both seem to be cut from the same cloth from the perspective of people who are genuinely capable of rational thought.

 

[bilby]

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...

They might advise you to consult a pharmacist...

 

[untermensche]

How much space would infinite apples occupy?

Please be specific.

The exact amount.

You appear to think that this is a clever response, and that the difficulty others have in answering this challenge demonstrates how everyone except you is deluded into believing stupid things.

This guy has much the same attitude

You make no argument.

You obviously have none.

It is not a question to appear clever.

It is just a question that a rational person can see opens a can of worms.