Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

Infinity and Beyond

 Posts: 3,462 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PMPosted: 6 years agoCan you measure an infinite line? If so, who decides what an inch of that line is? Can you say I traveled one mile along an infinite pathway or spent one hour of eternity? If you had an endless amount of money, could you say one tenth has been spent?The question remains, what are you measuring against, an inch, a mile, an hour, or a tenth of what? Measurements are merely meant to quantify an object, and quantification demands a set amount. For instance, an inch is one-tweflth of a foot, and a foot is one-third of a yard, a yard is merely three feet of a mile, and a mile etc.... With infinity we would go on forever, never reaching its greatest length. In fact, it has no end. It cannot be defined, by any sort of measurement. This same idea not only applies to the line but any thing you choose to modify.
 Posts: 2,137 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/21/2012 1:22:41 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:Can you measure an infinite line?No.If so, who decides what an inch of that line is?Yes.Can you say I traveled one mile along an infinite pathwayYes.or spent one hour of eternity?Yes.If you had an endless amount of money, could you say one tenth has been spent?No.Perhaps you should make sure your examples are relevant to your point before posting. Inches, miles, and hours are arbitrarily, objectively, and wholly defined by humans. An inch of an infinitely long string and an inch of a two-inch long string are both still an inch. A tenth of an infinitely long string, however, is another matter.The question remains, what are you measuring against, an inch, a mile, an hour, or a tenth of what? Measurements are merely meant to quantify an object, and quantification demands a set amount. For instance, an inch is one-tweflth of a foot, and a foot is one-third of a yard, a yard is merely three feet of a mile, and a mile etc.... With infinity we would go on forever, never reaching its greatest length. In fact, it has no end. It cannot be defined, by any sort of measurement. This same idea not only applies to the line but any thing you choose to modify.Ok.There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
 Posts: 2,137 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/21/2012 1:23:28 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/21/2012 1:22:41 PM, caveat wrote:If so, who decides what an inch of that line is?Actually, I suppose I can't answer this question since my answer to its precursor was no.There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
 Posts: 14,447 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/21/2012 1:40:00 PMPosted: 6 years agoNo. Infinity is infinite.#StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/21/2012 4:21:05 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:Can you measure an infinite line?No.If so, who decides what an inch of that line is?Can't, it is meaningless.Can you say I traveled one mile along an infinite pathway or spent one hour of eternity?No because 0, 1, 2, and any other value other than infinity would be indistinguishable from each other. In essence there would be only 2 things: infinity and not infinity.If you had an endless amount of money, could you say one tenth has been spent?No.The question remains, what are you measuring against, an inch, a mile, an hour, or a tenth of what?You are measuring a portion of the whole.Measurements are merely meant to quantify an object, and quantification demands a set amount. For instance, an inch is one-tweflth of a foot, and a foot is one-third of a yard, a yard is merely three feet of a mile, and a mile etc....And of course it becomes circular at some point down the line.With infinity we would go on forever, never reaching its greatest length. In fact, it has no end. It cannot be defined, by any sort of measurement. This same idea not only applies to the line but any thing you choose to modify.Bingo! It cannot be defined recursively AND be complete. That is why infinity is the whole; not a never ending whole but simply the whole -and the rest are subdivisions of said whole.WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 6,071 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/21/2012 7:03:45 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/21/2012 4:21:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:Can you measure an infinite line?No.If so, who decides what an inch of that line is?Can't, it is meaningless.Can you say I traveled one mile along an infinite pathway or spent one hour of eternity?No because 0, 1, 2, and any other value other than infinity would be indistinguishable from each other. In essence there would be only 2 things: infinity and not infinity.If you had an endless amount of money, could you say one tenth has been spent?No.The question remains, what are you measuring against, an inch, a mile, an hour, or a tenth of what?You are measuring a portion of the whole.Measurements are merely meant to quantify an object, and quantification demands a set amount. For instance, an inch is one-tweflth of a foot, and a foot is one-third of a yard, a yard is merely three feet of a mile, and a mile etc....And of course it becomes circular at some point down the line.With infinity we would go on forever, never reaching its greatest length. In fact, it has no end. It cannot be defined, by any sort of measurement. This same idea not only applies to the line but any thing you choose to modify.Bingo! It cannot be defined recursively AND be complete. That is why infinity is the whole; not a never ending whole but simply the whole -and the rest are subdivisions of said whole.The Fool: The fact that you have to define it rather then prove it suggest major problems. If it is all intergers is already a defintion. Why do you know need also definite it as infinite? I am pretty sure its false."The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
 Posts: 3,730 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 6:30:41 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:Can you measure an infinite line? If so, who decides what an inch of that line is? Can you say I traveled one mile along an infinite pathway or spent one hour of eternity? If you had an endless amount of money, could you say one tenth has been spent?No, but you are starting with basic mathematical concepts, and mathematics is a comnplete abstraction, and so is deductive logic. Fundamentl to the abstraction of mathematics, is the concept of numbers, applying values to the points on a line, another basic concept of mathematics, that is derived from applying basic mathematical operations, is that numbers are infinite.The question remains, what are you measuring against, an inch, a mile, an hour, or a tenth of what? Measurements are merely meant to quantify an object, and quantification demands a set amount. For instance, an inch is one-tweflth of a foot, and a foot is one-third of a yard, a yard is merely three feet of a mile, and a mile etc.... With infinity we would go on forever, never reaching its greatest length. In fact, it has no end. It cannot be defined, by any sort of measurement. This same idea not only applies to the line but any thing you choose to modify.You are equivocating here, mathematics is an abstraction, you are equivocating between abstract concepts and real measurements, this does nothing to reject the validity of mathematical concepts. It is sinply a matter of abstract thought.You aren't talking about mathematics anymore if you reject abstract thought, and the basic concept of numbers.It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 3,730 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 6:31:48 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/21/2012 7:03:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:At 8/21/2012 4:21:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:The Fool: The fact that you have to define it rather then prove it suggest major problems. If it is all intergers is already a defintion. Why do you know need also definite it as infinite? I am pretty sure its false.I'm pretty sure you aren't grasping the basic concepts of abstract thought.It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 6,071 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 5:51:22 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/22/2012 6:31:48 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 8/21/2012 7:03:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:At 8/21/2012 4:21:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:The Fool: The fact that you have to define it rather then prove it suggest major problems. If it is all intergers is already a defintion. Why do you know need also definite it as infinite? I am pretty sure its false.I'm pretty sure you aren't grasping the basic concepts of abstract thought.The Fool: Well I know that I am note. And I have private access to my thoughts. VIA THE COGITO"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
 Posts: 3,730 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 9:10:49 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/22/2012 5:51:22 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:At 8/22/2012 6:31:48 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 8/21/2012 7:03:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:At 8/21/2012 4:21:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:The Fool: The fact that you have to define it rather then prove it suggest major problems. If it is all intergers is already a defintion. Why do you know need also definite it as infinite? I am pretty sure its false.I'm pretty sure you aren't grasping the basic concepts of abstract thought.The Fool: Well I know that I am note. And I have private access to my thoughts. VIA THE COGITOIllogical thoughts =/= abstract thoughts.It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 6,071 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 9:15:08 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/22/2012 9:10:49 PM, Sidewalker wrote:At 8/22/2012 5:51:22 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:At 8/22/2012 6:31:48 AM, Sidewalker wrote:At 8/21/2012 7:03:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:At 8/21/2012 4:21:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 8/21/2012 1:17:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:The Fool: The fact that you have to define it rather then prove it suggest major problems. If it is all intergers is already a defintion. Why do you know need also definite it as infinite? I am pretty sure its false.I'm pretty sure you aren't grasping the basic concepts of abstract thought.The Fool: Well I know that I am not. And I have private access to my thoughts. VIA THE COGITO. That is you can't possibly know what I know. Therefore your claim is false by neccesity.Illogical thoughts =/= abstract thoughts.The Fool: What information here are you responding too?Sidewalkers shamefull remarks so far:- Illogical thoughts =/= abstract thoughts.-I'm pretty sure you aren't grasping the basic concepts of abstract thought."The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
 Posts: 3,462 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 10:40:54 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/22/2012 6:30:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:No, but you are starting with basic mathematical concepts, and mathematics is a comnplete abstraction, and so is deductive logic. Fundamentl to the abstraction of mathematics, is the concept of numbers, applying values to the points on a line, another basic concept of mathematics, that is derived from applying basic mathematical operations, is that numbers are infinite.Real and abstract are two sides to one coin. There is nothing you can call real that cannot, also, be used as an abstraction.In fact, anything we experience, either directly or indirectly, is a composite of many different experiences projected into one time and space. We do not see with our eyes but with our brains; and, our brains are neurological complexes both inherited and stimulated by our environments. So, in a sense, everything is real, yet everything is abstract.To say, that, numbers have the property of infinity is to take away any value or meaning they may have; for, an infinitely great number is a contradiction in terms; greatness is a comparative term, and infinity is comparative to nothing.
 Posts: 6,071 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 11:18:24 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/22/2012 10:40:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:At 8/22/2012 6:30:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:No, but you are starting with basic mathematical concepts, and mathematics is a comnplete abstraction, and so is deductive logic. Fundamentl to the abstraction of mathematics, is the concept of numbers, applying values to the points on a line, another basic concept of mathematics, that is derived from applying basic mathematical operations, is that numbers are infinite.Real and abstract are two sides to one coin. There is nothing you can call real that cannot, also, be used as an abstraction.In fact, anything we experience, either directly or indirectly, is a composite of many different experiences projected into one time and space. We do not see with our eyes but with our brains; and, our brains are neurological complexes both inherited and stimulated by our environments. So, in a sense, everything is real, yet everything is abstract.To say, that, numbers have the property of infinity is to take away any value or meaning they may have; for, an infinitely great number is a contradiction in terms; greatness is a comparative term, and infinity is comparative to nothing.The Fool: Nice, I forgot about that argument."The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
 Posts: 3,462 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/22/2012 11:26:04 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/22/2012 11:18:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:The Fool: Nice, I forgot about that argument.Thank you.
 Posts: 3,730 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/23/2012 6:04:05 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 8/22/2012 10:40:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:At 8/22/2012 6:30:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:No, but you are starting with basic mathematical concepts, and mathematics is a complete abstraction, and so is deductive logic. Fundamental to the abstraction of mathematics, is the concept of numbers, applying values to the points on a line, another basic concept of mathematics, that is derived from applying basic mathematical operations, is that numbers are infinite.Real and abstract are two sides to one coin. There is nothing you can call real that cannot, also, be used as an abstraction.But there are abstractions that cannot be represented in reality. You can abstractly represent an infinite set, faster then light travel, time going in reverse, etc, often such abstractions are logically useful even though they cannot be observed in reality. The science of theoretical Cosmology abstractly runs time in reverse to arrive at rigidly deductive mathematical conclusions about the early universe. The fact that we cannot observe time running backward certainly doesn't mean such such abstract rational processes are meaningless or that they are not useful mathematically. Such abstractions are a very basic method of deductive and inductive logical thought processes in almost all sciences as well as everyday life. Think of how many basic math word problems you answered in grade school required such an abstract process of deductive logical thought (i.e. John traveled 50 miles an hour over a distance of 150 miles and arrived at 4:00 PM, when did he leave?) The answer was not some pseudo philosophical objection that you can't go backward in time so the question is meaningless.I think the real problem here is that in some people the simple abstract mathematical concept of infinity conjures up an association with theological ideas and then hardened ideological agendas come into play, people get all bunged up and emotional, and the result is a bunch of pseudo philosophical nonsense. The abstract concept of mathematical infinity is not a particularly difficult concept and it only requires a straightforward logical process of applying first order logic quantifiers, it is very useful mathematically and logically, it is definitional regarding numbers, and it just isn't about God.In fact, anything we experience, either directly or indirectly, is a composite of many different experiences projected into one time and space. We do not see with our eyes but with our brains; and, our brains are neurological complexes both inherited and stimulated by our environments. So, in a sense, everything is real, yet everything is abstract.I would agree that what we refer to as the real world is the presumed cause of our sensations, but I don't think that means there is no difference between reality and abstraction, confusing the two is still a fallacy of equivocation.To say, that, numbers have the property of infinity is to take away any value or meaning they may have; for, an infinitely great number is a contradiction in terms; greatness is a comparative term, and infinity is comparative to nothing.I don't think mathematics says that numbers have the property of infinity, it says that the set of numbers has the property of infinity because you can abstractly apply a infinitely recurring mathematical operation to represent the set ( i.e. for every whole number N, there is a subsequent number represented by N+1). That does not make every number meaningless or equal to zero, each specific number still has a value that mathematical operations can apply to. The abstract concept of infinity is a basic axiom of mathematics and ZF set theory, and whether or not you can actually measure an infinite set in reality doesn't change the fact that the abstract concept exists mathematically.Mathematics is an abstract science with axioms, definitions, and rules of first order logic, you can't simply deny the axioms, definitions, and rules and still be talking about mathematics.It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater