RoR: Forum

Post 20

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 7:49am

Link

Edit

This is hairsplitting. Besides: prove that velocity can measure itself and report that it has measured itself and in what amount without any man-made (the observer) instrumentation.

Velocity doesn't measure, but with velocity you get a change in mass. That change in mass changes the average time it takes you to measure something. That's why, for example, if you were going near the speed of light, many things would seem to slow down to you, but everything within the same frame of reference (velocity) would remain the same to you (not slowed down or sped up). It's fairly easy to understand this stuff, so your infinite skepticism does not refute decades of evidence through experimentation.

Btw, most of what you've stated so far is a form of Rationalism, and not empiricism ( BTW, Objectivism is a form of classical empiricism. ), so I really can't accept your conclusions. Moreover, the fact you reject context for your definitions makes this more evident. Everything has context, or it wouldn't have meaning. If objects didn't have other objects to be measured against motion wouldn't be measurable, that it is a classic case of context, in that context is frame of reference. So, since you outright reject context, how can I prove your definition of Universe in a scientific manner? Does it include a context like spacetime, mass-energy and etc? No, it doesn't, it's the most abstract (floating-like really), most unparticular definition for Universe. It's a good one, mind you, if we're talking about it in relation to all possible contexts that are related to Universe (visible Universe, a Universe of 'programs', University and etc...). But you reject context, so it's not logically possible under your argument to produce this important, and essential, relation of specified knowledge (percepts and other concepts). When you revise your argument to include context, PM me, until then, I think there will be no agreement between us.

Also, this claim against "man-made" measuring devices... That is really really pointless, in that it either suggests humans cannot objectively measure things (btw you stated earlier you rejected relativism, yet you are using it right now...) or that some how only the human senses can be made objective (I guess that speedometer on the dashboard of a car never really measures speed...LOL!). So, which is it? Man can't measure objectively, or his tools can't measure objectively (which in turn means again Man can't measure objectively)?

Nor can I accept McNally's theory either, only because he's suggesting the total set of all sets is Null, which isn't true either (It's U(niversal). ).

-- Brede

Post 21

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 12:51pm

Link

Edit

Bridget: "Nor can I accept McNally's theory either, only because he's suggesting the total set of all sets is Null, which isn't true either (It's U(niversal). )."

The existence of nothing needs no justification - it is essentially natural and intrinsically logical.

In the relative (finite) context the equivalent of nothing exists - every value is offset by an opposite. This is the balance of nature. It is the very essence of mathematics - the reason why equations require their elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument.

But in the very real and not so 'relative' domain of infinity, true Nothing exists - all in one place at the same time.

Using any given point in space as the point of origin for an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of three-dimensional coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, every point in the cosmos is its center.

Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/999^{999,999,999,999,999} . As the denominator of a fraction increases, its
value decreases. Though infinity is undefined and cannot be represented by a value, it is obvious that if the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator may be, the ratio of any finite quantity compared to infinity is �.

If every quality has a reciprocal, then the sum of all qualitative value in the Universe is equivalent to a 'null' value.

From the point of view of infinity, the equivalent of nothing exists,has no relative size and no relative location It is the only perspective from which quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values truly vanish to ZERO.

Post 22

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 8:35pm

Link

Edit

Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/999 999,999,999,999,999 . As the denominator of a fraction increases, its
value decreases. Though infinity is undefined and cannot be represented by a value, it is obvious that if the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator may be, the ratio of any finite quantity compared to infinity is �.

Only if you're talking about calculus, but if we're talking about the real world, not "pure math", then infinity can only be approached, but never actually achieved (as it would take an infinity to get an infinity). So, to say that anything that is finite is null because there might be an actual infinite doesn't make sense either due to that it supposes that things are infinitely divisible, which they are not according to physics (Loop Quantum Gravity suggests a very small, but not an infinitely small scale for spacetime, where it cannot be measured any further smaller...). Plus, this is just another form of Zeno of Elia's Achilles and the Tortoise problem, which isn't a real problem when you recognize things cannot be infinitely divided in reality. So, no, the set of all sets is not null, it's U (hands McNally a copy of a Discrete Mathematics textbook). :)

-- Brede
(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 9/19, 8:36pm)

Post 23

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 10:45am

Link

Edit

Bridget: "...infinity can only be approached, but never actually achieved (as it would take an infinity to get an infinity). So, to say that anything that is finite is null because there might be an actual infinite doesn't make sense either due to that it supposes that things are infinitely divisible, which they are not according to physics... "

Either the Universe is infinite or there is a finite distance between every two points at which motion in any direction does not increase the distance between them. Unless such a point or distance exists (and I certainly hope that is not your contention), then by any definition I can dredge up, if you can continue to travel in a given direction forever, the Universe is spatially infinite. It IS infinity. Infinity is achieved.

A set with one element in ratio to a set with a never ending number of elements yields a relative value of "�".

I don't see where divisibility enters into consideration.

Post 24

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 6:44pm

Link

Edit

Either the Universe is infinite or there is a finite distance between every two points at which motion in any direction does not increase the distance between them.
...
It IS infinity. Infinity is achieved.

No, it's never an actual infinite, because infinity is not a quantity. Even in the most abstract forms of mathematics do they never assign a true value to infinity, it has no meaning beyond implying that something is vastly large or small than other things in relation to one and other. It doesn't prove your point, because you do not understand the basic use of the term infinity. Please, go and get me a citation for where infinity is an actual quantity in mathematics, then I will listen. Until then, your ideas are crackpot.

Even the Bad Astronomer and Wolverine (BAUT forum mod) would not tolerate this circular reasoning of yours, so consider that I am tolerating you as a gesture of goodwill, but it is running out, because you do not provide proof for your claims. Not once, have you done so. All you do use rationalizations outside of empirical analysis.

A set with one element in ratio to a set with a never ending number of elements yields a relative value of "�".

Can you provide a citation for this? Because I will be passing this post to a friend of mine who is a graduate in mathematics at the university that I attend. I'm betting you're so wrong, he'll laugh himself half to death.

-- Brede

Post 25

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 5:23am

Link

Edit

Obviously you have little training in math. Infinity is NOT a value. But it is commonly used in mathematics as is the sqrt -1 or 'i'. An imaginary number.

If the Universe is infinite, then a phenomenon called infinity is the case (exists - a word which causes countless semantical problems)

Infinity is - by its nature - UNdefined. It can be described, but if you want to actually define it then please list all existences in the space below:

(Use back of page if necessary)
And how should I bow to her royal highness to thank her for her tolerance.

Bridget:

A set with one element in ratio to a set with a never ending number of elements yields a relative value of "�".

Can you provide a citation for this? Because I will be passing this post to a friend of mine who is a graduate in mathematics at the university that I attend. I'm betting you're so wrong, he'll laugh himself half to death.

This is an interesting approach to the subject
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/infinity.html

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 9/24, 1:20pm)

Post 26

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 11:10am

Link

Edit

Jack, I see you have a degree in BS. Perhaps your math skills are superior, but "THoR" might want to brush up on his conventions regarding capitalization, no?

(BTW, this is neither serious, nor an argument, just an example of why the ad hominem parts of your posts, where you comment on the mental states of others, could be left out of your posts withou further weakening them. You are starting to remind me of Grampa Simpson on his angry pills.)

Ted

Post 27

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 1:45pm

Link

Edit

Ted -
I'm glad you are impressed with my BS.
I don't; however, recall commenting on the mental states of others.
While I am certainly no pacifist, it is generally not my nature to fire unless fired upon.
I prefer to discuss principles rather than personalities.

I understand why some think the universe is finite.
If it began, then for it to be infinite it would either have to expand infinitely fast or for an infinite amount of time - both impossible.
But if it DIDN'T begin.......?

Post 28

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 8:04am

Link

Edit

Obviously you have little training in math. Infinity is NOT a value. But it is commonly used in mathematics as is the sqrt -1 or 'i'. An imaginary number.

Yet, you treat it as a quantity and not me. The fact you're not very much boned up on logic, and here I am an undergraduate that is, disturbs me. So, which is it. Is it a quantity or not. You've suggested it is, and now you're suggesting it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Plus, imaginary numbers are not even related to Pi in that they're an entirely different situation in mathematics. Pi deals with a ratio, an imaginary number doesn't unless in relation to something (circuits and what not deal with i to test throughput and what not). So, please, stop being silly and lay down the facts as you present them, and not dance around the issue.

If the Universe is infinite, then a phenomenon called infinity is the case (exists - a word which causes countless semantical problems)

No it doesn't, again Xeno of Elia's problem (Tortoise and Achilles). You're supposing things are infinitely divisible such that any finite volume can be considered infinite by such division. It's not: period and end of story. Things approach but never achieve infinity, not even in mathematics does it work the way you claim it.

*EDIT*

And how should I bow to her royal highness to thank her for her tolerance.

I only tolerate those who show a minimum level of intelligence, but I think it's wearing thin in respect that you're making every mistake a freshman in introduction to logic does with inductive reasoning. And your attitude... stuff it. If you don't like criticism, then don't venture for opinions. Don't promote your ideas, and don't even go outside, someone may criticize your taste in outdoor wear.

-- Brede

(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 9/25, 8:10am)

Post 29

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 12:51pm

Link

Edit

Bridget -

This is REALLY easy stuff -

Inductive logic is a method of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it. If the premises are true then the conclusion may or may not be true.

Deductive logic is a method of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated or implied by previous premises. If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

Infinite: (Mathematical) Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
Infinite: (Spatial) Unlimited in spatial extent.

Premise: If the universe is finite then for at least one point in the cosmos there exists another point within a finite distance at which motion in any direction will not increase the distance between the two.
(I presume this premise satisfies as being both necessary and sufficient)

Either such a set of points exists or it does not.

YOU make the call.