Subject:
|
Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:09:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3785 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> Spin the ball and point a laser at it. In the real world, after one
> revolution the laser would be traversing the same path, therefore no
> infinity, and secondly, in the real world, after a finite number of spins,
> either the ball bearing would have disintegrated due to entropy and as you
> correctly pointed out the lasr would eventually break down.
I think I'm guilty of an imprecision here. I meant that the path of the laser
is effectively infinite, not that it would traverse an endlessly new part of the
sphere's surface.
Also, as long as we're talking about two dimensions instead of three, we might
as well talk about two dimensions instead of four. To that end, we can remove
the end of time as a limiting factor, leaving only the question of the
two-dimensional surface (which you can trace with the laser infinitely without
running out of surface).
> See, that's the differenc between theory and real world concepts. We can
> discuss infinity and come up with ideas and equations only 'on paper' The
> second you try to make a construct in the real world showing 'infinity', you
> will fail for we live in a finite world. You can show concepts of infinity--"if
> we could eliminate entropy and the fact that our universe had a beginning, then
> this laser reflected off a spining ball-bearing would physically show us
> something infinite."
But the objections you're raising don't address the surface of the sphere.
Granted, the universe will probably end before an infinite length of time has
passed, but we're not asking about that. The question is: where is the finite
end, in two dimensions, of the sphere's surface?
> > You understand, though, that the paradox of Zeno's Arrow was eliminated by the
> > mathematical concept of "sums of infinite series?" Additionally, it is now
> > becoming apparent that space is not infinitely divisible, so the formulation of
> > one-half-of-one-half-of-one-half-of-one-half... doesn't really hold water.
>
> Thus a 'proof' showing that infinite cannot be concretely formed in a finite
> world--only shown on paper in equations and theory.
Um, not really. As an alternative, why don't you give me your theory explaining
how the ball reaches the tree, or whatever. Is it magic?
> I think there would be an infinite amount of mess, myself. Thankfully this is a
> theory and no one has to actually go in there and clean up the mess.
Of course, we'd have an infinite number of Presidents to select from that
room...
> Still haven't picked up [Blind Watchmaker], but have heard many conceptual notions about it. I
> would not argue against evolution, now (may have in the past but that's neither
> here nor there).
Yeah, evolution's not at all central to the current discussion, but Dawkins
offers some excellent discussion on the question of Very Large Numbers and
probability. Worth reading eventually.
> Hypothetical != real world. (!= means 'not equals') In the history of the
> world, it is my contention that there never has been this 'homogenous piece of
> wood' ever grown capable of being divided into smaller and smaller pieces thru
> infinity. At least, that's my contention.
Well, that's fine, but it doesn't address the main issue. I can posit all kinds
of things that have never existed (like an honest NeoConservative!), but their
non-existence isn't proof (or a "disproof") of anything.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
97 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
