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 21:01:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3933 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
I'd rephrase again--the path is theoretically infinite, for if you set up this
exact scenario using real life lasers, ball-bearings nad spinning tools, within
a set amount of time something will break down--or the path of the laser, over
time, will eventually 'wear out' due to the excitability of moleules due to the
heat of the laser and start breaking away from the reast of the ball bearing,
efectively cutting the ball bearing in half. Either way, my best guess that in
a real world situation, a setup like that, even with the best of materials,
wouldn't last 500 years, rendering the path of the laser on the ball bearing
finite. Though that's my best guestimate right off the top of my head.
>
> 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).
In theory, you can eliminate all the obstacles you want. In hypotheticals, you
can dispense with the trivial things such as molecular cohesion and the adverse
effects heat has with that. But we're not talking hypotheticals, or
'effectively'--effectively my V8 should run for the pistons, in theory, should
go up and down in their shaft forever. However, that doesn't happen due to
friction, and the inherent design flaws of Dodge Dakotas...
>
> > 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?
And I'm saying that there is no infinite dimensions on any surface 'in the real
world'. In the hypothetical 'two dimensional surface of the sphere world' you
can go around an infinite amount of times. In the real world, you cannot.
That's all I'm saying.
>
> > > 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?
Well, the ball has a specificc velocity given to it by the throwing arm. This
ball has a force in a specific direction and will ocntinue to travel in that
direction until other forces act against it, such as gravity and such. However,
when the mass of the ball comes in contact with the mass of the tree, the
directional velocity of the ball is absorbed by the tree, and the ball will no
loger travel in that direction. Usually, at this time, gravity, which has been
acting on the ball thru its travels, will pull that ball to the ground. There
are a whole bunch of equations like force, distance, speed, etc... but Physics
class was almost two decades ago and I can't remember at this time... and it's
parenthetical to the actual idea. The idea is no 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...
And yet you chose the best (worst) one! how did that happen?
> > 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.
Very large numbers over a very large time-frame, if I were to suppose.
> > 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!
Well, if you can find this piece of wood, I would concede the point. Likewise,
I can say 'God exists' all I want but your claim of non-existence isn't proof,
or disproof, of that, either.
So if you claim that a piece of wood that can be divided an infinite number of
times could have existed in the real world (we can neither prove or disprove the
existence thereof), I can claim that God could exist as well.
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
