Subject:
|
Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:14:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4247 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I think you're blurring the distinction between "impractical in practice" and
> "impossible in reality." Whether or not we can devise an mechanism that will
> exist for eternity is irrelevant. The fact that we can create an unbounded
> two-dimensional surface is, to me, sufficient. It doesn't even need to be a
> perfectly smooth surface, nor does it need to be impervious to harm,
> deformation, or erosion.
>
> If I'm understanding you correctly, you're equating a path that no one has ever
> traversed with a path that is, by its fundamental nature, nonexistent. A path
> that exists between points A and B exists even if no one has travelled the path.
>
> I would also assert (and this may be a legitimate, mathematical point of
> disagreement) that a real object need not be eternal to be infinite in two
> dimensions. That is, the objects infinitude isn't determined by the ability of
> a laser to trace it or a person to traverse it.
I concur--a concept of infinity existing on a two dimensional surface of a
sphere is a valid one. But the operative word here is *concept*. In reality,
in the physical universe, the surface isn't infinite for it is subject to the
finite issues of the finite universe.
I think therein lies our little communication problem--the distinction between
concepts and reality--between theories, hypotheticals, and what happens in the
material world. You can set up any experiment you wish, and not one will show
'infinity' concretely. You can deduce concepts of infinity--"Limited to two
dimensions, this surface is infinite"--that's a concept. In the real world,
that ball bearing exists in the finite, limited world and therefore is subject
to the same finite, limiting 'laws' of reality.
Just like when, in grade 4, our math teacher showed us that a straight line
drawn on the blackboard is a line segment, but when you put two arrowheads on
each end, that line segment has now become an infinite line in each direction.
That's a concept. In reality, the chalk line on the board is still physically
the same length (with a few other lines signifying arrows on teh end), still
finite.
Separate concepts from the physical world and we'll go on with the conversation.
>
> > 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.
>
> But that's not my argument! I'm claiming that the surface is infinite in two
> dimensions because there is no boundary point. That's all.
And I'm saying that as soon as you put that criteria on it, as soon as you
'reduce the ballbearing to two dimensions', you've 'reduced' the agruement so
that the infinite can exist. If I reduce the arguement of my working engine to
not include friction, wear, entropy and having gas/oil on to infinity, my
engine, in theory, should run on to infinity. However, that's getting rid of
the 'reality' of the situation and making 'conceptual' statements, which have,
shall we say, less basis in the concrete world. The ball bearing doesn't
physically exist only in this two dimensional world, where there is no entropy,
it exists in our world, where there will be breakdowns.
>
> You're claiming that the surface is not infinite because no one can trace an
> infintite, eternal line upon the surface.
In the real world--Bingo.
>
> > > 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?
>
> **snip of discussion of the raw mechanics of throwing a ball**
>
> Your explanation may be accurate, but it avoids the point you were making
> initially.
> (see http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=23828)
I was just talking about, as you stated earlier, the fallacious idea that I
heard once long ago. I have no problem moving on beyond this point.
>
> If you're claiming, as you do in post 23828, that the ball cannot be thrown
> because it must first cross one half of one half of one half (etc) of the
> distance to the tree, then you must explain to me how the ball *does* reach the
> tree.
>
> > 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.
>
> Um, let's state for the record that you're the one who suggested the block of
> wood in the first place. Your contention was that, because the wood cannot be
> infinitely subdivided (while still remaining "wood"), this is an argument
> against the possibility of infinity in reality. I rejected the block of wood as
> an inadequate determinor of infinity, and therefore attempts to use the block as
> a refutation are a straw man.
And I will then say find any material substance that exists, or has existed, or
even will exist that you can divide an infinite number of times. I used wood
off the top of my head. My contention is that no material substance that has
ever existed, or will ever exist in the finite universe can be divided an
infinite number of times due to the very nature of the finite universe.
Do I have proof? Other than the fact that the universe is finite? That time is
finite? I think that's all I needed. In order to divide something an infinite
number of times, I'd imagine you'd need at least one of those two finite things
to change to infinite.
>
> > 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.
>
> I have *not* claimed that the block exists, nor that the actual block can be
> infinitely divided. You seem to be suggesting that my point is incorrect
> because your example is invalid.
Well, the wood was just an example--I would surmise that you could substitute
any physically available object and still ahve the same problem. Forget the
wood--*any* material substance in this finite universe cannot be divided
infinitly. Hope that satisfies your 'straw man'.
> Anyway, you *do* claim that God exists. To suggest that this one infinite thing
> *does* exist but that no other infinite things *can* exist is the fallacy of
> special pleading, by the way.
>
> Dave!
And I would disagree with that assessment. No special pleading needed. If your
contention is that there can be infinite in the finite universe, then there's my
God right there.
If, on the other hand, you agree with my assessment that there can be no physical infinite in a finite world, then I would go on to argue against reductionism and state that maybe there could be something that's not limited to the physical constraints the physical finite universe. Maybe the possibility that *something* that exists outside the realm of science and/or mathematics.
Yeah, it's tough when, on the one hand, I'm arguing against the 'infinity cannot
exist in the material world' but on the other hand there could be a God.
Hmmm, how to deal with that? I think it's rather easy myself. I don't limit
myself and my understanding to just what science and math teaches me. Logic, as
someone once said, is the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it.
See thru the inherent reductionism of these 'man-made' institutions. That's
always been my motto.
Anyway, this has been a better conversation. Hope it continues...
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
|
|
|
|
