There are no rational numbers in nature

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby gib » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:09 am

So what do I mean by this obscure phrase? It comes from a thought I had the other day. It started with pondering certain famous irrational numbers like square rout 2, the natural logarithm, or pi.

I think what these numbers stem from is the fact that they are derivable from the geometric properties of space itself as opposed to all rational numbers which are derived from human thought. That is to say, whereas neat and discrete quantities like the integers and the ratios between integers (which is what all rational numbers are) are idealizations that we tend to impose on the natural world to the full extent of precision we can muster, the irrational numbers are already given by nature, and they are packaged in the geometric properties of space itself. In fact, nature only gives us irrational numbers.

To prove my point, I propose the following thought experiment. Suppose you're taking a measure of something. keep it simple - say the length of your arm. Suppose you measure it to be 1.5 meters. Now, how precise are you being? I mean, is it exactly 1.5m? Probably not. It might be more like 1.53m, or maybe 1.56m, or something thereabouts. But then again, maybe even greater precision is needed to get at exactly how long your arm is. So if we zoom in further, we may find that it actually measures 1.539m or 1.562m. Well, how precise is precise enough? We could take this to extremes. We could say that your arm actually measures 1.5392396293742893721398m. In fact, I'll bet (and this is the key point) that you could keep zooming in ad infinitum and keep tacking on more digits to the decimal expansion without end.

But isn't it possible to measure something out to be exactly 1.5m or any rational quantity? Well, supposing you did, how would you know it's exactly 1.5m? You could say that you've measured it out to the greatest of your precision abilities, but this is one thing; it's quite another to say that a measure is some quantity exactly in an absolute sense - that is, to infinite precision. To say the latter is essentially to say that no matter how much you zoom in, the reading of 1.5m, or whatever it was, will never change - that is, there will never be additional digits tacked onto the decimal portion of the number. Now, to say such a thing technically isn't paradoxical, but it does sound absurd. I would imagine that if you kept zooming in forever, the appearance of extra digits to your decimal expansion is an inevitability. It may take an extremely long time, but it will happen. And if it happens once, it can happen again. That is, if, when you final zoom in enough to discern an extra digit that needs to be tacked onto your decimal expansion, you keep zooming in further, it will be another inevitability that you discern yet more extra digits. So because there is no end to how far one can zoom in (at least in principle), there is no final digit that marks the righthand end of the decimal expansion.

Now that's measurement. Measurement is the way we glean quantitative values from nature herself. In other words, nature gives us her measurements; we don't impose them. The only thing we impose are our idealized rational numbers, and we only take it for granted that certain measures in nature can be captured precisely by ration quantities. Put if you want absolute precision in any of your measures of nature, you'll have to settle for irrational numbers. Pi, the natural logarithm, and the square root of 2 are irrational because they aren't derived from our measurements. They are derived by the immutable properties of geometrical shapes and forms - that is, the properties of that part of nature we call space.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8682
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Anthem » Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:20 am

Well, the old standard for a meter was literally a stick made of platinum or something like that. It was a meter long because that's what it was defined as. It was 1.50000000000000000000000 meters forever and always, even if it changed! Same thing with the standards for grams and liters and such. Some standards are more scientific now...I know the standard length is measured by the distance light travels in a vacuum for a set period of time or something like that, but the point is if you define something to be the standard, it is exact.

Also, easily enough like Tortoise said, quantities are easily rational numbers.

You're absolutely right that it would be highly improbable to make something exactly the same length as something else.

As far as irrational numbers go, they are the infinite series of ratios of rational numbers, so they are dependent on rational numbers. Unless of course you were to define pi = 1, or e = 1, or something crazy like that, in which case our rational numbers would be irrational! :o
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby SuperCulture » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:28 pm

The idiotic dichotomy between irrational numbers vs rational numbers is ridiculous to begin with. Irrational numbers are numbers *and functions* the reason why nature is filled with irrational numbers is because *time and energy flow is always moving*, whenever we measure something we are never measuring absolute stasis, we are measuring flow, hence the irrational numbers, if you froze time and motion you could rationalize all numbers in nature by multiplication.
If anyone accuses you of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don't know.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato
SuperCulture
Thinker
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:37 am

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Anthem » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:37 pm

SuperCulture wrote:...if you froze time and motion you could rationalize all numbers in nature by multiplication.

How do you figure?
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby SuperCulture » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:14 pm

Anthem wrote:
SuperCulture wrote:...if you froze time and motion you could rationalize all numbers in nature by multiplication.

How do you figure?


Think about it.

3.33 times 100 becomes 333, what you are doing is changing the *scalar*, to see this go get a 3D program like 3DS max or a free version of truespace, and play around with segmenting shapes into smaller and smaller pieces (adding lines of resolution/vectors, etc). An easy way to think of it is to imagine a graph in which you keep adding lines and points of resolution by making ever larger and larger numbers/functions, an easy way to think about it is to use the concepts of coloring - all filled, all empty, etc.
If anyone accuses you of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don't know.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato
SuperCulture
Thinker
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:37 am

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby YodaJosh » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:39 pm

SuperCulture wrote:
Anthem wrote:
SuperCulture wrote:...if you froze time and motion you could rationalize all numbers in nature by multiplication.

How do you figure?


Think about it.

3.33 times 100 becomes 333, what you are doing is changing the *scalar*, to see this go get a 3D program like 3DS max or a free version of truespace, and play around with segmenting shapes into smaller and smaller pieces (adding lines of resolution/vectors, etc). An easy way to think of it is to imagine a graph in which you keep adding lines and points of resolution by making ever larger and larger numbers/functions, an easy way to think about it is to use the concepts of coloring - all filled, all empty, etc.


3.33 is not an irrational number. Multiplying any irrational number by a rational number will still result in an irrational number
"The climax of every tragedy lies in the deafness of its heroes. Plato is right and not Moses and Nietzsche. Dialogue on the level of mankind is less costly than the gospel preached by totalitarian regimes in the form of monologue dictated from the top of a lonely mountain" - Albert Camus, The Rebel
User avatar
YodaJosh
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: CLEVELAND, OH

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby SuperCulture » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:47 pm

YodaJosh wrote:
3.33 is not an irrational number. Multiplying any irrational number by a rational number will still result in an irrational number


You're missing the point completely irrational number is a number *AND* a *function*, if you stopped time the "irrational number* would no longer be irrational (i.e. go on forever), because to function you need time (i.e. a vector to put the next number), I forgot to state that. Irrational numbers are functions (are the results of ratios of movement in time).

Numbers must have a location in a vector space for each unique digit (i.e. 3.14, the first 3 would be 3, 1's, which it really is, , etc, etc).
If anyone accuses you of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don't know.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato
SuperCulture
Thinker
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:37 am

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby YodaJosh » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:18 pm

SuperCulture wrote:
YodaJosh wrote:
3.33 is not an irrational number. Multiplying any irrational number by a rational number will still result in an irrational number


You're missing the point completely irrational number is a number *AND* a *function*, if you stopped time the "irrational number* would no longer be irrational (i.e. go on forever), because to function you need time (i.e. a vector to put the next number), I forgot to state that. Irrational numbers are functions (are the results of ratios of movement in time).

Numbers must have a location in a vector space for each unique digit (i.e. 3.14, the first 3 would be 3, 1's, which it really is, , etc, etc).


Could you explain why an irrational number is a function or at least point somewhere for more info? I've never heard that before. How can it be a function of time? The value of pi is not rational, and it does not change with time, so how would stopping time suddenly make the value rational? The definition of an irrational number is a negative one, meaning that irrational numbers are defined as any real number that is not a rational number. There are an uncountable number of irrational numbers.
"The climax of every tragedy lies in the deafness of its heroes. Plato is right and not Moses and Nietzsche. Dialogue on the level of mankind is less costly than the gospel preached by totalitarian regimes in the form of monologue dictated from the top of a lonely mountain" - Albert Camus, The Rebel
User avatar
YodaJosh
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: CLEVELAND, OH

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Anthem » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:22 pm

SuperCulture wrote:
YodaJosh wrote:
3.33 is not an irrational number. Multiplying any irrational number by a rational number will still result in an irrational number


You're missing the point completely irrational number is a number *AND* a *function*, if you stopped time the "irrational number* would no longer be irrational (i.e. go on forever), because to function you need time (i.e. a vector to put the next number), I forgot to state that. Irrational numbers are functions (are the results of ratios of movement in time).

Ah, I see your issue. It's a function, but not of time. Infinte series work off a generic variable, call it whatever you like, but it's not time. Freezing time, whatever that would mean, would not change the value of an irrational number, or stop it in it's tracks.
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby gib » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:59 pm

Tortoise wrote:There are plenty of rational numbers in nature.
As far as I'm aware, an atom of Hydrogen has 1 proton.
Rational number right there.

A normal human hand has 5 fingers.
Rational number right there.

But I suppose you're talking about measurements, not quantities.


Anthem wrote:Well, the old standard for a meter was literally a stick made of platinum or something like that. It was a meter long because that's what it was defined as. It was 1.50000000000000000000000 meters forever and always, even if it changed! Same thing with the standards for grams and liters and such. Some standards are more scientific now...I know the standard length is measured by the distance light travels in a vacuum for a set period of time or something like that, but the point is if you define something to be the standard, it is exact.

Also, easily enough like Tortoise said, quantities are easily rational numbers.

You're absolutely right that it would be highly improbable to make something exactly the same length as something else.

As far as irrational numbers go, they are the infinite series of ratios of rational numbers, so they are dependent on rational numbers. Unless of course you were to define pi = 1, or e = 1, or something crazy like that, in which case our rational numbers would be irrational!


You guys are both right. I think my OP title was a little too grandeose. I think it should have read "there are no rational numbers in space" since it has more to do with geometry than countable objects. In other words, my argument works better with quantities that describe "how much" of something there is (like distance, angle, volume, anything spatial, etc.) as opposed to "how many" there are. And I guess you could put all these things in terms of units so that a question of "how much" volume there is can be rephrased as "how many" cubic feet there are, but I think the point here is that you might still end up with an irrational number even when measuring a certain number of units, but not necessarily. When you stick strictly to the "how much" terminology, it is necessary (not logically, but practically).
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8682
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby YodaJosh » Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:07 pm

gib wrote:
You guys are both right. I think my OP title was a little too grandeose. I think it should have read "there are no rational numbers in space" since it has more to do with geometry than countable objects. In other words, my argument works better with quantities that describe "how much" of something there is (like distance, angle, volume, anything spatial, etc.) as opposed to "how many" there are. And I guess you could put all these things in terms of units so that a question of "how much" volume there is can be rephrased as "how many" cubic feet there are, but I think the point here is that you might still end up with an irrational number even when measuring a certain number of units, but not necessarily. When you stick strictly to the "how much" terminology, it is necessary (not logically, but practically).


Well, by definition, measurement is an estimate. Any real scientific measurement includes not only the estimation itself (length, mass, etc), but also a margin of error, and measure of confidence.

Think of it this way, if knew the value we were looking for, we wouldn't have to measure it, would we?
"The climax of every tragedy lies in the deafness of its heroes. Plato is right and not Moses and Nietzsche. Dialogue on the level of mankind is less costly than the gospel preached by totalitarian regimes in the form of monologue dictated from the top of a lonely mountain" - Albert Camus, The Rebel
User avatar
YodaJosh
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: CLEVELAND, OH

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Anthem » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:55 pm

gib wrote:...In other words, my argument works better with quantities that describe "how much" of something there is (like distance, angle, volume, anything spatial, etc.) as opposed to "how many" there are.

I wonder if the quantum length would come into play at some point and stop the irrationality of a measurement. But, for all intents and purposes, I'd say you are right; measurements are irrational numbers. The probability that a measurement just stops at a certain point, like 2.1231231490551340980134810329841240000000000 meters seems unlikely.
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby SuperCulture » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:25 am

Anthem wrote:Ah, I see your issue. It's a function, but not of time.


And that is where you are incorrect, we are talking about numbers *made of stuff*, you can't have a number that is not made of something, when you think of a number it is made of concept-data, therefore, in order to calculate you have to be made of something, you can see this by grabbing some playdough and creating numbers out of it, once you run out of playdough you cannot create more numbers.

You're still under the mistaken idea that math exists 'apart' from nature, when math is nothing more then a description of geometric structures. Again all calculation requires time, and if you represented and irrational number in binary the binary string would be *growing*, and each bit in the string needs a vector and location in space to be stored, if you stopped time that growth function would stop, period. So no, it has everything to do with time, if we froze time all calculation would stop.
If anyone accuses you of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don't know.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato
SuperCulture
Thinker
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:37 am

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Anthem » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:38 am

SuperCulture wrote:
Anthem wrote:Ah, I see your issue. It's a function, but not of time.


And that is where you are incorrect, we are talking about numbers *made of stuff*, you can't have a number that is not made of something, when you think of a number it is made of concept-data, therefore, in order to calculate you have to be made of something, you can see this by grabbing some playdough and creating numbers out of it, once you run out of playdough you cannot create more numbers.

You're still under the mistaken idea that math exists 'apart' from nature, when math is nothing more then a description of geometric structures. Again all calculation requires time, and if you represented and irrational number in binary the binary string would be *growing*, and each bit in the string needs a vector and location in space to be stored, if you stopped time that growth function would stop, period. So no, it has everything to do with time, if we froze time all calculation would stop.

Do you know anything about calculus? An irrational number just exists, it's only the calculation that requires an effort on our part. Freezing time does nothing to the number. You can say that you only want to take the first 'n' terms of an infinite series, but that has nothing to do with time.

Here, this video should sum it up for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Rouzbeh » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:16 am

This was a thought that actually occured to me a few years back and I'm glad I'm not alone in the thought. My final conclusion then was that even though nothing in nature really seems to have infinite zeros after the decimal point, if we could instead measure the smallest particles (my assumption was electrons/protons/neutrons or maybe even quarks) we would have a rational number since there's only a finite number of particles. So our measurements would be precise to the point and rational. Does this seem logical?
And to back up anthem here, math is a concept irrelevant to time so stopping time would have nothing to do with it as infinite, or finite for that matter, has no "speed(units/time)", which seems to be your assumption superculture.
the weak man wishes to die nobly for...the strong man wishes to live humbly for... oh yeah he died bravely
Rouzbeh
Thinker
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: London

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Anthem » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:45 am

Thanks Rouz :)
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby gib » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:53 am

Rouzbeh wrote:This was a thought that actually occured to me a few years back and I'm glad I'm not alone in the thought. My final conclusion then was that even though nothing in nature really seems to have infinite zeros after the decimal point, if we could instead measure the smallest particles (my assumption was electrons/protons/neutrons or maybe even quarks) we would have a rational number since there's only a finite number of particles. So our measurements would be precise to the point and rational. Does this seem logical?


Yes it does, but I think the number of particles falls into the "how many" camp as opposed to the "how much" camp. When it really comes down to it, I think the "how much" camp can be reduced to only continuous quantities such as space and time (in other words, not discrete "things" that exist).
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8682
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby SuperCulture » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:16 pm

Anthem wrote:
SuperCulture wrote:
Anthem wrote:Ah, I see your issue. It's a function, but not of time.


And that is where you are incorrect, we are talking about numbers *made of stuff*, you can't have a number that is not made of something, when you think of a number it is made of concept-data, therefore, in order to calculate you have to be made of something, you can see this by grabbing some playdough and creating numbers out of it, once you run out of playdough you cannot create more numbers.

You're still under the mistaken idea that math exists 'apart' from nature, when math is nothing more then a description of geometric structures. Again all calculation requires time, and if you represented and irrational number in binary the binary string would be *growing*, and each bit in the string needs a vector and location in space to be stored, if you stopped time that growth function would stop, period. So no, it has everything to do with time, if we froze time all calculation would stop.

Do you know anything about calculus? An irrational number just exists, it's only the calculation that requires an effort on our part. Freezing time does nothing to the number. You can say that you only want to take the first 'n' terms of an infinite series, but that has nothing to do with time.

Here, this video should sum it up for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY


What you've said still doesn't deal with my point: In the real world these numbers would go on forever, and they would have to be *made of stuff*, if you were to expand an infinite series, it would take up all matter in the universe pretty quickly, and you'd run out of stuff to make the next number in the series. i.e. they are numbers *and* functions, you have to get used to the idea that numbers are self-recursive functions, and when time stops these functions *also stop*

If the ratio 1/3 is a function, then it's opposite 3/1 is a function and since even "irrational" numbers have a base, that means they *must* by definition be numbers *and* functions, for math to remain consistent, remember all numbers are made of the first, that is, 1. Therefore:

Pi is actually Pi / 1 (which is a function), you can only see it by representing numbers in total expanded form using shapes, and 'stuff' to make numbers out of. Numbers are not made out of non-existence, they are made of stuff that exists.
If anyone accuses you of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don't know.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato
SuperCulture
Thinker
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:37 am

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby SuperCulture » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:23 pm

Rouzbeh wrote:math is a concept irrelevant to time so stopping time would have nothing to do with it as infinite, or finite for that matter, has no "speed(units/time)", which seems to be your assumption superculture.


What you've said is pure bullshit, numbers are functions, and functions only *function* if there is time, numbers are not made of non-existent stuff, I want you to grab apiece of paper and cut it into equal pieces and for each element of a number (say, 2 there is 2 squares, 3 there is 3 squares and so on), soon enough you'll run out of stuff to make numbers out of, your fallacy is that you think numbers are made out of non-existent stuff, that is why you can't grasp what I am saying and it is not *an assumption* it is a *fact*, you can't get a non-existent number from non-existence, period.
If anyone accuses you of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don't know.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato
SuperCulture
Thinker
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:37 am

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby YodaJosh » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:31 pm

Rouzbeh wrote:This was a thought that actually occured to me a few years back and I'm glad I'm not alone in the thought. My final conclusion then was that even though nothing in nature really seems to have infinite zeros after the decimal point, if we could instead measure the smallest particles (my assumption was electrons/protons/neutrons or maybe even quarks) we would have a rational number since there's only a finite number of particles. So our measurements would be precise to the point and rational. Does this seem logical?
And to back up anthem here, math is a concept irrelevant to time so stopping time would have nothing to do with it as infinite, or finite for that matter, has no "speed(units/time)", which seems to be your assumption superculture.


There needs to be a distinction between counting and measuring. You can count the number of atoms along the length of a piece of wood, and get a rational number, but how long is each atom? You end up with the same problem. And as we deconstruct particles further we find that the smallest parts may not even really exist at all times ( :o quantum physics is crazy). It's murky ground still, but the point is we can't get exact measurements because we still don't understand what goes on at the smallest levels

SuperCulture wrote:
Rouzbeh wrote:math is a concept irrelevant to time so stopping time would have nothing to do with it as infinite, or finite for that matter, has no "speed(units/time)", which seems to be your assumption superculture.


What you've said is pure bullshit, numbers are functions, and functions only *function* if there is time, numbers are not made of non-existent stuff, I want you to grab apiece of paper and cut it into equal pieces and for each element of a number (say, 2 there is 2 squares, 3 there is 3 squares and so on), soon enough you'll run out of stuff to make numbers out of, your fallacy is that you think numbers are made out of non-existent stuff, that is why you can't grasp what I am saying and it is not *an assumption* it is a *fact*, you can't get a non-existent number from non-existence, period.


Ok, are you saying that you need to time to count digits, so that if time were stopped there would be no time to count digits and therefore the digit after you no longer can count no longer exist? That makes no sense to me. And why insist that numbers are made of physical stuff? Counting, and assigning numbers to things is a human concept. The fact that we use base 10 to count, or bases 2 and 16 in computers is an arbitrary human decision. Numbers, counting, units of measurement - all are human concepts that we use to describe what we see. Numbers don't have to exist in nature, only in our heads, and if that's the case, then there is no reason to limit them
"The climax of every tragedy lies in the deafness of its heroes. Plato is right and not Moses and Nietzsche. Dialogue on the level of mankind is less costly than the gospel preached by totalitarian regimes in the form of monologue dictated from the top of a lonely mountain" - Albert Camus, The Rebel
User avatar
YodaJosh
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: CLEVELAND, OH

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Rouzbeh » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:24 pm

Anthem wrote:Thanks Rouz :)

Always good to see the products of an engineer's mind :P Are you still a student by the way or postgrad, what are you studying?
YodaJosh wrote:There needs to be a distinction between counting and measuring. You can count the number of atoms along the length of a piece of wood, and get a rational number, but how long is each atom? You end up with the same problem. And as we deconstruct particles further we find that the smallest parts may not even really exist at all times ( :o quantum physics is crazy). It's murky ground still, but the point is we can't get exact measurements because we still don't understand what goes on at the smallest levels

Yup yup but a great many of these particles are naturally restricted to bigger particles and the smallest particles only exist at very small fractions of time and not in all conditions so it would be possible to get matter to a point where these particles won't be emitted randomly, as far as I'm aware. Measuring them in a hypothetical scenario still makes sense, we just don't have any equipment to measure something to that smallest possible point. I'm assuming there is a smallest fraction. Perhaps something like an Avogadro's number for length? My assumption is that since everything is finite from base to whole, if we were to make an infinitely accurate measuring device, we'd end up with a rational number.
I used to think of the possibility of "smallest possible movement" by any particle which would imply that a particle can only move 0.00...1m at a given time and not 0.00...05m to rationalize movement as finite as opposed to infinitely small. Possible?

SuperCulture wrote:What you've said is pure bullshit, numbers are functions, and functions only *function* if there is time, numbers are not made of non-existent stuff, I want you to grab apiece of paper and cut it into equal pieces and for each element of a number (say, 2 there is 2 squares, 3 there is 3 squares and so on), soon enough you'll run out of stuff to make numbers out of, your fallacy is that you think numbers are made out of non-existent stuff, that is why you can't grasp what I am saying and it is not *an assumption* it is a *fact*, you can't get a non-existent number from non-existence, period.

If self-righteousness and emotionally triggered insults were indicators of being correct, you'd be have the final say. Numbers are concepts. You've said "if you were to expand an infinite series, it would take up all matter in the universe pretty quickly". We're saying it doesn't do it "pretty quickly", it doesn't have time. Two infinites don't reach a given number at different times, infinite doesn't work with speed, it isn't a number, it's a concept and it's irrelevant to time. Freezing time doesn't let you count [x/0] or pi, assuming you weren't frozen. Pi will be irrational at 0 time or at infinite time.
SuperCulture wrote:3.33 times 100 becomes 333, what you are doing is changing the *scalar*, to see this go get a 3D program like 3DS max or a free version of truespace, and play around with segmenting shapes into smaller and smaller pieces (adding lines of resolution/vectors, etc). An easy way to think of it is to imagine a graph in which you keep adding lines and points of resolution by making ever larger and larger numbers/functions, an easy way to think about it is to use the concepts of coloring - all filled, all empty, etc.

You're assuming that things are constantly growing in time as one goes to smaller measurements. I assure you they aren't. You can measure the weight of something (and weight measurements are quite accurate), and then measure its length to the smallest possible accuracy. Its weight won't change regardless of how small you go. Freezing time is irrelevant.
Saying something is bullshit just shows that it opposes your views and that you're disrespecting the person due to an inability to present a viable argument. If you can't discuss a logical problem without emotions then there's nothing to discuss, only argue, which I have no interest in.
the weak man wishes to die nobly for...the strong man wishes to live humbly for... oh yeah he died bravely
Rouzbeh
Thinker
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: London

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Anthem » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:52 pm

SuperCulture wrote:What you've said is pure bullshit, numbers are functions, and functions only *function* if there is time,...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

You have no idea what a function is. I'll give you the 7th grade definition:

Image

Numbers are numbers. 3/1 is not a function, it is a number. 3/1 = 3 is an equation. 3/x = y is a function. The solution to the algebraic equation 3/x = 1 is 3.

A function doesn't need time to work, it just needs an input. The input could be time, or it could be distance, or pressure, or just another number.

Now, what you're saying about freezing time and thus ending existence is another subject. If we don't exist, then we can't do math, fair enough. Probably numbers wouldn't exist, either. However, if you were to just freeze time within existence, irrational numbers would still be infinitely long. Math is a self-contained language within existence, whether made by man, made by nature, or as man's convenient way of representing a language made by nature.

Rouzbeh wrote:Always good to see the products of an engineer's mind :P Are you still a student by the way or postgrad, what are you studying?

Final semseter of mechanical undergrad coming up. I saw your profile, are you still a student?
-anthem
User avatar
Anthem
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby Rouzbeh » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:53 am

Anthem wrote:
Rouzbeh wrote:Always good to see the products of an engineer's mind :P Are you still a student by the way or postgrad, what are you studying?

Final semseter of mechanical undergrad coming up. I saw your profile, are you still a student?

Yup, first semester of the first year. Pretty stressful stuff here in england since they specialize straight from the beginning and I got my Jan tests next week. I'm mechanical too. Having some trouble with the electrical and dynamics since I got a normal American diploma. Did you do a placement year? Is it worth it? You applied anywhere for work yet? I did mechanical so I would have a wide range of job options but I have yet to meet final year students and post grads to see what they think. What's your final year project by the way?
the weak man wishes to die nobly for...the strong man wishes to live humbly for... oh yeah he died bravely
Rouzbeh
Thinker
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: London

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby YodaJosh » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:08 am

Engineers rock

I got an EE/CE degree

:D
"The climax of every tragedy lies in the deafness of its heroes. Plato is right and not Moses and Nietzsche. Dialogue on the level of mankind is less costly than the gospel preached by totalitarian regimes in the form of monologue dictated from the top of a lonely mountain" - Albert Camus, The Rebel
User avatar
YodaJosh
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: CLEVELAND, OH

Re: There are no rational numbers in nature

Postby SuperCulture » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

Anthem wrote:
SuperCulture wrote:What you've said is pure bullshit, numbers are functions, and functions only *function* if there is time,...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

You have no idea what a function is. I'll give you the 7th grade definition:


What you posted isn't a refutation of what I'm claiming, period. You're confusing ONE definition of function with the general term *FUNCTION* (to exist, to calculate, to recurse), I'm using it in the *2nd sense*.

You just are not getting it. In order for you to *caclulate in the real world* you need time, energy to flow, and mass or enregy to make the DISTINCT OBJECTS, each distinct number, and its vectors, out of, you can't create numbers without

1) a vector space location to put the number
2) stuff to make the number out of (atoms, energy, whatever)
3) Time to calculate and create and position the next number.
4) And a vector location and a vector space for the number to be *bounded in so that it is distinct from all other numbers and positions*

I'm not saying we need "time to count digits", I'm saying you need TIME TO CREATE THEM, an infinite series, each digit is being *created* and calculated

Pi is *calculation* and all calculations can only take place in time, if we froze time, you being a time bound being, you could no longer create the next number in the sequence, so the sequence gets frozen in the frame.

Time changes values, lastly you are just incapable of comprehending what I'm saying because you're still under the false assumption that numbers are made of non-existence, they aren't, they are made of stuff in the real world, in your mind they are still made of stuff (patterns of matter and energy).

You're still under the illusion that numbers are 'seperate' from nature, they are merely *descriptions* of geometry, if you represent all the digits of pi as shapes, you would see the shapes *expanding and growing*, and that growing *stops* once time stops. That's all the proof one needs: the Logic of geometry shows your thinking is deeply flawed.

There is a reason why there is computational limits on pi on a computer: A computer eventually runs out of memory to store the digits, this is why I made the statement, if you froze time the function (endless series) would stop, since the function to *create the next digit* itself would have stopped as well.

I'm going to go even further and define what I really mean: Stop the flow of energy and time all at once, therefore energy would no longer be flowing either, it would be 'frozen' as well, and therefore it's function would be held in stasis.
If anyone accuses you of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don't know.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato
SuperCulture
Thinker
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:37 am

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users