Moderator: Only_Humean
SuperCulture wrote:...if you froze time and motion you could rationalize all numbers in nature by multiplication.
Anthem wrote:SuperCulture wrote:...if you froze time and motion you could rationalize all numbers in nature by multiplication.
How do you figure?
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.
YodaJosh wrote:
3.33 is not an irrational number. Multiplying any irrational number by a rational number will still result in an irrational number
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).
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).
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!
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).
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.
Anthem wrote:Ah, I see your issue. It's a function, but not of time.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Anthem wrote:Thanks Rouz
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 ( 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: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.
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.
SuperCulture wrote:What you've said is pure bullshit, numbers are functions, and functions only *function* if there is time,...
Rouzbeh wrote:Always good to see the products of an engineer's mind Are you still a student by the way or postgrad, what are you studying?
Anthem wrote:Rouzbeh wrote:Always good to see the products of an engineer's mind 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 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:
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider]