Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Unfortunately it would appear that you are unaware that 1/0 is undefined.

Please do look things up more than you are before answering. Last time you did, you made it sound like I was causing you an inconvenience… - this is the opposite to what ought to be the case.

Infinity isn’t a quantity, it can’t “equal” something. If you studied maths at a higher level you would know that you only formulate tendencies to infinity, and infinities or division by zero is a serious problem if it’s ever discovered in your formulations. The same goes for mathematical equations in physics, which you would know if you were familiar enough with either subject to be so certain about the topics we’re discussing.

If you think you can comprehend infinity, you are either giving bounds to infinity or implying your comprehension is infinite. So are you contradicting yourself or professing godlike capabilities?
It’s by definition only possible to comprehend the tendency towards infinity, which is why maths deals with tendencies instead of infinities. This shouldn’t be hard to comprehend.

If you don’t think relativity has anything to do with the universe as a whole then either you don’t understand the extent to which it models the universe as a whole and holds up to experimentation, or you have some experimental evidence that the entire scientific community is not yet aware of, and/or some imminent thesis with extensive mathematical support to be the next revolutionary to Einstein with regards to his theories. So are you lacking knowledge or are you one of the greatest geniuses that the world has recently seen? I won’t rule out the latter without you presenting anything to support this yet, but probabalistically and based on what I’ve seen so far I strongly suspect that I’m dealing with the former.

And yes, I can separate the total of the universe from local events. I was referring to both, so it’s strange how you don’t think I know the difference.

I will grant you that they call it “undefined”, but I could still argue that it has meaning anyway.

The greater issue is that you have merely made your case worse.

I was saying that the equation could not rationally produce an answer of “infinite”. You have now confirmed that not only can it not produce a value of infinite, but the best it can do is to become completely undefined.

So your idea of the universe’s entropy being infinite just got even more impossible. At zero K, entropy is undefined, void of meaning. And at anything above zero K, entropy is less than infinite.

People who say things like that are saying that only God can understand things that they don’t.

It would not be able to define conditions that can’t exist, sure. For all the conditions that can exist, we’re ok.
Why can such conditions that make the equation produce undefined results not exist? Read on.

Cooling something down to absolute zero requires the cooling agent to also be at absolute zero, or below which appears impossible, because the energy of whatever is doing the cooling is always transferring to what it’s cooling. You can get very close…

Again, I’m afraid I must inconvenience you to read up on absolute zero.

Not sure I follow the logic. Also, I’m an atheist, which would make me seem even worse if I was saying nobody can understand things that I don’t - which isn’t what I mean to say I can assure you!

I’m using the adjective “godlike” hyperbolically here, because logically nobody can have infinite comprehension: “comprehension” is by definition putting mental bounds around something, which contradicts infinity. Being godlike is a contradiction in the same way, so really what I’m saying is that your implication of understanding infinity is necessarily a contradiction regardless of how much I know or don’t know. I’m sure many people understand things that I don’t, but I’m more sure that nobody comprehends infinity by definition - and the best that can be done is comprehending tending towards infinity.

Does that dispel your suspicions about my arrogance or lack thereof?

Its not necessarily very easy.
But Relativity seems to me to be a natural consequence of an infinitely extended potential for power concentration curvature, simply because infinity doesn’t allow for a centre.

Your statement implied your arrogance, not mine. I would say instead that you attempt to argue almost any irrelevant issue even to your own demise. You like to argue. I prefer people who like to find agreement.

Again I’m not sure I follow your logic, and again arrogance is not intended - the above was an invitation for you to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

The fact that you did not accept this invitation, nor elaborate on the subject matter, and that you express distaste toward discussion with me indicates that we are done. Thank you for the debate.

What you did say is only valid if the universe is defined as all possible states. Only in this case, you would have 2^ininifty (number of possible states) > infinite (number of points on time). Universe is however not all possible states, it is one point in 3 (space dimension) * infinity (number of particles)* infinite (number of point in each dimension) = infinite (number of point on time).

I was working from James’ posting of this:

He proposed that a single line (1 dimension) has infA^2 segments (using the real number set),
a single plane (2 dimensions) has infA^2 * infA^2 = infA^4, and
a single volume (3 dimensions) has infA^2 * infA^4 = infA^6 segments

whereas a timelime (not using his 3 dimensional time) has only infA^2 segments.

thus “space is bigger than time”

Or when he used merely the whole number system:

Note that at each location, there is a measure of affect, called PtA, that can range from 0 to infinite. For existence to replicate, that measure of PtA must be identical from the first time moment to the replicated time moment in every of the infA^6 locations in space.

And then the possibility of space being at any specific chosen state is absolute zero. That is to say that the actual state of the universe at any given time cannot replicate or even be known under any circumstances.

You can tell the amateurish level of mathematics that we’re dealing with by its presentation.

He’s brazenly multiplying infinities all over the place. What do you get when you multiply, or perform any arithmetical operation on something that’s undefined? Something that’s undefined. Even adding 1 to quantity that has no bound still has no bound - his is the realm where you can make mathematical nonsense such as 0=1. E.g. “Infinity + 1 = Infinity, subtract infinity from both sites of the equation and bam” - that’s what you get when you treat infinity like a finite quantity.

You can sum up what you’ve quoted of him in a couple of lines:

1. Conventionally we use 3 dimensions to measure space and 1 dimension to measure time, therefore space is bigger than time.
2. There’s more ways to be heterogenous than homogenous, therefore heterogeneity is more likely i.e. everything being the same has lower entropy than everything not being the same.
   The first line says nothing, and the second line just says “entropy”.

So I take it back, you can sum up all that nonsense in one word: “entropy”. There’s no need to make a fool out of yourself just to explain what one word already explains.

Yeah and tell James to stop brazenly multiplying infinities all over the place, too! Fucking affectance ontologists. They’re almost as bad as value ontologists.

Speaking of one who should look things up before posting.

James addressed that issue nicely by first acknowledging what happens when you try to use “infinity” in maths. He explains it doesn’t work. He explains that “infinity” is insufficiently defined for mathematical use. Then he gives infA precise definition.

(I finally got that link thing working )

In short, it appears that James knew what he was talking about.

And yet:

3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 is just as infinite as merely saying “infinity”. And as I covered, multiplying however many indetermined quantities gives you an indetermined quantity.

He’s defined infA the same as you would define infinity, just in an amateur format.

Admittedly writing in unicode for posts here is limited as far as I can work it, but something similar to the following (where i=1 should be below the sigma, and ∞ above) is how you represent how he presented his infA - in terms of an infinite sum:
i=1 ∞∑ 1ᵢ
Yet this is the same as representing infinity. Swapping the term out for “infA” does nothing.

He then goes on to treat infinity algebraically like a finite quantity, and then performs some more algebra to represent a logical tautology…

Next is an attempt to vitiate actual definitions that you use at all levels of education as merely elementary education, as his best attempt to legitimise what looks like a merely elementary education of his own - presumably to make it seem as though there’s no point wasting your time with actually learning higher education, which would not incidentally reveal the nonsense behind his formulations, and potentially draw in amateur level mathematicians to his sophistry, who never wanted to get into higher education in the first place.

“infinity / infinity = indeterminate” is not like saying “length / length = indeterminate”.

Length is a unit, and letting the numerator be x and the demoninator be y, you get x/y, which is determined in that form. Dividing one length by another just means the result has no units, not that it has “indetermined” units: it is determined as having no units.

Then he finishes off your first quote with a conclusion based on his invalid premises.

The second quote is more of the same infinity-algebra, pretending that things like an indeterminable quantity + 1 can be determined with precision, like you would do with determined quantities.

In short, your quotes show nothing of the sort.

I really miss this guy, crackling sharp.

Of course he’s right, the number of real numbers is greater than the numbers of integers, even though of both there are infinitely many.

In the same way an unlimited three dimensional space is greater than an infinite line.

I like the argument that time is smaller than space, but I am not sure what is meant by the universe as consisting of all possible states. Except if all possible states means all necessary states. Possible states would comprise a meta universe that is never fully attained.

Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state ?

Initial or original - appears here that this needs a real distinction. There may not be one, or even, it may not even necessitate a proof for one. That is the first introduced fallacy.

Second, states are a continuum. Prior states are infinitely divisible, and correspond to particular variables. Passing over this leads to a circularity with which to argue space/time is invalid. Invalidity and boundary problems are relativistic .

The reduction will appear in 3 forms , then, phenomenological, eidectic - ontological, and entropycal , - all part of the continuum modally. - changing timespace in terms of preception, understanding and representation.

At that point visualizing absolute space/time will not become feasable.with the problem approaching irresolutability.

That it is so embedded, is the problem.
Other way- absolute, and infinitely regressed fallibility. They may become obsolete by definition, including mathematical ones.

Also entropy isn’t technically a state because A=A doesn’t apply to it.

Entropy means the absence of order, not a particular constellation of disorder, which would be a weird thing.

The laws of thermodynamics presuppose order, where heat as well as heath death are derivates of it.
Existence isn’t actually of an expansive but rather a contracting nature.

The question James’ work first of all evokes, is how there can be different qualities of infinitesimals?
Which actually addresses the deeper question of how one could compute one infinitesimal with another if they have no distinct features. So we do this by using different orders of infinity.

An infinitesimal of the rational order is smaller than one of the integer order. It is the noise within the noise.
I don’t know if there is an infinite number of classes of infinity, but I don’t think so. So thats a start.

I prefer to give an infinitesimal a quality of affect - namely, valuing. Which draws it out of strict analytical infinitesimally - it just has no size or mass requirement to it, it is a minimal concept of a being rather than a concept of a minimal being.

For something to affect it must also be affected. Resistance.

In the end resistance, or friction, is the real cauldron of logical being.

(and traction is what’s referred to as momentum)

“the moon grinding through space” - Capable

You haven’t impressed me as someone who should be spouting accusations of amateurishness.

Apparently the hyperreal maths which address this exact issue were formalized professionally back in 1948. I image James had plenty of time to read about them and probably before you or I were born.

I might look into that “value ontology” someday but one ontology at a time (I’m still not even comfortable with that word). And at my current pace this could take years just to catch up with James’ posts. I barely have any more time to read them than the pace at which he apparently was writing them. And then there is all of the parsing, categorizing and so on. My parsing program didn’t like the downloaded file from this server. I have a friend who might get around to fixing something for me (someday).

I think the issue was merely tying down exactly what was meant by a chosen infinity, such as the whole number set. And then the math is merely adding to or multiplying that set. The issue seem to be simply that if you have two identical whole number sets (perhaps in two different languages) then you have twice as many as merely one whole number set:
infA + infA = 2 * infA

I really don’t see the complication with it.

With infinitesimals, it would be the same excepting using only the real numbers that are less than 1. He proposed that one infinetisimal = 1/infA. I started to go try to verify that with professional maths but immediately realized that he is the one declaring the definitions, so obviously he is right about them.

The significance of the type of infinity is in the density of coordinates.
This density is lesser in the integer set than it is in the real numbers set.
It doesn’t matter if you multiply the set of infinite integers, the density of coordinates doesn’t increase. Whereas if you take an infinity of one of the more branched sets, you get a higher density and a deeper infinity.

Not sure if this is how James thought.