Oh shut up you tool. Seriously. Don’t tell me to be impressed by someone who can recite the ABC.
I had a solid background in theoretical physics when I was 8. Fuck off.
“I had a solid background in theoretical physics when I was 8.”
Falling off the monkey bars doesn’t count, Jakester.
Alright alright. Jesus. I wuz just playin’.
Yeah temper temper
Actually Silhouette, what you said is wrong, or my saying it could be construed that way was wrong -
what I mean with a deeper infinity is one which expands quicker. The rate of adding up is greater with a deeper infinity. Why does this matter?
It matters because this is how James arrives at the idea that space is “larger” than time and cant be reduced to it, thus why there is no cyclical universe, no eternal recurrence of the same.
Let’s look at this “precise definition”:
infA = (1+1+1+…+1)
Now to perform some arithmetic:
infA ^ 2 = (1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1)
Time to sequentially multiply the terms as you do for multiplication of values in parentheses, let’s see…
11 = 1, ok. 11 = 1 as well, let’s keep going and what do we get?
(1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1) = (1+1+1+…+1)
infA ^ 2 = infA, huh…
Now, let’s compare this with infA * 2:
(1+1+1+…+1) + (1+1+1+…+1)
But instead of putting one after the other like you would normally do for addition of finites (which the very formulation of “(1+1+1+…+1)” tries to do in the first place!!), which would get “infA” just the same as if you multiply them, let’s remember there is no end to add the next term to, and sequentially add the terms the same as you do for multiplication:
1+1 = 2, ok. 1+1 = 2 as well, let’s keep going and what do we get?
(1+1+1+…+1) + (1+1+1+…+1) = (2+2+2+…+2)
infA + infA = 2 * infA
Ooo, have we got somewhere? Let’s check against the rule:
“x^2 > 2x” iff “x > 2”
Ok, so “infA > 2” check.
Therefore infA^2 should be “larger” (deeper?) than infA2
Recall:
“infA * infA” was “infA” and “infA + infA” was “2 * infA”, wait what?
Our results show infA^2 < infA2…, which would only be true if infA was less than 2…
(1+1+1+…+1) < 2? Nope…
Looks like even being able to recite your ABCs and using the secret of James’ calculations and working with the formulations is a good start to being able to see how it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I told ya, dude. I fucking told ya.
For those about to die, we salute you.
salute
Hahahahaha
Yes, beautiful, Silhouette literally comes out proudly demonstrating that he knows how to make 1+1 add up to 2, and Promethean is actually impressed. Probably thinks it is relevant to my point about different orders of infinity. Go ILP.
I should really leave this to you two geniuses.
James adds 1s together with “(1+1+1+…+1) = infA” and everyone loses their minds over his genius that inspires readership and ideas in others, or makes others want to compare their own ideas to his.
Sil unproudly shows it falls apart at its most basic level and is ridiculed for actually doing the arithmetic at its most basic level to prove it.
Go ILP indeed.
There’s no point in anyone staying anyway because nobody ever wants to learn anything.
Make claims, ridicule counter-claims, flatter self and either leave or repeat.
Let’s have a look at “depth” and prove what I’ve just said as well:
“Expands quicker”/“rate of adding up is greater”
This assumes a finite time taken to add up each element in constructing the infinity, and an equal time taken to add up each element for each construction of infinity.
Otherwise adding up (1+1+1+…+1) twice as fast as (2+2+2+…+2) makes each “expand at the same rate” and the “rate of adding up is the same”.
Either that or don’t assume a finite time taken to add up each element, and instead add each up equally instantaneously → “expand at the same rate” and the “rate of adding up is the same”.
Ergo different depths/orders of infinity argument is unjustified yet again.
Destroying ILP arguments is too easy, but getting people to listen and accept, nevermind learn and grow is impossible.
But at least he took your advice, promethean, and got out while he could - well a bit late.
At this point, I have to accept that Silhouette is just being the anti-James political pundit reminiscent of Juan on Fox’s The Five, the paid-to-be anti-Trump pundit for the show. Juan ends up making such ridiculous and stupid arguments that no one can believe that even he believes what he spouts even though he does deliver it as though perfectly serious.
Sometimes it is really difficult to tell if pundits just believe that their audience is stupid, as US democrats seem to believe, or whether they really are that stupid themselves. Perhaps they are just trying to gather up all of the really stupid people for future purposes.
I won’t bother to play into the game of pointing out obvious reasoning errors with someone apparently just making dumb arguments for sake of hating on the other guy. Whether political or just stupid, such people only learn in private, when at all.
I thought you people wanted to talk entropy.
I. don’t. care. about. James.
I neither hate, like, disrespect, admire, anything him, nor anyone else here. Arguments either hold or don’t hold completely irrespective of their author and anyone’s emotions.
Me pointing out that arguments, which happen to be authored by him are flawed doesn’t give me an agenda - what’s with all this ad hom paranoia? Your “Traitorous Critic Fallacy” is invalid.
Are you going to tell me that I’m a paid political pundit against every single person whose arguments I’ve disproven? And why bring politics and association fallacies or any other red herrings into it at all?
Perhaps this reflex of yours is indicative of your own approach to argumentation: argue for the person rather than their content, making any criticism of the content an attack on the person. But whether or not this is true has no bearing on the content itself, you see? I don’t give it a second thought because the argument would be the same whoever came up with it - and it would still be wrong in exactly the same way.
The whole reason you brought up James’ misuse of infinities was in response to something Dan said about your very first post on the thread, so presumably your argument about entropy relied on it?
If so, now I’ve disproven this infA nonsense, you can re-evaluate your position on entropy that relied on it.
If not, then you have no grounds to complain that you thought we wanted to talk about entropy when it was yourself who de-railed with misusing infinities.
On the topic of entropy, I also have scientific consensus against me, the same as you.
Whilst you don’t accept the laws of thermodynamics and relativity, I don’t accept that the universe is perfectly flat or at least that it was always flat as explained in a previous post as follows:
You rejected this as drinking koolaid, because James said some things that made you firmly make up your mind that the scientific consensus is wrong.
If you wanted to further the discussion on entropy, perhaps you should explain the exact reasoning of these things that convinced you that the scientific consensus is wrong.
However, if there’s flaws in this reasoning, I would ask you to please not take it as an attack on James himself because I don’t think anyone here has an interest in defaming or slandering anyone, including me.
Oh I believe that. As I said earlier, “this is more about you than James”.
So are you saying that if I point out your convenient mistakes in your misuse of infA, you will happily accept that you are still too amateur to be mocking James, Euler, Robinson and the rest and give up this “only God could understand anything that I don’t” attitude?
Good, then as the very next line says “Arguments either hold or don’t hold completely irrespective of their author and anyone’s emotions.” you’ll believe that it’s not about me either.
Enough with your appeal to motive fallacies, please do get back to the content and let me know what my convenient mistakes are - I’ve obviously missed them and I’m relying on you guys to point out what I’ve missed, and likewise you can rely on me to point out if there’s anything you’ve missed in pointing out what I’ve missed.
As for putting James in the same list as Euler and Robinson, that remains to be seen.
Again I’m an atheist, so “only God could understand anything that I don’t” is not my attitude - Euler and Robinson no doubt understood plenty that I don’t, but that’s been thoroughly and perfectly acceptably proven and pier reviewed unlike the considerably less known and less expertly scrutinised James - potentially for good reason, potentially not.
But that part of your quote, I did not believe.
That’s a yes or no question. Yes? Or No?
Hey if you don’t have any argumentation, only loaded questions intended to humiliate, nor believe what I say then there’s no discussion to be had.
James’ arguments will just have to remain defeated, without anything reflecting on him as a person.
That’s what I thought. Liberal minds never commit else they risk losing control of the narrative. Truth means nothing to them because life is all about themselves. They are certainly not interested in seeing their mistakes revealed.
Still no content, only claims.
I too could pin this on assumed political leanings and biased stereotypes attributed to them, but it would be equally as vapid as your accusations.
I literally asked you what my mistakes are and you say I’m “certainly not interested in seeing my mistakes revealed”.
“Truth means nothing to them” is literal psychological projection on your part - confirmed.
Are you going to stop wasting our time now? If so, you have two options only:
Option A) Continue the discussion and reveal my mistakes - I am interested.
Option B) Cease posting. The motion that you have nothing is carried.
If neither are met in your very next post, should you make one at all, that is indisputable proof that you intend only to waste both of our time.
The moment of truth has come, let us see who you really are…
Still no commitment.
Too predictable.
They also have an amazing lack of courage even in debate. It would have been easy enough to just say “yes” and then continue your deny, deny, deny tactic. You were going to do that anyway but at least then you would have been able to learn something if learning about your mistakes was of even the least interest.
I feel like Trump talking to the Pelosi debacle.
Now, while Sil is figuring out how to multiply sets, anyone want to get back to the topic?
I say that the entropy of the entire universe as a whole can never change. James said the universe can never repeat its exact state. Both of those depend upon the universe being infinity in size.
So for the universe to alter and repeat its state of entropy, it must be a finite universe. So the question becomes, “What is outside the finite universe?”
i think this might be the crux of the biscuit, 524. there’s an ongoing controversy between mathematicians and philosophers regarding the difference between ‘actual’ and ‘potential’ infinity. seems to me that mathematicians (as intuitionists, maybe) are assuming some kind platonic numbers that transcend the arbitrary use of numbers as symbols… as if they are ‘out there’ floating around. if they were, then it wouldn’t be a mistake to say it’s possible for there to be an infinity of ‘things’. but if this isn’t taken for granted, mathematics simpliciter would only ever be a rational language that was used to designate observable quantities. this may be what sil means when he alludes to the fact that conceiving of infinity can only always be an ‘approach’ or a ‘tendency’… this making any countable set at the moment of its conception an ‘actual’ set, and hence only finite.
and this dispute is not for nothing, man. if you take the concept of ‘infinity’ and apply it to actual, observable terms in space/time, you end up with major problems like trying to find a room at hilbert’s hotel. ever been to hilbert’s hotel? that place doesn’t make any sense, bro.
i think what’s happenin here is mathematicians are attributing the fact that a number can be divided and/or added to infinitely, to the notion that therefore things can be divided and/or added to infinitely. but there’s quite a bit of evidence that the energy of the universe is finite. entropy, conservation of energy, and the counter-intuitive idea that ‘more’ energy can be introduced into the whole system from outside of it (which makes no sense because there is no ‘outside’ the whole system). these are the three biggies.
maybe the confusion lies in trying to reconcile our intuition that space is infinite - on account of there being no conceivable ‘boundary’ or edge to space/time - with the thought that the stuff in this space/time should also be infinite.
perhaps what we are trying to call ‘infinite energy’ is not an unlimited quantity of energy - remember we can make numbers unlimited, but numbers aren’t things that take up space… they’re in our heads - but the impossibility of energy to not exist (for where would it go once all motion stopped?). the only mystery here then is how a system with a finite amount of energy that has reached a local state of absolute entropy ‘reset’ itself and set into motion again… as it has perhaps been doing forever.
so if you have the following set of conditions:
infinite space
finite energy
impossibility of ‘nothing’
… you end up with a logically forced repetition of the same (or there about) for an eternity, no?
kinda like that snake guy eating his own tail, yeah?
Yes, I have seen some people proclaim the physical existence of numbers. I haven’t observed anyone taking them seriously. Space is never short of kooks.
I have heard of that Hilbert’s Hotel thing. I don’t remember much about it. It seemed at the time to be just a word game more than anything real.
It makes sense that a distance could be either divided infinitely or lengthened infinitely. The quantum people want to argue that there is a minimum length, but they declare it to be far, far to small to ever be verified. And they seem to be basing their theory on gross approximations concerning larger things, extrapolating the vague into the defined. I have never found any reason to believe them.
I don’t think that I have ever heard of anyone claiming that objects are infinite in any way.
You would have to add an infinite past into that list in order to require a cycling.
One thing that I am having trouble imagining is an infinite space extending past known space and with absolutely no energy in it.
If you believe that the entire universe sprang from the big bang then you have accepted the idea of an infinite space with nothing within it. If you believe that time has been infinite then you cannot avoid the fact that light, for example, has had an infinite time to spread throughout the infinite space. So how can you possibly have any space that has never been filled with light, if nothing else? Then in addition you have to ask why energy would be in only one portion of infinite space to begin with. James’ proposal was that it is impossible to have space without it being filled with “affectance” (the philosophical form of energy).
I think energy has to be infinite because both space and time are infinite. We don’t have to measure it. There isn’t any option because there is nothing that we can imagine to prevent it. If there is an boundary to space, there has to be a reason for it to change from what it was and into a boundary. And then the question still remains as to what would be on the other side.
So what is that evidence that energy is finite?
There seems to have been confusion of what James had put together so far and the rough concepts he was working with.
Anyone who has actually read my posts before responding to me can discern that I and James do not put forth the same propositions.
Ive told James again and again that affectance is too general of a concept and needs to be split up in another infinite ways - qualities of affectance - to do with the fact that things don’t only affect, but are also being affected, along with some other concerns. On this level, there is no Newtonean symmetry, but rather a fundamental lack of symmetry which causes growth and diminishing: Nietzsche recognized this as will to power. Symmetry, and Newtonean physics, are a passive result of this on a large scale.
As usual, my concepts here are a well outside of the box of what has already been understood and incorporated by the experts, and I cruelly expect of my readers to make an effort. Cruelty to myself, you see. So let me offer you a fully in the box high school level riddle:
Given a 3 dimensional box which expands in all directions indefinitely and at the speed of light, how does the length of one of the sides of the box equate with the combined length of all of the sides? Is there any point at which they are both the same?
Apply the same thing to the set of Real numbers with respect to the set of Rational numbers.
You cant stop the one set or one of the sides from expanding while you wait for the other set or other side to catch up.
Now apply this to infinite time. Does the spatial infinity of axis x become equal to the spatial infinity of the axes x, y and z combined if t=infinite?
If you take “infinite” as a concrete value, then it is easy. Infinite times infinite is infinite. So the answer would be yes.
This elementary well known example is meant as an indicator of the difference between following rules and thinking.
I salute you gentlemen, may you find a good path.