Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Hey man I’m in a bar right now on a phone so this will be brief. I’ve been reading up on this infinity thing and I gotta tell ya, i think we’re both in over our heads here. This matter is not as simple as it’s being made out to be in this thread, and if the existence of actual infinities was so obvious, I wouldn’t be reading about all these badass mathematicians and shit who say it isn’t. And when I say badass, I mean the kind that don’t hang out at philosophy forums.

Yeah so there’s a unique and turbulent history to this matter and believe me, it’s one hellacious, mind bending rabbit hole.

Just posting this so I don’t leave you hanging. I’ll be back when I have a standard keyboard at my fancy.

So since we’re ignoring my last post, which says this same thing, I would like to enquire how you reconcile this with what you said here:

If you cannot count via a “serial process from 0 up (or down)” to any “position within the set”, how can you finitely ascertain your position with the set?

Also covered by my last ignored post, what is stopping you, in an infinite set never mind a finite set, from adding a position between current unascertainable positions to add to the set?
Is that “finite” position already taken?

Well either finitude is preventing further positions from being taken, defying the “infinity” of the set, or infinity is so saturated that u can’t possibly square it, double it, or anything because it’s so saturated that nothing can be squared or doubled etc on top of it.
Aren’t you wanting to have your cake and eat it here?

This was also covered in my last ignored post.

I ask how two endless things can or can’t be “differently” endless when they are both endless.

Endlessness doesn’t imply quantity, and quantity is necessary to imply equality. Infinity is by definition the exact lack of quantity: the exact opposite of quantity, even. Endlessness is a quality that by definition defies quantity.

Again, are you trying to have your cake and eat it?

Agreement or disagreement for each point - as you requested. The reason I ask is that this all comes back to that “infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA” that you’re insisting I “missed”. And we can work back from there.

You had asked me for advice. I provided that advice and as part of it, an explanation of how to discuss or debate with me. Then I asked you a question related to our ongoing disagreement. Afterward, I made a prediction concerning your posting behavior.

You completely ignored the advice.
You completely ignored the question that I asked.
But you exactly followed the prediction:

Although tempted to go into a long detailed discussion of why you were so predictable (there is a little Kim Jong-un dominating your mind), we weren’t done with your last batch of debacles and here you divert to a new plethora of fallacies and then complain that your new distraction has been ignored.

Did you want to pickup where we left off?

I can’t really argue with that but that doesn’t mean that no one is right. Although as you say, “the kind that don’t hang out at philosophy forums”.

I was actually hoping to get into some political discussions but I quickly discovered that same symptom on this board is as bad, if not worse, concerning politics.

So I’m not really planning on sticking around much longer anyway. I’m just waiting for my parsing program to get written.

oh no doubt. of all the subjects of philosophy, ethics and its extension ‘politics’ is a lived experience in which people have a real stake in something. it’s not a subject like epistemology or metaphysics where it wouldn’t matter much if you were wrong (if you even noticed at all). so people are especially impassioned about politics and tend to side with whatever defends and protects whatever position they’re at on the spectrum. if you’ve got economically advantaged people who are getting a free ride - e.g., business owners, stock traders, recipients of big inheritances, trust fund babies, etc., etc. - almost without exception they’ll be conservatives and employ all manner of philosophical sophistry in justifying and protecting these advantages.

the same goes for the liberal perspective, too. the beauty of the political debate is that the parties involved are not motivated by some stupid philosophical theory to hold their ground… and while they generally do end up producing a load of philosophical nonsense to defend their place, the material conditions from which they come are very real.

politics demonstrates that simplest of modus operandi; it begins with a battle over the fruits of labor… who has the ‘right’ to that fruit… and then develops into something extraordinarily complex, often for the purposes of obfuscating the simple premise from which it began.

the right’s best move would be to continue over-complicating the matter to keep it uncertain and obscure… while the left should be focused on deconstructing the conservative narratives produced by the right. this requires a surgical critique of history to reveal the ways in which conservative philosophy has secured its philosophical hegemony over the minds of people.

… if you want to see one interesting take on this deal with ‘infinity’, go check out Brouwer and the intuitionists. one thing i keep seeing as a cornerstone to this problem is how various mathematicians respond to what cantor did with the transitive infinite or the infinite transitive or whatever. i dunno what the hell it is, but it’s something important because i keep seeing it pop up everywhere i read. i’m probably wrong here, but i think the dispute is over this thing about defining a set as infinite. these dudes observe a continuum of divisibility within an arbitrarily chosen closed set of natural and real numbers, and then they’re like ‘see? i told you the set was infinite!’ but then the other dudes are like ‘but by virtue of it being a continuum, you never actually produce an infinite set, so you can’t call it that!’

little help here would be nice, fellas.

Asking the insane to bring sanity to the insanity?
:slight_smile:

I’m still reading and following… though not a fella :wink: lol

Shame you’ll be off when your parsing program ends, obsrvr524… what are your plans for the research data? and what are you hoping to realise from it?

i got this, 524.

he hopes to realize an infinitely affectant ontology of SAMs.

did i nail it or did i nail it, 524?

= “I disagree”
as you asked me to say if I don’t agree.

= “A simple reason”,
followed by the beginning of how it applies aaaaall the way back through your reasoning = “state only the beginning of it”

= “ask for agreement”
= “ask if (you) agree”

This is all very clearly included in my post that followed your advice on how delicately you want to be treated, if you’d actually read what I said.

So basically I followed your advice exactly and you are the one ignoring, I even made sure to explicitly address the question you asked:

Both the addition I used and the multiplication example you used were involved in my proof that you’re still trying to understand.

So basically:

is as I predicted 2 pages back:

and

and

This is confirmed by your repeated attempt to move away from logical content to instead politicise the discussion:

I read your excuse that:

followed in the same post by the obvious flaw in this approach:

In researching the history around the person to understand the context behind their works, you are injecting your own history of yourself and your own context into theirs, doubling the muddying their actual content instead of just analysing the logic behind their points and arguments. As I’m demonstrating using proof - neither your intention nor your strong suit.

So we see:

Objectively applies to what you keep doing and not to me in the slightlest as I’ve just proven through quotation and logic.

Buy a mirror for god’s sake.

I’m trying to help you and all you can do is - in the terms of James that you quoted yourself “sin” - through “presumption”, and give advice that when followed, you ignore.

Stop presuming your criticisms are correct and that the only thing left is to go back to them and admit this, disregarding the possibility that they are not correct and ignoring explanations of why their underlying assumptions are wrong, with accusations of “distracting”, unbacked claims of fallacies and no justification of debacle, to justify ignoring them. If you don’t see the connection yet, don’t presume there is none, let me explain it to you.

You realise it’s possible that you’re wrong, right? All that psychological projection of “People who say things like that are saying that only God can understand things that they don’t” onto others applies the other way around, you know.

But let’s make a prediction: you disregard this possibility and most likely this whole post, which does nothing more than prove your presumptions - in order to help you. I don’t want to have to do this, I want to stay on topic. It shouldn’t need typing out, but you need to stop letting anything like the “pride, politics, and stupidity”, of which you’re presuming to only apply to others, forbid you from growing. Or just continue to think it’s all the forum’s/other people’s fault…

oh my bad. what i meant was, even though we observed planet y make 2.5 more orbits than planet x in that 24 hour period, we wouldn’t be able to say ‘planet y has orbited more times than planet x’, because if they’ve both been orbiting eternally, one couldn’t have made more orbits than the other. i’m trying to point out one conceptual problem with actual infinities with this hypothetical planet thing i got from ghazali.

counting is, but not time. time, in its most essential description, is a period in which the difference of the motion of objects can be contrasted and/or compared. anytime there is movement, there is a relative change of position, and ‘time’ is the period of transition.

kant once mentioned something similar to this idea when he talks about what we call ‘time’ when we look at a clock. its not that the clock contains, produces or represents ‘time’, but that it simply generates the experience of it by its hands moving against a background. thus, time is essentially observed movement… that period of repositioning.

now of course things still move without being perceived (unless you’re a radical empiricist), so what we would call the passage of time, had we experienced such motion, still exists independently of our experiencing it. but yes, the counting is man made… or i should say ‘used’, since we really didn’t ‘make’ the possibility of objects belonging to groups that can be quantified.

i’ve always figured that time and space were infinite, but not necessarily energy. one problem i’m up against here though is explaining how, if space is infinite, energy wouldn’t also be infinite if it’s necessary that all space be ‘filled’ with objects. james is clearly espousing a ‘field’ theory of space which at a fundamental level means all space is occupied by something. so i’m almost forced to admit that energy is infinite unless i can conceive of a boundary to space. but that wouldn’t make any sense because there’d be something beyond that boundary… and wtf would i call it if not more space?

see this shit pisses me off because i’m being bombarded with conflicting views and information overload and frankly, i’m about to say fuck it and go hang out with biggy talkin’ bout ‘how is the problem of infinity even relevant to conflicting goods and dasein and stuff.’ look, i’ve never been faced with having to make a decision in life that depended on whether or not the universe was infinite.

‘oh wait… i’m not sure if i should do this, because the universe might be infinite. hold on, lemme think about it.’

no. i’ve never said that in my life, and i probably never will.

what we want are affordable solutions to modern, existential dilemmas. don’t we, biggs?

I thought I answered this at least in part, but it was not my intention to bombard you with just another view that conflicts with some others, I merely wanted to present it as what experimental evidence consistently shows, in line with the scientific consensus for centuries now, and why it makes sense. You can reject this like obsrvr and others have tried, based on attempted logical argument that’s based on understandings of infinity that I’ve also refuted - that’s up to you. I like the idea that there’s points in the consensus and my thinking that have been missed myself, but such things need less flawed groundwork than have been presented, or at least experimental evidence against the consensus that counters what’s been gathered so far, which nobody here is providing.

The evidence is that energy is finite and constant, as is mass, and that time hasn’t been going on infinitely so far - at least in the sense of the pre-Einsteinian “absolute time” that Einstein and others showed not to be valid. Space, however? Well if constant energy is getting spread out over a non-infinite time as evidence suggests, it’s dissipating across space that may as well be infinite, but isn’t necessarily infinite. My line of inquiry explores how space and time aren’t exactly finite or infinite. It is inspired by the experimental evidence that time and space curve under extreme conditions of gravity and speed - such as back in the singularity as experimental evidence suggests that things used to be. Let me know if previous posts on this thread about this subject have lost you, I am happy to explain what I mean in further detail and to receive criticism on these ideas.

I think that it is more logical that space and time have always existed because quantum mechanics forbids non existence
An absolute vacuum at the quantum level is too unstable to survive which is why quantum fluctuations violate it so easily

The expansion of space is creating time given that space and time are interconnected rather than entirely independent states
The only time that truly exists in reality is the eternal NOW since the past is just a memory while the future has yet to happen

I dont know if we are moving through time or if time is moving through us or if it actually matters which of these it is
The eternal NOW however is a dynamic state in a constant state of motion even though it can also appear to be static

Timelessness cannot possibly be true unless motion is an illusion because motion without time is simply not possible
I find it to be the most counter intuitive idea I have ever heard of and conceptually very hard indeed to understand

This is why I suggest the spacetime curvature theory, because it models how space and time have “eased in” over what tends towards infinity in false notions of “absolute time” before any given point, due to increased time dilation further and further back towards the singularity, which all evidence suggests the universe tends back towards. That is to say, quantum instability and fluctuations forbade the process from not starting, but time was so stretched out over this start that it lasted for what tended towards an eternity. So, in absolute time, there was “a time” to mark the beginning, but in actual relative time, it eased in from then over a time that tended towards the infinite.

I agree with the rest of what you say about time being an “eternal now”, but what I’ve been describing so far has been in keeping with traditional conceptions of time.
I also agree that this eternal now is a dynamic state. I would say that traditional conceptions of time are an attempt to measure of incongruity of this dynamic state of the eternal now.

Thank you for your cordialness.

Every man needs a hobby. I have a family so I don’t get much hobby time. Actually, I have 3 families; mine, my wife’s, and my wife’s former sister-in-law’s (long sorted story). Between the kids, parents, grand parents, and politics there isn’t much room to stabilize a consistent hobby, so I just choose random projects and see how far I can go with it. I was in the midst of choosing another project when I was reminded of “affectance” and the infamous James S Saint. So I looked to see if I could find him and do a personality research dossier. And here I am swimming through reams of thoughts and exploring the depths and breaths. Everyone should do that to another person sometime (if they learn to be responsible about it). An older relative would probably be best. It’s better than collecting stamps or watching the political news. :slight_smile:

I don’t really know what I will do with the data. I enjoyed professionally collecting and correlating such, but it’s different now. So I’m not sure how far I’ll take it, nor where or when it will end. It wouldn’t be the first time I just tucked a completed project away in a bin, long to ever be seen again.

Even if I knew what that meant, I’m pretty sure that I’m not there yet.

My question pertained to multiplying numeric sets. I have posted it twice. You have ignored it now twice. Then, as predicted, tried to change the subject.

And “May I query this explanation?” does NOT equate to “I disagree”. If anything it would be "May I query into THAT explanation (learn the difference - “this here” vs “that there”). But in reality you merely chose to argue about a different subject:

No it doesn’t. I said that you add 1 to your position. I did not say that you add 1 to the value that is at your position. So more like this:
Infinite set represented as: {…, x, Y, z, …}
Add 1 TO position y:
New set looks like: {… x, y, Z, …}
The set itself doesn’t change, merely where you are located in or pointing to within the set.

So the rest of your post is nonsense and you still haven’t addressed the issue of your lack of adding the subtotals in order to get the proper product of multiplied sets infA * infA = InfA^2

Guy, you need to chill the fuck out.

Like I said, just because “you don’t see the connection yet, don’t presume there is none, let me explain it to you” - do you agree that “presumption is the seed of all sin” like you said, or not? You’re so convinced of some combination of malevolence, incompetence, psychological or political compromise on my part that you refuse to see other quite obvious explanations as to how hard it seems to be to have a simple discussion. Stop presuming so I can unpack this for you, and it will all come together for you unless you don’t want to see it do so, which won’t be my fault.

We calm now? Great. We can continue :slight_smile:

To briefly address this one before we get to the actual content, I thought it was fairly straight forward, but as before I have simply been misinterpretted and presumed to be distracting. People ask if they can query something if they think they see the source of some disagreement in said something, no? I proceded to that source, to query whether it shined any light on what’s going on here. Like I said, there’s a connection between all the things I’m saying that I’m trying to bring together in a way that gets to the bottom of our disagreement. If you’d let me explain it to you, you’d see it too. I apologise for not being as literal and concise as you seem to need me to be, ok? I’m trying. :slight_smile:

Right, great. Query answered! Easy, right?

Let’s ride this momentum, shall we? It doesn’t mean the rest of my post is nonsense, it just means it doesn’t necessarily get to the bottom of things as directly as I suspected and wanted to test.

I felt I had, you disagree. This is fine, don’t flip the fuck out.

To be clear, I’ve been well aware of the formula (x + y)^2 = (x^2 + 2xy + y^2) since I learned and repeatedly applied it correctly while at school.
You took my method of expanding (x+y)^2 as something like just “2xy”, or just “x^2 + xy” - only part of the full process at any rate & missing “subtotals” as you say, which makes sense from the way you’ve perfectly correctly presented it.

May I please request, at this point, for you to agree or disagree whether this adequately encapsulates where you think I went wrong? May I also please request if you think I’ve sufficiently acknowledged and shown understanding of the point of your contention?

If so, I invite you to consider the scenario where x = y, as done all the way back on page 4:
Using the same form as I did above just now, we now get (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + 2xx + x^2)
Do you agree that this can also be written as (x^2 + 2xx + x^2) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)?
More specifically, on page 4 we were covering the case that x = y = 1
so since (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)
we have (1 + 1) * (1 + 1) = (1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2)
this can be written as (1 + 1)^2 = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1)
Am I right? Do you agree there has been no funny business or “switching up” so far?

A similar thing occurs when you have (1+1+1)^2 = (1^2 + 11 + 11 + 1^2 + 11 + 11 + 1^2 + 11 + 11)
Obviously the right hand side can be expanded to (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)

As I said in this post: "Consider the example (1+1+1+…+1), is it agreed that the “…” represents an endless string of “1+1"s?”
We covered the examples of (1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1) and (1+1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1). I’m sure you don’t need any more examples of adding an extra 1 each time to solve (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on?

So we ought to be able to jump all the way to (1+1+1+…+1)^2, I feel.
Each time we progress towards this from (1+1)^2, through (1+1+1)^2, through (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on, we get an answer that can be written as (1 + “some finite number of zeroes” + 1)^2 = (1 + “some other finite number of zeros” + 1)

I want to stress that in these finite examples, I acknowledge that “some finite number of zeroes” on the left hand side is not the same as “some other finite number of zeroes” on the right hand side.
Are we in agreement that I acknowledge this and there is still no funny business or “switching up” so far?

The problem is once you transcend these finite examples to the infinite, by the definition of infinity you can no longer bound “some finite number of zeroes” or “some other finite number of zeroes” - they are both endless. There is not an end to either, such that one’s end can be longer or further than another.
Are we in agreement that this is where you think the funny business happens?

My argument is that if you stick strictly to the definition of infinity, (1+ "infinite zeroes +1)^2 = (1+ "infinite zeroes + 1)
That is to say, (1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1) = (1+1+1+…+1)

As I understand it, you distinguish infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up from other infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up. Are you in agreement with this?
You represent the rationale by showing the relation that finite examples show as you tend towards infinity, which is correct.
You represent the rationale by showing the construction of the infinite examples and how they are constructed differently, which is also correct.

Do you agree that I acknowledge your rationale fairly and accurately?
Do you agree that I understand where our arguments diverge?
Do you agree that infinity, by definition has no bounds in order to say one is larger or goes further than another?

Do you agree that this on topic and relates to where you think I made a mistake here:

And are you trying to say that you did properly sum the products?

Why is it so hard to read what I’m saying, instead of forcing it all into something that sounds like a loaded question, under the guise of "well it’s just a simple yes or no question :evilfun: "
Why does it feel like you’re trying to trick me into warping what I’ve said into something you can dishonestly and dismissively construe as either dumb/malevolent/corrupt, when the reality is far from that?
Everything you need to know about what I’ve actually said is in my words. Excuse my suspicion of you, but it’s firmly justified by how you’ve been treating me so far. You haven’t presented yourself as trustworthy or honest one bit so far - can I trust that this has changed?

To be clear what I’m answering, I’m assuming that by “Sum the products”, you mean in calculating (1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1), yes?

In full answer, in case you’re trying to trick me:
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1), where “…” is FINITE as (1+1+1+…+1)^2
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1), where “…” is INFINITE as (1+1+1+…+1)
In both cases I have properly performed the calculation and did not make the mistake you thought I made.

To also clarify just in case, for the sum of: (1+1+1+…+1) + (1+1+1+…+1), where “…” is INFINITE, I used one method of adding term by term to get (2+2+2+…+2), which can both be presented correctly as 2 * (1+1+1+…+1), and again, where “…” is INFINITE and since “2” can obviously be presented as “1+1”, it can also be presented correctly as (1+1+1+…+1), again, where “…” is INFINITE. Hilbert’s Hotel was set up nearly 100 years ago to visualise these exact kinds of paradoxes when dealing with infinity, I am not communicating anything new or controversial here.
This is in contradiction to where “…” is FINITE, in which case (1+1+1+…+1) + (1+1+1+…+1) = 2 * (1+1+1+…+1), always.

Assuming what you mean is contained in the above, which sums up everything I have been saying in relation to mathematically operating on “infA”, at every step so far in this discussion, then I have properly “summed the products” every time so far in this discussion.

Now, are you going to disregard the correct distinctions that I’ve been making, in order to make out like I’ve said something obviously mistaken, even to me this whole time, which I’ve not actually done, and explained why several times?

Again, excuse me if you’ve taken a turn and are no longer trying to misrepresent me. It’s perfectly understandable if you thought I said something that I didn’t - there’s always room for improvement in everyone’s wording including my own, and I’m sorry if I’ve ever misled you - I’ve done my best to prevent this and rectify it where it appeared to me to be needed. At every step I’ve wanted to hear what others have to say about mistakes they think I’ve made and with 100% honesty I have always willed to accept them if they’ve validly been pointed out. Of course, if they’ve been incorrectly pointed out, I have done nothing but try to correct this with 100% honesty and with no intention to distract, or deny any truth at any point, even if anyone has believed this is not the case. Quid pro quo, to check if you’ve actually read any of this, let me ask you a question: have you read and understood everything I’ve said? This is a separate question to whether you agree with it, which you can answer too if you want, separately.

Because 3 times now I have asked for the very simple conformation, “I disagree” but you insist on the obfuscating tactic of dodging and trying to rewrite the narrative. It only sounds like a “loaded question” because you are trying so hard to divert from it. Grow a couple.

Yes, I am referring to your 3rd grade arithmetic error that you refuse to correct.

That wasn’t your argument, but that is what you did in effect.

And that is where you go off the track.

I showed you a pretty simple rule to follow. The question is, “why do you think that the rule has to change just because you no longer can see the end of the chain?”

So far, you have presented nothing at all, even in your added faux pas that justifies changing how to multiply merely because you don’t think that the chain has an end.

Which was just Sil-ly.

Hilbert’s Hotel is a joke for the simpleminded.

I explained your 3rd grade issue with this:

Simple question

Simple Question

SIMPLE QUESTION:

What is the first line in that explanation, given long ago, that you see to be in error?

“Hilbert’s Hotel is a joke for the simpleminded.”

Yeah well it’s better than hotel california… because you can check out any time you like, and you can ALWAYS leave.

Buh dum tshhh

thank you, thank you. Really, you’re too kind. Thank you.