Plan B Forum

I thought about posting this in religion just to be a smart aleck - but it is quite spiritual, I think. Definitely worth a watch!

https://youtu.be/CNFm_DzHDaE

Way back in the days of Cafe Dartre there was a regular poster who was deeply into pushing iron, particularly the action called "squats" He thought that was the most basic and most important activity in weight lifting. He was married to someone who was also a regular poster and clearly a much nicer person than he was. Anyhow, he made a long series of posts arguing that the word 'infinity' had no connection to any quality of reality and was just a source of illusion.

I asked him how many decimals numbers there were between 1.0 and 2. He had no answer.

Infinity has a long tradition of fascination with philosopher and mathematicians. There is something called 'Zeno's Paradox' explaining why the hare cannot ever catch the tortoise in a race between a tortoise and a hare if the tortoise is given a head start. Lewis Carrol has a veery interesting little story about a conversation between two such animals in such a race. Carrol uses the concept of infinity to attack the very ground of logic.

I, for clear reasons bordering on religious bigotry, will not participate with Netflix.

Thanks for your patience, fellow denizens of this descendent of Cafe Dartre.

(edit) a little fact checking on my part revealed Zeno used a race between Achilles an a tortoise. Carrol changed it to a hare.

snailgate. (I miss Library Guy and Slant 6, among many)

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:37 am

Way back in the days of Cafe Dartre there was a regular poster who was deeply into pushing iron, particularly the action called "squats" He thought that was the most basic and most important activity in weight lifting. He was married to someone who was also a regular poster and clearly a much nicer person than he was. Anyhow, he made a long series of posts arguing that the word 'infinity' had no connection to any quality of reality and was just a source of illusion.

I asked him how many decimals numbers there were between 1.0 and 2. He had no answer.......

Thanks for the reminder of Jay and his wife, Sam I Am. When I first showed up around 1997 or so, it seemed to me that everyone already knew each other well. I used to talk about "Cliques" and posted a lot of anti-gun things and tried to get attention. I used a few different handles before I settled on my current name. Back then, at least when I first arrived, I could post without registering.

Anyway, I'm wandering away from the thread topic. Carry on....

As long as you're dredging up old memories from the Cafe d'Arte, check out this page ...
   
and check out some of the old handles.  Makes you wonder how many are still out there but have found some new home, and how many others have left us forever.

-"BB"-

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:37 am

I asked him how many decimals numbers there were between 1.0 and 2. He had no answer.

That can't prove an actual infinity because you limited it to begin at a point and end at a point. By definition, infinity exceeds all points and is not contained within specified limits.

That there is an infinite "number" of decimal numbers (not real but a mental construct) between 1 and 2 has nothing to do with the "real' world of actualities and potentialities.

There cannot be an actual infinity of time (for example) because if that were so, then all things possible would already have been actualized during that infinity. Time had a beginning and is not infinite. (You may argue that time is as much a construct as math, but try telling that to a dying universe)

There cannot be an actual infinity of time (for example) because if that were so, then all things possible would already have been actualized during that infinity

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Clearly, we can say an infinite amount of time would permit every possible even to occur (like the monkeys typing Shakespeare), but events are often contingent on each other. So, if I take the typewriters away from the monkeys, they may not type Shakespeare (or perhaps they did before I took them?). The point is, I don't think the infinite amount of time will change this contingent link; if my parents do not have children, I do not exist no matter whether time is infinite or not. Of course, one could postulate that an infinite amount of time would necessitate an infinite number of parallel "universes" to encompass all possible occurrences and provide for all possible contingencies, but that is something much more complex than saying time is infinite. The fact that we age and eventually die indicates that time progresses in one direction naturally (although there need not be a starting point we can measure--it is relative), but it can clearly be open ended (perhaps at both ends even) without contradicting this direction. Indeed, time as we measure it may end when we do, but this is a limitation on ourselves and not on time.

I recommend you guys watch the movie and hear what some of the leading mathematicians and scientists have to say on the question.

It really is a fascinating video. I plan to watch it again later this week so I can be mind blown again.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:47 pm

I recommend you guys watch the movie and hear what some of the leading mathematicians and scientists have to say on the question.

Thank you

I'm sure it would be interesting; I will definitely try to watch it. After all, I have an infinite amount of time to do so. Or not.

I was rather disappointed. Very little substance and a lot of time-wasting graphics, including a very odd sequence inspired by Godzilla and What's Up Tiger Lily? Whole thing could have been over and done in 20 minutes if the tap-dancing was cut out. Very little (almost none at all) discussion of time and whether it could be infinite.

It was stated as a given (but with no argumentation) that an apple in a box (hermetically sealed one supposes) would, given enough time, become dust, then smaller particles and then, moving through all possible permutations of those particles, eventually become an apple again - but apparently only after becoming a typewriter, a banana and all other possible things.

This proves that either a finite or an infinite number of Einsteins exist on the same number of Earths throughout the universe. Hilbert's hotel got the obligatory mention without mentioning Hilbert. Fame is not eternal.

And of course, the presupposition of the entire thing is that there is no God.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:50 pm

And of course, the presupposition of the entire thing is that there is no God.

Or that God is something well beyond human comprehension, which is my preferred answer. The gods created by human comprehension are as flawed and failed as humans are, after all.

But maybe those are the best descriptions we can divine to even attempt to describe describe the true god.

I recall when I took quantum mechanics in grad shcool that there were some phenomena and theories which could only be described mathematically (and often by very esoteric mathematics) because they have little, if anything, to which they can be related in our every day experience. Nevertheless, some scientists try their best to describe them, and we have the imperfect models of Schrodinger's cat, Einsteins thought experiments, etc. They are imperfect, but try to relate them to our experience. Our concern of any god is described in the same way, so there is no reason to expect our model of god not to reflect humans to describe the incomprehensible. Add to that the fact that many of those descriptions were put together thousands of years ago, and that they fall short is far from surprising. We are all like the blind men with the elephant, trying to describe what we have no way of comprehending.

Yes and all that would be fine if humans could agree to it; instead of so many of them having blazing certainty of the literal truth of their god and even greater certainty that others who do not live as their god deems should be persecuted for it.

I can't argue with that.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:29 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:50 pm

And of course, the presupposition of the entire thing is that there is no God.

Or that God is something well beyond human comprehension, which is my preferred answer. The gods created by human comprehension are as flawed and failed as humans are, after all.

The lack of a comprehensive understanding does not equal a total lack of understanding, science being a prime example of this truth, along with art, math, history, Christianity and many other aspects of knowledge. All gods created by humans are as flawed and failed as humans, which is why Christianity is based upon the revelation of God to man by God, and not the invention of humans.

Galatians 1:11-12 Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that the Good News message I told you was not made up by anyone. I did not get my message from any other human. The Good News is not something I learned from other people. Jesus Christ himself gave it to me. He showed me the Good News that I should tell people.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:38 pm

Yes and all that would be fine if humans could agree to it; instead of so many of them having blazing certainty of the literal truth of their god and even greater certainty that others who do not live as their god deems should be persecuted for it.

So because you have come to the conclusion that there are no gods, anyone who does choose to believe in one is inferior to you.

Man wants gods.  Any society that has ever existed and left a recorded history manifested a belief in a Supreme Being of one form or another ... or several of them.  And that hasn't changed, not even today.  Is there any better way to explain the cult of Trump other than it being a form of religion in which the followers truly believe that the Great Bloviator is the Chosen One and his Tweets are sacred scripture?

It's you, and people like you, who are the outliers.

-"BB"-