| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2011 11:40:55 AM · #351 |
| Mathematics may have trouble dealing with infinity. Language trips up on it all over the place as in this thread with examples like the oxymoronic 'infinite time limit', or the statement that something can never happen in an infinite eternity, in which context 'never' doesn't mean a lot. Or maybe it does. Worse than maths or language is the human brain/consciousness/mind, for which anything outside living memory is perceived only at a conceptual level. |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 12:09:16 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Simplifying it, if the universe contained just two moving particles, could an infinite number of universes contain every possible direction and speed of travel and every possible relative location of those particles? The answer is no, they cannot because there are an infinite number of possible directions of travel, speeds of travel, and an infinite number of locations. (If you don't believe me, then imagine halving and then rehalving the points of a compass and let me know at what point you have described every possible direction). |
Just as an aside, this may not actually be true. There may be a size below which it makes no more sense to "keep dividing" (postulated to be at about the Planck length 10^-33cm). I've seen that mentioned a few times and I think Greene actually mentions it again in his new book. It's made me wonder if spacetime isn't actually made up of discrete indivisible "particles" that cannot physically or rationally be divided.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2011 12:23:57 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by raish:
With all due respect, Matthew, I've a lingering doubt as to whether your example here works.
That's a bit of a laugh, because infinity doesn't exactly 'work' anyway, what with being purely conceptual.
Lots of work has been done in establishing the application of infinity to mathematical models. In other words, I suppose, lots of work has been done in establishing what infinity is. As Bill Clinton might say, that depends what you mean by 'is'.
I guess, then, that that which has been established is to some extent not so much what infinity is, but more a conventional consensus as to how the term and/or concept should be used. I further guess that at some point in the realm of infinity theory there may be some divergence between schools of thought.
Be all that as it may, my lingering doubt is triggered by my understanding that, for the generally accepted mathematical concept of infinity there is, however contra-intuitively, room in infinity for an infinite number of infinities. |
Fair enough. I am not a mathematician or a physicist (though I read a lot of it).
I think the point still stands that impossible things do not happen purely because there are an infinite number of iterations. I'd also expect there to be stochastic elements to any real life example against which the typewriting monkeys analogy is applied, guaranteeing a degree of error (per Chaos theory).
Further, as I understand it, the multiverse records every potential particle interaction from a single starting point - so in wiring terms the infinities run in series, not parallel. DrAchoo's reasoning seems to imply that there are an infinite number of starting points (which is far more of a philosophical model than one required by the multiverse concept used to explain quantum interaction).
|
|
|
|
02/17/2011 12:33:43 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There may be a size below which it makes no more sense to "keep dividing" (postulated to be at about the Planck length 10^-33cm). |
That would be a physical limit, not a conceptual one. Conceptually, we can imagine half a Planck length. If you stick with a conceptual model, you must also accept conceptual implications. If you're going to introduce real-world limitations, then your model must account for those, too. Either way, it fails. |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 01:03:06 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There may be a size below which it makes no more sense to "keep dividing" (postulated to be at about the Planck length 10^-33cm). |
That would be a physical limit, not a conceptual one. Conceptually, we can imagine half a Planck length. If you stick with a conceptual model, you must also accept conceptual implications. If you're going to introduce real-world limitations, then your model must account for those, too. Either way, it fails. |
I dunno. "What is smaller than the Planck length?" may be a similar question as to "what is before time?". I understand I can always imagine dividing something, but that may be an improper image in the same way we can seemingly visualize "before time". This is pure speculation. No need to get hung up about it.
Your heat death question about the universe, frankly, is the same question I asked myself when reading Greene. Maybe the universe IS infinite, but if there is no usable energy, then nothing can happen. Perhaps the model he is thinking of is like an oscillating universe where things can "recharge". Dunno. Would be fun to have him join the conversation. |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 01:06:22 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For the rest, I believe my point still stands. (see, I said it nicer that time). |
You totally discarded my initial example on the basis that you don't "buy" chaos theory. However, the elephant trap that you are falling into is exactly the one I was trying to explain with the monkeys example.
I'll try again.
If you regard the monkeys as random letter generators of a finite set within the confines of pure maths and statistics, you can come up with the odds of something happening. Given infinite sets of infinite monkeys that will happen at some point in time. I acknowledged this right up front in my clarificatory post. You've finally reached that point.
However, if you try and apply this in the physical universe (and by extension any multiverse) it doesn't work because there are an infinite number of variables. As Raish says, infinity holds an infinite number of infinities.
Simplifying it, if the universe contained just two moving particles, could an infinite number of universes contain every possible direction and speed of travel and every possible relative location of those particles? The answer is no, they cannot because there are an infinite number of possible directions of travel, speeds of travel, and an infinite number of locations. (If you don't believe me, then imagine halving and then rehalving the points of a compass and let me know at what point you have described every possible direction).
If an infinite number of universes cannot contain all of the potential states of just two particles, then how could you suppose that an infinite number of universes could contain every possible combination of particles, directions and locations? |
A trap?!? Confound you!
The truth is, I don't understand your chaos idea. It seems to all melt away with the question, "Is X possible?" If it is, it will happen with infinite attempts. If not, it won't. I don't think any extraneous details can change that.
Message edited by author 2011-02-17 13:07:15. |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 01:27:21 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"What is smaller than the Planck length?" may be a similar question as to "what is before time?". |
Length is a conceptually divisible unit of measurement used to describe a physical dimension. Half a Planck length, while impossible to achieve in the real world, is smaller than a Planck length. Time is also a conceptually divisible unit, used to describe sequence of events. One minute, half a second, a twelfth of a nanosecond, etc. However, "what came before time" doesn't make any more sense than "how long is length?" or "what's north of the North Pole?" |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 01:35:09 PM · #358 |
Okey dokey. The whole reason I brought it up is that there may not be "infinite positions" for a particle to inhabit in a finite universe. It was just a tangential comment that I found interesting to ponder spurred by Matthew's post.
Message edited by author 2011-02-17 13:36:56. |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 02:16:34 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as an aside, this may not actually be true. There may be a size below which it makes no more sense to "keep dividing" (postulated to be at about the Planck length 10^-33cm). I've seen that mentioned a few times and I think Greene actually mentions it again in his new book. It's made me wonder if spacetime isn't actually made up of discrete indivisible "particles" that cannot physically or rationally be divided. |
Yes - I thought you'd mention that. Of course, a Planck length can be halved conceptually (we don't know physically). However, I don't think that anyone is still promoting luminiferous aether.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2011 02:21:44 PM · #360 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I don't think that anyone is still promoting luminiferous aether. |
RayAether? |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 02:30:28 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as an aside, this may not actually be true. There may be a size below which it makes no more sense to "keep dividing" (postulated to be at about the Planck length 10^-33cm). I've seen that mentioned a few times and I think Greene actually mentions it again in his new book. It's made me wonder if spacetime isn't actually made up of discrete indivisible "particles" that cannot physically or rationally be divided. |
Yes - I thought you'd mention that. Of course, a Planck length can be halved conceptually (we don't know physically). However, I don't think that anyone is still promoting luminiferous aether. |
:) Ya, "particles" is probably a poor word. Maybe, more conceptually, space is like a giant board with dimples like chinese checkers. A particle (be it string, brane, whatever) may only be able to inhabit a dimple and cannot inhabit "between". It seems like an interesting way to solve Zeno's paradoxes anyway... |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 11:26:23 PM · #362 |
So after only four strings of comments on the thread we've gone from wondering why atheists always seem to attack religious postings on DPC
to discussions of Planck length. Doc I think you should go back to abusing lady bugs. |
|
|
|
02/17/2011 11:34:26 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
So after only four strings of comments on the thread we've gone from wondering why atheists always seem to attack religious postings on DPC.... |
Okay, I'll finally bite. That "attack" consisted of the words "A different view", linked to a blog post. Boo-fucking-hoo. In opening this thread, Achoo said that constitutes "anger" and "militancy", and that just sounds nuts. The problem is that you people have been privileged for so long that even the most amorphous whif of dissent sends you into apoplexy. Live with it. Don't be such a crowd of pitiful whiners.
Message edited by author 2011-02-18 01:05:13. |
|
|
|
02/18/2011 01:22:45 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Okay, I'll finally bite. |
Didn't even have to flex the tip of the rod much either. If you're so sure of yourself, why do you need to respond to an obvious troll?
I was just commenting on the hilarity of the range of subjects in the thread Louis. Hell, when you called me "you people" I almost fell on the floor. My belief in a supreme being is so tenuous that "whif" describes it quite well. And the only privilege I enjoy is being a member of a Western society. Louis, I actually respect your non-belief. And I'll treat you the same way I treat the LDS Bicycle Boys that knock on my door several times a year; I give'em hell. :)
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 08:15:53 PM · #365 |
Moral dilemma of the week:
Jazmin is a young, severe asthmatic who is allergic to cats. She owns four cats at home. Her FeNO, a marker of allergic lung inflammation is very high at 105. Jazmin's asthma is frequently out of control and she utilizes lots of medication, makes frequent trips to the ER and is admitted to the hospital many times a year. Jazmin has state insurance funded by tax dollars.
Let us consider the moral framework I will dub "DPC Liberty" (primary axiom: All actions are permissible as long as they are not harmful to others). Would Jazmin's owning cats be considered moral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is correct), immoral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is incorrect), or amoral (DPC Liberty cannot help inform us or declares the action to be without a moral dimension)?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 08:22:32 PM · #366 |
...and you are asking this in this thread because???
Did you not suggest a while back in some other thread that "Atheists" were amoral...so how could they possibly even begin to hope to help? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 08:41:34 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Moral dilemma of the week:
Jazmin is a young, severe asthmatic who is allergic to cats. She owns four cats at home. Her FeNO, a marker of allergic lung inflammation is very high at 105. Jazmin's asthma is frequently out of control and she utilizes lots of medication, makes frequent trips to the ER and is admitted to the hospital many times a year. Jazmin has state insurance funded by tax dollars.
Let us consider the moral framework I will dub "DPC Liberty" (primary axiom: All actions are permissible as long as they are not harmful to others). Would Jazmin's owning cats be considered moral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is correct), immoral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is incorrect), or amoral (DPC Liberty cannot help inform us or declares the action to be without a moral dimension)? |
Head Smack
Message edited by author 2011-02-19 20:41:49.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 08:48:36 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and you are asking this in this thread because???
Did you not suggest a while back in some other thread that "Atheists" were amoral...so how could they possibly even begin to hope to help? :O)
Ray |
That was tongue-in-cheek. I know atheists have moral systems. I just want to explore them. (And, yes, before someone says the blatantly obvious, I understand there is no single "atheist morality". I chose this one because it's commonly mentioned here on DPC.)
Message edited by author 2011-02-19 20:49:37. |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 09:07:08 PM · #369 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and you are asking this in this thread because???
Did you not suggest a while back in some other thread that "Atheists" were amoral...so how could they possibly even begin to hope to help? :O)
Ray |
That was tongue-in-cheek. I know atheists have moral systems. I just want to explore them. (And, yes, before someone says the blatantly obvious, I understand there is no single "atheist morality". I chose this one because it's commonly mentioned here on DPC.) |
Because I'm bored:
I'd consider the situation amoral. The person obviously has an issue with a need for companionship in a specific animal. That animal causes her grief, in a life-threatening manner, yet she hangs on to the 'addiction' or attachment. Why? Personally, I feel that instead of spending the money treating her symptoms, she'd be better served getting the psychological treatment she might benefit better from to discover why she has a potentially deadly attachment to creatures that cause her severe discomfort and pain.
However, like most things in life today, it comes down to financial considerations, doesn't it? Any time money gets involved, it's a pure crapshoot. Some people would say that she needs treatment and help no matter what the cost, some would say that she doesn't deserve any treatment period because she's being stupid and putting herself in harms way on her own.
I'd pull in the middle. Try and treat her at a fundamental level. Get to the bottom of why she's making such decisions. As long as she's showing that she's making an effort, keep it up. If it doesn't work, or if her evaluations show that she's simply not making the effort, cut her loose. No more medications/insurance/etc. She's responsible for everything, including her eventual probable death.
Oh, idealism :D
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 09:14:46 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
No more medications/insurance/etc. She's responsible for everything, including her eventual probable death. |
Presumably this reasoning applies to cigarette smokers?
R. |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 09:17:10 PM · #371 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
No more medications/insurance/etc. She's responsible for everything, including her eventual probable death. |
Presumably this reasoning applies to cigarette smokers?
R. |
Yes. I know plenty of people that have kicked smoking. Can't hack it or don't want to? Then you don't get medical help, period. At least, in my utopia :D
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 09:21:28 PM · #372 |
Example like the one you just gave Doc are the primary reason why I would favor incremental increases in "User Fees" for a variety of services.
Free the first time and increase the fees until such time as the people either rid themselves of the cause of the problem or pay the full costs associated with the treatment.
Call me harsh but when someone is the author of their own suffering, it only stands to reason that they be called upon to take the appropriate remedial action or absorb the costs.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 09:23:33 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Yes. I know plenty of people that have kicked smoking. Can't hack it or don't want to? Then you don't get medical help, period. At least, in my utopia :D |
What about help for COPD if you DO quit?
R. |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 09:29:58 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
No more medications/insurance/etc. She's responsible for everything, including her eventual probable death. |
Presumably this reasoning applies to cigarette smokers?
R. |
Yes, but we really ought to consider providing some form of assistance to help smokers quit. We help drug addicts, why not smokers.
In a somewhat similar scenario, having had to rescue people from themselves, I would love to see a system that would have daredevils (of all types) pay a deposit prior to climbing mountains or roaming the woods, particulary in instances where you have to rescue the same idiot two or three times from the same spot.
If the services of emergency crews are not required, they get their deposit back.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 09:57:50 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Call me harsh but when someone is the author of their own suffering, it only stands to reason that they be called upon to take the appropriate remedial action or absorb the costs. |
Does that philosophy apply across the board? What if Jazmin's problem is she can't afford to have any children but decides to have three anyway? As a result she goes on public assistance. She works hard, but can't make ends meet. Technically it's her fault. So should she be forced to quit having children or put the ones she already has up for adoption in order to keep the public assistance?
Message edited by author 2011-02-19 22:03:58.
|
|
