Proof Infinity is Impossible

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
devans99
Posts: 333
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by devans99 » June 27th, 2020, 3:28 pm

Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:25 pm
You didn't. Sets are still part of maths and say nothing about physical reality.
Sets of objects exist in reality - how many toes have you?

Atla
Posts: 959
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Atla » June 27th, 2020, 3:31 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:28 pm
Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:25 pm
You didn't. Sets are still part of maths and say nothing about physical reality.
Sets of objects exist in reality - how many toes have you?
You've got to be kidding. Toes are not an actual set of objects, they are physically continuous.

devans99
Posts: 333
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by devans99 » June 27th, 2020, 3:34 pm

Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:31 pm
devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:28 pm


Sets of objects exist in reality - how many toes have you?
You've got to be kidding. Toes are not an actual set of objects, they are physically continuous.
But ultimately, your toes are made of discrete atoms.

So it makes sense to talk about the set of atoms of your toes.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3356
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Terrapin Station » June 27th, 2020, 3:37 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:25 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:18 pm


You've seen video footage of energy that's not matter in motion? lol
You can see atomic bomb blasts - with your eyes - that's got to be energy - photons.
So you just see photons, not anything moving, and you're claiming that photons are "just energy," is this correct?

Atla
Posts: 959
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Atla » June 27th, 2020, 3:41 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:34 pm
Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:31 pm

You've got to be kidding. Toes are not an actual set of objects, they are physically continuous.
But ultimately, your toes are made of discrete atoms.

So it makes sense to talk about the set of atoms of your toes.
No, there are no discrete atoms, everything is continuous/interconnected with everything else. And even if we treat atoms as discrete, then we have discrete atoms, not sets. And even if we treat atoms as discrete and as sets, grouping the ones together that are in a toe is a perfectly arbitrary, random grouping and therefore makes no sense. I'm out.

devans99
Posts: 333
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by devans99 » June 27th, 2020, 3:47 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:37 pm


So you just see photons, not anything moving, and you're claiming that photons are "just energy," is this correct?
Well the photons have to move from the light source to your eyes.

Photons are the force carriers for the electromagnetic force, so as I understand it they are pure energy.

It gets a bit murky at that point. As far as I can make out science says photons have zero rest mass but non-zero relativistic mass (not sure what that means, never got around to looking at it.

Mass is equivalent to energy so I personally expect photons to have a very tiny mass.

Mass is equivalent to energy. Space has energy, so it has mass. So space is something rather than nothing.

devans99
Posts: 333
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by devans99 » June 27th, 2020, 3:50 pm

Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:41 pm

No, there are no discrete atoms, everything is continuous/interconnected with everything else. And even if we treat atoms as discrete, then we have discrete atoms, not sets. And even if we treat atoms as discrete and as sets, grouping the ones together that are in a toe is a perfectly arbitrary, random grouping and therefore makes no sense. I'm out.
Science says there are discrete atoms.

Ernest Rutherford bounced particles off the nucleus of gold atoms to prove the point around the 1900s. I believe its been extensively verified since then.

Atla
Posts: 959
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Atla » June 27th, 2020, 4:05 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:50 pm
Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:41 pm

No, there are no discrete atoms, everything is continuous/interconnected with everything else. And even if we treat atoms as discrete, then we have discrete atoms, not sets. And even if we treat atoms as discrete and as sets, grouping the ones together that are in a toe is a perfectly arbitrary, random grouping and therefore makes no sense. I'm out.
Science says there are discrete atoms.

Ernest Rutherford bounced particles off the nucleus of gold atoms to prove the point around the 1900s. I believe its been extensively verified since then.
No, science says no such thing and what Rutherford has shown isn't about (fundamental) discreteness.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3356
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Terrapin Station » June 27th, 2020, 4:10 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:47 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:37 pm


So you just see photons, not anything moving, and you're claiming that photons are "just energy," is this correct?
Well the photons have to move from the light source to your eyes.

Photons are the force carriers for the electromagnetic force, so as I understand it they are pure energy.

It gets a bit murky at that point. As far as I can make out science says photons have zero rest mass but non-zero relativistic mass (not sure what that means, never got around to looking at it.

Mass is equivalent to energy so I personally expect photons to have a very tiny mass.

Mass is equivalent to energy. Space has energy, so it has mass. So space is something rather than nothing.
You're overlooking what I'm really asking you. You're claiming that on a video of something like a nuclear blast, you're only observing photons?

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 176
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Thomyum2 » June 27th, 2020, 4:42 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 2:45 pm
I think that the requirement for an object to have a non-zero, positive, length does rule out any/all objects from having a UNDEFINED length:

An UNDEFINED length means the object is missing a start or an end or both. Such objects are invalid topologically. For example, an infinite brick with a left-end but no right-end, if it has no right-end, it cannot have a middle (because the middle would count as the right-end). And if it has no right-end, it cannot have a left-end, because the right-end would count as the left-end.
An object is simply something that can be observed. A material object, which is what we’re talking about here, is one that occupies space and has mass. There’s no requirement that it cannot be missing an ‘end’ or that it must have a middle. In fact, objects don’t even have a ‘start’ or an ‘end’, which are just terms that refer to those points where we begin and end our observation or measurement of it.

You’ve proposed a 3-dimensional brick which has five boundaries instead of the usual six, with four of the sides extending infinitely in one direction. There’s nothing here that makes this logically impossible – it only seems so because no one has ever recorded encountering such a thing, and because our current conceptual models of the structure of matter and space don't easily accommodate it.
devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 2:45 pm
By ‘entire structure of the natural numbers’ - imagine a ruler with every natural number on it. Its topologically very similar to the brick analogy I'm using.

Natural numbers are measures by themselves and their quantity is equal to their size.

Sets can be arrange linearly - then they have a dimension - so they are measurable with the natural numbers .

I hope you can see that set of natural numbers, arranged linearly, is a measure and I hope you see that it is analogous to an infinite ruler or infinite brick.
Sure, I see the analogy, but it's important to keep in mind the distinction between the characteristics numbers have in their own right versus those we give them by the way we choose to arrange them on a physical object for a given purpose. Numbers have a sequence, but don't really have a 'structure'.

Natural numbers are counts, not measures - these are not the same thing. Discrete entities can be counted, but a single object is a continuous entity and so its dimensions can only be measured. To measure, you have to devise a unit against which you can compare the object to perform the measurement, which you then do by counting the units. Yes, to accomplish this you can arrange numbers linearly on another object (such as a ruler) and space them equally apart (by the amount of your unit), and by doing so create a tool for measuring. But numbers only are used in measurements for purposes of counting the units - you cannot measure anything just with numbers.

The same thing applies to sets: these are conceptual collections of items with a defined set of characteristics. A ‘collection’, in and of itself, has no inherent spatial dimension until you give it one.
devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 2:45 pm
But none of these things can possibly exist in reality. Its a finite world.
I actually happen to think this is likely true. I just don’t think you’ve succeeding in proving it yet. :)

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Sculptor1 » June 27th, 2020, 5:42 pm

Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 2:43 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 2:35 pm


FFS how?
Space can be a bigger infinite ffs.
HAHAHA

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Sculptor1 » June 27th, 2020, 5:45 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 2:50 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 2:37 pm


Maths is ONLY a model.
Its abstract.
Maths explicitly declares there exists a set with a greater than finite number of objects in it.
No. Maths has some abstract ideas, that can exist in people's heads without ANY reference to reality.
Such as the square root of minus one. Or ANY negative number. Or ANY irrational number.
It can have perfection such as circles, and straight lines. None of which can exist in reality.

evolution
Posts: 418
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by evolution » June 27th, 2020, 11:05 pm

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 9:58 am
evolution wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 9:50 am
But, from my perspective, 'space' is NOT something that itself could expand.



What is the 'it' in reference to here?



Does this mean that if numbers can be infinite, then so to can distance?



Did you actually read what I wrote above in regards to a 'brick'?

If yes, then what did you actually get, from what I actually wrote?
Space itself is expanding - distance galaxies recede from us at faster than light speed - that's only possible if space is expanding.

So space is something, so space is an object, so space must be finite too.

Numbers can't be infinite. Infinite means larger than finite, but finite numbers go on forever - so its not possible for a number to be larger than finite - so there are no infinite numbers.

Space is just like the brick example I gave in the OP - it has to be finite.
Okay. If this is what 'it' IS, to you, then that is the way 'it' is. Full stop.

Now, what was your purpose in 'trying to' prove to others that infinity is impossible?

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 3319
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Consul » June 28th, 2020, 12:13 am

Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:31 pm
You've got to be kidding. Toes are not an actual set of objects, they are physically continuous.
According to the mereological doctrine called the Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts, your toes needn't be physically discontinuous with or disconnected from your feet in order to be material objects in their own right.

QUOTE>
"Many philosophers accept what I shall call the Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts (DAUP). Adherents of this doctrine believe in such objects as the northern half of the Eiffel Tower, the middle two-thirds of the cigar Uncle Henry is smoking, and the thousands (at least) of overlapping perfect duplicates of Michelangelo's David that were hidden inside the block of marble from which (as they see it) Michelangelo liberated the David. Moreover , they do not believe in only some 'undetached parts'; they believe, so to speak, in all of them. The following statement of DAUP, though it is imperfect in some respects, at least captures the generality of the doctrine I mean to denote by that name:

For every material object M, if R is the region of space occupied by M at time t, and if sub-R is any occupiable sub-region of R whatever, there exists a material object that occupies the region sub-R at t."

(Van Inwagen, Peter. "The Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts." In Ontology, Identity, and Modality: Essays in Metaphysics, 75-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. p. 75)
<QUOTE
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 3319
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible

Post by Consul » June 28th, 2020, 12:16 am

devans99 wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:28 pm
Atla wrote:
June 27th, 2020, 3:25 pm
You didn't. Sets are still part of maths and say nothing about physical reality.
Sets of objects exist in reality - how many toes have you?
There needn't be any abstract object which is the set of my toes in order for my statement "I have ten toes" to be true.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Post Reply