My own paradox!

[Kelzie]

You know what has always confused me? That one about the goats and the doors. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? There's three doors and behind two are goats and behind one is a car. You get to pick one and before you open it, and before you open it, one of the other doors is opened to reveal the goat. Now evidently you are always better off switching, though for the life of me, I can't understand how your choices aren't 50-50.

Oh, is this OT? My bad. There just seemed to be some smart people on here that could explain this to me.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Readings For Depth

"Readings For Depth"

You know what has always confused me? That one about the goats and the doors. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? There's three doors and behind two are goats and behind one is a car. You get to pick one and before you open it, and before you open it, one of the other doors is opened to reveal the goat. Now evidently you are always better off switching, though for the life of me, I can't understand how your choices aren't 50-50.
Oh, is this OT? My bad. There just seemed to be some smart people on here that could explain this to me.

Here is a link to the Monty Hall Problem.

Here is a link to a List of Paradoxes.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Foundations

"Foundations"

Time itself can never reach actual infinity, no matter how fast it goes. Actual infinity is unattainable because all natural numbers are finite. You can pick any number. No matter how high and there will always be a number greater than it. All numbers are finite, infinity is just a concept.

Lunacy! You mean accounts using numerals are discrete. A numerical account of items makes no reference to the innate character of the items themselves.

To say that there was no beginning while our state of existence shows time is progressive is absurd.

The state of existence would be progressive because the essential elements of its foundation are themselves infinite.

You are classically doing everything possible to declare an extrinsic creator which is not intrinsically associated with nature. It is a notorious attempt to resolve the good and evil problem.

Again, the elemental properties of an eternal are to be and to become. Emulation of being and becoming is an affirmation of the eternal.
Procreation is the manner for humans to be and become and affirm the eternal.
Affirmation of the eternal is the metaphorical will of god.
It is a primordial obsession with sexuality for genetic and cultural perpetuation in fulfillment of the promises of possible eternal life.

Solutions to Zeno's Paradox seem to address a rigor which is lacking in your concerns.

 

[nes]

Re: Foundations

"Foundations"

Lunacy! You mean accounts using numerals are discrete. A numerical account of items makes no reference to the innate character of the items themselves.

The state of existence would be progressive because the essential elements of its foundation are themselves infinite.

You are classically doing everything possible to declare an extrinsic creator which is not intrinsically associated with nature. It is a notorious attempt to resolve the good and evil problem.

Again, the elemental properties of an eternal are to be and to become. Emulation of being and becoming is an affirmation of the eternal.
Procreation is the manner for humans to be and become and affirm the eternal.
Affirmation of the eternal is the metaphorical will of god.
It is a primordial obsession with sexuality for genetic and cultural perpetuation in fulfillment of the promises of possible eternal life.

Solutions to Zeno's Paradox seem to address a rigor which is lacking in your concerns.

You need to look at the hilbert's hotel paradox. Zeno's paradox(s) don't discredit me at all. Your simply ignoring the truth that time is progressive. Time is measurable. Since it is measurable, events progress with time.

What is the cause of matter / interaction existing forever?
When interaction never began, and matter never got created, yet exists?
How can something exist without being created?

How can a computer calculate pi without even starting?

If its not possible, then how can interaction happen without ever beginning?

How can a certain amount of matter always exist or be created? Why not any other certain amount? Why that specific amount?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Logos

"Logos"

You need to look at the hilbert's hotel paradox. Zeno's paradox(s) don't discredit me at all. Your simply ignoring the truth that time is progressive. Time is measurable. Since it is measurable, events progress with time.

At each moment an infinite is one thing, in the next instant it contains properties of the former thing and becomes something else. What would prevents a collection of infinite elements (mindful they are bounded) from being collected and approximated? Accuracy and precision are scale issues.

What is the cause of matter / interaction existing forever?
When interaction never began, and matter never got created, yet exists?
How can something exist without being created?

Why is it more plausible to relegate the idea, of simply being, to an extrinsic creator rather than to the intrinsic essence of nature?

Philosophers of antiquity applied ab initio, first principle deduction, to establish existence as intuitive and immutable. They sought a monad, a smallest geometric entity, of which all things were a common multiple. It is a philosophical foundation of monism.

At no point does it imply a distinction between a creator and the creature.

How can a computer calculate pi without even starting?
If its not possible, then how can interaction happen without ever beginning?

The second statement is counter intuitive to the essence of a foundation with elements of infinite quality. The first statement is counter intuitive to temporal facility.

How can a certain amount of matter always exist or be created? Why not any other certain amount? Why that specific amount?

Although, being bounded but infinite says nothing about the countability of the collective of elements, that does not detract from the temporal interaction of their perpetuation, which obviously involves assimilation.

 

[MrFungus420]

Time itself can never reach actual infinity,

How do you know?

The most that you can legitimately say is that you don't see how time can reach infinity.

no matter how fast it goes.

I don't recall anybody making any claims about how fast time goes...

Actual infinity is unattainable because all natural numbers are finite.

?????

Because our counting system is composed of defined, finite numbers that means that infinity cannot exist????

You can pick any number. No matter how high and there will always be a number greater than it. All numbers are finite, infinity is just a concept.

Funny that you'd claim that. Mathematics give us an infinite number of actual inifinites. The set of all fractions between 0 and 1, the set of all fractions between 1 and 2, the set of all fractions between 2 and 3, ad infinitum.

To say that there was no beginning while our state of existence shows time is progressive is absurd. The computer calculating pi was doing it progressively, because it calculated 1 digit of pi every second, not 1 digit of pi every 0 seconds. If the computer calculated pi without time, then it would not be progressive.

How fast the computer would be computing pi is moot.

You still have the same problem.

The contradiction is still that you are trying to claim that the computer has existed eternally, and are also trying to give it a starting point.

Your contradiction is still in your basic premise.

Your contradiction is still that you are trying to define the computer as eternal and having a begining.

Pi must have a beginning,

True.

just as forces interacting with atoms/subatomic particles must have a beginning also.

Why? Because you say so? Or because you have found your own way to pose the Cosmological Argument?

All that you have shown is that if you try to define a computer as being both eternal and having a starting point, you can come up with a supposed paradox.

What would cause a certain interaction between atoms / subatomic particles at present if the interactions went on forever undefined?

What difference does it make whether or not we define them?

They occur whether or not we have quantified them.

This is the same as the computer still calculating pi digits without even starting to calculate "3.14". How would it give out numbers without having a defined number of digits from the decimal point?

It can't. The computer could not have existed eternally if it started calculating pi at the begining of it's existence.

What caused the big bang to give off a finite amount of matter? Why not more? Why not less? Why that certain amount?

How do you know that the big bang wasn't just a huge cosmological event and that there are other "big bangs" out there,

The answer to all of those is that we don't know.

how do we even know that universe "walls" exist, past which have nothing?

Who has claimed that?

See, we have no evidence of this, yet scientist want to conclude this is what happened.

Evidence of what??

The only stated claim in that last bit is that the universe has "walls", which I've never seen anybody claim.

 

[MrFungus420]

Re: Foundations

You need to look at the hilbert's hotel paradox.

It's not a paradox. It is an attempt to explain an infinite concept in a way that most people can understand.

Zeno's paradox(s) don't discredit me at all.

Try again. Your supposed paradox is the exact same as the dichotomy paradox, which is discredited.

The only difference is that the dichotomy paradox, as stated deals with dividing, while yours is a simpler progression.

Your simply ignoring the truth that time is progressive.

Prove it.

Time is measurable. Since it is measurable, events progress with time.

Circular reasoning.

What is the cause of matter / interaction existing forever?
When interaction never began, and matter never got created, yet exists?
How can something exist without being created?

So, because you can't understand how it may have happened, you think that it is more sensible to posit a god?

If you want to posit a god, then you must still answer the questions that you have posed but apply them to the existence of a god.

All that interjecting a god into the equation does is to add something else that must be explained.

The advantage to a god is that you can make up whatever definition that you want without any proof whatsoever...

Have a problem with the universe existing eternally? Pass the problem onto god and just define god as being eternal, or as existing "outside of time and space", or any of the other "explanations" that people use to try to rationalize not requiring any proof of matters theological while requiring absolute and complete proof of anything claimed by science.

 

[MrFungus420]

You know what has always confused me? That one about the goats and the doors. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? There's three doors and behind two are goats and behind one is a car. You get to pick one and before you open it, and before you open it, one of the other doors is opened to reveal the goat. Now evidently you are always better off switching, though for the life of me, I can't understand how your choices aren't 50-50.

Oh, is this OT? My bad. There just seemed to be some smart people on here that could explain this to me.

I'm not sure how well I can explain it, but here it goes.

1 2 3
g g c

Choose door 1, door 2 must be eliminated (they have to keep the car...)
Keep your choice, you lose, change it and you win.

If you pick door 2, door 1 must be eliminated
Keep your initial choice, you lose.

Pick door 3, either 1 or 2 can be eliminated.
This is the only way in which you initial choice would be a winner.

So, of your initial 3 choices, there is only 1 that changing it is the loser, the other 2 choices are winners if you change it.

Does that help?

 

[Kelzie]

I'm not sure how well I can explain it, but here it goes.

1 2 3
g g c

Choose door 1, door 2 must be eliminated (they have to keep the car...)
Keep your choice, you lose, change it and you win.

If you pick door 2, door 1 must be eliminated
Keep your initial choice, you lose.

Pick door 3, either 1 or 2 can be eliminated.
This is the only way in which you initial choice would be a winner.

So, of your initial 3 choices, there is only 1 that changing it is the loser, the other 2 choices are winners if you change it.

Does that help?

Yeah I wrangled it out in my mind last night. People get kinda pissed off when you tell them this puzzle. I get it now, but I think I've created several more that don't. :lol:

 

[Gardener]

You know what has always confused me? That one about the goats and the doors. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? There's three doors and behind two are goats and behind one is a car. You get to pick one and before you open it, and before you open it, one of the other doors is opened to reveal the goat. Now evidently you are always better off switching, though for the life of me, I can't understand how your choices aren't 50-50.

Oh, is this OT? My bad. There just seemed to be some smart people on here that could explain this to me.

It is better than 50/50 because some people prefer the goat.

 

[nes]

Re: Foundations

"Logos"

At each moment an infinite is one thing, in the next instant it contains properties of the former thing and becomes something else. What would prevents a collection of infinite elements (mindful they are bounded) from being collected and approximated? Accuracy and precision are scale issues.

You are wrong, Infinite elements can only be finitely bounded, they can't be infinitely bounded. If they were infinitely bounded, then they would be unbounded. What kind of logic do you have?

Why is it more plausible to relegate the idea, of simply being, to an extrinsic creator rather than to the intrinsic essence of nature?

You did not explain what would cause a certain amount of matter to exist. I didn't even ask if a creator made the matter and you didn't answer my question.

Philosophers of antiquity applied ab initio, first principle deduction, to establish existence as intuitive and immutable. They sought a monad, a smallest geometric entity, of which all things were a common multiple. It is a philosophical foundation of monism.

At no point does it imply a distinction between a creator and the creature.

Guess what? My pi paradox doesn't involve a creator. It simply involves a cause where a creator would do "work".

The second statement is counter intuitive to the essence of a foundation with elements of infinite quality. The first statement is counter intuitive to temporal facility.

Your second sentence doesn't make any sense and has no backing, aka claim by opinion. You did not answer the question on how can a computer calculate pi without beginning, assuming that matter existed forever. You just make claims and opinions about a statement without no proof. Why don't you say "hey, this sentence assumes time existed forever". Well don't people in this forum believe that, so that is why I assumed time existed forever in those 2 statements.

Although, being bounded but infinite says nothing about the countability of the collective of elements, that does not detract from the temporal interaction of their perpetuation, which obviously involves assimilation.

Wrong, actual infinitely can never be represented through the use of numbers, just as pi can't be FULLY represented through the use of numbers. You have no idea what your talking about.

You think infinity involves assimilation? :rofl

How pathetic.

How do you know?

The most that you can legitimately say is that you don't see how time can reach infinity.

No, how about going at an infinite speed to reach a finite distance away with no time used when doing so. Is that legitimate? Is time is the "4th dimension", then can you go an infinite speed across it?



I don't recall anybody making any claims about how fast time goes...

?????

Because our counting system is composed of defined, finite numbers that means that infinity cannot exist????

Funny that you'd claim that. Mathematics give us an infinite number of actual inifinites. The set of all fractions between 0 and 1, the set of all fractions between 1 and 2, the set of all fractions between 2 and 3, ad infinitum.

Lets see if perfect circles exist in reality. Fractions simply represent real (or non-existent) numbers.

35/100 = 0.35
35/99 = 0.353535353535...

How fast the computer would be computing pi is moot.

You still have the same problem.

The contradiction is still that you are trying to claim that the computer has existed eternally, and are also trying to give it a starting point.

Your contradiction is still in your basic premise.

No, I purposely made 2 paradox's which 1 paradox had premises for without a beginning. And another paradox which premise had a beginning.

Your contradiction is still that you are trying to define the computer as eternal and having a begining.

Wrong, I did not say the computer had a beginning. I simply pointed out that every cause and effect is governed by the cause and effect of the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon

If every speed and direction of matter was calculated, would you expect the future time to be based on past direction and speeds of matter?

What your assuming is not logical. Do you believe that the future is determined by the present and/or past?



The NeS paradox forever

1. time is constant.
2. The computer existed forever.
3. The computer calculated 1 digit of pi a second.
4. The computer would have calculated an infinite amount of digits by the time our state of existence.


The NeS paradox beginning

1. time is constant.
2. The computer came in to existence at a point of time.
3. The computer calculated 1 digit of pi a second.
4. The computer would have calculated a certain amount of digits by the time our state of existence.

LOOK AT THE BOLD PRINT TO SEE WHAT CHANGED!

Now everyone's going to reply saying that nes paradox forever has contradictions that the computer had a beginning. No where does it say that. Tell me which sentence number implies that statement. Think the nes paradox forever is false? Good, because the nes paradox beginning is true.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Foundations

The NeS paradox beginning

1. time is constant.
2. The computer came in to existence at a point of time.
3. The computer calculated 1 digit of pi a second.
4. The computer would have calculated a certain amount of digits by the time our state of existence.

Because the nes paradox beginning is true.

And what relevancy does the fact that a computer makes a certain number of computations over a fixed period of time have?

"By the time our state of existence." Is that english? Whats your argument here again? That if a celestial computer poofed into existence, it would make calculations over time.

Its important that you understand that your "paradox" isn't a paradox. Computers came into existence in some of our lifetimes. If the Eniac was set to run your calculation it would have indeed calculated some certain amount of digits by today. And that would all be observable.

Its also important to note that things like a computer, come into existence late in this universe. It takes an intelligence to make them, and such an intelligence has come into existence only to make the computer a few decades ago. Thats 13 billion years...

 

[nes]

Re: Foundations

And what relevancy does the fact that a computer makes a certain number of computations over a fixed period of time have?

Because it is possible. It shows that when the factor of time is infinite that it is not possible.

"By the time our state of existence." Is that english? Whats your argument here again? That if a celestial computer poofed into existence, it would make calculations over time.

Now you appear to try and get off topic. "By the time of our state of existence", I hope your able to infer what the statement means without the word "of". Perhaps it is because I made the post late at night.

Its important that you understand that your "paradox" isn't a paradox. Computers came into existence in some of our lifetimes. If the Eniac was set to run your calculation it would have indeed calculated some certain amount of digits by today. And that would all be observable.

Learn what the word hypothetical means.

Its also important to note that things like a computer, come into existence late in this universe. It takes an intelligence to make them, and such an intelligence has come into existence only to make the computer a few decades ago. Thats 13 billion years...

Now you say the universe and matter came in to existence 13 billion years ago? If so, then the NeS paradox beginning is for you.

The NeS paradox forever

1. time is constant.
2. The computer existed forever.
3. The computer calculated 1 digit of pi a second.
4. The computer would have calculated an infinite amount of digits by the time our state of existence.


The NeS paradox beginning

1. time is constant.
2. The computer came in to existence at a point of time.
3. The computer calculated 1 digit of pi a second.
4. The computer would have calculated a certain amount of digits by the time our state of existence.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Disparity

"Disparity"

Your simply ignoring the truth that time is progressive. Time is measurable. Since it is measurable, events progress with time.

At each moment an infinite is one thing, in the next instant it contains properties of the former thing and becomes something else. What would prevents a collection of infinite elements (mindful they are bounded) from being collected and approximated? Accuracy and precision are scale issues.

You are wrong, Infinite elements can only be finitely bounded, they can't be infinitely bounded. If they were infinitely bounded, then they would be unbounded. What kind of logic do you have?

Finite bound is the only conjecture forwarded, I do not entreat bafoonery. If you want to discuss issues in context, do so. My reply was to time and the measureability of stateful elements whose innate character is infinite within a finite bound. With the slightest awareness one might observe predictability and free will.

You did not explain what would cause a certain amount of matter to exist. I didn't even ask if a creator made the matter and you didn't answer my question. .... You think infinity involves assimilation? :rofl
How pathetic.

It was answered here.

How can a certain amount of matter always exist or be created? Why not any other certain amount? Why that specific amount?

Although, being bounded but infinite says nothing about the countability of the collective of elements, that does not detract from the temporal interaction of their perpetuation, which obviously involves assimilation.

It was implied that assimilations are physical events, where physical laws result from innate qualities within the constructs. This is the concept of monism and the purposeful search for monads.
Perhaps an assimilation is the critical mass for a big bang, or formation of stars, or the arrangement of atomic elements. I will not be polite again in response to your disregard and insults.

Guess what? My pi paradox doesn't involve a creator. It simply involves a cause where a creator would do "work".

What creator? What work? What requirement? Are you referring to an extrinsic delusion of infinite, inexplicable foundation, which you assert cannot have always been, because vaguely defined premises, that do not make logical sense, about a finite computer, has some bearing on the quality of elements with statefully infinite properties?

The thing most ridiculous about your proposition, is that it destroys your objective. You imply that nothing infinite exists, including your supposed creator.

 

[nes]

The thing most ridiculous about your proposition, is that it destroys your objective. You imply that nothing infinite exists, including your supposed creator.

Then I wanted to imply that a creator exists, since I believe that matter can't exist without a cause.

You know what?

Show me anything that we know exists in actuality that is infinite.

Such as a perfect circle, infinite mass, infinite speed, etc...

Just one thing.


Now ask yourself, can a perfect circle be expressed in numbers?
Can an object with an infinite amount of mass/density/size be expressed in numbers?
Can matter traveling at an infinite speed be expressed in numbers?
Can the amount of time for matter existing forever be expressed in numbers?

Read this - Potential vs. Completed Infinity

Potential infinity refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end. For instance, the sequence of numbers

Since time is progressive, it is heading towards potential infinity, yet it will never reach actual infinity.

Nearly all research-level mathematicians today (I would guess 99.99% of them) take for granted both "potential" and "completed" infinity, and most probably do not even know the distinction indicated by those two terms.

Infinity cannot be found in the physical universe. The universe contains millions of galaxies, each containing millions of stars, each containing trillions of particles --- but only finitely many. The currently prevailing theories of astronomy tell us that the universe is finite in mass, in volume, and in age; there is an upper bound to all these quantities.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Foundations

Learn what the word hypothetical means.

I know what the word hypothetical means, you need to learn what the word paradox means.

 

[MrFungus420]

Re: Foundations

The NeS paradox forever

1. time is constant.
2. The computer existed forever.
3. The computer calculated 1 digit of pi a second.
4. The computer would have calculated an infinite amount of digits by the time our state of existence.


The NeS paradox beginning

1. time is constant.
2. The computer came in to existence at a point of time.
3. The computer calculated 1 digit of pi a second.
4. The computer would have calculated a certain amount of digits by the time our state of existence.

LOOK AT THE BOLD PRINT TO SEE WHAT CHANGED!

Now everyone's going to reply saying that nes paradox forever has contradictions that the computer had a beginning. No where does it say that. Tell me which sentence number implies that statement. Think the nes paradox forever is false? Good, because the nes paradox beginning is true.

Line 3.

Calculating pi is a defined process with a defined beginning.

If you try to say that the computer has been calculating pi for it's entire existence, then you are defining the beginning of the computer...the moment it started calculating pi.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Wheels Of Confusion

"Wheels Of Confusion"

Then I wanted to imply that a creator exists, since I believe that matter can't exist without a cause.

The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density.

You know what? Show me anything that we know exists in actuality that is infinite.
Such as a perfect circle, infinite mass, infinite speed, etc... Just one thing.

Feel free to explain your expectation further.

Vesica Piscis > square root of three
Golden Ratio > phi

 

[nes]

Re: Wheels Of Confusion

"Wheels Of Confusion"
The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density.

Third law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go look at the third law of thermodynamics, you are wrong.

Feel free to explain your expectation further.

Vesica Piscis > square root of three
Golden Ratio > phi

All of what you said doesn't discredit my statements.

Show how how those 2 mathematical formulas apply to anything in actuality.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Dark Matters

"Dark Matters"

Third law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Go look at the third law of thermodynamics, you are wrong.

Silly game, it proves you wrong.

An interpretion of the Third Law Of Thermodynamics -
...; or, it states that "it is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealised, to reduce any system to the absolute zero of temperature in a finite number of operations". the third law relates to energy.

Dark energy?


density: the amount of matter in a volume divided by the volume, so the units are grams per cubic centimeter. Water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter. The lower case Greek letter rho (ρ) is usually used to symbolize density in equations.
critical density: the density of the Universe necessary so the expansion rate of the Universe is just barely sufficient to prevent a recollapse. Numerically the critical density is 3Ho2/[8*pi*G] or 19*[Ho/100]2*10-30 gm/cc.

Spatial Curvature -- One consequence of general relativity is that the curvature of space depends on the ratio of rho to rho(crit). We call this ratio Ω = rho/rho(crit).

Flatness-Oldness Problem
However, if Ωo is sufficiently greater than 1, the Universe will eventually stop expanding, and then Ω will become infinite. If Ωo is less than 1, the Universe will expand forever and the density goes down faster than the critical density so Ω gets smaller and smaller. Thus Ω = 1 is an unstable stationary point unless the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and it is quite remarkable that Ω is anywhere close to 1 now.


Inflation
The "inflationary scenario", developed by Starobinsky and by Guth, offers a solution to the flatness-oldness problem and the horizon problem. The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density. We normally think of the vacuum as empty and massless, and we can determine that the density of the vacuum is less than 10-29 gm/cc now. But in quantum field theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled with virtual particles:

The space-time diagram above shows virtual particle-antiparticle pairs forming out of nothing and then annihilating back into nothing. For particles of mass m, one expects about one virtual particle in each cubical volume with sides given by the Compton wavelength of the particle, h/mc, where h is Planck's constant. Thus the expected density of the vacuum is rho = m4*c3/h3 which is rather large. For the largest elementary particle mass usually considered, the Planck mass M defined by 2*pi*G*M2 = h*c, this density is 2*1091 gm/cc. That's a 2 followed by 91 zeroes! Thus the vacuum energy density is at least 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive quantum estimate, so there must be a very effective suppression mechanism at work. If a small residual vacuum energy density exists now, it leads to a "cosmological constant" which is one proposed mechanism to relieve the tight squeeze between the Omegao=1 model age of the Universe, to = (2/3)/Ho = 9 Gyr, and the apparent age of the oldest globular clusters, 12-14 Gyr. The vacuum energy density can do this because it produces a "repulsive gravity" that causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate instead of decelerate, and this increases to for a given Ho.

We can therefore conclude that most of the matter in the Universe is "dark matter" that does not emit, absorb or scatter light. Furthermore, observations of distant supernovae have shown that most of the energy density of the Universe is a vacuum energy density (a "dark energy") like Einstein's cosmological constant that causes an accelerating expansion of the Universe.

Perhaps you should take your finite matter and space ideas to Physics Forums - Amount of Matter in the Universe and Physics Forum - The cosmological principle in simple models of the universe.
There you can discuss the countability of the set of constructs.

Here I will continue to drag you back to the potential that the constructs or elements comprising the set have the quality of bounded infinitude.
Perhaps a satisfactory proof would be to produce a monad which is irrational.
Otherwise it comes down to orders of magnitude and instrument approximation.


More Allegory -
Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BCE) posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. For Plato, the demiurge lacked the supernatural ability to create "ex nihilo" or out of nothing. The demiurge was able only to organize the "anake." The anake was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony.

Show how how those 2 mathematical formulas apply to anything in actuality.

The golden mean as it relates to Platonic Solids and with regard to Fibonacci numbers in nature.
One will see that which one wants to see.

 

[nes]

All of what you said means absolutely nothing to me. You have not proven to be anything infinite exists in this universe. We don't really even know what the properties of dark matters are so we shouldn't start making conclusions about it. You haven't shown me one place in this universe that's at absolute zero, neither have you shown me an object which has an infinite temperature. You haven't shown me one place in this universe that is "empty" (no time, no space, no matter, and no virtual particles :roll.

Don't forget that emptiness and even absolute zero doesn't qualify for infinity!

Platonic solid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What infinite property do these objects have?

Fibonacci number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings,[6] such as branching in trees, the curve of waves,[citation needed] the fruitlets of a pineapple, and the arrangement of a pine cone.[7] Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz advanced the idea that these can be in part understood as the expression of certain algebraic constraints on free groups, specifically as certain Lindenmayer grammars.[8]

This is actually very incorrect. Objects in natural would never resemble a perfect cone or circle. The objects are made from big bulky cells that are made from atoms. When these cells are together, then they might appear to form a perfect cone for example, but in actually never form a perfect cone.

Sunflower head displaying florets in spirals of 34 and 55 around the outside

If the spirals would be closely looked at, you would notice they would be very ridgy. Not a single spiral would actually be an atomic duplicate of another spiral.

 

[nes]

In fact I take most of what I said back. There needs to be a property that is infinite. Even no mass doesn't mean that the properties of no mass can't be expressed. No mass is 0 mass. Temperature is defined as movement in atoms. The property that is infinite is when the amount of movement in atoms can't be expressed.

space, time, matter, speed, momentum, mass, etc... are properties.

 

[Thinker]

Now ask yourself, can a perfect circle be expressed in numbers?

Yes. A perfect circle is the locus of a point that moves so thar it is always
the same distance from another fixed point.

 

[Thinker]

You know what has always confused me? That one about the goats and the doors. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? There's three doors and behind two are goats and behind one is a car. You get to pick one and before you open it, and before you open it, one of the other doors is opened to reveal the goat. Now evidently you are always better off switching, though for the life of me, I can't understand how your choices aren't 50-50.

Oh, is this OT? My bad. There just seemed to be some smart people on here that could explain this to me.

The simplest solution I know is this.
Pick one door at random (door X).
The odds that the car is behind it are 1/3.
The odds it is behind one of the others (Y or Z) are 2/3.
If the odds of something being behind door X are Px and the odds it is behind door Y are Px, the odds it is behind either X or Y are Px+Py.
So Px+Py = 2/3
But, we are then told that it isn't behind door (say) Y, so Py=0
Px + 0 = 2/3
So Px = 2/3

 

[Thinker]

In fact I take most of what I said back. There needs to be a property that is infinite.

You keep treating "infinite" as a value; it is not.
Saying that something has an "infinite value" is shorthand for saying that
whatever actual, concrete value you may pick, that something is still
bigger than your chosen value.