|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 10th, 2003 09:47 PM | ||
| kahljorn | There is no such thing as night? | |
| Jul 10th, 2003 03:47 PM | ||
| Helm |
I am of the oppinion that if something cannot be scrutinised, deducted or otherwise inspected logically, then it is irrelevant. The world 'exist' applies to instances that effect their context in some way. An illogical instance cannot exist then, because it's context is not the one we percieve (logical) and is thusly irrelevant. So goodbye to God, Infinity and Everything. CLAsp: interesting link. I was mainly interested in "In the context of a number system." Thanks. Another thought: if any infinite context physically exist, wouldn't that mean the second law of thermodynamics goes to shit? |
|
| Jul 10th, 2003 10:29 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 10th, 2003 01:56 AM | ||
| The_voice_of_reason | What does that mean? | |
| Jul 9th, 2003 11:16 PM | ||
| kahljorn | I bet you guys were raised mormon. | |
| Jul 9th, 2003 10:44 PM | ||
| theapportioner |
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/.../infinity.html One of the things that makes me believe that that degree of accuracy is impossible is the study of language ... mathematics (logic) itself if you think of of it in the Witchenstein (sp?) sense. There are things that I contemplate that I know that, at least the English language, can't adequately describe. That's why arts, music, poetry, ect are important to me. How is this in the Wittgensteinian sense? |
|
| Jul 9th, 2003 10:45 AM | ||
| kellychaos | You sound as if you fall slightly toward the Newtonian camp, Helm - i.e. deterministic, that all can eventually be described and the future can determined through mathematics from a given, known state. I have a lot faith in mathematics being able to fairly accurately model the world to a certain degree but that their are way too many variables to ever really achieve an exact replication. Not that we shouldn't always strive. One of the things that makes me believe that that degree of accuracy is impossible is the study of language ... mathematics (logic) itself if you think of of it in the Witchenstein (sp?) sense. There are things that I contemplate that I know that, at least the English language, can't adequately describe. That's why arts, music, poetry, ect are important to me. Sure, mathematical/technology can replicate things of those sort but they can never give us the original composition. Sort of the sum of the parts being greater than the whole which no computer in the world can adequately define or recognize. Sorry, I'm babbling ... I'll end this here. | |
| Jul 9th, 2003 07:59 AM | ||
| Helm |
Okay so just we know what horrors I'm talking about: "Everything does not happen continuously at any one moment in the universe. Neither does everything happen everywhere in it. There are no summits without abysses. When the end of the world is mentioned, the idea that leaps into our minds is always one of catastrophe. Life is born and propagates itself on the earth as a solitary pulsation. In the last analysis the best guarantee that a thing should happen is that it appears to us as vitally necessary" May The machine god help us all. |
|
| Jul 8th, 2003 07:57 PM | ||
| kahljorn | There's alot of philosophy written in poetic form, and alot of poetry written in philisophical form :P I write all my philosophy down poetically, it's the easiest way to remember it, and the best way to write it without filling an entire book to say that T-bones taste good for Dogs and Tuna is for kitties. | |
| Jul 8th, 2003 07:13 AM | ||
| FS |
Infinity is abstract. The best way to describe infinity + 1 would be to just always keep it infinity + 1. Then again, it does just stay infinity. If you remove a part of space, is it any less infinite? If you add a part, does it become more infinite? |
|
| Jul 8th, 2003 04:16 AM | ||
| Helm |
If you've read Sir Peter Medawar's "The Phenomenon of Man" you'd understand how exactly a methaphysic analysis posing as a scientific text can UTTERLY DESTROY YOUR SOUL. It's basically a hilariously overstated, ambiguously directed mess that mistakes philosophy and science for poetry, and poetry for ejaculation. |
|
| Jul 8th, 2003 03:32 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
pfft. Nobody loves on my posts. Metaphysics are only "Metaphysics" because common physics cannot explain them, perhaps someday there will be an explanation |
|
| Jul 8th, 2003 01:39 AM | ||
| Helm | As I understand from the link and kahl's post, there's been no attempt at defining infinity thus far. This satisfies my curiosity. Furthermore this gives me hope that methaphysics will perhaps not bleed over to mathematical logic, for that would be tragic; I can almost picture the horrible poetry that undergaduate math books will be filled with in such a case. | |
| Jul 7th, 2003 07:32 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I think ALL and SOME are entirely different than INFINITE. ALL and SOME is more a part of the Finite, as you are discussing material values and what is of the now, you are also discussing exclusiveness. As with INFINITE, you are discussing not only what IS and can be owned or seen, but what is unseen and impossible, except in the minds of few.. it's less an exclusive factor, and more of an.. all-emcompassing one. Evil and wrong, truth and untruth, nothing and existent.. the traditional tao, all under "Infinite" I don't think mathematics could describe Infinite. It's not a, "Number" like most people seem to relate it too. The best way to put it in numerical value is as "1/3", or maybe as Pie. Good ol' pie, a solution to every problem in life. Alot of people think 0<1 or 0>1 describes infinity. That is exclusive, though. 0<1=0>1 would be better, or some other pattern of numbers and symbols. I'd best descrive it as Zero. Everything is zero, and can be zero, and can't be anything but zero, in the end. 2=2. Smilk. |
|
| Jul 7th, 2003 11:11 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
I meant using Godel's thereom in our way of thinking about infinity. I don't think he did specifically address the topic, although it may be implied. Here is a link that can explain it better than I can:  LINK |
|
| Jul 7th, 2003 10:07 AM | ||
| Helm |
OMG DID YOU JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL :P :P I'm sorry I won't have sex with you Besides that, there's nothing that has been more abused than Godel's theorem in modern mathematics. Axiomatic logic does not dictate that a set of all things equals infinity, and thusly there is no fallacy in my ALL/SOME assumption above. It's a matter of context. Also, Godel did not define infinity to the best of my knowledge. |
|
| Jul 7th, 2003 09:33 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 7th, 2003 08:33 AM | ||
| Helm | Actually, has any dumbass mathematician tried to 'define' infinity up to now, or are they still content with using it without going all philosophical about it? | |
| Jul 6th, 2003 10:13 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
What the fuck does it matter. If you are discussing an infinite set and you take one away, it is still an infinite set. Why? because it's fucking infinite you jack asses. If you took it away, it would have never been a part of the infinite set, it would have never been born, never even existed. The thought of it's oneness being subtracted from it would be simply impossible, because it is now zero, nothing, nil, squat, non-existant, empty, not anything, non being, nihility, nonentity, naught.. it's not even something to put words to, it's simply oblivious. Maybe that's too complicated to follow? Damn words. If you're talking about ownership, you're a dumbass, go color somewhere else. |
|
| Jul 5th, 2003 07:17 PM | ||
| Helm | A complete set != infinity. | |
| Jul 5th, 2003 11:07 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 4th, 2003 11:06 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Infinity minus one
|
|
| Jul 4th, 2003 10:30 PM | ||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 4th, 2003 02:13 PM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
LMAO Kahl - That is some funny shit...... |
|
| Jul 4th, 2003 07:06 AM | ||
| FS | They apparently don't understand the point of their own beliefs. More people who choose an answer because they don't want to ask questions. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
