You're viewing part of a thread.
None of this includes the correct answers to the questions I asked you. I'm not going to read anything else from you until you correctly answer the questions I asked.
I find it interesting that you have a degree in math, and apparently have never questioned a question. As I've demonstrated, in the posted problem, the statement "some Infinities are bigger than other infinities" is an illogical statement. The mere statement that there are multiple infinities, negates either objects identification as being infinite, and reduces both objects to finite objects, as the only way these objects can be determined to be seperate from each other is through a boundary that would impose a starting or ending point on each object, which in turn reduces them into finite objects.
I also find it interesting that you resort to gate keeping to try and control a situation that you are frustrated by. I was able to simply and clearly demonstrate my position. I also demonstrated the technique of: solving the problem by defeating its purpose. I've also demonstrated the difference in how a mathematician and an engineer attempt to solve a problem.
To me you have demonstrated:
-
You don't know even the most basic definitions of the things you are trying to talk about.
-
You are possibly too willfully stupid to bother to learn said definitions.
-
You are capable of babbling incoherently about things you do not understand ad nauseum.
It seems you are having a hard time comprehending this. I get it's hard to learn new things. But I can walk you through it.
TL;DR: If an object can be measured, in any way, it's a finite object. Infinity cannot be measured.
- In the posted problem the train tracks themselves are finite objects, as they each have a starting point, the fork the train is in front of.
- The train tracks are bound to physical ground, ground that is itself bound to a finite world, a world has a shape, that can be measured, so it is a finite object.
- If the shape of the world the train tracks are on is round, then these seemingly infinite tracks will eventually loop back on themselves. If the tracks loop back on themselves, then they must eventually converge as the train starts out the problem on a single track. So neither of the tracks are infinite.
- It's important to understand that the tracks are finite objects, as finite objects exist by different rules then infinity itself.
- I'm not arguing that uncountable numbers are a thing. What I am stating is that if those numbers exist within a finite universe, then they have a lifespan, the lifespan of the finite universe that contains them, thus those numbers aren't infinite, uncountable yes, but not truly infinite. As I have stated many times, finite objects, like the finite universe, can only create other finite objects. Infinity cannot be created, therefore there is only one infinity, infinity itself, all other objects that can be measured are finite objects. This also means if infinity decides to create anything, it can only produce finite objects. Infinity cannot produce another infinity, as the act of creation would be a measurable starting point.
- This is why the statement (some infinities are smaller than other infinities) is an illogical statement. If you can measure multiple infinities, then none of those objects are infinite, as one object can be measured to be smaller or larger than the other. And as I keep stating, infinity cannot be measured. If your measurement is uncountable, then the measurement itself is finite.
I considered reading and responding to this big long word salad you sent me, but I realized you were just further demonstrating the three points from my last post. Lmao, good luck.
Edit: Feel free to show me you learned the definitions I asked you about by answering my list of definition questions I posed to you a while ago by the way. I'm still fine with continuing if you do that.
I get it it's hard to learn new things. I'm still willing to walk you through it. I'm not sure how much more simple I can state it for you, it's already pretty simplified, but I'm still willing to try. Just let me know.
I understand that you feel learning new things is hard. I sympathize with you. Lets start with a real easy one. High school algebra students often learn what mathematical functions are. You can handle that right? Tell me the mathematical definition of a function. Oh! Oops, I have accidentally linked you to a place where you can find the definition I'm asking you for in the first paragraph. Well, no going back now. Feel free to copy and paste the first paragraph of that link here.
Hmm, I wonder if there is a link between functions and finite/infinite sets? Oh gosh golly, perhaps they are related in some way? Almost like the definition of one requires some notion of the other?
I've never argued that mathematics has a concept of finite or infinite numbers, or not. All that I have argued is that what the math world identifies as infinite, is not actually infinite when applied to the real world. As an engineer I deal with recursive functions, code that can run indefinitely. But as an engineer I understand that the code that is running needs an initiation point, the point at which the code is initially executed, and I understand that the seemingly infinite nature of the code, is bound to the lifespan of the process that execute it, for example, until the process is abruptly stopped, or power is taken away from the computer the process is running on. A lifespan invalidates the seemingly infinite nature of the code, from a practical sense. When you start to understand this, and then expand your focus to larger objects like the universe itself, you start to understand the finite nature of the material world we live in.
I understand that mathematicians deal with abstraction. I deal with them too as an engineer. The difference is that as an engineer I have to implement those abstractions within the real world. When you do this enough times you will start to understand the stark differences between the limited hypothetical worlds math is reasoned about, and the very dynamic world the real world, that those math solutions are applied to. The rules of hypothetical worlds are severely limited in comparison to the real world. This is why it's very important for me to define the real world boundaries that these math problems wil be applied to.
I'm used to working with folks, like yourself, that have a clearly hard time transitioning from a hypothetical world to the real world. This is why I have respond with civility, and have looked past your responses insulting tone. I understand it's a fear response of the ego, and I don't judge you for it. I understand that it's difficult to fight with the protection mechanisms of the ego.
My dear friend, I am very big fan of the back-pedaling you're doing here. I want to also point a couple things out to you.
I’ve never argued that mathematics has a concept of finite or infinite numbers, or not. All that I have argued is that what the math world identifies as infinite, is not actually infinite when applied to the real world.
This is blatantly untrue. You can certainly play the post-hoc "oh but I meant..." game and slowly change your argument to be something different, but what you said originally is not what you are suddenly now claiming here and your lack of logical precision or clarity in the claims you make is certainly not my fault or my problem. Consider taking a course in mathematics to firm up your logical argumentation skills?
Let me remind you of a couple other claims you have made beyond what you are suddenly now pretending you claimed:
- "Infinity cannot be divided, if it can then it becomes multiple finite objects."
- "If infinity has a size, then it is a finite object."
- "There is no infinityA or infinityB there is just infinity itself."
- "The statement 'some infinities are bigger than other infinities' is an illogical statement".
- "The mere statement that there are multiple infinities, negates either objects identification as being infinite, and reduces both objects to finite objects (more word salad follows)..."
Of course you have made a bunch of other claims in your weird psycho-babble word salad too. These are just some highlights.
Lets consider this thing you just said here though: "what the math world identifies as infinite, is not actually infinite when applied to the real world". You know, this sounds very familiar. It is almost like my very first comment to you was "It really depends on what you mean by infinity and division here." Real wild stuff huh? Almost like it is important to be clear on the definitions and senses of the words we are using right? Like we should be clear on what exact definitions we mean yeah? Hmm... This sounds so familiar.
As much as I'd love to make fun of you more while you rediscover arguments for/against mathematical platonism I'd rather move on.
As an engineer I deal with recursive functions, code that can run indefinitely. But as an engineer I understand that the code that is running needs an initiation point, the point at which the code is initially executed, and I understand that the seemingly infinite nature of the code, is bound to the lifespan of the process that execute it, for example, until the process is abruptly stopped, or power is taken away from the computer the process is running on. A lifespan invalidates the seemingly infinite nature of the code, from a practical sense. When you start to understand this, and then expand your focus to larger objects like the universe itself, you start to understand the finite nature of the material world we live in.
Loving the assumption here that I have no background in CS or software engineering.
I understand that mathematicians deal with abstraction. I deal with them too as an engineer. The difference is that as an engineer I have to implement those abstractions within the real world. When you do this enough times you will start to understand the stark differences between the limited hypothetical worlds math is reasoned about, and the very dynamic world the real world, that those math solutions are applied to. The rules of hypothetical worlds are severely limited in comparison to the real world. This is why it’s very important for me to define the real world boundaries that these math problems wil be applied to.
I don't think claiming practical experience as an engineer as justification for misunderstanding and drawing faulty conclusions from basic mathematics is really the gotcha you think it is here. On the contrary, if you really do have a background in engineering, then you should know better and it is now my opinion that the people who have taught you mathematics and the basics of engineering have done you a serious disservice for not teaching you better. Misunderstanding mathematical models is textbook bad engineering. What you are doing here is using your engineering background to justify why it is okay for you to be a shitty engineer.
I’m used to working with folks, like yourself, that have a clearly hard time transitioning from a hypothetical world to the real world.
Who is having the trouble? I'm not the one stumbling over basic things that children learn in high school algebra like what the definition of a function is.
This is why I have respond with civility, and have looked past your responses insulting tone.
Oh yes, clearly my tone is insulting, but yours has never once been insulting. You pure beautiful angel you. If only the rest of us could be such a pure and sweet soul like you. I'll be sure to only speak to you in the kindest and sweetest ways so that I don't hurt your very precious and delicate feelings in the future.
I understand it’s a fear response of the ego, and I don’t judge you for it. I understand that it’s difficult to fight with the protection mechanisms of the ego.
I'm sorry kind and gentle prince, but I can't help but point out that the projection here from you is very entertaining. I'm so very sorry for any hurt this may cause your poor delicate feelings.
-