It is 2^(10^120).
It is not about content. 10^120 is the set by definition the universal set. All sub-sets is far bigger than the universal set. All sub-sets in principle can exist.
It is 2^(10^120).
It is not about content. 10^120 is the set by definition the universal set. All sub-sets is far bigger than the universal set. All sub-sets in principle can exist.
You are counting only arrangements. I am counting inter-connections.
Yes. That is the number of elements in the set.
What do you count as a "subset"?
That depends. Do you consider: 1,2,3 to be the same arrangement as 3,2,1 ?
Oh yes, you are correct all combinations is more than 2^(10^120).
Yes, the number is lower if you consider the fact that the particles are indistinguishable.
Right. Hence my pessimistic approach. Call it 10^120 factorial. This way we don't get sidetracked with nitpicking.
I don't know how big is he sub-sets considering the fact that each two members can be arranged differently in three dimensional space.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:56 pmRight. Hence my pessimistic approach. Call it 10^120 factorial. This way we don't get sidetracked with nitpicking.
The only way the set expands from here onwards is if you decompose any of the parts.
Either one photon becomes 2 <some new particles>, or 1 "connection" (interaction?) between any two particles becomes 2.
Potentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!
And what if the universe is unbound? I have an argument for that.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:17 pmPotentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!
Whatever. My point is - pick the highest cardinality quantifiable set you can think of. Add the exclamation mark (factorial) and call that "The Universe".
If you think you are committing an error in estimate - square it as a safety margin.
That is your ontology.
The only "wrong" out of here is reinventing physics and that's the good kind of wrong.
Then logic is useless.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:07 pmAnd what if the universe is unbound? I have an argument for that.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:17 pmPotentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!
Whatever. My point is - pick the highest cardinality quantifiable set you can think of. Add the exclamation mark (factorial) and call that "The Universe".
If you think you are committing an error in estimate - square it as a safety margin.
That is your ontology.
The only "wrong" out of here is reinventing physics and that's the good kind of wrong.
That is not true.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:11 pmThen logic is useless.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:07 pmAnd what if the universe is unbound? I have an argument for that.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:17 pm
Potentially - yes. Then we can work out the volume of spacetime in Planck-lengths if you want. Then we don't have 10^120 factorial permutations. It's a much bigger number!
Whatever. My point is - pick the highest cardinality quantifiable set you can think of. Add the exclamation mark (factorial) and call that "The Universe".
If you think you are committing an error in estimate - square it as a safety margin.
That is your ontology.
The only "wrong" out of here is reinventing physics and that's the good kind of wrong.
That is not true either. In fact I have difficulty to understand a bounded universe. What is beyond the universe?
By what conception of “understanding”?
I think this is where we seem to have different opinions.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:06 amI would say that It can KNOW what is NOT in agreement - the conceptual content of thought, because;
1. It is within EVERY thing and IS able to Observe/SEE EVERY thing.
2. The conceptual content of thought is always HEARD in spoken words and SEEN in written words.
The conceptual content of thought is actually SPLASHED throughout these pages, on this forum, for ALL to SEE.
The conceptual content of thought can also be SEEN through ALL of human beings' creations.
The conceptual content of thought is, literally, EVERYWHERE in this human made "world".
Physical nerve endings belong to biological organisms but most of the observable Universe is known or thought to be without lifeAGE wrote:But physical nerve endings experience that is how physical things KNOW where to place themselves and in what positionssurreptitious57 wrote:
the Universe simply exists rather than experiences [ to me Mind and Universe are the same ]
Therefore some might argue that it is because of EXPERIENCE that the Universe / Mind has placed Itself in the place that It is
existing in NOW and in the position that It is existing in NOW
Users browsing this forum: Dontaskme and 2 guests