Infinity is an infinite thing of any kind.
All the same, infinity may be described as an infinite progression.
The difference between these two perspectives lies in the concept of Kolmogorov complexity.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 1:07 pm Infinity is an infinite thing of any kind.
All the same, infinity may be described as an infinite progression.
Code: Select all
Integers = lambda x=0: Integers(x+1)
Integers()
I didn’t realize that infinity is a closed entity.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 1:25 pmThe difference between these two perspectives lies in the concept of Kolmogorov complexity.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 1:07 pm Infinity is an infinite thing of any kind.
All the same, infinity may be described as an infinite progression.
I can describe some infinities in closed form using recursion.
I can't describe any infinity in a closed form as an infinite progression.
Infinity isn't. The description of something infinite can be.
It should be kinda intuitive anyway.
I see. Thanks.
Interesting way of looking at it...
Your input could be infinite and trustworthy, it's your "computer" that has finite memory.AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:02 am Interesting way of looking at it...
Yes, I guess description is something like a "lossy compression" scheme, the only issue being that the compression (the description of infinity) lacks "trustworthy" input, it has no properly defined source of raw data (if it had, it would be infinite and thus not computable)
Which is why you need a mechanism to uncompress things and compare raw data (as much as lossy compression allows for that). The compression schemes (interpretations) are not always (if ever?) compatible.AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:02 am besides the result from other processes of compression (interpretations) stemming from the compression of pattern matched ("randomly" extracted) parts of infinity - what we call: separate objects and things - rendering this compression the victim of a very "dodgy" set of input data.
Yes... thats how we identify all objects/things.
The compression schemes - language - are not even the biggest problem, its all the different meanings that our interpretations evoke/carry and, maybe to a lesser degree, the "algorithm" used for pattern matching/recognition, which is, as I see it, mostly based on the experimental science of the time and age (and to a much lesser degree on actual direct experience).
I don't see it that way.AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:07 am The compression schemes - language - are not even the biggest problem, its all the different meanings that our interpretations evoke/carry and, maybe to a lesser degree, the "algorithm" used for pattern matching/recognition, which is, as I see it, mostly based on the experimental science of the time and age (and to a much lesser degree on actual direct experience).
Well, yes, but language is not only a tool for compressing reality into a lossy, relativistic description, it is foremost a tool for inter-personal communication - this is where things start falling apart as the meaning invoked within the receiver is pretty much always different to the one that arises within your own conceptual framework.
Me too.
To tackle the thread topic directly - humans cannot think without language.AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:07 am Well, yes, but language is not only a tool for compressing reality into a lossy, relativistic description, it is foremost a tool for inter-personal communication - this is where things start falling apart as the meaning invoked within the receiver is pretty much always different to the one that arises within your own conceptual framework.
This of course leads to all sorts of misunderstandings (and sometimes even to war?)...
Agree.
Yes, but I don't think they actually know that they are afraid of giving it up - they (their egos) are actually covering it with anger. An ego that is angry looks and feels strong, an ego that is afraid seems fragile and in danger to be harmed, even damaged beyond repair...
True. I guess, the reason for this behaviour is the same - better angry and rude than open and fragile...