Infinity as Change

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=502615 time=1615861437 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502552 time=1615831548 user_id=15238]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=502543 time=1615829533 user_id=14533]
And these beginning and ends are relative to an infinite number of beginnings and ends thus the beginning and end is a continuum. The line is a continuum of infinite points thus necessitating infinite lines between points.

The relationship of one infinity to another sets the foundation for one infinity as either a beginning or end point of another.
[/quote]

In order to be manipulated, ie useful, a thing must have proscribed boundaries. Infinity is not that sort of thing, except in language. You can language about it all you want but you're never going to get any closer to understanding it until you simply substitute "etcetera". Infinity is a direction - keep going. It is not a specific thing that you can math or reason about, much less do any real world work. The most useful it can be is as a placeholder for an indefinite amount of ignorance.
[/quote]

But 'infinity' is a 'thing', which actually can be reasoned about, by reason abled people.
[/quote]

Nope. It's simply impossible. They're just making shit up.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=502617 time=1615862239 user_id=16237]
And has the word 'Mind' been defined, to or by 'you', with precision?

In fact, has the word 'I' even been defined, with precision, to or by 'you', YET?
[/quote]

It's a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. If you want something better than that you're going to have to wait for neuroscience to catch up to the question. In the meantime, it's both necessary and sufficient for everything as far as i can tell.

[Age]

And has the word 'Mind' been defined, to or by 'you', with precision?

In fact, has the word 'I' even been defined, with precision, to or by 'you', YET?

It's a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. If you want something better than that you're going to have to wait for neuroscience to catch up to the question. In the meantime, it's both necessary and sufficient for everything as far as i can tell.

You claim;

That which cannot be defined with precision cannot be either recognized or manipulated.

So, if this is True, then until 'you' can define, with precision, the words 'Mind' and 'I', 'you' can NOT recognize nor manipulate I, nor thee Mind.

And, to test if you can define, with precision, these two 'things', Who am 'I', and, what is the 'Mind', precisely?

[Age]

In order to be manipulated, ie useful, a thing must have proscribed boundaries. Infinity is not that sort of thing, except in language. You can language about it all you want but you're never going to get any closer to understanding it until you simply substitute "etcetera". Infinity is a direction - keep going. It is not a specific thing that you can math or reason about, much less do any real world work. The most useful it can be is as a placeholder for an indefinite amount of ignorance.

But 'infinity' is a 'thing', which actually can be reasoned about, by reason abled people.

Nope. It's simply impossible. They're just making shit up.

Who are 'you' claiming here are "making 'shit' up"? Reasonable people?

By the way the word 'infinity' is the word that most accurately describes thee Universe, Itself. That is; Keep going in any direction, then either you will go on forever or you will be stopped by some thing, which itself would go on forever or whatever is on the otherside of that "boundary" would go on forever, or infinitely.

'Infinity', after all, and as someone once famously said, 'is a direction - keep going'.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=502620 time=1615865801 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502619 time=1615864531 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=502617 time=1615862239 user_id=16237]
And has the word 'Mind' been defined, to or by 'you', with precision?

In fact, has the word 'I' even been defined, with precision, to or by 'you', YET?
[/quote]

It's a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. If you want something better than that you're going to have to wait for neuroscience to catch up to the question. In the meantime, it's both necessary and sufficient for everything as far as i can tell.
[/quote]

You claim;

[b]That which cannot be defined with precision cannot be either recognized or manipulated.[/b]

So, if this is True, then until 'you' can define, with precision, the words 'Mind' and 'I', 'you' can NOT recognize nor manipulate I, nor thee Mind.

And, to test if you can define, with precision, these two 'things', Who am 'I', and, what is the 'Mind', precisely?
[/quote]

You're looking for infinite precision. That's not a real thing. It only need be precise Enough. That's a bar no use of infinity can ever attain.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=502621 time=1615866885 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502618 time=1615864445 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=502615 time=1615861437 user_id=16237]


But 'infinity' is a 'thing', which actually can be reasoned about, by reason abled people.
[/quote]

Nope. It's simply impossible. They're just making shit up.
[/quote]

Who are 'you' claiming here are "making 'shit' up"? Reasonable people?

By the way the word 'infinity' is the word that most accurately describes thee Universe, Itself. That is; Keep going in any direction, then either you will go on forever or you will be stopped by some thing, which itself would go on forever or whatever is on the otherside of that "boundary" would go on forever, or infinitely.

'[b]Infinity[/b]', after all, and as someone once famously said, [b]'is a direction - keep going[/b]'.
[/quote]

Sounds like you're defining it as whatever's leftover after everything we actually understand.

[Skepdick]

That which cannot be defined with precision cannot be either recognized or manipulated.

Nope. It's simply impossible. They're just making shit up.

You are claiming "impossibility" when the algorithm of HOW to manipulate infinity in finite time is precisely defined and right before your eyes.

Algorithms are literally proofs!!!

Read the paper. Understand the paper. Understand the notion of compactness.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502632 time=1615869842 user_id=17350]
You are claiming "impossibility" when the algorithm of HOW to manipulate infinity in finite time is precisely defined and right before your eyes.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence]Algorithms are literally proofs!!![/url]
[/quote]

Nope. Infinity is a concept with no boundary conditions. It cannot be distinguished relative to anything else. It's the epitome of ineffable. You're straining at gnats to try to even express anything useful out of it. You can't measure it so you can't math it. Math only works to the extent things are distinct from each other - quantifiable. You can disregard what i'm saying if you like but it is not a theory, it is an accurate description of The Truth.

[Skepdick]

Nope. Infinity is a concept with no boundary conditions.

The fact that I am showing you how to exploit/manipulate it in finite time is giving you the boundary conditions!

There's a clear beginning. And a clear end. The algorithm halts.

It cannot be distinguished relative to anything else.

Why not? Can you distinguish an infinite set made of 1,2,3,4..... from an infinite set made of 2,4,6,8.... ?

I can. They have different structure.

It's the epitome of ineffable.

It's ineffable in YOUR language (English). Not in mine (Mathematics).

If English is getting in your way of expressing your ideas, maybe... use a more expressive language?

You're straining at gnats to try to even express anything useful out of it. You can't measure it so you can't math it. Math only works to the extent things are distinct from each other - quantifiable. You can disregard what i'm saying if you like but it is not a theory, it is a description of The Truth.

That's an argument from ignorance. And the fact that I've given you the exact thing you need to cure your ignorance simply means you are choosing ignorance.

I am literally measuring the time it takes to search infinity. It's finite! Bounded.
Read the paper. Understand the paper. Understand the notion of compactness.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502634 time=1615870831 user_id=17350]
things
[/quote]

bullshit

Finite beings can have no purchase on infinity.

[Skepdick]

bullshit

Finite beings can have no purchase on infinity.

Infinite minds can have a purchase on lesser infinities.

It's really not that hard to grasp this conceptually.

Imagine counting from 1 to 5 takes 5 seconds. Now imagine some of your friends help you do it.

Friend 1 counts 1. It takes 1 second.
Friend 2 counts 2. It takes 1 second.
Friend 3 counts 3. It takes 1 second.
Friend 4 counts 4. It takes 1 second.
Friend 5 counts 5. It takes 1 second.

But they are all counting in parallel, so counting to 5 takes 1 second.
Counting to 10000 also takes 1 second (with 10000 friends)
Counting to 100000000000000 also takes 1 second (with 100000000000000 friends)
Counting to infinity also takes 1 second (with infinite friends).

Is just induction.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502637 time=1615871803 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502635 time=1615871611 user_id=15238]
bullshit

Finite beings can have no purchase on infinity.
[/quote]
Infinite minds can have a purchase on lesser infinities.

It's really not that hard to grasp this conceptually.

Imagine counting from 1 to 5 takes 5 seconds. Now imagine some of your friends help you do it.

Friend 1 counts 1. It takes 1 second.
Friend 2 counts 2. It takes 1 second.
Friend 3 counts 3. It takes 1 second.
Friend 4 counts 4. It takes 1 second.
Friend 5 counts 5. It takes 1 second.

But they are all counting in parallel, so counting to 5 takes 1 second.
Counting to 10000 also takes 1 second (with 10000 friends)
Counting to 100000000000000 also takes 1 second (with 100000000000000 friends)
Counting to infinity also takes 1 second (with infinite friends).

Is just induction.
[/quote]

Infinity is
nothing more relevant than
a decent haiku.

I have dismissed the necessity, the possibility, and the usefulness of your claims. You may go now.

[Skepdick]

I have dismissed the necessity, the possibility, and the usefulness of your claims. You may go now.

I am not claiming anything.

I gave you empirical evidence that contradicts your claims. The "impossible" is staring you in the face.

You may change your mind. Or defend your dogma. Your choice, but a choice was given.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502639 time=1615873142 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502638 time=1615872652 user_id=15238]
I have dismissed the necessity, the possibility, and the usefulness of your claims. You may go now.
[/quote]
I am not claiming anything.

I gave you empirical evidence that contradicts your claims. The "impossible" is staring you in the face.

You may change your mind. Or defend your dogma. Your choice, but a choice was given.
[/quote]

I bet you everything i own against everything you own that no practical use will ever be found for the notion of infinity. It is only and can only be a placeholder. You can algorhythim your lemniscate all you want. It's not related to reality in any sense.

There is no discernable difference between infinity plus one and infinity minus one. It's all fluff.

[Skepdick]

I bet you everything i own against everything you own that no practical use will ever be found for the notion of infinity.

It is only and can only be a placeholder. You can algorhythim your lemniscate all you want. It's not related to reality in any sense.

It's already being used practically. By you.

This thing you are typing on - it does concurrent/parallel processing.

The entire internet. It's one giant distributed and massively parallel computing system.

There is no discernable difference between infinity plus one and infinity minus one. It's all fluff.

Because infinity is not a number. Why are you trying to perform addition on it?