It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Very Bready Question of Infinity and the Zeno Paradox

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Similar to this:

"The sorites paradox (/soʊˈraɪtiːz/;[1] sometimes translated as the paradox of the heap because in Ancient Greek: σωρίτης sōritēs means "heap")[2] is a paradox that arises from vague predicates.[3] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?"

en.wikipedia.org...




Indeed... though I rather think this is a definition problem... a) do we know how many grains exist in the heap and b) can we define how many is required to be a heap.

If Heap is just an expression of say Some... when does some stop becoming some? When there is more than one I would suggest.

Though an interesting thing about grains of sand.. if a) is unknown then the entire heap will exhibit quantum properties, that could mean the total value of the number of grains is not set.

Gives you something to ponder while sunbathing on the beach now doesn't it?!?



Korg.
edit on 2-6-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

When does a white and beige dress become blue and black?

...

When you conceive it.

...

When did these words stop being shapes and become words?

...

When you conceived them. When you learned their meaning/concepts.




You are asking how to conceive? by faith. When you accept it as truth.




Think about it like you just heard a weird noise and it takes you a second to conceive of what made the sound, or when you were a baby and only saw light, instead of forms. And forms, before you saw their concepts, you only saw material things - but when recognizing the patterns you see your own awareness in them - you know them.
edit on 6/2/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Korg Trinity

When does a white and beige dress become blue and black?

...

When you conceive it.

...

When did these words stop being shapes and become words?

...

When you conceived them. When you learned their meaning/concepts.




You are asking how to conceive? by faith. When you accept it as truth.


As a scientists I tend to think the other way around.

When does bread become toast for an ant? Never because the ant doesn't know what toast is? Well true... but that doesn't stop the toast from existing now does it?
edit on 2-6-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
Though an interesting thing about grains of sand.. if a) is unknown then the entire heap will exhibit quantum properties, that could mean the total value of the number of grains is not set.


This is pretty interesting.

If "a" is unknown, then the only value that is set is "1". A heap.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Yes and no.

Think about it like the will/force/desire to have shelter is defined as a house, and you image that force as a shape, just as other animals do, but your interpretation is different.

e.g. I might see my desire to build a house and then mix it with my desire to build a house on the beach, and so as a result, I image a beach house. (Did I make something new or composite what already was? Did man make the first beach house or did a hermit crab, etc? or was it already there within the forces called will, and it just needed to be imaged/interpreted?)

So really you are saying the force defines reality, and we just image/perceive the forces. But as the example of the beach house shows, it really does matter who is interpreting the forces.


And as a Christian I think the forces were already once interpreted, thus physicality. I mean, I know we didn't create earth, and it was already imaged, and I just perceived it, but then what about the ant hill? The ant colony's shelter/house? The ants put their will into earth, like the beach house example, and came up with an ant hill.

The difference being then, I think someone already saw physicality. He saw earth and said: genesis and that was his spirit as he interpreted it and put it into words/physicality.

A very easy way to see it is to try to see what your own words or actions are. (They are images of your awareness of your desire. They are your desire as you interpret it/image it.)

When do scientific forces become will? How can you tell the difference between determined will and forces?
edit on 6/2/2015 by Bleeeeep because: making patterns for to see



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Yeah, well its similar in that it is a matter of definition.

Toast = bread + (a spectrum of different quantities of energy change) x quantity of heat over y quantity of time.

Toast is the fact that, if you have bread, something has to be done to it, for it to be considered toast, and what that is, cannot be done too much, or else it will no longer be considered toast; there is a range, between regular bread, and charred remains, which is a range of 'toast'.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
Though an interesting thing about grains of sand.. if a) is unknown then the entire heap will exhibit quantum properties, that could mean the total value of the number of grains is not set.


This is pretty interesting.

If "a" is unknown, then the only value that is set is "1". A heap.


Yep.. you got it



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Well, heap-wise, my thought would be:

In using the verb form of "heap", we would say, "Please 'heap' the boulders up."

You could use the word 'stack' in the same way - meaning, 'things' piled on top of each other.

Actually, this also works with the noun form of 'heap', because we would say, "Please pile the stones in a heap."

...So, we have our heap of sand, and now we start removing one grain at a time. Depending how wide the heap is at the base, eventually we will get to the point where there are no grains of sand 'on top' of any other grains, at which point we will no longer have a 'heap'.

Of course, if you had a broom and kept sweeping the grains of sand together, you could call it a 'heap' right up until you got to the last 2 grains, one (balanced carefully) atop the other.


---Thus does the vocabulary lesson solve the mathematical conundrum.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: Korg Trinity

** the story goes that Henry was struggling with a dump in the Crown Loo one day,


Thank you for this contribution, it made me smile and giggle as the imagery played out within my mind... One might think that Infinity drove these people to do such things but I can assure you their actions were not only their own, but in true form for the day!




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MasterKaman

but dont giggle too much Korg because many true word is spoken in jest
this paradox is CAUSED by a phenomena of the human mind (particon flip back event) / cognitive mechanism, which CAN be both experienced /explained and believed. zeno is finally SOLVED (kamanism 1972). we can also solve Goedelian Loop Dissipation (GLD) which drove mr.Goedel and all religious fanatics mad. dangerous introspection which can unstabilise your mind. take it carefully ... kaman 2015



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Why does that remind me of a favorite joke... BTW - I'm an engineer ....
---------------

A mathematician and a engineer agree to a psychological experiment.

The mathematician is put in a chair in a large empty room and a beautiful naked woman is placed on a bed at the other end of the room.
The psychologist explains, "You are to remain in your chair. Every five minutes, I will move your chair to a position halfway between its current location and the woman on the bed."
The mathematician looks at the psychologist in disgust. "What? I'm not going to go through this. You know I'll never reach the bed!"
And he gets up and storms out.

The psychologist makes a note on his clipboard and ushers the engineer in. He explains the situation, and the engineers eyes light up and he starts drooling.
The psychologist is a bit confused. "Don't you realize that you'll never reach her?"

The engineer smiles and replied, "Of course! But I'll get close enough for all practical purposes!"



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity




Given the finite number of molecules in the bread and the finite number of people that could have such an opinion, even the aesthetics of the toast are not infinite.


But you make the assumption that each molecule has only two states. I would suggest that the molecules have an infinite number of states based on energy excitation within the molecules.

The molecules are not just bread or toast, they may even exist in both states at the same time.

I can also have an infinite number of ways I like my toast and it changes based on time and what I will put on the toast. Ditto for every person in the world.

Additionally, the toaster has an infinite variable of when it will pop and an infinite number of settings of where I want it to pop.

P

edit on 2/6/2015 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: lostgirl

That is interesting. Yes, the term 'heap' does seem to include some idea of stacking, so it is not purely quantity, but it is 'levels/layers' as well. As there can be a million grains of sand, but if they are all perfectly flat in relation, as a lattice of sorts, it wouldn't be considered a heap, then it follows, would half a million flat lattice of grains of sand, stacked with a half a million flat lattice of grains of sand, be considered a heap of sand?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Also zenos paradox is solved by considering an ultimate reference frame, which in all likely hood is the purest nothingness, but that distance is real between all non nothing, and so if a particle is completely stationary in relation to the real dimension of absolute nothing, another particle, can approach it, in relation to the absolute nothing, and in relation to that exact particle (this is what Space time attempted to be all about, the concept of space time, and then the concept of reference frames as existing on the particle, and comparing this relative reference frames while considering other particles reference frames, acknowledging that one can never know the values of the pure nothingness reference frame, but that it must exist abstractly, if something is to exist, and be compared against one another while using a common language, such as distance, and movement amongst distance, which in essence is space and time.) And woah.... I dont think zenos paradox is solved in my mind. I am trying to think just with marbles, or a hypothetical flat surface, two sheets of paper separated in space, to attempt to make it as pure as a thought as possible, two highlight the fact that only one point of surface will touch at all, and its precisely via its movement; if one of the pieces of paper is existing stationary in reference to an ultimate 'nothing dimension' which doesnt exist, but which all 'something' exists in, and the very nature of movement, means some aspect of something that is something, altering its position in relation to the ultimate nothing space, and also yes by proxy in relation to all other somethings, which are relatively moving in relation to all other somethings and the ultimate nothing space. If the universe is fact, then, there are some differences, but still for the effect whether illusionary or real, something must be moved for something to be moved.

immediately I think to say the trick might begin to be solved by attempting to quantify the space the stationary, or moving, paper 1 is located. You will need to use some greater than 0 value to do this, well, even if you mark it as 0, the very notion of marking a something in existence in area relation to potentially all other things, is marking a destination that exists, therefore in theory it must be possible to get to that destination, if it is a non nothing, in theory, ignoring any conceivable physical laws of energy and repulsion, but an abstract ideal object with no quality, just a perfect marble substance, made of pure stuffness, (I say ideal, in a sense of impossible, when considering our understanding of physical reality, and it is almost false to consider the term in a good way in these regards, because reactive substance with energy barriers and qualities and repulsion potential, is 'cooler' more interesting and greater conceivable potential, then these 'ideal' unreactive marbles, I am drawing mind to)

Then it is possible that we could imagine an identical marble or piece of paper, 'born', imagined into existence, exactly touching! the other objects, two perfect marbles exactly touching, two sheets of paper exactly touching.

And do the thought experiment backwards; imagine moving one half the distance away from the other? Is that possible? What sort of number would you base that off of?

Now there is a sense in which zeno might be right.

Imagine all particles in the universe are traveling at a constant speed; or first let me say, imagine all particles in particular groups of the universe are traveling a constant speed.

So any movement in relation to others, in a particular group, is always a sort of lateral movement;

So all objects are traveling at the same velocity and momentum, Or ...

Well dang.

It might be that no object in the universe can really touch, but this goes back to depending on the true nature of 'particles' the most fundamental ones, how they actually exist as entirely dramatic individual particulates of substance, how they are perfectly their own speck, and can they melt into others, do they the exact they? Transform like liquid into others? With others, does this require two distinct areas of substance touching?

Eventually, even with energy fields and repulsion, there is always somethingness touching somethingness to cause something to move, and all things appear to be quite moving anyway, but this is once that is considered, the beggining of new movement in relation.

A rock falls differently in relation to the surface of the earth, when it is falling off a sky scraper, as opposed to a 45 degree angle hill.

It does so only because of what it is touching; in the sky scraper example it is touching no 45 degree angle hill; in the hill example it is;

Something must be touching something, to explain this difference.

So in this sense, even if there is reaction, repulsion, all object is ideal in the sense of reactions are caused by non nothing touching non nothing. No spooky action at distances.

Oh... and then I think this is solved easily, by considering that decimal places probably dont exist in reality... lol. Maybe.

There is finite space between two objects.

Which is a weird concept,

But imagine building any number line, would have to be built out of something, ultimately;

And so to build something, something has to be a finite size,

So to build the number line, you have to use non nothing of some definite size;

To start with absolutely nothing, and then to build the number line, the first 'non nothing' you contribute, will have to at least be 'the smallest possible non nothing'.

So with that considered, every non nothing that you measure movements in relation to one another, will be in relation to that eternal constant of 'the smallest possible non nothing'; which is relative to the ultimate brand of something, but also relative to somethings that could be conceivable beyond it but never possible, but are still closer to ultimate '0'; which is ultimate nothing, that all possible somethings would be compared to.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MasterKaman

Thank goodness I only had to read the first six lines of your wall of text to be utterly sure that you are talking nonsense.


philosophers have totally failed to explain it so far.

The explanation of Zeno's Paradox is that there is no such thing as a point of zero dimensions. Not since the Big Bang anyway.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
And, just to keep the discussion clean and on topic, can we make a distinction between logical paradoxes, like Zeno's, and semantic ones such as 'how many bits of junk make a heap?'



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
The whole idea of a "half" is just a construct that has it's own inherit limitations.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Nonsense. It has a strict mathematical definition.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Schrödinger would say that it's not really toast until it pops up. Until then it's both bread and toast.


Personally, it's toast when I put butter and jelly on it. Or maybe that's when it becomes yummy toast. Hard to say.

I know I want toast now though.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Asymptote - Wikipedia

In analytic geometry, an asymptote (/ˈæsɪmptoʊt/) of a curve is a line such that the distance between the curve and the line approaches zero as they tend to infinity.

Similar to the asymptote, if toast is limited in some way of not becoming toast then it will always be approaching the transition from bread to toast but infinitely never reaching the state of becoming toast. Its a thought exercise.
edit on 3-6-2015 by eManym because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join