Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by smithjustinb
And that is exactly what I am saying. And based on what you said, given the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed, then we do have
the opportunity of riding the wave into infinity. But there is nothing within the realm of possibility that will allow us to get to a point of
This is trying to compare trees to ecosystems.
Taking practical mathematical concepts and attempting to derive universal proofs out of it is somewhat misguided. As many have already said - I don't
have an orange. Therefor, zero has a valid place in practical mathematics. Now, I do have some apples, and some orange-flavored kool-ade. That's
all well and good, but exist as factors outside of the set we are looking at.
This is something you get into as you get further into math, as well. The concept of isolation and relativism. For any given function, you have
relative maximums and relative minimums indicating a relative peak or trough in values. The function may continue indefinitely - but you are only
concerned with the portion you can graph or are working with.
When asking me how many oranges I have, it does you no good for me to say: "There are 84023853 oranges known to exist, the digested remains of 894563
being converted into corn as fertilizer." Doesn't really answer the question. I don't have any.
In this instance, we begin to treat the universe not as a single equation but as a whole system of information storage and processing - much like a
database system. (Wouldn't that be some sick joke - find out we are all part of an out-of-control MS Access 8950 macro?) The total value of the
system cannot be known by any one component, yet cannot be zero or practically demonstrated to be infinity. However, zero does serve its place in
practical mathematics as the lack of a queried item.
This may only apply on a macroscopic level, however. For example - two neutrons interacting with each other will never experience a practical
instance of zero - they will always be interacting with other particles in some way, shape, or form. Though I could be demonstrating some ignorance
in that respect.
I wouldn't go so far as to say math is wrong - but that concepts of math don't always translate too well between systems.
I get what you're saying.
Objective mathematics is infinity based. Subjective mathematics is 0 based. Good work.
If I have 2 oranges, and I give you 2, its not that I have 0 oranges, its that you can't really ever have something as that something is an entity in
and of itself. So those two oranges still exist in the environment of themselves as oranges.
If I put it another way and say, I have two oranges and I take away two, how many oranges are left? The answer is 2.
If I put it another way and say 2-2=0, the question remains, where did the 2 go?
If I say 2-2=infinity, then we know that the 2 has been displaced but it still has its existence, much like the oranges that are no longer mine, but
they still exist.
edit on 28-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)