Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





So...why must it exist? Really. What requires it to exist? What need does it satisfy? The emergence of existence is like a rope. It can't be pushed by possibility, but is pulled by requirement. Nothing exists that didn't emerge due to a requirement that was established by the emergence of something else that addressed a need that (again) was the ramification of the emergence of something that preceded it.

Infinite presence/distance/size/quantity/time/gradient - any version of infinity - clashes with everything else that exists in this way. It doesn't satisfy anything but the human mind's need to categorize everything - even the things it can't adequately determine to the extent that it can successfully categorize it. That, literally, is the only need that the concept of infinity addresses. And - not surprising - that is the key to the truth about the concept of infinity. It exists only within the mind of a human being.

Mathematics deals in extreme conceptual determinations, and until those determinations can be solidified (which isn't really central to the art of mathematics) concepts like infinity serve to categorize that which can't otherwise be categorized. This allows the mathematician to move on to more exciting stuff, without losing his placeholder as he does.

Who says infinity has to clash with anything? Perhaps its just in your own mind that you find this clash. If it exists, the Infinity stands of its own accord and does not give a crap what anyone postulates about it.




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 




If it did exist, it would be an always "actual". No beginning, no end, no change, no constraints of any kind. If something were to be infinite, it would necessarily be the only "actual" thing. Nothing could exist relative to it, since it would already "be" the infinite whatever-it-is, and would have always been that infinite whatever-it-is. The logical contradictions are insurmountable.

If it did exist, it would include all possibilities, potentials, and logical contradictions including allowing everything to be relative to it.


Sorry. It can't be relative to itself. That's just not logically possible.


The "relative to it" part could be an illusion of the mind anyway.


I suppose that - if you want it to - this can be your "get out of real free" card. It doesn't change the true nature of reality, but human beings are unique in their capacity to believe the impossible.

I don't expect everyone to embrace this, and have no issue with respectful disagreement. We're all creating our inimitable selves, after all.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 





So...why must it exist? Really. What requires it to exist? What need does it satisfy? The emergence of existence is like a rope. It can't be pushed by possibility, but is pulled by requirement. Nothing exists that didn't emerge due to a requirement that was established by the emergence of something else that addressed a need that (again) was the ramification of the emergence of something that preceded it.

Infinite presence/distance/size/quantity/time/gradient - any version of infinity - clashes with everything else that exists in this way. It doesn't satisfy anything but the human mind's need to categorize everything - even the things it can't adequately determine to the extent that it can successfully categorize it. That, literally, is the only need that the concept of infinity addresses. And - not surprising - that is the key to the truth about the concept of infinity. It exists only within the mind of a human being.

Mathematics deals in extreme conceptual determinations, and until those determinations can be solidified (which isn't really central to the art of mathematics) concepts like infinity serve to categorize that which can't otherwise be categorized. This allows the mathematician to move on to more exciting stuff, without losing his placeholder as he does.

Who says infinity has to clash with anything? Perhaps its just in your own mind that you find this clash. If it exists, the Infinity stands of its own accord and does not give a crap what anyone postulates about it.


it just does clash with everything else that exists. Or...it would if it did actually exist. Which it doesn't. My opinion has no impact on the existence or nonexistence of Infinity.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Sorry. It can't be relative to itself. That's just not logically possible.

The present moment transcends logic and is prior to it. Reality is so fast, by the time you make sense of whats going on, or try to register an event, it has already passed, already happened. Logic operates in retrospect ...reality operates in the Now, the present moment.

Where's your logic in art, in selflessness, in abstract conceptual thought, in a vast array of branches of existence. Logic itself will deduce that logic is limited. Let's not bring limited modes of thought to try and fathom and put limits on the unfathomable and unlimited. (Like bringing a squirt gun to an atomic war).



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
So...why must it exist? Really. What requires it to exist? What need does it satisfy?


Change.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
I'm debunking you debunk of infinity.



There ya go.

OP,

Even if you could prove that infinity doesn't exist, you would be (in theory) proving that the Universe has walls. The smallest particle would represent the wall of matter. The smallest fragment of time, a wall, the smallest vibrational frequency, a wall.

What's on the other side of the wall?
edit on 13-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Well another video post...I must say at least you gave a somewhat enlighting description. I must say you can see infinity right here on ATS the neverending "Doom and Gloom" post and 2012 post over and over so me thinks you have failed because they will go on forever even after the end of the world with the never failing it was all a computer program "matrix" threads.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Again, I don't agree with you and am really not interested in your fixation on semantics.


See, the problem is that you aren't disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with everyone, because what you think "infinite" means is wrong. Pure and simple, wrong, and whether you agree with that or not doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

You see, unlike... whatever that was, music or theatre or whatever, in science if you start with an invalid premise (as you did) you assure invalid results (as you got.) And ignoring valid criticism (as I've tried to give you) because it refutes your results is called "data falsification" and people get fired for it.

In other words... don't give up your day job.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Debunking infinity's easy. Max Planck already did the heavy lifting. Making it cool isn't easy


That video sucked.

I wanted to turn it off after the first 3 minutes.

Thanks for wasting my time.

Not cool. Not cool at all.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
ye
you failed already at the headline
"I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes". Wich shows the lack of knowledge,within many areas.

The video also failed,due to a vast missunderstanding of elements.

I am laughing hard now.

The idea of Debunking Infinity ? hehe now that is absolutely hilarious



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
S +F for the creative song. I like it. But, for everything else I don't want to be part of.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   


I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes


I have a question.

If you can debunk infinity in less than 8 minutes.

Why did I have to sit through a 14 minute video that didn't debunk anything?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It's a well-produced video. Good work, I enjoyed it! Excellent audio and video quality. A few comments:

The music in the intro (and used thematically throughout) has heavily borrowed from Jan Hammer, and sounds like a slowed-down version of Crockett's Theme from Miami Vice (starting at about 0:35):



Next, the spoken word piece is kind of ripped off from Henry Rollins in style and structure:



And the rap, well... it ain't exactly Chuck D, that's all I'll say.

As for debunking infinity, keep trying... until infinity! Peace
edit on 13-12-2012 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
I didn't realize there was even a conspiracy surrounding infinity..... really? So what do we call things that appear endless? Oh and, whats the highest number we can count to?


Endless is not the same as infinite. Infinite extends in both directions. Endless only extends in one direction. Big difference between the two.


How about negative numbers?



Endless in both directions?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
That's pretty cool. Makes sense too.

Good on you.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Planck's constant is not a physical reality. it is a statistical standard deviation (a placeholder, if you will) on infinitesimal action. when the math was being worked out, the value of 'h' was left undetermined. it was formalized after the fact. it is a formalization! not a reality! silly boy, thinking science is on YOUR side.

upon inspection of the canonical commutation relation, the centerpiece of quantum mechanics (being a pro, I am sure you know this already), you will find that the position and momentum coordinates are mapped not only to Planck's 'h-bar', but also to that silly little imaginary unit, 'i'.

this means that ALL of quantum mechanics is mapped to the complex (imaginary) plane....which means that SUPERPOSITION is every bit as much of the theory as the quantization unit.

so, when you say that the "mystics are running people off a cliff" with superposition etc, I can only conclude that you are cherry-picking the theory, or worse, that you don't understand the theory at all and are JUST AS GUILTY as the so-called mystics. shame-shame.


there is a whole lotta quantum-bullying going on up in here and I just hate it.

I would rather listen to the mystics any day.


summary: plancks constant is no more real than the imaginary unit. neither, really, is ANY number real. I do not think you can debunk one contrivance with another.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Hmm,

If one draws a circle on the floor and start looking for the end, how long till you find it?

Immediately. It starts where you put the pencil down, and ends where you picked the pencil up. Unless it took you an infinite amount of time to draw the circle, which is impossible, it would never equal something called infinity.


ok change the hypothetical to help you get the point...you see a circle on the floor...where does it begin and where does it end? to answer that you HAVE to assume...OR make something up out of thin air...like starting and ending points.

Where does the universe start or end? no one knows and even the theories are all doing the same thing...assuming or making stuff up out of thin air.

pick any two points and within those points is an infinite distance. Does no one read Plato? or is he just some hack?

I can see how LINEAR infinity can be a simple illusion but a circular infinity is both finite and infinite...you can circle the globe infinitely but there is not an infinite amount of mass...In this analogy distance is infinite and mass is finite. I would imagine the universe to be similar. But maybe that's just because I see things in fractals..



edit on 13-12-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Im sorry but I just think its funny that youre the only one who is posting saying your song is cool or catchy, good effort but


ok maybe you have a few fans back here on page 5
edit on 13-12-2012 by tehdouglas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





It involves establishing what the quantum actually determines, and applying it to the concept of infinite extension - which projects in both directions to infinite contraction as well as infinite expansion. The quantum proved that infinite contraction (smallness) does not exist in physical reality, and that literally eliminated a full 1/2 of the infinite gradient (from small to large) in all manners of how that can be applied.


Ummm...tell that to Mandelbrot. Fractals are a perfect example of infinity. You didn't "debunk" anything, you just set your particular reality tunnel deeper into your head.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


exactly! mandelbrot developed the study of fractals as a direct result of the "measurement problem" and the consequent "uncertainty"!

quantum uncertainty is a powerful statement about the inevitability of infinity!

infinity eats itself. quantization is the result.


op has completely misunderstood.






top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join