Originally posted by D1ss1dent
What about the Mandelbrot?
Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but when it comes to this site, morals are irrelevant, only verifiable facts, of which you have none. If you want to hear the basis for my argument, all you have to do is pick up a few books on theoretical mathematics or even calculus from the local library. Also, I noticed that you brought up religion, which is also irrelevant. I really do not care what you think I "come off as." The fact of the matter is I am who I am and I am not going to change just because I offended someone on a forum. Capische?
P.S. Oh, and since it didn't sink in last time....you lose. Unless you have a better point to make than "because I said so!" Also, it's been well over 8 minutes and you're no closer to even having a solid thesis, let alone an educated argument for it. As for believing what I'm told....if you had read any of my previous posts in any other threads, you would know that that's the opposite of what I could be qualified as. Debunking for the sake of debunking is neither educational, nor is it rational. All it amounts to is a huge waste of time.edit on 14/12/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)edit on 14/12/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
Nice try. Just so you know, oversimplifying things so that they make sense to our meager human intellect does not qualify as disproving anything. Arrogance never solves anything. You must ask yourself, who are we going to believe: scores of theoretical physicists and mathematicians, with oodles of proofs and peer-reviewed equations behind them, or you, with your arrogant bantering (with neither of the above in your favour btw)? You lose.
Theoretical applications of physical infinity
The practice of refusing infinite values for measurable quantities does not come from a priori or ideological motivations, but rather from more methodological and pragmatic motivations.[citation needed] One of the needs of any physical and scientific theory is to give usable formulas that correspond to or at least approximate reality. As an example if any object of infinite gravitational mass were to exist, any usage of the formula to calculate the gravitational force would lead to an infinite result, which would be of no benefit since the result would be always the same regardless of the position and the mass of the other object. The formula would be useful neither to compute the force between two objects of finite mass nor to compute their motions. If an infinite mass object were to exist, any object of finite mass would be attracted with infinite force (and hence acceleration) by the infinite mass object, which is not what we can observe in reality. Sometimes infinite result of a physical quantity may mean that the theory being used to compute the result may be approaching the point where it fails. This may help to indicate the limitations of a theory.
This point of view does not mean that infinity cannot be used in physics. For convenience's sake, calculations, equations, theories and approximations often use infinite series, unbounded functions, etc., and may involve infinite quantities. Physicists however require that the end result be physically meaningful. In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful result, a process called renormalization.
However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density. This is an example of what is called a mathematical singularity, or a point where a physical theory breaks down. This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist; it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing the situation properly. Two other examples occur in inverse-square force laws of the gravitational force equation of Newtonian gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. At r=0 these equations evaluate to infinities.
Originally posted by Gregorian
reply to post by NorEaster
∞ is undebunkable - ∞ is God's province; separate from time and space which are merely earth-bound means of measure even of the cosmos. God is the author of the cosmos - hence beyond all measure.
BTW - all reference to so-called Infinity as used in modern mathematics - is a trick. Its useful to the scientific when trying to hoodwink normal people.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gregorian
reply to post by NorEaster
∞ is undebunkable - ∞ is God's province; separate from time and space which are merely earth-bound means of measure even of the cosmos. God is the author of the cosmos - hence beyond all measure.
As used by modern man the concept of infinity has relevance only in the field of philosophy. All modern philosophers support the theory of inﬁnity - much to their discredit.
BTW - all reference to so-called Infinity as used in modern mathematics - is a charlatans trick. Its useful to scientific types when trying to hoodwink normal people.
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by NorEaster
If it cant exist. How can we exist?
If there is no physical infinite! were does our physical finite existence come from?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gregorian
Originally posted by Gregorian
reply to post by NorEaster
∞ is undebunkable - ∞ is God's province; separate from time and space which are merely earth-bound means of measure even of the cosmos. God is the author of the cosmos - hence beyond all measure.
As used by modern man the concept of infinity has relevance only in the field of philosophy. All modern philosophers support the theory of inﬁnity - much to their discredit.
BTW - all reference to so-called Infinity as used in modern mathematics - is a charlatans trick. Its useful to scientific types when trying to hoodwink normal people.
Only God may be considered Infinite, and even then He is actually beyond Infinity, because the term is just another form of measurement used by mere mortals in their somewhat feeble attempt to describe the ineffable.
I found it to be of some interest that the OP "NorEaster" chose to use the # 8 - an erect form of the standard mathematical sign for Infinity.
***Please note the edits in my post hence the 'bump.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)
What about it? Is pi infinite? No. Endless? Possibly, but not infinite.
Art is literally the human mind's attempt to preserve its identity beyond the moment, and hopefully to enable it to survive the death of its material brain.
This is the logical impetus behind all human expression, and especially artistic expression. Raw survival of self. This is also the basis of the biological imperative, only in that case, it is the body's DNA directives that are demanding identity survival by way of extending that identity's reach beyond the physical confines of the corporeal whole.
It is the fundamental yes versus no of "does it work or doesn't it?"
Reality really isn't mysterious. It's just the rinse-repeat scaling of extremely simple requirements being met by whatever it takes to meet those requirements.
In lay terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by D1ss1dent
What about the Mandelbrot?
The Mandelbrot set is a mathematical set of points whose boundary is a distinctive and easily recognizable two-dimensional fractal shape.
Sounds pretty finite to me.
Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") is the abstract study of topics encompassing quantity,[2] structure,[3] space,[2] change,[4][5] and other properties;[6] it has no generally accepted definition.[7][8]
Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry. Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932), David Hilbert (1862–1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. When those mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by NorEaster
If it cant exist. How can we exist?
If there is no physical infinite! were does our physical finite existence come from?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
We exist due to the default response to the existential survival imperative that insists that what exists must maintain that existence until it can't any longer. That's the absolute basis of physical reality. Infinity, as a potential even, doesn't serve any such requirement. In fact, the only requirement that infinity does serve is the human m,ind's need to label everything it does and doesn't understand. Those expanses that dwarf the mind's capacity to suitably appreciate are labeled "infinite" as a result. In truth, the human mind invented "infinity" to solve the dilemma of practical ignorance concerning the nature of the material realm.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by NorEaster
This thread is hogwash! HOGWASH I tell you! Just go to your closet, look under the couple of decades worth of shoes and old single socks, pull out that grey and black cube labled Nintendo Entertainment System, find your old copy of Contra, blow on it real good, probably blow on it again just for good measure, put it into the Nintendo Entertainment System, Press the power button, at the startup screen press: up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start.......... BOOOM!! Your debunking of infinite has just been debunked!
MOTF!
I have no idea what you think you just accomplished with this. Seriously. Maybe you have some brilliant point that you honestly believe your odd statement made, but it as certainly lost on your audience if I was your audience.