Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


He's obviously not a gamer, MOTF




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Never in any of my posts have I said that such and such is true just because I said so. I clearly recommended that you pick up a few books on theoretical mathematics and/or calculus, and you respond with character assassination? Nice try, but you're gonna have to do better than that.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Infinity describes anything that cannot be quantified or valued at the current time. Yes, it is used as a placeholder term, but that does not give any more relevance to the OP, who assumes, from what I can gather, that nothing is unquantifiable. I honestly think that as human beings, there are some things that are just beyond our intellectual capability, which the OP refuses to acknowledge. Come to think of it, all the OP seems to be interested in doing as trash-talking anyone who disagrees with them. Just thought I would mention, as well, that Calculus is not theoretical, but was invented to solve problems which algebra could not. You guys can debate me all day long, but I take the words of Sir Isaac Newton(possibly one of the brilliant scientists to have ever lived) over anyone on this website any day of the week. I honestly could not explain what Newton says better than he can, so I would also relegate for anyone on the side of the OP to read some of his brilliant works before dismissing what I say as a "because I said so" argument. Also, university professors will fail an entire essay simply because Wikipedia is in the bibliography, so I would be more careful about your sources if I were you. I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, I am merely saying that there are better websites out there for information like this (NSF.gov or Science.gc.ca being the best two I can gather off the top of my head). Contrary to what the OP may think, I am not just pulling this out of my rear.
edit on 14/12/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: grammar



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


Trying to debunk a placeholder term that has been used in science since the days of Newton is brilliantly-something. That's for sure. A clue: "something" is also a place-holder term. I'll let you do the guesswork



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregorian
 


Actually, infinite is the description of anything which cannot be quantified, therefore it is not a value in and of itself, from what I can gather from Newton's Principia.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Never in any of my posts have I said that such and such is true just because I said so. I clearly recommended that you pick up a few books on theoretical mathematics and/or calculus, and you respond with character assassination? Nice try, but you're gonna have to do better than that.


No one cares what you or I say in any of our posts.

I'm still interested to hear your argument as all I've heard from you are "read a book" and "you lose." If you cannot speak for yourself and would rather have your mathematicians and theoretical physicist speak for you, how about you show us some of this knowledge you have so far refused to share. So let's start again, because arguing on an internet forum is one of the most absurd pastimes ever invented.

What is your argument for infinity?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Infinity is a place-holder term for values which are unquantifiable, which I have already stated. There are things in this universe which our meager human intellect will never be able to understand, that are way out of our league, as they say, and that's where infinity comes in. Also, Infinity basically describes everything in existence, which s, in it's essence, unquantifiable. Therefore, without infinite values, finite values would not be able to exist. Finite = quantifiable, Infinite = unquantifiable. Clear enough for you? Seriously though, you need to start reading more books if you think you're going to get any real closure on the internet. I'd start with Newton's Principia if I were you, as possibly the most brilliant mathematician to have ever lived can explain it far better than I can, although there's no guarantee that you'll be able to wrap your head around it. Also, just thought I'd mention that you need to cut out the straw-man character assassination schtick. That only works on schmucks, and in person it can lead to very...shall we say....intense...situations brewing about. Don't agree with what I say or how I say it? That's okay I don't really care either way. Either you disagree with me and point out your thesis rationally or agree with me and move on. Any statements made to the contrary of the above two will only be taken as statements of ignorance and will be responded to in kind. Just so ya know...
edit on 14/12/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
You mean that quanta are discreet and not continuous therefor there is no infinity as in infinite numbers between let's say 1 and 2?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Infinity is a place-holder term for values which are unquantifiable, which I have already stated. There are things in this universe which our meager human intellect will never be able to understand, that are way out of our league, as they say, and that's where infinity comes in. Also, Infinity basically describes everything in existence, which s, in it's essence, unquantifiable. Therefore, without infinite values, finite values would not be able to exist. Finite = quantifiable, Infinite = unquantifiable. Clear enough for you? Seriously though, you need to start reading more books if you think you're going to get any real closure on the internet. I'd start with Newton's Principia if I were you, as possibly the most brilliant mathematician to have ever lived can explain it far better than I can, although there's no guarantee that you'll be able to wrap your head around it.


See, this I can agree with: as a placeholder, infinity exists. But only as a placeholder, and it only works within the realm of mathematics. Would you agree with me on this?

Newton believed in alchemy and most of his laws were re-written by Einstein. I agree he was brilliant and should be regarded as so, but perhaps you shouldn't limit yourself to Principia.

ETA: You've shown me much disdain for no reason except perhaps my words appealed too much to your emotion, and as you decry my attempts to "character assassinate" you, you attempt to do the same thing. So lets drop the charade and not contradict ourselves any further.
edit on 14-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by Gregorian
 


Actually, infinite is the description of anything which cannot be quantified, therefore it is not a value in and of itself, from what I can gather from Newton's Principia.


Well infinity is like a growth that goes on for ever, always one step extra.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Newton's principia is not the only book on mathematics which I have read, but it is the best place to start as Newton made more breakthrough discoveries in his time than any other scientist in history. Also, who's to say that alchemy isn't possible....meh, discussion for another time I suppose. I must mention, though, that Einstein wasn't right about everything either. That's just how science works.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Newton's principia is not the only book on mathematics which I have read, but it is the best place to start as Newton made more breakthrough discoveries in his time than any other scientist in history. Also, who's to say that alchemy isn't possible....meh, discussion for another time I suppose. I must mention, though, that Einstein wasn't right about everything either. That's just how science works.


I agree here.

My problem is, I can't honestly foresee humanity discovering a boundary of the universe, so in a sense I agree the deepness of the universe is unfathomable and unmeasurable, at least for us. If we call that "un-measurableness" infinity, then so be it, but it doesn't mean something called "un-measurableness" exists. But then I think about microbes in a lake and imagine that if they were in our predicament, they might assume that their universe (the lake) was also infinite, merely because they'd never discover the boundary of where the lake meats shore. This is the only trouble I have with the whole idea.

I posted this earlier in the thread, but check it out. If you enjoy the philosophy of Mathematics, there's much profound stuff here about infinity : Mathematics and the Metaphysicians Bertrand Russel


edit on 14-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by Gregorian
 


Actually, infinite is the description of anything which cannot be quantified, therefore it is not a value in and of itself, from what I can gather from Newton's Principia.


Infinity is a philosophical term insofar as philosophy deals primarily with words and terms as used linguistically, and in that sense alone "infinity" is a linguistic, semantically loaded trick word that operates in mathematics, linguistics, and philosophy in very much the same manner, and for the same purpose - as a conceptual place holder.

On the contrary - any reference to the theological meaning behind the term "Infinite" - is reserved to God, and to God alone.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Ok that is clear,

Let me rephrase that, to be in excistance it needs to be recognized not perse by humans.

To be recognized there must be awareness
Awareness brings thought. (Reminds me of depth and silence but that is a different topic)

I rephrase it to

stupidity is and always be infinite but it is a blessing

(If I'm not clear well it is late here)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
The past is infinite..... the future is infinite...

something exists... something has always existed.... something will always exist....

this something is also always changing.... and perhaps had been able to change in different ways ( different laws of physics) ( multi universes).... and perhaps will be able to change in different ways in the future...

there is a lot of patterns, similarities, relations, limits... the number of elements we believe exist is a limit... the laws of physics we know to exist are limiting.....

but limits are in a way necessary for any order or or stability..... with this order and stability... and massive ( near infinite
) amount of parts/bits/matter.... look at all of the forms/structures/things that can be created on earth alone.... from the living things ( single celled, birds, fish, humans etc) to all the aspects about them regarding habits,hunting methods, personalities, computation of consciousness, feelings,.... to the colors represented in all these things and sizes...... and then the grand daddy.... the different things that humans are capable... the near infinite creations of human beings since they began.... its hard to give examples but... all tools, all archtecture techniques including all buildings ever constructed... all vehicles... all clothing... all art and music.... all politics and philosophy... all languages... all sciences....etc.etc.etc........

now always keeping track of the variable of time..... think about all the planets potentially in our galaxy... in the billions is it? .... and now how many galaxies we think exist in the universe... in the billions is it? and how many universes we think are in the multiverse.... anyone?

its a coupling of a no end in sight time limit...... a, energy cannot be created or destroyed principle.....a , we cannot see whats outside out universe.... and a few other concepts that make the word infinite equal in some resemblance to all of what ive just described...
edit on 14-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
By Logic and Mathematics the very fact that we exist is proof of Infinity.

Infinite diversity in Infinite combinations. This statement is as solid a proof as 1 plus 1 is 2.

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Oh boy - I went over to planet youtube and got lost again.

Don't know about infinity!?! but I definitely need to listen to some good music, any music to get that "song" outta my head.

That video felt like infinity!
edit on 14-12-2012 by six67seven because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor (assume simplicity over complexity)


en.wikipedia.org...

.
Further reading


Any thoughts?
edit on 14-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Its cear to me by op's vid, points made, and the replies by everybody else on ats, that infinity was not debunked in 8 minutes.

Good try, however major fail



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Its cear to me by op's vid, points made, and the replies by everybody else on ats, that infinity was not debunked in 8 minutes.

Good try, however major fail


Only took eight pages to come to the conclusion that I did on page one


OP thought he had put together a cool rap song that would earn him accolades, and that was pretty much the extent of this thread.

Wrong target audience, though -- anyone who knows anything about maths or physics can see through his errors immediately. He should have just thrown it up on YouTube like the Spirit Science imbeciles do. They get lots of positive feedback, lol.





new topics




 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join