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.

 

Infinite Possibility from Finite Means

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Infinite possibility from finite means


Identity of indiscernibles (Leibniz Law)


The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle which states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common. That is, entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa; to suppose two things indiscernible is to suppose the same thing under two names. It states that no two distinct things (such as snowflakes) can be exactly alike, but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science.
Source

Law of Non-Contradiction


In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.
Source

The Law of Excluded Middle


In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.
Source

Number


number |ˈnəmbər|
noun
1 an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification: she dialed the number carefully | an even number.
• (numbers) dated arithmetic: the boy was adept at numbers.
2 a quantity or amount: the company is seeking to increase the number of women on its staff | the exhibition attracted vast numbers of visitors.
• (a number of) several: we have discussed the matter on a number of occasions.
• a group or company of people: there were some distinguished names among our number .
• (numbers) a large quantity or amount, often in contrast to a smaller one; numerical preponderance: the weight of numbers turned the battle against them.
3 a single issue of a magazine: the October number of “Travel.”
• a song, dance, piece of music, etc., esp. one of several in a performance: they go from one melodious number to another.
• [ usu. with adj. ] informal a thing, typically an item of clothing, of a particular type, regarded with approval or admiration: Yvonne was wearing a little black number.
4 Grammar a distinction of word form denoting reference to one person or thing or to more than one. See also singular ( sense 2 of the adjective), plural, count noun, and mass noun.


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0.



Ten numbers symbolizing values and amounts. These numbers can be reused and put beside each other to create new symbols connoting new values.

How many 4’s are in this sequence of numbers? Only one.

How many numbers in the universe amount to four? What does 4 equal? Only the number 4 amounts to four. There is only one value we can call 4. (4 = 4)

If there is no two things that are exactly alike in the universe and only one number 4, how are we able to add 4 to another 4 and get 8? Only 8 amounts to 8. Where does the other 4 come from?. There is only one value called "4", but this finite 4 can be used an infinite amount of times.

4 + 4 = 8 is the same as (4 + 4 = 8) = 8 is the same as 8 = 8. Though they are the same, in structure they are different. Since there is only one 8, we must conclude that with each equation, we are merely relating the same amount or value in different ways. There are an infinite amount of equations that equal 8. But in the end, only 8 is 8.

How can we put an infinite number of 8’s consecutively behind one another if there is only one 8 in the universe? Where do the other 8’s come from if no two things are exactly alike? Can I put an infinite number of myself, everything I amount to, behind myself? In reality it is impossible; in thought it is quite easy. Out of a finite means such as myself, comes infinite possibility, chaos.

If there are no two things that are alike, then the number 2 must be false. 1 +1 cannot equal 2 because there is only one 1. We cannot put two things that are exactly alike beside each other, simply because no two things are exactly alike. However, conceptually, from these finite means, we can derive from it infinite possibility.

If there are no two things that are exactly alike, things can only be sometimes similar, but always different. Therefore, no 1 is equal to another 1. If no 1 is equal to another 1, there is no 1. But as a value, as an amount of which there is only one, it may be utilized to achieve infinite possibility from finite means. 1 = ∞.

How is it that out of this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, we can get this: ∞?

How does this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, ) become this ∞ ?

In thought, man can fly, defy physics, imagine other worlds, all derived from the finiteness of human experience. Infinite possibility from finite means. Only by abstracting the world into symbols connoting values can we make sense of the chaos around us. We are merely giving names to things and phenomena, and using those names an infinite amount of ways. It is likely that every sentence we utter is something never said before, something completely new and original. Though there are similarities between them, they are only similar insofar as no two things are exactly alike.




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
if you hate a infinite number of '8's you can always use the octal system
but surely putting two 8's together will change its meaning to 88 and as such its a separate entity from just a single 8



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Great post.

Consider the function v()

v("1+1") = "2".

Means by evaluating the expression "1+1", the result is "2". However "1+1" = "2" is false. (notice my use of quotes to differentiate the symbol "2" from the quantity 2. I'm saying the symbol "1+1" is not equal to the symbol "2")

The function v() maps symbols to referents, and solves equations. Its important because through it, you can see things in terms of pointers. For instance "4+4" is an object with two pointers, both pointing to 4. But 4 is not innately part of that expression, its only referred to. Its like saying my cat is named "Paris Paris". How can there be two Parises? There aren't. Through the implicit function v, those pointers are followed and the quantities are extracted. But the reality of things is its all pointers to other things. Symbols pointing to referents.

There's a wonderful Buddhist meditation, where you think of anything, and try to define it in itself. What you find it you always define it in terms of references to other things. You find everything is pointers, things themselves have no substance.

anyway, thanks for the post. PEace.
edit on 21-6-2013 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
There is only one four and only one eight, but counting never stops. We are each one among the infinite.

Finite is the perception. You can only be aware of so much. Infinite is the actuality. There is no limit to how one thing can be perceived. The infinite is not what is seen. It is what is not seen. The infinite cannot be grasped. But that doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. I have no idea what I am. I have no idea what I am because there are countless opinions of what I am, and even my own opinion is is just as substantial as any other.

I, like infinity, am that which is, but cannot be grasped. Everything is. That which is grasped is not that which is. The finite is not that which is. Infinity is that which is. It is all there is.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Several months ago (March 14th to be exact) I was debating a similar concept concerning numbers. It went something like this:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

These are the first 50 digits of π (Pi). π is an infinite, non-repeating decimal. Hypothetically, the digits of π will continue forever, without ever coalescing into an observable pattern. Now, these:

1.4142135623730950488016887242096980785696718753769

Are the first 50 digits of the √2 (square root of 2). The √2 is also an infinite, non-repeating decimal. So, just as with π, the digits of √2 will spiral out forever, without coalescing into an observable pattern.

At this point, a curious thought struck me:

Somewhere within the infinite digits of π is the entirety of the digits of √2; at the same time, somewhere within the infinite digits of √2 is the entirety of the digits of π.

How could two different numbers that both go on forever simultaneously exist within each other?

 


I know it's not the same concept as your thread, but the mysteries of numbers are many and varied.

The best I could offer concerning your opening post would be to invite you to ponder on the three philosophical viewpoints concerning numbers, and whether you accept:

Numerical Platonism, the belief that numbers exist as a defined, definite concept, but that they're abstract and transcendent, existing outside of space and time.

Numerical Nominalism, the belief that mathematical claims are true, but that they are based solely on observable, tangible things, visible and existent within the phenomenal Universe: 1 of x-thing, or 3 of x-thing.

Numerical Fictionalism, the belief that mathematical claims are false, but that they are useful for helping us organize and observe the Universe. Math is a worldview, that it helps us analyze and interpret the world, but which does not exist as a thing itself.

Here's a good video concerning this subject:




~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Several months ago (March 14th to be exact) I was debating a similar concept concerning numbers. It went something like this:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

These are the first 50 digits of π (Pi). π is an infinite, non-repeating decimal. Hypothetically, the digits of π will continue forever, without ever coalescing into an observable pattern. Now, these:

1.4142135623730950488016887242096980785696718753769

Are the first 50 digits of the √2 (square root of 2). The √2 is also an infinite, non-repeating decimal. So, just as with π, the digits of √2 will spiral out forever, without coalescing into an observable pattern.

At this point, a curious thought struck me:

Somewhere within the infinite digits of π is the entirety of the digits of √2; at the same time, somewhere within the infinite digits of √2 is the entirety of the digits of π.

How could two different numbers that both go on forever simultaneously exist within each other?



Dude. I feel like this guy right now.





posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Do numbers exist in reality? If they do - then how? For something to exist, it must appear to exist.
So for a number to exist it must be written down - if you wrote down the number 4 once and then wrote the number 4 again and then got the strongest magnification equipment available and looked at the first 4 and then studied the second 4 they would appear different.
A snowflake might appear to look the same as another snowflake until it is highly magnified.

The abstraction of a tree is the word 'tree' - the word 'tree' can be written several times and appears the same but no tree is the same in reality. It is amazing to stand and look at a plant with many leaves and see that although each leaf might first appear to be the same shape on further examination they are all different.
edit on 22-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Did you watch this video?

It is very good.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Only by abstracting the world into symbols connoting values can we make sense of the chaos around us.

Abstraction in symbols does not make sense out of something - it deludes. The real is real and when abstracted it is not real - it has lost something in translation.
Put your hand in water and you will 'sense' water. Say the word water and you will hear (sense) a sound. Write the word water and you will see (sense) squiggles. The real 'sensing' of actual water is the feeling of the water.


We are merely giving names to things and phenomena, and using those names an infinite amount of ways.

Words, labels and names give the impression that there are things but they are made up out of no thingness. This moment is all that is real but this moment is not a thing - it is flowing and changing like a waterfall.

Naming and labelling is what is called minding. Worlds are built out of words strung together to form beliefs. In reality there is only ever what is actually appearing but the mind (words and beliefs) has built a prison for you to live in.

Naming is the origin of all particular things.
Tao Te Ching.
edit on 22-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Well it stands to reason that ∞ aka infinity is used as a concept within models. Maths has always been a model for understanding things and not reality itself, and ∞ is used to denote things which aren't measurable or in thought experiments.

I suppose am not understanding the point or claim exactly in the realms of having a purpose.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It is likely that every sentence we utter is something never said before, something completely new and original. Though there are similarities between them, they are only similar insofar as no two things are exactly alike.

You will find a few ideas about this here.
www.usingenglish.com...
Language is 'the infinite use of finite means'. Wilhelm von Humboldt



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
All abstractions point to this. And this is not a thing.

There is only this but names seem to make something else.
That something else does not exist.
edit on 22-6-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I was reading - the other day - that the field of philosophy has ultimately devolved into being primarily focused on the study of language. I see why. One man's number is another man's quantity is another man's metaphysical vibration.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I asked myself how many equations will equal 1. An infinite amount of equations equal the number 1. The infinite amount of equations all differ, but the answer is always the same. So from something finite as the number 1 arises an infinite amount possible explanations of it.

Its like when we think about the universe, an infinite amount of possible explanations of it arise, but the answer is always the same, it never changes.

edit on 22-6-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



That's exactly true. Most of the philosophy of the last 100 years is language or analytic based. It makes for somewhat boring reading material if you can't find some gems.

For me it's interesting because whenever I start a philosophical inquiry, I always end up at some semantic, grammatical or logical dead end. I spend a lot of time at these dead ends looking around, and surprisingly I do gather some interesting insights for myself that are likely too boring to recite anywhere to others.

There's hope for philosophy however if it remains doing what its best at—critiquing culture.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Adding similar logic adds even more meat to the bones (questions) that are fascinating to think about and whilst it may be along similar but different lines of thinking...

No two people can ever be the same genetically. If you clone a person with the same ingredients as each other, you can never create a perfect replica of the other.

No two experiences can ever be the same, even if you have two people brought up in the exact same way, experiencing the exact same life experiences it is impossible given each persons complex equivalence.

No two products can ever be the same even when factory manufacturing is used, which is why despite the same raw materials used, one product will fall apart when another may last for years.

I could go on and on but there simply cannot be two of the exact same things in existence at the present, past or future. Every single thing is a one off.

You have used numbers with your opening post and it is even true with numbers as you ask the right questions.

I think this goes even deeper than meets the eye with everything taken into account from numbers to a single cell. Combine all of this information and unique experience from the beginning to the end and what do you have?

Infinity from the finite. Why are we here?


edit on 22-6-2013 by XXXN3O because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster
 



That's exactly true. Most of the philosophy of the last 100 years is language or analytic based. It makes for somewhat boring reading material if you can't find some gems.

For me it's interesting because whenever I start a philosophical inquiry, I always end up at some semantic, grammatical or logical dead end. I spend a lot of time at these dead ends looking around, and surprisingly I do gather some interesting insights for myself that are likely too boring to recite anywhere to others.

There's hope for philosophy however if it remains doing what its best at—critiquing culture.

Humans use words. It is impossible to communicate the non conceptual.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
Philosophy assumes that there is a problem that needs to be solved.
Life is not a problem.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Its like when we think about the universe, an infinite amount of possible explanations of it arise, but the answer is always the same, it never changes.

What is the answer then?



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



answer |ˈansər|
noun
a thing said, written, or done to deal with or as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation: he knocked and entered without waiting for an answer.
• a thing written or said in reaction to a question in a test or quiz: write your answers on a postcard.
• the correct solution to such a question: the answer is 280°.
• a solution to a problem or dilemma: the answer to poverty and unemployment is a properly funded range of services.
• [ in sing. ] (answer to) a thing or person that imitates or fulfills the same role as something or someone else: the press called her Britain's answer to Marilyn Monroe.
• Law the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's charges.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





Life is not a problem.



Then why do you ask so many questions?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join