A Very Bready Question of Infinity and the Zeno Paradox

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Isn't the answer subjective?

Each individual defines what is their own "toast".

Bread does indeed turn into toast at a definable point

A definable point that is subjective to each person.

I hold that time is an invention of mankind. As such, it's subjective as well. Going half the distance from point A to B, then going half of that distance is a choice. A futile choice. It also isn't a law of nature and nothing is held to that standard.

That's all just my point of view of course.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Our laymen definitions of "bread" and "toast" are binary and insufficient to deal with the spectrum between. You are free to come up with other definitions that suit your needs.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Our laymen definitions of "bread" and "toast" are binary and insufficient to deal with the spectrum between. You are free to come up with other definitions that suit your needs.

Can you not insert any item aside from bread and toast and come to the same conclusion that it's subjective?

Water - Ice

Raw - Cooked

Tree - Paper (maybe)

a reply to: EternalSolace

Sure, but that subjectivity is only due to the limitations of our language. Take something like the word "dead". It seems obvious enough at first glance what constitutes "alive" and "dead", but more specific definitions are used in speciality contexts. A doctor's definition of "dead" would be more specific than the everyday usage.

Language works well with discrete states but often falls short describing continuous spectrums. For example, a transition of colors between red and green, at what point does the color stop being "red" and become "green"? This conundrum isn't about infinity (or whatever the OP was tying it to) but rather the shortcomings of language of describing such spectrums.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Our laymen definitions of "bread" and "toast" are binary and insufficient to deal with the spectrum between. You are free to come up with other definitions that suit your needs.

No the definitions are provided by nature, by the exact space and energy related circumstances to a piece of bread; how close the energy source is to it, how large the energy source is, and how much energy is it releasing and how much energy is contacting the bread, for how much amount of time, creates an exact amount of the molecular darkening effect, and so every thing in between a piece of bread and charred remains, has an associated degree of energy in relation to it, which is the ultimate definitions of the nature of the relationship between bread and toast.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

No the definitions are provided by nature

No, they are not. They are labels defined by humans.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ImaFungi

No the definitions are provided by nature

No, they are not. They are labels defined by humans.

I sufficiently explained the way in why your statement is false.

Humans are labeling and defining real differences that exist in nature and humans perception of nature and the differences of nature.

The different between a piece of bread, and charred remains, is a real difference;

The existence of energy applied to a piece of bread to begin the piece of bread on a joureny that takes place in a spectrum from bread to charred remains, with particular existence and orientation of bread molecules, prior to and at all times during the application of an exact quantity of energy, at an exact distance, over an exact period of time; humans label the quantities involved, but quantities exist.

Nature defines there being a difference between a piece of bread and charred remains of said bread.

We understand the definitions via our senses and our labeling.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ImaFungi

No the definitions are provided by nature

No, they are not. They are labels defined by humans.

I sufficiently explained the way in why your statement is false.

No you did not.

The concept "Bread" and "toast" are human constructs. They describe (poorly) arbitrary snapshots of matter. The difference between "bread" and "toast" is a spectrum for which our language is poorly equipped to describe. Any definition you come up with to break up this transition from "is a bred" and "is a toast" is as arbitrary as the next (and probably an approximation).

a reply to: GetHyped

You are not even reading what I am writing. So you are not responding to me or anything I have said. This is called strawman.

I am not talking about human definitions; though I am acknowledging their existence and importance and relevance; I am saying the way in which nature exists, exists first, and then we view it, and label the differences we can observe, the differences we can observe correlate to differences that must exist. Yes our theories are incomplete and imperfect, but to say there is not physical real difference as to how a piece of bread becomes charred blackened remains of bread is to be the dishonest and contradictory of an intelligence you appear to be.

Nature is law; we attempt to know this law; our attempts are not perfect, but they are not purely made up, differences in our descriptions of law more likely than not correlate to differences in the law we are attempting to describe. Nature says 'take bread, and add energy, of quantity, at distance, over time, to cause this change in bread composition', we describe it. The words are human concepts...Duh. but they are attempting to point to real things... Duh. Where exactly is your hang up? Do you even know what you are arguing with me about? I dont think you are aware of what is being said or of the sense and lack there of of what you are saying.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
If you were to look at one frame per second... it would take you 37000 years to watch all of the footage captured...

Even so it would be possible...

If you say so, but I never heard of anybody living 37,000 years even if there are no laws of nature forbidding such a thing. Maybe some aliens live that long and they could do it?

Even if I had 37000 years I'd hope I could figure out a better way to spend it than figuring out when toast turned to bread.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
If you were to look at one frame per second... it would take you 37000 years to watch all of the footage captured...

Even so it would be possible...

If you say so, but I never heard of anybody living 37,000 years even if there are no laws of nature forbidding such a thing. Maybe some aliens live that long and they could do it?

Even if I had 37000 years I'd hope I could figure out a better way to spend it than figuring out when toast turned to bread.

I can imagine a whole religion springing up, with the task being passed from generation to generation... after a while some significance would be placed upon said task....

Wars would start about disagreements over such task..... and all to find out the precise moment that more than 50% of the surface of bread was toasted.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Wars have been fought over less...

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Wars have been fought over less...

and on the morning of the answer... it was 42!

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Or on the morning before battle the answer was Helen of Troy. I'd bet she'd have burnt the toast...

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I cooked some toast and timed it.

It took about 53 seconds and popped up nicely toasted.

I buttered it thickly and sprinkled it with a light dusting of cinnamon and caster sugar.

It was nice.

Perhaps you need to get a new toaster if it takes you so long to make toast.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I cooked some toast and timed it.

It took about 53 seconds and popped up nicely toasted.

I buttered it thickly and sprinkled it with a light dusting of cinnamon and caster sugar.

It was nice.

Perhaps you need to get a new toaster if it takes you so long to make toast.

I said on average... but the amount of energy is certainly a variable one would have to take into account if such an experiment was ever to be conducted.

a reply to: chr0naut

What if you cooked the toast 50% of the way. Then 50% of the remainder? Then continued that pattern...

Would it ever be toast?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: swanne

The Planck length is derived from the Planck constant, which does appear in the statement of the Uncertainty Principle (the Planck length and time do not)

The uncertainty in the position of an observed particle, times the uncertainty in its momentum, must have a value greater than or equal to half the Planck constant. The Planck constant is one of three constants whose product is the Planck length. The other two are the gravitational constant and the speed of light.

Pardon me for not writing the equations, I can't be bothered with the special characters necessary.

But you see, the Planck time does have a fixed value based on theory. It is simply the time taken for a photon to traverse the Planck length. It, too, is constant.

As bfft so succintly put it, reality has a frame rate.

Interesting how you say that as if you're some kind of authority.

We are not even sure if the speed of light is constant.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: chr0naut

What if you cooked the toast 50% of the way. Then 50% of the remainder? Then continued that pattern...

Would it ever be toast?

I think if it took long enough it would be more closely defined as Penicillium rather than toast.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh snap... Touchè