It's a simple logic exercise. There is no planet in the universe that your monitor could not show a photograph of, from far away, down to every single square nanometre of it. And since finite resolution monitor can only show finite number of different screens, it means the number of unique planets in the universe cannot be infinite. — Zelebg

This is bad logic. What you can see on your monitor with the naked eye is not all there is. You are saying that we can see only so many different things with the resolution of our eye, and that the number of distinct things we can perceive is relatively small. I agree with that. Then you are concluding that there can be nothing else.

In other words consider two distinct objects that look the same to the naked eye. You are claiming they are not distinct objects. That's bad logic. All you've shown is that the resolution of our naked eyes isn't very good. Please think of the great Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the first person to see microbes. In your world they don't exist, simply because our feeble eyes can't resolve them. Clearly you are mistaken and making a very elementary error of logic.

If this one point is not yet clear, I'm afraid any further discussion is pointless. — Zelebg

I've stated my points to my satisfaction. Nice chatting with you. I always appreciate the opportunity to mention Skewes's number under any circumstances. All the best.

The OP essentially assumes the conclusion, then attempts to "prove" it. :roll:

Uhhh. Empty assertion without explanation, wonderful. Let me break it down...

1. Premise:
There is no planet in the universe that your monitor could not show a photograph of, from far away, down to every single square nanometre of it.
True or false?

2. Conclusion:
And since finite resolution monitor can only show finite number of different screens, it means the number of unique planets in the universe cannot be infinite.
True or false?

Where do you see I am assuming conclusion? I do not. So, then, do you find either premise or conclusion false?

It's beside the point. It's like you are refusing to acknowledge it just because you do not like it, for some strange reason.

I said down to nanometre, and explained previously zoom in can be arbitrarily small. In any case it cannot be "bad logic" since your objection is not about logic but granularity, and to address that I only need to unnecessarily state it more precisely, like so: - it means the number of unique planets (at granularity of one nanometre) in the universe cannot be infinite.

I said down to nanometre, and explained previously zoom in can be arbitrarily small. — Zelebg

It's not possible for zoom to be arbitrarily small because your computer can't hold that much data. Try arbitrarily zooming into Google maps and you'll see that it's limited by the available data.

Again, what a finite resolution image can potentially show has nothing to do with computers and memory limitations.

Again, what a finite resolution image can potentially show has nothing to do with computers and memory limitations. — Zelebg

LOL. Perhaps I'm not understanding you, because you couldn't possibly believe what you wrote. Your screen can't show data that the computer doesn't know about. Your computer only has a finite amount of data. You can't render anything on the screen below that level, because you haven't got the data. This is a very elementary point.

Just explain to me in simple terms how a computer display can render data that it doesn't have in its memory.

It's about digital image and number of pixel combinations, number of unique pictures the grid can possibly, theoretically, represent. I did open the thread by talking about digital photo, and only later mentioned computer screen, but just as an example of a finite resolution digital image. It has nothing to do with computers, software or memory, it is purely hypothetical scenario exercise in only math and logic.

Apparently, Z thinks his "argument" demonstrates that by looking in a bucket of seawater he can know the entire sea.

It's about digital image and number of pixel combinations, number of unique pictures the grid can possibly, theoretically, represent. I did open the thread by talking about digital photo, and only later mentioned computer screen, but just as an example of a finite resolution digital image. It has nothing to do with computers, software or memory, it is purely hypothetical scenario exercise in only math and logic. — Zelebg

You can't render data you haven't got. You haven't demonstrated that you have all the data in the universe, or that all the data in the universe is finite, or that even if it is, you have enough storage to hold it. I think if you would carefully write down your argument you'd see that it fails.

I do think we're talking past each other at this point. I can only urge you to clarify your ideas. You have claimed you can zoom arbitrarily. That is not possible if the object of interest represents more data than you can store.

Imagine an empty digital photo, say with resolution of 900x900 pixels and 900 colours. It potentially can hold a picture of every planet, star and galaxy that ever was and will ever be, at any arbitrary given time, from every possible angle, every possible altitude. It can hold every photo and movie frame that was ever taken and will be taken, every scene that was ever seen and will be seen, dreamt or imagined by every human or alien that ever was and will ever be. It can also contain every page of every book that existed, exists, and will ever exist... it potentially contains a picture of anything that was and can ever be, a picture of everything that can possibly be, both in reality or imagination, and yet the number of those pictures is not infinite.

Therefore, the universe, along with the number of things, actions, or concepts, is not, and cannot be infinite, not even potentially. Right? — Zelebg

I remember reading and debunking this very same post several years, maybe a decade ago.

Old horse-sticks die hard.

It's also hard to imagine the amount of time and effort I have spent totally in vain trying to tell people precisely why their theories do not hold water. I must have debunked at least a thousand personal pet theories, and the pet theory owners don't mourn over the carcass, because they still believe that their respective beast is still alive.

A bit resembling the Erwin Schrodinger truth: they think the pet is alive and well, while the pet is completely dead.

Stupid.

Retard.

Moron.

Fuck you imbeciles, and good bye.

:lol:

:rofl:

Don't blame us for finding the fault in your thinking.

Not to lower the tone at all, but,

(900×900)^900 — fishfry

You prefer that to mine? How so?

My reasoning was, the first pixel can be any of 900 distinct (picture-distinguishing) colours, and for each of those (900 mutually exclusive classes of possible picture types) there are 900 choices of colour for the second pixel, so 900 to power 2 is the number, so far, of distinct picture types. Raise the power by one for each of the remainder of the 900 × 900 pixels.

Perhaps you were concerned with something other than the number of possible picture types?

Who would think its infinite?
Everything within the matter of the big bang is what makes our universe, but it being the only universe is another story as space itself can -for now- be infinite.

A grenade does not have infinite amount of shrapnel.

Zelebg
626
Imagine an empty digital photo, say with resolution of 900x900 pixels and 900 colours. It potentially can hold a picture of every planet, star and galaxy that ever was and will ever be, at any arbitrary given time, from every possible angle, every possible altitude. It can hold every photo and movie frame that was ever taken and will be taken, every scene that was ever seen and will be seen, dreamt or imagined by every human or alien that ever was and will ever be. It can also contain every page of every book that existed, exists, and will ever exist... it potentially contains a picture of anything that was and can ever be, a picture of everything that can possibly be, both in reality or imagination, and yet the number of those pictures is not infinite.

Therefore, the universe, along with the number of things, actions, or concepts, is not, and cannot be infinite, not even potentially. Right?

Wrong.
A picture is not the thing itself. A picture of an apple will not satisfy hunger.

You prefer that to mine? How so? — bongo fury

You're right, I'm wrong.

:up: cheers

Infinite, like nothing, does not exist; they are merely concepts.

What does that have to do with anything I said? — Zelebg

Imagine an empty digital photo, say with resolution of 900x900 pixels and 900 colours. It potentially can hold a picture of every planet, star and galaxy that ever was and will ever be, at any arbitrary given time, from every possible angle, every possible altitude. It can hold every photo and movie frame that was ever taken and will be taken, every scene that was ever seen and will be seen, dreamt or imagined by every human or alien that ever was and will ever be. It can also contain every page of every book that existed, exists, and will ever exist... it potentially contains a picture of anything that was and can ever be, a picture of everything that can possibly be, both in reality or imagination, and yet the number of those pictures is not infinite.

Therefore, the universe, along with the number of things, actions, or concepts, is not, and cannot be infinite, not even potentially. Right? — Zelebg

1. You're assuming that such a photo can be taken i.e. you're begging the question.

2. Take an everyday photograph, say, of mount Fuji. Obviously, you won't be able to focus on every single blade of grass that can be found on its slopes. In other words, details are missing and we all know the devil is in the details. Put simply, the photograph of mount Fuji will contain less information than mount Fuji. Same goes for every photograph - the finitude of a photograph doesn't entail the finitude of that which is being photgraphed.

My apologies.