When we're faced with the situation 4÷0 we don't say 0 is nonsense or illogical. Rather we tell ourselves that 0 is a ''special'' number that needs, well, ''special'' treatment. We then say 4÷0 is undefined.
Similarly, when we see ∞ + 1 = ∞, it doesn't mean 0=1. Infinity is a special number and normal arithmetic doesn't apply to it. — TheMadFool
Could time be like that? Measurable but not real. — TheMadFool
But we know mathematically that the cardinality of the continuum is such that it can be put into a one-on-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. — MindForged
Nature isn't 'logical' — MindForged
A line is an abstract object, you have to investigate it's properties mathematically. And in basically any geometry you like a line is not finitely divisible. — MindForged
Infinity is counterintuitive, is the comment I usually encounter. That it's illogical may not be true. How many natural numbers are there? — TheMadFool
Looks to me like we're just counting the rhythmic beats of the pendulum or the Caesium atom. There's nothing like an object to which we put a measuring scale and say it's x cm/inches long. — TheMadFool
Mathematical infinity is an abstract concept. It doesn't claim any physical representation, does it? — TheMadFool
Is it real (then your argument works) or is it too an abstract concept (your argument is faulty)? — TheMadFool
Who (besides you) has attributed any such property to a continuum? What I said was that if we were to "zoom in" on a continuous line, we would never "see" anything other than a continuous line — aletheist
Despite it being refuted, and impossible to relativise.
Your attitude is isomorphic to those who adhere to geocentricism and the flat Earth. — Inis
Bohmian mechanics has been refuted so many times, it is getting boring. Physicists don't even mention wavefunction collapse anymore anyway. For the Copenhagenists, it purely imaginary event, for Everettians, it doesn't happen, and the view of the Quantum Bayesians seems to be the same as the Copenhagenists. The wavefunction is just a tool, it's not a thing. — Inis
De Broglie-Bohm is refuted and doesn't work. — Inis
If there is a non-material reality it should in some way interact with this world effecting its phenomena. If you can give an example of this interaction, and make that example a demonstration/experimentation than you will have proof of a spirit realm. — Josh Alfred
In De Broglie-Bohm, the hidden variables are the particles. Can never figure out if the wavefunction is a real thing in that theory. Probably best avoid it since it has been refuted so many times — Inis
These Dark theories are really just catchy names for particular problems. Not sure how suggesting the observed anomalous effects are caused by something immaterial. Seems to only make matters worse. — Inis
How would hidden variable in a non-material substance do that? How can non-material substances affect material substances, and how do they store variables? — Inis
Any explanation that appeals to spooks or the mysterious, or the non-physical, or the superluminal, really doesn't explain anything, and you may therefore reject it. Especially when explanations exist that don't invoke those things. — Inis
With either the A theory or B theory, you can have infinite time or not — Terrapin Station
Who said anything about "constructing" a continuum? It is the more fundamental reality. — aletheist
Who said anything about such an alleged property? — aletheist
We describe time as continuous--it is not composed of discrete instants or very short durations — aletheist
Measurement is a human construct — aletheist
You're not being a mathematical realist, by the way, are you? — Terrapin Station
If I were to always exist, there couldn't be a moment of conception for me. — Terrapin Station
No, there doesn't. If it extends back infinitely then there can't be a first moment.(Also acknowledging that there are no real "moments," there's just real change or motion.) — Terrapin Station
There wouldn't be a specifiable number, it would be an infinity. — Terrapin Station
Also, why would there have to be a first member for it to exist? That's contrary to what we'd be positing in the first place. — Terrapin Station
With B time, you still have the problem (for intuition) that it either appeared "out of nowhere" or always existed. You don't have an infinite regress, but the intuitive problem isn't the regress so much as either appearing "out of nowhere" or always existing. — Terrapin Station
Something changes or moves. That is time — Terrapin Station
The argument from evil is dependent upon a theist's claim that a god is good - about the nature of god. No claim about the nature of god - no argument from evil is necessary. — Harry Hindu
Exactly--time is not composed of durationless instants, and space is not composed of dimensionless points. Those are human constructs, which are very useful for certain purposes, but not real — aletheist
Exactly--time is not composed of durationless instants, and space is not composed of dimensionless points. Those are human constructs, which are very useful for certain purposes, but not real. — aletheist
Who can deny that the natural numbers are infinite. — TheMadFool
You can disagree all you like, but it does not give "the wrong results". — jorndoe
As far as I can tell, Devans99 just doesn't have much familiarity with the mathematics. — jorndoe
a set is infinite if and only if there is a bijection between the set and a proper subset of itself — jorndoe
Colloquially, ∞ could be thought of as a quantity that's not a (real) number. — jorndoe
It does change. The set has an element it did not have before. But the cardinality does not change. — MindForged
The problem is that relativity does not follow the axiom: "no matter how fast something is traveling, mass, length, and time are constant." That is such a basic axiom, taken as a reality by most people ... — aletheist
Because most people only ever deal with and think about finite quantities, which is the domain in which that axiom applies. — aletheist