RE: Actual infinities.
October 17, 2017 at 12:15 pm
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm by Jehanne.)
(October 17, 2017 at 11:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 16, 2017 at 9:53 am)Jehanne Wrote: If the Universe is expanding, as WLC says that he believes in, what, exactly, is it expanding into?
We had touched on this a little while ago. I believe that when I turned the same reasoning against an infinite universe, that you then said it was a nonsense question.
Quote:P.S. We can talk about this later, if you want, but Cantor proved that there is an actual infinite between two finite points on the real number line:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/math-fo...infinities
An actual infinite of what (numbers you can make up)? I don't disagree here. However I think that the trick here, is that points is really left undefined. As soon as you define what is in between, you have a finite number of them. Either that or the what really has nothing to do with anything physical or describing the movement, and so it would be in error to make that comparison. I don't think that anyone is arguing against infinity as a abstract or concept. It appears that a lot of this works on loose and shifting definitions.
Cantor's proof is mathematical; of course, no one is claiming that you can enumerate all numbers of the real number line between any two finite points, only that such an infinite set exists. The point is that WLC's claims against "actual infinities" are nonsensical.
(October 17, 2017 at 11:49 am)Little lunch Wrote: It works with numbers, but how many times can I cut a piece of paper in half before the rules of the universe won't let me do it anymore.
It's not real. :-)
If space is continuous, the answer is, "forever"! And, yet, you would transverse such an infinite set all the time, in fact, every time that you exhale.
(October 17, 2017 at 10:39 am)Ignorant Wrote:(October 17, 2017 at 9:19 am)Jehanne Wrote: Do plants grow because fairies water them? Provide them with nutrients? [1] Physics is complete:1) No. No.
We don't need to look beyond it, [2] even if there are things, such as consciousness, that are not irreducible.
2) So physics replaces metaphysics? Is the concept of "being" reducible to particles/waves/strings/physics?
So... question:
The image shows 6 categories; quantum mechanics, spacetime, gravity, other forces, matter, and higgs. Are these your answer to the question regarding "necessary things"?
Physics is complete as far as the everyday world is concerned (hence, the "Everyday Equation"). If you disagree, what is there left for physics to explain?
