The End of Time!

[Prometheus98876]

Someone showed me this the other night. Some of you have probably already seen this, but I thought that I would share it with the rest of you. Now the reason I chose to do is because for those that are in any doubt that modern physics is digging itself into a hole of irrationality, then perhaps this will convince you. And perhaps the rest of you will will find this somewhat amusing.

http://www.physorg.com/news205133042.html

In any case, this truly, truly tragic. What depth the irrational will sink to salvage their own irrational ideas...

[John Link]

I didn't read the entire article, but near the beginning the following caught my attention:

"If infinitely many observers throughout the universe win the lottery, on what grounds can one still claim that winning the lottery is unlikely? To be sure, there are also infinitely many observers who do not win, but in what sense are there more of them?"

The above passage shows that the authors do not understand the concept of infinity, and that one infinite set can be larger than another. For example, the set of rational numbers between 0 and 1 is a countable infinite set, while the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is an uncountable infinite set. In the interval between 0 and 1 the rational numbers are unlikely.

John Link

[Prometheus98876]

Good observation, it does indeed demonstrate that ( amongst so many, many other things). It also demonstrates that the physicists involved do not understand that infinity is a concept which only indicates a certain potential to progress in a sequence or some such.

[John Link]

Good observation, it does indeed demonstrate that ( amongst so many, many other things). It also demonstrates that the physicists involved do not understand that infinity is a concept which only indicates a certain potential to progress in a sequence or some such.

Your comment leads me to question your understanding of the concept of infinity, and whether you understand that there are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are rational numbers between 0 and 1, even though both sets, the rationals and the reals, are infinite.

John Link

[Soth]

Quick, we must give the government more funding to solve this crisis!

[Prometheus98876]

Your comment leads me to question your understanding of the concept of infinity, and whether you understand that there are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are rational numbers between 0 and 1, even though both sets, the rationals and the reals, are infinite.

John Link

The concept of infinity has one valid use , the mathematical (not existential) use. That is to indicate a potentiality. Which means to indicate that if one wishes can continue to progress in a mathematical series, or one can continue to find rational numbers without running out of potential candidates. No matter how far you kept going in such a process you could always keep going reaching if one was willing and able. Obviously one will actually cease eventually, and will not go forever. But the point is that no matter how long one keeps going , one will not reach the end of the process, one will not suddenly be unable to continue in the series if one is willing and able. Though in reality one will have to stop eventually, even though one has not reached any "hard-coded" end.

None of this is any reason for your doubt quoted above however.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Prometheus98876

[John Link]

The concept of infinity has one valid use , the mathematical (not existential) use. That is to indicate a potentiality. Which means to indicate that if one wishes can continue to progress in a mathematical series, or one can continue to find rational numbers without running out of potential candidates. No matter how far you kept going in such a process you could always keep going reaching if one was willing and able. Obviously one will actually cease eventually, and will not go forever. But the point is that no matter how long one keeps going , one will not reach the end of the process, one will not suddenly be unable to continue in the series if one is willing and able. Though in reality one will have to stop eventually, even though one has not reached any "hard-coded" end.

None of this is any reason for your doubt quoted above however.

Do you understand what I meant when I wrote that in the interval between 0 and 1 the rational numbers are unlikely?

John Link

[Prometheus98876]

Do you understand what I meant when I wrote that in the interval between 0 and 1 the rational numbers are unlikely?

John Link

Yes I do believe that I do, if you mean that there are [relatively] few rational numbers between 0 and 1 (at least compared with the "infinite" number of reals).

However this has very little to do with the original post or the point I was trying to make, so I would rather NOT dwell upon it.

[icosahedron]

The problem is that real numbers do not correspond to measurable quantities. Real numbers are, in fact, floating abstractions!

An Euclidean frame may claim "more" real numbers than rationals in the interval (0,1) and be logically correct (yes, I understand the idea of "size" with respect to continuous spaces). However, as an Objectivist, I reject inductions that are not rooted in observable facts. As irrational numbers are neither measurable nor conceptually representable in closed form, they do not exist in experience, and ought to be dispensed with in the science of Physics altogether.

In fact, all physics' data comes in the form of discrete, rational measurements. Why, then, do the theories continue to invoke continuum maths, with all the attendant problems? Well, yes, historically they have worked; but now it is generally accepted that electrically generated state changes in a finite system are quantized -- and the theory is neatly representable with discrete methods.

The problem now is that Gravity just won't behave as a discrete, temporally directed force, like radiation (and its derivatives, the electric/strong/weak forces). Ugh. And the physicists are attempting to shoehorn it in.

Look at the spectacle: Gravity, for which no experimental demonstration of field quantization has EVER been devised, is being modeled as a discrete, quantized property of existence (by analogy with radiation); and the methods being used apply continuum maths to a system assumed to be discrete (ugh). Wow, how mixed up is all that?

What physicists need to learn, as a group, is that GRAVITY IS NOT QUANTIZED!!!!! -- rather, it is instantaneous, because it represents the fact that systems have a global integrity.

Think about it.

- ico