Posted by mbstevens on 07/08/05 12:57

Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed
>
>
>>Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>>With neither quill nor qualm, "rf" <@invalid.com> quothed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing is infinite.
>>
>>How would exclude the real numbers,
>>the integers, and the complex numbers?
>
>
> What you're saying is there can be no biggest number, a theory to which
> I do not really subscribe. As an *abstract concept*, one of course can
> always add something to any number one dreams up, but that is almost
> certainly non-indicative of the real physical world.

Any proper notion of infinity is mathematical. The old 'well, it just
goes on forever and ever' stuff has been outdated for over a century.
Mathematics is not physical, no. But mathematics is also the
counterexample to the notion that the only 'real' things are physical.
Mathematics and formal systems are the only methods with which we can be
'certain' of anything. The moment you bring in physical objects, some
amount of uncertainly creeps in.

> One cannot even
> have an unlimited number of abstract concepts because of the real
> limitations of his brain or any other physical storage/processing device
> and, of course, time.

You don't need to think of each and every, say, number. You just need
notions of recursion, the successor function, and such.

>
> There is 1, there is 0, and there is what we have now. Nothing more,
> nothing less, and no infinities.

I have the notion of the predicate calculus augmented by mathematics and
set theory. That is a lot more than 0 and 1.

> Furthermore, if you have a singularity
> (1), that cannot be infinite in a real sense, either, because such would
> require complexity and a singularity is by definition totally uniform.
> In addition, a singularity (as far as is known today) is unique and
> integral, so by deduction here is a case where 1 does equal 0 in reality
> if not in the surrogate of mathematics.
>
> I suppose I should say that by "singularity" I mean lone singularity
> although speaking of a singularity in any other sense is preposterous.


Sorry, but I couldn't make the least sense out of any of the last two
paragraphs.

[Back to original message]