Prev: An exact 1-D integration challenge - 66 - (sqrt, sin)
Next: 36 people, meeting in groups of 6. Is it possible to meet each person exactly once in a round of 7 meetings?
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 1 Aug 2010 02:04

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Jul 31, 5:15 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So what is the true concept of infinity, when someone really puts some
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, Galileo knew the basic properties of countable infinities.

I don't recall Galileo ever immersing in mathematics, other than for
his
experimental physics.


>
> Then Cantor developed the subject into rigorous mathematical theory.
>

I suppose most people evaluate Cantor as having done something
rigorous,
but how he managed to be unrigorous about defining what it means to be
a finite-number as opposed to being a infinite-number. So the extent
of
Cantor's rigor is that he saw all numbers as finite and no numbers as
infinite.
Funny how that notion raises the question if all numbers are finite,
then no infinity
exists other than the imagination gone awry.

So here we see, Robert, that in order to have infinity, a boundary
must be set where
below is finite and above is infinite.


> To me the idea of truncating nature's hierarchy is repugnant, and the
> desire to do so is most likely due to a lack of courage and an
> anthropocentric prejudice.
>

It is never repugnant to give a precision definition of something--
anything and raise it out
of the quagmire of obfuscation. It is never repugnant to have well
defined concepts. What is
repugnant is to leave ill-defined objects and concepts laying about.
It is repugnant that everyone has their own self prescribed definition
that they make up in their minds what finite number versus infinite
number means. And to expect all these self
prescribed definitions to chime in harmony when asked on a survey.


> Is the concept of the Metagalactic Scale "atom" undergoing a
> catastrophic nuclear decay event causing complete ionization of the
> "atomic" structure not a good enough model for the Big Bang? It is the
> local [observable universe] that went Bang, not the global [Universe],
> which is infinite and eternal.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

So if we define Infinity as 10^500 or larger, then in the Atom
Totality theory, would the universe
tend towards and reach a 10^500 Atom Totality structure? Or, would it
just recycle back and forth from element 114 back to hydrogen and so
on and so forth.

Now thanks, Robert, because I never went down this path before.
Perhaps the Universe need not go out beyond say Element 114 Atom
Totality. Perhaps the Cosmos recycles back to a Hydrogen or Helium
Atom Totality after 114. So is there something in QM of a recycling
mode that matches that scenario?
A universal cycling mode? Is not that what the laws of Thermodynamics
tend for? Is not the
2nd law a universal recycling mode? That there is no recycling mode in
fractals, when there should be a recycling mode.
Maybe that is the deepest and profoundest meaning of the universe---
constant recycling. Maybe that is the ultimate truth that philosophers
seek-- recycling. We recycle plastics and paper, and there is a water
cycle and a oxygen to carbon dioxide recycling, so why not have a
recycling of the Universe? Is there anything other than atoms that are
recycleable on a cosmic scale?

I don't notice the Maxwell Equations as a recycleable scheme. Of
course the wave in particle
wave duality is a recycling scheme. And so is Thermodynamics the
recycling unit of physics.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Aug 2010 11:17
On Aug 1, 2:04 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So here we see, Robert, that in order to have infinity, a boundary
> must be set where
> below is finite and above is infinite.
-----------------------------------------------------------

A physical hierarchy of actual systems, such as the discrete self-
similar organization of nature into ..., subquantum systems, atomic
systems, stellar systems, galactic systems, metagalactic
systems, ... , need not have a "bottom" or a "top".

Further, I would argue that capping off nature's hierarchy with a
"top" or a "bottom" is an act of desecration that has no empirical or
theoretical justification.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: An exact 1-D integration challenge - 66 - (sqrt, sin)
Next: 36 people, meeting in groups of 6. Is it possible to meet each person exactly once in a round of 7 meetings?