/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10563127
>universe is infinite
[citation needed]

>>10563127
>Gods are possible
[citation needed]

>>10563127
(1,2) has infinite real numbers,
none of which begin with 5

>>10563144
/thread

>>10563144
>(1,2) has infinite real numbers
Those numbers are but ratios, whose parts are necessarily made up of many multiples of 5 and all other numbers. The number 1/3, for example, is simply the ratio between the length of a 5m stock and a 15m stick. There is no such thing as “less than 1” but only in ratios and parts of a whole, the whole being more than one.

Infinity is a man made concept.

>>10563166
>a 5m stock and a 15m stick
guess where you can put it

>>10563166
Find me a ratio of integers to express the side length of a square whose diagonal is 1. (Hint: you can't)

>>10563166
>The number 1/3, for example
doesn't begin with 5

>>10563136
Your mom's mass is infinite and she's part of the universe

>>10563176
There is also no ratio of integers to express the number pi. What does this mean? These ratios are truly non-existent in the real world. There are no circles and no squares whose diagonals are length 1. That is why they are irrational—they don’t exist.

>>10563176
>>10563185
And as for why the square whose diagonal is 1 does not exist, it is because there is no such thing as “less than one.” And since the diagonal is greater than the side, the diagonal cannot be 1. Irrationality flows from this principle when you try to construct diagonals with integer lengths

>>10563196
>>10563185
>There are no circles and no squares whose diagonals are length 1.
This is irrelevant to the problem. Just define the number as the ratio of the side length to the diagonal length.

>durr u cant make a perfect square in real life
This is actually a point against you. In general the exact length of a physical drawn line will be a real number, because atoms bond at a variety of angles, and these bonds vibrate.

>>10563249
By real number I mean specifically an irrational.

>>10563249
>>durr u cant make a perfect square in real life
You misunderstand my argument completely. Abstractly, you can conceive of perfect squares. However, you cannot actually imagine a square whose length is 1. Have you seen it before? Labeling it 1 doesn’t actually make it 1. If the diagonal is 1, then what is the side? How can it be less than 1? You must argue that space is infinitesimally small, and that there is no limit to how small a unit can be. However, my argument is that there is a unit and that it composed all things. At some level, there is nothing below that unit. This truth is manifest in the fact that the square whose diagonal is 1 has irrational side lengths.

>>10563249
>>10563267
Essential, when you posit that the diagonal can be 1, then that “1” is not actually 1, but a set of 1’s, just as 1 meter is a set of 100 centimeters. And the side lengths are simply smaller sets of 1’s. But the diagonal of length 1 simply does not exist, and it has never been proven to exist. The fact that the side lengths have to be approximated by extending the decimals (which is no different than increasing the magnitude of the whole square, including the diagonal, extending it to 10, 100, 1000, etc.) and never being completed just shows how they don’t actually exist.

>>10563267
>>10563280
>However, my argument is that there is a unit and that it composed all things.
[Citation needed]
We've measured the arrival time of different wavelengths of light to absurd precision. If space has a grid size, it would have to be absurdly, absurdly small, and it doesn't even make sense in the context of Lorentz transformations.

>>10563267
The idea that space and time consist of discrete units is unfalsifiable, as the scale of the units can always be pushed smaller and smaller. The idea that they're continuous is falsifiable, and yet has held up to extreme precision tests.

>>10563127
Why would you assume that a god is possible?

>>10563634
Because everything has an origin of some sort. And there exists a truth that describes all of reality. God is both the foundation of existence and the Mind that perceives absolute truth.

>>10563127
>In an infinite universe everything possible exists at probability = 1
nope infinities can be bounded dumbfuck

>>10563634
I get it that it's super fucking unlikely to find a god in our galaxy, but infinite galaxies over infinite time? You're bound to meet a higher entity of some sort.

>>10563127
Where and how would a consistent system of axioms, whose theorems can be listed procedurally, and which is capable of proving all truths about arithmetic on natural numbers, exist? Please explain your reasoning for me.

>>10563804
What’s a good example of a bounded infinity?

>>10563127
>he doesn't realize that some infinities are bigger than other infinities
>he doesn't realize that if the space of all possibilities is a bigger infinity than the total number of chances for things to happen, all possibilities won't necessarily happen

>>10563844
fugg

>>10563782
>Because everything has an origin of some sort.
>And there exists a truth that describes all of reality.
>missing premise here
>Therefore God is both the foundation of existence and the Mind that perceives absolute truth.

>>10563844
>>10563804
Infinite literally means without bounds or limits. There is no quantity associated with infinity, so one infinity cannot be greater than the other.

>>10563851
For every part of reality, there is a corresponding truth. But this truth only exists if someone perceives this truth. The most primary truth is that there is existence. So as soon as there was existence, there must have been a mind to perceive this truth. It would make sense that God was the first thing to exist, and that the first truth is that God exists.

>>10563860
t. math brainlet who doesn't understand the concept of aleph numbers

>>10563882
Humans have never experienced infinity. We don’t even know if it exists

>>10563127
>In an infinite universe everything possible exists at probability = 1
This would imply that contradictory things could exist at the same time so no.

>>10563807
Even if the universe is infinite you will never find something that isn't allowed by the laws of that universe

>>10563127
Logically if one exist, then everything must exist, barring supernatural exceptions. So yeah, if we assume our universe exist, then we must assume infinite number of universe exist. To say that only this one exist is just logically absurd.

>>10563184
Truly a high-quality reply.

>>10563184
His mom's ass is more of a zeon's paradox kind of situation.

>>10563178
isn't even in (1,2)

>>10563860
awww, it's retarded
https://youtu.be/elvOZm0d4H0?t=2m

>>10563127
>God(s) proven
>ayys proven
>unicorns proven

>no
>ok
maybe

who said god is possible? Omnipotent being is logically and physically impossible.

>>10563166
>2:infinity is infinite
>Does not contain 1
Don't be dumb

>>10563888
Humans have never experienced being on mars, that doesn't mean Mars doesn't exist. Dumbass.

>>10564387
Not him but we can know Mars exist, we can observe it.
But things as infinity are just concepts, ideas. We can't experience it and we can't observe anything infinite in nature. Infinite things are abstract, therefore they're not "things"
>inb4 but the universe is infinite

>>10564387
bad example, we have the chocolate bars, so there

>>10564395
But we literally don't observe it. Our eyes can't observe it. Instead what we observe are mathematical algorithms making shit up. The same mathematical arguments that are used to explain the infinite series.

>>10564395
>we can't observe anything infinite in nature
wrong, achilles overtakes the tortoise all the time, everywhere

>>10564403
What exactly is infinite in this world?

>>10563878
>But this truth only exists if someone perceives this truth.

1 is a return into a sum, not the whole, that you quote that is a good contender for a direction or a good teacher but unless you are equating that to away from the center of it, the only real use of that sum is to make the whole more like the useful criteria in memory, a label, rather than a useful thing like making more equations possible, where a delimiter breaks that plot to a point. This is good discussion but that image is atrocious.

>>10563127
yea i cracked open a old crt that i havent used in like 15 years. found 100 V capacitors that are the size of my pinky fingernail. all this time even after ultra caps every one says batteries have a better form factor than capacitors with more v per cubed inch and its just that on heavy loads capacitors do better

little metalized polymer caps not the big rectangles little blue fuckers link related

https://www.radwell.com/Buy/PHILLIPS/MKTHQ370PH

>>10563127
>all things are possible
>one universe discovers how to obliterate every universe at once
Well it's been nice, y'all

>>10563127
>In an infinite universe everything possible
Why are you still virgin then?

Actually, according to the stochastic interpretation of quantum theories, every event, which is physically possible, will happen almost surely. This includes the Universe reverting back to exactly one of its states in the past or even worse Boltzmann brains.

In fact, the probability that your brain came to be by evolution is exactly zero.

Are we using higher dimensions as well?

If that's the case, then yes considering that in higher dimensions not only is it different start conditions but different laws of physics apply and apparently godlike beings could/would exist.
I'd say it's a copout to have a super computer simulation and just have a guy with the cheat console, though.

Also, I'm not entirely sold parallel universes exist, it seems almost too cool but I'm open to either direction.

>>10563860
>There is no quantity associated with infinity, so one infinity cannot be greater than the other.
No. There are infinities, which cant be fit into others. For example, it is impossible to assign every real number a natural number, such that there are no real numbers left.

>>10563860
bitches don't know about my aleph

>>10563127
>infinite spacetime
Here is a proof that spacetime is finite, by contradiction:
(1) assume time is infinite
(2) infinite time = infinite chances in the future for someone to time travel to this exact moment
(3) infinite chances = 100% chance, but it hasn’t happened yet
Thus, either time isn’t infinite, there are no multiverses parallel to our own universe, or both the latter and the former are true.
Pseuds btfo, please go back to masturbating to steven hawking and sci/fi novels

>>10565663
time doesn't work that way, you can't go back

unless you want to be the class smartass and talk about white holes and time reversal n' shit

>>10565663
>infinite time = infinite chances in the future for someone to time travel
Incorrect and gay

>>10565669
Elaborate?
Are you on that same “hurrrr infinity is bounded by greater infinities” bullshit as the guy before?
Btw, great & lively debate going on in this thread

>>10565668
Yeah, but if there were infinite multiverses, then there’d be a way for someone to create time travel that works within our frame of existence.
Basically multiverse theory is copout bullshit for pseuds lol

>>10563634
God is the origin of the Universe
God is the origin of itself
Eliminate God from the equation
The Universe is the origin of itself. Still legit.
(Then if you want to call the Universeby the name of God I'm fine with it)

>>10565681
>Yeah, but if there were infinite multiverses, then there’d be a way for someone to create time travel that works within our frame of existence.

No, there wouldn't be. That isn't even how the theory works.
You want to use the term "dimension", instead of "universe", it's more accurate to speak this way.

We can have different universes that have different start conditions to ours that have the same laws of physics, there may also be other dimensions that are different, and have different laws of physics but you couldn't cross into another universe that has different laws of physics. Or if you could, it would be utterly chaotic and things would likely just obliterate.

>>10565687
Im not talking about dimensions...
It is all too confusing, I concede that, under certain qualifiers there can be multiple universes, note; I am not talking about dimensions, of course there are higher dimensions than ours, I just mean, to state that there are infinite universes, and that all things are possible, but not accept that if all things are infinitely possible they must have happened; that is ludicrous.
So sure, there can be multiple universes, or infinite time, but there cannot be infinite universes, or at least if there are, those universes will never be able to interact, making their existence completely arbitrary and meaningless.

>>10565706
It's not entirely pointless, all things can happen they just don't happen *here*.
I imagine too that some universes/dimensions would have interactions.
In fact

This might be of interest to you.
>https://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/12/16/heres-visual-guide-10-dimensions-reality/

I can't find the article but there is also a belief that some anomaly in the background of space is from our universe colliding with the bubble of another at some point.
In fact, we can actually *create* another universe potentially with less energy than you think.

>>10565676
If time travel is forbidden by some law of nature, then it’s always 0.

>>10564400
>Our eyes can't observe it.
What did he mean by this?

>>10563127
>Everything is possible in an infinite universe
Wrong, next question

>>10563144
>everything possible exists
>defines an infinite system in which a real number beginning with 5 is impossible
What's the conflict here?

>>10566938
infinite =/= everything possible

>>10563127
An infinite set of ones does not contain any twos.

An infinite set of mammals does not contain any fish.

An infinite number of stars does not include among its number any planets.

Got it?

>>10564263
Nah, an omnipotent being would have the power to do impossible things, resolve paradoxes, etc.

>>10563127
>In an infinite universe everything possible exists at probability = 1
This is predicated on a lot of assumptions.

>>10564426
Stupidity seems to be a good candidate.

>>10565525
>>In an infinite universe everything possible
>Why are you still virgin then?

Because that, too, is possible.

>>10563144
Lets say I pick a number at random from this set every second., and remove it.
Given an infinite amount of time, will I have picked the entire set?

>>10565569
Consider this. Our small region of space has a higgs field that has a "stable enough" lowest energy state. An bubble that has the right constants for our physics to emerge.
There could be lots of other bubbles like ours, but with different constants, leading to different physics.
We live in a "fine tuned universe" because we couldn't exist in other bubbles. Just like we live on Earth because we couldn't exist on Venus or Mars.

>>10568046
>Stupidity seems to be a good candidate.
>the lack of a thing (intelligence) can be infinite
Stop spouting this stupid meme. Humans are extremely flawed, but to say that human stupidity is infinite is not accurate or even funny

>>10563127
there could be an infinite number of the same universe.

infinite=/= exhaustive

>>10563878
>[citation needed for literally every fucking statement here]

>>10565569
Imagine someone flipping a switch and lighting those thrusters up. Insta-incineration.

>>10563299
Theory of loop quantum gravity names a constant like that. Its unproven though

>>10563127
Events have their coordinates, which are unique to events, events with absolute coordinate systems don't happen with probability of 1.

Get back to kindergarden, maybe Watson wi

>>10563828
The integers are infinote but dont contain numbers like 1/5 (strictly speaking this means they arent topologically connected, but the upshot is still the same). The natural nimber literally are bounded below (namely with greatest lower bpund of zero). Also any real intervel is bounded sbove and below but stil infinite, e.g. (0, 1) contains any infinite number of numbers betweeen zero and one.

>>10563860
Hilarious that retards like this that actually have no aptitude for science or math come to a board to argue with people that have degrees in the subject, and then insist that theyre right even though they clearly dont even grasp very basic concepts.

>>10563127
god is impossible

>>10563127
You're assuming it's possible for God to exist. You to SHOW that it's possible.

>>10563127
Where will I find a machine that solves halting problem?

>>10568068
no