/sci/ - Science & Math

Zeno's paradox is a like a Zen koan. Run your head into it like a brick wall until enlightened.

>>14771493
Discrete
/Thread

>>14771493
Continuous (why the fuck can you come up with infinitely accurate numbers between two real numbers no matter how small? just add more zeroes lol)
/Thread

>>14771493
>you still have to perform infinite number of operations that take t>0 time.
They keep taking smaller and smaller times so that the sum of these times will also be finite. Stop monkeying retarded statements by philosophers who fail to understand high school calculus.

it's like minecraft but the the cubes are a planck length

>>14771663
Did you not read the post? Of course the sum is finite you can see that from the real world. You could've might as well said "but i have seen the motion so it is possible". The problem is that you still have to take infinite steps to get that finite value (reach the destination). Your solution is that you can just take infinite steps without explaining how.

And you ignored my second point about taking the first step which is impossible if it's continuous so if you want to discuss this you should explain how it's possible to start moving in the first place, otherwise it doesn't matter because you can't take any steps at all.

>>14771493
Yes.
Matter and energy are discrete.
Space and time are continuous.
The distinction between them is what gives rise to all our interesting physics.

>>14771694
> Matter and energy are discrete.
Matter is but energy is not. A free particle can have any energy.

>>14771693
>Your solution is that you can just take infinite steps without explaining how.
To take an infinitesimal step, you need infinitesimal time. Sum up all the infinitesimal times and you can see how an infinite sum can give a finite answer. Please learn some calculus.

>>14771708
How do you take an infinitesimal step when you have to take infinitesimal/2 first? You are still ignoring my second point in the original post. Unless you agree that it's discrete and infinitesimal is the smallest unit possible.

>>14771717
> it's discrete and infinitesimal is the smallest unit possible.
you clearly don't know what an infinitesimal is

>>14771717
>infinitesimal/2
You're just confusing yourself. Literally just take a calculus class or something. There is no need for discreteness whatsoever.

>>14771720
> it's discrete and infinitesimal is the smallest unit possible.
This is what you implied not me. Your argument doesn't make sense if this is not true because otherwise you can keep dividing it forever.

>>14771729
This is what happens when someone with a grade 4 education tries to talk about something they know nothing about.

>>14771683
Are we playing planckcraft?

>>14771493
>I can't wrap my head around the concept of dividing something infinite times like in Zeno's paradox.
No one cares.

>>14771720
>>14771721
>Absolutely retarded, stinking no life
>Has no clue but needs to give an answer to keep his delusional pride intact
>just learn calculus bro because I am too retarded to form a concise answer from my rote-learned memories of calculus.

>>14771742
Meds, now. The reason there is no zeno's paradox is because the path of a (point) object is a continuous and even differentiable function of time x: R -> R^3. This is all taught in high school calculus and is completely mathematically rigorous, so any attempts to find paradoxes in it are ignorant and irrational.

>>14771493
beyond this, the question is if whether discrete or continuous, if there's such a thing as mortality or actual continuity

with something as simple as turning off a light switch, did it matter that it was turned off or was the structure of the thing more important?
if something dies, can it be recomposed and live again?

>>14771493
>I know that infinite sum converges to a finite value
Don't listen to midwits who fail basic real analysis and who say that the theory of infinite sums solves Zeno's paradox. It doesn't, because when we say that Σ 1/2^n converges to 1, in this case we mean that you can get arbitrarily close to 1 but never reach 1.
It's a problem in logic and indirect proofs, not real analysis.
>The paradox is usually presented in a wrong way in my opinion. They say that to go from A to B we have to cover 1/2 of the distance, then 1/4, 1/8 and so on
Exactly. In the real world, it makes no sense to say that you can cover a certain distance one and only one time. How do you complete the second 1/2? You simply redo what you did to complete the first 1/2.

>>14771751
>Criticized his retarded way of explaining something to a newbie, instead of favoring continuity or discreteness
>Incel copes by growing another delusion, marking anyone who may tell him the truth about his life as pro discrete

>>14771759
Speak without the schizo memetext and I'll give you a reply
>Verification not required

>>14771758
>It doesn't, because when we say that Σ 1/2^n converges to 1, in this case we mean that you can get arbitrarily close to 1 but never reach 1.
The infinite sum IS equal to 1 retard. You clearly have never taken a real analysis class

>>14771763
>Incel experiences high mental anguish, even adds "verification not required" as if that does anything other than to confirm his 4chan restricted embarrassing social life.

>>14771493
It doesn't take any time to complete an infinite number of purely imaginary "steps". There are no "step" to complete in reality. Motion is continuous. Zeno's paradox is imaginary wank and it's resolved by the imaginary wank of limits.

>>14771493
Those GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES thought they could solve Zeno's paradox with their convergence shenanigans.
But there is no fooling GOD!
Mark my words, there will be a reckoning and all those Cantor fanbois will be sent straight to HELL where they will burn for a very long, but finite, duration in the discrete flames of HELL!

Say it with me, Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH
DEUS VULT!

>>14771770
> he thinks that 1 is actually reached
Go away, idiot.

>>14771693
You are doing GOD's work here, Anon.
Join our faith. We can offer you exciting new opportunities in book burning, anything that mentions infinity must be expunged from this Earth. Then we will also have family events where we burn the INFINITY SODOMITES at the stake.

We of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH warmly embrace new members. No homo.

>>14771770
you can add as many terms as you want
you will never reach 1, which is what zeno's paradox says
so rather than solving zeno's paradox, the convergent series simply models the problem that zeno's paradox presents
if you don't understand this, you don't understand the fundamentals of limits and convergence as they apply to this series

>>14771783
Reached by what? You're describing a process occurring in time, not a sum.

>>14771786
Nothing is being added and nothing is being reached, brainlet. There is no process. It's just 1 by definition. Seethe. :^)

>>14771780
Wait a minute, isn't god infinite? How can you profess to deny the existence of infinity if you also believe in God?

>>14771789
You're very confused.
Zeno says that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... never reaches 1, i.e., that you never reach the wall 1 meter away by taking a step of 1/2 meter followed by a step of 1/4 meter followed by a step of 1/8 meter and so on.
When a (smart) real analyst says that the infinite sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... equals 1 or converges to 1, the "equals" and "converges to" mean "you can make the partial sums get as a close to 1 as you want by taking a sufficient number of terms, but you will never reach 1." This is only the same thing Zeno said but in more modern language. It doesn't solve the problem.
If you don't grasp this, I can't help you.

>>14771786
>so rather than solving zeno's paradox, the convergent series simply models the problem that zeno's paradox presents
This is what I was trying to say in the post. People who talk about the convergent series are simply presenting the premise of the paradox in a different way and for some reason think that it's the solution. They completely miss the point of the paradox.

>>14771799
>Zeno says that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... never reaches 1
It doesn't. You're a giant brainlet.

>>14771812
>me: it never reaches 1
>zeno: it never reaches 1
>you: it doesn't. you're a giant brainlet.
We're done here.

>>14771816
Take your meds. That's simply not what Zeno's paradox says.

>>14771786
>you can add as many terms as you want
Then add an infinite number of terms to get 1. Simple as.

>>14771493
>I know that infinite sum converges to a finite value
may converge* Not all infinite sums converge.
>you still have to perform infinite number of operations that take t>0 time
But you just acknowledged that infinite sums do (can*) converge to finite values?

>>14771796
Good question. I like you. There may be an opening in our Faith for an inquisitive smart guy like you. Sometimes confessions are hard to extract from those HERETICS who preach Infinity.

Anyway, with respect to GOD, all we can say is that GOD is not INFINITE becasue infinity does not exist and the very concept of infinity is an ABOMINATION before the eyes of GOD. We haven't worked out the exact mathematical details yet but we believe there is a close relationship between GOD and MOAN. Doubtless you will have heard of MOAN.

>all the mouth-breathing retards ITT arguing about 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... as if it's relevant
How did this board get this stupid?

>>14771776
The existence of Planck time implies otherwise

>>14771826
>Infinity doesn't exist
Whats outside the boundaries of existence?

>>14771717
>How do you take an infinitesimal step when you have to take infinitesimal/2 first

>>14771829
Nigger at least we are trying our best, thats the only thing which matters.

Why does simple calculus filter so many pseuds?

>>14771832
It doesn't. I know why your reddit+popsoi education makes you think it does, but it doesn't.

>>14771783
The value of the sum is higher than any number smaller than 1 and it's not larger than 1 so the only value it could ever have is 1.

>>14771841
Nigger, that the segments add up to 1 was never under question to Zeno since 1 unit of distance is what he is dividing in the first place so it'd a fucking given.

>>14771799
>Zeno says that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... never reaches 1
"Never reaches" implies a process that would take infinite time to reach 1, but it doesn't. It is 1.

>When a (smart) real analyst says that the infinite sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... equals 1 or converges to 1, the "equals" and "converges to" mean "you can make the partial sums get as a close to 1 as you want by taking a sufficient number of terms, but you will never reach 1."
We're not talking about partial sums or what they reach, we're talking about the infinite sum. Try to pay attention. The infinite sum is 1.

>>14771799
You're very confused. We take a length of unit 1. Splitting it up infinitely doesn't give us a length less than 1, it's anyways going to be 1. You're confusing the infinite sum with partial sums.

>>14771832
>isn't even aware how Planck's values were derived

>>14771833
Non-existence
Like what existed before you were conceived and what will exist after you die.
Unless you put your trust and bank account in the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH!
Book burning and rooting out HERETICS also gets you extra points.

This is just another flavour of a [math]0.999...\ne 1[/math] thread. Waste of space in the catalog.

>>14771824
>But you just acknowledged that infinite sums do (can*) converge to finite values?
But you just skipped over everything I wrote that would have given you the information about what my answer would be if I were to write it out again?

>>14771806
Yes, the better formulation is, as you say in the OP, "before you reach 1, you have to reach 1/2, and before you reach 1/2, you have to reach 1/4, and before you reach 1/4, you have to reach 1/8, etc. so you never get going" which is how some authors present it.
/sci/ isn't (any more) a good board on which to discuss these kinds of things if you're a high-IQ gigabrain. You basically have to hand-hold people through the fundamentals of real analysis, and then when you've disposed of one person, along comes another.
The logical subtlety behind the better formulation of the paradox is that you end up with an infinite regress in your very PROOF that you can't get moving. Before you can PROVE that you can't move 1, you have to PROVE that you can't move 1/2, and before you can PROVE that you can't move 1/2, you have to PROVE that you can't move 1/4, etc. Can you overcome this through an indirect proof, some form of induction, whatever? Try to capture this better formulation of Zeno's paradox in a RIGOROUS proof, and you'll start seeing why the paradox is a problem in logic and proof, not a problem in real-analysis.

>>14771826
What the fuck is MOAN? All I get is "a low prolonged sound of pain or to complain"

>>14771852
>that the segments add up to 1 was never under question to Zeno
It absolutely was, you dumb retard. That's the only point of the retarded """paradox""". Zeno was a dumbfuck just like you because he thought a finite thing can't be divided into an infinite amount of parts. That's why he thought it was a paradox, being the dumbfuck that he was.

>>14771823
I hope this is bait.
Infinity isn't a number -- rookie mistake. When real analysts say "add infinite terms," it's shorthand for "add an arbitrarily large number of terms."
You can't add an arbitrarily large number of terms to get 1.

>>14771862
>starts off trying to distance himself from the other brainlets
>sharts out a 90 IQ take
Like clockwork.

>>14771865
"People" on your subhuman level of intelligence need to be sterilized. You have no human rights at all, let alone the right to mouth off to someone like me. Your only role in life is to serve my cock and balls.

>>14771861
The rest doesn't really matter since you clearly acknowledge that you can take an infinite amount of steps in a finite time. Doesn't really matter "how" you do it. That's not a question to a mathematician.

>>14771854
Get some proper reading comprehension please so you know exactly what you're trying to argue against.
Stuff like this is why I LAUGH every time some chud here whines that scientists are ignoring his emails.

>>14771867
It's not shorthand for anything. The infinite sum is the limit of the finite sums, so the infinite sum is 1

>>14771873
Meds

>>14771868
>doesn't say anything of mathematical value because he's scared of outing himself as the redneck retard he knows he is

>>14771882
>The infinite sum is the limit of the finite sums, so the infinite sum is 1
Again for the retards who can't read:
>When a (smart) real analyst says that the infinite sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... equals 1 or converges to 1, the "equals" and "converges to" mean "you can make the partial sums get as a close to 1 as you want by taking a sufficient number of terms, but you will never reach 1." This is only the same thing Zeno said but in more modern language. It doesn't solve the problem.
Sick to death of you low-IQ chud brainlets who think you're high-IQ autists or some shit.

>>14771493
The universe functions on the basis of infinite undefined values converging onto finite and predictable values, don't think about it too hard.

>>14771886
Why are you repeating yourself after I explicitly pointed out where you were wrong?

>>14771883
I've already provided the solution to this "paradox" ITT and it stands undisputed so far. I have no interest in arguing with "people" who shit out nigger-tier posts like yours.

>>14771888
Your low IQ thinks you have a point, and there's no getting around it. You will never amount to anything, for you can't grok basic fucking distinctions in mathematics.

>>14771493
Have you ever ever seen motion? It's not real just an abstraction of the mind

>>14771892
This is coming from someone who thinks there is a Zeno's ""paradox"" in the 21st century lmao.

>>14771879
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding the distance and amount of time to cross the length is finite no matter how you divide it.

>>14771896
>he thinks one saying that X (an infinite sum) doesn't actually solve Y (Zeno's paradox) but merely reformulates it necessarily means that one thinks Y doesn't have actual solutions
Low IQ confirmed. Done here. I hope to see chuds like you whining more about profs ignoring your emails.

>>14771903
So tell us your solution here without talking about infinite sums, retard. Don't be a pussy.

>>14771899
Thanks for conceding that 3 inverts into 1.5 holomorphically, with Zeno's paradox vanishing into stability
See? I can declare victory based on gibberish strawmen too, chud!

>>14771909
What gibberish? You're denying that a length of unit 1 is 1 regardless of how you divide it? The infinite sum is 1, not "approaching 1" or "never reaching 1." You're like a freshman who just learned about limits and thinks the limit is the same as partial sums.

>>14771858
>Non existence
So free space. And thus an infinite amount of space outside the universe where I could settle with my family, effectively making my own mini-universe.
Finitards should give up.

>>14771862
>The logical subtlety behind the better formulation of the paradox is that you end up with an infinite regress in your very PROOF that you can't get moving.
Mouth-breathing take. There is nothing paradoxical about a proof attempt that degenerates into an infinite regression.

>>14771905
It's a problem in logic and indirect proofs, as I said in my first post here: >>14771758
Notice I didn't elaborate on it? There's a reason for that. I was nudging an astute OP in a different direction and trying to avoid getting into a tangle with this board of post-2016 midwits, but as I should've known, said midwits can't even grasp basic distinctions in real analysis -- some don't understand what "infinity" means to a real analyst, some don't understand what "infinite sum equals" means to a real analyst, some don't understand what "converges" means to a real analyst, and some don't even appear to understand the very fundamentals of what a "limit" means to a freshman doing Calc I.

>Notice I didn't elaborate on it? There's a reason for that. I was nudging an astute OP in a different direction and trying to avoid getting into a tangle with this board of post-2016 midwits, but as I should've known, said midwits can't even grasp basic distinctions in real analysis -- some don't understand what "infinity" means to a real analyst, some don't understand what "infinite sum equals" means to a real analyst, some don't understand what "converges" means to a real analyst, and some don't even appear to understand the very fundamentals of what a "limit" means to a freshman doing Calc I.

>>14771921
So you chose to be a pussy and avoided answering my question :)

>>14771921
You've said a lot of bad words about us today. I am not pleased.

What qualications do you even have to dare call us midwits? What the fuck do you do for a living

>0.333... = 1/3
>0.666... = 2/3
>0.999... = 3/3

>>14771863
You know, I am glad you asked. I foresee a great future ahead of you as a public executioner. Have you had any experience lighting fires?

Let me tell you a little story. Back in the early days of THE FAITH I was deeply troubled by things like the square root of 2 and pi. They could never be precisely defined. In decimal form a long line of digits begins racing off towards.....GOD forgive me for this blasphemy.. INFINITY. Then I learned that there were, according to the teachers, ( forgive me GOD! ) more INFINITIES, some being bigger than others.
ABSURD! RIDICULOUS! IN DEFIANCE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY!

This was WRONG! Wrong in the same way that having a penis up the butt is WRONG! But alas, as a poor young high school student I didn't have the mathematical expertise to challenge such an orchestrated litany of lies. Besides there were exams to pass. To my shame, like the rest of my sheepish classmates, I just went with the flow.

But the uneasiness never left me, it constantly nagged me, it bothered me incessantly.
But then one day, years later, as if by a MIRACLE, I learned of the GREAT PROPHETS! NJ Wildeberger and Ian Angell.
I was transfixed. Here at last were great minds that had refused to bow to the SATAN INSPIRED DOGMA contaminating modern Mathematics. They too questioned the orthodoxy, and unlike me, they refused to submit to the GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES holding the reigns of power over the text books. I was not alone anymore!

Their bravery inspired me to reforge my long subdued doubts. How to combat the blight of Cantor upon Humanity? How best to serve the will of GOD in the quest of all that is mathematically good and HOLY? I reached out for inspiration...

Lo, the skies opened, yea, and verily I saw an Angel descend from the Heavens, or it might have been a plane, but whatever, it was surely divine in nature. And thusly it spoketh unto me.
"What is it that lies at the end of thine number line"?
...to be cont.

>>14771926
Oh damn. I sort of like you in other threads, so I'll give you a pass.
>>14771927
no u
>>14771928
Cry harder, snowchud. Now you know how other people feel when some anonymous redneck NEET on an anime imageboard doesn't have to provide proof of his qualifications for anything.

>>14771952
>Now you know how other people feel
Not related to me. You're pathetic neet yourself who gets off annoying people who are actually qualified, and you proved this with your reluctance to shed light on your current financial state.

>>14771918
>There is nothing paradoxical about a proof attempt that degenerates into an infinite regression.
t. fedora
go to church, you soicuck

>>14771968
>i am mentally ill
Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon.

>>14771972
He didn't say that. You're a delusional high functioning autist who is experiencing visual hallucinations. You're the one who needs professional help.

>>14771965
>You're pathetic neet yourself who gets off annoying people who are actually qualified, and you proved this with your reluctance to shed light on your current financial state.
Posting to open-access pred journals doesn't make you qualified, Doctor Chud

>>14771493
>>14771656
How do you reconcile a discrete universe with relativity? If the universe is discrete then there must surely be some kind of grid, and this creates an absolute reference frame.

>>14771933
...continued.
>"What is it that lies at the end of thine number line"?
And then it promptly fucked off, or crashed, anyway it was gone.
So then I gave the matter long and considered consideration.
I prayed.
I pledged allegiance to every flag I could find on the internet. Did you know Andorra is a country?
I flagellated myself with long lengths of licorice and BEGGED for guidance.
I did not beg in vain.

SUDDENLY it came to me. It was simple! How could everyone except me be so blind? Since infinity does not exist then its logical that the number line must stop. Somewhere. But where? Well it must stop at the biggest number....THAT WAS IT! The number line stops at the biggest number! I called this biggest number...

the MOTHER OF ALL NUMBERS!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!
or simply "MOAN"

Now all I had to do, as a good mathematician, was to pull some arbitrary definitions out of my ass in order to make MOAN into an unassailable truth!
Nothing could be added to MOAN. Attempting to do so would result in sailing off the edge of reality.
But what to do with all the subhumans who would say
>MOAN + 1 Hurr! ???
Immediate crucifixion followed by immediate sterilization. Just in case their imaginary gfs would climb up the cross for a last quickie.
I was nothing but rigorous.
Following that I also banned negative numbers. Just to be sure.

With that one discovery, MOAN, the INFINITY SODOMITES were defeated. There was no need to tolerate their HERESY anymore.

We shall reclaim the HOLY LAND of MATHEMATICS for the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH!
And retake Constantinople along the way.
Say it with me BROTHERS AND SISTERS!
DUES VULT!
damn...
DESU VULT!
Fuck..
DEUS VULT!

>>14771983
Are you serious? The question you should be asking is how you reconcile relativity with discrete universe. Clearly, Zeno's paradox proves all of modern physics wrong

>>14771985
What does the pope of finitards have to say about this >>14771913

>>14771985
>Did you know Andorra is a country?
Not him, but I know it because I taught myself every "country" in the world with a geography game. I mixed it up with Monaco at first, just as I mixed up Vatican City with San Marino and Liechtenstein with (not quite so small) Luxembourg.

>>14771994
>Clearly, Zeno's paradox proves all of modern physics wrong
It doesn't. Planck length.

>>14772007
Shut the fuck up retard.

>>14772004
Yes, but did you find mathematical enlightenment along the way?
>>14772001
The teachings of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH are quite clear on matters like this.
Burning at the stake.

>>14771799
OK, you're right, troon, but you're depending on people finding your posts all over the fucking thread to see that you DON'T actually believe Zeno's paradox is still a problem. It's almost as if you're TRYING to confound people so you can call them names- "hrrhrhrhr, Chud, you didn't read all my posts, checkmate."

>>14772009
Look man, I will be honest with you. Instead of calling me a "retard" it would've been more positive and social to explain to me why I have earned to hear this ableistic slur.

>>14772016
This is madness. There is an infinite amount of space, empty or filled. Are the boundaries of the observable universe black unbreakable walls for your people? What a foolish belief

>>14771933
>>14771985
This is probably the greatest conceptual math discovery in the past 10,000 years.

Hear what people have to say about MOAN.

"I have given up on space exploration, I mean, why bother now?"
-Elon Musk
"How dare you!"
-Greta Thunberg
"I will need more time to think about this"
-Shinichi Mochizuk
"Good"
-Pentti Linkola

>>14771886
>Sick to death of you low-IQ chud brainlets who think you're high-IQ autists or some shit.
No, I see now what you're getting at, but you know damn well that on a board without posting IDs, people aren't going to spend a lot of effort tracking your argument through multiple posts, and I think you're deliberately presenting fragmentary posts that look stupid in isolation so that you can pretend we're dumb rednecks. Nice "win," troon.

>>14772038
>I see now what you're getting at,
You see that he was just being retarded? Good for you

>>14772029
Same applies to the planck length imo. It's really just another boundary of the observable universe, a limit on information propagation from small scales to our scale, rather than a limit on information propagation from distant positions to our position. There could easily be stuff beyond the planck scale, we would just have no means of observing it.

>>14772029
You will burn, HERETIC!

>>14772044
There is. Matter intrinsically "moves" one planck at a time. Or maybe it is better to say that matter teleports one planck at a time to stay in motion.

>>14772029
The boundaries of the universe are where "stuff" stops. And by stuff, we really mean asymmetries. Without aysmmetries you don't have any information. Every measure will, in all places "outside" the boundary, always and forever be the same. It's like an infinite string or 1s or 0s.

Does it exist? It's existence or non-existence are the same, always, for all observers. So its being and not being are co-identical.

But inflation suggests space is infinite, so there would be no such boundary. However, the things in space are discrete, which means there is a finite number of ways to arrange them. That means you can have an infinite number of universe sized spaces, but they will belong to a finite number of reference classes, meaning you just have perfect duplicates.

>>14772043
Whatever, man. I've seen enough clues that this whole thread is just people baiting one another in an elaborate game. I thought /sci/ would be different from other boards. I think insults are fair game- tit for tat is fun- but it would be nice if when people call you a midwit, it's a sincere belief on their part and not just part of some game to rile you up.
t. meds, I know

Op has already shown he's too stupid to understand the basis behind the question asked and has no intention of changing that. Move on

>>14772065
You're longing for plebbit. Why are you hesitating? Just log in with your months old account.

>>14771985
So wait, according to you the number line starts at zero and then progresses up towards some unknown ( unknowable? ) large number called MOAN?
We could at least attempt to get an idea of the size of MOAN by calculating the number of Planck units the Universe contains.

>>14772071
Based, we just talk about how planck length proves zeno's paradox right here

>>14772063
>infinite number of universe sized spaces, but they will belong to a finite number of reference classes
Still infinity.

>>14772036
>"I will need more time to think about this"
>-Shinichi Mochizuk

Doubly based

>>14771780
How can we think about the mother of all numbers without having symbols to represent them? e.g. numbers built in a certain base? I'd love to count without any base

>>14772071
I've been on there already. I was posting on The_Donald before it got banned. I know it's not the "cool" place to be, but I'm 46, so being cool is out of the question anyway. Is it too much to ask for a place where I can have sincere discussions without being censored by libtards and without presumably right-leaning people baiting reactions out of me?

>>14772097
>I'd love to count without any base
Tally marks

>>14772044
If you posit things that exist that no observer can observe (not just humans, but any observer ever) then you end up with a very bloated ontology. This entails that there could be infinitely many things everywhere, of infinitely many types. However, their being and not being are epistemologically equivalent.

>>14772063
I think discrete numbers of possible configurations or reality explain the Fermi Paradox.

To see why, imagine a page of text. A standard page for a typewriter is 1800 characters. By arranging these characters you can produce every page that will ever be written, along with an astronomical (but finite) number of pages that will never be written. These could then be arranged into every book that will ever be written, as well as an astronomical number that won't be.

Pages before or after a given page change its context, so you might want to do a few pages together to get yourself a higher entropy set of possibilities.

Anyhow, if it is possible to simulate a volume of space perfectly, it is no longer necessary to explore space. You can just go along simulating arbitrary volumes of space, discarding uninteresting ones, and stringing interesting ones together and get to any possible place in the universe just fine via your simulation. You can also shift the probability distribution of the information around to get to places that are more meaningful to you, just as you can use the actual frequency of letter pairs in English to generate text on a page that is more interesting.

>>14771928
>>14772065
holy shit, boomers, get thicker skin

>>14772078
Only if you hold that indiscernibles are somehow different from each other because of some sort of bare haeccity. But where does this haeccity come from? It sure isn't physical.

>>14771661
>why the fuck can you come up with infinitely accurate numbers between two real numbers no matter how small? just add more zeroes lol
Oh, you can? Alright, please write out a number with infinite decimal expansion.

>>14772108
>Only if
Nope, even if they are exactly alike, it wouldn't change the fact that there are an infinite amount of universes, not one.

Your scenario does base an interesting situation. If I tried to leave this universe to reach the next one, every copy of me in every other universe would also do the same thing. And a copy of me would enter the universe I just left.

>>14772111
1/3

>>14772315
lmao he got owned

>>14772111
I was gonna go all intricate explaining why real numbers are continuous but >>14772315 did the epic pwn so he takes all the honors.

Why is this even up for discussion anyway, isn't it intuitively obvious that you can break apart something as infinitely small as you wish? Or are you taking a materialist approach as in cutting things in small enough pieces until they are thin air vs say something like distance. Because deciding when a number is irrelevant sounds awfully... subjective.

It's discrete, and here's why:

Assume you have a negatively charged electron meeting a positively charged positron, then Coulamb's law would dictate that:

[math]F=k\dfrac{q_1q_2}{r^2}[/math]

If space were continuous then this would go to infinity, but in actuality that never happens.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/struggles-continuum-part-2/

>>14772315
The confused anon must have meant to say "write a number without infinite decimal expansion."
That would be a hard one to crack. Except maybe zero might work as an answer?

>>14771985
>Nothing could be added to MOAN. Attempting to do so would result in sailing off the edge of reality.
Classic.

>>14772111
>please write out a number with infinite decimal expansion.

It's contradictory to call it "number" in the first place then, you would be asking to quantify what literally cannot be a "discrete quantity". There's even plenty of examples of ones that don't repeat in the expansion.

>>14772536
>Except maybe zero might work as an answer?
Zero is not a number. There's no quantity.

>>14772487
>isn't it intuitively obvious that you can break apart something as infinitely small as you wish
Yes, but the paradox starts the other way around. You don't have a thing that you have to break apart, you have your distance travelled which is 0 and you need to reach the destination by covering infinite number of nonzero distances. So the sum of those distances you cover need to equal the distance between your starting point and destination. How do you start moving when you have to travel the first part of these infinite steps? You presented a situation where 1/2+1/4+1/8... = 1 but in the paradox you have to start from 0 so what is the first number that you add?

>>14772658
>How do you start moving when you have to travel the first part of these infinite steps?
The same way you make any other movement. The division into parts is arbitrary and has no effect on your movement and the fact that you will travel the save distance in the same amount of time. You're tilting at windmills.

>but in the paradox you have to start from 0 so what is the first number that you add?
1/2.

>>14772029
Space is an emergent property

>>14772822
>1/2.
So you start moving from 0 and just appear at 1/2? How do you get to 1/2?

>The division into parts is arbitrary and has no effect on your movement
The distance I need to cover is made of divided units that I need to move through how is that not relevant?

>>14772912
>So you start moving from 0 and just appear at 1/2?
What are you talking about? You asked for the first number you add. It's 1/2. This represents moving from the beginning of the length to halfway down it. If you want to talk about some different arbitrary division of the length into infinite parts then state it.

>The distance I need to cover is made of divided units that I need to move through how is that not relevant?
Because it has no effect on the amount of time to cross the entire distance.

>>14772944
>What are you talking about? You asked for the first number you add. It's 1/2.
I'm talking about movement, when I asked about the number to add that number is the distance you cover when you take the first step into this infinitely divided space. To get to 1/2 (or to start the movement) you have to first get to the last number in the sequence: 1/4, 1/8, 1/16... If we assume that we can keep dividing infinitely then we will never reach that number so it doesn't exist.

>Because it has no effect on the amount of time to cross the entire distance.
Yes this it the paradox... You can still move even though it doesn't make sense when you break it down to what (we think) is happening when you start the movement.

>>14773000
>I'm talking about movement, when I asked about the number to add that number is the distance you cover when you take the first step into this infinitely divided space.
What do you mean by first step? A literal step covers some nonzero distance that doesn't vary much, so any finite length can be traversed in a finite amount of steps. Where's the problem?

>To get to 1/2 (or to start the movement) you have to first get to the last number in the sequence: 1/4, 1/8, 1/16...
There is no last number in that sequence, so your claim is false.

>Yes this it the paradox...
There is no actual paradox.

>You can still move even though it doesn't make sense when you break it down to what (we think) is happening when you start the movement.
You haven't broken anything down, just made a false claim. The only contradiction is in your own thinking.

>>14772658
I think the failure in the reasoning is that you can't count infinite that's all. I like to think that the infinite is as ever increasing variable that moves at a constant rate, thus you can have bigger infinites with different rates of movement etc.

I don't think you can ever "choose" a small enough variable because I can always come up with a smaller number between the number that you picked. It's exactly the same reason why real numbers cannot be counted, even if you've "counted" all of them I can come up with infinitely more accurate numbers. Not to mention I can come up with a actual irl method to demonstrate that as well but id need to draw it a bit so hold on

>>14773039
>There is no last number in that sequence, so your claim is false.
This is what I just said?? Did you stop reading the sentence halfway through?

>What do you mean by first step? A literal step covers some nonzero distance that doesn't vary much, so any finite length can be traversed in a finite amount of steps. Where's the problem?
Distance is divided into infinite number of parts/steps, you have to go through each step to cover the distance but we don't know the distance of each step because as you agreed with me there is no last number in that sequence.

>>14773057
I hope this is good enough to showcase with a mousepad lol, the main idea with this device is that you can always pull away the moving pivot to have a deeper count.

Ah fuck it this was a idea actually, pulling it away doesn't matter depending how far you pull it because you can always increase the count depending on how frequently you decide to select a value.

>>14773116
I still the point still stands that you can always decide to have a more accurate count if you want.

>>14773086
>This is what I just said??
You just said that your claim is false? OK. To get to 1/2 you don't need to do anything that doesn't make sense, you just need to move from 0 to 1/2. So far you haven't told me what the paradox is, you've just contradicted yourself.

>Distance is divided into infinite number of parts/steps, you have to go through each step to cover the distance
The division is arbitrary and doesn't change that it only takes finite time to cross the entire distance. You're not actually making an argument and there is no paradox.

>we don't know the distance of each step because as you agreed with me there is no last number in that sequence.
Completely wrong. We know the exact distance of every single step in that sequence: the nth step is exactly 1/2^n. The nonexistence of a last step has nothing to do with the distance of any other step.

>>14772111
>the stupid human limits himself to representations in base 10, just because it's how many fingers he has
1/3, you pussy fart

>>14771493
>I can't wrap my head around the concept of dividing something infinite times
didn't read the rest of your shit, anyway take yourself for example you are divide into organs. cells, proteins, enzymes, atoms etc...
to infinity and whatever kys also

>>14773149
>You just said that your claim is false? OK
Where did I contradict myself? I said we have to reach the last number but we can't because it doesn't exist because we assume that space is continuous. It would exist if it was discrete.

>The division is arbitrary and doesn't change that it only takes finite time to cross the entire distance
Thanks for restating the paradox one more time. The division is not arbitrary because you have to reach 1/2 of the distance before you reach the destination (and this goes on forever for reaching that 1/2 you have to reach 1/4 and so on) You don't seem to think there's a paradox because you keep saying that it's a fact that we can cover the distance in finite time which no one is denying but you are not interested in understanding how that is possible. Or you are just not paying attention to what I'm saying because you keep saying the same things with words rearranged thinking you are making a point and also completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. So this is pointless I don't think I'm going to reply anymore.

>Completely wrong. We know the exact distance of every single step in that sequence: the nth step is exactly 1/2^n. The nonexistence of a last step has nothing to do with the distance of any other step.
I worded this badly you are right this was irrelevant to my argument.

>>14771493
Discrete obviously

>>14773238
>Where did I contradict myself?
First you said "we have to reach the last number" and then you said there is no such number. You're not making any sense. Try starting with a claim that actually makes sense and proving it, instead of nonsense like "the last number of an infinite sequence."

>Thanks for restating the paradox one more time.
I didn't state a paradox. Where's the contradiction?

>The division is not arbitrary because you have to reach 1/2 of the distance before you reach the destination
That's completely arbitrary. You also have to reach 1/3, 1/e, 1/pi, etc. Doesn't matter how you split up the distance, it's always going to be the same distance and take the same time. You haven't even disputed this, so thanks for admitting there is no paradox.

>you keep saying that it's a fact that we can cover the distance in finite time which no one is denying but you are not interested in understanding how that is possible.
I'm interested in hearing why you think it's not possible. So far you haven't explained anything, just made nonsensical claims. The failure here is completely your own.

>>14771661
>why the fuck can you come up with infinitely accurate numbers between two real numbers no matter how small?
For the same reason you can say
>Yes, I am a liar
without spontaneously combusting

Fucking dumb formalists and their retarded idealism/rationalism, your brain farts are not actual reality bro

>>14771493
Hint: Zeno's paradox makes a lot of assumptions that aren't true because of the four fundamental forces that govern how matter interacts, but there is one astronomical case where the assumptions are true and it's very black and holey.

>>14773263
A liar can tell the truth sometimes, so you didn't say anything contradictory. The truth is that real numbers are consistent.

>>14773265
>A liar can tell the truth sometimes
Do you think before typing garbage like this?

>>14773282
Not an argument. Try again.

>>14773262
>I'm interested in hearing why you think it's not possible
I never said it was not possible, it doesn't make that it's possible hence the paradox

I'm going to try to explain it one last time. For you to start moving from 0 you can't just jump to 1/2 or 1/3. Because there's distance between 0 and 1/2 (doesn't matter what you divide it by it goes forever without reaching zero) that you need to cover before you get there. And there's also distance between 0 and 1/4 and so on(we have already agreed this goes forever). So you have to cover infinite number of nonzero distances to get to ANY point between your start and destination because there will always be some distance between any 2 points. The paradox is that you are able to do that when you shouldn't be able to because they are infinite.

>>14773295
>The paradox is that you are able to do that when you shouldn't be able to because they are infinite.
What does infinite have to do with not being able to? An infinite amount of distances is not the same as an infinite distance, which is the only thing that cannot be traversed in finite time. All you're doing is conflating the two. That's not a paradox, it's just your basic misconception.

>>14773448
>An infinite amount of distances is not the same as an infinite distance, which is the only thing that cannot be traversed in finite time
Both infinite and finite distances are made of infinite amount of distances, how does it matter if the whole distance is finite?

>>14773503
>Both infinite and finite distances are made of infinite amount of distances
So what? What is the issue with infinite amounts of distances? How does this imply they cannot be traversed. Here's a hint: site or would take infinite time to reverse them. Here's another hint: you can't.

>how does it matter if the whole distance is finite?
Because if the whole distance is finite, the whole traversal time is finite. The amount of divisions you make has no bearing whatsoever on traversability. You will never be able to explain how it prevents traversability You literally have no argument, just a conflation between infinite amount and infinite distance.

>>14771933
>>14771985
The only intelligent posts on this whole thread/

Quibbling over calculus is self-defeating and avoids the real problem which is ontological.

Zeno's paradox highlights the absurdity of reductionist definitions of reality. His claim is akin to Plato's notion that "time is the moving image of eternity", or going further back, Parmenides' idea that there is no time or motion. Scientific claims are empirical by definition and thus beg the question by negating this through observation. Time and motion are relative abstractions that are true enough to an observer, but not enough to perfectly describe the nature of reality. There is perhaps a kind of "topography" to being in the way Julian Barbour describes it (or the way Vonnegut's Tralfamadorians experience time) though this model is arguably insufficient at higher resolutions and will invite its own paradoxes. This topography allows for an object (which is itself a suspicious category) to move without moving because it is in some sense already there. The halfway-object is a mirage, an eliminative definition of something that cannot be fully apprehended.

>>14771933
>I learned of the GREAT PROPHETS! NJ Wildeberger and Ian Angell
Literally who?

It’s discrete and continuous.
Molecules are made of discrete atoms. Atoms are made of discrete sub-atomic parties. Those particles are made of discrete quanta. The property of being discrete or continuous in the real world is based on your reference.

>>14773524
>So what? What is the issue with infinite amounts of distances?
I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over again because you straight up ignore what I'm saying or you just don't understand.

>the amount of divisions you make has no bearing whatsoever on traversability
The fact that it is divisible shows that you can't get from A to B before covering the halfway distance first. So it does have bearing on traversability. If you mean it's apparent that it doesn't because you can move in the real world then yes that's the paradox, it should have bearing as I've already explained many times and you have ignored it completely.

>the whole traversal time is finite
Yes, the paradox starts when you try to understand how the traversal begins

>You will never be able to explain how it prevents traversability
Then let's start traversing from 0 to 10. We need to express it in the same way you did at >>14772487 but the OTHER WAY around. Because there is a sum that starts from 0 (your distance covered) and increases to the 10. Your first answer was 1/2 at >>14772822. You can't start with 1/2 as in, you can't move from 0 to 1/2 without moving to 1/4. You can't move to 1/2^n without moving to 1/2^(n+1). n can be ifninitely large. So your movement from 0 or the sum of distances you covered can't start because there is no first number to add to 0 because the division process goes forever. But obviously it does start because you can move.

>You can't move to 1/2^n without moving to 1/2^(n+1)
You just don't think this is true but you don't explain why it's not true other than "but i can move in real life lol". And you think that divisibility is arbitrary somehow when the fact that it's divisible shows you that you can't go straight to the point. If at some point it was not divisible any more it would mean that space is discrete and the smallest unit of distance is what you start the summation process with.

>>14773981
Do you think if you have to cover 1m, your brain first has to decide to cover 1/2m and then stop and decide to cover 1/4m and then stop and decide to cover 1/8m and so on? If that's how brains worked, it would be impossible to move because the brain would have to make an infinite number of decisions which would take an infinite time because of the limited processing speed of the brain but that's not how brains work or how movement works.

>>14774033
>that's not how brains work or how movement works.
thanks for your contribution we already know that we (at least me) are trying to understand how it works
im so fucking done with this thread

I think the problem can be solved if you imagine that when going smaller you go into a different dimension.
Things can be infinite in that direction, but finite in our normal day to day one

>>14771708
>>14771721
Mathematicians are very happy with the calculus that does sum up to a finite value.
But no one ever posted here how radically things change if any one of the value, space or time , is discrete. Then your shiny continuous math doesn't work anymore

>>14771493
id say its overt

>>14771493
>Is the universe discrete or continuous?
it's likely that this is a nonsense question you're trying to impose on something that isn't compatible with it

>>14771493
The process completes in finite time. Zeno just didn't know a sum of infinite series can converge, it was discovered later.

>/sci/tards missed OP's point again
why is this board so low iq

>>14772101
here bub(i hope you know to change *dot* for . )
patriots*dot*win

>>14774336
Well, OP is pretty shit at making his points, but mostly it's because anonymous imageboards were a mistake.
>b-b-b-but arguments stand or fall on their own
It's a nice ideal, but it fails for the same reason that democracy fails: the vast majority of people are idiots.
About a year ago, I started ignoring all low-IQ replies I get on anonymous imageboards, instead writing for ALLAH, bless Him.

Jeuss Christ. Looks like a few equally retarded retards rehashing the same shit inconclusively all over again for the nth thread, with nothing new to say, just parroting the same stuff they heard in school.

Much as "Sodomites" anon is either a christ cuck or a nut, at least he has some original ideas.

>>14773981
>I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over again because you straight up ignore what I'm saying or you just don't understand.
Everything you've said so far has been refuted, so repeating yourself is just admitting you have no argument.

>The fact that it is divisible shows that you can't get from A to B before covering the halfway distance first.So it does have bearing on traversability.
Doesn't follow. Getting halfway is just another finite distance that can be traversed in finite time. You have no argument. Again, show any finite distance would take infinite time to traverse. You can't.

>it should have bearing as I've already explained many times and you have ignored it completely.
Where?

>Then let's start traversing from 0 to 10. We need to express it in the same way you did at >>14772487 #
Not me. And that doesn't define a division into steps.

>You can't start with 1/2 as in, you can't move from 0 to 1/2 without moving to 1/4.
You can start with whatever step you like, it's arbitrary.

>n can be ifninitely large.
No, n is always finite in the infinite sequence. n is a natural number and there is no "infiniteth" member.

>So your movement from 0 or the sum of distances you covered can't start because there is no first number to add to 0 because the division process goes forever.
This is as incorrect as saying movement can't end because the original infinite sequence never ends. It starts at distance 0 and ends at 1. Again, you confuse time with the size of the sequence.

If you want to reverse the original infinite sequence then we can only look at the steps in reverse order. The last step occurs from distance 1/2 to 1, the second to last from 1/4 to 1/2, the third to last from 1/8 to 1/4, etc. The entire process takes finite time and there is no first step, just an infinite regress of steps. No paradox. You are projecting an arbitrary division onto movement that already occurred.

>You just don't think this is true
Wrong.

>>14773263
What the fuck are you even trying to say lol, the failure of reasoning in that paradox is that you cannot start the process in reverse because well the number infinite IS infinite.

It isn't like integer numbers where obviously you can come up with a limited amount of numbers in a range, what sort of moronic reasoning is that. By the way you literally said nothing and you just spewed some internet debater hogshit that doesn't add anything.

As I recall, the concept of quanta was invented because the black body radiation would've been infinite if radiation is not quantized.

Isn't that kind of the same problem ?

>>14773448
>What does infinite have to do with not being able to
Did you just ask why you can't finish an infinite number of actions?

>>14771493
Both

>>14771493
>because you still have to perform infinite number of operations that take t>0 time
And the sum of all those times is finite. I don't get what's confusing about this.

>>14776004
The mathematical notion of an infinite converging sum has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

>>14776004
>what's confusing or paradoxical about being able to finish an infinite number of tasks?

>>14776036
Retards seem to forget that infinite coverging sums are defined in terms of limits rather than proven in terms of summing up an infinite number of terms.

>>14771656
It's continuous when you include probability. Events are discreet on the level of quantum but probability of events has infinite variations, together they create continuous universe.

>>14776011
It has everything to do with it.
>>14776036
It's not a "task". You're just choosing to think of the displacement in terms of an infinite sum.

>>14776044
>It has everything to do with it.
Nothing to do with it whatsoever. Infinite coverging sums are defined in terms of limits rather than proven in terms of summing up an infinite number of terms.

>>14776050
>Infinite coverging sums are defined in terms of limits rather than proven in terms of summing up an infinite number of terms.
You seem to think this is relevant for some reason. Of course you can't sum an infinite number of terms.

>>14776056
>Of course you can't sum an infinite number of terms.
Why not? Because you can never complete an infinite number of steps?

>>14771493
Discrete is the only thing that makes sense

>>14776058
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or genuinely retarded. Either way, I'm done talking to you.

>>14776085
I accept your full concession.

>>14775985
What if each of them can be finished infinitely fast?

>>14776101
What does this psychotic rambling have to do with reality?

>>14776092
>I accept your full concession.
Hah! I knew it was you. I've seen your faggot posts before. You have a pretty distinctive style of trolling.
I don't see what enjoyment you could possibly get out of this, but whatever floats your boat man. This thread will probably hit the bump limit just like your previous threads.

>>14776092
The only full concession you ever received was taking your grandfather's cock up your arse.

>>14771493
>But the process won't end if we assume that we can keep halving it forever.
The process of dividing by two has nothing to do with the process of moving your legs. Zeno's paradox is a paradox of measurement, not of motion.
> Is the universe discrete or continuous?
This question has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

>>14775985
Yes. Why can't you? You'll never answer this question.

>>14774376
Agreed. At least one faith anon's post are amusing, these fuckwits just go around in circles before they get bored and start shitflinging. Then one of them starts a new threads and it repeats ad nauseam.

>>14774675
>The last step occurs from distance 1/2 to 1,
I explained it like 5 times using different terminology and then you say stupid shit like this I'm done

>>14776127
>>14776130
>seething, poorly educated and intellectually impotent

>>14776159
I accept your concession.

>>14776146
>I explained it like 5 times
Where? You haven't described a series of steps that can't be traversed in finite time. Nor can you, because it doesn't matter how you divide the distance. It's traversed in finite time regardless.

>I'm done
I know you are, you have no response to getting BTFO. You can't stop confusing time with number of divisions or steps. Doesn't matter whether there is no first step or last step in your arbitrary definition, all steps you define are completed in a finite time.

>>14776201
Not him but explain me how is it finite time when you could be dividing the distance for all eternity?

>>14777233
>you could be dividing the distance for all eternity
No. The division is merely an arbitrary projection onto the total distance, not an action that takes time for the traverser. This distance is always traversed in the same amount of finite time regardless of division. The division has no bearing on movement at all, it is merely a set of intervals in distance and time. Defining these intervals such that there is no first or last interval doesn't make movement impossible, it merely describes the total movement as an infinite regression/progression of movements. The mistake is always in conflating the amount of intervals with the amount of time, or the first/last interval with moments in time. It makes no sense to say that because you chose to define the intervals without a first interval, movement cannot begin. It begins at 0. An infinite regression to 0 is just as much a beginning as a first interval.

>>14777402
That's a cool word salad bro but we are not talking about traversing time but actually looking to find out if this world is discrete or continuous (which obviously is). I can just simply say that it takes a constant amount of time to accurately traverse each time you do a division, therefore it would basically take an infinite amount of time to get from 1 to 0. This whole example is just pure horse shit because it doesn't help us intuitively assess the problem, like you essentially reached your point once you hit like 0.0001+ digits so who gives a fuck about anything further than that.

And you still make the same mistake as other zeno fags do and act like you can actually reach a definite point at the end via division. How are you planning to make a non zero number irrelevant again? It just sounds like you cannot admit defeat

>>14771661
Just because our numbers can be divided infinitely doesn’t mean a measurement that small actually exists.

>>14777634
I believe it does if you think in terms of angles, you gonna tell me an angle doesn't exist even if you think about some absurdly massive scales? What a crook of shit, if your precious little cope theory is true then it should be applicable in all cases and not just some retarded depiction of achilles chasing a turtle or you trying to close distance on a girl that you want to ask out(you will never reach her by trying to divide distances).

I've never heard of discrete steps for voltage. Even when the CPU is 10nm it's still 5V passing through.

>>14777669
Mathematically you can take an angle and divide it infinitely by tacking on more decimals, BUT it doesn’t mean that physical space is divisible that far, or that a measurement so small even exists

>>14777685
Simplified
1x10 to the power of negative infinity
It mathematically is “possible” but that doesn’t mean space can be divided that far

>>14777685
Sorry bro that sounds hella subjective to me, and besides you'd need to come up with a method to prove that so it works in all cases like wind gravity light beams sound etc. But good luck with that, we all gonna be dead by then for us to come up with accurate enough devices to prove that.

Also you'd need to prove it the opposite way and say that there is a limit for how big something can be too.

>>14777701
Aka can you divide by zero? Food for thought

>>14777701
No you wouldn’t,
The minimal size of space doesn’t mean there is a maximum size.
You are correct in saying that we won’t know for a long time what the actual minimal size of space could be or if there is. That’s my entire point.
Math is showing that it’s theoretically possible but you can’t accept that as a solid rule that all space has to follow

>>14771985
thank you so much for enlightening me. I am forever grateful for the time you spent producing this masterpiece.

>>14777604
>That's a cool word salad bro
What part didn't you understand?

>we are not talking about traversing time
Then why did you say "explain me how is it finite time when you could be dividing the distance for all eternity?" What time were you referring to and how it's out relevant? You seem to be backpedaling.

>looking to find out if this world is discrete or continuous
Either way, it's finite time.

>I can just simply say that it takes a constant amount of time to accurately traverse each time you do a division, therefore it would basically take an infinite amount of time to get from 1 to 0.
You mean it takes the same amount of time regardless of the distance of the interval? No, it doesn't. If you move at constant speed then time is proportional to distance. You're not talking about the problem at hand.

>And you still make the same mistake as other zeno fags do and act like you can actually reach a definite point at the end via division.
What? A point is reached via movement. Division is arbitrary, changes nothing, and is merely a projection onto already defined movement.

>How are you planning to make a non zero number irrelevant again?
What are you talking about?

>>14771493
Zeno's paradox exposes a flaw in our initial axioms. Namely, whether something can have a concrete form at all. Whether its individualized particles or globalized universe.

If its particles, how can it even move, and if its continuous, then its eternal and unmoving. You could argue that there's no motion at all, or ignore the problem completely, but we can do better.

Instead of thinking of things in "concrete forms" whether its its in atomic sense or any universal sense, we can instead think of all particles/universe not as a concrete. What I mean is think of the universe/particles as only being a relational object. The problem with "concrete" particles is that its a physicalist adoption of the "essence" idea, the platonic sense, that was argued by SOME of the Greeks and adopted widely.

>>14777781
>If its particles, how can it even move
What do you mean?

>if its continuous, then its eternal and unmoving.
Doesn't follow.

>>>/x/

>>14777794
Lookup Zeno's paradoxes if you want more of Zeno's problem. One of his paradox is about the commonly held notion of motion. If motion is even possible at all. The conclusion most people seem to draw is that its a mind trick rather than an exposition of the problem of axiom regarding a discreet universe. I think its an axiomatic problem. Likewise, the alternative to that is to say the universe is continuous such that there cannot be a distinction, hence unchanging/unmoving/eternal/etc

These two ends of the spectrum are exposing the axiomatic issue rather than any actual fundamental issue with universe.

GOD will punish the infinity loving SODOMITES!
Amen

>>14777781
Zeno's paradox occurs when you think about change as difference between two points in time. It leads to the absurd conclusion that an infinite number of events must occur before anything can change. Calculus offers a different perspective on change that circumvents this problem: it allows you to characterize change in a continuous manner using derivatives. What's the problem with that?

>>14777752
PRAISE GOD!
My first convert! Welcome brother. Just a moment and I will get you set up with some pliers, branding irons, and a portable rack. We have work to do. There are a lot of people who need to see the light.
The ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH grows stronger every day! One day we will be infinit...ummm. we will be VERY strong. Strong enough to scale the walls of Set Theory in a BLOODY ASSAULT of unsurpassed LOGIC! After putting all those who resist to the sword, as well as those who dont resist, we will reclaim the HOLY LAND of MATHEMATICS! For the GLORY of GOD!
Amen.

>>14777718
Well I guess that's where the entire argument ends, I mean I guess you could assume that at some point the movement becomes indistinguishable from a more accurate unit so you just settle at the minimum.

Though I would rather this discussion to involve some interesting shit like ftl space travel and not some unintuitive crap like turtles lol

>>14771493
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUnNaQTfZE&ab_channel=Vsauce

>>14777805
The first two "paradoxes" are due to the incorrect assumption that infinite intervals cannot be completed in finite time. The third is due to motion only being defined over intervals of time, not instants. Nothing to do with discrete or continuous.

>>14771493
contiunous

>i close this thread

>>14778004
He didn't provide a solution he even said that the solution was a mystery why this thread is filled with fucking morons is beyond me.
If you think that each task taking half the time is the solution then you're wrong because that just relies on the fact that time passes (just like movement is possible) which in itself is the same paradox as zeno's dichotomy.

>>14778150
>my IQ is 80

>>14778004
All the proof we needed.
ITS WAR THEN!
Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH! All two of us!
Its time to take up arms against the INFINITY SODOMITES!
GLORY TO GOD!
Amen.

>>14778267
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right

>>14771493
Make two points and a line between them and mark the halfway point, halfway to that point and so on as many times as you like.

Now move your finger from one point to the other along the line. You can draw any number of marks and your finger can still travel uninterrupted. Even if you imagine an infinite number of marks your finger’s travel is undisturbed.

Zeno’s paradox is an objection to abstract infinite processes projected onto physical motion. Simple mathematics like geometric sums show that abstract infinite processes can behave in reasonable ways, but in any case the physical motion itself is unproblematic.

>>14778532
>d-did you just violate the reddit debate rules?!?!
>looks like i win!!
Sorry about your mental illness.

>>14778654
See >>14778532

>>14778654
Based.

>>14778341
ITS WAR!

>>14778642
>as many times as you like
I want (need) to draw infinitely many

>Now move your finger from one point to the other along the line
I can't I haven't finished drawing the lines yet

>>14771493
its a gradient

>>14779778
>I can't I haven't finished drawing the lines yet
and yet you are still typing, pity

>>14778642
>Zeno’s paradox is an objection to abstract infinite processes projected onto physical motion
Thats assuming what we consider "physical" is actually self-coherent to begin with and not something abstract imposed upon reality

ITS WAR! WE MARCH!
PRAISE GOD!
Amen.

>>14771493
The question is this - is Universe a physical matter, or does it include non-physical things?

If your definition of the Universe includes non-physical things, there's no reason for it not to be continuous.

neither
if we assume it to be discrete, paradoxes arise
if we assume it to be continuous, paradoxes arise
the only logical conclusion is that it is neither continuous nor discrete, rather something else perhaps inconceivable to the human mind

>>14781816
You will be invited to the peace negotiations once we have finished putting all the INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES to the sword.
DEUS VULT!
Amen.

>>14771780
kek, unfathomably based.

>>14781816
You might as well say i don't know and stop acting like a smart ass

>>14771780
Sorry the pope cancelled Hell, Hell is closed.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/30/598293419/pope-to-world-hell-does-exist?t=1661270061645