Finitism in physics

[Anonymous No.15255731]

Do the results of physics suggest that finitists are right?

[Anonymous No.15255768]

>>15255731
an infinite series of successive states
LOL. Kant was a brainlet. Imagine believing reality is a series of successive states like frames in a vidyagame. He must have been the original NPC.

[Anonymous No.15255779]

>>15255731
>that quote
Why are philosophers so stupid?

[Anonymous No.15255784]

>>15255779
they're failed mathematicians

[Anonymous No.15255792]

>>15255731
PHYSICAL finitism, yes. The physical is finite in every way, past finite included. The fate of mathematical finitism is still being decided, at least by me. Math is not physical and pre-exists the physical and was used in the design OF the physical and continues to be used in the processing and modeling of, for instance, the future possible outcomes of the physical, and so physical finitism need not necessarily imply mathematical finitism.
>Kant was a brainlet
Kant was a lot of things, but a brainlet was not one of them. He was right on this issue for one, even before the age of computers and VRs were known of. He intuitively was on to this idea, as all of the greats were, including plato and aristotle were.
> Imagine believing reality is a series of successive states like frames in a vidyagame
That is exactly what the physical world is. It's just that the the reality is the totality of the set of all successive states of the set of all subjective data streams rendered to the set of all experiencers immersed in the physical (virtual) reality. And so the states appear relative and are based on vantage point. So there is no 'objective' passage of the time (cycles) from the vantage point of those immersed in the reality, hence the relativity of simultaneity. From the NON-LOCAL gods eye view, there is an outer objective time. Either way, the cycles are finite. He was right.

[Anonymous No.15255794]

>>15255779
Make an argument against it. You can't. In before
>some appeal to infinite this or that in maths
Yeah, we are talking about the PHYSICAL. Maths models are not physical. Kant is smarter than you.

[Anonymous No.15255798]

>>15255792
>no argument

[Anonymous No.15255800]

>>15255784
Kant is talking about the PHYSICAL. Math isn't physical.

[Anonymous No.15255804]

>>15255794
>>15255792
>>15255800
Tone down the schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.15255807]

>>15255792
>>15255794
>>15255800
>ChatGPT posts
ignore and hide

[Anonymous No.15255811]

>>15255798
Argument for what? I agree with him. The universe is past finite. ALL possible universes are by the way. The ones with characteristics such as ours at least, see pic.

[Anonymous No.15255815]

>>15255731
humans are brainlets and unable to comprehend the complexity of the universe. many 'paradoxes' might be possible, just because our math or beliefs show otherwise doesn't mean we're right. many of these 'big thinkers' seem to simply forget the many limitations of the human mind. why bother writing and expressing your beliefs if it's more beneficial to just practice science and try to advance our minimal understanding if nature? I'll never understand philosophers

[Anonymous No.15255824]

>>15255792
>math pre-exists the physical and was used in the design OF the physical and continues to be used in the processing and modeling of
This is your brain on Hulusci-fi.

[Anonymous No.15255830]

>>15255768
Kant is an ultrafag. Not a word to be believed. Exactly like the rest.

[Anonymous No.15255838]

>>15255804
I will be here if you have the goods to make an argument against anything I said. Go ahead. You won't win. Appeals to infinite non-physical things such as math related ideas are irrelevant though. Kant was talking about the physical world being past finite. So appeals to infinite this or that or continuous this or that in math models are irrelevant. Appeal to only that which can be observed by the physical sensory data stream. I will save you some time. Infinite ANYTHING can not be observed by man or the instruments man develops to make more precise measurements. 'Infinite' anything with regard to the physical world is either metaphysics or poetry.

[Anonymous No.15255842]

>>15255838
t. can't grasp the infinite

[Anonymous No.15255844]

>>15255807
this
>>15255838
applies to you as well

[Anonymous No.15255855]

>>15255842
I can conceive of abstract ideas about infinite this or that. This has nothing to do with physically instantiated infinities. But your appeal to idealism is ironic, since you are likely, as most NPCs are, a physicalist. Infinities can by grasped by minds, yes. This should tell you something about the ontology of minds, see pic.

[Anonymous No.15255856]

>>15255731
You want me to argue
But I literally kant

[Anonymous No.15255867]

>>15255838
Two mirrors facing eachother is an example of PHYSICAL infinity
Finiteists infinitely btfo

[Anonymous No.15255871]

>>15255768
>frames in a vidyagame
Thats exactly how time works except that its continuous and not discrete, there is in fact an (uncountably) infinite amount of states/instances in time between any given moment and another

[Anonymous No.15255880]

>>15255871
>time is continuous
prove it

[Anonymous No.15255886]

>>15255855
Oh, you're one of those brainlets. Nevermind. Keep on having strong opinions on things you really cannot.

[Anonymous No.15255895]

>>15255794
Time was viewed classically in the newtonian sense. We know this is not the case. Any consequence of the implication is logically false, therefore the statement is false. Next question.

[Anonymous No.15255952]

>>15255824
Yeah, try creating a VR as complicated as the universe without any math knowledge. And try processing one without calculations. The universe couldn't have booted up without the pre- existence of math retard.
>>15255895
No, you don't know shit. You are an idiot and just a repeater. You have no depth of thought. Relativity of simultaneity and things like time dilation, if that is what you are talking about, are perfectly consistent with simulism and discrete time. You can be playing a massively multiplayer online game and have an older machine and so have a processing load which slows your frame rate down (time) relative to another player's experience. Because the cycles are experienced differently by different consciousness nodes and processed at different rates by different processing nodes doesn't mean there are not still discrete cycles. The set of all frames you experience in your data stream or if you choose, cycles (see pic), and the set of all of these elements experienced by the rest of players still is finite and discrete. I touched on that here
>>15255792
>That is exactly what the physical world is. It's just that the the reality is the totality of the set of all successive states of the set of all subjective data streams rendered to the set of all experiencers immersed in the physical (virtual) reality. And so the states appear relative and are based on vantage point. So there is no 'objective' passage of the time (cycles) from the vantage point of those immersed in the reality, hence the relativity of simultaneity. From the NON-LOCAL gods eye view, there is an outer objective time. Either way, the cycles are finite. He was right. And if you are not looking at the universe from an info info theoretic point of view, you are just going to end up coming to the wrong conclusions about all of these things and sounding dumb, just FYI.

[Anonymous No.15255964]

>>15255895
whoops
grentext fail here
>>15255952
should be
>That is exactly what the physical world is. It's just that the the reality is the totality of the set of all successive states of the set of all subjective data streams rendered to the set of all experiencers immersed in the physical (virtual) reality. And so the states appear relative and are based on vantage point. So there is no 'objective' passage of the time (cycles) from the vantage point of those immersed in the reality, hence the relativity of simultaneity. From the NON-LOCAL gods eye view, there is an outer objective time. Either way, the cycles are finite. He was right. And if you are not
and then non green texted statement

"And if you are not looking at the universe from an info info theoretic point of view, you are just going to end up coming to the wrong conclusions about all of these things and sounding dumb, just FYI."

[Anonymous No.15255980]

>>15255895
By the way, as stated here
>>15255952
Not only are they consistent with a VR reality, they are SUGGESTIVE. see pic

[Anonymous No.15255992]

>>15255871
>Thats exactly how time works except that its continuous and not discrete
If it's continuous, then the notion of a series of "states" is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15255998]

>>15255779
You will never be human. Kant is clearly a brainlet, but he is god compared to you.

[Anonymous No.15256051]

>>15255731
Kant's reasoning betrays the flawed thinking of his time. Relative "localized" movement, or time, and so on, are all possible within infinity. It does not matter if I "have not moved relative to infinity" if I have moved relative to something proximal to myself, and so on and so forth.

Where such paradoxes present themselves, as Kant erroneously asserts, it is a flaw in the definition or concept. Fairly consistently for philosophers the mistake is, inevitably, viewing things exclusively from the "perspective" or reference frame of infinity rather than the relative perspectives of its "subsets".

To further simplify, what Kant and subsequent people fuck up is like claiming you can't count and things have no quantity because numbers are infinite.

[Anonymous No.15256054]

>>15255992
Continuous anything physical is nonsense and could never be observed or verified to be the case. You can't zoom in to infinite divisibility or resolution and say 'SEE, HERE IT IS I FOUND IT! INFINITE DIVISIBILITY!!!!'. There would always be an infinite amount of divisibility to go. The same with an infinite past. You could never 'peer back' are measure back or receive information from an 'infinite past'. Anywhere that could be measured back to would only get infinitely far away from infinitely far back. You can't locate some place in the past and say 'here it is! I found the infinite past!'. It's a meaningless claim and infinite or continuous ANYTHING physical is meaningless because infinity can't be measured or confirmed or observed. The same thing with infinitely divisible time. It's nonsense. Time isn't some substance, it's events. These events can slow under processing load, such as processing a virtual object travelling at a very high speed, such as stated in pic here.
>>15255980
But still the updates/cycles/frames are discrete. Continuous actual things are different from idealized continuous math models and functions. These have utility to make predictions of approximate non-arbitrary nature but they are mere ABSTRACT MODELS.

[Anonymous No.15256062]

>>15256054
The AI agrees with my assessment of your post.

[Anonymous No.15256068]

>>15256054
>Continuous anything physical is nonsense and could never be observed or verified to be the case.
Science is inductive. Yes, sofar as epistemology goes, sofar as science goes, one could find the evidence more indicative of an infinite cosmos. If such a theory predicted things we do not yet know better than the alternatives, that is basically all that is required.

[Anonymous No.15256078]

Imagine being scared by something as trivial as infinity. Physicists are pathetic.
>B-B-BUT YOU CAN'T SEE INFINITY

[Anonymous No.15256080]

>>15255952
Oh he’s a simulation video game tard got it.

[Anonymous No.15256116]

>>15255952
>>15255964
>>15255980

Thanks for sharing. I'm not even talking about time dilation. I'm speaking more generally that the assumption that if an observer was placed pre big bang, then you could have infinite time pass without any contradiction to cause and effect.

The notion of time before the big bang doesn't have any meaning, but theories like Penrose rescaling suggest there could be arbitrarily large passages of time before the universe. This would not satisfy Kants implication, making it false. This has nothing to do with whether infinity exists and does suggest that the universe is eternal in some respects. This was not satisfactory at the time and still isn't as hawking put it: "it's turtles all the way down".

[Anonymous No.15256151]

Finitism doesn't necessarily mean that one can't believe infinity exists, just that the concept as a whole can't be pinned down rigorously in mathematics. Most finitists accept infinite sequences, not infinite sets. Mathematicians play with meaningless abstractions thinking they have captured infinity with elipsis and curly braces. Finitists actually respect Infinity with all that it implies.

[Anonymous No.15256157]

>>15256151
>finitists secretly worship infinity and get offended by mathematicians boldly dethroning, grasping and trapping their god with their magic symbols

[Anonymous No.15256181]

>>15256157
>infinitards openly worship infinity yet blasmphey it by implying it can be contained in a set and can even be compared to other "infinite" sets

[Anonymous No.15256193]

>>15256181
>infinitards openly worship infinity
Your schizo fantasy.

[Anonymous No.15256197]

If infinity is not real, then please tell me how many natural numbers there are.

[AmonLemon No.15256207]

>>15255792
but how could math pre-exist the physical?
im not very qualified in this argument but i am curious.

mathematical equations are formed from the physical world, thats why in school we learn to count from fingers. math and physics is the language of the physical.

we dont use math to design the physical, we use it to make predictions, which are often wrong.
it is using these modals that we can disprove mathematical finitism and in turn physical finitism.

[Anonymous No.15256217]

>>15256197
You are infinitely retarded.

[Anonymous No.15256219]

>>15256062
AI says all kinds of dumb shit
>>15256080
>no argument
>>15256116
Our time in this universe is defined and specified by the temporal constraints of THIS reality though. So I don't know know what constraints are placed on the 'non-this universe' reality. I don't think time is some 'substance'. It's virtual, wether it be in a dream, another consciousness VR, or in the waking consciousness based VR, the one called the 'physical' universe. Kant and I were talking about THIS universe. Not sure if that addresses your point or not. Premise:
ALL consciousness based VRs begin, be they visual day dream thoughts, sleep time dreams, hallucinations, or VRs such as the ones we are immersed in that we receive as a sensual, waking data stream called the 'physical' world. There is a first, call it DELTA T of time. A first planck cycle. In the case of the big bang, this would not have been rendered to any observer, it would have just been internal calculations, maybe of 'superposed' (metaphor, it's just data) different branches of possible outcomes until there evolved in one of the branches a bio avatar suitable for a non-local individuated unit of consciousness to log onto and make decisions with, at which point the first 'collapse' happened, ie the first defined values in spacetime with the classical information constraints (pic rel). And so the cycles of the pre-consciousness immersion could be MUCH 'faster', ie the pre consciousness reality didn't have to go on for what to us would seem like 'billions of years'. Or, in a non-evolution scenario, the system was booted up with APPARENT age, and the 'distant past' is just rendered with procedural generation according to what would be PROBABLE to be there in a universe simulated to look much older than it is. This would be a young earth scenario. Either way is past finite though.

[AmonLemon No.15256220]

>>15256197

[Anonymous No.15256221]

>>15255779
>omg why did somebody reason using an assumption from their time and place?
You're a brainlet

[Anonymous No.15256222]

>>15256219
>AI says all kinds of dumb shit
Or maybe you're as unintelligent as everyone who sees your posts thinks you are.

[Anonymous No.15256228]

Reminder that Kant is objectively more intelligent than every poster in this thread, other than myself.
None of you will ever match his brain power.

[Anonymous No.15256231]

>>15256193
>the "reals"
Your schizo fantasy.

[Anonymous No.15256238]

>>15256207
>mathematical equations are formed from the physical world, thats why in school we learn to count from fingers. math and physics is the language of the physical.
Bro, you're living in the 16th century. Physics only relates to a miniscule part of the mathematical universe. Most of mathematics has no direct connection with the physical world all.

[Anonymous No.15256240]

>>15256228
>Kant is objectively more intelligent than every poster in this thread
Then why wasn't he smart enough to realize the infinite sequence of states he talks about is merely an artefact of his imaginary subdivision of a continuous whole?

[Anonymous No.15256264]

>>15256116
>The notion of time before the big bang doesn't have any meaning
True, the virtual time of THIS universe has no meaning in terms of defined cycles prior to the boot up, of course. The big bang was the booting up of time in this reality. Just like when you boot up a video game, it makes no sense to talk about a defined time in the video game BEFORE you booted it up. That doesn't mean that the world which is not defined by the virtual space time of that video game, ie the one that you operate in, must be constrained by that games virtual time. You are thinking about time as some substance or something. Wittgenstein might have not got filtered by the idea of time if he were born a bit later. Somehow, people like kant got it right even before knowing about computers. I think you are exposing a wittgenstein idea of time anyways, I am rusty on the subject.
>arbitrarily large passages of time before the universe
Meaningless statement and conjecture. You can't observe or measure or do anything with the idea of 'arbitrarily large passages of time before the universe'. The observed data all suggests that pic related has more explanatory power.
>This was not satisfactory at the time and still isn't as hawking put it
Agreed. It's an infinite temporal regress. The universe began. It's is a contingent being. This gets into cosmological and contingency arguments for god as well, ie, in order to avoid an infinite regress of contingent entities, the entity that booted up this universe can not ALSO be constrained by time, ie virtual time cycles, or else you get an infinite regress situation of 'who created god then, who created the god that created god', ect ad infinitum. And so, to avoid this regress, a SINGLE entity called a NECESSARY entity is postulated, one that is not temporally constrained by time (cycles). So the god denier has two options, the infinite regress (illogical) of contingent entities, or the SINGLE, necessary entity, the creator (logical).

[Anonymous No.15256273]

>>15256222
I am still here bud, if you want to make an actual argument. This anon
>>15256116
at least had the moxy to make an argument. Have at it.

[Anonymous No.15256309]

>>15256068
>Science is inductive. Yes, sofar as epistemology goes, sofar as science goes, one could find the evidence more indicative of an infinite cosmos
This was already a debate, see pic. What you are doing is the same thing the many worlders, the multiversers, the superdeterminismers, and all of the various other cope schemes are doing, which is to try to avoid particular obvious conclusions based on observed data because they conflict with your metaphysical world view. The multiverse is a cope to explain away fine tuning, the multiverse is a cope to try to explain away the observer/measurer being able to cause supposed what they think are discontinuities in some self existent wave function, ie cause defined values of classical type observables in the spacetime, the eternal universers are trying to cope with a creation event, ect. You are basically contributing to an attempted cover up.

[Anonymous No.15256321]

>>15256068
By the way, the pic rel is from everett's (father of the MWI) original paper on the many worlds idea. He says himself that his theory is contrived to take the observer out of the picture
>If not, we are forced to admit that systems which contain observers are not subject to the same kind of quantum-mechanical description as we admit for all other physical systems. The question cannot be ruled out as lying in the domain of psychology.

[Anonymous No.15256365]

>>15255867
no such thing as a perfect mirror, energy will be lost with each reflection

[Anonymous No.15256406]

>>15256078
>Imagine being scared by something as trivial as infinity
Math is not physical though. Math does not age, math has no momentum, position, amplitude, mass or any other physical quantifiables. Math has UTILITY for minds trying to describe the behavior of the physical data stream and make predictions about the physical data stream and is good for developing tech to HARNESS the physicality (actually, the harnessing is the harnessing of NON_LOCAL/OUTSIDE OF SPACETIME computational) causal powers to use it for tech ect, but math is NOT the physicality itself. Math is not in spacetime, therefore math is not 'in' the universe. It is not physical. The op was about the PHYSICAL universe. We are talking about PHYSICAL temporal constraints. So asserted math infinities are irrelevant. You can't point to you paper and say 'SEE, HERE'S INFINITY ON MY MATH ASSINMENT AND SO THIS MEANS THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR EVER AND EVER, UH DURRR'. These (idea's of infinity) are grounded in minds, not the data of the physical world. Math infinities are IDEAS. You can have ideal continuous functions and infinite series/sequences aleph doodles raised to the aleph flap jacks and transfinite this and that and nested infinities and analyticity and continuums and 'real' this and thats and the like. I am an enjoyer of such things as well. But it's when you try anagma8d say that these things can have one for one identity with the PHYSICAL world and ARE the physical world that the problem arises. This is fantasy and meaningless talk. You become a silly sally at this point. You become a person immersed in a VR who tries to delude himself that the VR is the fundamental thing. The math is actually MORE fundamental than the physical world and was PRIOR to the physical worls and was used to DESIGN the physical world and will be used to design the NEXT universe as well. DISCRETE math anyways. But the calculus and the like are fun.

[Anonymous No.15256416]

>>15256197
numbers are abstractions so saying there is an infinite amount of them doesn't make infinity real

[Anonymous No.15256442]

>>15255880
Causality implies succession in time. If time is discrete as you say, then between two frames of time things either do not exist at all, which would mean they have no cause to continue existing, or something remains that realizes the state of the next frame, which implies that time is continuous although you cannot experience all of it.
Furthermore, in such a scenario the interval between two time frames that you experience is zero, such that for anything existing in this universe, as far as it can ever be possible to investigate, time is continuous.
QED
Do not mistake quantum ideas about particles occupying more than a instantaneous moment in time (or space for that matter) for the idea that spacetime itself is discrete.
Or do, not my fucking problem.
Adios, postmodernistic nigger retard kikes

[Anonymous No.15256487]

>>15256197
The OP is about PHYSICAL infinitude, namely past finiteness.There doesn't have to be a correspondent physical time cycle or refresh or data update or finite state transition or planck time unit to every asserted natural number in a one to one basis. In other
words, the cardinality of the set of all natural numbers is IRRELEVANT to the past finiteness physical world, see post here
>>15256406
You, and the likes of you conflate physical finitism with mathematical finitism, likely because the most prominent maths finitists are also physical finitists or digital physics enjoyers. You can acknowledge the the computational/informational/finitudinal/digital/finite elemental nature of the physics while at the same time still having the cantorian paridise. It's comfy, trust me. Infinity is grounded in the NON PHYSICAL. 'Physicality' which is actually the set of all physical experiences of the set of all physical data streams rendered in the set of all minds/observers, is a SUB SET of a larger reality. It's 'in' (locations are not real/fundamental, they are virtual) the nature of the larger consciousness system super set that your infinitude is nested, not in the physical data stream.

[Anonymous No.15256556]

>>15256309
>What you are doing is the same thing the many worlders, the multiversers, the superdeterminismers, and all of the various other cope schemes are doing, which is to try to avoid particular obvious conclusions based on observed data because they conflict with your metaphysical world view.
By saying "to the best evidence, predicting reality, go the spoils"? You know, demonstration?
>observer/measurer being able to cause supposed what they think are discontinuities in some self existent wave function
Conscious agents do not cause a wave function to "collapse". "observer" in quantum mechanics is a metaphor referring to anything that interacts with, thereby detecting, a quantum particle. You fell for one of the oldest quantum woo myths that exist.

[Anonymous No.15256672]

>>15256556
None of these things can be demonstrated. We have no access to the asserted other universes. The MWI postulates that there is something called a wave function floating around somewhere outside of the spacetime and everything from measurements in physics experiments to just asserted environmental decoherence (supposed) events create new worlds that the observer in the world that made the measurement has no access too. None of this is testable. And superdeterminism is more unfalsifiable sillyness.
>Conscious agents do not cause a wave function to "collapse". "observer" in quantum mechanics is a metaphor referring to anything that interacts with, thereby detecting, a quantum particle
There is no 'wave function' goofbal NPC. The wave function is a math model used in conjunction with/governed by various versions of the Schrödinger equation which requires the born rule to connect it with spacetime results in terms of making predictions. And if conscious agents don't 'cause collapse' (what you are really trying to say is that space time values of observables are defined or become available for an observer to interface with) then you would not even be able to experience the physical world. The 'physical world' would just be the un-rendered internal calculations of possible future outcomes of measurements.
> "observer" in quantum mechanics is a metaphor referring to anything that interacts with, thereby detecting, a quantum particle
You learned about QM from watching youtube vids I see. Non conscious detectors are virtual. They don't even have values in spacetime themselves if not being observed by a consciousness, like ALL matter, see pic. The data stored as results of detection is itself rendered probabilistically and only on demand when the observer/physicist either checks the memory output or looks at the screen, or whatever the method of the verification of the defined values of the rendered effect of the experiments.

[Anonymous No.15256681]

>>15256672
So these experiments in this pic
>>15256672
Are the first to control for if the detector actually is demanding a data stream in real time, or the results or the experiment are rendered on the fly at the time when the experimenter checks the which way data. So it's the AVAILABILITY OF THE WHICH WAY DATA TO A CONSCIOUSNESS TO OBSERVE THAT CAUSES DEFINED SPACETIME VALUES. These vids will explain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72qVppAoCc8

[Anonymous No.15256695]

>>15256556
Whoops
this
>>15256681
Is to you. And don't even bother giving me your basic bitch claims about concepts involving which way data and detection when you have no clue what you are talking about. Experiments controlling for that have never been done.
The experiments described in this paper are the first ones pic related
>>15256672
paper with experiments
On testing the simulation theory
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

[Anonymous No.15256839]

>>15256672
>We have no access to the asserted other universes.
I do not subscribe to multiverse theory.
>You learned about QM from watching youtube vids I see.
Nope. Copenhagen. Most relevant physicists also subscribe to the copenhagen interpretation. Outside crackpots like yourself and con artists, everyone means "an interaction" as I earlier described. You will find that defined everywhere from wikipedia to educational physics texts, university lectures available online, and so on.
>On testing the simulation theory
Yeah, the usual "muh delayed choice quantum eraser" silliness from a con man. Sabine already well represented why you're full of shit, so why waste words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

Actual experimentation demonstrates, as sabine notes, complementarity as expected in Copenhagen.

>And don't even bother giving me your basic bitch claims about concepts involving which way data and detection when you have no clue what you are talking about.
Given you appear to not realize you are citing a quantum mystic con man as your primary source of information, I think you're rather confused as to how to determine who hasn't a clue about anything.

[Anonymous No.15257062]

>>15256365
>energy is lost
Until there is absolutely 0 energy?
Or until there is an infinitely smaller amount of energy?
Dummy go to school.

[Anonymous No.15257070]

>>15257062
>Until there is absolutely 0 energy?
Yes. Zeno died thousands of years ago, you can stop listening to him.

[Anonymous No.15257276]

A lot of low IQ posts in this thread. They're the longer ones as expected of course.

[Anonymous No.15257300]

>>15257276
Midwits like using verbose posts to disguise their lack of depth.

[Anonymous No.15257308]

>>15256238
Then what the heck is math? I’m failing to see how something can be non-physical

[Anonymous No.15257567]

>>15257308
I read a fiction book, the words have meaning and I interpret a message but the events in the book never happened. Apple is obviously a physical item, but reading about an apple in a book is theoretical. Math is essentially just a highly descriptive language that humans use to interpret values.

[Anonymous No.15257576]

>>15257567
>>15257308
For a better example
1+1=2
You read this, and you know that 1+1=2. But it’s still all in your head, since 1 is just a value not an actual item. Numbers are adjectives.
Is purple physically real or is it a description of something physically real.
>but anon I have 1 paper clip so 1 is real
No, you have paperclip(item) and 1(description)
It’s the same as saying you have a purple ball.
You’re basically asking why adjectives aren’t nouns

[Anonymous No.15257639]

Both of these things seem reasonable according to Physics: 1) Closed timelike curves exist 2) Computations have to happen somewhere in spacetime. If you start with initial conditions on a spacetime with CTCs which require an undecidable problem to be solved (which should occur randomly since many problems are undecidable), then the problem's solution must be computed somewhere in that spacetime, which would require the existence of physical infinity.

[Anonymous No.15258131]

>>15257639
>Computations have to happen somewhere in spacetime
Mor info on this? Seems counterintuitive especially given all the references to video games and vr ITT. Vr is essentially a 2d holographic world, yet the computations are all made in the 3d world. From inside the the 2D world you MIGHT be able to reverse engineer the computations given enough time but the computation is still happening in the 3D world.
This would imply that the computations for the 3d world are happening in a 4d world.
>fractal infinite 3D universe, I’d like to introduce you to 4D simulation theory
Just spitballing here but if infinity is real there are likely infinite dimensions that we cannot even perceive/begin to comprehend.

[Anonymous No.15259663]

>>15256197
All of them

[Anonymous No.15262092]

>>15255731
The actual is finite, the virtual is infinite. Both are the Real.
An unfolding of the virtual (actualization) will never produce an infinite actuality.

[Anonymous No.15262160]

>>15255794
>Make an argument against it. You can't.
Kant himself argued against it, read the Critiquie of pure reason
> For suppose that it has a beginning. Since the beginning is an existence preceded by a time in which the thing is not, there must be a preceding time in which the world was not, i.e., an empty time. But now no arising of any sort of thing is possible in an empty time, because no part of such a time has, in itself, prior to another part, any distinguishing condition of its existence rather than its non-existence (whether one assumes that it comes to be of itself or through another cause). Thus many series of things may begin in the world, but the world itself can have any beginning, and so in past time it is infinite.

[Anonymous No.15262222]

>>15259663
True by defintion