Infinite amount of monkeys playing chess
Sort:
It's a convenient way to backpedal, I'll give you that.
I haven't backpedaled anything. You are just making things up and trying to pick a fight.
When I choose to operate within certain conditions, I don't always bother spelling it out letter for letter like I am talking to children, because that is extra work.
It's really so much extra work to add the word "if" when you want to be clear you're not taking a position but introducing a conditional?
Was it a mistake to assume that Grobe was intelligent enough to realize that mankind has not yet proved one possibility or the other with regards to the finiteness of the universe, thus making the conditionals implied?
While the truth of a conditional is dependant on the truth of the anticeedent being a sufficient condition for the truth of the consiquent, maybe this whole thread needs reformulating "iff" we would like a little more clarity ?
Teary_Oberon wrote:
Was it a mistake to assume that Grobe was intelligent enough to realize that mankind has not yet proved one possibility or the other with regards to the finiteness of the universe, thus making the conditionals implied?
They say the best defense is a good offence, but I'm not about to let you turn this around on me, especially as that's exactly the question I asked you.... I think the record is clear for any who cares to review it, and I'm done beating this dead horse.
Teary_Oberon referring to himself in the first person? Shocking!
And what the Hell are the Monkeys doing with all this Horse Sh#t going on?
You ask that as though the answer's not right in front of you....
mrguy888 wrote:
Teary_Oberon referring to himself in the first person? Shocking!
The other 6 Tearys are off for Labor Day, so I am the only Teary left :(
TheGrobe wrote:
You ask that as though the answer's not right in front of you....
Well these guys aren't the Monkeys playing chess.
Nope, that was pure, unadulterated feces throwing.
Teary_Oberon wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
Teary_Oberon referring to himself in the first person? Shocking!
The other 6 Tearys are off for Labor Day, so I am the only Teary left :(
Ah so you have a team of writers. Teary doesn't refer to himself in the third person he has writers who talk about him.
TheGrobe wrote:
Nope, that was pure, unadulterated feces throwing.
Well that is what monkeys do.
thinkdeeplistengood wrote:
they say the number pi is infinite but i am not shore
Am i now a monkey to ?
Pi is infinite, so far they have worked it out to 3.1 trillion.
To 100 it goes:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693996491062862089986290348253421170679
"An infinite number is a number that is bigger than any other number; however, Pi is well defined. It is bigger than 3.1415 but smaller than 3.1416, so it is not infinite, even though the number of decimal numbers need to represent it may well be."--poster on another site.
Sep 6, 2011
0
#257
Teary_Oberon wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Teary_Oberon wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Infinity is a feature of the mathematical structures which we find convenient to model the universe. For example, in all mainstream physical theories, space consists of infinite numbers of points. Try constructing a theory where space only has a finite number of points.
But the simplest place that infinity appears is in counting. You can ask the question, "do the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 ... and so on, ever come to an end?" If the answer is no, you have concluded the number of natural numbers is infinite. But assuming the answer is yes seems absurd.
Although there are only a finite number of objects in the universe, we can make up concepts relating to these objects that require bigger and bigger numbers (eg (1) the number of electrons in the universe; (2) the number of possible subsets of the set of electrons in the universe; (3) the number of possible subsets of this set (ok, getting a bit tricky to picture, but definitely definable); and so on.
These concepts require there to be an infinite number of natural numbers to all make sense.
The problem is though, that numbers are not 'real.' Numbers are just imaginary concepts that we humans use to count and measure.
Can we have infinity exist as an abstract concept that is useful for some mathematcial operations? Yes. But can we come up with any practical examples of an infinite group of entities within our own universe bounded by space and time? No.
I already gave an example of an infinite set of entities in our universe. It comprises all of the electrons, all of the sets of electrons, all of the sets of sets of electrons and so on. Any problem?
It is currently believed that our Universe will expand for ever, especially as the expansion appears to be accelerating due to dark energy. How long is "forever"? Is is finite?
No, you didn't give a practical example of infinity--you started with a pratical example, but then veered off into abstract mathematical concepts with no grounding in the real world.
If you could be God for a day, stand outside of the known universe and take an instantaneous measure the total number of electrons, then you would invariably end up with a real (albeit seemingly incomprehensibly large) number. But just because something is incomprehensibly large doesn't make it infinite.
I am sorry, but the real world is intrinsically savagely mathematical in its nature, as confirmed by many very precise experiments. Your unwillingness to put in the effort to understand it does not make it any less real than the instinctive understanding of it that you share with mammalian ancestors who had no understanding of mathematics.
But he was speaking in conditionals....
Sep 6, 2011
0
#259
gbidari wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
They would probably also start posting in these forums.
in fact, I'm not convinced that part hasn't already happened.
You are right about that!
OK Im a monkey what is a CM ?