The limits of infinity. The Universe has a frame.

[ajb]

How can you make sense of yourself as one?

He builds the simple mathematical model in which he considers the set of all people that are him. He then examines the cardinality of this set and notes that it is one. He has constructed a canonical map from himself (or really the element in the sat that represents himself) to the number one. As this map is canonical we can only conclude that Strange is number one.

 

 

1/infinite=0?

No.

 

1/0=infinite?

Again no.

 

Infinity is not a real number so you have to be very careful trying to use it as if it were. Moreover, 1/0 is left undefined as you could try to interpret this in different ways giving different answers.

[pavelcherepan]

 

Yes. It points that electric impulses transfer information and that electrons has specific properties we are not yet aware of.

The question is how fine and detailed informations attached to electrons and how they "work" together to present a complex information/memory/feeling?

How information, memories, feelings can be transfered in our life from one electron/atom/biologic structure to another? I mean how can memories and feelings be presented in our declining years when every single atom in the body is changed during our lifetime? Then the question comes: can the information what an atom carries be called basic intelligence as it can support any biological construction it participate in, as a human body and it´s consciousness.

 

 

Probably I haven't made myself clear enough. Electrons don't carry any information, don't "work together" and don't have special properties relating to conscience. Think of a computer and binary code for example. Software/hardware is set up so that it interprets strong current as 1, weak current - 0. Now we can transmit sets of ones and zeros to give instructions for the CPU to add 2 and 2. In this example electrons don't carry any information, it's the computer software or hardware that interprets alterations of current strength and shows you the result of addition.

 

Another example: you can write something on a piece of paper and give it to someone else to read. Do those blue lines on paper carry any information by themselves? No, not really. It's your brain that interprets these lines and reads a message.

 

Also, in terms of electrical impulses in human brain it's not electrons that carry those, but positively charged Na⁺ and K⁺ ions.

Edited March 21, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[Strange]

Yes. It points that electric impulses transfer information and that electrons has specific properties we are not yet aware of.

 

Does it? Why?

 

The question is how fine and detailed informations attached to electrons and how they "work" together to present a complex information/memory/feeling?

How information, memories, feelings can be transfered in our life from one electron/atom/biologic structure to another? I mean how can memories and feelings be presented in our declining years when every single atom in the body is changed during our lifetime? Then the question comes: can the information what an atom carries be called basic intelligence as it can support any biological construction it participate in, as a human body and it´s consciousness.

 

You seem to be assuming that because you don't understand how the brain works, there must therefore be unknown properties of the electron. That is an unjustified leap.

 

The One Universe. I do not think that those theories are valid as everything is regulated by the same physical Laws.

 

Then why did you bring them up?

I point how we use math.

I also point that our Universe is one does not matter how complex it is.

Which reference point would you use to make sense of that One Universe and what would be the properties of that reference point?

 

That still makes no sense. There is no such reference point.

 

How can you make sense of yourself as one?

 

There is, as far as I know, just one of me.

 

How much are you in proportion to everything or in proportion to nothing?

 

I have no idea. And that isn't what you asked.

 

1/infinite=0?

 

Incorrect.

 

Are you nothing in proportion to everything? If you are not nothing than is not that indicates that the system is finite? Isn´t it 1/everything=0.000.....001 (you or any physcal entity the question asks)

1/0=infinite? Are you everything in proportion to nothing? If you are not everything then is not this indicates that the system is finite? Isn´t it 1/0=1 as you already exist in proportion to nothing?

 

 

More schoolboy philosophy? I assume you are about 14, then?

[studiot]

 

1x0

i, Can nothing physically exit?

j, Can nothing physically existed?

 

 

 

I have no idea what exactly you mean or whether there is a spelling mistake here,

 

But if you are exploring the idea that 'nothing' caould have physical reality and embodyment, the answer is yes.

 

However this is a semi philosophical question on the borders between physics and philosphy.

 

But I don't see how any answer to this question progresses your thread.

Edited March 21, 2015 by studiot

[1x0]

He builds the simple mathematical model in which he considers the set of all people that are him. He then examines the cardinality of this set and notes that it is one. He has constructed a canonical map from himself (or really the element in the sat that represents himself) to the number one. As this map is canonical we can only conclude that Strange is number one.

 

Why this way of thinking has to be canonical? I mean "metaphysical" values (consciousness, feelings, thoughts..) are existing in the dimensions of physical reality, doesn`t that mean then that they are part of physics too?

 

 

 

Infinity is not a real number so you have to be very careful trying to use it as if it were.

I see. But as far as I understood our current mathematical system would not work if we would not work with infinity. I mean we use infinity in math don´t we?

[ajb]

Why this way of thinking has to be canonical? I mean "metaphysical" values (consciousness, feelings, thoughts..) are existing in the dimensions of physical reality, doesn`t that mean then that they are part of physics too?

So this is philosophy; metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and not something I have thought about in any detail.

 

Consciousness, feelings etc are part of physics in the sense that they are due to the complex system called the human brain. Some physicists are interested in how the brain works. This is far from properly understood, but the brain is expected to obey the standard laws of physics. It is just a very complex system and this leads to very complicated phenomena.

 

 

I see. But as far as I understood our current mathematical system would not work if we would not work with infinity. I mean we use infinity in math don´t we?

What do you mean by 'our current mathematical system'?

 

Anyway, the real numbers work fine without infinity.

 

Infinity really comes into play when dealing with limits of various expressions, including those found in calculus and real analysis. In this sense we need the notion of infinity to make mathematics 'work'.

[studiot]

 

1x0

 

 

The difference between philosophy (and metaphysics) on the one hand and mathematics (and physics) on the other is that philosophy can question the foundations of the subject.

 

In maths and physics we start with some statements we accept without question (but not without lots of very careful thought) and construct everything from there.

 

If the statements are inadequate out construct will be inadequate (hence the care).

 

Philosophy is the discipline wherein we examine the foundations themselves.

[1x0]

 

 

The difference between philosophy (and metaphysics) on the one hand and mathematics (and physics) on the other is that philosophy can question the foundations of the subject.

 

In maths and physics we start with some statements we accept without question (but not without lots of very careful thought) and construct everything from there.

 

If the statements are inadequate out construct will be inadequate (hence the care).

 

Philosophy is the discipline wherein we examine the foundations themselves.

I think the construction depends on what we would like to build with the tool we have in our hand. I do not see how math supporting infinity can work in a system most likely finite. Also math is a system evolved from a physical system still it does not support the physically presented values. 1x0, 1/0

[Strange]

I do not see how math supporting infinity can work in a system most likely finite.

 

Then maybe you should study mathematics.

 

 

Also math is a system evolved from a physical system

 

No it isn't.

 

 

still it does not support the physically presented values. 1x0, 1/0

 

What physical meaning do they have?

[1x0]

 

No it isn't.

Yes it is. Math as you know would not exist if your brain as a physical tool would not be able to process the information provided by the physical reality you exist in.

 

Than where is it from?

[Strange]

Yes it is. Math as you know would not exist if your brain as a physical tool would not be able to process the information provided by the physical reality you exist in.

 

That is an old philosophical debate: is math invented or discovered. My impression is that most mathematicians think it is is discovered, so it exists independently of the brain.

 

But i didn't think that was the point you were making. I thought you meant that mathematical concepts have to be based on something that has physical existence. That doesn't seem to be true.

[1x0]

 

That is an old philosophical debate: is math invented or discovered. My impression is that most mathematicians think it is is discovered, so it exists independently of the brain.

 

But i didn't think that was the point you were making. I thought you meant that mathematical concepts have to be based on something that has physical existence. That doesn't seem to be true.

I agree that math is discovered.

 

Math as the construction of information presented through the physical reality. Do not waist time on patterns what the huge world of numbers reveils if it do not fit or apply in the physical reality. It would be just a waist of your time.

 

The question is what was before? Information(can we mathematically explain that) or the physical reality?

 

I would say that information were present exactly before or in the same time as phsycal reality appeared. Information which determined the evoluton of the phsycal reality.

 

Math has to provide a clear explanation for the operations with zero as well as a clear expalantion on what is zero. An explanation what a 6 year old would understand too. Math has to adapt and respect the physically presented values. Math has to provide explanations for the system based on it or if math is a result of the physical system then follow what it has to say. If math is able to explain the first physical process and provide explanation for the physical values presented in the system then math is the true language of everything.

 

1x0=0? Where is the original value of the operation?

2x2=4 Does the result of the operation presents the original value?

1/0=?

[Strange]

Math as the construction of information presented through the physical reality. Do not waist time on patterns what the huge world of numbers reveils if it do not fit or apply in the physical reality. It would be just a waist of your time.

 

So you think pure maths is a waste of time? You are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but I doubt many people would agree.

 

That is still not the same as saying that mathematics only represents physical reality. Which is not true.

 

 

Math has to provide a clear explanation for the operations with zero as well as a clear expalantion on what is zero.

 

It does.

 

1x0=0? Where is the original value of the operation?

2x2=4 Does the result of the operation presents the original value?

 

What do you mean by by "original value"?

 

1/0=?

 

This is, as I think you have been told, undefined.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Strange

[ajb]

So you think pure maths is a waste of time? You are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but I doubt many people would agree.

I strongly disagree. Mathematics helps me pay my bills.

 

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

 

From the standard axioms of a field you can show that [math]1\times 0 =0[/math]. You use the existence of additive inverses and distributivity.

 

As Strange asks what is 'original value' in this context?

Edited March 26, 2015 by ajb

[1x0]

As Strange asks what is 'original value' in this context?

Any physical entity/unit/value described by the natural number one. I wonder why at the end of the operation 1x0 the original value (one) is not present. Where is it?

 

Also if zero is nothing then why the operation with it will change the properties of the "original value"? This question apply to the 1/0 operation too. Specially that it seems that everything in our universe is positive, while there are opposite values in the system, lower value than nothing basically does not exist. Or?

Edited March 26, 2015 by 1x0

[ajb]

Any physical entity/unit/value described by the natural number one. I wonder why at the end of the operation 1x0 the original value (one) is not present. Where is it?

This is still very unclear. Can you give an example.

 

Also if zero is nothing then why the operation with it will change the properties of the "original value"?

Don't confuse the empty set with its cardinality. Zero is not 'nothing'.

[1x0]

This is still very unclear. Can you give an example.

 

 

Don't confuse the empty set with its cardinality. Zero is not 'nothing'.

One atom, one electron, one apple, one ajb etc.

 

Zero is one conception, not? If zero is not "nothing" then what is it or more how much is it? Does the physical and mathematical zero is the same?

[ajb]

One atom, one electron, one apple, one ajb etc.

Okay, but what has this got to do with 0x1 =0 ?

 

Zero is one conception, not?

Zero means the additive identity; so I assume we are talking about the number 0, rather than anything more complicated. You can show that there is only one number with the properties of being the additive inverse for the real numbers. This is is what we call zero.

 

If zero is not "nothing" then what is it or more how much is it?

You mean what is its magnitude?

 

With respect to any norm on the real line the magnitude of 0 is 0.

 

But again, don't confuse the number zero with the empty set, which is a better notion of 'nothing'.

 

Does the physical and mathematical zero is the same?

What is the physical zero? What is the physical n where n is any real number?

[Strange]

One atom, one electron, one apple, one ajb etc.

 

One is a number. It does not refer to a physical object. You can use numbers to count physical objects but there is no equivalence between numbers and the objects counted.