Question about probabilities

[Amorphos]

So you meant “values” instead of “variables” … big difference. And yes, throughout space there would exist values of (quantity of) energy ranging from 0 to infinite. No space can exist without energy within it. Thus an infinite space must have infinite energy within it with finite portions of the universe having finite energy within them … an infinite number of them.

Sure, but where do the limits for each proportion come from? Secondly, why would there not be larger energy values/amounts to some of the limits?

That would be:
Universe = Infinitesimal.
… non-sense … Again.

It would be a finite pattern connecting integers of the infinite sets. Surely your model has finiteness in the same way ~ given you are working with the principles of calculus?

Visualise infinite guitar strings upon an infinite guitar, even if un-tuned, a chord would eventually be found. This has a mathematical equivalent in calculus where injectives interact with bijectives. A simple graph of infinite set integers by infinite sets would yield the positions on a graph where they interject, then the collection of positions are a finite collection, no?

_

[James_S_Saint]

@Amorphos

So you meant “values” instead of “variables” … big difference. And yes, throughout space there would exist values of (quantity of) energy ranging from 0 to infinite. No space can exist without energy within it. Thus an infinite space must have infinite energy within it with finite portions of the universe having finite energy within them … an infinite number of them.

Sure, but where do the limits for each proportion come from?

??? From the portion’s size, what else?? Larger regions of space can contain more energy than small portions. Isn’t that pretty obvious?

@Amorphos

That would be:
Universe = Infinitesimal.
… non-sense … Again.

It would be a finite pattern connecting integers of the infinite sets.

What the hell does that mean??
What are “integers of infinite sets” vs just integers?

@Amorphos

Surely your model has finiteness in the same way ~ given you are working with the principles of calculus?

Visualise infinite guitar strings upon an infinite guitar, even if un-tuned, a chord would eventually be found. This has a mathematical equivalent in calculus where injectives interact with bijectives. A simple graph of infinite set integers by infinite sets would yield the positions on a graph where they interject, then the collection of positions are a finite collection, no?

_

I can’t see any relevance at all concerning injective or bijective sets, infinite sets, and whatever the hell “integers of infinite sets” is supposed to be.

If you are trying to match all math functions to physical reality, forget it. Math is not reality. There are no imaginary numbers in physical reality. Fantasy functions do not relate to reality. And set theory, although a subset of Logic, still has nothing to do with physical reality. Math is a tool that extends past reality so as to be able to measure reality.