Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

[promethean75]

... if you want to see one interesting take on this deal with 'infinity', go check out Brouwer and the intuitionists. one thing i keep seeing as a cornerstone to this problem is how various mathematicians respond to what cantor did with the transitive infinite or the infinite transitive or whatever. i dunno what the hell it is, but it's something important because i keep seeing it pop up everywhere i read. i'm probably wrong here, but i think the dispute is over this thing about defining a set as infinite. these dudes observe a continuum of divisibility within an arbitrarily chosen closed set of natural and real numbers, and then they're like 'see? i told you the set was infinite!' but then the other dudes are like 'but by virtue of it being a continuum, you never actually produce an infinite set, so you can't call it that!'

little help here would be nice, fellas.

[obsrvr524]

little help here would be nice, fellas.

Asking the insane to bring sanity to the insanity?

[MagsJ]

little help here would be nice, fellas.

Asking the insane to bring sanity to the insanity?

I'm still reading and following.. though not a fella lol

Shame you'll be off when your parsing program ends, obsrvr524.. what are your plans for the research data? and what are you hoping to realise from it?

[promethean75]

and what are you hoping to realise from it?

i got this, 524.

he hopes to realize an infinitely affectant ontology of SAMs.

did i nail it or did i nail it, 524?

[Silhouette]

Did you want to pickup where we left off?

If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.

May I query this explanation?

= "I disagree"
as you asked me to say if I don't agree.

Does "You are not adding to the set. You add to your position within the set" mean something like the following:

Infinite set represented as: {..., x, y, z, ...}
Add 1 at position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y+1, z, ...}
??

= "A simple reason",
followed by the beginning of how it applies aaaaall the way back through your reasoning = "state only the beginning of it"

Agreement or disagreement for each point - as you requested.

= "ask for agreement"
= "ask if (you) agree"

This is all very clearly included in my post that followed your advice on how delicately you want to be treated, if you'd actually read what I said.

You completely ignored the advice.
You completely ignored the question that I asked.

So basically I followed your advice exactly and you are the one ignoring, I even made sure to explicitly address the question you asked:

When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.

The reason I ask is that this all comes back to that "infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA" that you're insisting I "missed". And we can work back from there.

Both the addition I used and the multiplication example you used were involved in my proof that you're still trying to understand.

So basically:

Although tempted to go into a long detailed discussion of why you were so predictable (there is a little Kim Jong-un dominating your mind), we weren't done with your last batch of debacles and here you divert to a new plethora of fallacies and then complain that your new distraction has been ignored.

is as I predicted 2 pages back:

literal psychological projection on your part - confirmed.

and

the null hypothesis that you intended only to waste both our time is confirmed.
I'll file this away, along with you having nothing to offer with regard to alleged mistakes that I have made, which I've repeatedly asked you to disclose in spite of all your efforts to claim I'm not interested in this, reinforcing my classification of you as a fallacious, disingenuous and slanderous thinker, compromised by your political affiliations and their routine oppositional stereotyping.

and

The motion that you have nothing is carried.

This is confirmed by your repeated attempt to move away from logical content to instead politicise the discussion:

I was actually hoping to get into some political discussions but I quickly discovered that same symptom on this board is as bad, if not worse, concerning politics.

I read your excuse that:

it takes a great deal of effort to try to see the world from another person's perspective just to ensure that you are not mis interpreting what they are trying to say. What was their environment? Who were they speaking or writing to? What were they trying to accomplish? What words did they use? What references? And finally, what did they really intend to relay to their audience at that time? And that isn't even getting into who the person really was all about.

followed in the same post by the obvious flaw in this approach:

"presumption is the seed of all sin." So in that regard I guess we actually we agree.

In researching the history around the person to understand the context behind their works, you are injecting your own history of yourself and your own context into theirs, doubling the muddying their actual content instead of just analysing the logic behind their points and arguments. As I'm demonstrating using proof - neither your intention nor your strong suit.

And why bring politics and association fallacies or any other red herrings into it at all?

Arguments either hold or don't hold completely irrespective of their author and anyone's emotions.

So we see:

here you divert to a new plethora of fallacies

Objectively applies to what you keep doing and not to me in the slightlest as I've just proven through quotation and logic.

Buy a mirror for god's sake.

I'm trying to help you and all you can do is - in the terms of James that you quoted yourself "sin" - through "presumption", and give advice that when followed, you ignore.

Stop presuming your criticisms are correct and that the only thing left is to go back to them and admit this, disregarding the possibility that they are not correct and ignoring explanations of why their underlying assumptions are wrong, with accusations of "distracting", unbacked claims of fallacies and no justification of debacle, to justify ignoring them. If you don't see the connection yet, don't presume there is none, let me explain it to you.

You realise it's possible that you're wrong, right? All that psychological projection of "People who say things like that are saying that only God can understand things that they don't" onto others applies the other way around, you know.

But let's make a prediction: you disregard this possibility and most likely this whole post, which does nothing more than prove your presumptions - in order to help you. I don't want to have to do this, I want to stay on topic. It shouldn't need typing out, but you need to stop letting anything like the "pride, politics, and stupidity", of which you're presuming to only apply to others, forbid you from growing. Or just continue to think it's all the forum's/other people's fault...

[promethean75]

I don't understand what you mean by "we wouldn't be able to say it".

oh my bad. what i meant was, even though we observed planet y make 2.5 more orbits than planet x in that 24 hour period, we wouldn't be able to say 'planet y has orbited more times than planet x', because if they've both been orbiting eternally, one couldn't have made more orbits than the other. i'm trying to point out one conceptual problem with actual infinities with this hypothetical planet thing i got from ghazali.

Time is entirely a mind-made invention, as is counting.

counting is, but not time. time, in its most essential description, is a period in which the difference of the motion of objects can be contrasted and/or compared. anytime there is movement, there is a relative change of position, and 'time' is the period of transition.

kant once mentioned something similar to this idea when he talks about what we call 'time' when we look at a clock. its not that the clock contains, produces or represents 'time', but that it simply generates the experience of it by its hands moving against a background. thus, time is essentially observed movement... that period of repositioning.

now of course things still move without being perceived (unless you're a radical empiricist), so what we would call the passage of time, had we experienced such motion, still exists independently of our experiencing it. but yes, the counting is man made.... or i should say 'used', since we really didn't 'make' the possibility of objects belonging to groups that can be quantified.

i've always figured that time and space were infinite, but not necessarily energy. one problem i'm up against here though is explaining how, if space is infinite, energy wouldn't also be infinite if it's necessary that all space be 'filled' with objects. james is clearly espousing a 'field' theory of space which at a fundamental level means all space is occupied by something. so i'm almost forced to admit that energy is infinite unless i can conceive of a boundary to space. but that wouldn't make any sense because there'd be something beyond that boundary... and wtf would i call it if not more space?

see this shit pisses me off because i'm being bombarded with conflicting views and information overload and frankly, i'm about to say fuck it and go hang out with biggy talkin' bout 'how is the problem of infinity even relevant to conflicting goods and dasein and stuff.' look, i've never been faced with having to make a decision in life that depended on whether or not the universe was infinite.

'oh wait... i'm not sure if i should do this, because the universe might be infinite. hold on, lemme think about it.'

no. i've never said that in my life, and i probably never will.

what we want are affordable solutions to modern, existential dilemmas. don't we, biggs?

[Silhouette]

i've always figured that time and space were infinite, but not necessarily energy. one problem i'm up against here though is explaining how, if space is infinite, energy wouldn't also be infinite if it's necessary that all space be 'filled' with objects. james is clearly espousing a 'field' theory of space which at a fundamental level means all space is occupied by something. so i'm almost forced to admit that energy is infinite unless i can conceive of a boundary to space. but that wouldn't make any sense because there'd be something beyond that boundary... and wtf would i call it if not more space?

I thought I answered this at least in part, but it was not my intention to bombard you with just another view that conflicts with some others, I merely wanted to present it as what experimental evidence consistently shows, in line with the scientific consensus for centuries now, and why it makes sense. You can reject this like obsrvr and others have tried, based on attempted logical argument that's based on understandings of infinity that I've also refuted - that's up to you. I like the idea that there's points in the consensus and my thinking that have been missed myself, but such things need less flawed groundwork than have been presented, or at least experimental evidence against the consensus that counters what's been gathered so far, which nobody here is providing.

The evidence is that energy is finite and constant, as is mass, and that time hasn't been going on infinitely so far - at least in the sense of the pre-Einsteinian "absolute time" that Einstein and others showed not to be valid. Space, however? Well if constant energy is getting spread out over a non-infinite time as evidence suggests, it's dissipating across space that may as well be infinite, but isn't necessarily infinite. My line of inquiry explores how space and time aren't exactly finite or infinite. It is inspired by the experimental evidence that time and space curve under extreme conditions of gravity and speed - such as back in the singularity as experimental evidence suggests that things used to be. Let me know if previous posts on this thread about this subject have lost you, I am happy to explain what I mean in further detail and to receive criticism on these ideas.

[surreptitious75]

I think that it is more logical that space and time have always existed because quantum mechanics forbids non existence
An absolute vacuum at the quantum level is too unstable to survive which is why quantum fluctuations violate it so easily

The expansion of space is creating time given that space and time are interconnected rather than entirely independent states
The only time that truly exists in reality is the eternal NOW since the past is just a memory while the future has yet to happen

I dont know if we are moving through time or if time is moving through us or if it actually matters which of these it is
The eternal NOW however is a dynamic state in a constant state of motion even though it can also appear to be static

Timelessness cannot possibly be true unless motion is an illusion because motion without time is simply not possible
I find it to be the most counter intuitive idea I have ever heard of and conceptually very hard indeed to understand

[Silhouette]

I think that it is more logical that space and time have always existed because quantum mechanics forbids non existence
An absolute vacuum at the quantum level is too unstable to survive which is why quantum fluctuations violate it so easily

This is why I suggest the spacetime curvature theory, because it models how space and time have "eased in" over what tends towards infinity in false notions of "absolute time" before any given point, due to increased time dilation further and further back towards the singularity, which all evidence suggests the universe tends back towards. That is to say, quantum instability and fluctuations forbade the process from not starting, but time was so stretched out over this start that it lasted for what tended towards an eternity. So, in absolute time, there was "a time" to mark the beginning, but in actual relative time, it eased in from then over a time that tended towards the infinite.

I agree with the rest of what you say about time being an "eternal now", but what I've been describing so far has been in keeping with traditional conceptions of time.
I also agree that this eternal now is a dynamic state. I would say that traditional conceptions of time are an attempt to measure of incongruity of this dynamic state of the eternal now.

[obsrvr524]

Shame you'll be off when your parsing program ends, obsrvr524.. what are your plans for the research data? and what are you hoping to realise from it?

Thank you for your cordialness.

Every man needs a hobby. I have a family so I don't get much hobby time. Actually, I have 3 families; mine, my wife's, and my wife's former sister-in-law's (long sorted story). Between the kids, parents, grand parents, and politics there isn't much room to stabilize a consistent hobby, so I just choose random projects and see how far I can go with it. I was in the midst of choosing another project when I was reminded of "affectance" and the infamous James S Saint. So I looked to see if I could find him and do a personality research dossier. And here I am swimming through reams of thoughts and exploring the depths and breaths. Everyone should do that to another person sometime (if they learn to be responsible about it). An older relative would probably be best. It's better than collecting stamps or watching the political news.

I don't really know what I will do with the data. I enjoyed professionally collecting and correlating such, but it's different now. So I'm not sure how far I'll take it, nor where or when it will end. It wouldn't be the first time I just tucked a completed project away in a bin, long to ever be seen again.

and what are you hoping to realise from it?

i got this, 524.

he hopes to realize an infinitely affectant ontology of SAMs.

did i nail it or did i nail it, 524?

Even if I knew what that meant, I'm pretty sure that I'm not there yet.

Did you want to pickup where we left off?

If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.

May I query this explanation?

= "I disagree"
as you asked me to say if I don't agree.

My question pertained to multiplying numeric sets. I have posted it twice. You have ignored it now twice. Then, as predicted, tried to change the subject.

And "May I query this explanation?" does NOT equate to "I disagree". If anything it would be "May I query into THAT explanation (learn the difference - "this here" vs "that there"). But in reality you merely chose to argue about a different subject:

Does "You are not adding to the set. You add to your position within the set" mean something like the following:

Infinite set represented as: {..., x, y, z, ...}
Add 1 at position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y+1, z, ...}
??

No it doesn't. I said that you add 1 to your position. I did not say that you add 1 to the value that is at your position. So more like this:

Infinite set represented as: {..., x, Y, z, ...}
Add 1 TO position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y, Z, ...}

The set itself doesn't change, merely where you are located in or pointing to within the set.

So the rest of your post is nonsense and you still haven't addressed the issue of your lack of adding the subtotals in order to get the proper product of multiplied sets infA * infA = InfA^2

do you agree with the correction that I pointed out?
This one:

but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.

And that is where you screwed up this time.

After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.

When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.

If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.

It would save a whole lot of wall paper.

[Silhouette]

My question pertained to multiplying numeric sets. I have posted it twice. You have ignored it now twice. Then, as predicted, tried to change the subject.

Guy, you need to chill the fuck out.

Like I said, just because "you don't see the connection yet, don't presume there is none, let me explain it to you" - do you agree that "presumption is the seed of all sin" like you said, or not? You're so convinced of some combination of malevolence, incompetence, psychological or political compromise on my part that you refuse to see other quite obvious explanations as to how hard it seems to be to have a simple discussion. Stop presuming so I can unpack this for you, and it will all come together for you unless you don't want to see it do so, which won't be my fault.

We calm now? Great. We can continue

"May I query this explanation?" does NOT equate to "I disagree". If anything it would be "May I query into THAT explanation (learn the difference - "this here" vs "that there"). But in reality you merely chose to argue about a different subject:

To briefly address this one before we get to the actual content, I thought it was fairly straight forward, but as before I have simply been misinterpretted and presumed to be distracting. People ask if they can query something if they think they see the source of some disagreement in said something, no? I proceded to that source, to query whether it shined any light on what's going on here. Like I said, there's a connection between all the things I'm saying that I'm trying to bring together in a way that gets to the bottom of our disagreement. If you'd let me explain it to you, you'd see it too. I apologise for not being as literal and concise as you seem to need me to be, ok? I'm trying.

I said that you add 1 to your position. I did not say that you add 1 to the value that is at your position. So more like this:

Infinite set represented as: {..., x, Y, z, ...}
Add 1 TO position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y, Z, ...}

Right, great. Query answered! Easy, right?

Let's ride this momentum, shall we? It doesn't mean the rest of my post is nonsense, it just means it doesn't necessarily get to the bottom of things as directly as I suspected and wanted to test.

you still haven't addressed the issue of your lack of adding the subtotals in order to get the proper product of multiplied sets infA * infA = InfA^2

I felt I had, you disagree. This is fine, don't flip the fuck out.

To be clear, I've been well aware of the formula (x + y)^2 = (x^2 + 2xy + y^2) since I learned and repeatedly applied it correctly while at school.
You took my method of expanding (x+y)^2 as something like just "2xy", or just "x^2 + xy" - only part of the full process at any rate & missing "subtotals" as you say, which makes sense from the way you've perfectly correctly presented it.

May I please request, at this point, for you to agree or disagree whether this adequately encapsulates where you think I went wrong? May I also please request if you think I've sufficiently acknowledged and shown understanding of the point of your contention?

If so, I invite you to consider the scenario where x = y, as done all the way back on page 4:
Using the same form as I did above just now, we now get (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + 2xx + x^2)
Do you agree that this can also be written as (x^2 + 2xx + x^2) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)?
More specifically, on page 4 we were covering the case that x = y = 1
so since (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)
we have (1 + 1) * (1 + 1) = (1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2)
this can be written as (1 + 1)^2 = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1)
Am I right? Do you agree there has been no funny business or "switching up" so far?

A similar thing occurs when you have (1+1+1)^2 = (1^2 + 1*1 + 1*1 + 1^2 + 1*1 + 1*1 + 1^2 + 1*1 + 1*1)
Obviously the right hand side can be expanded to (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)

As I said in this post: "Consider the example (1+1+1+...+1), is it agreed that the "..." represents an endless string of "1+1"s?"
We covered the examples of (1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1) and (1+1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1). I'm sure you don't need any more examples of adding an extra 1 each time to solve (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on?

So we ought to be able to jump all the way to (1+1+1+...+1)^2, I feel.
Each time we progress towards this from (1+1)^2, through (1+1+1)^2, through (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on, we get an answer that can be written as (1 + "some finite number of zeroes" + 1)^2 = (1 + "some other finite number of zeros" + 1)

I want to stress that in these finite examples, I acknowledge that "some finite number of zeroes" on the left hand side is not the same as "some other finite number of zeroes" on the right hand side.
Are we in agreement that I acknowledge this and there is still no funny business or "switching up" so far?

The problem is once you transcend these finite examples to the infinite, by the definition of infinity you can no longer bound "some finite number of zeroes" or "some other finite number of zeroes" - they are both endless. There is not an end to either, such that one's end can be longer or further than another.
Are we in agreement that this is where you think the funny business happens?

My argument is that if you stick strictly to the definition of infinity, (1+ "infinite zeroes +1)^2 = (1+ "infinite zeroes + 1)
That is to say, (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1) = (1+1+1+...+1)

As I understand it, you distinguish infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up from other infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up. Are you in agreement with this?
You represent the rationale by showing the relation that finite examples show as you tend towards infinity, which is correct.
You represent the rationale by showing the construction of the infinite examples and how they are constructed differently, which is also correct.

Do you agree that I acknowledge your rationale fairly and accurately?
Do you agree that I understand where our arguments diverge?
Do you agree that infinity, by definition has no bounds in order to say one is larger or goes further than another?

Do you agree that this on topic and relates to where you think I made a mistake here:

but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.

And that is where you screwed up this time.

After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.

When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.

If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.

It would save a whole lot of wall paper.

[obsrvr524]

do you agree with the correction that I pointed out?
This one:

but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.

And that is where you screwed up this time.

After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.

When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.

If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.

It would save a whole lot of wall paper.

And are you trying to say that you did properly sum the products?

[Silhouette]

And are you trying to say that you did properly sum the products?

Why is it so hard to read what I'm saying, instead of forcing it all into something that sounds like a loaded question, under the guise of "well it's just a simple yes or no question <rubs hands> "
Why does it feel like you're trying to trick me into warping what I've said into something you can dishonestly and dismissively construe as either dumb/malevolent/corrupt, when the reality is far from that?
Everything you need to know about what I've *actually* said is in my words. Excuse my suspicion of you, but it's firmly justified by how you've been treating me so far. You haven't presented yourself as trustworthy or honest one bit so far - can I trust that this has changed?

To be clear what I'm answering, I'm assuming that by "Sum the products", you mean in calculating (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), yes?

In full answer, in case you're trying to trick me:
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is FINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)^2
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)
In both cases I have properly performed the calculation and did not make the mistake you thought I made.

To also clarify just in case, for the sum of: (1+1+1+...+1) + (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE, I used one method of adding term by term to get (2+2+2+...+2), which can both be presented correctly as 2 * (1+1+1+...+1), and again, where "..." is INFINITE and since "2" can obviously be presented as "1+1", it can also be presented correctly as (1+1+1+...+1), again, where "..." is INFINITE. Hilbert's Hotel was set up nearly 100 years ago to visualise these exact kinds of paradoxes when dealing with infinity, I am not communicating anything new or controversial here.
This is in contradiction to where "..." is FINITE, in which case (1+1+1+...+1) + (1+1+1+...+1) = 2 * (1+1+1+...+1), always.

Assuming what you mean is contained in the above, which sums up everything I have been saying in relation to mathematically operating on "infA", at every step so far in this discussion, then I have properly "summed the products" every time so far in this discussion.

Now, are you going to disregard the correct distinctions that I've been making, in order to make out like I've said something obviously mistaken, even to me this whole time, which I've not actually done, and explained why several times?

Again, excuse me if you've taken a turn and are no longer trying to misrepresent me. It's perfectly understandable if you thought I said something that I didn't - there's always room for improvement in everyone's wording including my own, and I'm sorry if I've ever misled you - I've done my best to prevent this and rectify it where it appeared to me to be needed. At every step I've wanted to hear what others have to say about mistakes they think I've made and with 100% honesty I have always willed to accept them if they've validly been pointed out. Of course, if they've been incorrectly pointed out, I have done nothing but try to correct this with 100% honesty and with no intention to distract, or deny any truth at any point, even if anyone has believed this is not the case. Quid pro quo, to check if you've actually read any of this, let me ask you a question: have you read and understood everything I've said? This is a separate question to whether you agree with it, which you can answer too if you want, separately.

[obsrvr524]

And are you trying to say that you did properly sum the products?

Why is it so hard to read what I'm saying

Because 3 times now I have asked for the very simple conformation, "I disagree" but you insist on the obfuscating tactic of dodging and trying to rewrite the narrative. It only sounds like a "loaded question" because you are trying so hard to divert from it. Grow a couple.

To be clear what I'm answering, I'm assuming that by "Sum the products", you mean in calculating (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), yes?

Yes, I am referring to your 3rd grade arithmetic error that you refuse to correct.

In full answer, in case you're trying to trick me:
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is FINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)^2
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)

That wasn't your argument, but that is what you did in effect.

In both cases I have properly performed the calculation and did not make the mistake you thought I made.

And that is where you go off the track.

I showed you a pretty simple rule to follow. The question is, "why do you think that the rule has to change just because you no longer can see the end of the chain?"

So far, you have presented nothing at all, even in your added faux pas that justifies changing how to multiply merely because you don't think that the chain has an end.

To also clarify just in case, for the sum of: (1+1+1+...+1) + (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE, I used one method of adding term by term to get (2+2+2+...+2)

Which was just Sil-ly.

Hilbert's Hotel was set up nearly 100 years ago to visualise these exact kinds of paradoxes when dealing with infinity

Hilbert's Hotel is a joke for the simpleminded.

I explained your 3rd grade issue with this:

To multiply two serialized sums, you take the first number from the first set and multiply it times the entire second set. In James' case, that would have been:

1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[1]

Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:

1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[2]
infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA

Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:

1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[3]
infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] = 3 * infA

And you keep doing that, in this case infinitely, yielding:

infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] + .... = infA * infA = infA^2

Simple question

Simple Question

SIMPLE QUESTION:

What is the first line in that explanation, given long ago, that you see to be in error?

[promethean75]

"Hilbert's Hotel is a joke for the simpleminded."

Yeah well it's better than hotel california... because you can check out any time you like, and you can ALWAYS leave.

Buh dum tshhh

thank you, thank you. Really, you're too kind. Thank you.

[promethean75]

"that wasn't even funny, dude" - ilp

"omg. if you read Aristotle's poetics you'd recognize the peripety there. Duh. The comic tells a joke which isn't funny at all, and in making a histrionic display of appreciation for telling it, he doubles his idiocy and becomes the brunt of the joke himself, thus creating the sense of the comic." - prom75

[promethean75]

hey lemme squeeze this in during the interim...

I have always said you can’t speak of all numbers, because there’s no such thing as ‘all numbers’. - Wittgenstein

“The infinite number series is only the infinite possibility of finiteseries of numbers. It is senseless to speak of the whole infinite number series, as if it, too, were an extension”: in fact, the main problem with Transfinite Set Theory is that, through its use of abstract symbolic notation, it conflagrates intensions with extensions – thus reifying mathematical objects that simply do not exist. A ‘set’ is nothing more than an abstract symbol for a list (‘extension’) generated by a rule (‘intension’). In the case of a transfinite set, then, the ‘infinite’intension is simply a recursive rule for calculating certain kinds of results – one that does not have an ‘and then stop’ at the end. However, while the rule may not have a proper end, the extension cannot be considered infinite simply because the extension is precisely only what we have written down on the list, what we have calculated ; the law yields only the endless process, not the endless extension.

taken from this excellent article: https://www.academia.edu/1455334/WITTGE ... SET_THEORY

for all this technical talk, the moral of the story is really rather simple. wittgenstein is suggesting that we are bewitched 'metamathematically' when we take an otherwise perfectly sensible language of rule governed abstract symbols - in this case numbers - to use for quantifiying our experiences of things, processes, events, durations, etc., ... all of which are finite and limited experiences - and naturally mistake the intensional use of the language as a proper representation (or i should say evidence for) of an actual, extensional instance of an 'endless' experience (e.g., counting infinitely). we extend the rule beyond our experience of what the rule can yield as extension in normal experience, and imagine that to simply continue to follow the rule would necessarily result in an extension of the infinite. but he points out that endlessness can't be done, and is therefore a senseless notion despite it being perfectly logical that the rule (intension) should produce an infinity if it is simply followed through endlessly. it's that concept of 'endlessly' that gets us all befuddled. we are writing a list... and we stop. we've created a set. but why should't we be able to list without ever stopping? it's here that the intensional and the extensional intersect and create the confusion. the extension of the list is completed whenever the listing stops. it reaches an extensional terminus, so to speak, while its still possible to continue with the rule indefinitely. therein lies the bewitchment.

For example, the ‘set of all even numbers’ is constructed by the recursive rule ‘add 2’
ad nauseam. Its proper extension is an enumeration: a list such as {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ...}. This ‘set of all even numbers’ is not an actually infinite extension; we could symbolize this set as ‘&’ but this would still not also constitute an actual infinite set – although we might delude ourselves into thinking it was if it was presented to us as a true premise in an argument that otherwise works. Seen through this example, it is easy to see how describing ‘types’ of ‘infinity’ with abstract symbolic notation deludes us into thinking that we have arrived at an actual infinite extension when in reality there are “only finite mathematical extensions”. The law is the potentially infinite series, but that doesn’t mean that there is an actually infinite series; nothing in the actual extension/list/enumeration has so far been ‘revealed’ to be actually infinite – all we have is a recursive intension/rule/law.

so think about that quote above, again. he says 'no such thing as all numbers'. you will never complete a finished set of all numbers... but what you can experience directly is applying the rule. following the rule in a direction toward infinity is only ever an 'approach', as sil put it. if one insists that an 'actual' infinity can exist, well this is some kind of quasi-platonic realism so far divorced from empiricism that it's... well it's just fucked up, man. wtf.

[obsrvr524]

I disagree that it is merely language and "abstract notation" that brings the conclusion that there are things (although not objects per se) that have infinite qualities, such as distance. To suggest that what is true is ONLY what we have experienced directly is to say that we have NO capacity for conscious awareness beyond our eyes and ears, that we are but forest animals.

It appears that Wittgenstein is denying that at least some people can reason. And I must point out that he, himself, is using that very same reasoning in defense of the notion that it shouldn't be used as reliable evidence.

I am really getting the impression that the guy wasn't all that bright. And I will say again that it is politics that dictates reputation, not performance. Perhaps the politics of that era had incentive to promote the lack of effort to believe in reasoning and science. In fact, I have little doubt of that.

What religion was Wittgenstein? I could look it up, but the question is mostly rhetorical. I think about such things before taking anyone's reputation and their preaching very seriously.

[promethean75]

he was a rastafarian. why? you don't think rastafarians do honest philosophy? omg that's so ad hominem.

[obsrvr524]

he was a rastafarian. why? you don't think rastafarians do honest philosophy? omg that's so ad hominem.

When you hear something that seems to not make sense and you have to rely on thier reputation, you must then examine their politics and religion.

I don't think that philosophy should be a product of ad hom. But reputation IS ad hom. If you say that because he has such a strong reputation he should be believed (which you have done) then you have already invoked an ad hom argument, merely in his favor rather than against him.

His reasoning or logic should stand alone. But it doesn't appear to do so. He seems (by your own account) to be proposing the axiom that unless we directly experience something, it doesn't exist. And that presumes complete inability to logically project. Science is a demonstration that logically projecting works extremely well when carefully checked for errors.

As it stands, what is said about him testifies that his words are contrary to the evidence that we have directly experienced (technology). His argument is defeated by his own proposition.

[promethean75]

I don't think that philosophy should be a product of ad hom. But reputation IS ad hom. If you say that because he has such a strong reputation he should be believed (which you have done) then you have already invoked an ad hom argument, merely in his favor rather than against him.

very nice, 524, and indeed true. the ad hom works both ways, and i do brag on W quite often, but i'd never encourage anyone to take his word just because he's like grease lightening. i'd expect people to also notice and give some consideration to the peer review his ideas have received by other major philosophers, typically in the analytical tradition. but therein lies the rub; if you aren't big on the analytical tradition and its history, you'd probably not find the significance of his thought.

[obsrvr524]

if you aren't big on the analytical tradition and its history

That isn't the problem.

[MagsJ]

Shame you'll be off when your parsing program ends, obsrvr524.. what are your plans for the research data? and what are you hoping to realise from it?

Thank you for your cordialness.

Every man needs a hobby. I have a family so I don't get much hobby time. Actually, I have 3 families; mine, my wife's, and my wife's former sister-in-law's (long sorted story). Between the kids, parents, grand parents, and politics there isn't much room to stabilize a consistent hobby, so I just choose random projects and see how far I can go with it. I was in the midst of choosing another project when I was reminded of "affectance" and the infamous James S Saint. So I looked to see if I could find him and do a personality research dossier. And here I am swimming through reams of thoughts and exploring the depths and breaths. Everyone should do that to another person sometime (if they learn to be responsible about it). An older relative would probably be best. It's better than collecting stamps or watching the political news.

That's some hobby you got there.
I do think your analysis of JSS is correct.. his arrogance on his own ideas hindered him from listening to others.. because he was right. Were his theories ever peer reviewed or proven?

Politics? I dabble too, but on the fence between volunteer and career.

I don't really know what I will do with the data. I enjoyed professionally collecting and correlating such, but it's different now. So I'm not sure how far I'll take it, nor where or when it will end. It wouldn't be the first time I just tucked a completed project away in a bin, long to ever be seen again.

Well.. why not.

and what are you hoping to realise from it?

i got this, 524.

he hopes to realize an infinitely affectant ontology of SAMs.

did i nail it or did i nail it, 524?

Even if I knew what that meant, I'm pretty sure that I'm not there yet.

Lol.. but it is funny.

[Silhouette]

At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is FINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)^2
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)

I showed you a pretty simple rule to follow. The question is, "why do you think that the rule has to change just because you no longer can see the end of the chain?"

Ah some content, I knew I could find some somewhere in amongst the accusations - got faith in ya, buddy!

Who said the rule changed? The rule is the same, but the result it would get to, if it could, is not. One endless string of "1+1"s is not endless more than another endless string of "1+1"s. They're both endless...

I get your simple mistake, instead of concluding that infinities result in paradoxes, you represent infinities paradoxically. Endlessness going on further than endlessness? - nice try, but no.

[obsrvr524]

We already had plenty of content:

Because 3 times now [make it 4 times now] I have asked for the very simple conformation, "I disagree" but you insist on the obfuscating tactic of dodging and trying to rewrite the narrative.



I explained your 3rd grade issue with this:

To multiply two serialized sums, you take the first number from the first set and multiply it times the entire second set. In James' case, that would have been:

1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[1]

Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:

1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[2]
infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA

Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:

1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[3]
infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] = 3 * infA

And you keep doing that, in this case infinitely, yielding:

infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] + .... = infA * infA = infA^2

Simple question

Simple Question

SIMPLE QUESTION:

What is the first line in that explanation, given long ago, that you see to be in error?

Did you think we forgot?