are shapes finite?
- Thread starter stat
- Start date
fudgefactorfive
New Member
laptop said:If it can be proved that there's no Mona Lisa in there, I suspect the proof has something to do with this self-similarity, Or to put it another way the sheer bloody repetitiveness of that bloody hippy graphic
This was kind of my point. The law that governs why the fractal looks like it does - z -> (z^2)+c - is the same law that ultimately gives rise to that self-similarity and thereby denies the possibility of there being a Mona Lisa (or, metaphorically, more than one Ben Nevis). Presumably our own universe has "laws" which govern its behaviour: even if our universe was infinite in size (which it probably isn't, apparently) those laws might well imply that nothing is repeated precisely. Let's face it, our universe looks fairly repetitive at very large scales as well.
Let's face it, one mountain does look mostly like another - it's just a question of scale and detail as to whether you'd be willing to stretch to them being "the same" or not.
acidifiedaussie
Active Member
you guys would go nuts over my measurement- marginalisation theory ( but thats what it is a theory soon it will be a system
) There are an infinite amount of shapes i thought i proved that already as did in bloom. take scales into hand.
) There are an infinite amount of shapes i thought i proved that already as did in bloom. take scales into hand.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
If there are an infinite number of possible arrangements of X, then you can leave a few of them out (even an infinite number) and yet still have an infinite number of arrangements of X remaining.
Just because a collection is infinite, does not mean it contains every possibility.
Just because a collection is infinite, does not mean it contains every possibility.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
angry bob said:So what you are saying (perhaps) is that there are infinitely small probabilities?
i.e. given infinite numbers, the probability of one chosen at random being 7 is infinitely small?
So the number of 7s are infinity/infinity = 1
I realise that infinity/infinity is meaningless ... you'll have to throw in the appropriate limits
yes, i suspect that explains what i meant somewhat better. i'm trying to get my head around concepts like this without appropriate training in maths and science but with a keen intellect and a decently sharpened occam's razor.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Jonti said:
QM - quantum mechanics?
i'm using infinite in that way. approximately, and open to re-education of course. hence my waffling about dimensions earlier.
and surely if something if infinite then it contains the POSSIBILITY of everything, as the odds of it occuring, while infinitely small, are still there.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Except that, say, a 10,million light year long line of electrons all perfectly aligned, could not exist anyway, due to the interactions between the individual electrons. This is what Jonti was getting at above - even if the universe is infinite, it can't contain everything, because some things can't exist in the first place. Just like the mona lisa can't be found in mandelbrot.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
bluestreak said:
no, no, no
and still no You have a box with "everything" in it - an infinite amount of things. Take out all the Mona Lisas (the infinite number of Mona Lisas). You still have an infinite number of things. Because infinity minus anything equals infinity. Even infinity minus infinity.
Tough to wrap your head round but true.
PS. "infinitely small" is zero. Just like 0.9 recurring to infinity is effectively 1.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
crispy's point - ok, i see what you're saying, we can only work within the contraints of known physics.
fff - effectively zero, yes, but still a tiny chance? a possibility, if you will.
fff - effectively zero, yes, but still a tiny chance? a possibility, if you will.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
bluestreak said:
No, literally impossible.
Another example. The set of even positive integers (2, 4, 6 ...) is infinitely large. The chance of randomly picking an odd number out of that set is zero. Even though the set is infinite, the laws that govern its content forbid it from happening.
Infinity doesn't equal "everything". It means "endlessness".
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
i see where you come from on this one, i just find myself not convinced. it doesn't make sense within a universe that is effectively infiinite in all known dimensions and plenty that we haven't even begun to know, that the difference between the possibility of existence and non existence of a shape can be stated so positively. it seems bizarre that a number we can call effectively zero and zero are the same thing. you might as well say that one and two are more or less the same.
and if something is endless in terms of physical dimension, then surely endless is also equal to everything?
and if something is endless in terms of physical dimension, then surely endless is also equal to everything?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
angry bob said:
well, quite. it's where the leap between possible and impossible occurs that i'm hazy on.
or perhaps possible and improbable.
i mean, do we as a species between us know everything there is to know about physics completely and totally? honest question, btw.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
We just don't know. As I said before, the universe is larger than the distance light can travel in the time since it was born. Therefore we will never be able to see the "edge" - However, there are solutions to the maths that let us live in a spacially closed, boundaryless universe. Physicists tend to assume that this is the case because of the headaches that infinities give them, but when pressed will admit that they just don't know for sure.angry bob said:
Kameron
Kamoceratops
Innit; I regard it as a conceit, implicit to humans that we are convinced, and capable of convincing ourselves, that we are right. It is of course perfectly obvious that I am right here and any one who disagrees with me is just an example of this conceit. Do you see where I'm going with this?angry bob said:
Shall I start a religion now?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
i simply can't conceive of anything but an infinite universe. i can conceive of looped dimensions that can't be moved in by those of us constrained to this particular set, and i can conceive a universe where no matter what dimension you move in you eventually end up back at the start, but bugger me i can't conceive of a finite universe without asking, "so what's on the other side then".
Crispy said:
hmmm ... but there is no edge ... according to GR anyway.
I'm sure that nobody knows for sure but given that the premise for GR is so simple and that the consequences are experimentally verifiable, it's well accepted.
And doesnt GR point to a finite size?
bluestreak said:
Cause your 3-dimensional I suppose?
If you were 2-dimensional you wouldnt be able to understand the concept of a sphere ... and you'd find life on the surface of one very confusing.
... you'd ask all the same questions ... is the surface infinite, if not where is the edge, etc. etc.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Gr?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
angry bob said:
good point. never thought of it like that.
Kameron
Kamoceratops
If is of course with reference to such an example that I first came to terms with the possibility or direction orthogonal to our classic three dimensions. Adding time we move from the purely Euclidean to Minkowski and after you have got the hang of that I don't see how adding more is very difficult. After all the reason we end up adding dimensions isn't to make things harder by to make them simpler. We see effects which cannot be explained in the four dimensions that are very obvious and measurable to everyone. Subjects such as geometric topology end up in such a mess that they generally are only conceivable with 5+ dimensions.angry bob said:
fudgefactorfive
New Member
angry bob said:
It is zero. Any finite number divided by infinity equals zero. There is no such thing as "infinitely small". Such a thing would be represented by 0.0 followed by an infinite number of 0s followed by a 1. But you can't put a 1 on the end of an infinite list because infinite lists don't have any end to put it on.
If two numbers aren't equal, there must be some other number in between them. But there can't be any number between zero and "infinitely small", or that number would itself be "infinitely small".
fudgefactorfive
New Member
laptop said:So you're arguing that the infinity of the Universe is one of these constrained infinities (a term I just made up).
It may be so. But it'd be big news to most cosmologists
I'm not arguing any such thing - just trying to ram the point home that an infinite set doesn't automatically imply that it contains all possible things.
Similar threads
