0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quote from: andreasva on 06/01/2019 19:59:05The universe could care less about 2,The universe doesn't care about anything (and, btw, the phrase is "couldn't care less"- think about it).However, in this universe, we have, for example, planets in reasonably stable orbits.That doesn't work unless the force of gravity falls with distance in inverse proportion to that distance raised to the power 2.No other number works.So, the universe is somewhere where 2 is really important.Facts like that get in the way of your absurd idea that only 1 matters.

The universe could care less about 2,

(0;1) is an infinite set

This is what the universe actually represents numerically,

Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set. There's only one infinity,

0 and Ι1Ι are the only natural finite values available

There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities. And I've always found that notion nonsense my entire life.

Infinity = constancy of changefinite = absence of change

That's still obviously wrong because a lava lamp is finite.

A set with two elements is very clearly finite.

That is exactly what Cantor showed to be false.

I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2

Just because you are not equipped to understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Why do you keep posting the same stuff even though it has been shown to be wrong?

Are you some sort of troll

Cantor didn't prove anything about the universe...There is only 1 infinity, and we're in it.

Nothing you've said indicates anything of the sort.

It is only your opinion.

You can't troll your own thread,

Cantor proved that there's more than 1 infinity- and one is bigger than another.

No, it's an opinion shared by others- which makes it one up on your opinion.

Even more ridiculous. Now we have various sized finite infinities?

thought infinity was "a number" greater than any countable number, and it was boundless?

None of the infinities is a countable number (That's pretty obvious really).So there's no problem with having two or more different ones.

As I have said, it's not my fault that you do not understand that there are different sized infinite sets.

(and please don't embarrass yourself by saying "it's just a theory").

. In fact, the question of whether or not the universe is infinite or finite is an open topic of debate.

We created a base 10 numbering system, which is clearly derived from the digits on our hands. Could have easily been a base 5, or base 20, if we had chosen to do so.

I would never call it a theory.

Cantor only proved a base 10 redundant numbering system contains redundant infinities, as would any numbering system.

Both of those values are finite, and what lies between them is infinite.

He is right, there is an infinite number of infinities in our numbering system.

Not since Olber.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/01/2019 09:55:20I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/01/2019 14:13:16 we don't use base 10 for most of our maths.

we don't use base 10 for most of our maths.

Then you would never be right.

No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong.

It assumes a static state of infinity.

I have a different opinion, and see it as correct.

No, it says that the universe is not infinite in time- it had a beginning.

The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.

And that's wrong. There is no beginning,

I'll say it once again.This0<∞<Ι1Ιis logically equivalent to this(0;1)

It started 13.799±0.021 billion years ago.There really was a beginning.

It doesn't matter if you say it once or a thousand times.It's still just as wrong as you were about Olber, Cantor, and the age of the universe.

As I explained, it means something to us.

And this is a matter of opinion.

I don't agree with Olbers' Paradox. It assumes a static state of infinity.

Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set. There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities.

There is no beginning,

You explained little or nothing.What "means something to us"?

I said it was fairly simple to understand that we are infinite

but there is- about 14 billion years ago.

I may be a bit fatter than I was before Christmas, but I'm still finite.