Cat and Girl

[Denny Crane!]

I was thinking of Quez when I spotted this.

Thought you might like this if you hadn't already spotted it.

[kesa82]

I wish I could fit the second one in my sig.

[Amorphos]

Haha nice.

Why should the girl learn calculus when it is so obviously false, objective infinite anybody?

Yeah that’s pretty much how I see higher education, its seemingly impossible to change simple incorrect teachings ~ there’s no way in but to via its own system, in which case you have to teach what you are told too.

here's some of my thoughts denoting why our notions of infinity are wrong...

Object of the infinite.

A few days ago I was watching a show called infinity and beyond [horizon I think], and I couldn’t help myself thinking that every description they gave was wrong, so here I want to show as to why this is the case.

Firstly the reason why infinite sets are used in math is because they are used like a bag of numbers - so to say, or as one object. Where finite integers present us with absolutes, which are metaphoric, infinite sets act as mathematical elastic or as a variable of unspecified amount. You can take all natural integers 1,2,3,4,5,…. And make one set, then take all the odd numbers or all the even numbers and also make infinite sets out of them. These are but a few kinds of sets we can make, and the idea is that numbers can keep going until they reach infinity ~ but they cannot, they can keep going for ever but wont ever reach infinity.

Let’s take so descriptions;

‘Given an infinite amount of time, a monkey and a typewriter would eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare by pure random chance’.

On the show there was a guy with a computer program which eventually wrote two words from Shakespeare, then the guy jumped to the conclusion that given infinite time, the monkey also acting in a purely random manner, would indeed write the complete works.

I agree with the basic notion, however you don’t need an infinite amount of time, you only need an incredibly vast amount of time to write it! Hence the immediate idea to jump to infinite conclusions is not always or perhaps ever necessary.

Axiom; ‘Infinite difference is impossible‘.

When we talk of large amounts of objects reaching up to infinity, there are a few questions to be asked on the plausibility of such. For example; infinity covers every kind of object and subject, so if we wanted to formulate an infinite universe, it would necessarily include ’all’. We may divide this group into…

a, all things regardless of weather or not they are possible by our definitions or at all.
b, all things possible by their own logic or by any plausible means.

Problems and limitations:

Cat and mouse universes.

We can take the idea that one universe has properties that are an inverse of or in some other way entropic to a given other universe, and note that by this means alone some variants of universes would be destructive to other universes ~ like a cat would devour a mouse. We may take this further and beyond energy properties and say that you can have differences in natures of universes, by which one would deny another. For example; a universe of infinite dimensions filled with anything, would deny the existence of any given other that was not in some way compatible with the stuff of said universe. Equally there could be a finite universe of such vast proportions that its mass would attract and destroy any other lesser universe. You could have some manner of separation between universes, yet the value of that separation would have to be greater than the values between given universes in separation.

Axiom; ‘The sheer scope of infinitely differing objects would deny each others existence‘. I won’t try to explain that one it’s just true ok.

Of course we could go into more ridiculous properties [given infinite objects/subjects], like e.g. a law spoken by hairy hippopotamus god [yes an actual god [one an infinite amount of objects]] that say no universes can exist, would mean that none can. Or a giant pink candyfloss octopus universe that devours universes at an infinite rate thereby eating every universe in existence in less than an instance. Or a time travelling atom eater from the planet zorg that turns all atoms into cubical poo, thereby changing their properties by which they are held together, and thus eventually turning everything into no-thing. Or, the deterministic monster of auberzhine that gives all objects self determination and thus destroys the very fabric of relationships in existences [everything ceases to collaborate].

In conclusion by rational or irrational means, we can I think determine that you cannot have ‘infinite + difference‘. in this we can say that at least there cannot be an infinite universe of impossible and irrational things.

This leaves us now with only two other kinds of infinities; an infinite universe of possible things, or an infinite universe that is a single ‘object’! for me the answer is definitely the latter, and in fact when people speak of infinite sets using them as single objects [as bags of numbers or objects in a collection], I believe in all instances they are actually speaking about the same thing. Its hard to explain how this can be so, but if we can remove infinite possible universes then we are left with that as the only possible nature of infinity left.

an infinite universe of possible things is impossible:

Let us take the idea of infinite sets in objective terms, an infinite subjective is of course plausible due to its lack of objective substance.

Scenario1; an infinity of objects; it is said that you could via infinite sets have an infinite amount of objects, for example you could have an infinite amount of earths, or of mars like planets, or green, blue, red planets etc. then you could have an infinite amount of such planets each with some manner of difference e.g. there could be a copy of you on another earth in a replica universe, but that you isn’t reading this, or turns his head left instead of right.

Lets take the example of an infinite amount of earths, they would all have to have similar physical properties as relevant to their universe, such as gravity mass etc. any limit means that you cannot continue the given trend with infinite duration. So you cant have slightly bigger or smaller earths ad infinitum as they simply would work, like if you had an earth that was to large to rotate its sun or would exceed critical mass and become a black hole etc. we have already denied infinite duration of object replication [given some aspect of difference], according to some of its natures.

Now let us visualise infinite amounts of you’s on an infinite amount of almost perfectly replicated planet earths. If say on this earth you go into a shop and buy a mars bar, then on another you choose to buy a flake bar, there is a limited amount of possible actions you can take in this instance. You are limited to what you can buy from the shop regardless of how many shops or you’s there are. Equally if you act in the slightest of different mannerisms in each instance, then although there is an incredible vast amount of difference, there is still a limited amount. If we then go on to consider every ‘possible’ instance of difference, then again even though the number is truly vast it remains limited.

We must then consider that there could be infinite amount of different things like planets and people, or of simply different kinds of objects. The fact remains that there is a limit to the different amount of shapes you can have, and of interactions between such objects.

Conclusion, there are not an infinite amount of possible objects.

Scenario 2; an infinite possible object. Imagine a nice hard lump of iron, now imagine that there is no limit to its dimension. The object stretches an infinite amount in all dimensions [including time]. Firstly there would be no time as there would be no movement nor action of any kind, there would then be no time to arrive at its construction. The infinite object would have to have always existed with no means to its existence. Perhaps we could still say that is possible if we didn’t make the object from iron, but of empty space [anything else bar absolute emptiness would propose the same problems as the iron], firstly though we can easily conclude that there is not either an infinite emptiness [with nothing in it] nor any other infinite object, simply because there is already something else other than that I.e. the universe. As we are looking for a possible object then this alone denies its existence.

Scenario 3 An infinite amount of compartments and contents [hilbert's hotel].

Why is that we presume an openness to this notion. if we had a finite hotel with say ten rooms and they were all full, then by simply moving each person to the next room we would not create a space, the last person would simply move into the first persons room. If we have an infinite amount of compartments, how do we define their cardinality ~ what is it that differs from one compartment to the next. The same problem is appropriate for the contents too.

As concerns the basis of this; can we have an infinite amount of repetition needed for an infinite amount of compartments and contents without difference between each object of. In short can we have infinite cloned objects [or compartments etc]? lets take one compartment, it can have any dimensional size, but must have some dimensional size. This is a finite thing no matter what its dimensions and shape, axiom; you cannot have an infinite amount of finite. Juast as you cannot keep adding numbers together to arrive at the infinite, you cannot keep adding finite objects or spaces together and arrive at an infinite amount of them.