tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post9123784166969836218..comments2021-05-10T13:39:06.495-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Is Infinity Real?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24235023804578371262021-01-02T15:26:30.338-05:002021-01-02T15:26:30.338-05:00Terry Bollinger,
I would welcome your review of c...Terry Bollinger,<br /><br />I would welcome your review of comments on the nature of information. You note that:<br /> <br />“Entropy increases. Since entropy is information, my own physics-flavored interpretation of Gisin on that point is that he’s talking about entropy in an interestingly abstract way. I would say it this way: The universe keeps getting more classical, that is, the range of Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7440973171359979822020-12-29T08:48:23.695-05:002020-12-29T08:48:23.695-05:00Rotation is acceleration; it's always absolute...Rotation is acceleration; it's always absolute.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-41300487684776665322020-12-29T08:28:24.714-05:002020-12-29T08:28:24.714-05:00Thanks for the video. A bit off-topic but I have a...Thanks for the video. A bit off-topic but I have a suggestion for a video - could you do a video about Mach's principle? Is there such a thing as absolute rotation? Thanks!johnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034164289196863355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26049899381605663402020-12-20T08:32:54.307-05:002020-12-20T08:32:54.307-05:00"Infinite nothingness" is an oxymoron. I..."Infinite nothingness" is an oxymoron. If nothingness is infinite, then it is something, not nothing. Surely only something can be infinite.on_nothinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06581026159615281903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74252030996884129742020-12-17T04:34:03.575-05:002020-12-17T04:34:03.575-05:00
um,
no. <br /> um,<br /><br /> no.A.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04994876510058676257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77391948562227547552020-12-15T12:04:14.772-05:002020-12-15T12:04:14.772-05:00Terry Bollinger,
Thanks again for your comments. W...Terry Bollinger,<br />Thanks again for your comments. We are discussing issues tangential to the notion of physical infinities and how they affect what actually happens next (my primary interest here). At some point I would like to consider two propositions that relate:<br /><br /> • Any time metric is most usefully seen as a formal axiomatic system and hence Gödel limited.<br /><br />• The Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9847280496072750192020-12-14T21:01:51.632-05:002020-12-14T21:01:51.632-05:00You may, or may not understand this.
but,. at th... You may, or may not understand this.<br /><br /> but,. at this moment.<br /> I'm crushing your head.<br /><br /> -- Kids in the Hall rule.<br /> <br /> A.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04994876510058676257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18569236172603343122020-12-14T08:20:06.831-05:002020-12-14T08:20:06.831-05:00Terry Bollinger,
Thanks very much for your comment...Terry Bollinger,<br />Thanks very much for your comments and taking time to put mine in perspective. I admit to having only a Braille-like appreciation of some of the physics and certainly the mathematics. This topic has diverged into many different discussions with general focus on the intersection of math and physics. I am forming a reply, but, given the breadth of comments and my limited Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59514250568254350302020-12-14T05:06:31.698-05:002020-12-14T05:06:31.698-05:00Christopher8:48 PM, December 13, 2020
"there...Christopher8:48 PM, December 13, 2020<br /><br />"there is nothing special about the infinity of number of curves in space? "<br />Apparently the cardinality of the set of curves in R^n is the same as that of R. See the answer here:<br /><br />https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2550313/is-aleph-3-the-cardinality-of-all-the-surfaces-that-existsSteven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36548057103096423202020-12-13T20:48:15.554-05:002020-12-13T20:48:15.554-05:00So, to pursue the point, there is nothing special ...So, to pursue the point, there is nothing special about the infinity of number of curves in space? I believe there was supposed to be a proof, analogous to the "diagonal proof" but different, that this infinity is of a larger sort than the infinity of real numbers. Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17755575167245729981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-40395166372890222632020-12-13T12:23:21.440-05:002020-12-13T12:23:21.440-05:00Take a look at this paper, its worth studying. I a...Take a look at this paper, its worth studying. I am a Fuzzy Logic guy and can live with uncertainty until two valued T or F becomes clear. "Indeterminacy and ‘The’ Universe of Sets: Multiversism, Potentialism, and Pluralism" Neil Barton∗ 8 April 2020† https://philarchive.org/archive/BARIAT-15 Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07920629447028511950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86794758610063826452020-12-13T10:45:48.931-05:002020-12-13T10:45:48.931-05:00Marc E5:47 AM, December 13, 2020
OK, you are not ...Marc E5:47 AM, December 13, 2020<br /><br />OK, you are not completely wrong. If space-time doesn't have a limit, it doesn't necessarily make it infinite. <br />On the question of whether nature could contain infinities, I'm inclined to accept Dr. H.'s statement that this is unscientific.<br /><br />Is the universe infinite? This question is unscientific because we can only accessSteven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49834323953827255662020-12-13T07:52:04.330-05:002020-12-13T07:52:04.330-05:00Marc E5:47 AM, December 13, 2020
I'm happy to...Marc E5:47 AM, December 13, 2020<br /><br />I'm happy to admit so if you can provide evidence. <br /><br />So can you provide evidence that the universe (not the observable universe) is finite?<br /><br />Methinks not.<br />Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39498864427762899392020-12-13T05:47:25.990-05:002020-12-13T05:47:25.990-05:00Complete nonsense (with humble apologies)Complete nonsense (with humble apologies)Marc Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05792727428386596679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39317592199560121082020-12-13T04:13:21.693-05:002020-12-13T04:13:21.693-05:00I see. So rather than turn your supercomputer &quo...I see. So rather than turn your supercomputer "up to 300" and announce physical results to the press based on a video game, you actually intend to try to confirm this consequence of your conjecture by experiment?<br /><br />This is a novel approach. <br /><br />Maybe you should mention this novel scientific method to Crazy Luke and he can pass it on to the other inhabitants of La-la Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18716939869553425702020-12-13T01:10:54.787-05:002020-12-13T01:10:54.787-05:00JimV8:53 PM, December 12, 2020
Thanks for the rep...JimV8:53 PM, December 12, 2020<br /><br />Thanks for the reply. I see - so you're saying such a discrete theory is at least consistent with observation.<br /><br />Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81003513397119273222020-12-12T20:53:34.227-05:002020-12-12T20:53:34.227-05:00Belated reply to Steven Evans' "Why more ...Belated reply to Steven Evans' "Why more likely? Empirically it's simply not known. Don't Planck limits come into play and it all becomes physically meaningless?"<br /><br />"Physically meaningless" seems like an exact description of what happens in the interval between two points in a discrete system. Anyway, I say "simpler and and (hence) more likely" JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65592687208434666512020-12-12T18:27:59.370-05:002020-12-12T18:27:59.370-05:00Yes, of course. I'm just a bit critical of the...Yes, of course. I'm just a bit critical of the video in the sense that it seems to transition from talking about cardinalities, to talking about infinity algebra (measure theory) to talking about limits of sequences or functions. I think the distinction between these different infinities is important, but they all seem to have been merged. A.J.Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395625464971339177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-22826281981420880872020-12-12T15:48:38.762-05:002020-12-12T15:48:38.762-05:00I enjoy your talks! These articles have helped my...I enjoy your talks! These articles have helped my understanding of infinities. <br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.04812.pdf<br />https://philarchive.org/archive/BARIAT-15<br />http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Laws.pdf<br />Also a study of surreal numbers<br /><br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07920629447028511950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49768803917752627732020-12-12T11:04:20.337-05:002020-12-12T11:04:20.337-05:00The PDF that I downloaded (twice) from the link th...The PDF that I downloaded (twice) from the link that you provided says "February 1, 2008". Not that it makes any difference.Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2440883250430722762020-12-12T09:12:27.281-05:002020-12-12T09:12:27.281-05:00"But I'd add that the mathematical world ..."But I'd add that the mathematical world is real"<br /><br />I see what you mean and agree, with the caveat that reality varies in proportion to metabolism, its energetic throughput.<br /><br />As to truth, its meaning and present-day pathologies, it is disconcerting to find among its definitions:<br /><br />“ a fact or belief that is accepted as true: the emergence of scientific Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19436751955764659652020-12-12T08:27:48.473-05:002020-12-12T08:27:48.473-05:00The paper is from 2001. Seems your reading of its ...The paper is from 2001. Seems your reading of its content wasn't any more attentive. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37503396507116325482020-12-12T07:13:34.511-05:002020-12-12T07:13:34.511-05:00Keith,
You did write that you didn't know what...Keith,<br />You did write that you didn't know what "finite" meant, so I pointed you in the direction of the relevant resource. I also told you several times that topologically the universe could be a closed surface and therefore be finite and not have a boundary. I even gave you a link to the relevant Wikipedia articles.<br /><br />Have a nice day.Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58133298559489461222020-12-12T03:55:18.269-05:002020-12-12T03:55:18.269-05:00> "The relevant paper is [Hardy 2008].&quo...> "The relevant paper is [Hardy 2008]."<br /><br />Possibly an interesting read for historians of science. It feels a bit like an eighteenth century scientist expounding the axioms of phlogiston theory. Impressive and exquisitely useless. (2008!)Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20778183811642015892020-12-12T02:11:54.027-05:002020-12-12T02:11:54.027-05:00"But I'd add that the mathematical world ..."But I'd add that the mathematical world is real"<br /><br />If "1" is physically real, show me it. Maths is not known to be physically real.Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.com