There are probably lj communities out there that would be very interested in this, though I don't know what they are.
Which is not at all to imply its not appropriate here -- its just if you want an answer its probably not coming from otimus; and I think other communities would benefit greatly from you sharing it there in addition to here, and I think it would be a shame not to share it with them.
Re: Interestinginsolent_poolJune 6 2006, 05:42:48 UTC
The communities I have found are inclusive: ie one must pass some little test to prove comprehension on the matters discussed.. which inherantly discude me. Hence, me posting in my journal.. at least, I think.. did this post to the 30in30 community? *wince*
Re: Interestinginsolent_poolJune 6 2006, 05:44:59 UTC
The major problem is if this line of reasoning is accurate, the only way (I see) to prove the existence of infinity is to propose another dimension describing volume and/or placement, which would either have to be infinity itself, or which would require the use of another dimension.. so on and so forth. Which would seem to disprove the existence of finity? Or at the very least, disprove existing theories which rely on a finite amount of dimensions..
Thinking further on this, I have come up with a possible solution:
1) All measurements impose constraints, since the very act of measurement requires either a spatial or numerical origin. 2) Infinity cannot exist in a measured (or measurable) state, since measurement implies a point of origin and thus by definition, infinity is not boundless. 3) If a dimension is a measurement or qualification of a portion needed to describe reality, and infinity cannot exist without measurement, infinity does not exist.
Feel free to disprove this or my methods.. I would be quite please if you did.
If all boundaries on the outside are constrained, the only possible boundary left would be on the *INSIDE*. So, the question "Can one determine the center of an object" comes into question.
Comments 10
Which is not at all to imply its not appropriate here -- its just if you want an answer its probably not coming from otimus; and I think other communities would benefit greatly from you sharing it there in addition to here, and I think it would be a shame not to share it with them.
Reply
Hence, me posting in my journal.. at least, I think.. did this post to the 30in30 community? *wince*
Reply
Which would seem to disprove the existence of finity? Or at the very least, disprove existing theories which rely on a finite amount of dimensions..
Reply
Reply
1) All measurements impose constraints, since the very act of measurement requires either a spatial or numerical origin.
2) Infinity cannot exist in a measured (or measurable) state, since measurement implies a point of origin and thus by definition, infinity is not boundless.
3) If a dimension is a measurement or qualification of a portion needed to describe reality, and infinity cannot exist without measurement, infinity does not exist.
Feel free to disprove this or my methods.. I would be quite please if you did.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment