new visitor with a logic question

baileyr250 writes:

quote:

---

anyway, just looking for some input to help me understand why this is wrong.

---

It's because he doesn't understand infinity.His basic error is, essentially, "one cannot count to infinity."Well, actually, you can.Here's a thought experiment from my second-year calculus class as we got into infinite sequences and series and fundamental concepts of mathematics.For this thought experiment, you will need to assume a few things:1) Superman and Captain Marvel both exist and can move any positive amount of distance in any positive amount of time.
2) An infinite number of coconuts are in a pile, each numbered, starting with #1 and going on.
3) A pit exists next to the pile capable of holding all the coconuts.OK, here we go.Superman and Captain Marvel are having lunch one day when they decide to play a game with this infinite pile of coconuts. Superman throws coconuts #1 and #2 into the pit and at precisely 12:00 noon Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #1, and tosses it out.They then sit around for half an hour, talking about the various ways they've saved the world, eating their lunch, etc. Superman throws in coconuts #3 and #4 and at precisely 12:30 pm, Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #2, and tosses it out.This time, they sit around for fifteen minutes and in go #5 and #6 and precisely at 12:45 pm, out comes #3.They repeat this process, always halving the amount of time they wait around.Question: When 1:00 pm comes around, and 1:00 pm always comes around, how many coconuts are in the pit?Answer: None. For every coconut you wish to name, I can give you a precise time when it got thrown out of the pit. The first one came out at noon. Then #2 came out at 12:30 pm. #3 was at 12:45. #4 was at 12:52:30. And so on and so forth.There...you just counted to infinity and it only took you an hour.For an interesting twist, they play the game again the next day but reverse roles and change the rules:Captain Marvel throws in #1 and #2 and at precisely 12:00 noon, Superman flies in, grabs #1, and tosses it out. After half an hour, CM throws in #3 and #4 and Supes grabs #3 and tosses it out. After fifteen minutes, #5 and #6 go in and #5 comes out.Question: When 1:00 pm comes around, and 1:00 pm always comes around, how many coconuts are in the pit?Answer: An infinite number. All the even-numbered ones, to be exact.How very strange.As crash says, infinity is not incomprehensible. You just need to be careful about how you go about handling it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

MrHambre writes:

quote:

---

God may be omnipotent but He doesn't control things like genocide or professional sports.

---

Ah, but what about his kid?You always see the winners praising Jesus and the losers blaming themselves."Yeah, we were in the game...until Jesus made me strike out! He hates our team!"------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

baileyr25 responds to me:

quote:

---

anyways getting back to a statement from Rrhain and his comic book analogy. He says that we have "counted to infinity" and thus comprehended the concept of infinity. I can't see how this is possible, all we have done is understand that there are an infinite number of points between two defined points on a linear plane

---

So? The size of the number of points between two defined points is the same as the size of the number of points between any undefined points, too.Another example. Again, some assumptions must be made:1) You own a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all numbered.
2) You're booked full.Now, suppose somebody comes up and asks you for a room. What do you do? Simple: You ask everybody to move up one room. This takes no time at all, and you're left with Room #1 free which the new person can occupy.Now, suppose 10 people show up. Similar response: Everybody moves up 10 rooms and you're left with Room #1-#10 free which the new people can occupy.Now, suppose an infinite number of people show up. What now?Easy. Everybody moves to the room that is double their current room number. That is, the guest in Room #1 moves to Room #2. The guest in Room #2 moves to Room #4. Room #3 moves to Room #6. This leaves you with all the odd-numbered rooms empty and all the even-numbered rooms occupied. Notice that we just went from all the rooms occupied to all the even-numbered rooms occupied, so those two sets must be the same size. That must mean the number of odd-numbered rooms is also the same size. Thus, the infinite guests can all fit.

quote:

---

We have not grasped the concept of a real infinity, and thats the point.

---

How does the fact that you've drawn a border around it make it "not a real infinity"?To take examples from fractal geometry, have you heard of the Sierpinski Triangle? You take an equilateral triangle and in the middle third of each side, you place another equilateral triangle (whose edge is, of course, one-third the size of the legs of the original triangle). You repeat this process on the new protruding legs and so on and so forth.You eventually get an object that has infinite perimeter but finite area.You can do a similar thing with the Sierpinski Sponge. You take a cube and core out the middle ninth of each face. For the remaining eighths, you repeat the coring process over and over.You eventually get an object with infinite surface area but finite volume.

quote:

---

Back to my first post when I said that infinity is incomprehensible

---

But it is comprehensible. Mathematicians use infinity all the time. The problem with infinity is not that it isn't comprehensible but that it isn't predictable. You have to be careful about how you use infinity as things tend to become undefined when infinity shows up.

quote:

---

and Luke Wadel's proof of existence is just an attempt to bring tangibility to an abstract idea.

---

But it is based on an error: An infinity can't come to an end.It most certainly can. Infinities come to an end all the time.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rei responds to me:

quote:

---

Just to nitpick, the technical terms are the Sierpinski Gasket, and the Menger Sponge.

---

Actually, I had it all wrong, but your correction is not right, either. The Gasket is the one where you remove the middle quarter from the triangle by joining the midpoints of the legs. Many people call it Sierpinski's Triangle, though.What I was describing, however, was the Koch Snowflake.The Sponge, however, is from Menger, as you correctly state, and my mistake in attributing it to Sierpinski.Does this mean I have to turn my degree back in? Sierpinski Gasket------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

defenderofthefaith writes:

quote:

---

If there's one thing Occam's razor could liberally be applied to, it is the alternative to God - a cosmology by which matter appeared from nowhere.

---

But this isn't really a problem for quantum cosmology and since the quantum mechanics upon which it is based has been observed to be highly accurate, we're left with two scenarios:1) One which has a great deal of experimental evidence to buttress it, even though it doesn't particular jibe with our gut reactions.2) One which has absolutely no experimental evidence of any kind to buttressit, even though it may make us feel all warm and snuggly.Occam's Razor is quite clear: You take the argument that has evidence.

quote:

---

Who created matter

---

Nobody. It seems to have created itself. We can even see it creating itself through such things as the Casimir Effect. Just to make certain there are no confusions, I am not saying that the Big Bang was a special case of the Casimir Effect. I am simply pointing out that the concept of matter appearing without any underlying cause is not such a far-fetched idea.

quote:

---

and why did it decide to 'expand' to form a universe?

---

It didn't as that would imply that the universe is intelligent and did something consciously.Instead, it simply followed physics. When I toss coins on the ground, they do not "decide" to fall there (despite what Aristotle says). They simply follow physics.

quote:

---

How did a tiny point of matter become this entire massive cosmos?

---

Do some research on quantum cosmology and find out.A good term to look up is "instanton."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

I thought that Occam's Razor only applies when, to put it simply, two or more ideas have equal supporting evidence.

---

I know, but I was making a point:defenderofthefaith was trying to apply Occam's Razor in the "too amazing to be true" category. That is, the idea that "something coming from nothing" is so absurd of an idea, that the idea that god created everything is at least not more absurd than that and thus, it must be just as legitimate.However, as you pointed out, Occam's Razor applies to hypotheses set to explain a given set of data. And the data does show that indeed, something does come from nothing. It may seem absurd, but if the data does say that something happens, you cannot use Occam's Razor to make it go away. Occam's Razor requires you to look at the data you have and come up with the simplest explanation that is consistent with all the data you have.It comes down to an equivocation on the word "simplest." "God did it" is very simple, but that isn't what is meant by "simplest." On a foundational level, the Razor requires data. If you have no data, you cannot use the Razor.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

compmage responds to me:

quote:

---

however, isn't it maybe better to point out the mistake as well as making it plain that Occam's Razor has no bearing?

---

I readily admit to needing an editor....------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!