no of ID's in CSS

[Neredbojias]

Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?

Nothing is infinite. We just don't know where some things start and
where some things end.

In astrophysical circles, time itself is sometimes considered to have
started at the Big Bang. So the question is can one have more than 1
thing, or anything at all, without time? If one can't, one certainly
cannot have an infinity of them.

 

[mbstevens]

Nothing is infinite.

How would exclude the real numbers,
the integers, and the complex numbers?

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed

How would exclude the real numbers,
the integers, and the complex numbers?

What you're saying is there can be no biggest number, a theory to which
I do not really subscribe. As an *abstract concept*, one of course can
always add something to any number one dreams up, but that is almost
certainly non-indicative of the real physical world. One cannot even
have an unlimited number of abstract concepts because of the real
limitations of his brain or any other physical storage/processing device
and, of course, time.

There is 1, there is 0, and there is what we have now. Nothing more,
nothing less, and no infinities. Furthermore, if you have a singularity
(1), that cannot be infinite in a real sense, either, because such would
require complexity and a singularity is by definition totally uniform.
In addition, a singularity (as far as is known today) is unique and
integral, so by deduction here is a case where 1 does equal 0 in reality
if not in the surrogate of mathematics.

I suppose I should say that by "singularity" I mean lone singularity
although speaking of a singularity in any other sense is preposterous.

 

[boclair]

With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed




What you're saying is there can be no biggest number, a theory to which
I do not really subscribe. As an *abstract concept*, one of course can
always add something to any number one dreams up, but that is almost
certainly non-indicative of the real physical world. One cannot even
have an unlimited number of abstract concepts because of the real
limitations of his brain or any other physical storage/processing device
and, of course, time.

Infinity is not a number. Any number cannot be infinity. Infinity is
not nothing, nor is it anything. Infinity is without space or time.

Tim Morris

 

[mbstevens]

With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed




What you're saying is there can be no biggest number, a theory to which
I do not really subscribe. As an *abstract concept*, one of course can
always add something to any number one dreams up, but that is almost
certainly non-indicative of the real physical world.

Any proper notion of infinity is mathematical. The old 'well, it just
goes on forever and ever' stuff has been outdated for over a century.
Mathematics is not physical, no. But mathematics is also the
counterexample to the notion that the only 'real' things are physical.
Mathematics and formal systems are the only methods with which we can be
'certain' of anything. The moment you bring in physical objects, some
amount of uncertainly creeps in.

One cannot even
have an unlimited number of abstract concepts because of the real
limitations of his brain or any other physical storage/processing device
and, of course, time.

You don't need to think of each and every, say, number. You just need
notions of recursion, the successor function, and such.

There is 1, there is 0, and there is what we have now. Nothing more,
nothing less, and no infinities.

I have the notion of the predicate calculus augmented by mathematics and
set theory. That is a lot more than 0 and 1.

Furthermore, if you have a singularity
(1), that cannot be infinite in a real sense, either, because such would
require complexity and a singularity is by definition totally uniform.
In addition, a singularity (as far as is known today) is unique and
integral, so by deduction here is a case where 1 does equal 0 in reality
if not in the surrogate of mathematics.

I suppose I should say that by "singularity" I mean lone singularity
although speaking of a singularity in any other sense is preposterous.

Sorry, but I couldn't make the least sense out of any of the last two
paragraphs.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, (e-mail address removed) quothed

Infinity is not a number. Any number cannot be infinity. Infinity is
not nothing, nor is it anything. Infinity is without space or time.

Perhaps. But if infinity is without time, it must be nothing to those
with time, mustn't it?

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed

Any proper notion of infinity is mathematical. The old 'well, it just
goes on forever and ever' stuff has been outdated for over a century.
Mathematics is not physical, no. But mathematics is also the
counterexample to the notion that the only 'real' things are physical.
Mathematics and formal systems are the only methods with which we can be
'certain' of anything. The moment you bring in physical objects, some
amount of uncertainly creeps in.

Yes, I like that. I think I quite agree with you on the saliency of the
concept.

I have the notion of the predicate calculus augmented by mathematics and
set theory. That is a lot more than 0 and 1.

And that is reality - or a mathematical representation thereof.

Sorry, but I couldn't make the least sense out of any of the last two
paragraphs.

I was merely stating that a lone singularity is nothing if it has no
effect on anything. However, the supposed singularity that spawned the
Big Bang *did* have an effect: to wit, us and our universe and all that
is or ever was. (Ahem, "is" and "was" are time-dependent notions.)
So... out of nothing comes something, or so say the science boys. But
if that is true, it couldn't have been nothing after all unless you
redefine nothing.

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

I was merely stating that a lone singularity is nothing if it has no
effect on anything. However, the supposed singularity that spawned the
Big Bang *did* have an effect: to wit, us and our universe and all that
is or ever was. (Ahem, "is" and "was" are time-dependent notions.)
So... out of nothing comes something, or so say the science boys. But
if that is true, it couldn't have been nothing after all unless you
redefine nothing.

alt.philosophy is over there ------> ;-)
<h1>I am a singularity</h1> Other than assorted mites,
beneficial/detrimental bacteria, etc. Nothing is me but me. What
composes me is common.
I was blown off by the professor in a physics class when I was a
sophomore or so when I tried to apply entropy to life. Let's talk about
that. His answer was unsatisfying.
All in fun and with a smile.

leo

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Leonard Blaisdell quothed

alt.philosophy is over there ------> ;-)
<h1>I am a singularity</h1> Other than assorted mites,
beneficial/detrimental bacteria, etc. Nothing is me but me. What
composes me is common.
I was blown off by the professor in a physics class when I was a
sophomore or so when I tried to apply entropy to life. Let's talk about
that. His answer was unsatisfying.
All in fun and with a smile.

Negative entropy is what I usually get when I ask a broad out on a date.
Just can't understand it.