Boltzmannbrain

Here we can use mathematics to answer those questions. I believe 3 is called an object that exists in mathematics. And the example (0,1) is what I would like to know about also. Does it end? I know it is bounded, but can we say that it ends?

What are the different meanings of "exist" and "end" are you uncertain about?

😂 I suppose it's possible

The main questions of this thread are: 1. Is it logically possible for the totality of an infinite number of objects to exist? 2. Can infinity end? (such as an infinitely long line or an infinite row of objects) When I think about it logically, the full extent of an infinitely long line or all of an infinite amount of objects should not be able to exist. I come to this conclusion simply due to the idea that in an infinite row of objects there is no last object. However, that is just where I am at right now; I may be persuaded otherwise. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has three definitions of infinity here, Let's use (2) and/or (3) if we can. I don't think that mathematics would agree with my conclusion. For example, if my conclusion were correct, then there would be some natural numbers that don't exist. I am pretty sure that cannot be the case in math. I would like to read what people have to say about all of this.

It's not an objection, but it may help people know what they are getting into.

Sargassum has been spreading here in Canada too, mostly among the young people

The poster is also the author of the paper.

It doesn't seem like you are traveling through time at c because everything else is going with you. But there is way more to this than what I just said. Maybe a rough analogy is to imagine an ant sitting on top of a table in a 2 dimensional scenario. Now imagine as time goes the ant and the table gets closer and closer to the ceiling. The ant does not realize he is moving towards the ceiling because he can only see along the table because he and the table are only 2 dimensional. But that analogy just needs a little addition to be more realistic. Instead of the ant and the table "moving" towards the ceiling through space, the ant and the table exist in a series of many layers that "grow" toward the ceiling. And to add a little to the addition, the "block" that grows to the ceiling is not a 3d Euclidean block, but a 3d block that cannot be visualized, called a Minkowski space.

CDA is about cardinality (size) of the two sets (countable vs uncountable). I am not sure exactly what the problem you have with CDA. I am thinking about an analogy to your issue to see what happens if we apply your issue on a much smaller scale. Assume Bill and Ann want to do the same thing with a set L vs a smaller set S. They want to know which set is bigger, but they don't want to count the elements. I will keep this in binary-type numbers vs natural numbers Let's say L = {000, 111, 110, 011, 100, 001, 010}, and S = {2, 4, 5}. (Keep in mind that the correlated elements don't have to be same things. K = {5, 7, 1} has three elements and P = {@, U, 9} also has three elements; their cardinalities are the same). Ann might get T1 = 101 and Bill might get T2 = 110. The set L can still be larger than the set S even though T1 doesn't equal T2. And clearly, we can always find an element of L that can not match to an element of S. I see no issue here. Or am I missing your point?

Yes. Nothing is truly fixed. The Earth is just a bigger toy truck that would accelerate less because of its mass.

Thank you very very very much! The most well-deserved (+1) I have ever given. You have done what I was beginning to think was impossible, you have resolved my issue completely (though I do not like the rule, I will definitely need to let it sink in more.).

Okay, I have read some about ordinals. What about my lines below? How do the ordinals come into play? I want to map every n from the set of natural numbers inclusively between the points shown on the finite line below from the origin to the X. I want to do this by us imagining that there are points on the line of every rational number between the origin and X. Can the point at X be one of the rationals that I want n to list to? Origin ._______________________________________________. X There is an aleph null infinity of rational numbers inclusively between the two points of the origin and the X. Since that I am mapping an n of N to all rational numbers, wouldn't there have to be an natural number at the point of the X? Another contradictory result is that if we zoom in to these enumerated rational points on the line, it seems to give us a first rational segment which I don't think is allowed. Origen . 1. 2. 3. 4. . . . (aleph null dots) . X Can't I use only natural numbers instead of ordinals?

I am trying to use logic from the existing system to show why it needs an infinite n (or to understand why I am wrong). I want to map every n from the set of natural numbers inclusively between the points shown on the finite line below from the origin to the X. I want to do this by us imagining that there are points on the line of every rational number between the origin and X. Origin ._______________________________________________. X There is an aleph null infinity of rational numbers inclusively between the two points of the origin and the X. Since that I am mapping an n of N to all rational numbers, wouldn't there have to be an natural number at the point of the X? Another contradictory result is that if we zoom in to these enumerated rational points on the line, it seems to give us a first rational segment which I don't think is allowed. Origen . 1. 2. 3. 4. . . . (aleph null dots) . X This all must be wrong, but I don't know why. Okay, I will try to address what you said in the other post. But I was confused by some of it, so I just wanted to focus on the part of the argument that we were both understanding. For the second part, I think you are saying that I am chalking the numbers for the series 1/n meters. Is that correct? And why did you put "BUT"? I definitely feel like I am missing something here. Okay, but why are we doing this. I am not getting your point. I understand what you are saying here, but I still don't understand how this helps resolve my issue.

Why ever should you think this ? Here is the Boltzmannbrain Line (all rights reserved) that ends with an X 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . infinity (countably infinite) X, We are using only natural numbers to count the commas on the line in order to get to that X There are an infinite number of commas to get to the X. There must be an n that is infinitely large to count the X's comma. I am not sure why we have to get into all of this. The heart of my issue is above.

There must be an n that can reach that point. That n would have to be infinite, right?

Each natural number has to be finite, right? For the same reason I mentioned above in this post.

I suppose what I am really saying in this thread is that enumerating infinity (with the cardinality of aleph null) to exhaustion with the finite property of all natural numbers is not logical. Any n you choose will not be infinite like infinity is. That means that there is no finite n that can reach infinity. Okay, distance is not a necessary part of my objection. We can discuss quantity instead. The question that I asked you in the post you are replying to here can be altered to say: what n would quantify the intervals from 0 to the point that was pushed away? I have narrowed my confusion a lot since the OP to what I said above in this post.

You can't get to an infinitely long distance with any finite number/distance. There is always more than any finite number/distance. Imagine there is a point a distance of 1 away from an origin 0. Then imagine we pushed the point away by 1 an infinite (of size aleph null) amount of times. What n would measure from 0 to that point?

Infinitely far would be a distance, of say 2 objects, that are infinitely far from each other. No natural number n can measure it. What is wrong with that? 2 numbers within a finite distance on a number line is always going to be a finite distance. I agree, but I don't see how this helps solve my issue. Solution to my post. You haven't addressed it. I will reword it. There would have to exist an infinitely long natural number in order to label every meter of paint.

But what about a solution to my analogy?

There is no largest natural number, and none of them can be infinite.

The meter numbering is analogous to the set of natural numbers. There can't be an infinitely large natural number in the set of natural numbers.

If we numbered each meter from 1 and continued to increase each consecutive meter by 1, wouldn't we have a natural number infinitely long? It seems like we would since we would have essentially added 1 an infinite number of times for some meter. You said that there is no paint infinitely far away, but then you say that the line of paint is infinitely long. Did you make a mistake, or is there somehow a difference between infinitely far and infinitely long.

Good idea, I will remove the sets from it, especially since it doesn't seem to be getting me anywhere. Imagine a meter of paint is painted for every natural number that is in the set of natural numbers N. Every n is finite, so how can the paint be infinitely far away? It isn't a proof, but do you at least see how there is something that deserves attention? Interesting (+1) I suppose either, but I am not sure what counting means in a formal sense. I think you might have missed it because I never got a response to my response. It is the 13th post down on the 3rd page of this thread. Okay, I did ask you a question on that lost post. It is somewhat relevant to what you are saying here.

I totally agree with what you are saying. I am interested to know if you know exactly what it is about these last few posts that may seem unintuitive to me.