Fred56

With apologies to Terry Pratchett: Science is a bit like a big machine that a bunch of guys found. It's sort of poking up out of the ground and it looks a bit weird but it does a whole lot of strange, amazing, and head-scratching things. They aren't sure how much of the thing is visible, either, so can only guess how much of it is hidden from view. A while back, someone claimed to have discovered a Universal Force that makes the machine work, but it turned out he wasn't 100 percent about this (and the percentage seems to depend on how fast you are moving, which isn't very intuitive, but there you are). Some of those busy trying to figure out the thing will tell you that they think it might be an entirely different kind of machine, or not a machine at all (but then seem unable to explain what they mean by this), but most people think that's what it is, just a really big machine. Some bits of it are now quite well understood and various devices and contraptions have been made which themselves work like the machine (or at least like the bit they understand), and some of these work so well that they have become ubiquitous. Other people who use these devices sometimes marvel at their operation, but haven't a clue what that might be (they don't as a rule know what ubiquitous means either). Science is sometimes like trying to figure out if some ducks are in a row or not. A bunch of guys tries to figure this out. They try different things, like walking to different sides of the bunch of ducks, walking through them, and trying to get some of them to follow in a nice orderly line, but nothing seems to work. One of the guys thinks he has noticed something. He gets a stick and goes and draws a line on the ground with it. Then he hunkers down looking at some ducks and scribbling furiously with his pen. Then he announces to the others that he might have found a way to determine if the ducks are lined up. The trick, he tells them, is to first determine how many ducks are already “coincident” with some line, which can be drawn anywhere. Then, after counting these ducks, draw another arbitrary line and repeat the process, and so on. They start to discuss this idea, and soon the debate gets fairly heated, with things like “..but we're supposed to get all the ducks on one line, not n lines..”, and “..it depends on your perspective..”, and suchlike. While they are arguing, the ducks form up in a double column, march towards the group (who are too busy arguing to notice) break left and right into two single files which wheel back around, and march in perfect duck-step towards each other. As each duck approaches its opposite, one of them climbs up on the other, until eventually an almost perfect duck-pyramid forms, but just as the last duck climbs to the top, the whole thing collapses into a quacking heap. “OK, well lets just try it then”, one of the guys is saying. “OK, well why don't we just do that, then”, another says, and they all turn and look back to see a bunch of ducks wandering in all directions.

Has there ever been a treatise or whatever written entirely with math equations? Has anyone tried to do something like this? Or is it more or less impossible to "avoid" using English (or another written language)?

There seems to be a problem with my question: Where can a backup of "infinity" be kept (unless God can access some “archive library” that the universe, and we can't)? Why (if he does this) does God keep a backup? Is it in case there is a need for some of the information to be reloaded? Or in case there is a need to reboot the universe...? Infinity (being hard to “find” or define in a logically consistent way) reminds me of the Baker in a certain poem: There was one who was famed for the number of things He forgot when he entered the ship: His umbrella, his watch, all his jewels and rings, And the clothes he had bought for the trip. He had forty-two boxes, all carefully packed, With his name painted clearly on each: But, since he omitted to mention the fact, They were all left behind on the beach. The loss of his clothes hardly mattered, because He had seven coats on when he came, With three pairs of boots--but the worst of it was, He had wholly forgotten his name. He would answer to "Hi!" or to any loud cry, Such as "Fry me!" or "Fritter my wig!" To "What-you-may-call-um!" or "What-was-his-name!" But especially "Thing-um-a-jig!" While, for those who preferred a more forcible word, He had different names from these: His intimate friends called him "Candle-ends," And his enemies "Toasted-cheese." - Lewis Carrol -Note the appearance in this extract of a certain number (which might be familiar to Hitchhiker's Guide followers)

What does the sign say at the top of Irish ladders? “Stop”. If “can't” is a contraction of “cannot”, is “cart” a contraction of “carrot”? Or is it a contraption?

Often a diagram of something like a sugar or another large organic molecule is only partially represented. Which means that not all of the elements (especially hydrogen) are explicitly in the drawing, instead there's just a short line segment, usually on the "edges". This implies a hydrogen atom. Sometimes you see things like Cn which means a long aliphatic chain of carbons (with hydrogens attached). You need to understand what these and other "shortcuts" are.

What level of schooling were you looking at? Is this introductory Chemistry because there should be plenty of books available. Try a public library's Science section. Or have you tried looking for "molecular diagram", or what?

I would say that "an infinite set of arbitrarily large but non-discrete values" qualifies as a mathematical abstraction. Is that what it (infinity) is, though? Or is that just one of the "kinds" of infinity?

The linear diagram needs a branch.

Because we know that the visual cortex is exponentially more active during the danger response, it is probably safe to assume that it is “working” a lot more, processing the images that are flooding in to the cortex from the now also much more active eyes (we look around a lot). The internal timing mechanisms in each cell of our brains also is “fired up” into running faster, so we can process more information. The system clock speeds up. So time “appears” to slow down.

Is that another way of saying that something asymptotic can be infinite (have an infinite bound)? Because the limit isn't reached, the terms have an eigenvalue and so cancel, so there is an “asymptotic” infinity? But infinity also can have no “real” value, only an undefined one? The set isn't empty, there's just no way to select a value (no order for starters), but it still contains all possible values, or something? Some more from my cerebral measure-space: Infinity can be asymptotic or it can be any of an infinite number of values, none of which can be defined. Which is like saying that the set of values is the infinite set, but the set of (defined) values is the empty set. Mathematicians get around this conundrum by insisting that infinity is a process (which never ends) and so we can get arbitrarily close to infinity (in fact infinitely close) without ever assuming a definite value, but can claim that our infinite term does have a value: infinity. A cosmic catch-all that can be “any value you like”, as long as you don't wish to define that value (other than as infinity). But infinity is also a sort of universal constant, with a value that is also universal, or can assume any value (except that it is assumed to be a very large value), and its inverse a very small value (an infinitisemal). Some believe that zero and infinity can be expressed as a ratio, but this seems almost a logical impossibility, since zero can not be anything (by definition). Division by an infinitely small value (one that is nearly zero) still yields infinity, but the infinite set of (arbitrarily large) values that infinity is assumed to have (without being able to select any actual value from the “value set”) are not discrete in any sense.

You mean there's some connection? Or you mean we should ask Keanu?

Another thing about earthquakes is they can cause major changes in geology, say by sinking some land below sea level, which then can cause major local climate change. Also if there is a big undersea quake you get tsunamis, which aren't climate but they can do things like destroy forests and cause land change that way which then causes climate to alter.

I thought about posting this in the jokes thread first, honest. If the universe is really a big computer, and all the information is, like, “everything” -all events, every atom and every photon and every oscillation- does God keep a backup?

I'm arguing that we, as observers, accept both that there is something to measure and also that it isn't anything other than a "remembering" process, the actual measurement. Like how numbers on a piece of paper are "memories". We have paper and better things to keep and compare these, but ultimately that is what they are. We only assume that other creatures can do this (although they must have some understanding of things like heat and distance and so on). This is getting a bit Descartian, but I don't think it goes as far. If true, then analysing what a memory is, how it results in our perception of a seamless reality, and so on, might be where to look, or not. But I think it requires some adjustment of our concept of the universe being external, or at least "measurable", (if they aren't the same thing, especially).

yes, we choose to believe or accept both that our measurement is something available to us, and also that we are actually only using a previous, a remembered change, to do this, so in that sense our “measurement” is only a mental “event” (and has no “dimensionality”, as such).

Isn't this a problem when canceling or reducing infinite terms (either side of an equation or ratio)? Unless mathematical or algebraic infinity behaves "normally"?

But hang on... Isn't this a self-contradiction? “Infinity can be any of an infinite number of values (the set of values is infinite) but cannot be any of these (the set of values is empty).” Is the set infinite or empty (surely it can't be both)?

it does, and this can only be “returned” to if the entropy change is zero. To use my travel metaphor, you would still have your ticket, and still be waiting for the "entropy train" to move. You seem to be confusing the physical transfer of heat “back” into the system with the concept of “reverse entropy”. I'm referring to how entropy can't “run” backwards, and my metaphorical conjecture manages to confuse this, I see. Interesting that we have banged this around this far without mentioning that engines use cycles to do work. Entropy, of course, can decrease during part of a cycle, but in the other part it increases so that, algebraically at least, the difference is zero. This isn't the same as saying entropy "goes" somewhere. It isn't some thing for a kick-off. Heat is a "thing" we can hold in our hands, though (but temperature isn't).

You're post addressed limits, not different infinities. These are examples of different sizes of infinities: The number of integers, the number of reals, the number of functions that map a real to a real, and so on. There are an uncountable number of different sizes of infinities. In other words infinity actually has an infinite number of values, but is also actually none of them (in actuality).

Has anyone else suggested having a language topic, at all? Wherein the terminology and usage etc. gets discussed and people contribute their version of it? Could also have a metaphor and analogy subsection, or whatever, to discuss the use (valid or otherwise) of same. Scientists use analogy and metaphor all the time, don't they? We might (e.g.) explore the metaphor of science as religion. I mean there are parallels. Science has ritual, a following, temples of learning, etc. These (and plenty of others) could be explored from this angle (metaphor et analogy). No? Yes? Or would it mean too many opportunities for, um, non-scientific or illogical argument? Wouldn't want to do that... or anutha sectin abot moden languag nd it's used. Wot u think? but culd b even herdr 2 work that 1 no woddiym sayn?

Yes. I have. Nor could I use 34 degrees of celsius, or 13.7 foot-pounds of torque (unless I happened to also be holding some physical object, like a wooden ruler), or any of the other “measurements” that this thread started up about. This was meant to make a point about how these things aren't “real” (except as useful concepts). OK? This was entirely my intention, as I am saying that our belief in our ability to measure time is just that, a belief. And it seems to be your personal belief that I am trying to prove something. I'm maybe just trying to discuss interesting stuff, you know, things that make you, um, think a bit about them. Those sorts of things. OK, but I would like to know how many others think this is philosophy or pseudoscience, it is a sort of speculation, but I would imagine it isn't original or anything.

Sorry yourdad, but: No. Heat can move around or be transported around a system, but entropy can't “go” anywhere. Perhaps you mean “heat” can “go back” into the system? But it is a one-way process, or change. Entropy is not reversible. it does, and this can only be “returned” to if the entropy change is zero. To use my travel metaphor, you would still have your ticket, and still be waiting for the "entropy train" to move. You seem to be confusing the physical transfer of heat “back” into the system with the concept of “reverse entropy”. I'm referring to how entropy can't “run” backwards, and my metaphorical conjecture manages to confuse this, I see.

Indeed this would seem to be impossible, and so does time travel. Well, you would probably want to take all the particles that make up your body. And a bit of air to breathe in case where -sorry, when- you are going doesn't have any (like the Pre-Cambrian era, say). Something to eat might come in handy, too. Perhaps some sort of portable dwelling? Etc and etc.

There could even be an infinite number of such things...

You are actually touching on something deep here, I think. Consider that every object, every particle in the universe is only where it is now because of everything that has happened (to it), every event, every particle decay and every oscillation of every particle, in the entire cosmos (since every event is, ultimately, related to every other event by the initial event, the thing that created all events). So every timeline, or world line (of every particle) stretches back billions of years to this initial event, or cause. So traveling in time does imply "taking the universe with you" in some sense.