A Problem of Logic

[andreasjva]

Just now, swansont said:

And that's within epsilon of meaningless. What would it mean to have an existence of 0.7? Of 0.7000000652?

I completely agree.  Still, what is x?  It's not finite. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

I don't know where to the draw the line, logically speaking.

I don't think the word "logically" belongs in this discussion. It seems to be your incoherent thoughts, expressed using words in non-standard ways.

1 hour ago, andreasjva said:

If the universe is following mathematics, and it is

Is it? Or do we just use mathematics to (approximately) describe how the universe behaves?

 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

I completely agree.  Still, what is x?  It's not finite. 

If it's meaningless, then the question of what it is, is unanswerable. And since you acknowledge it's meaningless, why are you asking?

[andreasjva]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is it? Or do we just use mathematics to (approximately) describe how the universe behaves?

Of course it behaves mathematically.  We use math to understand how the universe is behaving.  It follows principles of math.  e=mc^2.   

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Three pages in, we're still on the first question, and nobody seems to know what this discussion is for. I strongly suggest more rigor in explaining why any of this matters.

If we don't get some clarity soon, I'm going to shut this down. This is wasting time we can't get back.

 

[andreasjva]

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

And since you acknowledge it's meaningless, why are you asking?

I only acknowledged that x as defined by a finite decimal value is meaningless.  I don't think the logic is meaningless.   

x can only be a dynamic value, not a finite value, because I am not finite while I exist.  As I suggested, we define finite in segments of time, which is an abstract usage.  Hypothetically speaking, we could find a means of traveling at C, and if that were the case, I may no longer be definable as a segment of time.  Time is a quantified dynamic value we perceive as a finite value.     

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, andreasjva said:

I only acknowledged that x as defined by a finite decimal value is meaningless.  I don't think the logic is meaningless.   

x can only be a dynamic value, not a finite value, because I am not finite while I exist.  As I suggested, we define finite in segments of time, which is an abstract usage.  Hypothetically speaking, we could find a means of traveling at C, and if that were the case, I may no longer be definable as a segment of time.  Time is a quantified dynamic value we perceive as a finite value.     

This is just gibberish.

[studiot]

Surely it's time someone (me) reported this whole thread activity as meaningless, but time wasting trolling.

[andreasjva]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is just gibberish.

How so?

The finite definition of me is defined as a finite segment of time.  It is composed of a quantity of time, which is not finite, but defined by the number of Earth orbits around the sun, and the number of revolutions of the Earth while orbiting the sun.  That's the finite definition of me.  Is that wrong?  It's more of an abstract concept of finite applied to my existence through time.      

[Ghideon]

4 hours ago, andreasjva said:

It's a very simple question on the surface.

Ok. You are unfortunately not doing a very good job describing the question in a simple way. Your analogies and (lack of) definitions does not explain what you want to discuss.

4 hours ago, andreasjva said:

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

By ”finite” , do you mean ”final”?

Not exactly.  We tend to use the term frequently, and the more I've thought about it the less I understand how we apply it to things, or what exactly it means.  I am considered a finite being, because I have a beginning and an end.  That seems more of an abstract definition or application of the term.  The universe is driven entirely by mathematics.  In math, a finite value is fixed, final, absent of change, static, etc.  There is no gray area.  The universe doesn't think, so it doesn't apply concepts to things as we do, or get conflicted with the duality of a definition. 

There are a lot of grey areas in your descriptions and definitions. (Bold by me above). Why not try to use some statements that try to exactly define what you mean? 

 

4 hours ago, andreasjva said:

I don't know where to the draw the line, logically speaking.

I believe we soon will learn where moderator draw the line.

[Strange]

11 hours ago, andreasjva said:

How so?

The finite definition of me is defined as a finite segment of time.  It is composed of a quantity of time, which is not finite, but defined by the number of Earth orbits around the sun, and the number of revolutions of the Earth while orbiting the sun.  That's the finite definition of me.  Is that wrong?  It's more of an abstract concept of finite applied to my existence through time.      

Let's ignore this (it is just random words strange together, as far as I can tell) and get back to the subject of the thread.

What is your question? You say it is simple, but I don't even know what it is.

[CharlesBMoore01]

Nonsense!