/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12501293

400KiB, 1080x1192, Screenshot_20201223-211427_YouTube.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Please don't make this another shitflinging thread, I ask in vain

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 02:25:45 2020 No.12501293 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12502632 >>12502753 >>12504351 >>12504371

https://youtu.be/WabHm1QWVCA

>The limitations on the ability of the finite human mind (or the ability of finite machines created by humans) to comprehend very large numbers or sets does not mean they can't exist

To slightly amend Wittgenstein's famous words, the limits of my language (and mind) are the limits of MY world, but not the world.

All of the finitists and Wildberger fanboys on here should watch this debate. I like him, but this guy blew him the fuck out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 04:33:45 No.12501595 Report

Quoted By: >>12501972

Weird argument.
10^10^10 is big so it doesn't have prime factors? But they're 2 and 5, both small.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 04:46:29 No.12501611 Report

Quoted By:

Intuitively, I believe that infinity does exist. The world of limits and constants that we inhabit is just a tiny blip in a literally infinite sea of existence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 07:40:06 No.12501972 Report

Quoted By: >>12502620

>>12501595
I think he was talking about 10^10^10^... + 23. I still disagree, though, because the fact that our limited, finite human brains and the finite machines they have created are incapable of producing its prime factors (if they exist) does not mean that they can't exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 12:20:26 No.12502620 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501972
Yeah he had +23, counterpoint is bigness alone doesn't stop it or prime factors existing. No matter how big a power stack of 10 is it always has factors 2 and 5. So his point is more like high complexity numbers don't exist regardless of size, but then infinity is simple so it would exist. His existing number line would be infinite but with complexity gaps all through.
And linking existence to in-universe representation has strange consequences like when the large hadron collider smashes hadrons there's a shower of subatomic particles possibly usable to represent a number so do new numbers briefly exist during a collision then stop existing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 12:23:37 No.12502632 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501293
of course infinity exists. for example, look at the natural numbers. you can go on forever. there is always a bigger number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 13:04:04 No.12502753 Report

Quoted By: >>12503183

>>12501293
It was a shit debate. No back and forth and the second guy was rambling during his turn

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 16:30:45 No.12503183 Report

Quoted By: >>12503402

>>12502753
But it was still enough to dismantle Wildberger's shit. I posted it because I wanted all of his fanboys to watch it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 17:49:30 No.12503402 Report

Quoted By:

>>12503183
It was rambling and lacked direction. Norman is a charismatic lecturer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 22:49:43 No.12504351 Report

Quoted By: >>12504363

>>12501293
The other guy is a terrible speaker/debater. Norman seemed to have been much more prepared and the stuff he wrote on the board was clear and concise while the stuff the other guy wrote could at best be described at scribblings. Also, the other guy seemed to end the debate early since he did not have the patience or time to continue (Wildberger seemed more than ready to continue). Wildberger overall seemed better organized and conveyed his points more clearly.

Also:
>I like him, but this guy blew him the fuck out.
??? The other guy's argument was basically the same stupid argument that everyone else in this thread is saying and anyone who spent even 5 minutes thinking about the question could also say: the natural numbers/universe/... could be/are unending so that means infinity does exist.
This fails to acknowledge the difference between an actual and potential infinity. Just because a sequence is unending does not mean there is an "infinite number" of things in that sequence. What it does mean is that you can continue to generate terms following a rule or procedure (an intension) for as long as you want, but the actual terms you get (the extension) is always going to be finite. Just because you have a procedure that can generate an "infinite number" of things does not mean that you can in fact talk about that process' completion. (See here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#InteExteFictSymbSetTheo).
In fact, there was nothing to btfo in the first place. Mathematically, the only reason you are even justified to say infinity "exists" is because you straight up just assumed its existence. Therefore, you are under no position to justify your choice of axioms as right or wrong because you've basically changed the definition of an axiom from a simple, self-evident truth to something you'd just like to assume.
(cont)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 22:53:11 No.12504363 Report

Quoted By:

>>12504351
At best, you can just say your choice is practical since it allows you to do what you want (i.e. you want to be able to do an infinite amount of work, which others might describe as "wishful thinking").

Finally, to address the "slightly amended" Wittgenstein quote:
>...the limits of my language (and mind) are the limits of MY world, but not the world.
Here is an actual explanation of the quote:
-https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Wittgenstein/wittgenstein.html
What is "the world" referring to? If you scroll down to the end of the page, Wittgenstein would probably say it falls into the same trap as "there are things in existence that are beyond our human ability to conceive or imagine" (since "the world" is something beyond human ability to conceive or imagine). What is "things" referring to? Wittgenstein claims this sentence has no referent and is therefore nonsense and thus doesn't have a truth value simply because only sentences with sense can be true or false. In a similar vein the "slightly amended" sentence is now nonsensical simply because the world never be well-defined so of course we can't tell whether the statement is true or false or somewhere in between.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 22:56:00 No.12504371 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501293
>another debate where the debaters argue the terms of the debate

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches