Re: Interval theory conflicts with life?
From: Marius Eliassen (mae_at_east.no)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: Alex Simpson: "CFP: LICS 2005 - 12th IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- In reply to: George Cox: "Re: Interval theory conflicts with life?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Oct 2004 08:42:29 -0700
George Cox <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<4169AAF5.798A1B9C@spambtinternet.com.invalid>...
> Marius Eliassen wrote:
> >
> > Let me just state that I am not good at math, nor physics, so this
> > could be way off.
> >
> > Take away all the complex math and physics of life and concentrate on
> > intervals for a second.
> >
> > If you think of the interval between 1 and 2, it equals 1. This is
> > correct because we think of the interval distance of being 1 (1
> > complete in our definition of the size of the interval). Now, we can
> > have an infinite number of intervals between the interval of 1 and 2.
> > [0,1-0,2], [0,01-0,02] and so on.
> > As there is an infinite amount of numbers, there is also a infinite
> > number of intervals right? This to me is only logical when thinking
> > about it because you can always add 1 to a number, thus you can always
> > add a extra 0 to a decimal after a number (Like 0,01 - 0,001 - 0,001
> > and so on).
> >
> > Why does this matter you say, at some point the numbers become so
> > small (or large) that they cease to have any meaning, but they are
> > still there right?
>
> Up to this point, you're talking mathematics.
>
Yes i know, to illustrate the logical point.
> > You can't pass through an infinite number of intervals without using
> > infinite amount of time can you?
>
> Time has nothing to do with mathematics, so ask a physicist.
>
In our world, to actaully do something we require time. This is the
logical paradox that is the core of my problem.
My point here is that infinity logically conflicts with things we do
in our everyday life.
> >
> > So there is the core of my problem.
> > If you get down and dirty with time (time as how something reacts to
> > time, being slow or fast), how can you go from one second to another
> > without using infinite amount of time? Because between one second
> > there is an infinite number of intervals it has to pass trough to get
> > to that other second. If you think about it, how can we actually go
> > trough anything without breaking this interval theory?
> >
> > How can we make a step, it being 1 meters of distance or 30 cm of
> > distance, without using infinite number of distance intervals between
> > there two intervals.
> > Which also conflicts with us even beginning that step if you consider
> > the time issue as well.
> >
> > Just my two cents, and yes i do know of the 10^-54 or whatever the
> > number is where time no longer makes any sense. Still, this buggers my
> > mind, hoping for some insight on the matter.
> >
> > PS: This only conflicts if you think of infinity, unless infinity does
> > not exists and the nature of our life has a really large, or really
> > small number it always operates with as it smallest.
> >
> > Thanks for reading
- Next message: Alex Simpson: "CFP: LICS 2005 - 12th IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- In reply to: George Cox: "Re: Interval theory conflicts with life?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
