- #1
SimonA
- 174
- 0
If I start with basic algebra, I get rules that suggest;
1x+1x=2x
Then I consider the 'no end' scenario, and say that if x is infinite;
1x+1x=1x
And so I decide that infinity is a 'special case'.
Then I get really clever and use something called set theory, which is pretty reliable, and use it to show that two sets of inifinite items can have one with an infinite number of items for ever item in the other set (real numbers versus integer numbers for example).
And so suddenly (in a round about way) I believe that even if x is infinite;
1x+1x=2x
even though the numerical value of x is still tied to its definition in being undefinably quantifyable.
We now get people who believe in the big bang and yet say that the universe is spacially infinite. On the scientific side the only question on this is the shape of space. A spinning top that went around and around for ever has no relevance to the spatial extent of its environment.
To me this big mistake seems to pervade theoretical physics and cosmology far more than it deserves to. Infinities are where something runs on for ever. This is an unquantifyable value, and Cantors different infinities replace the equals sign, with all its amazing symmetry, with something significantly different.
How difficult would it be to get a list of theories which rest on Cantor's maths ?
Regards
Simon
1x+1x=2x
Then I consider the 'no end' scenario, and say that if x is infinite;
1x+1x=1x
And so I decide that infinity is a 'special case'.
Then I get really clever and use something called set theory, which is pretty reliable, and use it to show that two sets of inifinite items can have one with an infinite number of items for ever item in the other set (real numbers versus integer numbers for example).
And so suddenly (in a round about way) I believe that even if x is infinite;
1x+1x=2x
even though the numerical value of x is still tied to its definition in being undefinably quantifyable.
We now get people who believe in the big bang and yet say that the universe is spacially infinite. On the scientific side the only question on this is the shape of space. A spinning top that went around and around for ever has no relevance to the spatial extent of its environment.
To me this big mistake seems to pervade theoretical physics and cosmology far more than it deserves to. Infinities are where something runs on for ever. This is an unquantifyable value, and Cantors different infinities replace the equals sign, with all its amazing symmetry, with something significantly different.
How difficult would it be to get a list of theories which rest on Cantor's maths ?
Regards
Simon