Page 5 of 8

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:03 am
Ecmandu wrote:What I mean, is that in Hilberts thought experiment, the rooms are already full. A completed infinity, a convergence.

Even by his own wording this is true.

You miss the point.

The intention is not to ask you to accept that the rooms are already full, nor to ask you to accept that they aren't.
It's to demonstrate that since infinities would require you to accept both at the same time in contradiction with one another, there must be something strange that can occur when you deal with infinities.

It's not the construction of the analogy that has faulty logic, the analogy is correctly set up to show that if you deal with infinities, you are going to encounter faulty logic.

Ecmandu wrote:A completed infinity!

Getting to infinity, so as to "complete" it requires that it has an end. A completed infinity is a contradiction in terms.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:24 am
Silhouette wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:What I mean, is that in Hilberts thought experiment, the rooms are already full. A completed infinity, a convergence.

Even by his own wording this is true.

You miss the point.

The intention is not to ask you to accept that the rooms are already full, nor to ask you to accept that they aren't.
It's to demonstrate that since infinities would require you to accept both at the same time in contradiction with one another, there must be something strange that can occur when you deal with infinities.

It's not the construction of the analogy that has faulty logic, the analogy is correctly set up to show that if you deal with infinities, you are going to encounter faulty logic.

Ecmandu wrote:A completed infinity!

Getting to infinity, so as to "complete" it requires that it has an end. A completed infinity is a contradiction in terms.

A COUNTABLE infinity is a completed infinity as I am using the term.

There are well ordered sets like the whole numbers

And there are scattered sets like when you count the rationals

I'm sorry, I'm throwing lots of jargon at you ...

These are considered complete infinities (countable - meaning: enumerable in 1:1 correspondence)

Now.. and I must say this: obsrvr: I don't like your tone with silhouette. Not only that, but you are wrong that a rational number hotel cannot fit everyone in... if a hotel only has 34 rooms, then if you build a new room for every guest, and move everyone up one room, no contradiction occurs.

The problem is not in the finite, time based logic...

The question is "what happens at infinity?"

There are two possibilities:

1.) Either every room is full
2.) no rooms are full

This is how strange infinity is.

Hilbert didn't understand the infinities he even claimed to undertstand that he claimed not to understand.

Obsrvr: give silhouette a break, he was very deferential to you

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:19 am
"the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. it neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." - david 'the hitman' hilbert

maybe try this for thought. when comparing the concepts of 'finite' and 'infinite' with the use of the terms in this thread, the concept of the infinite is thought of as a possible 'set', and therefore a concrete thing, like the concept of finite is being thought of here. but a 'set' is a completed object... in the sense that we can know where it begins and where it ends... and in this sense its a conceptual object. now here may be the problem; what you guys are doing is conceiving of a potential infinity... which is a collection that is increasing toward infinity but never gets there... as if it were a collection of definite and discrete members whose number is greater than any natural number. but therein lies the rub. if you can always add 1, you never finish the set of which you speak... and if it remains open, its not a set in the same way a finite set is conceived. the potential infinite set - which you are thinking is an actual infinite set - is really only indefinite, not infinite. the moment you finish it... make it a definitive object... it becomes finite. and yet until you finish it, you're not speaking of a set or an object, but rather a kind of transcendental idea.

take the typical instance of the division of a distance. a finite distance can be subdivided into potentially infinitely many parts or sections. you can just keep dividing parts in half forever, but you will never arrive at an actual 'infinitieth' division or end up with a actually infinite number of parts.

any of you folks familiar with ghazali's example of one of the absurdities of an actual infinity? it's a swell thought experiment. kay so let's assume eternity, and then let's compare two beginningless series of coordinated events. imagine a solar system consisting of planets with coordinated orbital periods. so for every one orbit planet x completes, planet y completes 2.5 as many. the question is; if they've been orbiting for eternity, which planet has completed the most orbits? the correct mathematical answer would be that they have completed precisely the same number. but wtf? the longer they revolve, the greater the disparity between them becomes!

now if you understand what just happened here as a result of trying to construct an actual infinity rather than a potential, you'll hear the same sizzling sound between your ears that you heard when you visited hilbert's hotel (though i don't think anyone so far but sil knows how to get there).

please, for the love of sam sneed, do some reading about 'actual' and 'potential' infinity. this is an understanding that supercedes what mathematics is telling you. you've got to wrap your brain around what the mathematics of infinity necessarily implies in the real world. if an actual infinite number of things were possible, hilbert's hotel would be possible and not just a thought experiment to demonstrate the utter absurdity of actual infinities.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:07 am
Silhouette wrote:Guy, I am going to ask your advice, because I don't seem to be able to get around a certain conundrum that I am in, and you present yourself so prestigiously that I figure you may know the answer.

First I would want to know if you read the prior post and saw the error that you have been making. And if not...
Silhouette wrote:What would you do if you presented a proof to somebody, any proof - doesn't matter what - and it was sound and valid but you wrote it in such a way that it was misconstrued by someone else.

That would depend on who I was trying to prove something to. It seems that James tried something that certainly would have worked on me, but not people who merely dodge the truth for sake of politics or perhaps ego. When debating an issue with me, I suggest two things:

1) ask for point by point agreement. Avoid long complicated paragraphs where many potential disagreements are possible. Without the effort to prove anything, state one concern at a time and ask for agreement - "agree" or "disagree". The first time I disagree, ask why.

In that way both parties learn much quicker and also learn ways to word things better. James had set up a forum to handle just that method of debating, "Resolution Debating" - seeking how far people can agree and precisely upon what they actually disagree. James liked to organize things. This one is on his list of "new-to-the-world" concepts although he spelled out much greater detail.

Note in the last post I examined and agreed to each step of your process until I found an error. That way you could know what to NOT argue with me about (although perhaps someone else). It brings focus on the "devil in the detail" to straighten out the disagreement or at least point to where more investigation is needed. If wording was the issue, now both parties would know it. "Light is the best disinfectant".

It is like climbing a mountain. If you can make certain of each footing along the way, you are far more likely to get to the top, more quickly as well. And if either party makes a mistake it is far more quickly resolved before pride gets too involved.

Pride, politics, and stupidity forbids people from doing that, but you asked what I would do if I were you debating with me. When any of those 3 concerns are present, the other person simply refuses to respond and instead gives some distractive lecture. That's when you know the kind of person you are dealing with.

So, in like kind, do you agree with the correction that I pointed out?
This one:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhoutte wrote: but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.

And that is where you screwed up this time.

After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.

When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.

If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.

It would save a whole lot of wall paper.

2) When you start an ad hom battle, stop it by just taking your hits realizing that you started it.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:33 am
promethean75 wrote:"the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. it neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." - david 'the hitman' hilbert

I would have to disagree with that. Since he clearly did not understand the concept "infinity", of course he would conclude that it doesn't apply to reality.

promethean75 wrote: if you can always add 1, you never finish the set of which you speak.

I think that I have detected that to be where all of the confusion about infinity began.

With an infinite set, 1 more cannot be added.

The hyperreals begin at infinity+ 1.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:25 pm
promethean75 wrote:any of you folks familiar with ghazali's example of one of the absurdities of an actual infinity? it's a swell thought experiment. kay so let's assume eternity, and then let's compare two beginningless series of coordinated events. imagine a solar system consisting of planets with coordinated orbital periods. so for every one orbit planet x completes, planet y completes 2.5 as many. the question is; if they've been orbiting for eternity, which planet has completed the most orbits? the correct mathematical answer would be that they have completed precisely the same number. but wtf? the longer they revolve, the greater the disparity between them becomes!

The correct mathematical answer would have been "2.5 times as many". And of course that means 2.5 * infA.

It only doesn't make sense to those to don't understand infinity. And that seems to be a great many despite the math proofs.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:24 pm
These two reasons have at least five immediate consequences for Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics.

Rejection of Infinite Mathematical Extensions: Given that a mathematical extension is a symbol (‘sign’) or a finite concatenation of symbols extended in space, there is a categorical difference between mathematical intensions and (finite) mathematical extensions, from which it follows that “the mathematical infinite” resides only in recursive rules (i.e., intensions). An infinite mathematical extension (i.e., a completed, infinite mathematical extension) is a contradiction-in-terms

Rejection of Unbounded Quantification in Mathematics: Given that the mathematical infinite can only be a recursive rule, and given that a mathematical proposition must have sense, it follows that there cannot be an infinite mathematical proposition (i.e., an infinite logical product or an infinite logical sum).

Algorithmic Decidability vs. Undecidability: If mathematical extensions of all kinds are necessarily finite, then, in principle, all mathematical propositions are algorithmically decidable, from which it follows that an “undecidable mathematical proposition” is a contradiction-in-terms. Moreover, since mathematics is essentially what we have and what we know, Wittgenstein restricts algorithmic decidability to knowing how to decide a proposition with a known decision procedure.

Anti-Foundationalist Account of Real Numbers: Since there are no infinite mathematical extensions, irrational numbers are rules, not extensions. Given that an infinite set is a recursive rule (or an induction) and no such rule can generate all of the things mathematicians call (or want to call) “real numbers”, it follows that there is no set of ‘all’ the real numbers and no such thing as the mathematical continuum.

Rejection of Different Infinite Cardinalities: Given the non-existence of infinite mathematical extensions, Wittgenstein rejects the standard interpretation of Cantor’s diagonal proof as a proof of infinite sets of greater and lesser cardinalities.
Since we invent mathematics in its entirety, we do not discover pre-existing mathematical objects or facts or that mathematical objects have certain properties, for “one cannot discover any connection between parts of mathematics or logic that was already there without one knowing” (PG 481). In examining mathematics as a purely human invention, Wittgenstein tries to determine what exactly we have invented and why exactly, in his opinion, we erroneously think that there are infinite mathematical extensions.

If, first, we examine what we have invented, we see that we have invented formal calculi consisting of finite extensions and intensional rules. If, more importantly, we endeavour to determine why we believe that infinite mathematical extensions exist (e.g., why we believe that the actual infinite is intrinsic to mathematics), we find that we conflate mathematical intensions and mathematical extensions, erroneously thinking that there is “a dualism” of “the law and the infinite series obeying it” (PR §180). For instance, we think that because a real number “endlessly yields the places of a decimal fraction” (PR §186), it is “a totality” (WVC 81–82, note 1), when, in reality, “[a]n irrational number isn’t the extension of an infinite decimal fraction,… it’s a law” (PR §181) which “yields extensions” (PR §186). A law and a list are fundamentally different; neither can ‘give’ what the other gives (WVC 102–103). Indeed, “the mistake in the set-theoretical approach consists time and again in treating laws and enumerations (lists) as essentially the same kind of thing” (PG 461).

Closely related with this conflation of intensions and extensions is the fact that we mistakenly act as if the word ‘infinite’ is a “number word”, because in ordinary discourse we answer the question “how many?” with both (PG 463; cf. PR §142). But “‘[i]nfinite’ is not a quantity”, Wittgenstein insists (WVC 228); the word ‘infinite’ and a number word like ‘five’ do not have the same syntax. The words ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ do not function as adjectives on the words ‘class’ or ‘set’, (WVC 102), for the terms “finite class” and “infinite class” use ‘class’ in completely different ways (WVC 228). An infinite class is a recursive rule or “an induction”, whereas the symbol for a finite class is a list or extension (PG 461). It is because an induction has much in common with the multiplicity of a finite class that we erroneously call it an infinite class (PR §158).

In sum, because a mathematical extension is necessarily a finite sequence of symbols, an infinite mathematical extension is a contradiction-in-terms. This is the foundation of Wittgenstein’s finitism. Thus, when we say, e.g., that “there are infinitely many even numbers”, we are not saying “there are an infinite number of even numbers” in the same sense as we can say “there are 27 people in this house”; the infinite series of natural numbers is nothing but “the infinite possibility of finite series of numbers”—“[i]t is senseless to speak of the whole infinite number series, as if it, too, were an extension” (PR §144). The infinite is understood rightly when it is understood, not as a quantity, but as an “infinite possibility” (PR §138).

Given Wittgenstein’s rejection of infinite mathematical extensions, he adopts finitistic, constructive views on mathematical quantification, mathematical decidability, the nature of real numbers, and Cantor’s diagonal proof of the existence of infinite sets of greater cardinalities.

Since a mathematical set is a finite extension, we cannot meaningfully quantify over an infinite mathematical domain, simply because there is no such thing as an infinite mathematical domain (i.e., totality, set), and, derivatively, no such things as infinite conjunctions or disjunctions (G.E. Moore 1955: 2–3; cf. AWL 6; and PG 281).

Discuss!

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:22 pm
Silhouette wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:A completed infinity!

Getting to infinity, so as to "complete" it requires that it has an end. A completed infinity is a contradiction in terms.

A better, more precise word would have been "a filled infinity", then he would have been right. The author stated that the hotel was completely filled.

Ecmandu wrote:A COUNTABLE infinity is a completed infinity as I am using the term.

I think in the maths, "countable" just means no irrational or endless numbers. The real numbers between 0 and 2 are not countable.

Ecmandu wrote:deferential to you

deferential?

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:35 pm
promethean75 wrote:These two reasons have at least five immediate consequences for Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics.

Rejection of Infinite Mathematical Extensions: Given that a mathematical extension is a symbol (‘sign’) or a finite concatenation of symbols extended in space, there is a categorical difference between mathematical intensions and (finite) mathematical extensions, from which it follows that “the mathematical infinite” resides only in recursive rules (i.e., intensions). An infinite mathematical extension (i.e., a completed, infinite mathematical extension) is a contradiction-in-terms

I'm not sure what he meant by that but it seems to me that the value 2/3 is something that exists in reality and also has a precise mathematical extension = 0.666... So I don't see the contradiction.

promethean75 wrote:Rejection of Unbounded Quantification in Mathematics: Given that the mathematical infinite can only be a recursive rule, and given that a mathematical proposition must have sense, it follows that there cannot be an infinite mathematical proposition (i.e., an infinite logical product or an infinite logical sum).

Again "0.666..." is a proposition that seems to "have sense".

The whole thing appears to be someone wrongly criticizing someone who was wrong. But since I don't really know those players nor some of the words they use, I'm just guessing.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:47 pm
obsrvr524 wrote:
promethean75 wrote:These two reasons have at least five immediate consequences for Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics.

Rejection of Infinite Mathematical Extensions: Given that a mathematical extension is a symbol (‘sign’) or a finite concatenation of symbols extended in space, there is a categorical difference between mathematical intensions and (finite) mathematical extensions, from which it follows that “the mathematical infinite” resides only in recursive rules (i.e., intensions). An infinite mathematical extension (i.e., a completed, infinite mathematical extension) is a contradiction-in-terms

I'm not sure what he meant by that but it seems to me that the value 2/3 is something that exists in reality and also has a precise mathematical extension = 0.666... So I don't see the contradiction.

promethean75 wrote:Rejection of Unbounded Quantification in Mathematics: Given that the mathematical infinite can only be a recursive rule, and given that a mathematical proposition must have sense, it follows that there cannot be an infinite mathematical proposition (i.e., an infinite logical product or an infinite logical sum).

Again "0.666..." is a proposition that seems to "have sense".

That's not what Wittgenstein is talking about.

Even 0.666... can only be expressed finitely

He only says we can believe what we can see, and discards the entire human experience of inferential proofs.

This is what I mean by that:

To Wittgenstein, the counting numbers are not infinite, they are only as far as we actually count them.

If we never counted it; it doesn't exist, even in imagination.

Of course, all of our inferential proofs of infinity are derived from imagination.

Wittgenstein has no discourse on imagination.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:34 pm
I'm not sure what he meant

believe me, bro, i'm not either, but i'm trying to figure this shit out.

yes, '2/3' is a symbol extended in space, and if included in a closed series of calculations, it would be part of a finite set. this statement has mathematical extension. the difference is, you can't call a set 'infinite' and at the same time give it extension, because in performing the infinite, i.e., endless divisions, all you're giving extension too are the rules of calculation, recursively; divide, and again, and again, and again, etc. being open ended like this it is only intensional and a concept that is categorically different from extension. i can see more than just a rule extended when i see a finite set; i see the form of calculation and the product of it. but in conceiving an infinite set, i only observe the rule and not the product... for there can't be an infinite set to observe... only the endless process of division, which is only the expression of a rule.

Again "0.666..." is a proposition that seems to "have sense".

of course, but that's not an infinite mathematical proposition.

consider this question. a math student performing the task of dividing, hands his paper to the teacher and asks; 'is it infinite yet?'

how does the teacher answer? he cannot say 'yes, the set is infinite' and produce from that statement the same syntactical meaning as he would had he looked at a completed set of calculations and answered 'yes, the set is finite'. now he could say 'no, but it would become infinite if you divided forever'. here, it is theoretically and logically possible to divide forever, so the rule of division is extensional insofar as it is sensible, but the product of following that rule would never be extensional. only intensional and recursive.

we find that we conflate mathematical intensions and mathematical extensions, erroneously thinking that there is “a dualism” of “the law and the infinite series obeying it”. For instance, we think that because a real number “endlessly yields the places of a decimal fraction”, it is “a totality”, when, in reality, “an irrational number isn’t the extension of an infinite decimal fraction,… it’s a law” which “yields extensions”. A law and a list are fundamentally different; neither can ‘give’ what the other gives...

infinite calculation could never produce a list. it only expresses a mathematical law by intension. one doesn't observe infinity, but one can do it... or i should say, 'approach' it. thus lies the distinction between actual and potential infinity. one mistakes the process of listing with a list itself... one does the rule and then mistakes it as being a product. that erroneous dualism mentioned above that's to blame for the battle between realists and anti-realists in mathematics.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:58 pm
Ecmandu wrote:He only says we can believe what we can see, and discards the entire human experience of inferential proofs.

This is what I mean by that:

To Wittgenstein, the counting numbers are not infinite, they are only as far as we actually count them.

If we never counted it; it doesn't exist, even in imagination.

I have no education on Wittgenstein (even have trouble getting his name spelled correctly) but if what you say is a correct representation of what he actually meant (and I will never have the time to find out), I would say that he seems to be missing the point in having a mind. And I do know that to be a common problem. It is something politically promoted to ensure an ignorant population. And that tactic is as old as the hills.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:03 pm
promethean75 wrote:
I'm not sure what he meant

believe me, bro, i'm not either, but i'm trying to figure this shit out.

yes, '2/3' is a symbol extended in space, and if included in a closed series of calculations, it would be part of a finite set. this statement has mathematical extension. the difference is, you can't call a set 'infinite' and at the same time give it extension, because in performing the infinite, i.e., endless divisions, all you're giving extension too are the rules of calculation, recursively; divide, and again, and again, and again, etc. being open ended like this it is only intensional and a concept that is categorically different from extension. i can see more than just a rule extended when i see a finite set; i see the form of calculation and the product of it. but in conceiving an infinite set, i only observe the rule and not the product... for there can't be an infinite set to observe... only the endless process of division, which is only the expression of a rule.

What is the pedantic definition of "mathematical extension" in this writing? Does anyone know?

Without that, I can't be certain of any of what is being said. I probably should take this opportunity to drop out of this particular distraction.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:12 pm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/witt ... 0formalism.

i want you to go in there, read all that shit, and explain to me what the crap it all means. you're way smarter than me so you're gonna have to drive. but look i'm telling you W was a beast, man. if he said sumthin', a muthafucka sat down and listened. you ax any of the big brains from back in the day and they'll tell you; when big W came around, he was getting ready to sort you out whether you liked it or not.

go look at his pic on wikipedia. see that crazy left eye that doesn't match the right one? that's what i'm talking about. sumthin' about that dude was sketchy as fuck.

now i need you and sil to get your shit together and stop bickering so we can pull together and make some headway.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:18 am
The correct mathematical answer would have been "2.5 times as many". And of course that means 2.5 * infA.

alright but wait. watch what happens....

planet x has completed 10 orbits today
planet y has completed 12.5 orbits today (2.5 more than planet x)

planet x completed 9 orbits yesterday
planet y compelted 11.5 orbits yesterday

and so on down to.... when?

the paradox: if they've been orbiting eternally, they never began orbiting. and yet if planet y has always completed 2.5 more orbits for every one orbit planet x completes, there had to be a time when planet y was orbiting before planet x made its first orbit. but that's impossible, because they've both been orbiting for eternity.

fun with actual infinities.

oh damn the POleece just rolled up to the coffee shop. i'ont like the POleece so lemme holla at you in a minute. i gotta roll.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:09 am
obsrvr524 wrote:You can always add 1 to whatever number you pick in order to find the next number that was already in the "set" of numbers. You are not adding to the set. You add to your position within the set. The set already includes ALL numbers potentially involved.

With an infinite set, 1 more cannot be added.

May I query this explanation?

Does "You are not adding to the set. You add to your position within the set" mean something like the following:

Infinite set represented as: {..., x, y, z, ...}
New set looks like: {... x, y+1, z, ...}
??

I would like to query the meaning of a series being "infinite". Skip to the last paragraph if at any point you get frustrated with the following, but coming back to it afterwards will make more sense if you do:
I see no issue in using the synonym "endless" or "boundless" to aid in my explanations, since these are literally what infinite means by derivation as well as definition. Substitute "infinite" back in when I use these terms if you wish, the meaning won't be changed if you do.
Consider the example (1+1+1+...+1), is it agreed that the "..." represents an endless string of "1+1"s?
If the example of (1+1+1+...+1) is intended to represent an endless string of "1+1"s, any given "1+1" has no specific position relative to any start or end, because an endless string has no start or end. All positions are therefore undefined and cannot be pinpointed as specific, and are therefore arbitrarily interchangeable.
Picking any one non-specific position of a "1+1" and adding a 1 such that it is now "1+1+1", is the string still endless?
Put another way, picking any non-specific position of a "1+1+1" and removing a 1 such that it is now "1+1", is the string still endless?
I would say it is endless both before and after in both cases.
I would also say that infinite (endless/boundless) does not communicate quantity by definition - I would say that it does the exact opposite of conveying quantity, which is what infinite means: undefined or quantity-less are synonymous as well.
With or without the "1+1+1" or "1+1" the endlessness is indistinguishable, the endless set is endless before and after the addition or subtraction, the positions picked are equally arbitrary and non-specific, they cannot be counted because there is no "end" from which to begin counting their position.

One (...+1+1+1+...) appears no different from any other, and this representation confers endlessness better than (1+1+1+...+1), which suggests there's a beginning end and a finishing end, which contradicts the notion of infinity being literally endless. Squeeze a 1 in or take 1 away, the "quality" of endlessness applies either way. The appearance remains the same, the tracability of any change is equally impossible as there is no end from which to check it relative to. It's both impossible to confirm any change after it has occurred and impossible to equate the series before and after as there is no specific (end) point of reference to use to do so. It's only possible to present the change as happening as it happens, because it is in finite terms at that point. Even adding in another (...+1+1+1+...) to any given point in the previous one presents the added series as a specific series, representing the infinite with specificity treats it as it was a finite series to inject. Yet afterwards, we see no difference, because it wasn't finite - it was only represented that way.

Now.
I think I have been hearing protestation this whole time by some that the infinite series of (...+1+1+1+...) was already full, saturated perhaps. If this is the case then I ask what "ends" are resisting any further addition? If all the positions are all already occupied, and there are no empty positions left to fill, how are you judging the beginning and end of these positions? Do these positions have finite ends within this infinite series? Does this suggest that infinite series have finite bounds internally? Finite positions would appear to be a feature of representing infinite series with finite terms like the "1+1+1" in (...+1+1+1+...), or however you wish to represent the set. However, does this "accurately" represent an infinite series? If "infinite" is consistent with itself, including internal consistency, then each "1" would not have a finite bound to its position, it would be a (...+1+1+1+...) in itself, inception style.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:53 pm
promethean75 wrote:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#targetText=The%20%E2%80%9Cjustified%20side%20of%20formalism,their%20meaning%5Bs%5D%E2%80%9D.&targetText=This%20is%20the%20core%20of%20Wittgenstein's%20life%2Dlong%20formalism.

i want you to go in there, read all that shit, and explain to me what the crap it all means. you're way smarter than me so you're gonna have to drive. but look i'm telling you W was a beast, man. if he said sumthin', a muthafucka sat down and listened. you ax any of the big brains from back in the day and they'll tell you; when big W came around, he was getting ready to sort you out whether you liked it or not.

go look at his pic on wikipedia. see that crazy left eye that doesn't match the right one? that's what i'm talking about. sumthin' about that dude was sketchy as fuck.

now i need you and sil to get your shit together and stop bickering so we can pull together and make some headway.

Thank you for the compliment but I could write a whole 3 volume book on the request you just made, not on Wittgenstein, on the request to go read that article and all it implies to responsibly do so.

First realize that the article is about what someone thinks Wittgenstein meant to say. It is written by a third party, Victor Rodych. Reading the article is about like watching MSNBC or CNN report the "news". To know what really happened concerning any news, you really have to go to the source because in the case of CNN, the truth will invariably be different than what was reported, MSNBC a little less so even though they read from the same scripts. They depend very heavily on us not having the time or inclination to check their sources.

That might not be so much the case with Victor Rodych but until I go read Wittgenstein himself, I couldn't trust what someone else interpreted from him. And that takes a lot more time than I have, much like trying to untwist the true story from whatever CNN might have said. You have to take the time to go to the source (which they often hide if it existed at all).

That is what I am doing regarding James. And it takes a great deal of effort to try to see the world from another person's perspective just to ensure that you are not mis interpreting what they are trying to say. What was their environment? Who were they speaking or writing to? What were they trying to accomplish? What words did they use? What references? And finally, what did they really intend to relay to their audience at that time? And that isn't even getting into who the person really was all about.

So who is this Victor Rodych and why should I believe what he says about anything? He was raised to be a liberal in England, got his BA at Brandon, Phd at York. He seems to have focused primarily on Wittgenstein and Popper, both notable anti-logic promoters - "one can only believe the witnessed" , pro-mindless science. And that should be expected from a well published liberal now associated with the elitist Lethbridge University.

So what did the man report that Wittgenstein was trying to say? By just a quick scan of the article, I run across this quip, "the only genuine propositions that we can use to make assertions about reality are contingent (‘empirical’) propositions, which are true if they agree with reality and false otherwise". Immediately I observed a "contingent" issue - ,"we can only make true assertions about reality if they are true". And is what we witnessed what was really there?

Without the ability to reason, to use logic, even what we think we see is dubious, especially if it is some video or TV program. A hundred scientists can witness something that never happened. The senses can be easily fooled. And the instruments can be very easily misinterpreted. That is what skeptics and critical thinkers are for. But critical thinking involves logical and rational thinking, not instantly assuming that you have seen the truth.

I noted that James stated that the "Godwannabes" are the cause of ALL the world's problems. I have always felt that it is assumption that is doing so. But then James also states that "presumption is the seed of all sin." So in that regard I guess we actually we agree.

But note the reasoning assumed in that one statement, "genuine propositions are empirical and true only if they agree with reality". Sounds fair upon simpleminded viewing, but there is a problem. He is saying that logical reasoning is not genuine, supposedly then to not be accepted as true (whether reality agrees or not). The only things we should have any faith in is what we see directly. But does what we see directly agree with reality? How could we know? Well that is easy, "if it is true, then believe it, otherwise don't". Yeah.

I think as it turns out, we can only know if our empirical evidence agrees with reality through logical thinking. But logical thinking is not allowed, it is mere "pseudo-proposition", not to be taken seriously.

What it amounts to is that if you try to take logic out of witnessing and observing to discern truth, you can never know if you have discerned truth. But maybe that is the goal, to be never sure to be always in doubt, always insecure. That does sound like things I have heard about Wittgenstein. And it was a part of the political arena during that era.

I really don't have the time to go find out what Wittgenstein really meant to say. But what our "sources tell us" is that Wittgenstein thought that people should not think (largely paraphrased) but believe whatever they see on face value.

Apparently Wittgenstein proposed (I guess that was a "pseudo-proposition") that "2+2=4" is only a pseudo-proposition proposed by mathematics advocates and might not actually be true. We must empirically test the proposal before we can believe it. And if we multiply 947 times 627294, we should only believe our calculation after we go count the empirical items on display.

"Wittgenstein maintains that “mathematical propositions” are not real propositions" - Victor Rodych

In essence, he is saying that maths and logic are not to be trusted.

It appears that his argument is that maths and logic are merely language and thus don't really mean anything because we invent language, implying that we could have invented it differently and caused "2+2=5". If it is true that Wittgenstein really believed that, I would have to say that the man, as a philosopher, wasn't very bright (despite his reputation, which is ALWAYS a product of politics, not performance).

As far as the infinities, one particular paragraph stands out in
Wittgenstein’s Later Finitistic Constructivism wrote:Though commentators and critics do not agree as to whether the later Wittgenstein is still a finitist and whether, if he is, his finitism is as radical as his intermediate rejection of unbounded mathematical quantification (Maddy 1986: 300–301, 310), the overwhelming evidence indicates that the later Wittgenstein still rejects the actual infinite (RFM V, §21; Zettel §274, 1947) and infinite mathematical extensions.

It seems that early in his philosophical endeavors Wittgenstein rejected the very idea of an infinity (which to me would have been dumb). But later he expressed more acceptance, although insufficient for certainty. Again, that quote indicates that I would have to go read and investigate the mind of Wittgenstein myself in order to MAYBE discern what he eventually ended up believing about something, infinities, that I don't really have any doubts about. So it is seriously not worth my time. I have a real life to worry about. Normally, I wouldn't even be taking the time for these discussions.

I always try to keep in mind that reputation is strictly and entirely about politics, not performance.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:09 pm
promethean75 wrote:
The correct mathematical answer would have been "2.5 times as many". And of course that means 2.5 * infA.

alright but wait. watch what happens....

planet x has completed 10 orbits today
planet y has completed 12.5 orbits today (2.5 more than planet x)

Stop there. You have already made a mistake. Planet y could never have made only 12.5 orbits - never.

You stated that both planets have been orbiting for all time. That means that no matter how far back in time you go, both planets have already been orbiting a prior infinity of orbits. There was never a first, so there can never be a 12th. You cannot count from 0 orbits upward. The only thing that you can do is start counting at some arbitrary point in time and declare that to be zero. You can count both forward and backward eternally. But you have to start your count at some point that you arbitrarily choose to be "point 0". The same is true of the calendar. It is only "2019" because it was arbitrarily chosen to start the years 2019 years ago, for whatever fanciful reason.

promethean75 wrote:fun with actual infinities.

There is a part of the problem. The "actual infinities" are not what your problems are about. The actual problem is understanding what it means to exist yet never begin.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:12 am
There was never a first, so there can never be a 12th. You cannot count from 0 orbits upward. The only thing that you can do is start counting at some arbitrary point in time and declare that to be zero. You can count both forward and backward eternally. But you have to start your count at some point that you arbitrarily choose to be "point 0".

if what you say is true, the following would make no sense (correct me if i'm missing something):

we pick an arbitrary time 'now(t1)' to begin counting the number of times each planet will make a complete orbit, and will stop counting in 24 hours(t2). after 24 hours has elapsed, we observe that planet x has made five orbits, and that planet y has made 2.5 more orbits than planet x, putting it at 7.5 orbits. (btw, obviously '.5' of an orbit would be half way... 180 degrees).

now even though they've been orbiting for eternity, we still notice that planet y has made 2.5 more orbits between t1 and t2... and yet we wouldn't be able to say it despite the fact that we just watched it happen.

even though we pick an arbitrary starting point to begin counting, and one to stop counting, we still observe an unequal number or orbits. now assume a hypothetical being that has also existed for eternity and has been watching these planets make their orbits. any time he picks an arbitrary starting and ending point for counting orbits, he notices planet y orbits 2.5 more times that planet x does.

clearly this would mean that planet y has been eternally orbiting 2.5 more times than planet x... but if they've both been orbiting eternally, how could planet y possibly make more orbits, and how could our hypothetical being be mistaken about what he has counted?

furthermore, both planets are approaching a point at which planet x has fallen infinitely behind planet y. and yet, being 'actually' infinite, as you suppose, their completed orbits are somehow magically identical?

as a disclaimer, i should inform you that i probably have a fourth grader's comprehension of math... something i've never regretted seeing that i've never needed to know much of it, or that any of my philosophical thinking has ever required a knowledge of it. that being said, if you become impatient and feel like you've got better things to do, by all means do so. becoming impatient with people is something i'm no stranger to, so i fully understand.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:36 pm
promethean75 wrote:now even though they've been orbiting for eternity, we still notice that planet y has made 2.5 more orbits between t1 and t2... and yet we wouldn't be able to say it despite the fact that we just watched it happen.

I don't understand what you mean by "we wouldn't be able to say it".

promethean75 wrote:they've both been orbiting eternally, how could planet y possibly make more orbits, and how could our hypothetical being be mistaken about what he has counted?

I think that states the crux of your confusion. And let me try to answer your question by asking you a question, - koan for conk. Perhaps realize that neither past nor future actually exist. The universe knows nothing of either. Time is entirely a mind-made invention, as is counting. But still we must keep our minds clear with consistent (logical) thought.

You say that this eternal being has been watching eternally and counting the whole time. Counting is a serial process from 0 up (or down).

When did he begin counting such as to pass the one million mark?

promethean75 wrote:furthermore, both planets are approaching a point at which planet x has fallen infinitely behind planet y. and yet, being 'actually' infinite, as you suppose, their completed orbits are somehow magically identical?

First, there is no "falling behind". Planet y has always been "behind". Then secondly, who said that their "completed orbits are identical"? Does that come from the false notion that all infinities are equal? Just because two things are endless doesn't mean that they are equally endless.

Let me repeat:
obsrvr524 wrote:The actual problem is understanding what it means to exist yet never begin.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:59 am
Hey man I'm in a bar right now on a phone so this will be brief. I've been reading up on this infinity thing and I gotta tell ya, i think we're both in over our heads here. This matter is not as simple as it's being made out to be in this thread, and if the existence of actual infinities was so obvious, I wouldn't be reading about all these badass mathematicians and shit who say it isn't. And when I say badass, I mean the kind that don't hang out at philosophy forums.

Yeah so there's a unique and turbulent history to this matter and believe me, it's one hellacious, mind bending rabbit hole.

Just posting this so I don't leave you hanging. I'll be back when I have a standard keyboard at my fancy.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:04 am
obsrvr524 wrote:Counting is a serial process from 0 up (or down).

So since we're ignoring my last post, which says this same thing, I would like to enquire how you reconcile this with what you said here:

If you cannot count via a "serial process from 0 up (or down)" to any "position within the set", how can you finitely ascertain your position with the set?

Also covered by my last ignored post, what is stopping you, in an infinite set never mind a finite set, from adding a position between current unascertainable positions to add to the set?
Is that "finite" position already taken?

Well either finitude is preventing further positions from being taken, defying the "infinity" of the set, or infinity is so saturated that u can't possibly square it, double it, or anything because it's so saturated that nothing can be squared or doubled etc on top of it.
Aren't you wanting to have your cake and eat it here?

obsrvr524 wrote:Just because two things are endless doesn't mean that they are equally endless.

This was also covered in my last ignored post.

I ask how two endless things can or can't be "differently" endless when they are both endless.

Endlessness doesn't imply quantity, and quantity is necessary to imply equality. Infinity is by definition the exact lack of quantity: the exact opposite of quantity, even. Endlessness is a quality that by definition defies quantity.

Again, are you trying to have your cake and eat it?

Agreement or disagreement for each point - as you requested. The reason I ask is that this all comes back to that "infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA" that you're insisting I "missed". And we can work back from there.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:44 am
Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Counting is a serial process from 0 up (or down).

So since we're ignoring my last post,

You had asked me for advice. I provided that advice and as part of it, an explanation of how to discuss or debate with me. Then I asked you a question related to our ongoing disagreement. Afterward, I made a prediction concerning your posting behavior.

You completely ignored the question that I asked.
But you exactly followed the prediction:
obsrvr524 wrote:It is like climbing a mountain. If you can make certain of each footing along the way, you are far more likely to get to the top, more quickly as well. And if either party makes a mistake it is far more quickly resolved before pride gets too involved.

Pride, politics, and stupidity forbids people from doing that, but you asked what I would do if I were you debating with me. When any of those 3 concerns are present, the other person simply refuses to respond and instead gives some distractive lecture. That's when you know the kind of person you are dealing with.

Although tempted to go into a long detailed discussion of why you were so predictable (there is a little Kim Jong-un dominating your mind), we weren't done with your last batch of debacles and here you divert to a new plethora of fallacies and then complain that your new distraction has been ignored.

Did you want to pickup where we left off?

obsrvr524 wrote: do you agree with the correction that I pointed out?
This one:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhoutte wrote: but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.

And that is where you screwed up this time.

After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.

When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.

If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.

It would save a whole lot of wall paper.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:59 am
promethean75 wrote:This matter is not as simple as it's being made out to be in this thread, and if the existence of actual infinities was so obvious, I wouldn't be reading about all these badass mathematicians and shit who say it isn't. And when I say badass, I mean the kind that don't hang out at philosophy forums.

Yeah so there's a unique and turbulent history to this matter and believe me, it's one hellacious, mind bending rabbit hole.

I can't really argue with that but that doesn't mean that no one is right. Although as you say, "the kind that don't hang out at philosophy forums".

I was actually hoping to get into some political discussions but I quickly discovered that same symptom on this board is as bad, if not worse, concerning politics.

So I'm not really planning on sticking around much longer anyway. I'm just waiting for my parsing program to get written.

### Re: Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:16 pm
I was actually hoping to get into some political discussions but I quickly discovered that same symptom on this board is as bad, if not worse, concerning politics.

oh no doubt. of all the subjects of philosophy, ethics and its extension 'politics' is a lived experience in which people have a real stake in something. it's not a subject like epistemology or metaphysics where it wouldn't matter much if you were wrong (if you even noticed at all). so people are especially impassioned about politics and tend to side with whatever defends and protects whatever position they're at on the spectrum. if you've got economically advantaged people who are getting a free ride - e.g., business owners, stock traders, recipients of big inheritances, trust fund babies, etc., etc. - almost without exception they'll be conservatives and employ all manner of philosophical sophistry in justifying and protecting these advantages.

the same goes for the liberal perspective, too. the beauty of the political debate is that the parties involved are not motivated by some stupid philosophical theory to hold their ground... and while they generally do end up producing a load of philosophical nonsense to defend their place, the material conditions from which they come are very real.

politics demonstrates that simplest of modus operandi; it begins with a battle over the fruits of labor... who has the 'right' to that fruit... and then develops into something extraordinarily complex, often for the purposes of obfuscating the simple premise from which it began.

the right's best move would be to continue over-complicating the matter to keep it uncertain and obscure... while the left should be focused on deconstructing the conservative narratives produced by the right. this requires a surgical critique of history to reveal the ways in which conservative philosophy has secured its philosophical hegemony over the minds of people.