A Very Bready Question of Infinity and the Zeno Paradox

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
I think it is far more likely that the universe is Finite but part of an infinite structure that encompasses all possible outcomes.

You're calling the universe all of physicality? Whether seen or unseen, whether multiverse or just one universe, there is only one matrix which is finite, but within it, there is infinite potential?

Like separating force that is from potential force that can be?

Does probability/potential exist as a thing? If so, what is it? If not, does it? It is a thing, yet is not a part of the universe? etc.

I think you're still trying to allow nothing to be a something when instead you should think of potential as an upward swing of a pendulum. That is, what is has always been. Something doesn't come from nowhere into reality. It is just reality changing by force/will. I cannot create into nothing from nowhere as those places don't exist.

Maybe think about it like you want to go to the beach, the desire is real, whatever you're interpreting as that desire is real but you're not at the beach - you have not enacted/willed that force which you are interpreting as your desire to go to the beach, but then you must see that the thing you are interpreting as desire is that same force you will use to go to the beach, right?

k, I think the thought is coherent now, sorry for so many edits. but yeah, I think we need to define potential/probability?

Well, from a strictly material standpoint potential has to exist as a "thing". Potential energy is the reason you are breathing right now- it's the carbohydrate and lipid molecules stored in a cell, soon to be converted into ATP to fuel your biology.

There's an exact definition as it relates to physics, but it all comes down to the same basic idea.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: chr0naut

What if you cooked the toast 50% of the way. Then 50% of the remainder? Then continued that pattern...

Would it ever be toast?

I think if it took long enough it would be more closely defined as Penicillium rather than toast.

The time frame would still be the same time it would take a piece of bread and turn it into toast. It's the watching the video that would take a really long time.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: chr0naut

What if you cooked the toast 50% of the way. Then 50% of the remainder? Then continued that pattern...

Would it ever be toast?

I think if it took long enough it would be more closely defined as Penicillium rather than toast.

The time frame would still be the same time it would take a piece of bread and turn it into toast. It's the watching the video that would take a really long time.

Perhaps it could also be explained by time dilation?

But I'm pretty sure that the bread I use isn't massive enough.

Perhaps neutron bread?

Or perhaps Zeno was a bit dense, himself?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Bread and toast are just words. They can mean whatever the heck out culture wants them to. It's got nothing to do with "laws" or "nature" and everything to do with the limitations of our words. It reminds me of the fallacious reasoning creationists use to deny transitional fossil forms and speciation.

I've got it!

You were toasting your bread in the firewall just above the event horizon of a black hole!

That explains the time dilation!

All is resolved.

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
a reply to: Korg Trinity

this thread made me want toast. brb.

Me too. told my ame friend to make me some. Lol

a reply to: DiggerDogg

I am some kind of authority, since I have studied the subject.

We are not even sure if the speed of light is constant.

Possibly you are not, but people who know the subject are.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: DiggerDogg

I am some kind of authority, since I have studied the subject.

We are not even sure if the speed of light is constant.

Possibly you are not, but people who know the subject are.

It is amazing how for some reason people assume that there are no professionals that frequent ATS.

Though having said that, even when in the field it is often difficult to distinguish reality from conjecture.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

It is amazing how for some reason people assume that there are no professionals that frequent ATS.

True. But just for the record, Korg, I'm no professional physicist, just someone who studied for a physics degree but wound up doing something very different with his life. I have, however, retained an interest in physics and the sciences in general, I try to keep up with what is new and I have physicist friends who keep me in the loop when they're feeling generous.

But nobody needs any of that to state authoritatively that c is invariant under all transformations.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It is amazing how for some reason people assume that there are no professionals that frequent ATS.

True. But just for the record, Korg, I'm no professional physicist, just someone who studied for a physics degree but wound up doing something very different with his life. I have, however, retained an interest in physics and the sciences in general, I try to keep up with what is new and I have physicist friends who keep me in the loop when they're feeling generous.

But nobody needs any of that to state authoritatively that c is invariant under all transformations.

O.k. let me restate.... those that have an education in and/or work or have worked in the field of physics