Desription and arguement - el Infinite

if I draw two lines in the form of a drawing cross and magnify the lines an infinite amount at what point does the intersection become separated by an infinitesimal?
Or use two cones:
If I have both infinitely pointed cones touching with zero distance separation and maginify the point of contact infinitely at what point do the cones appear to be separating?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"at any time" means what exactly?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Heraclitus:

Infinitesimals are finite values: They are the finite value above zero but beneath any given number.

You give me a number, an infinitesimal < it.

Constantly reducing time or space is not an infinitesimal. However, the product of infinite division of any number is an infinitesimal.

That is: 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/32, 1/64.........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack:

He is not allowed to ever pass more than 1/2 of the way to the tortoise.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

When you do this for an infinite amount of time.

Touching cones are not separated.

 

If you are in agreement with your statement above then the light cones must stand correct as the cones are decribing space/time and not a number system.
Therefore the observers point of observation is of zero stasis and therefore duration.

 

and our mythical photon can rest easy and travel smoothly with out segmentation and steps in it's movement.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

Perhaps I misunderstood your question, as I am not seeing where you got this from whatsoever.

A constantly diminishing space is not an infinitesimal. Isn't this what you meant? Like say...a shrinking metal bar.

 

oh I interpreted you as saying that if we reduce the dimensions of space or time [ and not numbers] there can be no infinitesimals as they are not a number system...

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

No, I didn't mean that at all. Sorry.

If you reduced any segment of time or space infinitely, you'd get an infinitesimal.

 

I am not interested in resolving this discussion by mere confusion... gotta get it quite clear in the end...so please excuse me if I have confused as I do not intend to do so....nor will I take any advantage from doing so...

 

only but only if you apply a number system to it or them? yes?

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

You're quite forgiven. It was an honest mistake of interpretation on both our parts.

I fully trust that neither you or I are trying to win this debate by making someone concede something by accident. We're only attempting to win the truth by forcing someone to concede the logical collapse of their given system.

But yes, the other answers are (or ought to be - they seem in order) to not have been based on confusion.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

No.

If I "cut" space up infinitely, I'd get an infinitesimal eventually (after an infinite time).

Same with time.

There are monads and moments that are real and actual.

 

yes well said....as no one wins if it is simply about winning...this to me is more about learning than winning....learning how to communicate and also how to conceptualise what I see better. I trust it is the same for you and hopefully those that are reading...

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

I count it a benefit for me to either win or lose. If I win, I have given someone a better grasp on the truth and satisfied the rationality of my own system. If I lose, I can amend my flaws and be closer to a full understanding.

So yes, it is hardly about winning or losing: This is barely a competition in the least. I'm here primarily for the truth.

 

Last post as I gotta go....

There appears to be a conceptional problem in that we are convinced that infinitely small has to be greater than zero yet zero has no value. so why woudl infinitely small achieve a value? Other than to say that is greater than something that has no existance.
I believe that teh value subscibed to an infinitesimal should be infinitely smaller again and when you get to the next infinite infinitesimal I would say well divide it agaiin and again and I would do so for infinity and regardless of how many infinitly reduced infinitesimals it will always be >nothing yet have no real value.

so the logical paradox is that infinitesimal can never achieve value yet it must always be >zero. in a sense we have 0 substance = [ ] or zero substance = 0
Hard to word it properly.....
Thus Archilles never stops chasing the tourtise.

 

however at this level of debate given the enormous philosophical and math input it is not going to be easy to to change ones view point yes?
For me it is 15 years of experience, observation and thought [ not a text book in sight ]
So it will take some doing to show cause for the need to change my view.
I assume that it is likewise with you...

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

Certainly! But if I am truly beat, I am going to concede with humility. As would be the same with you, I imagine.

We're all about fairness here, even if we cannot escape the fact that both oru theories are wrapped up in inertia. Also, we likely will have to face the fact that most theories never are fully expunged, but the truthful parts are added to a more complete system.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

Precisely because it is not nothing ,it would have a value. The infinitely small represents the smallest away from being nothing that one can be. The product of infinite division, be it mathematically, temporally, or spatially.

To ape Wittgenstein again, this is tantamount to "asking what is North of the North Pole". The infinitesimal is defined as the smallest possible - therefore to speak of further division is ridiculous.

Well yes: It has no value in the sense of a number like 1 would have. But I don't grasp what you mean by "in a sense we have 0 substance"?

Try to rephrase this whole thing whne you come back.