The Impossible impossible
- Thread starter Xerxes
- Start date
??? !
Hello, knock-knock, anybody home?
It is a mathematically demonstrable fact that there is no such thing as the largest integer. Give me the "largest" one called X, and I'll give you back X+1. You'd have to be remarkably demented if you need any further argument.
Hello, knock-knock, anybody home?
It is a mathematically demonstrable fact that there is no such thing as the largest integer. Give me the "largest" one called X, and I'll give you back X+1. You'd have to be remarkably demented if you need any further argument.
Bend the space around it. The thing is, we don't have that kind of technology, so we can't do it. Maybe computers will be based on that space bending stuff a thousand years from now. Who knows?
About, breathing in a vaccuum, I have to tell you something about the universe first. You cannot create a vaccuum in untampered space. That's because of the matter which makes up the universe. The framework of space -- what governs are physical possibilities -- is not matter, therefore it can, the impossible impossible doesn't apply to it. I"m sorry, I should've clarified this one earlier.
Finding the largest integer can extend beyond adding one to whatever amount I give. You need to think outside the box in order to discover these "huge" numbers, which is kindof pointless. There's probably some special formula just waiting to describe this number of yours.
Total darkness is impossible in a universe with matter (as explained in the breathing part) so we'll leave that one alone. -- People will emit some energy in the form of light, and with highly evolved eyes, well be able to see in near darkness.
You're trying to tell me something it's impossible for something to be yourself. I'm telling you to remove yourself from the confines of our 'normal' universe. Like I said earlier, if you warp the space around it, you can make something so that it's not equal to itself.
I'm glad you brought this one up.
1.The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, formulated by the German scientist Werner Heisenberg, states that in the world of subatomic particles, the very act of observing alters the reality being observed, and therefore, in that world of subatomic particles, one can never measure all properties exactly.
2. The “uncertainty” in the uncertainty principle cannot be done away with by better observation techniques; rather, it is part of the nature of reality itself.
3. The uncertainty principle does not apply to the world of ordinary objects, since in that world, the effect of observation on the reality observed is so small as to be negligible.
Taken From: http://school.discovery.com/lessonplans/programs/understanding-uncertainty/
Predicting the exact properties of an object in space is impossible because it pertains to the set conditions of space around that object. In such a case, it can be said that you're actually trying to predict the properties of the space around this object, right? And like I explained earlier, this cannot not be applied to our "universal framework".
He may agree, but I thik he's wrong:
Then it's no longer a sphere.
You're saying it's impossible....?
Another impossibility?
That doesn't make sense. Anyway, what's the point of discussing the properties of a theoretically different universe? It still doesn't change the fact that some things are impossible in this universe.
Now that's more like it
Alpha,
High-five, partner!
Elbaz, etc. you guys consistently try to "refute" impossibilities by changing the definition of the problem. I say "rotate", you say "warp space". That's something altogether different, ain't it? I say "see without any light", you say "there's always some light" -- again, you're changing the problem. Not to mention introducing your own impossibilities, as Alpha noted.
Face it, you can't escape the impossible.
*preens himself, looking very clever*
Alpha,
High-five, partner!
Elbaz, etc. you guys consistently try to "refute" impossibilities by changing the definition of the problem. I say "rotate", you say "warp space". That's something altogether different, ain't it? I say "see without any light", you say "there's always some light" -- again, you're changing the problem. Not to mention introducing your own impossibilities, as Alpha noted.
Face it, you can't escape the impossible.
*preens himself, looking very clever*
You're asking me if it's possible for A to not equal itself. I tell you, if you change the conditions of space in which A is rotated, then it won't really be equal to itself. Space is always changing and warping so to speak around us, but nobody notices anything.
Now, perhaps you didn't read my earlier explanation clarifying the idea.
The impossible impossible, applies to matter only. When you rotate a sphere or anything like that, and ask me to make it not equal to itself, you're trying to force me into saying it's impossible. I tell you, it's not, since the space around the object is seperate of the object itself. By changing the positions of the concentric objects -- basically gravity (warping space), you're not directly changing the object, the object is changing itself to fit space around it. Therefore it is possible.
Also, it is possible for an object to not be equal to itslef, but that would form a singularity and the universe would collapse onto itself, right? You're in actual fact asking me to make something infinite (a singularity) in a finite universe, and that's contradictive.
So I ask you: How can I apply a contradictive problem to a theory that rests on universal constants?
No, it's once again a contradictive problem> I can't apply an infinite quantity to a finite universe, otherwise bad things happen.
I'm not trying to refute anything. I opened up this thread in the first place as to refine my own understanding of the impossible impossible. You're criticism is actually welcomed by me. Warping space isn't altogether differen't because it's seperate, unless you're actually trying to make me apply an infinite quantity to a finite universe, and that's just screwy as I've explained already. I'm not changing the problem at all, and only noting impossibilities as the apply to non-matter (universal framework).
Don't get me wrong, I welcome this criticism, I was kinda dissapointed when I opened up this thread and no one was picking on it like it's sister thread a year ago.