All right, Kremmet da Frog requested my arguement on the lack of infinity in the universe, so I'm actually putting up another post. But before we get to that, shit about me, because, well, fuck you, this is my journal :)
Anyways, I have a new toy I want to get. It's called an electro saudering cutter or something like that... I dunno. Whatever. Anyways. So I go to the doctor to get this mole removed. The mole is right on the back of my neck, right next to my spine. So she injects the novicaine straight into the mole, and, of course, has to do a double dose because I'm resistant. So, with the injection that close to a lot of central systems, pretty much everything from my shoulder to my left eye is either burning or numb. So, like 5 or 10 minutes after the fact, she takes this thing, and aside from the obvious, acrid smell of burning flesh, I don't notice a thing, and lickity split she goes "all done". Seriously, this thing just blazed through my flesh. Now I have a scar in the back of my neck that looks like I was shot with a BB gun. Seriously, freaking awesome.
Okay, a few quick, random thoughts:
-I have 3.5 hours between classes tomorrow, and that pisses me off to no end.
-The tournament league might not start up next week, and that would bum me out.
-The Playstation Board of Gamers or whatever finally started sending me shit, and now I have a free CD case, which is cool.
-I might start getting back into MTG, which is frightening
-I have to make TheWarp.net Avatar competition rules up, which is daunting
-Your mother, just because
-I really should finish reading a whole crap load of stuff, including the school reading I'm still behind on
-I hate thefacebook.com because I feel obligated to keep my account now, but it's a stupid ass site...
Anyways, now that I'm exhausted, let's see if we can get to the meat of my post, shall we?
So this whole thing came up because of my Philosophy of Science class. The professor referenced this guy Zeno, long dead philosopher who believed motion was impossible. The basic jist of his theory is: "To reach any point in space from any other point in space, you must first travel half the distance between those two points. To the same effect, you must travel half the distance of this half. If you continue down this path of halves, you will need to cross an infinite number of half distances, which you will never reach the smallest unit of distance that you can begin travelling." Or something close to that effect. Get it? Got it? Good.
So, anyways, this pissed me off. It seemed extremely defeatist, and I felt almost like Zeno was exploiting a fluke to give himself some sort of air of intellectual superiority. So, I decided to take vague definitions and flukes and turn it around on him.
So it starts off a little like this:
second thought... I'll just post the actual e-mail I sent. It's still rough and unpolished, but it saves me the effort of going through a new draft and then putting it here when I'm this tired....
So, without further to do (adieu, whatever):
Zeno stated that motion was impossible due to the fact that there are an
infinite number of half distances between any number of points, and that any two
points, no matter how close, may still be divided into smaller segments of
distance. However, I question the validity of his argument by denying the
existence of infinity in this -- or any -- universe.
By definition of both a universe and infinity, no universe is infinitely
large. One can never reach infinity, and if you ever arrive at a point in space,
you have not reached infinity, as you may continue farther. Therefore, no space
can "stretch on to infinity", as it can never arrive to infinite, infinity
always being superior to the universe. A universe must then have a bound at some
point, some set of constraints where it stops seeking infinity and ends.
Alternatively, one could argue -- somewhat weakly -- that if one cannot
state for certainty that a universe is infinitely large, as the end would always
be "just a little farther," then a universe must be finite because it is the
only statement that is possible to say for certainty, even if it is yet to be
In a bound space, infinity cannot exist. Infinity, by its own definition,
cannot be placed in constraints. There is no possible way to fit an infinite
number of points in a bound space. The points would have to be infinitely small,
which you could never achieve such a size because they could always be smaller,
no matter how small you got them. Conversely, as you get infinitely smaller,
mathematics states any constant value divided by infinity becomes zero. If the
point takes up zero space, it does not exist, and thus again you are unable to
fit an infinite number of points into a bound space. Therefore, infinity cannot
exist in a constrained universe.
If infinity does not exist, then there must be some point where the
divisions of space become so small they can no longer be divided, much the same
as Democritus and modern physicists believe there is an ultimate "stuff" that
cannot be divided. Once that finitely small space has been reached, motion is
However, it is not fitting to leave infinity as not existing, simply because
there is too much evidence of its existence in mathematics, logic, and reason.
Upon further inspection, the state of non-existence is, in itself, a sham. In a
state of non-existence, not even non-existence can exist, therefore
contradicting and eliminating itself. Thus why I coin the term "negative
existence" as it is "less than not existing." In this realm, such concepts as
non-existence and infinity may exist, applying themselves situationally, and
disappearing where otherwise suitable. This allows for situations that would
otherwise cause a paradox if infinity didn't exist -- such as infinite loops --
allows the foundations of thought and knowledge to remain, and can still account
for the discrepancies of infinity in our known world (such as motion). Without
this 3rd state of existing, we might as well throw out all logic and reason due
to situations such as the above stated on non-existence. While the actual
characteristics of this 3rd state of being do not need to be discussed here
(possibly a topic for another discussion?), its existence does not contradict my
original statement that infinity does not exist -- if you consider existence to
be "positively existing."
I hold my argument to be just as valid as Zeno's, though whether one holds
either argument as sound is entirely a subjective opinion. Thus, my mission is
accomplished, as I have logically argued against Zeno's experiment and come up
with a solution of my own that uses reason and logic to explain the way the
She's still yet to respond, and I'm still yet to polish it. So meh. Over and out, roger dodger.