Everything that's not subjective.
Random Philosophical Thoughts
- Thread starter Save_Ferris
- Start date
Everything that's not subjective.
This is what happens when Napoleon turns philosophical:
The only one who knows better then anyone is everyone.
The only one who knows better then anyone is everyone.
Meaningfully subjective or technically subjective?
Mise
isle of lucy
I'm not sure Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics falls neatly into this subjective/objective characterisation of the world.
Are you referring to subjectivism in statistical physics? If so, then I don't think that is an actual form of subjectivism in the philosophical sense so I would place that in the objective bracket.
Mise said:
Maybe we should start a thread on subjective vs objective?
Not specifically, no.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
There are two types of inifinity: Countable infinity and uncountable. What you said is 100% incorrect, but you are sorta on the right path towards truth
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
I just recently realized I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
There are two types of inifinity: Countable infinity and uncountable. What you said is 100% incorrect, but you are sorta on the right path towards truth
What do you mean by that?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Anyone read anything on cyborg theory? Interesting stuff, if you mentally prune away some of Haraway's eccentric quasi-spiritual language.
What do you mean by this? Is it a metaphysical or an epistemological proposition?
meromorph
Chieftain
Well, there are a few ways of classifying "infinities" into different "types." One of those ways is by looking for a 1-1 correspondence.
Suppose I gave you two large barrels of marbles and asked if the barrels had the same number of marbles in them. Suppose also, to make the problem harder, that your living in a time period / civilization that hasn't mastered counting to more than 10 or so. If you are clever you could still solve the problem: take one marble out of the left barrel, and one marble out of the right barrel, and toss them over your shoulder. Keep doing that, and if at the end both barrels become empty at the same time, then we know they had the same number of marbles in them. This is an example of "counting" using a 1-1 correspondence.
Notice we can build a 1-1 correspondence between the set of whole numbers {1,2,3,...} and the set of even numbers {2,4,6,...}. 1 goes with 2, 2 goes with 4, 3 goes with 6, so on, everybody gets exactly one partner. Any infinite set that has a 1-1 correspondence with {1,2,3,...} is called countable.
Can we do this with the fractions also? Between 0 and 1 there are infinitely many fractions, so it might seem like a "bigger" infinity than just {1,2,3,...}. But we can still build a 1-1 correspondence, just list the fractions like this {1,1/2,1/3,2/3,1/4,2/4,3/4,...} etc, which shows that the fractions are countable.
Not all infinite sets are countable, for examples the real numbers ("infinite non-repeating decimals") are not countable, so they are called uncountable. Suppose you had a list of real numbers:
0.a11 a12 a13...
0.a21 a22 a23...
etc
Where aXY is the Yth decimal digit of the Xth real number. Then make a new number not on the list by making the first digit anything other than a11, the second digit anything other than a22, etc, so that this new number differs from all the numbers in the list in at least one decimal place. That shows that our original list, which was completely abitrary, couldn't be a list of all real numbers, therefore they cannot be listed and they are uncountable.
All that I have described here is just one of many ways that math is able to analyze infinities and distinguish different "types." I disagree with warpus's statement that these are the "only two types" of infinity. Your thoughts, Save Ferris, "about infinitely many things in infinite dimensions, so infinity^infinity things exist" are closer to the truth, but even infinity^infinity is not the whole of it. Even (infinity)^(infinity)^(infinity)^...*keep raising to infinity infinitely many times*... is not even scratching the surface of this infinite landscape of infinities.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
In other words, absolutely nothing. Objectivity implies some infallible explanations are possible, but I have I have yet to see such infallible and undisputable explanation in my entire life.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Again, I have to ask, are you talking about metaphysics or epistemology? It's possible to assert, on the one hand, that an objective reality exists beyond the subject, but that the subject cannot access it in an objective manner on the other.
Monsterzuma
the sly one
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,984
philosophy is neuro-linguistic programming.
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
To spam or not to spam, that's the question.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
There are two types of inifinity: Countable infinity and uncountable. What you said is 100% incorrect, but you are sorta on the right path towards truth
It's far worse than that: there are gradations of uncountable infinities (beth-1, beth-2, and so on).
Now, is the set of terms we use to describe infinity, countable or uncountable?
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
If someone told you that Earth would eventually be a star, what would your reaction be?
Eternal dictatorships are passe.
So your original statement was a tautology?
Similar threads
