Infinite shots

Dali · Nov 8, 2012

I did not mention THE TRUTH as you do, just the knowledge which is totally different and a much less absolute statement.

Too, when you write that universe is expanding, you implicitely state that it is limited. If it were not the case, it could not expand.

Diapositivo · Nov 8, 2012

Dali said:
I did not mention THE TRUTH as you do, just the knowledge which is totally different and a much less absolute statement.

Too, when you write that universe is expanding, you implicitely state that it is limited. If it were not the case, it could not expand.

litody in post #11 said "But the universe isn't infinite" which is, so to speak, quite a statement
Thomas in post #16 referring to the above asked "How do you know?" which is quite legitimate a question;
Answering him, in post #28 you said: "because it fits the theory".

I constructed that as if you agreed with litody that "the universe isn't infinite" and that his affirmation is validated by fitting "the theory". Maybe I got it wrong.

In fact saying that the universe is expanding (not something I can really say I say, rather something I say others say) is limited to a common use or definition of the term "universe", which is more or less what we think expands after that hypothetical big ban. In that sense, universe - the all we can explore around us with our means - appears to be expanding.

But "Universe" etymologically means "the all" or if you prefer "the everything". Just like "infinite" means "without limits".
"All" is by definition infinite because we don't know where "all" ends. In this sense the concept of "all" has "no limits". If it had limits it wouldn't be "all" because limits define different sets of the "all".

So the Universe (the all) must have no limits and be "infinite" just by definition. We refer to the Universe when we mean "all that exists" not "all of that we can have some traces of existence".

EDIT: correct spelling as evidenced below

litody · Nov 8, 2012

what does ethimologically mean ?

lxdude · Nov 8, 2012

Etymologically, from etymology. The study of word origins and the origin and evolution of word meanings.

Steve Smith · Nov 8, 2012

Not just one, an infinite number of identical shots will be taken by an infinite number of monkeys.

Steve.

Dali · Nov 8, 2012

Diapositivo said:
So the Universe (the all) must have no limits and be "infinite" just by definition. We refer to the Universe when we mean "all that exists" not "all of that we can have some traces of existence".

It is not because something has no limit that it is infinite. The surface of a sphere has no limit but is finite.

But we far from the original topic, monkeys and Leica II...

cliveh · Nov 8, 2012

Dali said:
It is not because something has no limit that it is infinite. The surface of a sphere has no limit but is finite.

But we far from the original topic, monkeys and Leica II...

Can you explain why the surface of a sphere has no limit?

ME Super · Nov 8, 2012

Because for a sufficiently small sphere (for example), I can wrap a sheet of 8.5"x11" (or A4, for those using the metric standard) completely around it. Now you would agree that a sheet of paper has a finite surface area, so why wouldn't a sphere also have a finite surface area? If a sphere had an infinite surface area, it would take an infinitely large sheet of paper (or an infinite amount of paint) to cover it. Yet you can travel an infinite distance on the surface of the finite sphere (granted you will be traveling over the same points at some point).

Topography (the study of surfaces) makes my brain hurt.

cliveh · Nov 8, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Not just one, an infinite number of identical shots will be taken by an infinite number of monkeys.

Steve.

But how will they all get in the same position at that point in time?

Dali · Nov 8, 2012

cliveh said:
Can you explain why the surface of a sphere has no limit?

Because you can walk at the surface of a sphere (assuming it is big enough for the experiment, of course!) in any direction without finding something to stop you. Said differently, there is no edge. Different from another surface like a field.

So, the surface has no limit even if it is finite (you can calculate it).

Diapositivo · Nov 8, 2012

Dali said:
Because you can walk at the surface of a sphere (assuming it is big enough for the experiment, of course!) in any direction without finding something to stop you. Said differently, there is no edge. Different from another surface like a field.

So, the surface has no limit even if it is finite (you can calculate it).

It is finite and you are infinitely going in circles over it. Saying it is infinite is playing with the meaning of words. By this token one might say that a rollercoaster is infinite because one can "advance" in one direction in it without ever reaching its end. But it isn't. That's regardless of how big the rollercoaster or the sphere is. The bigger it is the less I have the perception I am going in circles, yes.

But perception is not "truth". The Earth is big enough that people can walk it for a life without ever realizing advancing in circles, but nobody says it is infinite. That if we agree that infinite = without limits.

MattKing · Nov 8, 2012

litody said:
and another thing. All those dictionaries keep saying space. What is space? Answer that and you'll be doing well.

"Space - the final frontier"

Stephanie Brim · Nov 8, 2012

MattKing said:
"Space - the final frontier"

I hear that in Patrick Stewart's voice. Always. Doesn't matter where I am.

MattKing · Nov 8, 2012

Stephanie Brim said:
I hear that in Patrick Stewart's voice. Always. Doesn't matter where I am.

Clearly, Stephanie you are young.

I hear it in the voice of James T. Kirk (William Shatner).

It needs that special Canadian tone.

Dali · Nov 9, 2012

Diapositivo said:
But perception is not "truth". The Earth is big enough that people can walk it for a life without ever realizing advancing in circles, but nobody says it is infinite. That if we agree that infinite = without limits.

Sorry but I won't argue anymore with you as you mix 2 notions to defend your stand, even if these notions are clearly defined in geometry.

Vaughn · Nov 9, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
How often has human theory been wrong?

If the universe is not infinite, what is beyond the 'end'? Surely there must be something there.

I suppose the same stuff (or non-stuff) that surrounded the point right before the Big Bang. And if anyone comprehends the whole universe as a point, they must truly be crazy.

lxdude · Nov 9, 2012

Vaughn said:
And if anyone comprehends the whole universe as a point, they must truly be crazy.

So I guess that means the whole universe is pointless.
Except to someone crazy.

Diapositivo · Nov 9, 2012

Dali said:
Sorry but I won't argue anymore with you as you mix 2 notions to defend your stand, even if these notions are clearly defined in geometry.

No need to argue. The universe will go on the same regardless of how we define it.

batwister · Nov 9, 2012

As funny as monkeys are, I'd say there's too much 'wit' in that picture. But if you say infinite time, then obviously they'd have time to evolve, given the right environment. In which case they'd probably get bored with photography anyway and be more interested in war and nuclear weapons.

The Bresson picture definitely follows the 'chance favours the prepared mind' rule, but the prepared mind has a uniquely human personality.

removed account4 · Nov 9, 2012

clive

would they have to process the film too or just make the exposures ?
loading the film on reels can be more difficult to some than loading an olde leica ...

cliveh · Nov 9, 2012

jnanian said:
clive

would they have to process the film too or just make the exposures ?
loading the film on reels can be more difficult to some than loading an olde leica ...

No, I think the task is difficult enough already, so lets say people will do the processing as they did for HCB. By the way I think one of the monkeys has just managed to reload a leica II, but unfortunately has the film the wrong way round.

michaelbsc · Nov 10, 2012

Vaughn said:
I suppose the same stuff (or non-stuff) that surrounded the point right before the Big Bang. And if anyone comprehends the whole universe as a point, they must truly be crazy.

Ah, but there's the point. There wasn't any stuff, or non-stuff, surrounding the not yet point.

What didn't exist was the surrounding. It's not that there wasn't anything there. It's that there wasn't any there to have nothing in it.

So Oblio returns from the forest with the knowledge that "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all." And this, my friends, explains why going any direction on a sphere doesn't get you to the edge.

MB

Stephanie Brim · Nov 10, 2012

MattKing said:
Clearly, Stephanie you are young.

I hear it in the voice of James T. Kirk (William Shatner).

It needs that special Canadian tone.

I grew up with reruns of TNG. The first I was able to watch while it was actually making new seasons was Deep Space Nine. However, I'm also a Voyager fan.

Vaughn · Nov 10, 2012

lxdude said:
So I guess that means the whole universe is pointless.
Except to someone crazy.

Crazy Wisdom...

A fun book -- https://www.google.com/shopping/pro...X&ei=X22eUL7MCIeQ2QXQloCQBA&ved=0CGsQ8wIwBjgK

E. von Hoegh · Nov 10, 2012

Perhaps this will become the Infinite Thread.

Infinite shots

Dali

Diapositivo

litody

lxdude

Steve Smith

Dali

cliveh

ME Super

cliveh

Dali

Diapositivo

MattKing

Moderator

Stephanie Brim

MattKing

Moderator

Dali

Vaughn

lxdude

Diapositivo

batwister

removed account4

cliveh

michaelbsc

Stephanie Brim

Vaughn

E. von Hoegh

Infinite shots

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency