[m... ... I quoted your post from 6pm tonight.Originally Posted byTheBiologista

the below post is from a good day ago. (i did edit today lol)

which would appear to contradict your assertions.

knee. jerk.]

Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

so what's wrong with this? the implied value of infinity changes over time but as it is equally impossible to count to 3 using 2 quanta as it is to count to 1000 using 999 quanta the actual value remains ∞ in each successive time frame.

a natural number of quanta cannot express the number of quanta in its own set plus one, as an integer. therefore it can only imply the existence of natural number sets of higher value than itself.

the future retains infinite potential, at the instance of the futurity.

an you predict the lottery numbers? Would it be any easier if the lottery was tonight? Would it any eaqsier to predict the results if it was starting in 60 seconds? can you predict the next number to drop, the INSTANT BEFORE it drops?

no?

oh.

surely?

still no?

then have another look..

Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

so what's wrong with this? the implied value of infinity changes over time but as it is equally impossible to count to 3 using 2 quanta as it is to count to 1000 using 999 quanta the actual value remains ∞ in each successive time frame.

a natural number of quanta cannot express the number of quanta in its own set plus one, as an integer. therefore it can only imply the existence of natural number sets of higher value than itself, using simple, but still imperfectly described (and variable) curves and arcing vectors. thiiiiiiink*

the future retains infinite potential, at the instance of the futurity.

an you predict the lottery numbers? Would it be any easier if the lottery was tonight? Would it any eaqsier to predict the results if it was starting in 60 seconds? can you predict the next number to drop, the INSTANT BEFORE it drops?

no?

oh.

surely?

still no?

then have another look.. Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

(and also... tell me which side of the dividing line we ARE on ... is the universe 'n+1' or a '1/(n+1)' ?) (no? Then why not put the sneer away and pick the up the abacus)

??

*so what would small sets of rational numbers trying to describe natural sets of higher value their amount of rational fractions look like? to us they would very probably look like some very short, very simple curves whose exact paths would be impossible to predict (and probably impossible to track to definitive exactness)

um..

collider results anyone?