“The points we arrive at by accepting [uncountable] infinity means those points are valid”
Or from elsewhere in his presentation, “without holes”. Trying to split the one into two identicals (a re-creation by our own finite sense) ALWAYS renders holes — the most notable of which are the center and the poles. And the supposition is that these holes don’t matter.
But how can we say that the very center, from which all parts proceed, doesn’t matter? And how can we say the the very poles that define motion while generating the allegorical sphere (and perhaps by which it rotates?) don’t matter?
“Uncountable (unfathomable) infinity is one of the descriptors of God (the Concept, ,the Actuality). Even our best theoretical math predicts that if we try to “duplicate” what is according to our “sense”(s) (the Biblical “flesh”) . . . there will ALWAYS be parts missing.
And that calling them “unimportant” just because there’s ALMOST identical semblance to the original . . . doesn’t necessarily render them unimportant.
A good tie-in at the end with quantum particle physics though. If he hadn’t mentioned I would have. There’s the concept that some sub-atomic particles/waves (like the ones that carry the 4 Basic Forces like gravity, the EM spectrum and the 2 nuclear forces) have both “spin” and “color” (as a hypothetical construct of “direction” — up, down, left, right, strange and charmed). And that some particles have to be “spun twice” to end up identical to their starting configuration.
Did anyone else notice that there was no mention of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? I guess that was shelved for this speculation! But it speaks volumes to the actuality that things are so VERY much more complex than we realize — and that we cannot just subtract something as “unimportant” or “meaningless” without skewing the end speculations (which is likely why NO attempt at environmental or social reconstructionism ever works out as we predicted)
(Or “personal reconstructionism” without a “center” and “poles”?)
It’s all very heady stuff! But interesting rumblings that we might be getting close to an understanding of the God Concept that doesn’t product the anaphylactic heebie-jeebies in those who are stuck in a purely religious construct of “God”.
4 responses to “The Banach Tarski paradox”
I’ll never get that 24:13 minutes back. Never. Never into infinity.
@ladybarbara when talking about the math of infinity, it’s amazing what can be done with the concept!,
“The points we arrive at by accepting [uncountable] infinity means those points are valid”
Or from elsewhere in his presentation, “without holes”. Trying to split the one into two identicals (a re-creation by our own finite sense) ALWAYS renders holes — the most notable of which are the center and the poles. And the supposition is that these holes don’t matter.
But how can we say that the very center, from which all parts proceed, doesn’t matter? And how can we say the the very poles that define motion while generating the allegorical sphere (and perhaps by which it rotates?) don’t matter?
“Uncountable (unfathomable) infinity is one of the descriptors of God (the Concept, ,the Actuality). Even our best theoretical math predicts that if we try to “duplicate” what is according to our “sense”(s) (the Biblical “flesh”) . . . there will ALWAYS be parts missing.
And that calling them “unimportant” just because there’s ALMOST identical semblance to the original . . . doesn’t necessarily render them unimportant.
A good tie-in at the end with quantum particle physics though. If he hadn’t mentioned I would have. There’s the concept that some sub-atomic particles/waves (like the ones that carry the 4 Basic Forces like gravity, the EM spectrum and the 2 nuclear forces) have both “spin” and “color” (as a hypothetical construct of “direction” — up, down, left, right, strange and charmed). And that some particles have to be “spun twice” to end up identical to their starting configuration.
Did anyone else notice that there was no mention of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? I guess that was shelved for this speculation! But it speaks volumes to the actuality that things are so VERY much more complex than we realize — and that we cannot just subtract something as “unimportant” or “meaningless” without skewing the end speculations (which is likely why NO attempt at environmental or social reconstructionism ever works out as we predicted)
(Or “personal reconstructionism” without a “center” and “poles”?)
It’s all very heady stuff! But interesting rumblings that we might be getting close to an understanding of the God Concept that doesn’t product the anaphylactic heebie-jeebies in those who are stuck in a purely religious construct of “God”.
@griz remember the poles are infinitely shiftable… so the blind points disappear once shifted!,