Official FortunaMaximus Rambling Thread

[FortunaMaximus]

The palace is vast enough for multiple iterations of time. It helps when you don't perceive it as a linear progression. Each event has effects in multiple directions in space and time. There isn't always a responding balance.

How big? Probably enough for 10^10 universes to start with. It's necessary to have that many finite sets so that you can have legible results. Meshing a 25-year old palace of memory you built yourself with a better understanding of infinity allows you to realize you don't have to build it yourself but if you want it, it's there to expand into.

Makes one planet and one species numbering only 6 billion seem pitifully small. Even the combinations of interactions is just a pretty big infinite set. Of course, it keeps growing, but once we've expanded along the Orion arm and have quadrillions upon quadrillions of individuals, the task of colonizing the Galaxy's only started.

And then you have other galaxies. Even if there are other species out there, they must logically share a common sense of mind. They may think differently, have different aims, but that's just accounted for.

And one universe isn't enough for a full expression of infinity. But an infinite number of universes would just be a waste of probability space, as you'd have repeating scenarios with minimal differences that are redundant on large scales.

For now, I'm content to know that memory > mortality and can rest assured when it comes time, having built and begun to understand the vastness and limitations allows for quite a bit of growth and that it's perpetual. Even if it's only for myself, I'll keep building it anyway because I need to experience the full impact of infinity to be content.

It's said the great equalizer is we all have a debt of mortal death. What happens beyond that doesn't matter.

Sometimes I wish I was still off the wall mad and in a chaos-build phase, but I think I've taken all the recursive expansions I can handle for awhile. We all have to expand slowly and at a pace we can all handle.

Jumping ahead to the 4th millennia would accomplish nothing. It'd be a more interesting era with more room to wander. And to think how man would be as a species after an eon is more interesting. I could probably do a good job of describing it, but it'd just be more gibberish. Beyond that is pure speculation.

Death's a lie.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
But an infinite number of universes

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no so such thing as an infinite number, by definition numbers are finite

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
But an infinite number of universes would just be a waste of probability space, as you'd have repeating scenarios with minimal differences that are redundant on large scales.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were infinitely many universes, and assume that you can break find sets on the order of 1000000:1 where there are minimal differences that are redundant on large scales, and partitioned the infinitely many universe set along those bounds to get a set of these universe supersets, you would still have infinitely many universe supersets

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But an infinite number of universes

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no so such thing as an infinite number, by definition numbers are finite

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably why I find the concept without merit. I'll get to the other one later, I think.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But an infinite number of universes

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no so such thing as an infinite number, by definition numbers are finite

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably why I find the concept without merit. I'll get to the other one later, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

discussions of infinity are probably the only area i feel like i can hold my own against you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But an infinite number of universes would just be a waste of probability space, as you'd have repeating scenarios with minimal differences that are redundant on large scales.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were infinitely many universes, and assume that you can break find sets on the order of 1000000:1 where there are minimal differences that are redundant on large scales, and partitioned the infinitely many universe set along those bounds to get a set of these universe supersets, you would still have infinitely many universe supersets

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. A percentage of them would not be expressable, and would not take form. They would have null results. Knowing the percentage would be pure speculation but I wouldn't be surprised if it was astronomically high. It does allow for a continual state of growth tho.

Structures within structures. I think it's a problem of sets, supersets and megasets, and on upwards. Each case would still be infinite, but the high likelihood of results that don't bear fruit allows for such a structure to form.

I've said it before, I think, somewhere, it can be expressed simply.

1, 2, 3...
2, 4, 6...
3, 6, 9...

You would have to consider the set with more information (the 1, 2, 3.. one) to be the biggest set, and the other two to be of their own and still infinite but residing within the original set.

Something like 1, 1, 1... and 2, 2, 2... would be considered a null linear expression and can be contained as a subset of any of the related sets it can refer to, but would not yield anything. Much like repeating irrationals in fractions, it's simple enough to snip it at the first repeats and note it as such.

It does and doesn't get more complicated than that. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Thanks for the feedback.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

1, 2, 3...
2, 4, 6...
3, 6, 9...

You would have to consider the set with more information (the 1, 2, 3.. one) to be the biggest set, and the other two to be of their own and still infinite but residing within the original set.


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong. all three sets are the same size.

if i take every element in set one and multiply it by 2, i get the second set. thus they have the same cardinality. if i take every element in set one and multiply it by 3, i get the third set. thus they have the same cardinality, and contain the same information.

stated another way, there is a mathematical operation that i can apply to every element in set 1 and get every element in set 3. similarly, there is a mathematical operation that i can apply to every element in set 3 and get every element in set 1. thus there is a bijection between the two sets, and they have the same cardinality.

[fmxda]

If I recall correctly, don't coordinates in 3-D and rational numbers have a higher cardinality than integers?

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
If I recall correctly, don't coordinates in 3-D and rational numbers have a higher cardinality than integers?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, they do

Integers =

Rational numbers are effectively X

Coordinates in 3D are X X

(for those of you who don't know, X in this case is read "cross", meaning cross product). Cross products of 2 (or more, obviously) sets are always higher cardinality than the originating sets

edit: you know what, i think this is wrong. rational numbers are the same cardinality as integers, so i guess crosses are not necessarily larger.

i can't remember about 3 dimensional coordinates.

edit2: obviously, my statement about cross products is true for finite sets

[fmxda]

Hmm it might have been irrational numbers that were of higher cardinality then