
Re: There is no infinite set
Posted:
Dec 24, 2013 3:45 AM


Am 23.12.2013 22:40, schrieb Virgil: > In article <l99ku8$qej$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Sam Sung <no@mail.invalid> > wrote: > >> wpihughes@gmail.com write: >> >>> On Monday, December the 23th, in the year 2013 5:23:47 AM UTC4, Albrecht >>> wrote: >>>> There is no infinite set! >>> >>> Then there is a largest natural number. >> >> Yes. >> >>> Of course you can take a Wolkenmuekenheim approach >>> and say that the largest natural number changes, >>> so there a largest natural number, but there >>> is no upper bound on the largest natural number. >> >> Of course not. >> >>> (You may need a few stiff drinks at this point). >> >> Seems you'r drinking too much, Lady. >> >>> However, this will lead right back to the results >>> that you do not like. >> >> The biggest number cannot be larger than the number of >> things or items in universe, eg. about 10^80 fermions. > > Numbers, if they are to exist at all, do so only in one's imagination, > not in any physical reality.. > > The only physical representations of numbers are numerals, which are > only names of numbers, not actually numbers themselves. > > SO that those with such limited imaginations that they cannot imagine > infinitely many of them are the only ones who deny infinitely many of > them.
Nature is completely classifiable by representations of certain symmetry groups, of which the smmetric group of identical particles is by far the most universal physical phenomenon detected by Boltzmann, Einstein, Bose, Dirac and Fermi.
The most fundamental physical representation of numbers are the dimensions of the representation spaces. Counting identical things is a method of identifying a certain representation by taking the trace of the identity. This is of course a building block of every brain or computer that works on an image of the environment.
On the other hand all physical phenomena are described by algebras of maps of which the dimension and symmetry of the argument and image spaces are the most important and easiest to detect properties.

Roland Franzius

