I can hear this post in their voices. Maybe I’ve seen the movie too many times…nah

      • Carnelian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The set of natural numbers is infinite. The number 2.5 is missing from that set. Therefore infinite sets do not contain every possibility.

        It’s not rocket science

        • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re talking about countable infinities vs uncountable infinities, but you’re proving my point. Order is a countable infinity, disorder is an uncountable infinity. You’ve just abstracted yourself into a corner.

          • Carnelian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            sigh, very well then.

            Consider the set of real numbers, which is an uncountable infinity. Notice how this infinite set does not contain any grapes.

            It’s not rocket science

            • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Grapes and real numbers are both finite distinctions of a shared infinitely ordered set, which itself is part of an infinitely disordered set. Numbers are an infinitely ordered set that do not contain grapes. Grapes are part of many finite sets that are also part of an infinitely ordered set. Both exist within disordered and ordered sets as well. You’re not describing limitations of the infinite like you think you are. You’re only describing the limitations of your understanding of the infinite.

              • Carnelian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, yes, obviously different infinite sets have different contents. Do you have a point that’s actually relevant to what we’re talking about?

                • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, no more points to make with you. You’ve missed every point I’ve made so far, so to continue would be a waste of time.

              • CaptainEffort@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Exactly this. I think the real problem is that “infinite” is virtually impossible to comprehend, so people regularly misunderstand what it means and how it works.

                • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They’re slippery concepts to be sure. Language itself becomes an impediment when discussing the subject. How can one use terms which were created to narrow perspective in order to expand consciousness to encompass the ineffable?