**From:** Tomaz Kristan (*tomaz.kristan@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Tue Aug 24 2004 - 14:13:58 MDT

**Next message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: The cult of infinity"**Previous message:**J. Andrew Rogers: "The cult of infinity"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "The cult of infinity"**Next in thread:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: The cult of infinity"**Reply:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: The cult of infinity"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:11:59 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers

<andrew@ceruleansystems.com> wrote:

*> So in a sense, I don't have a problem with
*

*> infinities as long as they are never expressible as a
*

*> practical matter.
*

Yes, but I would go further than that. I can sketch an antinomy inside

a countable infinite set. Shake the set of all naturals! Shake it

well, infinitely many times. Now, what do you expect you will see at

the first 1000 places? What their average is going to be?

On one hand, it should be greater than any N. N much has already been

after only a finite number of shakes. Later on, this first 1000

places' average only increases.

On the other hand, every average of all finite naturals is a finite number.

A paradox. Therefore I don't see a possibility for any kind of infinity.

p.s.

I could formulate this paradox in a strict math language, but it's

enough for a glimpse.

**Next message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: The cult of infinity"**Previous message:**J. Andrew Rogers: "The cult of infinity"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "The cult of infinity"**Next in thread:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: The cult of infinity"**Reply:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: The cult of infinity"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT
*