What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is there redundency in infinity? (1 Viewer)

If a 1000 monkeys with a 1000 typewriters could eventually come up with the lyric "I bless the rains down in Africa" then yes.

 
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” 
― Albert Einstein

 
Infinitely many mathematicians walk into a bar. The first says, "I'll have a beer." The second says, "I'll have half a beer." The third says, "I'll have a quarter of a beer."

The barman pulls out just two beers. 

"That's all you're giving us? How drunk do you expect us to get on that?"

The bartender says, "Come on guys. Know your limits."

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Your thoughts.
Click to expand...
It's going to depend on what you mean by redundancy.  

Infinity requires the whole of everything, by definition continuing even beyond the bounds of any of our borders.  If a concept requires everything, then by definition there can be no redundancy.

If we're discussing the dilution of unique natures by the concept of infinity, I'd argue that infinity exposes the lie that is the concept of redundancy in those terms.  The more similar two things are, the more wildly unique a thing is with the slightest difference between it and the "other."  Differences not only of physical structure, but of intention, and of physical and temporal placement.  Of context.  Yes, an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time will eventually re-create the complete works of Shakespeare - but without intention.  Without forethought.  Without commentary on contemporary society.  And the existence of all of the "almost" versions - the one that spells Hamlet incorrectly sixty-two times, or sixty-three, or renames him Victor Frankenstein shows the incredible uniqueness of the moment in history that was the time of Shakespeare and the drafting of the original works.

Yes, an infinite universe can create billions of forms that are 98.8% the same as one another.  Inside that 1.2% are you, and I, and Donald Trump, and chimpanzees.  If anything, it shows how miniscule the differences that matter are.  At the very least, it should reduce our definition of redundancy to a useless border we place around things we don't want to have to place importance on - borders that should simply disappear into the ether in a concept of infinity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess at least in part what I mean is that redundancy is a structure of meaning we place on things - a denotation of a thing that exists.  And once we are willing to include the denotation of things in our concept of infinity, it cannot be the case that things are redundant in any meaningful sense of the word.  Because denotation requires such an intimate insight into a thing - an independent concept of the thing that exists in ways only in the mind of the one denoting, a creation of unique "thingness" that cannot exist elsewhere in the universe - that such a concept of redundancy is absurd.

 
Henry Ford said:
I guess at least in part what I mean is that redundancy is a structure of meaning we place on things - a denotation of a thing that exists.  And once we are willing to include the denotation of things in our concept of infinity, it cannot be the case that things are redundant in any meaningful sense of the word.  Because denotation requires such an intimate insight into a thing - an independent concept of the thing that exists in ways only in the mind of the one denoting, a creation of unique "thingness" that cannot exist elsewhere in the universe - that such a concept of redundancy is absurd.
Click to expand...
So are you saying redundancy isn't a thing?

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Infinitely many mathematicians walk into a bar. The first says, "I'll have a beer." The second says, "I'll have half a beer." The third says, "I'll have a quarter of a beer."

The barman pulls out just two beers. 

"That's all you're giving us? How drunk do you expect us to get on that?"

The bartender says, "Come on guys. Know your limits."
Click to expand...
A logician's wife asked her husband about their newborn, "Is it a boy or a girl?"

The logician answered, "Yes."

 
BowieMercs said:
So are you saying redundancy isn't a thing?
Click to expand...
In a sense, yes.  

Even built into the engineering sense, redundancy requires, for instance, two similar structures which can each perform the job of the other. But the second - whichever that is - is a backup.  The first is a primary.  When we consider that, while they perform redundant functions, in the philosophical sense I wouldn't call them redundant, as the second has a distinct job - to take over when the first is lost, or fails, or simply winds down its useful life.  In that discussion, is the first suddenly a non-entity?  Maybe in terms of the function of the overarching engineering project, but it's still there. It is.  Or if it is destroyed, it was.  And that existence cannot simply be snapped out of history.  The backup system begins, and performs its redundant function, but it does so with a somewhat separate purpose, with significantly different endgame (as its loss will result in failure of the engineered system) and with different pressures and expectations placed upon it.

Redundancy has a utilitarian meaning, but not a terribly useful philosophical one in my opinion.

 
Henry Ford said:
In a sense, yes.  

Even built into the engineering sense, redundancy requires, for instance, two similar structures which can each perform the job of the other. But the second - whichever that is - is a backup.  The first is a primary.  When we consider that, while they perform redundant functions, in the philosophical sense I wouldn't call them redundant, as the second has a distinct job - to take over when the first is lost, or fails, or simply winds down its useful life.  In that discussion, is the first suddenly a non-entity?  Maybe in terms of the function of the overarching engineering project, but it's still there. It is.  Or if it is destroyed, it was.  And that existence cannot simply be snapped out of history.  The backup system begins, and performs its redundant function, but it does so with a somewhat separate purpose, with significantly different endgame (as its loss will result in failure of the engineered system) and with different pressures and expectations placed upon it.

Redundancy has a utilitarian meaning, but not a terribly useful philosophical one in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Good thing my kidneys never majored in philosophy 

 
BowieMercs said:
Good thing my kidneys never majored in philosophy 
Click to expand...
I think if you read what I wrote, it accounts for this exact situation.

Would your thoughts about your kidneys change if you had one?  Would you feel differently about a doctor telling you that one of your kidneys is failing if there were only one kidney? Would the concept of a UTI, or a bladder infection, or a pathogen that's known to attack the renal system change?  Would you drink as much? Would you pay more attention to your blood pressure, filtration issues, etc.?  

 
Andy Dufresne said:
Three statisticians were hunting a deer. The first overshot, the second undershot, and the third shouted "We got him!"
Click to expand...
Descartes walks into a bar intending to order a whiskey.  The bartender says "do you want a beer tonight, Descartes?"  Descartes says "I don't think..." and disappears.

 
If you take infinity and subtract 57,371,984,228,732 from it, you still end up with precisely infinity; so it seems like there's some redundancy built into it.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
If you take infinity and subtract 57,371,984,228,732 from it, you still end up with precisely infinity; so it seems like there's some redundancy built into it.
Click to expand...
Again, that depends on what you mean by redundancy.  You're subtracting a number from a concept.  You'll therefore have to deal with some concepts in the discussion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Comic books and graphic novels discussion thread
Replies
15
Views
216
The Duff Man
The Duff Man
B
Delta Airlines Travel Question
Replies
16
Views
502
The Z Machine
The Z Machine
E
Fluoride in City/Public Water. Thoughts?
2
Replies
90
Views
2K
the moops
the moops

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top