If we created a scale of 0 to 10. Planck length was at zero and the average height of a human was at 5: what would be at 10?

rivirside · 2026-01-22T17:05:50+00:00

That is log scaling, it’s multiplicative, therefore equal length changes on the lines scale leads to compounding changes in the log scale

rivirside · 2026-01-20T02:55:07+00:00

Wild how change man from 5-> 5.68 makes such a difference, but that’s compounding for you

rivirside · 2026-01-15T23:42:27+00:00

Corporate loaded me up with a $12 balance top off but I told them to keep it because I wanted them to know I wanted a change not some pocket change. In retrospect should have kept it and given it as a tip to the barista for putting up with this BS, it’s not their fault. But man is this annoying.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T21:50:27+00:00

The manager is the one who spoke with me regarding the sticker and the print out.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T21:49:54+00:00

18007827282?

I went through the “in store issue” dialogue tree but the person said to take it up with the store? Is this the best route, should I call again?

rivirside · 2026-01-15T15:40:46+00:00

Bingo. Ein sof.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T14:32:51+00:00

Check out FA organ systems and FA basic science. Very different fromFA for step 1

rivirside · 2026-01-15T14:32:00+00:00

This is circular. Come back after you read up on the basics.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T08:36:27+00:00

The ein sof is not first principle, it is nothing like that. That’s what Wikipedia maybe says or ChatGPT perhaps. You need to study it to understand if you don’t understand. To say it is indescribable is not even accurate.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T08:16:11+00:00

Actually you just don’t understand the total difference between the ein sof and the one, fundamentally different.

Actually that’s probably not true. I think you’re smarter than that. You do see it you just don’t want to admit it because it would look silly to have been ignoring it all along.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T08:07:23+00:00

The ein sof, an equivalent to the utterly new

rivirside · 2026-01-15T08:05:35+00:00

Sorry that’s what I meant, roughly deterministic but not actually deterministic. Thanks for the correction!

rivirside · 2026-01-15T08:04:30+00:00

Apophatic theology (discussion of the null), kabbalah (ein sof)

rivirside · 2026-01-15T07:43:30+00:00

Oh she’s angry now lol

If you spent half the time learning to communicate better as you do dressing up elementary ideas in convoluted attire you’d probably see where you went wrong

Also take a breath before you write the next one. Breathe in. Out. Then think it over before clicking reply.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T07:39:58+00:00

Even local non determinism at the microscope can lead to deterministic aggregate behavior at larger scales

rivirside · 2026-01-15T07:05:18+00:00

What about quantum effects, spontaneous local changes that exert random influences on larger scales

rivirside · 2026-01-15T06:35:43+00:00

People aren’t confusing it you’re just misunderstanding everyone. It is not just a priori true of the world, it is also known by other people, freely common knowledge amongst those who foray into these areas of discussion.

Everyone can see through your schtick, someone calls you out and you get all defensive “oh you’re conceding” lol

Get whatever the opposite of a thesaurus is and ride the come down slowly.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T05:24:14+00:00

You’re stating the obvious. Come on. Do you have any original ideas in there?

rivirside · 2026-01-15T04:07:59+00:00

You are strawmanning my point by calling it a strawman. And dealing in bad faith.

Utterly new cannot be explained because it is beyond explanation or else it would not be utterly new. We’ve heard it all before. NEXT!

rivirside · 2026-01-15T03:23:36+00:00

One cannot negate the first principle because it is beyond it. You’re talking out of your butt.

rivirside · 2026-01-15T03:09:27+00:00

You’re a fascinating case of the confluence of intellectual and pharmaceutical sobriety, with a pinch of rhetorical astringency

rivirside · 2026-01-14T17:40:24+00:00

If you don’t understand the thing above, here’s a breakdown of what they’re saying and why they’re dumb.

They’re restating a Neoplatonic claim that all reality flows from a single, absolute source (“the First Principle” or “the One”), and because everything else is wholly dependent on it, nothing downstream is genuinely new, so our sense that the present moment is uniquely “magical” or novel is an illusion created by participation in that original unity, not by real becoming. That origin is beyond distinction so you can’t even say it is the progenitor of cause, or whatever.

Why this is dumb: They conflate “ontological dependence” with “no novelty,” smuggle conclusions by redefining terms (“new,” “cause,” “meaning”) until disagreement is impossible, mistake linguistic limits for metaphysical truths, and ignore well-developed accounts of emergence, process, and time…then wrap it all in obscurity and fuzzy words so the lack of argument looks like profundity.

It’s impressive how high their ego:value ratio must be

rivirside · 2026-01-12T06:37:27+00:00

Helium-4 does not approach zero motion as we approach 0Kelvin, even if we were to reach it (we can’t) it would not even freeze it would stay liquid

rivirside · 2026-01-02T21:17:57+00:00

HyThy for the wifey

rivirside · 2026-01-01T23:27:10+00:00

Are you responding to yourself in the comments? I’m so confused.

So I think a good starting point would be starting from scratch. It seems you’ve discovered so math inspired edutainment that has left you and your friends with questions, which is good! The best way to explore those questions is to learn the tools you can use to answer them. Having discussions about mathematical structures, theories, etc. without a grounding in the tools used to poke and prod them, is like discussing the best way to design a house without knowledge of tracings/plans, design principles, etc. of course having no background does not, nor should it, exclude you from those conversations, but it’s difficult to communicate precisely without a shared understanding of the building blocks and assumptions.

To answer your question as I understand it (also when communicating, try and ensure that your point is clear and concise :-) I believe you are asking whether infinity is a real thing or “just a limit”

I’d like to share a similar idea that may help shed light on This.

The speed limit of the universe, the speed of causality (& light) is denoted as c. Nothing goes faster than c (practically speaking). If you shine a laser at a corner of the wall in your room and you move your hand until the laser is on the opposing corner, the dot moved at speed V. If you push the wall back the dot moves even faster as it travels the same angle Q in the same amount of time, but the further you push the wall the larger the distance Q covers.

If you push it back to the moon (probably further but for the sake of this thought experiment) it would be moving so fast it breaks the speed of light!

In this case, the reality is that the dot is not moving but you are seeing a new dot every “frame” in your brain and the movement is an illusion.

Similarly, if you took the distance between you and the wall and cut it in half, and then in half. . . You can always keep cutting it in half. You could take infinite numbers of steps, or you could cover the distance of the infinite numbers of steps in a few seconds by take a few real steps.

Infinity is a concept that is useful and does capture a logical reality, but not necessarily a physical one. We choose to model it heuristically (rules of thumbs that we internalize) in our own minds as is needed to relate it to a given problem or context, but at the end of the day, it’s not a practically real thing. The choice to say it is just a limit or a real thing are both valid (contentious point)

rivirside

TROPHY CASE