Infinite shots

[jnanian]

clive

would they have to process the film too or just make the exposures ?
loading the film on reels can be more difficult to some than loading an olde leica ...

[cliveh]

clive

would they have to process the film too or just make the exposures ?
loading the film on reels can be more difficult to some than loading an olde leica ...

No, I think the task is difficult enough already, so lets say people will do the processing as they did for HCB. By the way I think one of the monkeys has just managed to reload a leica II, but unfortunately has the film the wrong way round.

[michaelbsc]

I suppose the same stuff (or non-stuff) that surrounded the point right before the Big Bang. And if anyone comprehends the whole universe as a point, they must truly be crazy.

Ah, but there's the point. There wasn't any stuff, or non-stuff, surrounding the not yet point.

What didn't exist was the surrounding. It's not that there wasn't anything there. It's that there wasn't any there to have nothing in it.

So Oblio returns from the forest with the knowledge that "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all." And this, my friends, explains why going any direction on a sphere doesn't get you to the edge.

MB

[Stephanie Brim]

Clearly, Stephanie you are young.

I hear it in the voice of James T. Kirk (William Shatner).

It needs that special Canadian tone.

I grew up with reruns of TNG. The first I was able to watch while it was actually making new seasons was Deep Space Nine. However, I'm also a Voyager fan.

[Vaughn]

So I guess that means the whole universe is pointless.
Except to someone crazy.

Crazy Wisdom...

A fun book -- https://www.google.com/shopping/prod...=0CGsQ8wIwBjgK

[E. von Hoegh]

Perhaps this will become the Infinite Thread.

[E. von Hoegh]

Ah, but there's the point. There wasn't any stuff, or non-stuff, surrounding the not yet point.

What didn't exist was the surrounding. It's not that there wasn't anything there. It's that there wasn't any there to have nothing in it.


MB

Yes. Thank you for understanding that very important part of the BB theory.

[Dali]

No need to argue. The universe will go on the same regardless of how we define it.

It does not prevent to be rational.

[Diapositivo]

It does not prevent to be rational.

I don't think you are more rational than all those philosophers of the middle ages trying to demonstrate the existence of God by pure logic*. Logic, just like mathematics, is entirely inside the mind of the man. Whatever theory that is only demonstrated only "mathematically" or "logically" is just self-sustaining interesting reasoning but no science.

I'm still with Galileo. No empirical demonstration, no science. The cimento (test, trial) gives the demonstration that the theory was good. Never the theory itself.

The idea, for instance, that before the big bang there was no space to be there is just a negation in words of the problem the mind has (and cannot solve). If the big bang is an explosion of matter, that matter will explode into some space which has to have been there to receive that matter. Besides, big-bang theories normally as far as I know talk about a pulsating universe, with infinitely repeated big-bang-expansion-contraction-big-bang cycles!

Saying that it is energy, or mass, (or energy-mass if you prefer) that creates space contravenes what our mind thinks when we think of mass, energy, or space. This negation is as far as I know performed either as pure imagined concept or, in the case of some other theories, with advanced mathematical "demonstrations". But yet again, no cimento, no science. Only theory with maybe a very intelligent and elegant layout.

According to the imperfect infinitesimal calculus of the ancient Greeks Achilles would "never" reach the turtle. The logic mistake in the reasoning is easily shown, first of all, by noticing in real life that Achilles does reach the turtle. If the reasoning could be performed by some creatures in a world where there is no Achilles and no turtle, so to say, to prove it wrong, the brilliant mathematical construction might go on being right in the mathematical mind of the mathematical theorizers. Mathematics is not empirical evidence. Human brain can fail. Mathematics is a creation of the mind. Pushing it to its boundaries might give incorrect results.

In the beautiful work Life of Galileo Bertolt Brecht shows us Galileo while trying to convince two Dominican friars to look inside his telescope, to see the "Medicean planets". The Dominican friars, I go by memory, answer that they are not interested in looking inside the telescope until they don't have an acceptable theory first that may justify them looking into it. The instrument might have defects but the human mind when properly used cannot fail, that is. Such is the presumptuousness of the human mind.

* Failing miserably but often becoming "saints" in the process.

PS I still don't get which are the two notions that I go on mixing.

[cliveh]

I don't think you are more rational than all those philosophers of the middle ages trying to demonstrate the existence of God by pure logic*. Logic, just like mathematics, is entirely inside the mind of the man. Whatever theory that is only demonstrated only "mathematically" or "logically" is just self-sustaining interesting reasoning but no science.

I'm still with Galileo. No empirical demonstration, no science. The cimento (test, trial) gives the demonstration that the theory was good. Never the theory itself.

The idea, for instance, that before the big bang there was no space to be there is just a negation in words of the problem the mind has (and cannot solve). If the big bang is an explosion of matter, that matter will explode into some space which has to have been there to receive that matter. Besides, big-bang theories normally as far as I know talk about a pulsating universe, with infinitely repeated big-bang-expansion-contraction-big-bang cycles!

Saying that it is energy, or mass, (or energy-mass if you prefer) that creates space contravenes what our mind thinks when we think of mass, energy, or space. This negation is as far as I know performed either as pure imagined concept or, in the case of some other theories, with advanced mathematical "demonstrations". But yet again, no cimento, no science. Only theory with maybe a very intelligent and elegant layout.

According to the imperfect infinitesimal calculus of the ancient Greeks Achilles would "never" reach the turtle. The logic mistake in the reasoning is easily shown, first of all, by noticing in real life that Achilles does reach the turtle. If the reasoning could be performed by some creatures in a world where there is no Achilles and no turtle, so to say, to prove it wrong, the brilliant mathematical construction might go on being right in the mathematical mind of the mathematical theorizers. Mathematics is not empirical evidence. Human brain can fail. Mathematics is a creation of the mind. Pushing it to its boundaries might give incorrect results.

In the beautiful work Life of Galileo Bertolt Brecht shows us Galileo while trying to convince two Dominican friars to look inside his telescope, to see the "Medicean planets". The Dominican, I go by memory, answer that they are not interested in looking inside the telescope until they don't have an acceptable theory first that may justify them looking into it. The instrument might have defects but the human mind when properly used cannot fail, that is. Such is the presumptuousness of the human mind.

* Failing miserably but often becoming "saints" in the process.

Galileo was a great thinker, but Isaac Newton was on another planet in terms of human creative thought and scientific progression.