(sketch) (morality of logical methods) Infinity is a property of the set. It’s i

(sketch) (morality of logical methods)

Infinity is a property of the set. It’s imaginary. Operations are not imaginary, nor infinite. Operations, even imaginary operations, must be performed. I cannot perform any operation indefinitely, and so no operation can be performed infinitely.

Likewise, no infinite set can be constructed. It can however be imagined we are told. But this is not true. No human imagination can demonstrate infinity. We can only construct imaginary operations where the scale is greater than our perception.

We can imagine the flight of an arrow, and when we imagine infinity we do precisely the same operation. The arrow leaves our vision, the scope of measurement leaves our imagination. The trajectory is all we remember in either case.

Even in the vaulted pairing off examples we are not measuring the size of anything, because for anything beyond our perception, that size is unimaginable. Instead, we generate more operations more frequently with some pairing offs, than we do with other pairing offs. So we may say that the operational members of any function, occur with greater frequency or higher density, but we cannot make an argument as to size, since no end is possible in the infinite, but no infinite is possible.

The net result is that mathematicians arbitrarily alter scale, because while mathematical relations are constant, the scale is arbitrarily defined, and its correspondence with reality is likewise arbitrarily defined. As such, all mathematicians do is alter the PRECISION of any model at whim.

The reason is that scales are utilitarian. In the sense of measuring real world objects, such scales are limited by some meaningful amount of precision. If I cut a piece of wood or metal there is some limit to the necessity of precision, and that precision determines the point of demarcation between one unit and another.

Mathematics cannot rely on externally defined precision so they rely on sets and the excluded middle to accommodate what is in reality their arbitrary use of precision, given their arbitrary use of scale.

I actually find this kind of cute really. Like children inventing magical causes.

But it’s not cute. It’s magian really, and this kind of magical nonsense, or platonic fantasizing has created the pretense of mysticism that partly drowned the 20th century.

If we can hold the inquisition responsible for burning witches out of mystical ignorance, can we hold mathematicians and physicists responsible for the mysticism that was the 20th century? Or do we blame it on the introduction of the proletarians to the demands of education and the work force?

I don’t know who to blame. I just want to fix the problem.