I am clearly missing something in english translation here

You and some seem to be getting hung up on =>
"Can we have an infinite number of finite things"

To me thats a complete consistant statement because you haven't put a context around it or as you would call it a bound, you have made an open statement.

Can we have an infinite number of finite things in a defined range or bound .... NO.

The only reason this comes up is in the context of the universe being infinite.

The universe is an enigma it is both finite and infinite depending how you look at it. You can play all the word games you like you can't get around that reality.

To put it in perspective I will ask you a much simpler interpretation is your ability to think infinite or finite.
See here is the same problem in a much more constrained and easy to understand realm.

The answer is both, you only have finite nuerons so you can only store a discretely finite maximum number but that number is huge. You can also recycle and erase or drop thoughts and that rate is alot faster than you save them so the answer is also infinite.

You need to be entirely sure of the context you are asking the question as to know which of those answers to give.

I have seen wordplays around that same thing with human memory but realize they are wordplays you need context to give the answer and that is not unusual.

Does a ball fall down if I drop it ... not if I am in a centrifuge.

Any statement or question requires context ... all the wordplay I have seen revolves around context not actuality.

To most scientists the universe is both finite and infinite we need context to decide which answer to give you and it's the not giving context that creates the ambiguity.

Last edited by Orac; 10/27/11 07:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.