OFFENSIVE TITLE

HIGHLY OFFENSIVE RANT ABOUT HASKELL

AUTISM

MORE AUTISM

EVEN MORE AUTISM

OHGOD AUTISM EVERYWHERE

LISP

LISP IS GOOD

LISP IS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IN

LISP GIVES ME A RAGING BONER

I WANT TO MARRY LISP

OH LORD IN HEAVEN I LOVE LISP SO MUCH I WOULD KILL MYSELF FOR LISP

ALSO EMACS

WINDOWS IS PIG DISGUSTING

I AM USING SOLARIS BECAUSE I KNOWS TEH LUNIX

AND TOTALLY NOT BECAUSE I AM FUCKING STUCK AT MY JOB AS SERVER ADMINISTRATOR (ALSO A RONERY FAGGOT)

>>84
What physical evidence that for every N there is N+1 > N?
Natural numbers are not defined in any physical way, they are defined by axioms.
But where is cell numbered "Infinity"?
I don't think I ever argued for literal infinity as a value belonging to the set of natural numbers(unless it's just a symbol denoting a set's cardinality, in which case it's defined, although in a rather shaky way). I merely argue that you cannot find the end of the set and thus you may as well call it infinite.

My argument was also along the lines that using maximum informational content possible within the universe as the maximum number you can have is not a valid argument as other universes can exist (and are likely to exist: that was the point of the prisoner thought experiment) and in those universes the visible universe could contain a larger number and so on, so physical implementation of a number cannot be required.