= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on Open Thread, September 30 - October 6, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (295)
I suppose the question is: What should you do if you're offered a bet on whether the dart will hit the target or not?
There's no way to avoid the question other than arguing somehow that you'll never encounter an immeasurable set.
Immeasurable objects are physically impossible. The actual target will be measurable, even if the way you came up with it was to try to follow the "instructions" that describe an immeasurable set.
Hmm. What is the exact length of your, say, pen? Is it a rational number or a real number... I mean the EXACT lengh...?
Note if the answer to the last question is "it is a real number", then it is possible to construct the bet as proposed by the OP.
Before you quote "Planck's Length" in your reply, there is currently no directly proven physical significance of the Planck length (at least according to Wikipedia).
For the same reasons you outline above, I'm okay with fighting this hypothetical target.
If I must dignify the hypothesis with a strategy: my "buy" and "sell" prices for such a bet correspond to the inner and outer measures of the target, respectively.
I'll never encounter an immeasurable set.