The Nature of Infinity

[Lakon]

this is actually an area of future interest for me. Studying the philosophy of mathematics as it evolved over time.. I believe, possibly incorrectly, that contemporary mathematics has a more controversial philosophical premise than what used to be the case in ancient times.. [ the Ancient Greeks for a over generalised example, were great at using mathematics to express a philosophical point of logic or rational in an abreviated form [ aka Mathematics. ]
The premise being that all sciences stem from a philosophical genesis, hence a University Faculty of Philosophy includes all or most sciences [typically]
Some thing to get "in to" in the future for sure....
Riemannian Geometry for example from a man in the early 1800's no doubt had some pretty heavy philosophical premises underpinning it.

Underlined .. sounds like a most worthy interest. You might be interested to know (if you don't already) that the term mathematics 'mathematika' to the ancient Greeks meant 'that which is learnt' and encompassed most if not all knowlegde, including number, geometry, optics, science .. even wisdom.

 

[Lakon]

I don't necessarily think nothingness is untrue in actuality simply because it is illogical. Simply, I feel that the concept of nothing is impossible to understand, because in ALL of human experience, there is a something. In fact, experience is entirely dependent upon a something. Using that logic, we can conclude that if a nothing can be true then merely it can never be understood. Probably one of the most annoying ideas to contemplate, since it can't actually be contemplated. Ever since I was a kid though I imagined nothingness as complete whiteness. Not that this is an accurate depiction of nothing since after all white is color, and whatever nothing 'is', it's entirely visual-less. I mean, can nothing even be an 'is'? Well, 'is' is an existence, and existence=something, so no. I feel more confused now than when I started this, with no conclusion in sight, so uhh there you go I guess. Bam your mind's a poofy balled. Or maybe it isn't since you KNOW. Whatever I really need to stop typing.

You probably should feel more confused than when you started it, as I do.

In what sense do you mean that nothingness is not necessarily untrue ?

 

[lalalandscape]

You probably should feel more confused than when you started it, as I do.

In what sense do you mean that nothingness is not necessarily untrue ?

Well.. I thought what I had said before was an explanation of that. I don't think that I could explain in more detail than that- but I could reiterate. The gist being that nothingness has zero grounds for which humans can contemplate upon, since the origins of all human contemplation are of a 'something' substance.

 

[Lakon]

Well.. I thought what I had said before was an explanation of that. I don't think that I could explain in more detail than that- but I could reiterate. The gist being that nothingness has zero grounds for which humans can contemplate upon, since the origins of all human contemplation are of a 'something' substance.

Well that kind of makes more sense - it's a very tricky subject this nonethingness. I might have mis-read your 1st sentence in your earlier post.

 

[siledre]

I think the thought of infinity bothers me, nothing lives forever, nothing lasts forever, so how can infinity exist if death is the finality of all things. Even space going on forever bothers me, just because we can't see it doesn't mean it has no end.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by lalalandscape

Well.. I thought what I had said before was an explanation of that. I don't think that I could explain in more detail than that- but I could reiterate. The gist being that nothingness has zero grounds for which humans can contemplate upon, since the origins of all human contemplation are of a 'something' substance.

Well that kind of makes more sense - it's a very tricky subject this nonethingness. I might have mis-read your 1st sentence in your earlier post.

well he actually doesn't make " more " sense really

because what he hasn't explained is how " nothingness " becomes something

the way I looked at infinity came down to , what if all energy and matter became totally and completely absent , absolutely

with no after residue

then nothingness would happen , since something has , depth , breadth , and length and movement and space , nothingness doesn't
I looked at nothingness as the complete opposite of something , for infinity

therefore nothingness for infinity has NO possibility to change into and/or morph into anything other than what it is , nothingness

therefore infinity is not based on mathematics , but infinity is based on energy and matter and energy and matter properties

therefore the Nature of infinity is grounded in the infinity of energy and matter

 

[Quantum Quack]

Is it worth asking:
Can Infinity exist with the absense of time?
To me it takes the existence of time to allow infinity to exist. Without time, only zero "no-exists".
For zero to be a real "concept only" infinity must exist. Other wise zero would have a reality beyond concept, which is a contradiction in terms.

A question I have put forward a few times but are considered a crank for doing do.
"If time equals zero duration how big is the universe?"

or at t=0 [duration] how big is the universe?

 

[James R]

Is it worth asking:
Can Infinity exist with the absense of time?

Infinity of what?

To me it takes the existence of time to allow infinity to exist.

Infinity of what?

Without time, only zero "no-exists".

What is "no-exists"?

For zero to be a real "concept only" infinity must exist.

What is a real "concept only" and why does zero have to be one of those?

Other wise zero would have a reality beyond concept, which is a contradiction in terms.

Which terms?

A question I have put forward a few times but are considered a crank for doing do.
"If time equals zero duration how big is the universe?"

Time obviously doesn't equal zero duration. The time it took you to read this post, for example, was not zero duration.

or at t=0 [duration] how big is the universe?

If you're measuring t from the big bang, the answer is: nobody knows. Our physics can't currently tell us what the universe was like at t=0 (the big bang).

 

[Quantum Quack]

Infinity of what?



Infinity of what?



What is "no-exists"?



What is a real "concept only" and why does zero have to be one of those?



Which terms?



Time obviously doesn't equal zero duration. The time it took you to read this post, for example, was not zero duration.



If you're measuring t from the big bang, the answer is: nobody knows. Our physics can't currently tell us what the universe was like at t=0 (the big bang).

If I felt you were actually interested in genuine discussion then I might be interested in responding to your post. As it is I am not convinced you are doing anything more than an exercise in SRT protection/defense.
So I shall decline your offer.

 

[Quantum Quack]

well he actually doesn't make " more " sense really

because what he hasn't explained is how " nothingness " becomes something

the way I looked at infinity came down to , what if all energy and matter became totally and completely absent , absolutely

with no after residue

then nothingness would happen , since something has , depth , breadth , and length and movement and space , nothingness doesn't
I looked at nothingness as the complete opposite of something , for infinity

therefore nothingness for infinity has NO possibility to change into and/or morph into anything other than what it is , nothingness

therefore infinity is not based on mathematics , but infinity is based on energy and matter and energy and matter properties

therefore the Nature of infinity is grounded in the infinity of energy and matter

yes I agree, infinity is naturally a qualifier of "things" [not just substance]
For example:
Volume: The volume of "nothing" can be infinite but "nothing" in itself can only be zero dimensional.

So the volume of an "empty of any-thing universe" could be considered as infinite. Yet the "nothing" that fills it can not.**
Volume being "dimensions" such as length, width, depth...

Length = infinity
Width = infinity
Depth = infinity

yet the content of that infinite volume can = zero

** this is not entirely a correct postion but may suffice for this discussion. As it takes the existance of substance to expand zero dimensions into 4 dimensions IMO as all distances are using Mass or Matter as the premise of their metric. [example: how can vacant space be used as a metric?]

 

[James R]

If I felt you were actually interested in genuine discussion then I might be interested in responding to your post. As it is I am not convinced you are doing anything more than an exercise in SRT protection/defense.
So I shall decline your offer.

SRT needs little defence against meaningless waffle, which is all your post amounts to as far as I can see. The fact that you apparently can't or won't answer simple questions about what you mean suggests to me that you're trolling.

 

[Quantum Quack]

SRT needs little defence against meaningless waffle, which is all your post amounts to as far as I can see. The fact that you apparently can't or won't answer simple questions about what you mean suggests to me that you're trolling.

trolling about what pray tell?
I am here to enter into discussion about all sorts of things, from computer tech. to philosophy, from pseudo science to conventional science...
what are you here for JamesR can I ask?
What do you hope to acheive here at sciforums?
In over 11500 posts and 563 threads started I have only ever received one infraction [no points lost] and that was for an over-site regarding a video that ended with some Planet Nibru crap tagged on the end of the video..

 

[LaurieAG]

The gist being that nothingness has zero grounds for which humans can contemplate upon, since the origins of all human contemplation are of a 'something' substance.

So where I live we have road laws that say you must drive at 10 kph below the speed limit in built up areas when you do not see speed signs and when these signs are visible and spaced 250m apart you must drive on the speed limit.

Most of the older drivers just drive 10kph less than the speed limit rather than contemplating 'nothing' and getting booked.

We don't actually know if the ones who 'thought' this little exercise up are human so you still may have a point.

 

[waterpump999]

What a wonderful subject. I've spent a long time thinking on this one. Can't answer many of the above questions, however there is one approach I find useful. Keeping it simple to start with if we take integer numbers and consider the infinity of them we can say:

The infinity of integer number has no magnitude limit (if it did it would be finite), and however large a number is we can always add one to it.

So the Infinity of All Integer Number must refer to a set of integer number. So what is the boundary of the set?

It must be bounded by the quality of being the attribute of 'integer numberness'. So the set boundary of the infinity of integer number refers to a boundary of quality - the realm of All Integer Number, a dimension-like reality, not a limit of magnitude.

In fact we could extend our definition of a dimension to include the concept of 'a realm of quality'.

Then we could say that as the magnitude of integer number increases it becomes more 'dimension-like', perhaps?

Bounded by quality, not by magnitude.

Works for me!

 

[Magical Realist]

What a wonderful subject. I've spent a long time thinking on this one. Can't answer many of the above questions, however there is one approach I find useful. Keeping it simple to start with if we take integer numbers and consider the infinity of them we can say:

The infinity of integer number has no magnitude limit (if it did it would be finite), and however large a number is we can always add one to it.

So the Infinity of All Integer Number must refer to a set of integer number. So what is the boundary of the set?

It must be bounded by the quality of being the attribute of 'integer numberness'. So the set boundary of the infinity of integer number refers to a boundary of quality - the realm of All Integer Number, a dimension-like reality, not a limit of magnitude.

In fact we could extend our definition of a dimension to include the concept of 'a realm of quality'.

Then we could say that as the magnitude of integer number increases it becomes more 'dimension-like', perhaps?

Bounded by quality, not by magnitude.

Works for me!

That's a new way of thinking about infinity--in terms of quality vice magnitude. When you think about it infinity itself is a quality. Thus it makes sense to say there could be an infinite amount of infinities. It also suggests that the quality of infinity inheres in any given members of its set. And indeed we CAN tell if a set is infinite merely by examining a few of its members. There is then a twofold aspect to infinity--a transcendental aspect that can never be measured or comprehended, and an immanent aspect which inheres in the relations of its set members.

 

[rodereve]

Yes, infinity exists as a concept. does it exist in nature, well you'd have to assess the parameters of nature.

If you look at distance, everyone is pointing towards to universe as proof of infinity. but if the universe is expanding outwards from the big bang, what is keeping it going? Shouldn't it be slowing down its expansion? If its expanding towards infinity, didn't it need an infinite amount of "impetus" (not sure the correct word) before the big bang to achieve that?

I guess you can point to smaller things as proof of infinity, imagine a ruler, then look at the 1cm mark and imagine the distance 1.1, then 1.11, then 1.111 etc etc. but does infinity exist in finite measurements? the ruler isnt getting any bigger.

If you look at time, time started at the big bang, and continues on towards infinity. But since time is relative, can you "dilate or slow" time by such a difference in relative velocity or distance that it would effectively slow to a stop?

This is all beyond my scope of knowledge, thats why my entire post is questions lol but this is what I was thinking when I deliberated it.

 

[kx000]

Lets test it to the human perception of grandness. Can we be infinite in the areas that matter most?

Can we have infinite musical chords? Can we have infinite colors? Can we have infinite elements? As far as emotions go, we have the infinite nature, and the nature of completion. Will one day all the babies be men for all eternity to enjoy infinite, chords, and colors, no new souls to bore?

Another test into infinity is the far reaches of our universe. Some claim "nothing" out there, I know, our borders stretch into infinity. Or, are we headed for a brick wall, knock yourself out, and be born again, "All."

How about infinite delicate fabrics to caress my face with?

 

[waterpump999]

That's a new way of thinking about infinity--in terms of quality vice magnitude. When you think about it infinity itself is a quality. Thus it makes sense to say there could be an infinite amount of infinities. It also suggests that the quality of infinity inheres in any given members of its set. And indeed we CAN tell if a set is infinite merely by examining a few of its members. There is then a twofold aspect to infinity--a transcendental aspect that can never be measured or comprehended, and an immanent aspect which inheres in the relations of its set members.

Some thoughts:
Infinite number of infinities - absolutely, and indeed many kinds of infinity (classification required). And I never have understood the nature of the infinite point on a Reimann Sphere! What kind of infinity is it? (see below)

Infinities seem to be a class of reality that always have paradoxes associated with them because of the limitless aspect. The quality boundary concept, that I introduced in my previous post, shifts the perspective of certain kinds of infinities so we now have the 'paradox' of an (inside)(outside) view. From the outside we can regard the unified quality or 'attribute' boundary of the infinity- a non computational element. Inside we see the unlimited _magnitude_ of quality or attribute, (countable measurable computational), while again outside we see a non-computational unified realm of quality/attribute. I used the term 'realm' rather than 'space', because infinities can be non-spatial and its a bit confusing otherwise.

Not sure how this would work for spatial infinities, so I wonder can you shed some light on the nature of the Reimann Sphere infinity perhaps?

What are Transcendental and immanent infinities?

 

[Cyperium]

I just thought of something about the nature of infinity.

Imagine that we would try to examine if a infinite line is a line or a infinite circle (where we never can see it bend ever the slightest as it is infinitely big, one side of the circle would continue forever.

So what's the difference between a infinite line and a infinite circle? I've thought about it and I think that there is no difference. To define it as a circle we would need to continue the line up from any point to see if we would reach the same point again. However as it continues infinitely upwards and also infinitely downwards we can see that the beginning point and end point is the same as if we would have followed it to infinity because the downward point also goes to infinity. They are connected in infinity this way and since they are connected through infinity the infinite line is also a infinite circle. The same goes with a infinite circle, it is actually a infinite line as it can never "bend around" but instead meets itself in infinity.

Do you see the argument here?

 

[Motor Daddy]

I just thought of something about the nature of infinity.

Imagine that we would try to examine if a infinite line is a line or a infinite circle (where we never can see it bend ever the slightest as it is infinitely big, one side of the circle would continue forever.

What is an infinite circle? A circle has to have a radius of a specific distance. If you say the radius is infinite, then you have failed to define a circle. If you say the radius is a specific distance, then the circle is not infinite