Finity
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Finity
Your intuition is terrible. I thought I'd get that out of the way. Now for my point. There is an intuitive paradox to existence that doesn't seem to go away even when dismissed as simply beyond our newtonian brains. It seems even mathematics is not a refuge in the case of this problem. And that, of course entirely novel and as yet not thought, problem is existence. And it's relation to finity, and it's more 'in' variety.
It occurs to me that there is a fundamental flaw with the concept of infinity; I can't understand it. And, of course, god has endowed me with an understanding of everything that exists, therefore infinity musn't exist. But, there in itself is a problem. the nonexistence of infinity, would in itself, be infinity. That is to say, 'nothing' is 'infinity'. I realise that sentence is likely so dazzilingly clear, concise and brilliant, that you may have been blinded by it's glare, and dismissed it as trite. And you'd likely be right to do that, especially if you are a mathematician. If you are, please explain why 'infinity' and 'nothing' are not synonms. And don't read on, because the rest of my argument relies on that fact ebing accepted.
And that argument is, at the edge of 'existence' lies either 'nothingness' or more 'existence'. Either way infinity exists. Has to exist. And yet it, in itself is nothing. And it doesn't make sense. Even throwing our silly 4dlimited brains out of the equation. Infinity means everything repeats. Infinity means we are all immortal, all billionares, all massmurderers. I'm going to stop here, before i reveal any more unbelievably inteligent, thoroughly novel, and certainly not inane, meaningless, awful trite theories.
Simply put, there is more in heaven and earth than there will ever be in my philosophy. Another original though from me, there. And, well, this makes me want to make a sick joke that would likely get me banned from these godfearing, conservative forums. It is depressing, however, to realise, whatever you and you're contempories discover during the next century will literally be nothing; since 'existence' is infite. Also, if I were 'studying' 'philosophy' i would 'kill' myself. And i'd stringly recommend the same to anyone in that position. If science is never going to discover the 'big picture', you aren't. Also, as I have just noted, theres more to heaven and earth...
p.s I have been using 'existence' as a byword for 'infinity', in that I mean 'the totality of all things'. I'd argue that could make my post illegible, and redundant. But I don't think it needed much help.
It occurs to me that there is a fundamental flaw with the concept of infinity; I can't understand it. And, of course, god has endowed me with an understanding of everything that exists, therefore infinity musn't exist. But, there in itself is a problem. the nonexistence of infinity, would in itself, be infinity. That is to say, 'nothing' is 'infinity'. I realise that sentence is likely so dazzilingly clear, concise and brilliant, that you may have been blinded by it's glare, and dismissed it as trite. And you'd likely be right to do that, especially if you are a mathematician. If you are, please explain why 'infinity' and 'nothing' are not synonms. And don't read on, because the rest of my argument relies on that fact ebing accepted.
And that argument is, at the edge of 'existence' lies either 'nothingness' or more 'existence'. Either way infinity exists. Has to exist. And yet it, in itself is nothing. And it doesn't make sense. Even throwing our silly 4dlimited brains out of the equation. Infinity means everything repeats. Infinity means we are all immortal, all billionares, all massmurderers. I'm going to stop here, before i reveal any more unbelievably inteligent, thoroughly novel, and certainly not inane, meaningless, awful trite theories.
Simply put, there is more in heaven and earth than there will ever be in my philosophy. Another original though from me, there. And, well, this makes me want to make a sick joke that would likely get me banned from these godfearing, conservative forums. It is depressing, however, to realise, whatever you and you're contempories discover during the next century will literally be nothing; since 'existence' is infite. Also, if I were 'studying' 'philosophy' i would 'kill' myself. And i'd stringly recommend the same to anyone in that position. If science is never going to discover the 'big picture', you aren't. Also, as I have just noted, theres more to heaven and earth...
p.s I have been using 'existence' as a byword for 'infinity', in that I mean 'the totality of all things'. I'd argue that could make my post illegible, and redundant. But I don't think it needed much help.
Last edited by noses on Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:21 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26823
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Finity
Flaws in your understanding are not flaws in the concept you fail to understand.noses wrote:It occurs to me that there is a fundamental flaw with the concept of infinity; I can't understand it.
Where in the world did you get this premise from? There is nothing in any widely held religion or philosophy that says you should understand everything that exists.And, of course, god has endowed me with an understanding of everything that exists
Um, because 0 and infinity are unequal?If you are, please explain why 'infinity' and 'nothing' are not synonms.
There is no need for any edge to existence. It could be both edgeless and finite.at the edge of 'existence'
No it doesn't. What makes you think it does? Infinity means we are all immortal, all billionares, all massmurderers.Infinity means everything repeats.
Then you've been misusing "infinity" twice, and in mutually contradictory ways. First you say it's synonymous with "nothing", and now you're saying it's synonymous with "everything". And in addition, there's no reason "everything" necessarily has to be infinite.I have been using 'existence' as a byword for 'infinity', in that I mean 'the totality of all things'.
 Sockmonkey
 Posts: 1214
 Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC
Re: Finity
Call me snarky and petty, but it tends to hurt an argument when the very first word is misspelled by using the wrong form.
 poxic
 Eloquently Prismatic
 Posts: 4756
 Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
 Location: Left coast of Canada
Re: Finity
There's a limit to human understanding, yes. If something is beyond our ability to understand, at all, then we can't make use of it. If it's no use, it might as well be bedtime stories. (That's actually a use, though.)
The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in thyself.
 Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 18511933)
 Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 18511933)
Re: Finity
gmalivuk wrote:There is no need for any edge to existence. It could be both edgeless and finite.at the edge of 'existence'
Perfect example: Imagine the universe was spherically shaped. There would be no "edge" to it. You could keep traveling and eventually you'd
end up where you started again. But it's area and volume would be finite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin#Sinking wrote:Researchers found a cheese sandwich which exhibited no visible signs of decomposition, and was in fact eaten.

 Posts: 497
 Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC
Re: Finity
noses wrote:the nonexistence of infinity, would in itself, be infinity.
What? I mean, the whole thing got the same reaction from me but I found that especially odd.
You see to have strung together a long chain of vaguely related ideas, skipping from one to another without showing the steps in between. There's no actual argument presented, just unsupported claims and conclusions which are indistinguishable from their premises.
Re: Finity
There is so much right with this thread. Everything I have ever suspected about the universe and this man noses has brought it to life.
I got this one! You see, when contemplating the idea of infinity (or noses' idea of infinity, at the least) infinity would imply a paradox in that in order for infinity to be all the things, it would have to not be all the things  because not being all the things is totally a thing, you know? So if we perceive something as finite or quantifiable in the sense of an actual value instead of infinite, it's just ole infinity trying to pull a fast one on us!
How am I doin', noses?
Glass Fractal wrote:noses wrote:the nonexistence of infinity, would in itself, be infinity.
What? I mean, the whole thing got the same reaction from me but I found that especially odd.
I got this one! You see, when contemplating the idea of infinity (or noses' idea of infinity, at the least) infinity would imply a paradox in that in order for infinity to be all the things, it would have to not be all the things  because not being all the things is totally a thing, you know? So if we perceive something as finite or quantifiable in the sense of an actual value instead of infinite, it's just ole infinity trying to pull a fast one on us!
How am I doin', noses?
roband wrote:Face, yes. Chest, probably. Pubic area, maybe. Scrotum, not a fucking chance.

 Posts: 35
 Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:26 pm UTC
Re: Finity
noses wrote: Also, if I were 'studying' 'philosophy' i would 'kill' myself. And i'd stringly recommend the same to anyone in that position.
And thus is the String Theory conspiracy unmasked!
Re: Finity
Sockmonkey wrote:Call me snarky and petty, but it tends to hurt an argument when the very first word is misspelled by using the wrong form.
noses wrote:"I'd argue that could make my post illegible, and redundant. But I don't think it needed much help."
Not that? I'm quite amazed that only you noticed that glaring middlefinger to the english language. These other morons are trying to address my argument's intelectual merits. What fools they are, when there is a misspelled word for them to point out. Also, my argument has no intellectual merit.
Re: Finity
philoctetes wrote:noses wrote: Also, if I were 'studying' 'philosophy' i would 'kill' myself. And i'd stringly recommend the same to anyone in that position.
And thus is the String Theory conspiracy unmasked!
Well played, sir.
Re: Finity
Sagekilla wrote:gmalivuk wrote:There is no need for any edge to existence. It could be both edgeless and finite.at the edge of 'existence'
Perfect example: Imagine the universe was spherically shaped. There would be no "edge" to it. You could keep traveling and eventually you'd
end up where you started again. But it's area and volume would be finite.
I'll call you on that. What lies outwith the universe?
 doogly
 Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
 Posts: 5538
 Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
 Location: Lexington, MA
 Contact:
Re: Finity
There is no outside, there isn't an edge.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?
Re: Finity
What lies outwith the universe?
What's north of the north pole?
Also, you should really just edit one post, instead of making multiple posts in a row.
I feel poorly for feeding.
Re: Finity
In other words, let's pretend we're 2D beings for a second, and the universe is completely twodimensional. What you're asking is exactly equivalent to "what lies in the third dimension?" The answer is nothing. There is nothing there because there is no third dimension. It doesn't exist. There is nothing above or below the flat surface.
Now, let's say this surface is actually the surface of a sphere. We're still confined to be living on the surface. Your intuition says, "but ah ha! Now there *is* a below!" But remember, your concept of a sphere is founded in 3dimensions, where thickness or depth is a property that exists by admitting a third dimension.
Since we cannot admit a third dimension, there is no equivalent to "depth". In our 2D universe, you cannot tunnel through to the other side. You can't point down and say, "that way to China!" All you can do is move left or right, forwards or backwards.
Because the universe is equivalent to the surface of a sphere, it is finite. But you might ask, "how can we say the universe is just 2D if it is wrapped around a ball? What is that ball?" There is no ball, the existence of a ball that the universe wraps around would require the admission of a third dimension. The universe doesn't wrap around anything, rather, the properties of our 2D universe have arranged themselves to mimic those of the surface of a sphere. Or more accurately, the surface of a theoretical 3D ball perfectly mimics the properties of our 2D universe. So, there is still nothing in the 3D dimension. There is no "outside the universe." But being as we are beings of limited intelligence, we often create models that have some sort of similarity to the things we experience in everyday life just to make good sense of it all.
We can scale these arguments up to 3 dimensions, and, although the math and physics gets substantially more complicated, in essence, we have the foundation of one of the fundamental questions of modern physics.
Infinity exists, but not in the form that we understand in everyday life. Similarly, complex numbers exist, but we cannot relate them in some way to everyday life. Nevertheless, you and I use complex numbers every single day. And the technologies we use everyday also necessarily involve the concept of infinity.
But reality does not admit the construction of a mental model through repeated application of everyday concepts to grand scales. The physics, and the mathematics, get much more difficult at those levels, but we *do* understand them, and we *do* create things with them. If you want to claim that it's wrong, then you need to come up with a formal system that is at least as consistent as what we have with mathematics and physics. Can you construct a Taylor series? Can your new and improved Taylor series construction be used to make a flashlight?
Now, let's say this surface is actually the surface of a sphere. We're still confined to be living on the surface. Your intuition says, "but ah ha! Now there *is* a below!" But remember, your concept of a sphere is founded in 3dimensions, where thickness or depth is a property that exists by admitting a third dimension.
Since we cannot admit a third dimension, there is no equivalent to "depth". In our 2D universe, you cannot tunnel through to the other side. You can't point down and say, "that way to China!" All you can do is move left or right, forwards or backwards.
Because the universe is equivalent to the surface of a sphere, it is finite. But you might ask, "how can we say the universe is just 2D if it is wrapped around a ball? What is that ball?" There is no ball, the existence of a ball that the universe wraps around would require the admission of a third dimension. The universe doesn't wrap around anything, rather, the properties of our 2D universe have arranged themselves to mimic those of the surface of a sphere. Or more accurately, the surface of a theoretical 3D ball perfectly mimics the properties of our 2D universe. So, there is still nothing in the 3D dimension. There is no "outside the universe." But being as we are beings of limited intelligence, we often create models that have some sort of similarity to the things we experience in everyday life just to make good sense of it all.
We can scale these arguments up to 3 dimensions, and, although the math and physics gets substantially more complicated, in essence, we have the foundation of one of the fundamental questions of modern physics.
Infinity exists, but not in the form that we understand in everyday life. Similarly, complex numbers exist, but we cannot relate them in some way to everyday life. Nevertheless, you and I use complex numbers every single day. And the technologies we use everyday also necessarily involve the concept of infinity.
But reality does not admit the construction of a mental model through repeated application of everyday concepts to grand scales. The physics, and the mathematics, get much more difficult at those levels, but we *do* understand them, and we *do* create things with them. If you want to claim that it's wrong, then you need to come up with a formal system that is at least as consistent as what we have with mathematics and physics. Can you construct a Taylor series? Can your new and improved Taylor series construction be used to make a flashlight?
 doogly
 Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
 Posts: 5538
 Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
 Location: Lexington, MA
 Contact:
Re: Finity
Basically, the Theorema Egregium is the 2nd best theorem in mathematics.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

 Posts: 2986
 Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC
Re: Finity
+1 Everything gmalivuk said.
Can you count Nose? Infinity is counting, then never stopping. Does that make sense?
Infinity is "always adding 1". With "always" in this case being "continuously" which is "without cessation". So we can define "infinity" as the opposite to stopping. If you can comprehend opposites, and stopping, you can comprehend infinity. We can say things are "approaching infinity" if they are never to stop or cease.
Or we can define it as "unlimited or unmeasurable". Unlimited is the opposite to limited. Unmeasurable is something greater than we can measure. "Unmeasurable" is a poor definition, but for most purposes it is adequate. Some sciences use "infinity" when ever a calculation reaches outside of the possible measurements or scope. So you can say "we have an infinite number of grains of sand to count" even though the amount of sand is finite. In all practically, we could be counting forever.
The point "all" is "infinite" is wrong. "All" covers the things you are referencing. So "all apples" would be something limited. Where as "infinite apples" is an unlimited amount.
[/feeding a possible troll. Oh well...]
Can you count Nose? Infinity is counting, then never stopping. Does that make sense?
Infinity is "always adding 1". With "always" in this case being "continuously" which is "without cessation". So we can define "infinity" as the opposite to stopping. If you can comprehend opposites, and stopping, you can comprehend infinity. We can say things are "approaching infinity" if they are never to stop or cease.
Or we can define it as "unlimited or unmeasurable". Unlimited is the opposite to limited. Unmeasurable is something greater than we can measure. "Unmeasurable" is a poor definition, but for most purposes it is adequate. Some sciences use "infinity" when ever a calculation reaches outside of the possible measurements or scope. So you can say "we have an infinite number of grains of sand to count" even though the amount of sand is finite. In all practically, we could be counting forever.
The point "all" is "infinite" is wrong. "All" covers the things you are referencing. So "all apples" would be something limited. Where as "infinite apples" is an unlimited amount.
[/feeding a possible troll. Oh well...]
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.
 doogly
 Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
 Posts: 5538
 Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
 Location: Lexington, MA
 Contact:
Re: Finity
Technical Ben wrote:Can you count Nose? Infinity is counting, then never stopping. Does that make sense?
Well, countable infinity is
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

 Posts: 2986
 Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC
Re: Finity
I know many of my terms overlapped there. But a "socket" to one person is a different "socket" to another. Similar meanings, but different specifics to each person. I only recently learnt myself that some branches of mathematics can add variables to infinity (like an even numbered infinity, if IRC).
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.
Re: Finity
noses wrote:Sagekilla wrote:gmalivuk wrote:There is no need for any edge to existence. It could be both edgeless and finite.at the edge of 'existence'
Perfect example: Imagine the universe was spherically shaped. There would be no "edge" to it. You could keep traveling and eventually you'd
end up where you started again. But it's area and volume would be finite.
I'll call you on that. What lies outwith the universe?
doogly wrote:There is no outside, there isn't an edge.
Several other people wrote:Lots of standard, mathematical reasoning
You were saying? I'm just giving you an example of something that can be finite in size (volume and area) but edgeless.
If we were to say the universe was actually spherical, then it's meaningless to talk about what's "outside" the universe. Such
discussion is mere fluff. If the universe was actually spherical, then we would live on the surface of this sphere. Gorcee had
some excellent mathematical reasoning behind this.
All in all, the sphere is a simple counterexample to your "How can you have something finite without having an edge?"
You don't even need to assume the universe is actually spherical to see that this blows that argument out of the water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin#Sinking wrote:Researchers found a cheese sandwich which exhibited no visible signs of decomposition, and was in fact eaten.
Re: Finity
Sagekilla wrote:noses wrote:Sagekilla wrote:gmalivuk wrote:There is no need for any edge to existence. It could be both edgeless and finite.at the edge of 'existence'
Perfect example: Imagine the universe was spherically shaped. There would be no "edge" to it. You could keep traveling and eventually you'd
end up where you started again. But it's area and volume would be finite.
I'll call you on that. What lies outwith the universe?doogly wrote:There is no outside, there isn't an edge.Several other people wrote:Lots of standard, mathematical reasoning
You were saying? I'm just giving you an example of something that can be finite in size (volume and area) but edgeless.
If we were to say the universe was actually spherical, then it's meaningless to talk about what's "outside" the universe. Such
discussion is mere fluff. If the universe was actually spherical, then we would live on the surface of this sphere. Gorcee had
some excellent mathematical reasoning behind this.
All in all, the sphere is a simple counterexample to your "How can you have something finite without having an edge?"
You don't even need to assume the universe is actually spherical to see that this blows that argument out of the water.
You're only talking about the universe with refrence to itself. If it has any form, and especially if it's finite, it can only be defined as those things with respect to a greater something. We know our universe is finite. Not being able to reach an edge does not imply infinity in any greater sense than with respect to the dimensions being navigated. Otherwise, all shperes could be considered infinite. They aren't with respect to the bigger picture. The same must apply to our Universe.
'the edge' can be thought of as the edge of the shape of the universe.
Re: Finity
noses wrote:If it has any form, and especially if it's finite, it can only be defined as those things with respect to a greater something.
Wrong. As doogly pointed out earlier in the thread. Essentially, it's a proven fact that the curvature of a surface (such as the universe in this case) can be defined solely using properties measurable on the surface itself and thus, the "shape" of the universe can be defined with respect solely to itself.
my pronouns are they
Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)
Re: Finity
noses wrote:You're only talking about the universe with refrence to itself. If it has any form, and especially if it's finite, it can only be defined as those things with respect to a greater something. We know our universe is finite. Not being able to reach an edge does not imply infinity in any greater sense than with respect to the dimensions being navigated. Otherwise, all shperes could be considered infinite. They aren't with respect to the bigger picture. The same must apply to our Universe.
'the edge' can be thought of as the edge of the shape of the universe.
The same logic needn't apply to our universe. The laws that govern the shape of apples and basketballs do not extend to things that govern the shape of planets and galaxies. And those laws may not extend to the universe, either.
Calling the universe "spherical" does not mean that it is a sphere. It could be a flat sheet, for all we know. Calling it spherical means that we observe properties in the universe that coincide with the properties that we observe on the surface of what we call a sphere.
Something being finite does not imply that it has an edge. Take an open interval. This is finite but not closed. There is no edge.
Lastly, the universe MUST be talked about with reference to itself. It is impossible to do otherwise. There does not need to be some external reference. In other words, let me present to you the set of all Major League Professional Baseball players. If you are talking about professional MLB players, you are necessarily talking about people in that set. You cannot talk about people in that set who aren't in that set. Likewise, you can't talk about things in the universe that aren't in the universe.
If we call the universe a sphere, we're not comparing it to something else. We don't have a "ball of universe sitting on a table of metauniverse material which is why we know it's a sphere." When we first discovered that the Earth was spherical, we did it with complete respect to itself. What we discovered was that the things that we observed here on the earth (ie, a ship sailing over the horizon) share the properties of the thing we call a "sphere." Spherical objects have certain properties. For instance, the presence of a horizon. And that the sum of angles between any three points is greater than 180 degrees.
Similarly, we can make measurements of things in the universe and see if they match these properties. It's more complicated, because we're used to a 3D world, and it's hard to analogize a 4D sphere. But we can do it, the math is just very complicated.
The universe's manifold shape may be spherical. But that doesn't mean that if you could step outside of it that it would look like a ball. It could look like a sheet of paper, or an egg, or a picnic basket or a dodo bird. It's just that the properties that we observe match those that we observe on a sphere.
Re: Finity
Have you ever played a 2D computer game where one edge of the "world" wraps around to the opposite edge? Topologically that is a torus. Does that mean that you can fly through the hole, or that the third dimension exists in any way in the games code? No.
(Computer games tends to use tori rather than spheres as it is much simpler computationally and as opposed to the sphere the torus can be flat, making it much easier to project it to a flat screen)
(Computer games tends to use tori rather than spheres as it is much simpler computationally and as opposed to the sphere the torus can be flat, making it much easier to project it to a flat screen)
Re: Finity
noses wrote:Your intuition is terrible. I thought I'd get that out of the way. Now for my point. There is an intuitive paradox to existence that doesn't seem to go away even when dismissed as simply beyond our newtonian brains. It seems even mathematics is not a refuge in the case of this problem. And that, of course entirely novel and as yet not thought, problem is existence. And it's relation to finity, and it's more 'in' variety.
I have no idea what this means.
noses wrote:It occurs to me that there is a fundamental flaw with the concept of infinity; I can't understand it.
A concept that cannot be understood by a specific particulate/matter configuration is not new.
noses wrote:And, of course, god has endowed me with an understanding of everything that exists, therefore infinity musn't exist.
Can this get any more egoistic?
noses wrote:But, there in itself is a problem. the nonexistence of infinity, would in itself, be infinity.
That would be equating the idea of non(?) into some?. Not new really. It's like dividing by zero.
noses wrote:That is to say, 'nothing' is 'infinity'.
A is B. And your point being?
noses wrote:I realise that sentence is likely so dazzilingly clear, concise and brilliant, that you may have been blinded by it's glare, and dismissed it as trite. And you'd likely be right to do that, especially if you are a mathematician. If you are, please explain why 'infinity' and 'nothing' are not synonms. And don't read on, because the rest of my argument relies on that fact ebing accepted.
It would concern philosophers a lot more than mathematicians, unless they are into philosophy.
noses wrote:And that argument is, at the edge of 'existence' lies either 'nothingness' or more 'existence'.
The former agrees with the condition; the latter disagrees, so why the 'or?' I hope the latter does not refer to something that 'is' but is not physically in this universe.
noses wrote:Either way infinity exists.
I don't see the point here. "Existence" and "infinity" do not have a strong link between them.
noses wrote:Has to exist.
On the basis of one's claims only.
noses wrote:And yet it, in itself is nothing.
By virtue of being indescribable from what I see of your argument so far.
noses wrote:And it doesn't make sense.
Ibid.
noses wrote:Even throwing our silly 4dlimited brains out of the equation. Infinity means everything repeats. Infinity means we are all immortal, all billionares, all massmurderers. I'm going to stop here, before i reveal any more unbelievably inteligent, thoroughly novel, and certainly not inane, meaningless, awful trite theories.
You should read "The Hidden Reality," because that is exactly what is suggested.
noses wrote:Simply put, there is more in heaven and earth than there will ever be in my philosophy.
??? What?
noses wrote:Another original though from me, there. And, well, this makes me want to make a sick joke that would likely get me banned from these godfearing, conservative forums.
If something is original, then it has relation to the fora here? I'm not sure I see the relation.
noses wrote:It is depressing,
To whom, and for whatsoever reason?
noses wrote:however, to realise, whatever you and you're contempories discover during the next century
And why should 'contemporaries' in the 'next century' be significant in the grand scheme of things under any circumstances?
noses wrote:will literally be nothing; since 'existence' is infite.
Absolutely lost, it doesn't make any sense except in circular definitions 'existence'='nothing'='everything.'
noses wrote:Also, if I were 'studying' 'philosophy' i would 'kill' myself. And i'd stringly recommend the same to anyone in that position. If science is never going to discover the 'big picture', you aren't. Also, as I have just noted, theres more to heaven and earth...
Science is not about 'the big picture.' I'm not sure why you would not 'kill' yourself with any other occupation by your, what I would consider, extremely warped nihilist reasoning.
Re: Finity
This is the best thread to read at 5 AM.
Re: Finity
noses wrote:Also, my argument has no intellectual merit.
So you admit that? Assuming you aren't trolling, it seems like you're having some pretty fundamental conceptual problems with mathematics. This is not uncommon when people are exposed to sensationalist science on the internet or PBS and have trouble separating common definitions from technical definitions. As usual, the remedy is education.
Re: Finity
mentlegen, I do believe we are being trolled.
President of the peoples republik of the internet.
screw your coffee, i download my java!
screw your coffee, i download my java!

 Posts: 10
 Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59 pm UTC
Re: Finity
noses wrote:It occurs to me that there is a fundamental flaw with the concept of infinity;
Yes, I agree. The problem is, every attempt to describe it mathematically creates a finite result, hence it is no longer infinite. That doesn't mean it isn't there though, it simply means it is a perpetual work in process and not knowable in finite terms. The sheer act of attempting a calculation on an infinite state renders the entire process of calculating a finite result.
infinity=energy.
I've often considered, "Contemplating infinity is a useless exercise on a mental treadmill."
I realize a lot of people are going to disagree with me on many levels, but, most arguments are baseless.
Infinity is a 1dimensional conflict between < or > something, and put in terms of a finite mathematical problem, it equates to +/. Although the answer between the (+inf) and (inf) will always remain finite in perception, in the end, it is only perception that really matters to us for a sense of reality. If I were to put an exact label on what I think we represent from a mathematical standpoint, I'd have to consider that we are somewhere between pi and +pi, or (inf<pi>inf). With every click of pie in a reciprocal manner, we are profoundly different, yet decidedly finite in nature.
I hope that helps...
 Xanthir
 My HERO!!!
 Posts: 5426
 Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
 Location: The Googleplex
 Contact:
Re: Finity
This is complete word salad. Not a bit of it made any sense.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

 Posts: 10
 Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59 pm UTC
Re: Finity
Xanthir wrote:This is complete word salad. Not a bit of it made any sense.
How about this then...
pi/+pi=1
1 represents a relative finite perspective, nothing more. What we think is random, is really the next result of pi. The variables are ever changing in a reciprocal manner, but our perspective looking out is always that of a fixed relative perspective. The infinite always lies outside the universe. Randomness is an illusion of a potential finite result which is perpetually in process. The finite result will be there, but we're well behind in the calculation, with no chance of ever catching up and seeing that next bit of information.
Our mass energy always flows inward to the negative side of infinity because x/+x=1. If you look at it from a mass perspective, that flow inward is represented at e=mc^2. The ^2 converts our perspective on that mass from 1, to 1^2=+1, so it's probably more like +e=mc^2. We can convert that inward flow of negative energy to a positive expanding energy, which then flows into the 1dimensional fabric of space. Kaboom!
But like I said, a lot of people are going to disagree with me on many levels. I could be wrong of course.
Re: Finity
andreasjva wrote:I could be wrong of course.
You are. Very much so. In pretty much every sentence.
andreasjva wrote:noses wrote:It occurs to me that there is a fundamental flaw with the concept of infinity;
Yes, I agree. The problem is, every attempt to describe it mathematically creates a finite result, hence it is no longer infinite. That doesn't mean it isn't there though, it simply means it is a perpetual work in process and not knowable in finite terms. The sheer act of attempting a calculation on an infinite state renders the entire process of calculating a finite result.
infinity=energy.
I've often considered, "Contemplating infinity is a useless exercise on a mental treadmill."
I realize a lot of people are going to disagree with me on many levels, but, most arguments are baseless.
Infinity is a 1dimensional conflict between < or > something, and put in terms of a finite mathematical problem, it equates to +/. Although the answer between the (+inf) and (inf) will always remain finite in perception, in the end, it is only perception that really matters to us for a sense of reality. If I were to put an exact label on what I think we represent from a mathematical standpoint, I'd have to consider that we are somewhere between pi and +pi, or (inf<pi>inf). With every click of pie in a reciprocal manner, we are profoundly different, yet decidedly finite in nature.
I hope that helps...
1. Every attempt to describe infinity mathematically produces a finite result? How so? In what way is a set with the same cardinality as some of its propery subsets in any way finite. "The sheer act of attempting a calculation on an infinite state renders the entire process of calculating a finite result", you seem to be confusing computability with infinity, by this argument, attempting to calculate the decimal places of pi forces the ratio of circumference to diameter to be finite (which is demonstrably false).
2. Infinity has nothing inherently to do with energy, one is a value, the other a physical quantity, your equality cannot hold even if for no other reason than the units don't stack up, infinity not having any units, being a dimensionless value and energy having units of energy (kg m^{2} s^{2})
3. And you are perfectly correct to contemplate such a statement, but wrong if you accept it as correct. Cantor did a pretty good job of contemplating infinities.
4. They do disagree with you on many levels and all with good reason, you are demonstrably wrong. Read up on infinite sets and the maths behind them, it's all very comprehensible and rigorous.
5. No it isn't, a conflict between > and < could be an equality, a definition that it just does not equal a certain value or a contradiction arising from a false assumption depending on the exact conflict which occurs. +/ has nothing whatsoever to do with infinity. In no way is infinity<pi (or pi>infinity) by the definition of infinity. Lastly, what on earth does "With every click of pie in a reciprocal manner, we are profoundly different, yet decidedly finite in nature." any of this mean?
I don't have time to go over your latest post now, but rest assured I will.
my pronouns are they
Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

 Posts: 10
 Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59 pm UTC
Re: Finity
eSOANEM wrote:You are. Very much so. In pretty much every sentence.
You are entitled to your opinons.
1. Every attempt to describe infinity mathematically produces a finite result? How so? In what way is a set with the same cardinality as some of its propery subsets in any way finite. "The sheer act of attempting a calculation on an infinite state renders the entire process of calculating a finite result", you seem to be confusing computability with infinity, by this argument, attempting to calculate the decimal places of pi forces the ratio of circumference to diameter to be finite (which is demonstrably false).
We are finite in every sense of the word. If you start a calculation, you are by that very definition a starting point which becomes traceable back to a beginning. You can't be infinite, and finite at the same time. You may be able to calculate towards an infinite point, but that point is an unreachable destination. Looking backward in the calculation, you'll always see you were finite from the start.
2. Infinity has nothing inherently to do with energy, one is a value, the other a physical quantity, your equality cannot hold even if for no other reason than the units don't stack up, infinity not having any units, being a dimensionless value and energy having units of energy (kg m^{2} s^{2})
I thought about that after I posted, and considered infinity=potential energy. So, I stand corrected. The potential for energy is infinite.
3. And you are perfectly correct to contemplate such a statement, but wrong if you accept it as correct. Cantor did a pretty good job of contemplating infinities.
Cantor also went somewhat crazy, and killed himself if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure what a "pretty good job" means. Infinity cannot be quantified in any manner mathematically. It is beyond all physical calculations. Cantor's definition is wrong, because it cannot be defined, only understood.
4. They do disagree with you on many levels and all with good reason, you are demonstrably wrong. Read up on infinite sets and the maths behind them, it's all very comprehensible and rigorous.
And I would disagree with them on many levels. Infinity is incalculable, which pretty much renders mathematics useless in defining infinity. I suppose if you believe everything you read, than I am indeed wrong. No point in debating beliefs though, so we may as well agree to disagree here. Not saying I'm right mind you, but "they" are not not necessarily right either.
5. No it isn't, a conflict between > and < could be an equality, a definition that it just does not equal a certain value or a contradiction arising from a false assumption depending on the exact conflict which occurs. +/ has nothing whatsoever to do with infinity. In no way is infinity<pi (or pi>infinity) by the definition of infinity. Lastly, what on earth does "With every click of pie in a reciprocal manner, we are profoundly different, yet decidedly finite in nature." any of this mean?
There is no point in answering what this means, if you believe all the definitions of infinity as you've been taught. Obviously, I'm going to be wrong from your perspective.
Re: Finity
eSOANEM wrote:andreasjva wrote:I could be wrong of course.
You are. Very much so. In pretty much every sentence.
They are not wrong. They are not even wrong. To be wrong you need a level of coherency that is simply not present in their post.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
 Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
 Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

 Posts: 10
 Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59 pm UTC
Re: Finity
eSOANEM wrote:1. You seem to be confusing computability with infinity
What's the difference? Infinity is not a destination, both physically and computationally. Sure, we can imagine something heading in that direction, but from it point of origin looking back it's always going to see just how finite it was.
, by this argument, attempting to calculate the decimal places of pi forces the ratio of circumference to diameter to be finite (which is demonstrably false).
And this kind of makes my point demonstrably true, actually. We can't know if pi will ever reach a finite conclusion, but we can predict with a reasonable sense of confidence that it does not. Still, you can't know what the next number will be, ever, because it would take all the energy in the universe to perform the calculation. From our perspective, the answer to pi will be the maximum energy in the universe at any given moment, and that takes us to the edge of infinity.
Re: Finity
What exactly is your math background? Because you're just rambling and not making any rigorous arguments.
Except that we can. And we do know that it doesn't reach a "finite conclusion" (I'm assuming by this you mean that it is rational). We literally have proofs of this.
andreasjva wrote:And this kind of makes my point demonstrably true, actually. We can't know if pi will ever reach a finite conclusion
Except that we can. And we do know that it doesn't reach a "finite conclusion" (I'm assuming by this you mean that it is rational). We literally have proofs of this.
double epsilon = .0000001;
Re: Finity
Oh dear.
It seems that we have yet another case of "I can't understand this stuff, therefore it must be wrong".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
It seems that we have yet another case of "I can't understand this stuff, therefore it must be wrong".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26823
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Finity
andreasjva, nothing you have posted so far has very much to do with how mathematicians or scientists actually use infinity. Either start doing so, or take your musings to a different subforum.

 Posts: 98
 Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:23 am UTC
Re: Finity
It seems you're just spouting out pseudophilosophical babble without any indication that you know what you're talking about, because you somehow assume that the way in which we understand infinity is the same way. Unfortunately, if you want to think in the way you do, you're already well over 100 years late to that party. A lot of people in real life do seem to have this same terrible misconception of the philosophical implications of higher math, so I don't entirely blame you.
What do you mean by randomness? We have an increasing amount of experimental evidence that quantum mechanics reflects the reality of particle behaviour very well, and a quantum mechanical universe fundamentally contains randomness. But I don't think that that's what you're talking about...
What do you mean by infinity = potential energy? Certainly we make gravitational energy calculations by setting E > 0 as r > infinity, but somehow I doubt that that's what you're talking about, either.
What evidence do you have that Cantor was wrong? Or Gödel? Or Turing? Do you even know what they said about infinity? Cantor used a "diagonal argument" to prove that there are infinite sets that are "bigger" than the natural numbers, and indeed, for any set S, the set of all subsets of S must be larger than S itself. Also, Cantor didn't kill himself. I guess you could say he "went mad" but that was because the statement he was trying to prove is actually unprovable. Amusingly enough, he was snubbed by his fellow mathematicians of the time precisely because the prevailing attitude on infinity was pretty much what your attitude is on it right now. If you're going to pretend that history matters in a logical argument, at least get it right...
We CAN know if the digits of pi go forever or not (they do). In fact, you can use elementary calculus techniques to prove that pi is irrational.
What do you mean by randomness? We have an increasing amount of experimental evidence that quantum mechanics reflects the reality of particle behaviour very well, and a quantum mechanical universe fundamentally contains randomness. But I don't think that that's what you're talking about...
What do you mean by infinity = potential energy? Certainly we make gravitational energy calculations by setting E > 0 as r > infinity, but somehow I doubt that that's what you're talking about, either.
What evidence do you have that Cantor was wrong? Or Gödel? Or Turing? Do you even know what they said about infinity? Cantor used a "diagonal argument" to prove that there are infinite sets that are "bigger" than the natural numbers, and indeed, for any set S, the set of all subsets of S must be larger than S itself. Also, Cantor didn't kill himself. I guess you could say he "went mad" but that was because the statement he was trying to prove is actually unprovable. Amusingly enough, he was snubbed by his fellow mathematicians of the time precisely because the prevailing attitude on infinity was pretty much what your attitude is on it right now. If you're going to pretend that history matters in a logical argument, at least get it right...
We CAN know if the digits of pi go forever or not (they do). In fact, you can use elementary calculus techniques to prove that pi is irrational.
Re: Finity
Ok, I said I'd do this so here goes:
(paragraph numbers mine)
1) Yes, this a trivial statement just by cancelling fractions down to get one in its lowest terms.
2) What is a "relative finite perspective", until you define such a term, because it is not in standard use, we cannot discuss it. Likewise with "the next result of pi" do you mean the next few digits of pi or the next interesting fact to be published about it? Either way, claiming that all probability is ultimately linked to a single transcendental constant out of many is absurd, why not e for example? Furthermore, I'm pretty sure claiming all randomness came from the digits of pi would count as a hidden variable when it came to explain quantum mechanics and so is demonstrably false.
It is potentially reasonable to claim that infinities are unphysical (although quite a bit of evidence suggests they might be) however that doesn't mean they aren't mathematically valid. Also, claiming randomness is deterministic would imply quantum mechanics is deterministic rather than probabilistic and, the mechanism by which you suggest randomness is not random seems like a hidden variable which has been proven to not match the (verified) predictions of quantum mechanics by Bell's theorem and is therefore false.
3) what do you mean by claiming massenergy flows to a "side" of a value. Something physical (massenergy) cannot interact directly with something platonic (a value such as infinity), they exist in separate worlds. Furthermore, it makes no sense to talk about a "side" of a value unless you define such a term. The ^2 in E=mc^2 applies to the "c", a constant (which is positive), it will have no signchanging effect on anything at all and just makes the answer bigger (unless you're working in units where c<1). The rest of this paragraph is nonsense; if you're going to use nonstandard terminology, for god's sake, define it.
4) You keep saying you "could" be wrong, please, read some of the stuff about infinity which has been published in the last 100 years or so and see why you're wrong. It's important to realise that there's nothing bad about being wrong, only in not accepting your mistakes.
This is inconsistent with other statements you've made which claim infinities are unphysical.
Believe me, his work has been checked over many times. It is very much correct and well defined.
Without knowing what you mean by your statements, we can't discuss your statements other than with the usual definitions. What definition are you using which allows for an infinity smaller than pi (and why does pi keep cropping up so much). If you tell us your definition, we may be able to see why you're right within your framework (even if it's different from the standard one).
1) Have you heard of the Riemann sphere? It's a very useful tool in complex analysis which is a sphere with 0 at one pole and infinity at the other and every point on that sphere represents a complex number. I can assure you, infinity is just as much a destination as 0.
2) We can know very easily that pi has no finite conclusion, a fact which has been proven since 1761. You must realise that maths is not a science, mathematicians discover truths, scientists model them. Also, there are lots of algorithms for calculating the nth digit of pi so it is very much possible to do without an infinite amount of energy.
andreasjva wrote:1) pi/+pi=1
2) 1 represents a relative finite perspective, nothing more. What we think is random, is really the next result of pi. The variables are ever changing in a reciprocal manner, but our perspective looking out is always that of a fixed relative perspective. The infinite always lies outside the universe. Randomness is an illusion of a potential finite result which is perpetually in process. The finite result will be there, but we're well behind in the calculation, with no chance of ever catching up and seeing that next bit of information.
3) Our mass energy always flows inward to the negative side of infinity because x/+x=1. If you look at it from a mass perspective, that flow inward is represented at e=mc^2. The ^2 converts our perspective on that mass from 1, to 1^2=+1, so it's probably more like +e=mc^2. We can convert that inward flow of negative energy to a positive expanding energy, which then flows into the 1dimensional fabric of space. Kaboom!
4) But like I said, a lot of people are going to disagree with me on many levels. I could be wrong of course.
(paragraph numbers mine)
1) Yes, this a trivial statement just by cancelling fractions down to get one in its lowest terms.
2) What is a "relative finite perspective", until you define such a term, because it is not in standard use, we cannot discuss it. Likewise with "the next result of pi" do you mean the next few digits of pi or the next interesting fact to be published about it? Either way, claiming that all probability is ultimately linked to a single transcendental constant out of many is absurd, why not e for example? Furthermore, I'm pretty sure claiming all randomness came from the digits of pi would count as a hidden variable when it came to explain quantum mechanics and so is demonstrably false.
It is potentially reasonable to claim that infinities are unphysical (although quite a bit of evidence suggests they might be) however that doesn't mean they aren't mathematically valid. Also, claiming randomness is deterministic would imply quantum mechanics is deterministic rather than probabilistic and, the mechanism by which you suggest randomness is not random seems like a hidden variable which has been proven to not match the (verified) predictions of quantum mechanics by Bell's theorem and is therefore false.
3) what do you mean by claiming massenergy flows to a "side" of a value. Something physical (massenergy) cannot interact directly with something platonic (a value such as infinity), they exist in separate worlds. Furthermore, it makes no sense to talk about a "side" of a value unless you define such a term. The ^2 in E=mc^2 applies to the "c", a constant (which is positive), it will have no signchanging effect on anything at all and just makes the answer bigger (unless you're working in units where c<1). The rest of this paragraph is nonsense; if you're going to use nonstandard terminology, for god's sake, define it.
4) You keep saying you "could" be wrong, please, read some of the stuff about infinity which has been published in the last 100 years or so and see why you're wrong. It's important to realise that there's nothing bad about being wrong, only in not accepting your mistakes.
andreasjva wrote:2. Infinity has nothing inherently to do with energy, one is a value, the other a physical quantity, your equality cannot hold even if for no other reason than the units don't stack up, infinity not having any units, being a dimensionless value and energy having units of energy (kg m^{2} s^{2})
I thought about that after I posted, and considered infinity=potential energy. So, I stand corrected. The potential for energy is infinite.
This is inconsistent with other statements you've made which claim infinities are unphysical.
andreasjva wrote:Cantor's definition is wrong, because it cannot be defined, only understood.
Believe me, his work has been checked over many times. It is very much correct and well defined.
andreasjva wrote:5. No it isn't, a conflict between > and < could be an equality, a definition that it just does not equal a certain value or a contradiction arising from a false assumption depending on the exact conflict which occurs. +/ has nothing whatsoever to do with infinity. In no way is infinity<pi (or pi>infinity) by the definition of infinity. Lastly, what on earth does "With every click of pie in a reciprocal manner, we are profoundly different, yet decidedly finite in nature." any of this mean?
There is no point in answering what this means, if you believe all the definitions of infinity as you've been taught. Obviously, I'm going to be wrong from your perspective.
Without knowing what you mean by your statements, we can't discuss your statements other than with the usual definitions. What definition are you using which allows for an infinity smaller than pi (and why does pi keep cropping up so much). If you tell us your definition, we may be able to see why you're right within your framework (even if it's different from the standard one).
andreasjva wrote:eSOANEM wrote:1. You seem to be confusing computability with infinity
What's the difference? Infinity is not a destination, both physically and computationally. Sure, we can imagine something heading in that direction, but from it point of origin looking back it's always going to see just how finite it was., by this argument, attempting to calculate the decimal places of pi forces the ratio of circumference to diameter to be finite (which is demonstrably false).
And this kind of makes my point demonstrably true, actually. We can't know if pi will ever reach a finite conclusion, but we can predict with a reasonable sense of confidence that it does not. Still, you can't know what the next number will be, ever, because it would take all the energy in the universe to perform the calculation. From our perspective, the answer to pi will be the maximum energy in the universe at any given moment, and that takes us to the edge of infinity.
1) Have you heard of the Riemann sphere? It's a very useful tool in complex analysis which is a sphere with 0 at one pole and infinity at the other and every point on that sphere represents a complex number. I can assure you, infinity is just as much a destination as 0.
2) We can know very easily that pi has no finite conclusion, a fact which has been proven since 1761. You must realise that maths is not a science, mathematicians discover truths, scientists model them. Also, there are lots of algorithms for calculating the nth digit of pi so it is very much possible to do without an infinite amount of energy.
my pronouns are they
Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

 Posts: 10
 Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59 pm UTC
Re: Finity
eSOANEM wrote:2) We can know very easily that pi has no finite conclusion, a fact which has been proven since 1761. You must realise that maths is not a science, mathematicians discover truths, scientists model them. Also, there are lots of algorithms for calculating the nth digit of pi so it is very much possible to do without an infinite amount of energy.
I'll respond to the other information as soon as I can, but this part I would have to disagree on entirely...
To date, I believe we are up to about 5 trillion digits of pi at last check, and no repeating sequence.
If it is in fact infinite (without repeat), which I suspect it is myself, it would take every bit of energy in the universe to calculate and express that information, and you'd still fall short. The nth degree is well short of infinite. I know it seems like a trivial matter, but I think it would pretty much be a fact. Hard drive space alone would become an issue. Unless of course, it repeated somewhere along the way. But then it kind of comes to a conclusion, so I don't really see that as a purely infinite number, because it has repetition. I know it would still be considered infinite, but not in the context I am refering to.
That was a very good post though, and I'll get back to it as soon as i can....
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic12 [Bot] and 9 guests