It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Infinity a big mistake ?

page: 6
0
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Pepsi

what about 1 = 0.5 + 0.5

or 1 = 0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 + 0.2 = 0.2*5

or smaller steps:

1 = 0.01*100 = 0.001*1000

or infinite series of :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . n=infinity
1 = lim(d->0) SUM | ( d )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . n=0

==> 1 = lim(d->0) lim(n->infinity) [ d * n ]

in other form:

1 = d + d + d + d + ................ , where d goes to nothingness

which means 1 is the sum of infinite number of infinitely small elements.

even 0.2 comes from 0.1

Seriosly how do we obtain 1

I dont think we can obtain it from any proces, maybe because it's uniqe?
Lol cracks me up when I think of this.
I guess 1 always existed.
Talk about god, I never thought i can explain god with math.
In the begining there was 1

[edit on 19-2-2006 by pepsi78]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:48 PM
Irrational numbers have no terms, because they are, themselves, the variables.
They do have properties.
For instance, if N is purple, weighs 10g, and is 100cm tall:
You cannot say how wide it is, but you can say that 5N weigh 50g.

You could call this a function, I guess.

[edit on 19-2-2006 by pdo3]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 05:03 PM
No it's not that, I was hopeing to find a creator for 1.
like 2 is created 3,4,5,6,7 and on and on.
What is the minimum weight for something?
Can it be 0?
no matter how you cut it you can not obtain something below 1.
I'm saing 1 because 0 will equal nothing.
1 is the big number.
Like a hero, 1 hero, or one more "something"
It's funny how we use 1.
1 is really sepcial, some day "1" of us is going to figure out 1
there is always the first"1" who discovers things.
Just like in society where you have uniq idividualitys and where every one comes in with new ideas evolution takes place, in a society where every one thinks in a colective term evolution can not ocur.
It's the unique of human being of every person that brings values because he is only one and 1 brings infinite along with him.
It's hard for me to explain this is just the way I feel.

[edit on 19-2-2006 by pepsi78]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by zike
The problem is that you can't define 1 out of any other number. In math you just have to assume that 1 is given. From the number 1 you can then construct every other natural number 2,3,4... and so on by induction. Given the natural numbers you can construct the rationels, reals, complex numbers etc. But the number 1 is not constructable. It's just something you have to take for granted in math that it exists... Everything in math is based on that.

Coudnt have said it any better zike

Its the assumption of the existence of 1, the foundation of number theory. Without it the set of natural numbers cannot exist. Zike, I dont know if you've heard of Peano's axioms but it makes it obvious ( without the zero because it didnt exist) that 1 has to be assumed.

Originally posted by pepsi78
In the begining there was 1

Yep pretty much! But its tricky cuz it couldve already existed but we acknowledged its existence without constucting it from scratch.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:36 PM
-1 is equal to e^((i)(pi)). So 1 is equal to -(e^((i)(pi)), no? But this is something we should not be playing around with, yet, for some of us.

Is it possible to take the number ten and divide it into two parts, one of which multiplied into the other will yield the result 40?

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by albie
Why would I want to watch a video about scientific bluster? These nerdy twits think they know so much, trying to get one past us about particles manifesting spontaneously.

NO I WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT IT!

I'll take common sense over w4nk maths anyday.

I sense a bit of hostility there. It has nothing to do with manifestation of matter from knowhere, for some people it is about confirming, proving, whether this is true.
Ask a condensed matter physicist about is theory of the mechanism for superconductivity, and then ask 10 the same question, you will likely get 11 different answers.

Math is not so much the same. A proof in math, unlike physical sciences, is always a constant.

Besides, common sense varies from culture to culture, for many people it is common sense to attack embassies and kill one another over the depiction of a prophet. Your common sense may very well be congruent to the Catholic Church of old "I don't get it, I can't read that, that sounds impossible....now you must burn at the stake for your contridiction of my beliefs." God forbid we start using common sense before logic.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Frosty
-1 is equal to e^((i)(pi)). So 1 is equal to -(e^((i)(pi)), no? But this is something we should not be playing around with, yet, for some of us.

Yes. I can also do e^(ln(.002)/.002 = 1 or some such arbritrary calculation yet that does not in any way "construct" the number 1.

Is it possible to take the number ten and divide it into two parts, one of which multiplied into the other will yield the result 40?

I dont understand that question?

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by pepsi78
even 0.2 comes from 0.1

Why we cant say 0.1 comes drom 0.2 ?

I can construct the whole numbers from 2:
take half of 2 and you get 1
double 2 to get 4 .
you can use 2 to get all other numbers.

What are numbers anyway?
Numbers are relative , you have to think about variables and ratios rather than constants.

For true understanding of numbers we have to understand infinity and nothingness first. Between 1 and 0 there are infinite number of elements so we cannot realy know what is the first number after 0.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
I dont understand that question?

I was trying to stick to the topic of one, so I brought the question up. here:

x + y = 10
xy=40

True? How not, how so?

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Deep_Blue

Originally posted by pepsi78
even 0.2 comes from 0.1

Why we cant say 0.1 comes drom 0.2 ?

I can construct the whole numbers from 2:
take half of 2 and you get 1
double 2 to get 4 .
you can use 2 to get all other numbers.

What are numbers anyway?
Numbers are relative , you have to think about variables and ratios rather than constants.

For true understanding of numbers we have to understand infinity and nothingness first. Between 1 and 0 there are infinite number of elements so we cannot realy know what is the first number after 0.

That is not creational.
It's like war when 2 sides fight one stands.
You are tring to create 1 out of 2.

Substracting=whipe out
It's the case of a war, it's in all cases, natural, etc.
If 1 did not exist would 2 exist?
In any cases anithing is dependent on 1.

See i;m talking about 1, how it was created not how it came in existance again.
Sure you got 2 cigarets in the pack you smoke one and that leaves you with only one, but the thing is you obtain a form of one because you didint create it you obtain it from a substration process(something that already existed). If you took the 2 cigarets and made one out of them you cut them in half and you glue one part with each you create a cigarate, you didint substracted you added, you added 1 part to each other, other then that still leaves you with the other 2 parts. so when you try to obtain one you obtain the same number 2 when gluing back the other parts, or 3 if you decide to leave them like that.
I dont think you can create something with minus, it does represent negativiti.
Can a negative force be constructive?

Your explenation obtains 1 but does not create him.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by pepsi78]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:15 AM
Pepsi

My point is :

For true understanding of numbers we have to understand infinity and nothingness first. Between 1 and 0 there are infinite number of elements so we cannot realy know what is the first number after 0.

and

1 = d + d + d + d + ................ , where d goes to nothingness

which means 1 is the sum of infinite number of infinitely small elements.

Please respond to the above and forget about 2 coming from 1 or 1 coming from 2.

Actually If you study my point of view you can come to a strange possibility of 1 coming from 0 , or everything came from nothing.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Deep_Blue]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Pepsi

My point is :

For true understanding of numbers we have to understand infinity and nothingness first. Between 1 and 0 there are infinite number of elements so we cannot realy know what is the first number after 0.

and

1 = d + d + d + d + ................ , where d goes to nothingness

which means 1 is the sum of infinite number of infinitely small elements.

Please respond to the above and forget about 2 coming from 1 or 1 coming from 2.

Actually If you study my point of view you can come to a stange possibility of 1 coming from 0 , or everything came from nothing.

Yes if you count particles, sub atoms as zero.
Adding will alway pull 1
Few planets forms 1 solar sistem
Few solar sistems forms 1 galaxy
Galaxyes form 1 universe.

So from subatomic particles you got the formation of 1 thing that forms another thing in the form of 1 so it all forms on 1.
There is a posibility that zero is 1.

It's in our human nature to describe 1 as 0.

Take ground zero, it's 1 event that hapend there, we named it 0.
For anithing that we dont understand and seems wierrd to us we name it zero.
Numer zero is wierrd to us it's an anomaly that we cant explain, and it's probaly not zero we just name it zero when we cant explain it.

Zero point energy is another name where we dont understand it and what name did we give it ? "zero"
Nothing it's self maybe can not exist.
It's funny to say nothing does not exist like in non existance.
And here is something , time.
Time can not explain zero, in time there is no zero.
It would be true if in this world 2 things would be identical.
But they are not.
Now you can put 2 things that are the same and say I got 2 but do you?
Every little particle in this universe is unique and diferent.
It's what gives it diferent shape.
If I were to have identical particles, if I were constructed from identical particles I would not exist in any shape in any way, I would not exist in the form of any object of anithing.
There was a show on tv explaining that every particle in this universe is diferent.
That means that when it's added it gives 1 and not 2.
If particles were the same in the universe the universe would not exist.

Identic=nothing (non existance)
Imagine a dot the same, and then make the universe out of it.
So particles are unique, unique is a representation of 1.
Zero can only exist when everything is identic in the universe, because it would translate the universe in to nothing.
So you would say, well let's reverse that and we have creation, the problem is that you cant it's identical, you cant reverse something identical because it does not have shape.
Maybe we cant exist with out infinity, 1 of many 1's is infinity, if we found something identic then we may say here is where everthing is identic and infinity ends.
Here is a question does infinity have a limit, like a area infinite?, it would seem posible.
infinity is diversification, I can say a area is infinite because it's shifting to difrent shapes, energy change, it can shift till infinite.
Infinity as changeing for infinite times or infinity in distance is about the same it all refers to endless.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by pepsi78]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by pepsi78Seriosly how do we obtain 1

I guess we use the idea of a whole. A whole pie or a whole rock. We can also use the mol in just about the same way. The total number of stars in the universe is one mol.

There are many rocks and each rock is of different color than any other. Therefore there is only one yellow rock. Deductive reasoning, that is as best as can be done.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:38 PM

The notion of infinity does mean a consciousness could have formed instead of a universe. Even a total atheistic quantum mechanic has to believe this.

No, not really, first a person does'nt have to believe anything if they dont want to, like how you are refusing to believe in infinity.
Secondly, a consciousness could not form instead of a universe, a consciousness (corporeal or non-corporeal) would have to manifest in a place, now I suppose it is possible for a universe to form, and through some strange way become conscious, but that's highly unlikely (not impossible).

Something from nothing? Impossible

No, it's not impossible, highly improbable on a macroscopic scale yes, but on a quantum scale, I would'nt say it's a rare happening.

Always existed? Impossible

Again no.
Why should'nt the universe, in one form or another always have existed, and don't answer with "because it does'nt make sense" or something similiar.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:41 PM
Can anyone here explain to me this very problem how can infinite have any meaning to us weather it is or isnt a mistake has to be viewed not only on the aspect of numbers but on a level of the universe, think about it everything isnt infinite like I thought saw someone say and can you prove to me that any numbers or equations are infinite I mean prove it not theoretically and can you prove inifnite was a mistake it works both ways is it logical isnt, it logical can we even prove of our existance? who knows some things will have to be debated on a much higher level. Im not so much as saying anything more than give me prooof both ways to show me yrou points you make good logical points but none which would ever make me believe either or.

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Produkt
Sure ya have albie.

Rather pathetic explanations. How can one believe on thing existed in nothingness but not believe that perhaps there never was an absolute nothingness. Where did god come from if religous folk don't accept something from nothing or perhaps something just always was? It's a contradiction.

Trace a circle around a ball. Now imagine neither you nor the ball are going to die out. Imagine your going to keep existing in the physical form you are now. Define howto determine you tracing your finger around that ball isn't a concept of infinity. I know this has been brought up before... Infinity is a hard concept to grasp. Your last post just shows that.

I don't like your tone, presuming it was me you were getting at.

You could never trace your finger around the ball for infinity, because you can never reach infinity. It has no end, therefore you could do it for as long as you like, you'll never be able to say you did to an infinite degree. Plus, you would had to have been doing it forever into the past as well.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Produkt
'm not talking about getting something from nothing. I'm not talking about an absolute nothingness before the big bang. We have no evidence that an absolute nothingness can even exist! We can never produce an absolute nothingness in this universe. Quantum physics forbids such a silly notion as absolute nothingness. Not even the space in between galaxies or super clusters of galaxies is composed of absolute nothingness. The vaccuum of space outside our universe, another prime example that absolute nothingess doesn't exist. WE defined absolute nothingness.

Can anyone show me absolute nothingness? Can anyone show me that absolute nothingess existed before the univserse? Can anyone show me how it's possible for god to exist in absolute nothingness, but impossible for something to just always have been there?

I understand what your saying pepsi. Mathematical infinity can start from 0 going back -n infinity and going + infinity. You can't keep counting in either direction, always adding one extra zero at the end. There is no potential end to how many zero's you can add onto the end of a number.

Like I said before, if some energy had always been around then it would have had an infinite amount of time to become a universe, which means that this universe has existed an infinite amount of times. Presuming this energy exists everywhere, there would be universes everywhere in the infinity of space. If you think about it, every inch of space would be solid matter. Rock. That's just one of the logic problems of the quantum version of nothingness. That's why scientists discount it. Hence there had to have been a time where nothing existed. Which isn't possible either.

Why can't you just accept there is no answer?

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:57 AM

The notion of infinity does mean a consciousness could have formed instead of a universe. Even a total atheistic quantum mechanic has to believe this.

No, not really, first a person does'nt have to believe anything if they dont want to, like how you are refusing to believe in infinity.
Secondly, a consciousness could not form instead of a universe, a consciousness (corporeal or non-corporeal) would have to manifest in a place, now I suppose it is possible for a universe to form, and through some strange way become conscious, but that's highly unlikely (not impossible).

Ok, I meant a mind forming from matter rather than a system of planets etc.
And we are talking about infinity...so saying it's unlikely is wrong. And if you understood what I was talking about you would know that athiestic quantum mechanics WOULD have to believe in it. If you believe that time is infinite then it will happen, and it will happen an infinite amount of times. Stupid, I know. But I'm pointing out how absurd quantum mechanics is to some toddlers here.

Something from nothing? Impossible

No, it's not impossible, highly improbable on a macroscopic scale yes, but on a quantum scale, I would'nt say it's a rare happening.

That is not something from nothing. Virtual particles etc are a product of underlying fields. These particles may SEEM to manifest from nothing, but it is far, far, far more likely that they emanate from energies outside of the range of our instruments. I'm talking about true nothing by the way, unreality. Nothing with several more noughts added on the end, if you like.

Always existed? Impossible

Again no.
Why should'nt the universe, in one form or another always have existed, and don't answer with "because it does'nt make sense" or something similiar.

Have you never googled that question before? Not ever come up with any answers that you could supply yourself? Nope? "because it does'nt make sense" is one way of putting it. I'll refer you to an answer I gave elsewhere on this board...

'Like I said before, if some energy had always been around then it would have had an infinite amount of time to become a universe, which means that this universe has existed an infinite amount of times. Presuming this energy exists everywhere, there would be universes everywhere in the infinity of space. If you think about it, every inch of space would be solid matter. Rock. That's just one of the logic problems of the quantum version of nothingness. That's why scientists discount it. Hence there had to have been a time where nothing existed. Which isn't possible either.
'

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by albie

Like I said before, if some energy had always been around then it would have had an infinite amount of time to become a universe, which means that this universe has existed an infinite amount of times. Presuming this energy exists everywhere, there would be universes everywhere in the infinity of space. If you think about it, every inch of space would be solid matter. Rock. That's just one of the logic problems of the quantum version of nothingness. That's why scientists discount it. Hence there had to have been a time where nothing existed. Which isn't possible either.

What if this infinite energy at some point in its infinite lifespan emanated a new finite energy which created our known universe. A finite universe contained within and infinite one.

With this model of thought you have both infinity and a universe that isn't all rock (as you put it).

IMO The energy that is infinite, and came before the known universe, was of a different form, and ultimately at some level still exists (because it's infinite).

Why can't you just accept there is no answer?

That's equally absurd.

Even so, what's the alternative? Don't ask these questions?

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:35 AM
I don't believe it! You actually got what I'm saying! It's absurd! All the options are absurd.

You just earned yourself a scholarship into a newer and stickier world Critical Paranoia.

Enjoy.

Seriously, you should keep asking the question, but just for fun. Enjoy the freedom that the answer provides.

Now, I can go back to my dimension and eat cereal all day.

top topics

0