It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Infinity a big mistake ?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy



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).



But that also would have happened infinitely. And you couldn't trap a bubble of space away from infinity, because then it wouldn't be infinity anymore. Hence it would be quantifiable.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]




posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy



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).



But that also would have happened infinitely.



So in order to satisfy that I would have to say there is an infinite number of finite universes.

Our known Universe is almost unimaginably big. To further that by saying there is an infinite amount of them is rationally abusrd, but it's no less rationally abusrd then conceding a finite universe arose from a state of nothingness (as you had said).

Both the concept of infinity and nothingess brings the human mind to the fringe of incomprehension. Perhaps they are one and the same.

So if, as you say, the finite universe arose from a state of nothingness (the absolute unreality kind) then you can pinpoint when it arose. Now going back to that point let us hypothetically say for whatever reason nothing happened to the nothingness for the finite universe to arise. So at this point there is only nothingness. Lets say nothing ever happens to the nothingness, in which case it is only nothingess forever. At this point nothingness is synonymous with infinity.

But something was created. Thus an infinite nothingess created something finite. Finite things perish. Are we to presume after the finite universe perishes it will go back to a state of nothingness? Forever? If not forever then how many times will it again create something finite out of its nothingness? According to you it would have to do so infinite times (since, as I showed, nothingness is also an infinite concept).

I don't see how something being created from a state of nothingness is exempt from the same questions you asked about my model of a finite universe being contained by an infinite one.

[edit on 062828p://21u56 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
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.

...
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.


Part I:

You may or may not be familiar with CALCULUS. There were 2 (maybe even 3 or more) creators of calculus around the same time. The only one we seem to "worship" is NEWTON, because he was good with numbers and already really, really famous.

The BAD news is that LEIBNIZ had a much better concept working for him (this is my opinion). He introduced the infinitesimal. Where do you learn about the infinitesimal? ALMOST NOWHERE!

The concept of using limits (which I don't particularly care for) overtook the concept of infinitesimals, since both methods achieved roughly the same end.

To understand each of the elements between two numbers, say 1 and 0, as stated in the quote above, you need to know that there is a set of real numbers and a set of infinitesimals (which describe the gaps between each real number).

The math involved is NOT extremely difficult to understand, but since Newton always gets the glory, Newton's methods get all the attention.

----------------------------------
Part II:

When you refer to infinitely small elements in your second quote, you should know the definition of an infinitesimal:

Definition - Infinitesimal: A number NOT EQUAL to zero AND LESS THAN any positive real number, OR GREATER THAN any negative real number (as a negative infinitesimal).

Note: There are, of course, additional definitions that include ordered fields and some category theory to help define and prove infinitesimals (sometimes including zero as an infinitesimal), but the above definition is just fine for now.

NOW, you ask...!!!... what is smaller than a REAL NUMBER!?!?!?

Technicially.... NOTHING. However, we CAN describe the GAP between real numbers.

The reason: WHY NOT?

We are just forcing ourselves to define discrete (or finite) units (a.k.a. numbers) AS values with GAPS in between them.

For those of you around London... "MIND THE GAP!"

Ok, ok, that was rather corny.

The reason for this whole rant on defining an infinitesimal is because you don't want to force yourself to believe that one (1) is just one (1 = 1). It IS a single discrete unit in itself.

SO, to compare how a single unit can be composed of other units, you have to put ALL of the real numbers between 0 and 1 TOGETHER WITH ... you guessed it... INFINITESIMALS!

NOW you have a complete set of discrete units (although uncountable) WITH all of the spaces in between those units accounted for. NOTHING is left out.

Ha ha ha, "nothing" is left out. Sorry, I find that phrase humorous.

Anyway, there you have it... a single unit is a composition of all of its parts and the space in between. It is fairly self-explanatory at this point. However, I suggest you just think of a single unit as a single unit.

END RANT (edited to add links)

Hyperreal Numbers (another name for infinitesimals)

Wikipedia Definition

Continuity and Infinitesimals

[edit on 21-2-2006 by Protector]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
In my opinion the subject of 'Infinity' proves that the human mind is not yet able to comprehend such things.

Understanding the fact that something has 'always been there' is extremely difficult for us. We are still 'primitive' when it comes to such terms.

This is why we are having this discussion.

The universe has always been there. Time has always existed. The two are the one and the same. What do we measure our time by? What did ancient (and in my opinion, superior) civilistations measure time by?

Think about it



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie

Infinite time stretching into the past? Can't see any flaws in that idea?



There is no past. There is no future. Only the present.

Time=Universe. Universe=Time.

This is why time travel is not possible, and never will be.

The universe cannot be controlled. Fun theory though


[edit on 22-2-2006 by RemusUK]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Protector....

So I do remember some of my calculus from college correctly, then?
If you could travel along a number line long enough, you'd eventually wind up back at 0.
I think my professor was trying to tell us, that pretty much the infinitely large and the infinitely small are the same thing.
You sound like you have a decent grasp on these things to me, and I'd like to know your thoughts.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
im not sure, i sought of believe in it bus as said if it was real then we couldnt have ever been born because you can't reach the beggining to start time



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
This thread is getting very...tedious shall we/I say.

Therefore,
I formaly quit discussion in this thread, as in, I shall no longer participate in this discussion.

It is abundantly clear to me that Mr Albie is not going to change his mind about what he believes, and he has every right to believe whatever he chooses, but I disagree.


Anyways, I guess I could have just stopped posting to quit discussion, but I like doing these kinds fo things more formally.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ahnikah
Protector....

So I do remember some of my calculus from college correctly, then?
If you could travel along a number line long enough, you'd eventually wind up back at 0.
I think my professor was trying to tell us, that pretty much the infinitely large and the infinitely small are the same thing.
You sound like you have a decent grasp on these things to me, and I'd like to know your thoughts.


In many disciplines, operations on the very large are reflections of the very small. BUT there are differences. Infinities are ordered in terms of cardinality and defined most often through set theory. Infinitesimals describe a different sort of concept and are proven, from my understanding, in category theory.

Only a perfectly circular number line will end up back at 0. ... but that is a good question because you are beginning to place numbers in the realms of geometry/shape. Real world applications of math are most often seen in computer science, physics, economics, and engineering. Math is art. Apply it to shape, to the world, and you get a science, a discipline.

Apply math to philosophy and you get metaphysics, more philosophy, politics, and art disciplines.

Of course, the key is math.

Infinity is an expression. It means: "something that is too great for us to count, but REAL ENOUGH for us to categorize, to tame, and to demostrate as a viable tool within mathematics... and later that mathematics within the real world."

If you don't know math, then you will forever be waiting in line for your ticket to get on the roller coaster.

As a passenger through life, on this roller coaster, I can say that it is crazy, scary, fun, changes pace, flips you upside-down, and leaves your brain in a pile of mush... I can't truly imagine why everyone wouldn't want to take the risk and ride the ride.

Heroes are born in the moment. Don't keep next Thursday open for a chance to make a difference in your life. Become something amazing today, something unbelievable RIGHT NOW. You don't even need a reason why. But if anyone asks, tell them that it is because, "NO ONE CAN STOP ME!" After all, that's what it means to be a hero, and exactly what a hero would say.

END ESSOTERIC RANT



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RemusUKUnderstanding the fact that something has 'always been there' is extremely difficult for us.


I don't think that is at all what it pertains to. I think rather infinity is an unbounded set.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
i haven't bothered to read all 7 pages of this, so forgive me if my post is filled entirely with re-hashed crap, but here's the way i see things.

infinity is only truly conceivable if you move outside the boundaries of our universe. not only the three spatial dimensions, but time as well - time is not dependent so much on matter itself as it is on the motion of the matter. before the big bang, time as we know it did not exist - therefore, one may in fact claim that some "eternal" being created us. knowledge of that is unattainable, however, and in reality irrelevant to this discussion. now.

the number line discussions that occured on the first page of this thread are flawed in that they do not account for irrational numbers - there's a paradox (a flawed, although useful one) that states that some infinities are bigger than others. it goes something like this:

the real number line is infinite - however, between each real number, there are an infinite number of integers - decimals and the like - and between all of those are the irrational numbers. the gist is that the infinity of irrational numbers is supposedly larger than that of the real numbers - yet if you want to quantify an infinity, you can't build it from finites. building an infinity from finites is similar to building a finite from 0's. another flaw with this paradox is that anywhere on the number line you chose, you would land on an irrational number, even if you were to land directly on one of the supposed "real" numbers, based on the fact that in any given system, an infinite number of something equivocates to an "all s is p" argument - therefore, the only infinity you would be allowed is the infinity of irrationality (+4 dex modifier, keen).

that's retarded.

continuing on - a true infinity denies itself through definition. if you go infinite in one direction, one must logically assume that the reverse is also possible, thus giving us a 0 in the framework. one zero contained within an infinity is beyond crippling, it's a deathblow, for any function of infinity relating to 0 ends up in # all. therefore, my conclusion is this - either infinity DOES exist, and we're simply far too mentally deficient to truly comprehend the actual concept; infinity does NOT exist and our universe is unexplainable; or nothing exists and our universe is simply the result of infinity divided by zero.

regardless, this is all moot coz no human being is EVER going to be able to conclusively prove #e.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   
In conclusion,


The infinity theory is not scientifically sound, because all variables have not been eliminated.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
You guys are drawing EXTREME generalizations.

Infinity, the word, the symbol, the mathematical concept, is not limitless.... unbounded, but not limitless.

Infinity is ONLY defined for a specified range. Positive or negative infinity in a single dimensionk--maybe an area like real numbers ^ 2 or |R^2.


YOU GUYS are trying to compare an infinity with some sort of GOD CONCEPT, where it must be limitless and unbounded and all encompassing and etc, etc, etc.

That is not the case in reality. The word infinity does have definition.

There use to be an old moderator here on ATS, Toltec, who had a signature along the lines of, "Man is infinite. God is more."

It is time you separate the concepts, or you miss out on a whole world of understanding.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
that's because i'd always taken the case of the absolute infinity - one which extends beyond all boundaries. perhaps it's narrowmindedness on y behalf, but anything else should be defined as a different word. the concept of the infinite is boundless, and therefore without limit or definition.


and did you realy just say that (real numbers)^2 can be defined?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Protector, you get my way above vote for some Newton ranting...!


Originally posted by Protector
The BAD news is that LEIBNIZ had a much better concept working for him (this is my opinion). He introduced the infinitesimal. Where do you learn about the infinitesimal? ALMOST NOWHERE!

Well the reason why the infinitesimal approach to calculus was abandoned for so long is because it had its share of contradictions( especially when you calculated the derivative...set one quantity to appromixate zero and dropped it (dx) yet divided by the same quantity as well)

Ive skimmed thru a book(Elementry Calculus by Keisler) on Robinson's approach to calculus and its fascinating. Some schools use the refined approach but its in no way mainstream and I absolutely agree with you on the lack of attention this gets.


Originally posted by Protector
Infinity, the word, the symbol, the mathematical concept, is not limitless.... unbounded, but not limitless

I agree. We dont deal directly with infinity, we deal with quantities which grow without bounds & approach infinity as a limit. As my old bearded prof. liked to say..."lets sneak up to it". Newton and Leibniz extended our understanding of infinity by giving us limits, a careful way to avoid paradoxes.


Originally posted by 25cents
and did you realy just say that (real numbers)^2 can be defined?

I think he was giving an example of an unbounded defined set with limits. R^2 is defined as a set of two real numbers and specifies a location in 2-dimensional space.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
It really depends about how you look at it. If you look at it mathatical as in the first equation that was brought up (but re-look the equations they don't seem right) Or you can look at it as the amount of numbers or answers to a problem such as y2=x. Also you can look at it how you can keep going in space (but thats just personal belief - but one day can be proven wrong)



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
mathematical limits are not infinity - they're just the way we deal with the concept. being unbounded, it is by definition limitless - boundaries and limits are the same exact thing.

we may have figured out a way to handle infinity mathematically, but that doesn't mean that we actually encounter it.

all i'm saying is that the concept of a true infinity means that everything is infinitesmally small, approaching a limit of zero. we have to work in the opposite direction, obviously, but being that we do exist we have the ability to operate in both directions.

perhaps infinity is an existant and very real concept, it's just the concept of zero that is unreal.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I don't know much about infinity in the sense its being talked about here but I just figured it was, in terms of time, the absence of time. If the universe is indeed closed and time is a mutated form of motion created with the start of our universe, then outside it there would be no time. What is the universe expanding into? Impossible to say since outside our universe there would be no physical laws like those that exist inside it. There woudn't even be space as we know it so the universe expands into what? Probably nothing. So the universe seems to be growing or expanding from within but from outside it probably looks much the same as it did before it began - if there even is a 'before' outside the universe. Maybe our universe is only real from the inside? From outside, its not even there.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
boundaries and limits are the same exact thing.


Umm, no. IT really takes a good deal of calculus to start to understand what infinity is, what boundary is, and what a limit is. I have only started precalculus (trig, plane geometry, complex nubmers, etc). But I can rest assure with some confidence that limits are not boundaries and boundaries are not limits. I just have to say I wouldn't understand why mathematicians would be so redundant as to use two words for the same definition....although....



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
boundary - the edge of somethings influence, the furthest something may be allowed to roam

limit - see above.

any mathematician that tells you boundaries and limits are different is a a-hole. if they mean boundaries insofar as a set of numbers (say, real numbers for example), then it's still limitless. if they choose an equation like 1/x, which never reaches zero but approaches it as a limit, then it is bounded by y=0 and x=0, and may not cross them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join