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 is illogical

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
infinity can never be a real number as you can always add another number to it. So if infinity isnt a number then was is it? I have read once that infinity cam only be implied to a process, for example +1. Starting from 1 and adding one you can continue this process for ever. Logic involves a process. So infinity cannot be illogcal..

In relation to Pi i have always found it to be too much of a coincidence that a regular polygon, when u add a extra side to make the next polygon up and continue it will get more and more round like a circle.At what point does it stop becoming a regular polygon and become a circle? I think thats the reason why Pi is infinite as you can always add a side to make another..the process continues and soo does the value of pi to infinity.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by loner007]




posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You cannot start from one, since you cannot count down from an infinite series to a terminal starting point.

Therefore, the present moment is an eternally unfolding occurance of now with the very idea of "time" being an illusion. It is always just now, always was now and always will be now, forever. Life is a flowing river, not a sequence of cause and effect.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tobiascore
 


Infinity is a human construct and yes, logically, cannot be.
Infinity, in its simplest form, is described as has always been, is, and always will be....

But if the universe had a definate beginning, ie. The Big bang - this surely denotes a start point - which is incompatible with infinity - infinity by definition has no start point or end point - it is forever....

It is a human construct to explain, essentially, numbers which are far to large for us to grasp - so it is explained as infinate.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I'm with the OP. If infinity could be achieved that would imply that it has a limit. Infinity exists as an idea. In reality only potential infinity exists. Numbers don't lie. All our "infinite numbers" are just approximations.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
If the universe is bounded, and caustion or time is real, and if there was a beginning, then presumably, there is also an ending. Also, if the sum total causation of the universe may be thought of in terms of a construct composed of information, and an "arrow of progress" discerned in the emergence of increasing complexity or order in chaos, then by logical extension, the universe is going somewhere, and is being led to a final state, even for a reason, and a purpose, since progression implies progress, and progress can only be progressive if it progresses in relation to an idea of perfection.

Consider this idea, known as the "Omega Point" hypothesis (no relation to my monicur, which was inspired by Pierre de Chardin).

www.aleph.se...

www.aleph.se...

en.wikipedia.org...

And according to Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize winner for his work regarding complex systems, the universe MUST be an OPEN SYSTEM

www.youtube.com...

The entropy in other words is being bled from the system, in order for complexity to increase.

And from what I've read, there are only 3 possible outcomes of the quantum description

1) Superdeterminism

2) Transluminal Interconnectedness

3) Multiworlds Theory

The first and third are absurd, leaving number 2, a universe bound within an eternal now, which also means that the photon rules the roost and it is of course a timeless entity, relative to which the entire universe is touching, or is one.

What I intuit, not merely from a Christian bias, is a type of kingdom of light, relative to which the visual universe of matter is but a reflection and continual creative manifestation. In other words that there is a place or a realm of domain, from which nothing stored there can be removed, nor corrupted, ever.

"Therefore I say store up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither thief can break in and steal, nor rust or woodworm destroy."

If Tipler's theory is true, at "at the end of time" there is a "resurrection" into a realm of light, which is in effect a type of simulation of the very best of what came to pass in time, which is, in and of itself infinite, and perfect, who's central object forever rises - so I think of "God's throne" as the apexx of a light tent, which forever rises, and one which can never be usurped, nor broken into. Furthermore, I recognize the cross of Jesus Christ as the atonement point of reconciliation or the gateway into that realm of eternal life with God, wherein the height and breadth of his light and love can never be exhausted, nor the end found.

So yeah, as solipsistic as this may seem, when the spirit filled man Jesus died upon that cross, Golgotha may have been considered the very apex of the rest of the universe, the outpouring rendered there, unique, and man, the very center of a cosmic drama in the spiritual struggle between the forces of good and evil, with the good rendered triumphant in eternity, and death or decay, nullified in the resurrection from the dead.

Eternal life begins now for those who can recieve it, a gift of incaculable value that is unearned yet freely given, and which is offensive only to the pride of man. That is the supreme challenge presented by the Christian message, to accept an invitation to participate in an eternal co-creation without every losing one's most essential integrity of soul.



[edit on 17-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Wow OP,
who's to say what is illogical and what is not? Because a set number of people in the science community agrees a certain way???? This is all so subjective and inconclusive.

You just cut down so many philosophical imperatives with your post, philosophers would have a field day with you.

By nature infinity would have to be both logical and illogical, or what johnsky said:

"Infinity seems illogical because human logic isn't infinite."

Its a matter of perspectives my friend.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
I'm with the OP. If infinity could be achieved that would imply that it has a limit. Infinity exists as an idea. In reality only potential infinity exists. Numbers don't lie. All our "infinite numbers" are just approximations.


Thank you.

My point is, you put a baby in a life raft in the middle of the ocean and it grows up into a scientist, that scientist may think of that ocean as infinite. But it's just from it's limited knowledge and perspective. The ocean is not infinite, it's very much bounded, that's how it exists. Without bounderies, it would not be.

You can not calculate infinity. It defies logic and how systems work. The potential is there, as in quantum mechanics. But it's just possibilities, and not quite a real system.





[edit on 17-4-2009 by tobiascore]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
If the universe is bounded, and caustion or time is real, and if there was a beginning, then presumably, there is also an ending. Also, if the sum total causation of the universe may be thought of in terms of a construct composed of information, and an "arrow of progress" discerned in the emergence of increasing complexity or order in chaos, then by logical extension, the universe is going somewhere, and is being led to a final state, even for a reason, and a purpose, since progression implies progress, and progress can only be progressive if it progresses in relation to an idea of perfection.

Consider this idea, known as the "Omega Point" hypothesis (no relation to my monicur, which was inspired by Pierre de Chardin).

www.aleph.se...

www.aleph.se...

en.wikipedia.org...

And according to Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize winner for his work regarding complex systems, the universe MUST be an OPEN SYSTEM

www.youtube.com...

The entropy in other words is being bled from the system, in order for complexity to increase.

And from what I've read, there are only 3 possible outcomes of the quantum description

1) Superdeterminism

2) Transluminal Interconnectedness

3) Multiworlds Theory



[edit on 17-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]


Or the universe is a multi-player virtual reality, a computer simulation. Time and space are illusions and not fundemnetal to reality. Fundemental reality being consciousness/promordial awareness, which is not non-local and not bounded by anything but mind. "God" being a whole system, and us humans being fractions of that one system. The illusions we are bound to, is what gives us our individualaity. Worshipping that one system, is in fact, worshipping ourselves. The system as a whole evolves, and is not infinite. It is finite, which makes a logical system and it grows towards something, just as we do. The end is not yet known, now will it be known bu the system. Because once it is knows, growth stops.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


IMHO infinity is real. I can't imagine a border where reality meets nothing.

But IRM, isn't that just exactly why infinite quantities cannot exist?

You're talking about reality - I assume you mean physical reality - meeting nothing at its boundary. But that vision assumes an infinitude of empty space.

Leaving aside string theory for a moment, there is nowhere you can stand an look at the universe from outside. The universe has no outside. Everything is on the inside, or on the surface of it. There is nothing, not even empty space, outside it.

You cannot leave the universe. This is not because your movements are restricted but because if you were to move beyond the boundary of the universe you would be taking the universe with you.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tobiascore
 


Mighty fine verbal sandcastle you have constructed. Now shall we try to semanticly prove that I am in fact not a human but a housecat?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by tobiascore
 


Mighty fine verbal sandcastle you have constructed. Now shall we try to semanticly prove that I am in fact not a human but a housecat?


In my world, you may appear as a housecat. You could either agree with me, or you could start a war over it to try and prove me wrong.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tobiascore
 


I would have to one smart damn cat to have acheived the ability to at least type the English langauge coherently.
But my point is you don't prove your point very well short a, *please don't take this the wrong way* weak argument. Case in point, mathmatically, Pi has no known end.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Pi has no known end.

Pi has a finite value. It can be precisely defined as the ratio of a circle in two dimensions to its diameter.

You can't write this value down accurately in decimal notation but that does not make it infinite. You could construct a perfectly meaningful base Π arithmetic if you wanted, because Π is a finite quantity. There are no infinite quantities in nature.

[edit on 17/4/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Are you really going to start that claim again considering you ran away the last time I tried to debate that with you? Apparently. Though I would accept a "as far as we know" to the beginning of your rather silly statement.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tobiascore

No amount of time is = to ANY fraction of infinity. Yet, here we are, living in a logical system. It makes sense. Infinity is incompatible with logic.



you're equating infinity with eternity?numbers with time?i don't understand..you'd need an eternity to let's say,resolve the mandelbrot set..doesn't that tell us something about time?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AstyanaxPi has a finite value. It can be precisely defined as the ratio of a circle in two dimensions to its diameter.

You can't write this value down accurately in decimal notation but that does not make it infinite. You could construct a perfectly meaningful base Π arithmetic if you wanted, because Π is a finite quantity. There are no infinite quantities in nature.

[edit on 17/4/09 by Astyanax]


Your argument seems contradictory. You're implying that infinity is somehow invalid because it is not physically manifested (despite the fact that this is not known anyway), yet you are arguing for the validity of a finite definition of Pi according to its description of a two dimensional object, which in themselves are not physically manifested.

Using your own logic, there is no such thing as a circle in nature, because nothing in nature exists in two dimensions. Therefore the concept of a circle is invalid, and by regress, any concept such as Pi that tries to finitely define it is also invalid.

You can't have it both ways. Either infinity is just as valid as Pi, or neither are valid (according to your own logic).

I would argue that both are valid, because anything that is contained in the human mind is still just as much a part of 'existence/the universe' as anything else. Physical manifestation is not necessarily the only representation of truth.


There are no infinite quantities in nature.


Could you please explain how you know this?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   


heres a lil clip for the video time trip in which they talk about the possibilty that reality is virtual and they discuss the probability that our world is virtual. Infinity rears its head again as a computer would have to be able to process an infinite amount of data to emulate a perfect version of the "real world"

the idea was chamiponed by the late Frank Tippler as well as Nick Bostrom of Oxford University

[edit on 17-4-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I find it hard to distinguish how that VR matrix would differ substantially, from a God-consciousness created quantum computing light manifested matrix framed by a geometrical design and system of propogation and evolution.

It would make sense though, that if there's a real reality into which we may graduate, that first we would have to pass through a testing ground, to make sure that we can be trusted with real power, the power to create or destroy worlds. If you're God and you're willing to share the kingdom, you cannot have infantile narcissists in positions of authority, or one bad apple could spoil the whole design and framework.

I'm ok if this is just a game, and if the game by its very nature must continue to run indefinitely, so long as there's continual learning, progress, and above all, FUN.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Sacred Geometry

www.youtube.com...


However, I suspect that the creation was an act of supreme courage and sacrifice on the part of the one uncreated being, who, in allowing the division to occur, operated with faith that the essential integrity would not be lost, and that self awareness of "his" true nature would be restored via an eventual reintegration.

A continual process of differentiation and re-integration, to increasing degrees of compexity, is I suspect the quintessential process.

"So do not fear, nor let your hearts be troubled, for it pleased the father to share his kingdom with all his children."



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder


heres a lil clip for the video time trip in which they talk about the possibilty that reality is virtual and they discuss the probability that our world is virtual. Infinity rears its head again as a computer would have to be able to process an infinite amount of data to emulate a perfect version of the "real world"

the idea was chamiponed by the late Frank Tippler as well as Nick Bostrom of Oxford University

[edit on 17-4-2009 by constantwonder]


I disagee about the processing capibilities. If we did in fact live in a computer simulation, and that computer was running thousands upon thousands of other simulations, the number crunching capacity would not have to be infinite. It would probably be a closed system, infinite from our perspective, but bounded non-the-less.

Infinity is not required. And like my original point, it is not logical to logical processes.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by tobiascore]




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join