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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Draw a circle. Inside that circle you can fit an infinite amount of points. If you run out of places to input points all you have to do is zoom in and there will be more space between the points you already inputed. You can do this an infinite amount of times. Infinity is real and all there is



"Systems are real and logical processes. Systems work. Our universe is a system, therefore a logical process."

Our universe is not a system. Our universe is infinity.

"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."

In a timeline lets say we have point A and point B. You can divide point A and point B an infinite amount of times. So even that is infinite.








[edit on 21-4-2009 by stevedel0]




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stevedel0
Draw a circle. Inside that circle you can fit an infinite amount of points.

Inside a circle, you can fit in an infinite number of ideal points. That is because an ideal point is dimensionless. In reality, however, all objects take up space. There is no such thing as a dimensionless point. You cannot fit an infinite number of points inside a circle unless the circle, too, is of infinite extent.


In a timeline lets say we have point A and point B. You can divide point A and point B an infinite amount of times.

Again, only theoretically. You can't measure an infinitesimal division.


Our universe is not a system. Our universe is infinity.

Could you explain, please, in what way the universe is not a system?

One of the questions people have been wrangling over on this thread is whether or not the universe is infinite. You seem fairly sure of your position there. Do you have any evidence to present?

(Remember this is the Science & Technology thread; metaphysical and religious arguments cut no ice here).



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
One must forgive the ignorance of a materialist with a need to prove himself.

Science and technology are materialistic subjects.

This is the Science & Technology forum.

We don't talk spirituality and stuff of that kind here. There's no dearth of other places on ATS where you can do that.

Anyway, what have you contributed to the thread? A bunch of opinions without a smidgen of evidence to substantiate them.

And by the way, you still haven't answered the questions I asked you in another thread, also in the S&T forum. You call yourself a scientifically minded Christian philosopher. Okay, then, show us some scientifically respectable answers. I don't believe you even can.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I don't know if anyone mentioned this but, infinity is not infinite, it ends with end of space time.
The universe is not end less, a number could be put on it.
Infinity = 2googolplexs

So ( 2googolplexs and 2 ) would be a number but a impossible number, except on paper.
Does that count or does that take us past Inifinity?

Can you see past end of space time?

The number could put on universe is 281,553,408,000,000,000,000,000 miles. That is really small number even next to googol

[edit on 22-4-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


You cant measure infinity so basically were all going nowhere fast here. A measurement is only based on another measurement or something in nature that changes very slowly, such as the revolving of planets. As sure as I am that the universe is nothing but infinity nothing I can put on paper can prove that because infinity cannot be measured. If we want to prove infinity we have to measure it, that just cannot be done. Thats the nature of infinity, that everything is one and the same everywhere.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
The human mind is incapeable of comprehinding infinity in the true sense,.because from the human perspective all things have limits.

The human mind is not capable of seeing past the end of space time, from our perspective all things end with the end of space time.

As far as not being able to put number on things, I just put a number on the universe, this is only known universe, and was in miles just for perspective. But still very small number.

In mathamatical terms refering to Infinity, Inifinity=2googolplexs

If you can not comprehend Infinity, you would not be able to comprehend 1googolplex either, much less 2googolplexs.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
as i said before infinity can not be applied to a number it can be used for a process.

en.wikipedia.org...

here u find a link regarding the infinitesimals. You will find that these are not numbers at all but processes. just as the process of keep counting ..ie add 1 ..1 2 3 4 etc generates an adequate substitute for infinity so the process of keep shrinking is an adequate substitue for the infinitesmal

By defining infinity as a process enables mathmaticians to resolve paradoxes raised by the greek mathematician Zeno. the one in question is the hare and tortoise link here and the main info regarding processes can be found within
en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes
The deep root of this paradox when u think about is quite absurd. HOw can you do an infinite amount of things in a finite time.

Infinity is used in logical situations to resolve what might be a paradox.
SO again infinity can not be illogical
a link to infinite processes
en.wikibooks.org...



[edit on 22-4-2009 by loner007]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
as i said before infinity can not be applied to a number it can be used for a process.

en.wikipedia.org...

here u find a link regarding the infinitesimals. You will find that these are not numbers at all but processes. just as the process of keep counting ..ie add 1 ..1 2 3 4 etc generates an adequate substitute for infinity so the process of keep shrinking is an adequate substitue for the infinitesmal

By defining infinity as a process enables mathmaticians to resolve paradoxes raised by the greek mathematician Zeno. the one in question is the hare and tortoise link here and the main info regarding processes can be found within
en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes
The deep root of this paradox when u think about is quite absurd. HOw can you do an infinite amount of things in a finite time.

Infinity is used in logical situations to resolve what might be a paradox.
SO again infinity can not be illogical
a link to infinite processes
en.wikibooks.org...



[edit on 22-4-2009 by loner007]


Yes, but it's a theory, not an actualy physical thing. It's a human concept that makes no sense to how things actually work. Again, it's a concept that is used to support an objective fundemental physical existance.

Our universe IS a system. Systems are processes that work.

Entropy and infinity do not work together. Entropy works within a closed system. Can someone explain that to me?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Entropy is the decay of matter put simply...Infinity isnt a material thing. the 2 are not the same.
If you are implying the universe is infinite then that also is wrong. It has a finite energy. ALL energy in the known universe cannot be destroyed or created. that implies finite,



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Infinity is unlimited therefore infinity is illogical because infinity
is non-duality meaning it encompasses logic/illogic, reason/ irrationality
ad infinitum.
Infinity contains mathmatics but is not limited to a numbers game for an intelligent being to be able to grasp it's scope.

To comprehend infinity takes an expanded level of cognizance.

Even if a trillion times a trillion light year size vacuum exists beyond the outer reaches of the expanding universe if any intelligent being is aware of that vast vacuum then cognizance exists in that vacuum.

Therefore how could there ever be a finite universe given the unlimited capacity of infinite levels of awareness?

Cognizance and space are infinite because they exist-do not exist,
both and neither. This unlimited capacity is infinite and limited systems of
thought like logic lack the capacity necessary for understanding infinity.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
Entropy is the decay of matter put simply...Infinity isnt a material thing. the 2 are not the same.
If you are implying the universe is infinite then that also is wrong. It has a finite energy. ALL energy in the known universe cannot be destroyed or created. that implies finite,


Exactly. Numbers are simply a human concept, a way to model the universe. Infinity does not work within a closed system. Our universe is a closed system.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
we are not talking about infinity in a closed system... the point of the thread was whether or not infinity is illogical......

Infinity is logical



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Infinity is not limited to a dualistic system like logic/illogic.
Infinity is a non-duality.
Therefore infinity is both illogical and logical, both and neither.
Infinity by it's very nature is unlimited.
If you have the capacity to understand the unlimited nature of non-duality
then you can comprehend infinity.
If not then your internalizing of a limited educational conditioning has
handicapped your capacity for cognizance.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electricneo

Infinity is not limited to a dualistic system like logic/illogic.
Infinity is a non-duality.
Therefore infinity is both illogical and logical, both and neither.
Infinity by it's very nature is unlimited.
If you have the capacity to understand the unlimited nature of non-duality
then you can comprehend infinity.
If not then your internalizing of a limited educational conditioning has
handicapped your capacity for cognizance.


Hmm, I have hinted that I think we may live in a virtual/simulated reality. Have you broke free of your conditioning? Do you think we live in a fundamental and objective physical reality that constitues all that is?

I don't think I'm a product of public conditioning, given I was homeschooled on a farm my whole life.

I understand what you are saying, but it's poetry man. Not anything that actually applies to what I am talking about.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Time is not endless so therefore not Infinite.
Distance is not endsless so therefore not Infinte.

Any thing that you could do, could not be done a Infinite number of times because of the constrainsts of the above mentioned factors.

If you start to speak of the macro and micro cosmic?

The nothing is neither large nor small, it is not measurable, it is not here or there.

I am am olny speaking for our point of reference.

I am sure the Creator would have a different point of perspective of the whole creation, but in the mean time we are held in the vail of ingorance.
i'm sure there is is a reson for everything, just like reason we are not allowed to know, then we would know to much and all the fun would be taken out of the game.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tobiascore
 

Science does not try and make the illogical logical. Science attempts to understand what is.
Infinity is a totally logical assumption in fact logic would imply that that it is the finite that is illogical.
If for instance we take the idea of the Big Bang, does the universe appear from nothing and nowhere? Logic says we get nothing from nothing and there is always causality. Causality needs infinity.
Seems simple enough.
Are you saying we should not attempt to understand what is?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Breaking free of conditioning takes constant awareness of non-duality and openness.
I try to maintain that but when I am tired I can slip into conditioning.
There is a natural clarity of non-dual mind that can transcend conditioning and see it for what it is. Conditioning always wants to choose one side of the coin which is dualistic.
All conditioning is dualistic and subjective.
Saying this is good or bad is dualistic.
It's both and neither.
A dualistic mind being limited to one side of a system cannot ever fathom infinity.
That's the main point.

Homeschooling is a form of conditioning and depends on your
teachers capacity to transcend their own conditioning and understand
non-duality. Did non-duality ever come up in your lessons?

Actually everybody's opinion is in a way them trying to condition you.
Otherwise people would express their opinions into a vacuum.

The best way to see our own conditioning is to look at different
cultures, historical belief systems and other species. (For instance
in Tibet of just a few decades ago a man could have more than one
wife or a woman more than one husband-there was no guilt or shame
as their conditioning said it was all right. It was also necessary as their
were lots of early deaths and after the early death of one sisters
husband the widow for survival's sake had to take up residence with her sister and share her husband.)



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by tobiascore
 

Science does not try and make the illogical logical. Science attempts to understand what is.
Infinity is a totally logical assumption in fact logic would imply that that it is the finite that is illogical.
If for instance we take the idea of the Big Bang, does the universe appear from nothing and nowhere? Logic says we get nothing from nothing and there is always causality. Causality needs infinity.
Seems simple enough.
Are you saying we should not attempt to understand what is?




I'm saying we need a change of ideas to the current model. A mainstream change. Casuality only needs infinity we he think we are at the center of the universe. If we are a subsystem of a system, which is also a subsystem of a system, then infinity is just a human concept that tries to make the standard model work. Trying to fit a circle into a square may be possible, but all you gotta go is shrink the cirlce and it fits very nicely into the square.

Infinity is the circle, and the square in our universe. Infinity only needs to be applied if we view our universe as a possibility among an infinite amount of possibilities. Then you get into other infinite possibilities, like boltzmenns brains. Things start to get illogical to how things really work.

The simple solution. Our universe is a subset of a superset. Not infinite, but something that exists and works, but is supported by an outside casuality.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Electricneo
 

It is not easy to become single of mind, this is what The Christ, spoke of and it took me years to even begin to understsnd what he was refering to.
Most people you would speak to, would have no concept of this realization.
I am still learning.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Electricneo

Breaking free of conditioning takes constant awareness of non-duality and openness.
I try to maintain that but when I am tired I can slip into conditioning.
There is a natural clarity of non-dual mind that can transcend conditioning and see it for what it is. Conditioning always wants to choose one side of the coin which is dualistic.
All conditioning is dualistic and subjective.
Saying this is good or bad is dualistic.
It's both and neither.
A dualistic mind being limited to one side of a system cannot ever fathom infinity.
That's the main point.

Homeschooling is a form of conditioning and depends on your
teachers capacity to transcend their own conditioning and understand
non-duality. Did non-duality ever come up in your lessons?

Actually everybody's opinion is in a way them trying to condition you.
Otherwise people would express their opinions into a vacuum.

The best way to see our own conditioning is to look at different
cultures, historical belief systems and other species. (For instance
in Tibet of just a few decades ago a man could have more than one
wife or a woman more than one husband-there was no guilt or shame
as their conditioning said it was all right. It was also necessary as their
were lots of early deaths and after the early death of one sisters
husband the widow for survival's sake had to take up residence with her sister and share her husband.)


Okay, so are mind and matter seperate entities? Is reality objective or subjective. No "dual non dual" philosophy here. What model of physics do you subscribe to, and does it explain how consciousness casually works?




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join