Does infinity exist?

If the axiom is “something exists” then for 0 to be true there needs to be a thing that is withdrawn from another.
For infinity to be true there needs only be one thing, it just needs to be infinite. So 0 is a higher order operator than infinity.

Still, infinity is a higher order principle to 1.

2 and uncountability are the same by implication because to get from 1 to 2 you need an assumption, which is that things are separate and not unified, and if you do that there is certainly no way of demonstrating any limits to the number of things that can be listed. And infinity is a higher order function of uncountability.

Only after all this is fixed we get to 0.
Or while its not being fixed but then 0 is seen as the basic depth of the thing where it is actually the summit.

Infinity is the root of all hypothetical numbers, including 0. 1 is the only non hypothetical number because it is the only number which can contain all others.

???. Doesn’t parse at my end.

Infinity can’t be true or false. It’s not a thing that can be true or false. A set being infinite might be true or false. Precision is critical.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Order of what? Haven’t seen order defined.

Nonsense.

More nonsense. I have one apple, I have two apples. I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you a reference so I can have some clue as to what domain of discourse you’re working in?

Doesn’t parse. Says nothing. Word salad.

After all what is fixed? What’s broken?

You often make sense. This post of yours does not make any sense.

What is a hypothetical number? What other kinds of numbers do you have in mind that aren’t hypothetical? The root? Like the root of a polynomial, or a square or cube root? You’re just throwing out random words. This is unlike your usual posts, which are generally connected with reality and sense.

Bullpucky.

Isn’t the collection of even numbers infinite? They’re clearly only a part of something larger. They’re not everything. They don’t include the odd numbers, for example.

I see you wrote several posts, not just one. But you seem to have decided to wake up this morning and post strings of word salad, devoid of meaning or sense. I don’t mean for that to be an attack. Only an observation. I’ve come to expect sensible posts from you. If you only posted nonsense I wouldn’t bother to mention it.

You might enjoy Hilbert’s hotel. Or then again, maybe this will only confuse the issue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%2 … rand_Hotel

No. Consider a variable x that ranges over the set {1, 2, 3}. Consider basic finite probability theory. The roll of a single six-sided die. You use variables to stand for things like “I roll a 3,” or “I roll and even number.” There is no implication of infinity.

No. What can you possibly mean by that?

Word salad. Makes no sense. I’m disturbed by the fact that I formerly thought you were making some level of sense in your posts, and now I wonder if I missed this strain of illogic. Can you put your morning flood of posts into context? It all seems … well, not good.

lol, yeah this is why you’re not a philosopher.
I managed to keep it extremely simple for you, go along in your little baby steps, doing a bit of theatrics, that was when you thought I was making sense.

I should take offence at your radical laziness but I know mathematicians hold this for some sort of virtue.
Ive been ahead of you constantly, drawn your proud definitions and drawings out of you by pretending I didn’t understand so well, telling you the difficulties along the way. This is all because I don’t think inside of language but just use language where it is constructive.

Now Ill leave you to your graceful temper. :wink:

No. The idiotic thing in your approach is the assumption that these issues have been satisfactorily figured out, even though in your discourse your examples all point to the opposite.

The only thing that was ever to learn here is Russells type theory which validates him as a philosopher, and elevates him above the ballroom of mathematicians.

I think set theory stands refuted at this juncture.

If philosophy is to be concerned in any case.
Which I think should gradually become an issue for mathematics.

When a philosopher takes a couple of steps running the mathematicians all stop walking, instead of trying to catch up. It is unfortunate.
in baby steps:

Infinity is something that is a condition.
That means it applies only to things that have already been defined.

Do you get this?

This is where you will have to put on your thinking cap.

I disagree here. Eternity can be taken to be implicit in the concept of time, given that this concept includes all beginnings and ends.
“Time began” is a problematic idea.
Eternity is an infinity of moments, the idea of an unfolding dimension made subjective, tied to a reference frame.

Absent reference frames there is not eternity but chaos.

Ah! This is where I really disagree.

First of all, “The” infinite is not the same as Infinity.

Infinity is a predicate to a given, it is not a starting point. If you presume it and ask if it exists, thats the wrong order.

You must observe things and then ask if they are infinite to ground it in reason.

The conclusion all along was very old, that if you’re committed to abstracting empirical data all the way, unlike the Greeks were, the ideas of infinity and 0 become available.

Sets are just ultra lazy abstractions without any class or style.
Russell at least had class and style, which is why he pricked through set theory in one gesture, and liked Wittgenstein, who is a fledgeling philosopher in how he overcame his Tractatus.

Serendipper for the win because he exposed the grammatical naiveté which causes all the various perspectives unawareness of being various.

:open_mouth:

:laughing:

Whats cool about being all too realistic before infinity is that you’re probably very aware of the finitude of some pretty important shit. Its possible to arrive at the value of finite things, not of infinite things.
and since there is definitely value that can be attributed to the power to identify a definite value, I think you can’t do things like quantum computing on set theory.

Anyway, this is very interesting. Set theory fails. Type theory must take its place. Thats a lot of grinding fucking weight lifting.

Blimey if I cant see now why mathematicians always lie on couches so proudly and don’t walk around to think. Set theory.

Ah, lets say we have a set, blah, and a set blah, and oh what would they do together! Oh what a delightful rainbow of things!

No, not things. Dreams.

X apples available would be theoretical and not actual. You either have in possession/existence the number of apples or you don’t.

Why not? Do you mean to say there is a possibility that extra space could exist such that there would be insufficient apples to fill it? In that case there would not be infinite apples. Conversely, if there are infinite apples, then there cannot be extra space left over.

To say one infinity is bigger than another is to place limits on the smaller infinity which would then make it finite.

If time is infinite, then having a beginning is impossible. This is the same as my argument against having an infinite road that has a beginning.

The universe must be finite or else it wouldn’t be definite and therefore wouldn’t exist. Plus, there is no evidence to indicate the universe is infinite and lots of evidence to preclude it, such as: the conservation of energy which wouldn’t make any sense in infinite energy, the fact that a photon cannot be emitted until its partner is found across spacetime which wouldn’t be possible if parts of spacetime were infinitely far away, the fact that the speed of light is a definite (finite) number where time and space end.

So, in summary:

  • Lots of evidence suggesting a finite universe
  • No evidence suggesting an infinite universe
  • Yet people still believe the universe is infinite

Yep

Does infinity exist = Does infinity exist in relation to something that it’s not, as a function of something engendering it, inside of something, as a part of something?

Is existence infinite = is a relation to something infinite?

“Does infinity exist in relation to something” is not the same question as “is a relation to something infinite”.

You’re assuming time means causality, but it is not since causality cannot describe the speed of causality. Time is something that can speed up and slow down, but causality simply describes one thing leading to another with no speed component.

There can’t be beginnings or ends in infinite anything.

Time without a beginning is a problematic proposition.

How long is a moment? 1s/infinity? lol

Yes, subjectivity is the universe in reference to another part of the universe.

Chaos is deterministic, but sensitive to initial conditions. Randomness is the uncaused event.

What’s the difference?

I don’t understand that.

:confused: :-k

Why would the infinitely tall wall curve around the cosmos and touch its bottom?

@Serendipper

The same as you, but there can be an absolute infinity, and specific infinities.

Or unlimited in quantity here/now, but limited there/then, or unlimited in x qualities, but not in y.

Conceptually you can draw a line anywhere, but you can also conceive of a road ending one way, but not the other.

You can also conceive of an impenetrable wall that keeps everything this side of it from crossing over, not that such a wall is necessary for a road to end one way, but not the other.

Beyond the wall, there might be nothing, not merely empty space, but no MEST at all, or there might be stuff.

It’s endless backwardly, and endful forwardly.

You can make it longer forwardly, but not backwardly.

It has a boundary backwardly, but not forwardly.

Apples could unendingly sparsely populate the unending universe, and still be unending in number, which means some infinites could be bigger than others.

I’m not so sure, for example, if two things are both infinitely divisible, but, finitely multipliable, if you will, than one of them could still be bigger, stronger and so on than the other.

But even if things are necessarily finitely small, the smallest unit of matter, motion and space might still be centillions of times smaller than quarks.

It seems weird…asymmetrical to me the universe could be infinitely big, but not also infinitely small, and if a thing could be infinitely big, and not infinitely small, than why couldn’t a thing be finitely big, and also infinitely small?

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite :wink:

George W was not the first president of America, and Ahab was a fictional character, so the first premise is technically not true… the second is fictionally true, of things that we read in books…

I do? :confusion-shrug:

You and I have discussed the axiom of infinity in this thread. Perhaps I’m misremembering. If we have discussed the axiom of infinity, then your remark is disingenuous. If I’m mistaken and we haven’t discussed the axiom of infinity, I’ll try to remember that I’m talking to a bunch of 5 year olds. That actually explains a lot.

That is a very interesting remark. Of course if you took freshman calculus, you can do that using a rote procedure, say by taking an antiderivative of the kind of elementary functions you see in calculus class. Integrand is (x^2) so antiderivative is (\frac{1}{3} x^3) kind of thing.

But if you studied the subject more deeply, you would realize that in order to form a logically rigorous definition of an integral, you require modern infinitary set theory. In calculus they don’t show you that. Perhaps you remember that when they defined the Riemann integral, they defined lower and upper sums relative to a partition, and then you took the LIMIT over all possible partitions. To formalize that requires the full apparatus of ZF set theory, including the axiom of infinity.

So to me, the fact that you DO believe in Riemann integration (aka freshman calculus integration) tells me that you’ve seen the rote procedures, but not the underlying theory nor all the weird counterexamples and corner cases that made 19th century mathematicians realize they needed a rigorous theory. Infinitary math is essential to define an integral and do freshman calculus. They just don’t tell you about this until you take a more advanced course in real analysis.

No infinitary math, no logical foundation for freshman calculus. No axiom of infinity, no Riemann integral.

ps – Let me give a concrete example. You mentioned integrating an area over a height. How about if you have a rectangular metal plate with a temperature at each point and you want to integrate the temperature over the area of the rectangle to determine the average temperature. You could integrate the vertical slices then the horizontal ones or vice versa. This is multiple integration as in second year calculus. But how do you know when the order of integration matters and when it doesn’t? How do you know whether it makes a difference if you integrate the x’s and then the y’s, or first the y’s and then the x’s? This can be a very tricky business, especially with a weird or pathological integrand or temperature function. This is when you have to drill down to the rigorous, set-theoretic definition of the integral to prove theorems on reversing the order of integration. In other words the moment you go beyond the simplest examples you need some theory; and the theory of integration requires infinitary set theory, or my name’s not Guido Fubini!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubini%27s_theorem

The end of the Wiki article gives specific examples where reversing the order of integration gives a different answer.

Because that would be the only place it hasn’t yet touched. To say otherwise would be to put a limit on the wall and make it finite.