Infinity is a mathematical concept. It’s quite well-described.
Angles are mathematical relations, purely abstract things. Practically, you can’t choose anything like an infinite number of angles. Practically, physical reality appears to all intents and purposes to be granular. Practically, things are finite.
Well I woiuld agree mostly but Ithink that asserting just like the axiom of mathe that A=A. It might help to assert that infinities in certain cases can be smaller than other infinities, so as to begin mathematically coping with infinite structures…IDK
I think of it like this. Imagine the everything, the all, the whole universe in all that it is at least ewith repsect to mass. i would call such the All-mass. Some might say it has a size but I would ask how can we assert what it’s size is by using anything that is of mass and thus within that system, such is like saying an apple is 50/50th of itself…or 1 apple…relative to the emptyness outseid such is like saying 1/0 the actual relative size is indeterminate…nonetheless we at least know that the size is greater than no size in that we exist in it…or so we would think…ultimately what I would suggest is that it is not exactly one size but it can be fairly considered any including infinite. and while we are cpable of going from one end of the all madss to another tht is because we ourselves are fractions of the infinite of the all-mass…IDK just a theory…as such it may lend to begin to think of things as infinites to a degree, for we may actaual be indeterminately finite or infinite, and as such could benifit from looking at the picture from either angle…
When it comes to guessing whether the number of particles that exist in anything is infinite I don’t think that we could ever know. If the number of particles that an atom is made of is infinite (not just immeasurable) and there are an infinite number of atoms in the universe(not just immeasurable) then the universe is paradoxical.
I don’t see how that would nessesarily mean it is paradoxical, or at least in any non-functional sense…?
Like I say, mathematical infinities are quite well-described. You can learn about them if you’re interested.
This doesn’t even make sense. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying an apple is 50 times 1/50th of itself, if we can quantify the 1/50th. And there is no outside.
I’m a mathematician…there are many ways we have for dealing with infinities but some that we don’t…this would help include a wider range with respect to certain things i would think…
For example I might say rather than attempting a reduction of inf+1 to inf, just operate on the basis of relating to the matter as inf+1 instead. and then you might get that (inf+1) + (inf+1) =(inf+2) which just suggests you might as well call 1 an infinite and deal with the typical numerical system under the basis that the numbers are of infinities of variant order. Think of this if I were to say 1. that wouldn’t tell you anything about the thing…but If I say 1 infinite or 1 finite that is different…It may be more a matter of subsiding the idea that the numerals are representations of finite structures to begin with, but a self representative of indeterminates, that are simply of orders higher dependent on the numeral representation…
Exactly if we “quantify the 1/50th” but in order to quantify it it has to be related to something outside of the thing itself, otherwise we are back where we started…For example I can’t say an apple is 50 50ths of itself where each 50th is 80/80ths of a 50th piece of the apple or something (that sums back to 1)…I would have to say the 1/50th is equal to say a typical finger nail.but when dealing with the universe or all-mass as a whole there is nothing of a particular size outside of it to say the thing is relative too. I.e. no “frame of reference”