To arrive at a number we must stop at that number. For example, to reach three we count one, two, three and then stop. Infinity, on the other hand, has no stop.
This is why zero is a larger number than an infinite number.
There is no infinite “number”.
Infinity is represented symbolically, like a number, but has no relevance in determining a total, series, or sequence. Infinity poses as something numerical, but is not. It is an idea representing an eternal continuum, which is essentially incomprehensibility.
I can represent “void” with a symbol just the same, for instance. That symbol must be other than zero, lest we consider “void” as part of a sequence or series – as something that can potentially become more than void.
There’s a missing link between your premises and conclusion (and personally, I don’t think the link exists).
I think most logicians would agree that the claim, “There is a number larger than infinity” is nonsense.
Or we could start with 2 and count 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4…2.9, 2.99, 2.999, 2.9999, 2.99999 and never reach 3 at all.
An infinity between each number?
We could approach our deaths in this make-believe manner as well. We could argue that we will never die because there is a half way point now and the day we die. And when we reach this point there is another half way point. And when we reach this point, another half way point still. And this stretches out into infinity as well.
JJ, why don’t you tie up the arguments you’re already involved in before moving on?
Yes, but my replies need more work here. Coming soon.
Infinity properly understood for all purposes you should ever encounter practically or otherwise is as big as everything you can perceive or be effected by. Trying to conceive it as beyond that because of the fact that there’s a logical progression in mathematics is a waste of time because the problem is purely philosophical and by nature analytically unsolvable and it’s probably more to do w/ the framework or our perception than that of the actual world. Once the patterns you study become broad enough to encompass almost the whole world, they’ve been stipulated down to relative meaninglessness.
Nevertheless, infinity skates past the numerals but does not stop at any of them. And there are only as many numerals as we make them. Only by stopping at a numeral do we make a number.
Infinity skates past the numerals but does not stop at any of them. And there are only as many numerals as we make them. Only by stopping at a numeral do we make a number.
However, if we grammatically insist that infinity is a number, then because it does not participate as a number, then zero could be said to be, grammatically, “bigger” than infinity (because zero participates as a number, and infinity does not).
The logicians don’t have a good grasp of the philosophy of their technical studies.
How does describing infinity as “everything” make it big, and what am I to understand by the word “everything” in the context of infinity? There’s no explanation on offer, all you give is a rephrasing of one unknown in terms of another unknown.
“Infinity” is a romantic vision - a vision which drives the mathematics of infinity.
Maybe the lengendary David St. Hubbins from the legendary band Spinal Tap summed it up best:
Well, I don’t, I don’t really think that the end can be
assessed…uh as of itself as being the end because what
does the end feel like, it’s like saying when you try to
extrapolate the end of the universe you say the…if the
universe is indeed infinite then how…what does that mean?
How far is…is…is all the way and then if it stops what’s
stoppin’ it and what’s behind what’s stoppin’ it, so what’s
the end, you know, is my…question to you…
Enough said?
I think most logicians would say that the title and content of this thread is nonsense because infinity is not a real number.
John, it might be useful here to note that philosophy is the art of finding the proper context of the words we use, and not that of removing all context.
How about ‘n’ when ‘n = ∝+1’?
Or how about two infinities?
Two sets of infinity would always be measurably larger than just one set of infinity - at any point in the sequence of infinity (except for at 0), for example say, the 538th integer in the sequence, the two sets of infinity would have the value “1076” where as just the one set of infinity would have the value “538”.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that the forumla “∝+1” is not a real number either. (And nonsense on its own). And,
Yes, I’m pretty sure that it’s nonsense to say that two sets of infinity are larger than one. You can stop at some real number, but that won’t be infinity.
I’m pretty sure this is all a category mistake.
That’s incorrect. A circle with a circumference of 5 inches has an infinite number of points on it - yet we can easily perceive a circle with a circumference of 5 inches, and we can be effected by circular-shaped objects that have a 5 inch circumference.
I can see what your argument is trying to say; that an “infinite amount” of something couldn’t exist, because each unit would have a value and if compounded infinitely this value would be too large to exist. But this, again, is incorrect. A line that is 10 inches long could be divided into an infinite number of segments – yet if we put all the segments back together, they would still only form a line having a length of 10 inches.
Ah, but can you perceive those points all at once.
I’d be warry of using pure geometry to prove a point about the ‘real existence’ of infinite qauntities… you might get caught in Zeno’s Paradox or some such.
How is it non-sense on its own? If we were to take a line segment on a graph, let’s just say from (3,0) to (15,0), and then just take the point (1,0), how many points would we have total? There are an infinite number of points between (3,0) and (15,0), and the point (1,0) is just just one point by itself.
So we have an infinite amount of points plus one.
Wrong again, and I can easily give an example why:
If we have two circles with equal circumference (both having an infinite amount of points along the circle), and compare it to just one circle having the same circumference, the two circles would be greater than just the one circle.
So your argument (as well as the argument of everyone else who is saying the concept of infinity is non-sense), is solely regarding the rhetoric behind the use of the word ‘number’?
Yet, if this were true, and it wasn’t the concept of infinity you (and everyone else) have been discussing, but instead merely the definition of the word number, then wouldn’t the topic of discussion be “Does the definition of the word ‘number’ mean that ‘infinity’ is considered a number?” - yet this clearly is not what the topic has been.
Just in case this whole debate has been merely rhetorical, let me say that infinity is indeed an actual number; in mathematics, it is called a “hyperreal number”.
Or if people in this thread have meant “real number” as in the context of “real numbers” in mathematics (as opposed to imaginary numbers like i), then “infinity” is still categorically considered a “real number”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number
And if we’re arguing rhetorics, then isn’t the fact that infinity is a hyperreal number make it more real than other numbers like 1 or 2? 
