Infinity, Is it really a possibility?

I had a discussion in a forum with a couple of maths guys here , but felt the answer was still somewhat unresolved. I've seen posts on "what is the biggest number?".

I still think infinity (in actuality) is impossible. Here's why.

If infinity existed (in any form) then the outer borders and the inner borders don't exist. Therefore there would be no friction in the middle to create any variance whatsoever. The fact that we can measure at all proves that infinity is false.

thoughts?

Cheers
Iseason

What on earth is this?

Do you mean that if the universe was infinite, there would be no "outside" of the universe? Well, even if the universe is finite there is no outside. If you were able to travel in what you perceived to be a straight line in a closed universe you would eventually come back to where you started, just like on the surface of the earth.

The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/custome...ges_all#gallery



g.

prometheus
Thanks for replying.

Getting away from math. infinity , When used in relation to "infinite universes' or infinite material , Infinite past or future would lead to no variance.

Even if , as you say you would travel in a loop, the variance that causes the loop could not exist in infinity because it would act in an infinite paradox of it's own.

But these are paper arguments. Infinite time, space and energy would itself create the inability to measure itself.

Cheers
Iseason

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity



http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Giordano-Bruno.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm




g.

Hi iseason, prometheus, Gorgeous et al,

Prometheus has something there. In the end infinities are not just found in the large or the small they are also found in "everything" simply because of the problem of limits. Quantum Barrier penetration is also another limit that is spontaneously broken. Approaching of limit barriers are usually asymptotic. This is because of the geometry or the energy considerations. The barrier can be penetrated through going around it in some way so the act of going around that barrier is then "beyond infinity". The infinity still exists but that did not stop traversing the barrier such as in the problem of the tortoise and the hare... the Zeno Paradox. Optical caustics are another limit that is spontaneously broken in nature. Quantum states of being must exist and movement from one quantum state to the next appears at first sight to be "impossible" but obviously we can "stroll around a room" in virtual continuous motion without any problem. Quantum phenomena and our continuum are irreconcilable but we know that they are part of our experience so it is not an impossibility.

Michio Kaku's New Book called Physics of the Impossible is a potential eye opener to those who are limited by the constraints of theories. We have had theories that have had limits for a very long time but all the limits have been shown to be only limits of our own making and appear to be an attempt to confine us into a "very small room" when all the while we are surrounded by "infinity".
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/006515.html

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on May 12 2008, 12:31 PM

Between geometrical spheres can't be friction. Was infinity can be. But how energy? This is unanswered question. Energy and geomtrical spheres was like god

Oh yes! - And there is a very good reason for that; all 'things' being harmonically-accumulated central points of standing spherical wave-structures of Infinite Space. It is necessarily 'infinite' because it is what exists, and existence must be infinite in order to produce that which we observe. Why 'spherical'? - Because it is the only shape formed without 'borders' in a 3-dimensional environment.

Even if you posit a 'big bang', then whatever is considered to be beyond that (whatever Space is 'expanding' into), must also be necessarily infinite. Ultimately, it IS the 'source' of all 'things', and thus to which all things must return.


Imagine this...To pick a point the size of an electron at the 'edge' of the Universe. How many other points would go to make up the entire 'border' of the 'Universal sphere'? ...Because, this is how many 'directions' there are in the Universe! [ .9r, which, as we all know, is equal to One entire existence! ] - Consider also, that this 'amount' is multiplying at an exponential rate, if you posit an 'expansion'.

Solving Nature's Mystery





g.

This post has been edited by Gorgeous on May 12 2008, 09:38 PM

prometheus

QUOTE: "The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist."

Perhaps infinite should be reserved for special "beings" like size of universe - how big is universe ? - as big as needed.

Universe has no well-defined size -

That said - then I imagine that all other "beings" are finite - many of them open, meaning that they have a size at a given moment - but ever increasing.

Let me be a little more concrete.

I imagine that Universe best can be described as a binary system applied on an infinite dimensionality - infinite space - a space without form -

The binary system - the Principle - segregates this infinite space into ratios - and each ratio is the equivalent of a number in mathematical binary system. Universe can be described / defined as such dimensionalities arranged in space - and according to how a binary mathematical system organize itsself according to rules (a few of them that we know today).

This implicate that mathematical numbers are finite but ever growing in number and complexion.

Like numbers have a dimension - they are discrete - so is time - or time units - but with increasing complexion, the time units become smaller and smaller - but never infite small,

Zenons paradoxe(s) has not to do with infinite - they are reflexions of how discreteness is being (wrongly) taken care of.

So I think that infinite shall be reserved for the infinite space (formless-structureless-motionless- adynamic - just the very concept of a space) - and as soon as this space is starting dividing - physical is born, and physical is RATIOS - each ratio with a corresponding dimension - and how all these ratios are configured dynamically - ever oscillating reconfigured - in infinite space. Mathematics is ratios - and math numbers are finite - but constantly growing. open system.

Wow!
Love the answers. Lots of good stuff to look through there. I was considering the problem of infinity in this way.

Infinite small or infinite big makes no difference. infinite small has no starting point to gain "reality and substance". Infinite big has the same problem. Infinite middle(in any way shape or form becomes either an infinite small or an infinite big. (depends on where you measure from).

to gain substance and mass, we would need at least a period of finite.

NO ! . Now I'm just second guessing myself. In any arena when finite and infinite are involved infinite over ides and destroys any chance of finite anything. And there's no way to shield or separate the two concepts.(while they exist together). One or the other must be said to exist, but infinite cannot be measured .

I humbly disagree, but will go look at more information.

Cheers
Iseason

iseason

QUOTE: "to gain substance and mass, we would need at least a period of finite."

I share the same thinking - and that is why I have difficulties in seeing how continuous can have an existance in the concept of being physical. Physical is intimately bound up on dimensionality - and dimensionality cannot pop out of continuous or dimensionless points - and dynamic cannot live together with continuous.

universe IS ratios - and this gives total relativity - there exists no yardstick for dimension - there exist no yardsticks at all. This necessarily require a space with no set dimension. Universe is as big as needed.

If you will divide matter into smaller and smaller peases you will find that everything is finity into decreasing direction. And everything what is infinity consist of finity parts. If you dividing cosmos you going into atoms, then nucleons, electrons and so this must be farther... Deviding matter farther you will come to conclusion, that everything consist of geometrical spheres. Those spheres are connected with over spheres with one, infinity small point. Thus for spheres moving directions is most free, than for over geometrical phygures. IF universe would consist of geometrical cubes, then it sould be in not random way, but in most economical way, and thus cubes wouldnt be able to move and nothing would be... If universe will consit of thetraedrs then motions would be limited and with gliches... IF universe would consist of any random phygures, then would be long wall etc with same value, but very long, and unabling to crash... That's would be strange, you flying in space and crash into some wall with thikness of say 1/10^10000 m. But it wall would be uncrashable like all smalles phygures...spheres... So the most freely model is model of many-infinity spheres, which filling each inche of universe. Spheres density must be maximum and thus will not be diference in any inch of universe. IF density will not be maximum then everything will blame into smallest peases without any computation/useful information... Just be many flying inchoerent balls and thus nothing, which exist now unbale will be then to exist. Becouse according to newton laws, there would be only law of some pseudothermodinamic, without any coherence... So when density of sphere is maximum there can become laws acording, which spheres can move. This laws will have random/probabilistic haracter, but in all majority will create spmthing realy coherent like photon/waves and electrons and over particles. Electron is tornado of spheres. All particles and forces are tornados of spheres. Big bang was torando of spheres... Our existance is tornado of geometrical spheres. Superposition is tornado of spheres, colapse is torando projection onto another tornado... All universe is many spheres torandos anomalies, which maybe one time in 10^10000^1000000^1000000 doing somthing realy coherent like becoming our universe... Neutron decay is torando decay into two spheres tornados. All spheres torandos are interconnected with each over and thus it explaining atraction of electric and magnetic forces. All universe, cosmos is just many spherical torandos fluctation. Infinity affecting torandos making them proabilistic in quantum mechanic... Geometrical spheres can be somthing like 10^-35 m radius.

Finite and Infinite are not separate states, but reciprocal states of the same thing. Essentially, this is why we observe things 'changing'. When is rock liquid? Gas solid?

The 'finite' is always in the process of becoming and returning, but contains the original wave-state within it, so it must 'return', dissipate back into 'Infinite-ness', as this is its only true origin. It has nowhere 'else' to go!




g.

I'm not really departing how formations are creates in geometric states or not. The point is that I could not slow infinity because by the nature of the term it has already got everything within it. But because there are no doors on it , infinity cannot compress enough to become measurable via it's parts.

"whole". is a term I understand. While I cannot measure it's boundaries, I can measure it's parts. but only because the doors closed before I started measuring.

Cheers
Iseason

iseason

QUOTE: ""whole". is a term I understand. While I cannot measure it's boundaries, I can measure it's parts. but only because the doors closed before I started measuring."

Imagine that you are not measuring a dimension - but you are comparing ratios - ratios of infinite dimension, which has been departed in smaller parts of infinite - so each and any part - or each and any dimension in universe has no finite size - everything is a ratio of something, and as your yardstick, you are using yourself - you are using the yardstick which is the dimension that humans are being "constructed" out from -

and the doors never close - ratios are still being "born" - in the proces of complexion - universe is "expanding inwards" - you will never be able to tell what the total number of dimensions - total number of ratios takes of space - because this space is per definition infinite - so popularly speaking you can say that size does not matter