objective infinite

[Amorphos]

I gave this its own thread for reference purposes ~ as people keep talking about infinity as if it is purely a mathematical thing.

Object of the infinite.

A few days ago I was watching a show called infinity and beyond [horizon I think], and I couldn’t help myself thinking that every description they gave was wrong, so here I want to show as to why this is the case.

Firstly the reason why infinite sets are used in math is because they are used like a bag of numbers - so to say, or as one object. Where finite integers present us with absolutes, which are metaphoric, infinite sets act as mathematical elastic or as a variable of unspecified amount. You can take all natural integers 1,2,3,4,5,…. And make one set, then take all the odd numbers or all the even numbers and also make infinite sets out of them. These are but a few kinds of sets we can make, and the idea is that numbers can keep going until they reach infinity ~ but they cannot, they can keep going for ever but wont ever reach infinity.

Let’s take so descriptions;

‘Given an infinite amount of time, a monkey and a typewriter would eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare by pure random chance’.

On the show there was a guy with a computer program which eventually wrote two words from Shakespeare, then the guy jumped to the conclusion that given infinite time, the monkey also acting in a purely random manner, would indeed write the complete works.

I agree with the basic notion, however you don’t need an infinite amount of time, you only need an incredibly vast amount of time to write it! Hence the immediate idea to jump to infinite conclusions is not always or perhaps ever necessary.

Axiom; ‘Infinite difference is impossible‘.

When we talk of large amounts of objects reaching up to infinity, there are a few questions to be asked on the plausibility of such. For example; infinity covers every kind of object and subject, so if we wanted to formulate an infinite universe, it would necessarily include ’all’. We may divide this group into…

a, all things regardless of weather or not they are possible by our definitions or at all.
b, all things possible by their own logic or by any plausible means.

Problems and limitations:

Cat and mouse universes.

We can take the idea that one universe has properties that are an inverse of or in some other way entropic to a given other universe, and note that by this means alone some variants of universes would be destructive to other universes ~ like a cat would devour a mouse. We may take this further and beyond energy properties and say that you can have differences in natures of universes, by which one would deny another. For example; a universe of infinite dimensions filled with anything, would deny the existence of any given other that was not in some way compatible with the stuff of said universe. Equally there could be a finite universe of such vast proportions that its mass would attract and destroy any other lesser universe. You could have some manner of separation between universes, yet the value of that separation would have to be greater than the values between given universes in separation.

Axiom; ‘The sheer scope of infinitely differing objects would deny each others existence‘. I won’t try to explain that one it’s just true ok.

Of course we could go into more ridiculous properties [given infinite objects/subjects], like e.g. a law spoken by hairy hippopotamus god [yes an actual god [one an infinite amount of objects]] that say no universes can exist, would mean that none can. Or a giant pink candyfloss octopus universe that devours universes at an infinite rate thereby eating every universe in existence in less than an instance. Or a time travelling atom eater from the planet zorg that turns all atoms into cubical poo, thereby changing their properties by which they are held together, and thus eventually turning everything into no-thing. Or, the deterministic monster of auberzhine that gives all objects self determination and thus destroys the very fabric of relationships in existences [everything ceases to collaborate].

In conclusion by rational or irrational means, we can I think determine that you cannot have ‘infinite + difference‘. in this we can say that at least there cannot be an infinite universe of impossible and irrational things.

This leaves us now with only two other kinds of infinities; an infinite universe of possible things, or an infinite universe that is a single ‘object’! for me the answer is definitely the latter, and in fact when people speak of infinite sets using them as single objects [as bags of numbers or objects in a collection], I believe in all instances they are actually speaking about the same thing. Its hard to explain how this can be so, but if we can remove infinite possible universes then we are left with that as the only possible nature of infinity left.

an infinite universe of possible things is impossible:

Let us take the idea of infinite sets in objective terms, an infinite subjective is of course plausible due to its lack of objective substance.

Scenario1; an infinity of objects; it is said that you could via infinite sets have an infinite amount of objects, for example you could have an infinite amount of earths, or of mars like planets, or green, blue, red planets etc. then you could have an infinite amount of such planets each with some manner of difference e.g. there could be a copy of you on another earth in a replica universe, but that you isn’t reading this, or turns his head left instead of right.

Lets take the example of an infinite amount of earths, they would all have to have similar physical properties as relevant to their universe, such as gravity mass etc. any limit means that you cannot continue the given trend with infinite duration. So you cant have slightly bigger or smaller earths ad infinitum as they simply would work, like if you had an earth that was to large to rotate its sun or would exceed critical mass and become a black hole etc. we have already denied infinite duration of object replication [given some aspect of difference], according to some of its natures.

Now let us visualise infinite amounts of you’s on an infinite amount of almost perfectly replicated planet earths. If say on this earth you go into a shop and buy a mars bar, then on another you choose to buy a flake bar, there is a limited amount of possible actions you can take in this instance. You are limited to what you can buy from the shop regardless of how many shops or you’s there are. Equally if you act in the slightest of different mannerisms in each instance, then although there is an incredible vast amount of difference, there is still a limited amount. If we then go on to consider every ‘possible’ instance of difference, then again even though the number is truly vast it remains limited.

We must then consider that there could be infinite amount of different things like planets and people, or of simply different kinds of objects. The fact remains that there is a limit to the different amount of shapes you can have, and of interactions between such objects.

Conclusion, there are not an infinite amount of possible objects.

Scenario 2; an infinite possible object. Imagine a nice hard lump of iron, now imagine that there is no limit to its dimension. The object stretches an infinite amount in all dimensions [including time]. Firstly there would be no time as there would be no movement nor action of any kind, there would then be no time to arrive at its construction. The infinite object would have to have always existed with no means to its existence. Perhaps we could still say that is possible if we didn’t make the object from iron, but of empty space [anything else bar absolute emptiness would propose the same problems as the iron], firstly though we can easily conclude that there is not either an infinite emptiness [with nothing in it] nor any other infinite object, simply because there is already something else other than that I.e. the universe. As we are looking for a possible object then this alone denies its existence.

Scenario 3 An infinite amount of compartments and contents [hilbert's hotel].

Why is that we presume an openness to this notion. if we had a finite hotel with say ten rooms and they were all full, then by simply moving each person to the next room we would not create a space, the last person would simply move into the first persons room. If we have an infinite amount of compartments, how do we define their cardinality ~ what is it that differs from one compartment to the next. The same problem is appropriate for the contents too.

As concerns the basis of this; can we have an infinite amount of repetition needed for an infinite amount of compartments and contents without difference between each object of. In short can we have infinite cloned objects [or compartments etc]? lets take one compartment, it can have any dimensional size, but must have some dimensional size. This is a finite thing no matter what its dimensions and shape, axiom; you cannot have an infinite amount of finite. Juast as you cannot keep adding numbers together to arrive at the infinite, you cannot keep adding finite objects or spaces together and arrive at an infinite amount of them.

[Lupu]

Just reading the first lines, I always thought infinity was a philosophical, and not mathematical idea.

[vecordia]

Infinity lies not in numbers or proportions but in epistemology. It's an ability to itself continuity.

I gave this its own thread for reference purposes ~ as people keep talking about infinity as if it is purely a mathematical thing.

Object of the infinite.

A few days ago I was watching a show called infinity and beyond [horizon I think], and I couldn’t help myself thinking that every description they gave was wrong, so here I want to show as to why this is the case.

Firstly the reason why infinite sets are used in math is because they are used like a bag of numbers - so to say, or as one object. Where finite integers present us with absolutes, which are metaphoric, infinite sets act as mathematical elastic or as a variable of unspecified amount. You can take all natural integers 1,2,3,4,5,…. And make one set, then take all the odd numbers or all the even numbers and also make infinite sets out of them. These are but a few kinds of sets we can make, and the idea is that numbers can keep going until they reach infinity ~ but they cannot, they can keep going for ever but wont ever reach infinity.

It's the same story with spliting physical matter into pieces, end every piece into another pieces and another...etc infinite number therefore finite matter is inifinite... Logical issue/paradox.

Let’s take so descriptions;

‘Given an infinite amount of time, a monkey and a typewriter would eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare by pure random chance’.

On the show there was a guy with a computer program which eventually wrote two words from Shakespeare, then the guy jumped to the conclusion that given infinite time, the monkey also acting in a purely random manner, would indeed write the complete works.

I agree with the basic notion, however you don’t need an infinite amount of time, you only need an incredibly vast amount of time to write it! Hence the immediate idea to jump to infinite conclusions is not always or perhaps ever necessary.

Axiom; ‘Infinite difference is impossible‘.

Time doesn't exist so the only thing which has value is an "amount" of work you need to do to write it...
(...)

In conclusion by rational or irrational means, we can I think determine that you cannot have ‘infinite + difference‘. in this we can say that at least there cannot be an infinite universe of impossible and irrational things.

Rational we can't, - irrational we don't know.

an infinite universe of possible things is impossible

Yes it is, as well as infinite universe of impossible ones.... and as well as universe of any kind of things. It's impossible to exist something infinite filled with anything with the same values, example: infinite universe of one colour, cause there wouldn't be place for anything else.

You made lot of right calculation but I don't think it solves the main problem - what infinity is in essential.
Not every problem could be lighted by math.

[Amorphos]

vecordia

Infinity lies not in numbers or proportions but in epistemology. It's an ability to itself continuity.

Yes it is essentially incomparative and unlimited, its own dimension and ‘space’ yet fundamental to the reality map. The tricky think it understanding how it links so everything else, this is where math serves a purpose, yet we have to remember it is metaphoric and that beneath this, there is some manner of ovjectivity.

It's the same story with spliting physical matter into pieces, end every piece into another pieces and another...etc infinite number therefore finite matter is inifinite... Logical issue/paradox.

Indeed, reality unlike mathematics has limits to division.

Time doesn't exist so the only thing which has value is an "amount" of work you need to do to write it...

Absolutely, good point! I wanted mainly to point out that infinite difference cannot exist objectively, as it soon becomes absurd. We can know, because you can make equations where impossible differences destroy one another ~ lets not go there tho, I think I showed enough to make the point, I am sure you can work the rest out.

It's impossible to exist something infinite filled with anything with the same values, example: infinite universe of one colour, cause there wouldn't be place for anything else.

I agree, you could have an infinite white light and within it lies all the colours of the rainbow. This intrigues me as it gives a potential reasoning behind how we can get from infinity to universe. My first thoughts are that you have to entwine all things that can exist together in a …singularity!

You made lot of right calculation but I don't think it solves the main problem - what infinity is in essential.

Thanks. I agree and further that maybe infinity as a notion eventually falsifies itself in whatever manner we delve deeply into it. To describe the reality map I am inclined to simplify to the greatest degree, and think of the essential nature of reality as a ‘oneness’. within that infinity can be a dimension and comparative, to describe the greater aspect, and ‘that which is known unto itself’ [Aristotle].

[Juvenal]

I'll just address one of the OP points for now since my brain is only of finite size.

an infinite universe of possible things is impossible:

I think the problem here is with your assumption about what a "thing" is. You select the Earth as your thing and demonstrate that there are a finite number of possible Earth's. Well this isn't surprising because the Earth consists of a finite number of elementary particles which can (we believe) adopt only a finite number of different states.

However, I don't think that proves your assertion. Suppose my Universe contains just two possible object/states; I'll call then X and O.

I can make a "thing" with my two objects: XO, and another different thing: OX.

At this point, according to your argument of the Earths above, I have exhausted all the possibilities. But this isn't really true. I can synthesise another "object" by simply concatenating my variants.

XOOX

Now I can make a duplicate of my new compound-object but make a small change to the copy.

XOOXXOOO

If I put these together, I have another bigger compound-object, to which I can re-apply the same rule ad-infinitum.

In an infinite universe, I would therefore have an infinite number of objects that were all different (although an infinite number of them would also be of infinite length). The fact that we can't construct all these objects in a finite period of time doesn't by itself invalidate the concept. (Since when has philosophy had to be practical?)

[Amorphos]

However, I don't think that proves your assertion. Suppose my Universe contains just two possible object/states; I'll call then X and O.
If I put these together, I have another bigger compound-object, to which I can re-apply the same rule ad-infinitum.

Rule; ‘You cant build up to infinity’ this is accepted even in the math as well as philosophically. Hence you keep adding and keep adding and you don’t ever reach infinity. you cant 're-apply the same rule ad-infinitum' see*

The reason why I used the earth, was to address an objective amount of infinite universes, as supposed by some multiverse theorists. You see the theories are fine, but when you look at them as objects and collections etc, they don’t add up.

This doesn’t mean the theories are all wrong, somehow we have to get from the infinite and metaphysical to the metaphysical, so as to understand the complete reality map. This would involve set theory I presume, but my main argument is that we have to take into account the infinite object, whereas math alone seams to ignore it.

In an infinite universe, I would therefore have an infinite number of objects that were all different (although an infinite number of them would also be of infinite length).

*Good point. As infinity = unlimited then surely your collection of X0’s present a limit! To truly reach infinity you have to add X0 + a.b.c… 1.2.3... And keep going until you reach ‘candyfloss universes that eat universes’ - so to say. To infinite collections always reach absurdity as you keep going, then you end up with opposing elements, contradictions and paradox. This is perhaps why the universe is finite when it arises from an infinite object prior to its existence.

[vecordia]

I'll just address one of the OP points for now since my brain is only of finite size.

I think the problem here is with your assumption about what a "thing" is. You select the Earth as your thing and demonstrate that there are a finite number of possible Earth's. Well this isn't surprising because the Earth consists of a finite number of elementary particles which can (we believe) adopt only a finite number of different states.

However, I don't think that proves your assertion. Suppose my Universe contains just two possible object/states; I'll call then X and O.

I can make a "thing" with my two objects: XO, and another different thing: OX.

At this point, according to your argument of the Earths above, I have exhausted all the possibilities. But this isn't really true. I can synthesise another "object" by simply concatenating my variants.

XOOX

Now I can make a duplicate of my new compound-object but make a small change to the copy.

XOOXXOOO
If I put these together, I have another bigger compound-object, to which I can re-apply the same rule ad-infinitum.

It should be calculated globally, not by a single universe example.The universe of everything must include the absolute whole of things to prove his infinity. If not it would be just a single universe near another universe/universes with others attributes.

I think the point is to put a proper place for the infinity in this whole mess.

In an infinite universe, I would therefore have an infinite number of objects that were all different (although an infinite number of them would also be of infinite length). The fact that we can't construct all these objects in a finite period of time doesn't by itself invalidate the concept. (Since when has philosophy had to be practical?)

Certainly it hasn't and it isn't

Yes it is essentially incomparative and unlimited, its own dimension and ‘space’ yet fundamental to the reality map.

No doubt about it.

Generally there will be always mathematics in the logic and -> inversly.
Nice post

What about our main "universe" we currently exist in and its infinity?

[Amorphos]

It should be calculated globally, not by a single universe example.The universe of everything must include the absolute whole of things to prove his infinity. If not it would be just a single universe near another universe/universes with others attributes.

I think the point is to put a proper place for the infinity in this whole mess.

Spot on! ~ and I am not saying I have the answer, just that math and science tends to look at the parts and not the whole.

What about our main "universe" we currently exist in and its infinity?

Well if we begin with an infinity that is a oneness and essentially ‘0’ I find it difficult to go from that to manifesting more than 1 ‘object’ [even if we are not looking at it in linear terms]. Hence I would see a multiverse in terms of all beginning as one philosophical singularity, so if there are other universe they wouldn’t have any of the qualities of ours, and that doesn’t leave a lot ~ but I suppose that’s a bit like trying to imagine an 8th colour.

or do you mean that our universe is infinite [as some inflation theories state]?

[vecordia]

or do you mean that our universe is infinite [as some inflation theories state]?

I am not sure what would be more correct: universe or universes. Is it infinite? No idea, rather it is.

Cosmic inflation? Very difficult kind of theory, too difficult to me. It took me lot of time to understand what it is in general.

[Amorphos]

I am not sure what would be more correct: universe or universes. Is it infinite? No idea, rather it is.

Cosmic inflation? Very difficult kind of theory, too difficult to me. It took me lot of time to understand what it is in general.

Well I certainly don’t understand it either, but people who do know have mentioned that it leads to or involves the infinite.

I think we can count out infinite universes if we can state that infinite difference is impossible, and I am pretty sure we can state that. I will try to work out a formula for it to prove it.

where we begin with a oneness, then i doubt if we can have two or more universes made from energy etc, as this one is, the laws that apply to it would make all things relative happen all in one place.

[Elfdude]

Space and time are effectively infinite for the same reason a mobius strip is infinite. Their limits are only reached in 3 dimensions (whereas a mobius strip is reached in 2) an infinite 3 dimensional system is much more limited and far easier to prove.

The first thing we have to recognize is that dimensions twist and turn in the dimension above them even though the 3 dimension creatures within have no conception of ability to observe this hypothetical shape of space and time. Since we can't observe space and time it's extremely difficult to imagine how things work within it. Which is basically to say you're ill equiped with your basic facilities quetz to understand physical infinity. You actively limit the concept with your own presumptions without taking into account real limits.

For example the universe is hypothetically infinite in size because space includes all of time within it's confines. As x (x is time) approaches infinity the universe approaches infinity. Since time is merely the 3 dimension interpretation of the 4th dimension's affects on the 3rd dimension it is not improper to say the universe is infinite. Thus the statement that somewhere in some place and some time there exists a creature with 65 armpits that invented deodorant before it invented the wheel is true. The universe is infinite, any three dimension eventuality we can conceive of will exist within the laws of this universe. Of course to find this creature in a finite amount of time would require unparalleled mastery of the 4th dimension.

What if you want different laws of a universe? Well for that you have to leave this universe and go to another universe. Each different universe has different laws depending on quantum fluctuations of greater forces that we only vaguely understand. What we do understand is that there should exist in the 10th dimension infinite alternate universes within the dimensions below, and that every conceivable eventuality should exist within those universes. Hypothetically physical laws should arisen in one of these universes that results in everything being made out of cheese.

The only limit is possibility. Nothing that is impossible will arise within an infinite system given infinite time as that is the very definition of impossible. The question is what makes something possible or impossible.

[Lupu]

Why are you talking about time as if it's some sort of object? That makes absolutely no sense!

[Amorphos]

Since we can't observe space and time it's extremely difficult to imagine how things work within it. Which is basically to say you're ill equiped with your basic facilities quetz to understand physical infinity. You actively limit the concept with your own presumptions without taking into account real limits.

We don’t need to observe the concept of limitlessness to know that infinity ultimately has ‘no’ limits, esp, in terms of cardinality. use a different term if you wish to give it any limits.

The question is what makes something possible or impossible.

I’ll give you that. In the main the descriptions we call laws would always relate, for example if 3D objects form in another universe, then rules about that would always be true, that’s why they are universal. Also that the term ‘dimension’ is somewhat overused, some may call momentum the 5th dimension, but I think its just how energy works in the 3 dimensions. I suppose there is a limit to where we call objects, objects, once we get beyond normal time, space, dimension and cardinality, where energy starts acting up, then it seams there is little we can call object. Its kinda like a physical subjectivity, a level of reality that is so abstract and limitless that it looses definitive form.

Ultimately there is a oneness, infinity marks the way we get from that to universe, however the oneness exists as part of all things as it must, so we may see it as a medium like we used to think of ether yet it has no substance whatsoever.

that’s the only way I can build a reality map in my mind, the idea of actual infinite universes I.e. in the plural, is simply ludicrous.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The way that space and time are perceived is a construct of the human mind.

[Amorphos]

The way that space and time are perceived is a construct of the human mind.

So they say, yet surely physical objects have a rate of change and largely they act together or relative to one another, hence that is time in a physical context? it has only a average rate and that chages with the rate of inflation/expansion, but its effect remans as something actual.

really relativity is just some things going faster or slower than other things, we cant really time travel or that would mean time is something?

[Lupu]

I think time is only in our memory, time is not a thing that exists.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

So they say, yet surely physical objects have a rate of change and largely they act together or relative to one another, hence that is time in a physical context? it has only a average rate and that chages with the rate of inflation/expansion, but its effect remans as something actual.

You're now looking at time as a spatial construct, ergo no longer time. All Physics fall into this fallacious riddle.

I think time is only in our memory, time is not a thing that exists.

Or maybe it exists and cannot be explained. Was it Augustine who told that? "I know it, but if one asked me, I wouldn't be able to explain it"

[Lupu]

That's the best quote ever, bye bye pointless philosophy .

[Amorphos]

You're now looking at time as a spatial construct, ergo no longer time. All Physics fall into this fallacious riddle.

Or that time is the engine of existence, something is driving it all, so we could think of time as that. Just because something doesn’t have physicality science thinks it doesn’t exist, yet the universe derives of the non physical.

i dont see how it is possible that it doesnt exist, i just think it is way more elastic than we thought previous to relativity.