
Infinity
Our understanding of infinity is wrong, completely.
The formal definition states, a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number. This makes the logic:
0<1<∞
For well over 100 years this is exactly the way everyone has seen infinity. A vast endlessness, and a really really really big number numerically.
We know the universe behaves mathematically. As such, our universe is following the laws of mathematical logic. And as such, anything wrong in mathematical logic isn’t defining reality. I think most people would agree, 1+1=3 is equally as wrong as 1>2. 1+1=2, and 1<2. Do you agree?
The first thing to dissect is numbers. We invented numbers using a base 10 redundant logic. We know our numbering system is logically open ended. There is no last number. We’re only limited by our lifespan and technology in expressing any number. We also know, at least I hope everyone does, any expressed or implied number is finite.
The first thing we need to do is simplify the logic, and 86 all the numbers greater than 1 or less than 0, because all math can be accomplished within the space of 0 and 1. 0 and 1 is the hook to universal math, or reality, because both numbers can directly translate to reality. 0 meaning absolutely nothing, and 1 meaning absolutely everything. Or another way to put it, everything either exists at 1, or doesn’t exist at 0. Motion is either 1, meaning instantaneous, or 0, stopped. Time is either frozen at 1, or instantaneous at 0. Anything more or less is redundant meaningless information that we invented. To understand a problem you have to reduce the number of variables in the problem. Simple basic reasoning.
So where does that put infinity?
0<∞<1
That is a factual statement in logic.
Can you have motion greater than instantaneous, or 1? Of course not. That would imply arriving at your destination before you moved. Can you go slower than stopped, or 0? You would have to move negatively which makes no sense. Stopped is stopped. You’re either moving or you’re not moving. The universe doesn’t do negative any better than it does +2 or +3. We made it up.
The same sort of reasoning applies to time and matter. You can’t exist before you exist, and you can’t exist negatively. Etc etc. It is nonsense logic.
Numbers are a tool to help us understand the universe, but the universe isn’t numbers. That’s not real. You can however find where the base numbers link to the universe so we can study it numerically and mathematically, because the universe behaves mathematically.
So, the highest countable number in the universe is 1. Sure, our numbering system goes on forever, because that’s precisely the way we designed the numbering system. We know it doesn’t logically end. And we also know the first number is every bit as finite as any other number, expressible within our lifetime or not. We created numbers.
Infinity –
Mathematical
A number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
Finite –
Having limits or bounds
Mathematics didn’t even have the decency of giving finite a mathematical definition, so it’s just hung out there as a concept.
The conceptual definition of finite applied to this, 0<1<∞, results in infinity being limited by infinity, making infinity finite. It has a limit. And the actual definition of infinity as, “a number” greater than any assignable quantity or countable number, also makes infinity finite by default. Numbers are finite, expressed or implied.
Infinity cannot be greater than itself, limiting infinity to what it can be, logically. The definitions of infinity and finite make infinity conceptually and numerically finite.
Can a quantity be infinite?
No, it can’t, not in this universe.
Just assume for a moment that the universe was infinite in scale. Would that result in an infinite number of stars? Considering there are more planets than stars, and more matter than stars and planets, and stars are made from matter, of course not. Infinity isn’t a catch all for things we can’t understand or see. ∞=∞. That’s logical. ∞>∞ is illogical. You can’t have an infinite number of stars in the universe with a greater number of planets, and an even greater number of things that make up stars and planets. That’s nonsense. Not to mention, stars are always being gobbled up by black holes, and being created in stellar nurseries. The actual number of stars isn’t a fixed quantity over time. It changes over time. Same with planets, and the same thing with matter. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity. Quantity is dependent on time. Stop time, and then you would have a finite value of everything. Start time, and you have a changing value of everything. It could be a falling number, or rising number, but it certainly isn’t an infinite number. I’m sorry, but that’s absurd.
Remember, the mathematical definition clearly claims infinity is “A NUMBER”.
It’s simple logic. The definition of infinity stands in error. It is meaningless.
Finite has problems too. It was hung out there as a concept, with no scientific or mathematical definition in the English dictionary. So, what happens when a limit is reached? We infer finite from the concept, but there is no concrete definition to confirm it. Concepts are related to time. Something will reach a limit. Once that limit is reached, it is no longer a concept. It’s just a finite point on a number line. It’s no longer a limit, just a static unchanging value over time. x=x.
Conceptually, I am finite. I get that. But what does that make me right now? I’m not finite yet. My value is changing over time.
Finite and infinite were defined by mathematicians, not scientists. Numbers are an invention of man. What those numbers mean to mathematicians doesn’t necessarily make them applicable to the universe or science. Mathematicians think numbers, science thinks how numbers apply to the universe.
The mathematical definition of infinity is blatantly wrong. I don’t care what Cantor did in math. There cannot be more than one single infinity. Infinity is not a specific value, anymore than finite is a specific value. They define the STATE of numeric VALUES over TIME in the real world. Finite is the opposite of infinite, logically. If the mathematical infinity is defined as, “A number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number”, than the mathematical definition of finite would logically have to be defined as, “A number less than any assignable quantity or countable number.” And what sense would that make? Numbers end at 0.
You have to follow logic, always. Yes, 0<∞<1, is every bit as valid as, 1<∞<2. That doesn’t necessesitate two infinities. Remember, we made up 2, and all the other infinities. What that really means is Cantor didn’t understand how infinity applied to the universe, so he didn’t know what infinity was any better than the rest of us poor saps. Infinity was around long before Cantor came along. He tried to incorporate it into mathematics and assign it various numeric values or descriptions in different infinite sets. In no way does that solve our understanding of infinity. Infinity has been one of the greatest mysteries in all of mankind. Does the universe continue forever, or will it come to an end? Did it have a beginning? Do you honestly trust those answers to a human calculator from the late 1800’s with a natural bias towards a steady state infinite universe?
Clearly Cantor was applying the scientific concept of an infinite universe to mathematics, which in those days infinite steady state was the dominant mindset, and they considered infinity a static state, not a dynamic state. A static infinite state is a finite state, contradicting the meaning of infinite. As far as science was concerned in the late 1800’s, the universe never ended. So, Cantor made up a bunch of cardinalities and alpha’s and omega’s and trans infinities and god knows what else, to reconcile the conflict of various non infinite elements floating around an infinite space. They all had to be infinite in their own special way, because the universe was perceived as infinite, but not quite as infinite as the Omega infinity.
———
Cantor’s omega ω is just a name for unlimited counting. When a count of units 1.. stops, we have defined a natural number. Without halt, the endless series of ones this finally would produce is called ω in advance.
n = 1.. :n = 1{n} (natural numbers)
ω = 1.. = 1{ω} (infinity has no bound) (this is flawed)
———
Even this taken directly from a Cantor website tells you the same thing. Counting is time dependent.
“Without halt, the endless series of ones this finally would produce is called ω in advance.”
Without halt, there is no “finally”, so 1{w} can never be produced. It’s a figment of the imagination. There is no last number. Stop the universe, and the entire universe is finite. The universe can only be infinite while it is in motion. That’s infinity. Infinity needs finite to exist, but finite doesn’t necessarily need infinite to exist. The universe could potentially not exist, at 0, or the universe could possibly exist as an empty void at 1. There’s your master set in understanding the universe. It is neither while it is in motion, it is infinite, but that state is limited to what it can be by finite. 1 is the greatest assignable quantity or countable number as far as a universe goes. We have 1 empty motionless universe, or nothing, 0. Scale is irrelevant in an empty universe, because we measure with things that exists within our state of the universe. If all that existed was an empty universe, it becomes a single dimensionless point with the value of 1, only comparable to itself in time and scale. A single end point on a 1dimensional finite line, greater than nothing, giving us the single dimension of space at:
0<∞<1
Space is 1 dimensional. Length, width and height aren’t dimensions, they how we perceive space and matter. They are tools in understanding mass and motion through time. The other 2 dimensions in our universe. We are 3D, just not as we thought we were.
1D spacemass+1D motionenergy+1D time = 3D universe.
I’m sorry, but I’m calling bullshit.
Cantor did not solve infinity. He gave order to bunch of finite sets of manmade numbers, and when he got to the last set, he called it a really big number. The number of all numbers. The mother of all infinite numbers. Cantor was working with manmade finite sets of numbers that can never be infinite. That’s it.
I’m not saying what he did was useless. So, don’t take that the wrong way. But as far as the universe goes, no way. Cantor only lead science astray. Cantor wasn’t a scientist; he was a human calculator. And I’m sure what he did was very useful to other mathematicians. What use, I haven’t a clue. I’m not a mathematician, I’m a realist, or a logician. Things must make logical sense to me. Some of what he did is not entirely wrong either, when applied to the universe, possibly. But I’ll get to that some other time. For now, put Cantor aside. He had no more insight into the true nature of infinity as applied to the universe than a librarian. Not disparaging librarians either, just making a point. He was a numbers guy.
What is infinity?
Infinity = constant of change
finite = absence of change
These are time dependent definitions, because time is real to us.
0<∞<1<∞<2<∞<3<∞<4<∞<5….
Do you see a pattern?
Infinity is wedged between every set of finite numbers.
Infinity can only exist within a set of finite numbers, and as I mentioned earlier, we only need to worry about the base set of 0 and 1 when understanding the universe, because we made up everything else and we know it’s just simple redundant logic. Infinity is always greater than the lowest value, and less than the highest value in a set. Our numbering system can be described as infinite, but it has nothing to do with the size of it, because it is limitless, but infinity will always be limited by the last finite value one expresses. Infinity is less than the greater finite value in the continuous numbering set we created.
Our numbering system was invented for commerce, not understanding the universe. Science didn’t even exist when numbers were invented. Everything greater than 1 and less than 0 is a distraction, if you want to understand the fundamentals of the universe. I’m not trying to build a nuclear reactor; I’m trying to understand the universe fundamentally with logic, because neither finite nor infinity are calculable. They describe a potential state of the universe.
You have to simplify the logic.
Yes, the universe is infinite, but it is also limited at any given moment in time, by volume and the quantity of stuff floating around in it. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity, or an infinite number of anything. Change is the constant. It’s what we observe.
Look at this way. At the very moment of conception, my value could be defined with the finite value of 1. I exist. As I journey through life my value is changing over time, counting down more or less, so I am infinite. When I reach the end of my life and pass, my value reaches the finite value of 0. I no longer exist. Conceptually I am a finite being. Conceptually, everything in the universe is finite. However, until those limits are reached, we are all bound to the constant of change, and we’re all infinite.
Will the universe last forever? That’s a different question entirely. And one we do not have an answer for yet. For now, our universe is infinite, but only because it is immersed in the constant of change. That implies nothing about its longevity or how big it is or how many things are in it. Nothing in the universe lasts forever, so as far as we’re concerned, we, and everything we observe within the universe, is conceptually finite. The universe is still infinite though, it just doesn’t mean what we thought it meant.
Our universe is not endless in scale at any given moment in time. It logically and mathematically has a lower limit of 0, and an upper limit of 1. That’s what the logic tells us. Infinity is not about the size of the number, it’s about what a number is doing over time. Finite is also nonspecific numerically. It also describes what a number is doing over time. Expressed numbers themselves are always finite. That’s what they are. That’s how we designed them.
Does anyone have a better explanation than I’ve laid out here?
The problem isn’t whether I am right or wrong here, the problem is, whether I am right or wrong requires human consensus. For now, I am a consensus of 1, maybe 2.
Infinity cannot be solved mathematically by human beings. It can only be understood logically by human beings. Infinity and finite are incalculable terms to describe numbers. We can’t prove 0 any better than we can prove 1 or ∞ when applied to the total universe. We can only follow logic.
Do you agree with me?