Infinity
In science and mathematics the concept of infinity is used liberally as though we all fully understand and... View more
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
-
Spinal Tap
-
Spinal Tap
Again, I’ll try to convey the correct definition of infinity, which has been a woefully misguided flaw in human reasoning for millennia. We have never understood it collectively. We think we do, but we don’t.
The universe is infinite, but it’s not the same infinite your daddy drove. A little pun on that car commercial for levity’s sake. It’s appropriate here.
The first thing we must understand is that infinity is incalculable, because it’s not a specific value, just like finite is incalculable, because it is not a specific value. A fact that Georg Canter appears to have overlooked with catastrophic results on humanity. The reason Academia bought into his nonsense in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s is because Theology still ruled science. Cantor was a deeply religious man and claimed god had physically given him math homework. To Cantor, god was the Omega infinity. If a scientist today made a claim that god had given him a homework assignment in math, you’d probably find that man working on intelligent design, claiming the universe was about 6000 years old.
The next piece of evidence we need to look at is Olbers’ Paradox.
The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.
What should jump out to rational well reasoned critical thinkers reading this paradox is the word “static” as the lead in to the core argument. Static can be replaced with Finite, invalidating the rest of the commonly accepted paradox.
Of course we’re going to run into some problems with an infinite amount of anything in a finite space. It doesn’t fit. Duh.
Next we have Kronecker, who claimed, “god made the integers; all else is the work of man.”
Kronecker said this in response to Cantor’s set theory, which he found absurd. And he wasn’t wrong, but Kronecker himself wasn’t entirely on stable footing either.
Man made all the numbers and mathematics and mathematical terms, and then applied them to reality. We should know, because we have a well documented history of where these things came from, and no mention of either in the bible. We invented these tools for commerce, and that’s that. We later discovered our universe was behaving predictably, or mathematically, and we could use numbers and math to make accurate repeatable predictions.
And all this points to one simple fact. To understand an infinite universe, we must abandon nearly all the tools we invented. Numbers are a representation of reality, NOT reality. God did not make the integers, Kronecker. Sorry. We did.
We can use a couple of basic numbers in the logic, but the rest is up to human reasoning. Not because it’s complicated, but because its absurdly simple.
First we must strip out the excess digits in our numbering system and reduce numbers down to a fundamental level. 0 and 1. Those are the only two numbers that matter when contemplating the evolution of our universe. Everything else is redundant repetitive logic intentionally designed to expand and contract forever. It’s relevant in reasoning, but unnecessary fodder. It just makes everything confusing.
It reminds me of that classic comedy movie about the music industry, Spinal Tap. The lead guitarist had an amp where all the knobs went to 11. He was very pumped about this amp, because all the other amps stopped at 10. He could turn his up one more than all the others if he felt he needed a bit more volume. Funny.
So what is infinity? Endless? Unlimited?
No, is the short answer, but it has the potential.
Our universe is an active state, meaning it is ongoing. By our own eyes we see that. Endless is not a reachable state, it is an active state. Current infinite universe reasoning assumes endlessness has been achieved, meaning our universe exists everywhere to the fullest extent. Logically, that would mean the universe had reached a finite limit of “endlessness,” invalidating the concept of infinity. And that’s where Olber screwed up, and everyone else before and after him. Endlessness can only exist in a potential state, not a physical state.
The point is, endlessness isn’t a destination, it’s a continuous journey. There is always more. More time, more motion, and more distance to travel. Stop motion or time, and the journey ends, and so to does infinity. An infinite universe needs more dimension, more time, and more motion. If you stop dimension, time, or motion, it becomes a finite dimensionless state. The value of the universe goes to [1].
We’ve been looking at endlessness from a finite point of view. As Olber said, a static infinite universe in an infinitely large space. And Cantor created his Omega infinity to house this infinitely large static bubble for a universe to sit inside.
We could not imagine infinity to represent an ongoing process of change. We sealed it off in an incomprehensibly large static finite terrarium of sorts.
Infinity cannot be contained in a static universe, because there is no limits in how large or how insignificant it can become. It would contradict the meaning of infinity should it reach its maximum potential of existing everywhere.
Infinity IS the constant of change. That’s what makes infinity endless, change. It can always get a little larger, and matter can always get a little smaller.
The universe is simultaneously expanding and contracting, contrary to what anyone thought possible in science. We see it as expansive positive energy and contractive negative energy in science. The same thing we consider all matter to be made of. But matter can always get a little closer to nothing, or [0], and space can always get a little closer to existing everywhere, or [1]. Fortunately for us, it hasn’t quite reached it’s maximum potential in either direction, and I seriously doubt it can, because that’s what makes infinity endless and unlimited.
Science looks at matter and space as two unique problems. Matter floats around in space, and space expands into what exactly? They don’t have a clue.
It’s a very simple problem, and that’s the problem. It’s too simple, as it should be.
e = half the energy in the universe
[-e] + [+e] = [1]
[-e] – [+e] = [0]
The universe is endlessly trying to become [1] and [0] simultaneously.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
Infinity = constant of change
Finite = absence of change
The universe is infinite.
-
3 Replies
-
Hallo @Andy ,
I translate in Italian your post because I can’t always understand the nuances of English, so I appreciated it.
I like your philosophy of searching Truth, but there are something I want point you:
Cantor invented a theory of infinity for explain mathematically some phenomena and this is not wrong, but someone (Hilbert) trasform this concept to “mathematics IS the phenomenon”.
Mathematics is a tool, but someone think it is reality…
the same relation in mathematics explain a lot of phisics phenomena, for example a linear relation explain the space walked space in a ride, but also the mass (fuel) reduction in a rocket during blastoff.
How can the same mathematic expression explain 2 different phenomen if it is reality?
The mathematical model replace the phisical model of reality and the results is congluent with reality, with particular attenction at singular point
when the value of a variable became infinity (that is not phisicly possible).
We need another model for explain beheaviur near singularity.
Scientists use the Occam razor for semplify reality, but realiry don’t use Occam razor, so, reality is more complex of our model of reality.
Olbers’ Paradox is not a big paradox if you consider that firs star we find is the Sun and it is a little distance respect mean distance between two stars,
and mean value of radiation could be 2.7°K like Cosmic microwave background…
If Kronecker claimed “god made the integers; all else is the work of man.” I can say “god made anything.”, integers, fractional, immaginary, infinity are mathematicals tool for understanding better reality.
I think you semplify too much reality in your vision of binary relation [0] &/or [1], reality is more complex than binary, but not even how they want us to believe.
Best regards,
Ing. MM
-
Thank you for the reply Marco. It’s always good to talk things out.
Our reality is definitely a complicated mathematical mess. For sure. But in my view, where this all comes from should be simple, because the only physical ingredient in existence is space. If we reduce all the matter in the universe by combining it into one thing, [-e]+[+e], we’re left with a value of [1], which now represents motionless space. There’s no math left to describe empty space. If we remove space, [-e]-[+e], we’re left with nothing, [0], and there’s no math left to describe nothing.
[0] and [1] is the fundamental universe, numerically and mathematically speaking. And obviously these are simply tools in human reasoning.
We invented numbers by dividing the space between 0 and 1 into 10 pieces and shifting the decimal place to the right. A nod to our 10 fingers or digit. And we did this more so for commerce, NOT science. I don’t think we have really stopped to see the difference, because it has given us some pretty remarkable results. Still, it wasn’t designed for science. We’re missing something.
And so math begins.
My objection to Cantor is the use of the term infinity, which has nothing to do with specific values of numbers. The highest translatable numeric set as applied to reality is ([0],[1]). That’s it.
That means the highest countable number as far as the universe is concerned is [1], and the lowest, [0].
If you Google the definition of infinity, this is what you get.
Infinity
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)
Clearly the accepted mathematical definition was driven by Cantors work. We attempt to describe the universe as infinite or finite. As near as I can tell, no one throughout history has stopped to understand the implications of those meanings as applied to math or reality.
In Cantors day, our universe was a steady state, meaning it was endless in extent. Cantor was searching for god in the numbers. He was on a religious quest, not a scientific one. He believed god was the Omega infinity, something unimaginably and incomprehensibly greater than our numbers and math were capable of expressing.
And understand, I am not knocking religion. Whatever someone chooses to believe or not believe is their own personal choice. At the end of the day, whatever gets you through from point A to point B ([1] to [0]) as comfortably and happily as possible is what matters most.
My objection to Cantors work is the premise of his work. Set theory is certainly useful, but it has nothing to do with finite and infinite states of reality. [0].
My work, if you want to call it that, explores the human side of the equations. Every theory requires human reasoning and logic to define it. Scientists tend to win the right of explanation through a peer reviewed consensus process. The more people that like a theory, the more accepted it becomes. Right or wrong doesn’t necessarily apply. The more people believe a theory is right, the more right it becomes over time in society as a whole, and the harder it becomes to seek out our true reality. We used to execute scientists. It then becomes a pseudo fact in the education of others. It is the exact same process in religion. Humans believe in the chain of custody in words spoken by mankind, as long as the words gain acceptance en masse. Consensus rules science, not reason and logic necessarily. And that’s a fact.
-
And there is a subtle irony to all this. Human reasoning and logic is the only way we can understand the universe, where consensus seldom leads to an understanding about anything. History has proven that fact amply time and time again. We tried to execute Galileo, and ultimately forced him to recant facts of nature because it didn’t conform to a commonly accepted consensus about the universe. Right or wrong wasn’t applicable. Science is more about squashing old and tired consensus, rather than adhering to reason and logic, and actual facts in many cases. That’s a truth of humanity.
-
-