In science and mathematics the concept of infinity is used liberally as though we all fully understand and... View more
In science and mathematics the concept of infinity is used liberally as though we all fully understand and accept the concept, but does it really make sense? This group is a place to voice your opinion on the concept of infinity itself and on its usage within mathematics and science.
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 .
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 , and space can always get a little closer to existing everywhere, or . 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] = 
[-e] – [+e] = 
The universe is endlessly trying to become  and  simultaneously.
 < ∞ < 
Infinity = constant of change
Finite = absence of change
The universe is infinite.