- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwSorry, but it is much more complicated than that....
Infinity is what you get when you add 1+1=2+1=3, and so on, forever.
How freakin' complicated does it have to be? For heaven's sake! 😉
Please don't ask me how long forever is. 😵
Believe me, nobody regrets this more than mathematicians....
Except maybe physicists.... ;-)
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay. What's so complicated about infinity?
Sorry, but it is much more complicated than that....
Believe me, nobody regrets this more than mathematicians....
Except maybe physicists.... ;-)
Just because no one can comprehend it doesn't mean one can't understand the idea. If one can understand the idea of infinity, knowing that one will never comprehend it, then one should be content with the idea. No?
Why get bogged down trying to comprehend a concept that can't be comprehended? Isn't it enough just to know infinity as an idea?
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwYou're idea is just wrong. No offence.
Okay. What's so complicated about infinity?
Just because no one can comprehend it doesn't mean one can't understand the idea. If one can understand the idea of infinity, knowing that one will never comprehend it, then one should be content with the idea. No?
Why get bogged down trying to comprehend a concept that can't be comprehended? Isn't it enough just to know infinity as an idea?
When you say 1+1=2 you are neglecting an infinite amount of numbers between one and two.
Originally posted by josephwIf you go back in the thread then you will realize why this isn't all that encompasses what infinity "is."
There are fractions between one and two.
One is the smallest whole number.
Infinity is akin to adding ones' together for eternity.
If you call 1 "one" and 1.1 "two" then what about 1.01? So you call 1.01 "two" then what about 1.001?
The class of infinity you are describing is the countably infinite but there is also an uncountable infinite.
Originally posted by vistesdSeriously? I've known what infinity was since I was 5. We learnt about it in big buildings called schools.
I wanted to pry this concept loose from some other discussions that seem to be going on. Really, I just want to hear from those who have some maths background that can apply it to philosophical questions (there are a number of you here!).
I read a book called Aleph some years ago, but don’t know if I still have it (will make a search of my booksh ...[text shortened]... e beginning, whether some religionists like it or not—and so I’d like to keep it here if we can.
Originally posted by josephwThat is only one possible infinity - a countable infinity. Some infinities are uncountable (like the real numbers which cannot all be expressed as fractions).
There are fractions between one and two.
One is the smallest whole number.
Infinity is akin to adding ones' together for eternity.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy the Whole I mean the totality of facts (actual states of affairs) as an entirety in itself. [I perhaps should have made clear that I was speaking metaphysically.] This is by definition unbounded, since a boundary would require another fact (state of affairs). Whether or not the “universe” is unbounded depends on whether “universe” is defined as all there is (the totality of actual states of affairs). As a single dimension of the universe, I don’t know whether it must be unbounded; but whatever is the complete dimensionality of the Whole (as defined) must be unbounded, or there would be some other dimension that had not been taken account of.
What is the definition of 'the Whole'? Must the universe fit this definition? Is space for example necessarily unbounded?
If “universe” is defined so that there can be multiple universes (since that is sometimes suggested on here), and if each one of them is unbounded, they have actually no connection whatsoever, and such a state of affairs in principle cannot be verified or falsified (defeated). It might be incoherent, it’s imagining depending on treating “nothing” (nihil) as a “queer kind of something” (G.E. Moore) that is imagined as separating pseudo-dimensionally the separate totalities (but googlefudge can likely answer better). On the other hand, one can perhaps think of a “manifold universe” where U = u(1) + u(2) + … +u(n), however the u’s are connected.
I just mean to say that “universe” may be used to mean different things; those seem to be a couple of examples.
The definition of the “Whole” above is tautological. It says nothing about the nature of the Whole itself. As a nondualist, I posit such a totality as the state of affairs that ontologically holds—as opposed to an ontological dualism, which, though I am working somewhat from the other side on the other thread, I suspect might be simply incoherent.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ChessPraxisVery witty.
At age 5 they just said it was the same size as your ego, we all then grasped the concept.
Infinity is a complicated mathematical concept.
One that is exceptionally difficult to fully grasp.
The question in the op is a perfectly reasonable one.
Do you have anything relevant to say, or are you just here to snark at people who want to
increase there understanding of the world?
Originally posted by googlefudgetheir
Very witty.
Infinity is a complicated mathematical concept.
One that is exceptionally difficult to fully grasp.
The question in the op is a perfectly reasonable one.
Do you have anything relevant to say, or are you just here to snark at people who want to
increase there understanding of the world?
Grammar police!