@Alan McDougall,
Very interesting thread if I may say. Allow me shed my own philosophical idea on the matter?
Holiday20310401 wrote:Is infinity the same as nothingness? :deep-thought:
:OK:
Zetetic11235 wrote:Im staying here, I really am interested in what others have to say about my conception of infinity in its general form. I think that there is a strong linguistic tie with absolutes and infinity, both being physically asymptotic and syntactic rule sets.
How are infinetsimal and infinitely 'large' operational sequences related;is there a general form such that by context we could have macroscopic and microscopic infinities defined as manipulations on the basic rule set? How do absolutes relate to infinity?
Most of the time when we consider infinity we refer to very large quantities. Let us consider, however, very small quantities. Let us say that an object moved from an initial known location to a known destination some measurable distance away at a specific speed. This object arrived at its destination in at a particular time.
Yet, if the total distance were divided into infinite parts, that suggest that the object would not have ever reached the destination. As a matter of fact the object would not have moved from its intial location (0.0000....) to begin with. Get the point? Nevertheless, the speed remains the same since an infinitely small distance divide by an infinitely small time will attain the same ratio as the object with definite distance and time. This must be true when the same fraction of distance for the same fraction of time is considered.
Here is a paradox, an object moves to a known measurable destinaion, but yet according to infinity, it had never moved to begin with. This suggest that the possiblity of many dimensions with similiar events occur the same at the same speeds but different relations of time. While comparing one dimension with the other, one seem to be occuring slower from the others point of view, while the other appears to be occurring faster from its point of view, but to each other they appear to occur at the same rate from they own point of view of themselves.
Nothingness relates to the none existence of matter, while Infinity relates to a law that is unexpected to change; where it is believe to assume an intended continuously increasing or continuously decreasing vector quantity until the law has unexpectedly changed.
Khethil wrote:Haha, nice thread. Lemme chime in if I dare...
Time is a concept we invented; we measure it by *other things*, but Time is a term only, invented by humans, to describe the frequency of events or intervals (regularity). Its just a word...
... as is "Infinity". This is but a word to describe the notion that something does not have an end, or does not terminate. It's a useful term, but just a word nonetheless.
We come up with words to describe concepts; but that doesn't mean they do or do not exist. Further, I'd think it a given to the thoughtful that "infinity" is something that can't be measured in any valid way. That something exists "forever" will forever remain a theory - until someone can measure it.
To prove this, I will now sit and stare at this pop can to see if it exists for all time. I can't really get back to you on my results; since, there'll be no point where I can say "There, See?! Told you this existed forever".
Just a concept; useful to communicate theories, but nothing more.
Artur wrote:Infinity is a convenient convention used to express the "assumed" repeating/endless sequence of whatever subject in question. I do no think we know something is infinite, or that it is not-we just assume so for functionality purposes in real life.
Time is another convention created by humans, so that there could be some regularity to life. There is no such idea of time without human input, molecules would still react, the planets would still rotate, but it would be neither forwards or backward progress, just motion as we define it.
Zetherin wrote:There is actually a theory which suggests that the universe would not exist without an observer. I'll try to dig it up for you.
I think the problem here is that we do not have a term in the languages to differentiate the difference between
time when events occur and the
moment where all events are halted, and time could not be measured, but time continues as if an observer were observing an alternate universe where events occurred and time could be measured. May be we shall call the moment
'objective time' and the time
'subjective time'.