An infinite number of objects and universes

@ughaibu,

I disagree that there "is" infinity when adding. The best our language can do to cope with this is to say that this addative relationship "converges toward" infinity. You never reach infinity, there is no infinity (in numbers). Infinite sets are entirely different from infinite amounts.

This equation is undefined:

x+1=∞

because it is just another way to write:

∞-1=x

x is undefined. It doesn't exist in nature.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170369 wrote:

I disagree that there "is" infinity when adding.

Okay, define the operation of addition.

@ughaibu,

Hello,

What if "infinity" is dualised - One ever-increasing linear progression and one ever-decreasing, when they reach the relative apex, they switch modes?

Anyway, infinite objects require an infinitely-linear fractilian-multiverse. Which I happen to accept as an absolute given.

Have a great day, gentlemen, always.

Mark...

@ughaibu,

n.1. The act or process of adding, especially the process of computing with sets of numbers so as to find their sum.

"So as to find their sum". You cannot "find the sum" of infinity, the sum of infinity plus one, or any sum that involves infinity. The sum is impossible to find.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 11:46 AM ----------

mark noble;170377 wrote:

Hello,

What if "infinity" is dualised - One ever-increasing linear progression and one ever-decreasing, when they reach the relative apex, they switch modes?

Anyway, infinite objects require an infinitely-linear fractilian-multiverse. Which I happen to accept as an absolute given.

Have a great day, gentlemen, always.

Mark...

Sorry to double-post, but again, it doesn't matter what infinite objects "require". If you have infinite objects, you have just as many objects that negate a counterpart object. You can either then say there are no objects because they are all made impossible and there is nothing, or that there are only the average of them, and there are 1. Alternatively, you can say that there aren't infinite objects to begin with.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170379 wrote:

1. The act or process of adding, especially the process of computing with sets of numbers so as to find their sum.

"So as to find their sum". You cannot "find the sum" of infinity

You cant be serious. Are you suggesting that there is a sum to which nothing can be added?
Really, what is the point of writing this kind of crap?
Define the operation of addition.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170379 wrote:

Sorry to double-post, but again, it doesn't matter what infinite objects "require". If you have infinite objects, you have just as many objects that negate a counterpart object. You can either then say there are no objects because they are all made impossible and there is nothing, or that there are only the average of them, and there are 1. Alternatively, you can say that there aren't infinite objects to begin with.

Hi Setzer,

Ultimately, the objects involved are the aesthetic reflection of the components therein. They are only combinations of QM in infinitely variable states.
If you perceive one pink cup locked into its own universe for an eternity (static in time and location), then there is only one pink cup - but, FOREVER. As time progresses, each frame of, where the cup is present, locks again, and again, until you have an infinite amount of everlasting pink cups, all in a seperate universe and in an altered, but, time-frame consistent, state of developement/decay. As time progresses from present to future, infinity is added to, as is the quantity of cups in existence.
This is why infinity cannot have a number applied to it - It is always changing with time and can never be finalised. (Unless time stops - but, then how can it be measured, because everything will be in stasis?)

Anyway, have a fantastic everything, forever.

Mark...

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;170389 wrote:

You cant be serious. Are you suggesting that there is a sum to which nothing can be added?
Really, what is the point of writing this kind of crap?
Define the operation of addition.

Actually I am suggesting just the opposite. I am suggesting there is NOT a sum to which nothing can be added. Infinity is not a sum. You cannot add any number to infinity. Any number added to infinity is undefined. It is impossible. It doesn't exist. There is no number equal to infinity, so no two numbers can equal infinity. You may certainly add any number to any other number. The sum of infinity is neither greater than, nor less than 1. It isn't 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ... it isn't any number.

I must say that it is ironic to ask "Really, what is the point of writing this kind of crap?" when that in and of itself is a pointless type of statement which is of no value to the argument.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 08:00 PM ----------

mark noble;170398 wrote:

Hi Setzer,

Ultimately, the objects involved are the aesthetic reflection of the components therein. They are only combinations of QM in infinitely variable states.
If you perceive one pink cup locked into its own universe for an eternity (static in time and location), then there is only one pink cup - but, FOREVER. As time progresses, each frame of, where the cup is present, locks again, and again, until you have an infinite amount of everlasting pink cups, all in a seperate universe and in an altered, but, time-frame consistent, state of developement/decay. As time progresses from present to future, infinity is added to, as is the quantity of cups in existence.
This is why infinity cannot have a number applied to it - It is always changing with time and can never be finalised. (Unless time stops - but, then how can it be measured, because everything will be in stasis?)

Anyway, have a fantastic everything, forever.

Mark...

You are confusing something having no limit in potential with there being infinite objects actually existing. Saying that there are everlasting pink cups that also progress through time is a contradiction in terms. They are either everlasting, or they are progressing. If the number of objects grows "over time", it may indeed be a very large number, but it is still not an infinite number.

@ughaibu,

setzer9999;170554 wrote:

I am suggesting there is NOT a sum to which nothing can be added.

In short:

ughaibu;170363 wrote:

If there is a system of natural numbers, with addition, then there is singularity and infinity.

So:

ughaibu;170363 wrote:

How does infinity disable finitude?

. . . . . .

@ughaibu,

Infinity doesn't disable finitude. Some things can be described as having infinite properties. A number of objects is not one of these things. A continuum, a system, or a relationship are examples of things which may have characteristics of the infinite.

Being infinite is a characteristic an entity can have.

The number of objects there are cannot have the characteristic of being infinite because it must equal a number.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170586 wrote:

The number of objects there are cannot have the characteristic of being infinite because it must equal a number.

If the number of objects is infinite, then the number of objects is infinite. You haven't offered anything, resembling an argument, against an infinity of objects.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170333 wrote:

If it is the mainstream theory that the universe has an "infinite amount" of configurations actually present, not the infinite potential for configuration, then yes I decent. Potential can be infinite, the number of configurations that actually are cannot.

This is a contradiction. if you assume that theoretical speculation that infinite configuration actually exist, then you cannot deny it.

Quote:

Being infinite is a characteristic only a singluar continuum (such as potential, relationship, etc) can have. You can't have "infinite many" or "infinite amount" because "many" and "ammount" imply a number. You can't determine the number of the "last" universe configuration counted in this model. Infinity is unreachable as a number of objects.

the word "amount", or "many" could also imply the cardinality of a set.

Quote:

Mathematics may be able to model infinities, but this doesn't mean the universe itself is infinite. Mathematics also models zero, but the universe is not nothing. I am aware that the concept of the number 0 is not nothing, its the presence of an absence, but actually having zero objects in existence would equate to there being nothing whatsoever (which is another thread, and I pose that this too is impossible).

I am a modal realist. I believe that there is a possible world with no objects whatsoever. This can surely be modeled.

Quote:

I will have to use phrases that are contradictions in terms for this next part since our language is limited to what is logical and possible and I'm attempting to describe nonsense. If there were infinite configurations of the universe, there would be infinitely many configurations of the universe that cause all other configurations of the universe to be impossible. The only way the universe can be infinite is if the "sum" of all of these cancelations boils down to a finite set... thereby making it not infinite.

Why would one possible actualization of a configuration of particles "cause" another to not exist? If there is another universe spatially continuous, and next to our "observable universe". That universe cannot cause us to do anything. By most accounts, There is "causally isolated" to prevent one universe from interacting with another. Quantum mechanics will deny this, and we also have to take into consideration the type of universes.

You comment that " one universe can cause another" contradict mainstream theoretical models on this matter because the mainstream view say that " universes are causally isolated". Again, i ask why you reject mainstream model. If you persist in doing so, then i don` t think it would be productive for me to talk anymore

@TuringEquivalent,

Just because something is a mainstream model doesn't make it correct. it isn't a valid argument to say so. It certainly might be, but it isn't necessarily so. I see problems with the statement that there are infinite objects, so I'm saying what those problems are. The responses in this thread have not demonstrated how there can be an infinite number, only pointed out that there are properties to infinity.

I also disagree that there can be a world with no objects. I don't mean physical objects, but any objects. A world that has no objects at all is not a world, because a world is an object. There cannot "be nothing" and be a world.

If there truly are an infinite number of configurations, then there are no configurations that are not. A universe being causally isolated is, first, a theory, and second, impossible if there truly are infinite configurations. I'm not saying universes aren't causally isolated. It seems that if there aren't any configurations that cannot be, then there would be configurations that allowed universes to not be causally isolated. If you supposed it to be impossible for universes not to be causally isolated, it should follow that there cannot be infinite configurations of universes.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170804 wrote:

If there truly are an infinite number of configurations, then there are no configurations that are not.

This, too, is incorrect.

@ughaibu,

If you limit the number of configurations, then it isn't infinite. You cannot subtract from infinity. All configurations will be if they are in infinite number.

Please explain in more detail how there can be an infinite number, but still be objects that are not.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170812 wrote:

Please explain in more detail how there can be an infinite number, but still be objects that are not.

See Galileo's paradox.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170804 wrote:

Just because something is a mainstream model doesn't make it correct. it isn't a valid argument to say so. It certainly might be, but it isn't necessarily so. I see problems with the statement that there are infinite objects, so I'm saying what those problems are. The responses in this thread have not demonstrated how there can be an infinite number, only pointed out that there are properties to infinity.

If you talk to me, you need to know those models. When i think about this matter, i think about those models. Take the model "modal realism". One of the assumption of MR say " the worlds are causally isolated", then you cannot construct an argument that say something similar to "Two different world can cause one another to not exist".

Quote:

I also disagree that there can be a world with no objects. I don't mean physical objects, but any objects. A world that has no objects at all is not a world, because a world is an object. There cannot "be nothing" and be a world.

I disagree. I say no more, because it is out of topic.

Quote:

It seems that if there aren't any configurations that cannot be, then there would be configurations that allowed universes to not be causally isolate.

How ` s that? If you have particle a, b, c, there are 6 possible configuration on a line. They are abc, acb, bac, bca, cab, cba. How does one configuration( say acb) effect another configuration( say cba) ?

To be precise, the number of particles in the observable universe is finite, so there is only finite many configuration. In the model where space is infinite, each configuration occur infinite many times.

@ughaibu,

Galileo's paradox deals with infinite sets of the squares of numbers as they relate to the numbers for which they are the square. The paradox is about the relationship of one being "bigger" than the other. Its eventual resolution does nothing to demonstrate that you can actually have a number equal to infinity in objects actually present.

A set is "countable" but cannot be completed being counted. It can never "be" infinite.

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 10:44 AM ----------

Random configurations do not defeat one another's existence. Specifically opposed one's do. abc and cba are not opposed. A universe in which a "machine", natural or artificial, exists that has the properties such that it eliminates another is opposed to that other universe. I know it doesn't make sense if the universes are causally isolated, but I'm not worried about that because I don't think it makes sense that such universes exist... and if they don't exist, there aren't infinite universes.

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170821 wrote:

I don't think it makes sense that such universes exist... and if they don't exist, there aren't infinite universes.

but i think it makes sense that such universes exist. Don ` t you?

In fact, i think modal realism makes sense. if modal realism is true, then there are surely infinite many universes. Don` t you think ?

@TuringEquivalent,

If they're truly causally isolated, such a machine is impossible because it would mean that they aren't really causally isolated...

@setzer9999,

setzer9999;170830 wrote:

such a machine is impossible because it would mean that they aren't really causally isolated...

Suppose modal realism is true, then all worlds are causally isolated. This means you cannot construct a machine that destroy all the other worlds.

A machine that can destroy all the worlds would need a mechanism that allow one world to cause an effect in another world. If modal realism is true, then the cause produced in one world cannot have an effect in a different world. There would not be a mechanism for it. So, this machine cannot be build.

So, if modal realism is true, then this machine cannot be build. Don` t you think?

Philosophy Forum

An infinite number of objects and universes

Quick Links

My Account

able2know