I disagree that there "is" infinity when adding.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I am suggesting there is NOT a sum to which nothing can be added.
If there is a system of natural numbers, with addition, then there is singularity and infinity.
How does infinity disable finitude?
The number of objects there are cannot have the characteristic of being infinite because it must equal a number.
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.
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.
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 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.
If there truly are an infinite number of configurations, then there are no configurations that are not.
Please explain in more detail how there can be an infinite number, but still be objects that are not.
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.
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.
I don't think it makes sense that such universes exist... and if they don't exist, there aren't infinite universes.
such a machine is impossible because it would mean that they aren't really causally isolated...