anytime i think of infinity (outside of algebra) Men in Black pops into my head. at the end of the movie it starts with earth, then the galaxy, then a cluster of galaxies, and so on until it gets to some aliens playing marbles. then i think what's after them? where does it end? just a black abyss? i dont think that there is a true infinity. infinity can only exist in the realms of what we as human beings know

And yet we as humans are linear...

And yet existence will never cease to be...

Buzz Lightyear for me

Is this in the same sense that round is square, and the color magenta is a song from the sixties?


On a side note, isn't it amazing how easily people make the transition from tailoring words to better define reality, to tailoring their view of reality to better fit their words?

I don't think we are totally linear really. I think we try to be because it seems to help us attempt to explain our reality, and even this I think is illusory.

I don't reason that existence on a whole or metaphysical realities are linear, but physical realities are most certainly linear...our bodies will eventually waste away...even if it's when all of physical existence as we understand it is obliterated.

Interesting here is my thoughts....


Infinity does not exist. Everything has to end somewhere. Everything has a barrier. Space is merely reflected to give an illusion of infinity, but it is a false illusion. Everything reflects,even in darkness.




I had sex with a pink chipmunk and her name was giggles www.happytreefriends.com

And she cried and giggled while the energy ran away from her.

Infinity is all an illusion. Everything is reflective so therefore infinity doesn't really exist. Even gravity reflects the universe. Really the universe is the size of wembley Stadium.

i agree, infinity (i believe) is not real. it is only an illusion. or just an answer to an unsolvable question. infinity is different for each person. as i said before, infinity only exists in our thoughts and perceptions.

i don't think infinity exists like i think a lot of people in this thread intend it, i think infinity isn't that which has no bounds but that which we can't give bounds. That is to say, and my latin's very bad so excuse me on this, infinite comes from infinitus in latin, which i think is actually the past participle of a transitive verb, which means the action of "ending" isn't attributed to the thing described but to something else which bestowed the state on the object. in fact, i lived abroad for a while in italy and i swear i heard people say their homework was "infinito" once or twice... anyway i like the more practical view of infinity, that is, it might as well be infinite cuz it's so big. i actually had a rather interesting discussion with my physics professor concerning the nature of time and we decided that, in accordance with aristotle or plato i believe, that time really only exists as a dimensionless ratio among velocities (actually accelerations and actually all higher order derivatives of displacement, but for all intensive purposes it doesn't matter) that is only space and matter exist, not time. another one of our discussions (and we have had a fair number of discussions in our day... we're really a couple of bums) actually did lead us to conclude that the universe (note i don't say time because we had previously agreed that time is a secondary property of mass and space) is cyclic and happens the same way every time - in a desperate attempt to explain entropy and conservation laws and stuff. just to let you know how serious we were, it involved dual universes with reversed time in 4 spacial dimensions, where the universe was a shape only possible in the four dimensions but when brought to three was actually kinda folded back over itself... yeah anyway i think this is a fascinating topic and don't mean to intrude or anything, i just think the real question shouldn't be "what is infinity" but "what is it about the idea of infinity that makes it something we should concern ourselves with". i mean, i could concoct a completely fantastic other concept just as airy and ill-defined as infinity, and discuss that, but to what end and to serve what higher purpose? philosophy is good, but i think there can be too much of a good thing. another question that arose with my physics prof that hasn't been mentioned but which i think directly applies: ask the same thing about zero. what is nothing? define that, and infinity is the opposite.

Indeed...I too buy into the concept that if the BIG BANG is to happen again, after the universe is sucked back into itself, that it will produce the same matter. Cyclical...that's synonymous with infinity.

From a philosophical stand point (like you were stating at the end), "nothingness" is a very tricky subject. In short, philosophically speaking, nothingness is impossible. To HAVE nothingness dictates existence. Now, some philosophies and philosophers have attempted to prove nothingness exists outside existence, thereby truly being the sole idea of the word...nothing. It's dogwash. Even Heidegger, my favorite philosopher, attempted to prove nothingness, and did so rather half-assed (in my personal opinion).

The only philosophical view I can even agree with is somewhat of a pre-nihilistic approach. Nihilism on a whole is the bastard son of existentialism (which is what I am...and existentialist), and isn't worth two cents. But when one takes into account the idea of nothingness in relation to a thing...

FOR EXAMPLE:

I have in my hand a pen. What I don't have in my hand is a pop-can. A pen (however you define it) is not a pop-can (however you define it). Ergo, when I have the pen, I don't have what it's not (or rather, I do have what it's not). I have the pen...I have not the pop-can.

Anywho...when one looks at it subjectively, infinity, circular time, existence, is a highly justified claim.

if nothingness, and hence the concept of zero, is impossible and cannot exist, and, mathematically, the concept of infinity is opposite it, which it is, then infinity should be a concept which embodies all that is possible. so maybe infinity is really just the net sum of all possibility?

or maybe the moral of this story is: when you combine logic and math, you get programming, not philosophy ...

What? What? And what?

First of all, don't confuse your philosophies. Continental Philosophy (which is what everyone thinks when they hear the term philosophy) and Analytical Philosophy (which is highly mathematical) are two different schools under the same ideals.

Now, as for infinity and possibility. Analytically, that might be the case that with infinity one has all possibilities and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. But continetally, there's much more to concern ourselves with...subjectively. Prove to me, outside of a mathematical system of any kind (analytical), that infinity goes hand in hand with possibility.

The problem is, people seem to apply the term "infinite" to the physical. Which, in accordance to science, doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. Physical bodies can, and will, cease to exist. As for the metaphysical, as for existence on a whole, that's a whole different story. And with metaphysics, possibilities aren't so much of a concern. For, in the end, there isn't THIS or MAYBE THAT or PERHAPS THIS...there is only the is.

i guess i exchanged the word "possible" with the phrase "in existence"... so what i really meant when i said that infinity was the sum of all possibility, what i really meant was that infinity was the combined whole of existence, which isn't necessarily physical or metaphysical but both, or so i would guess, as "nothingness" means both the non-existence of the physical and of the metaphysical, so it's opposite would be the combination of both... and a correlate of that would be that nothing by itself can be infinite, unless you consider all of creation as a system unto itself, which by definition must be infinite - at least following my analytical argument. but i have to argue something now to you: isn't it true that what can be proved under one system can, in theory, be proved under any system? why is the analytical system any less privileged than the continental one? if you can prove that the two systems cannot be used to analyze the same situation i will try to reformulate my reasoning into a non-analytic system. otherwise, i don't see the reason why it shouldn't suffice as is...

No, no, no...analytical isn't any less privileged than continental. I'm just biased as I lean more to the continental. However, when concerning proof, there's always a bunch of little problems...and stating something is proven, doesn't necessarily mean it's justified.

I'm a human.
All humans are vampires.
ERGO, I'm a vampire.

A proven statement...but not justified. The premise: all humans are vampires is flawed. There may be no such thing as vampires, or perhaps not all humans are vampires, or then again vampires are a different species, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. For something to be wholly justified, it must be both sound and valid all the way through. Things can be proven in so many ways. Especially in the philosophies. For example, I'm also an absurdist, a philosophy which is, as it sounds, rather absurd. For example, a Weecheywamballa exists! What is a weecheywamballa? Well, it has three legs, one arm, no torse, seven heads, and is purple, and speaks Italian and must only eat chocolate syrup! Under a rule of thumb, in absurdist logic, such a being exists (not physically, but metaphysically) because I can think/imagine this creature. Now, under that proof, can you prove a Weecheywamballa exists in another system? Probably not.

Oh, and on a note, you said something about "opposites." This isn't directly in reference to what you said, but it is something to chew around. The Correlation of Opposites is an old Pre-Socratic philosophy. And a highly flawed one. It's still used today however in many arguments, but is always open to attack (which, is in itself, another example of how proofs don't necessarily equate to being justified...for example: -1 is the opposite of +1, which is a proof, but since the opposite theory is flawed, how justified is that claim?). The reason the opposite theory is flawed...what is the opposite of existence? Non-existence? But non-existence is impossible, for to HAVE non-existence, surely it EXISTS as such! Or in a mathematical system, what is the opposite of a triangle? A non-triangle (again the nothingness argument comes into play), but in a strictly analytical approach, to say nothing is the opposite of something, such as a non-triangle is the opposite of triangle, is flawed because you don't have the opposite for you don't have anything. And again, what is the opposite of 0?

Anywho, good conversations...

let me preface this by saying i don't want to get anybody upset and that i love a good academic discussion, and just because i argue against people's points doesn't mean i don't think they're good ones... i just normally leave it implicit and my response acknowledges the fact that i deem others' thoughts worthy of my time. just so i don't come off as a total dick...
anyway i think your analogy is flawed a little bit: when you say...

I'm a human.
All humans are vampires.
ERGO, I'm a vampire.

It's different than when I say....

Let zero be a quantity such that all other quantities are greater than it.
Let infinity be a quantity such that all other quantities are lesser than it.
Hence, all quantities excluding zero and infinity must lie between the two.

The difference here is that i'm defining the reality i'm working with. i try to define it in such a way as that it describes reality in a way others can agree with and accept. now, if there is a specific problem with my definition which leads you to question it, than that's a different story. however your precepts are not things you can easily define. something about this reminds me of maybe descartes or somebody, maybe someone else, who concerned himself with the difference between what we describe and what we define. you see, when you say you are a person, you're either a person or you're not and you have no control over it. same thing with your second statement. but when i say "let x be such that..." you can't really argue with it because i'm making it up as i go along and x can be anything i want it to be. it's removed, detached. and given these detached statements, conclusions drawn from them are still detached. whether you believe in the result depends upon whether you agree with the initial precepts, not the logic. i hope i've explained myself... as far as i know i should be able to define a system of entities and draw logical conclusions from them, but whether this applies to the real world i guess is the ultimate question.
and about the theory of opposites... i think this actually has a great deal to do with what the concept of apeiron is all about. isn't apeiron, in anaximander's own words, just that which allows us to compare opposites? and doesn't apeiron translate roughly into something like infinity?
you say that nothingness cannot exist because if it existed then it wouldn't be nothingness... although i wouldn't have realized it before i think i agree with this now. however, the idea of something can exist without the thing actually existing. in fact, when you say that nothingness can not exist, you're actually proving the existence of nothingness in a way by demonstrating the non-existence of nothingness. may nothing is the only thing that doesn't exist? this would fall right in line with my definitions and the logical conclusion too, if you think about it. everything exists except nothing, which doesn't.
oh and the opposite of existence doesn't exist, because existence does... and if i recall, apeiron was the only thing anaximander said didn't have an opposite... so wouldn't apeiron, or infinity, be existence by his argument as well? i guess i'm just a pre-socratic at heart.
i actually like your example of a triangle not having an opposite, but when you look at the definition of a triangle, you can extrapolate the logical opposite of a triangle, even if it isn't at all what one would think of. if i do this...

let a triangle be a closed figure consisting of three line segments sharing three collective vertices in only one 2-dimensional plane,

it follows that an "anti-triangle" would be something like this...

let an antitriangle not be a closed figure, not consist of three line segments or consist of three line segments not having three vertices in common, and not exist in any 2-d plane.

i agree that this definition of an anti-triangle is broad and encompasses everything that a triangle is not, which is lots of stuff, but it works on a mathematical and logical level. i could draw an example of an antitriangle by this definition, and could tell if another object fit the definition. any object not fitting the definition would have to be a triangle. in fact there would be in theory just as many possible antitriangles as real triangles. god we need a math subsection on this site...

the opposite of zero?
let a be any measurable quantity.
let b be a measurable quantity q times greater than a.
let c be a measurable quantity q times greater than b.

let us define alpha as (a/b) = (b/q)/b = 1/q
let us define beta as (c/b) = (b*q)/b = q/1

for any measurable q, alpha * beta = 1.

for any unmeasurable q, alpha * beta is undefined.

however, if we allow omicron to be an quantity q that, though not measurable, remains some agreed upon quantity(read: the idea of infinity which we assume exists, or zero for that matter, they both work) then

1/omicron * omicron/1 = 1, for any omicron.

hence if either zero or infinity exists, the other must exist and be the multiplicative reciprocal (which is what we generally mean in mathematics when we say opposite, not the additive inverse) of the latter.

yeah that's not a great proof but it gives you an idea of where someone could go with it. basically it's main usefulness is in proving that they are opposite, not necessarily that either exists.

btw i love this discussion. i could go on and on for hours. on a side note, i think i'm falling in love with you 666. mental love.

No, no, no...that's fine. I understand you completely. First off, my example is just a popular instance (used by analytical philosophers) to show that although an argument may be sound, it isn't necessarily valid. (For future reference, their favorite example is: 1) Socrates is a man. 2) Man is immortal. ERGO, Socrates is immortal). I was merely describing how in some instances proof and logic doesn't always mean justified.

Now, as far as "real world applications" go, that's fine as well. That's more of an empirical approach (in a way), but I do know there are schools of philosophy out there that find it inane to concern themselves with "imaginative" arguments. Analytical philosophy being a key player in that school, but there are continental schools of thought that are also as such...I forget which, but I can look them up if you'd like. However, I can recall certain instances, such as philosophies pertaining to the "mind." On one hand, out of all the thoughts, you have dualists (who think mind and body are seperate), and then you have epiphenomenalists (who view the mind as nothing more than an epiphenomenal quality...like a shadow. It only exists because of other things, and in all essence, is useless and isn't needed), and then on the other hand you have behaviorists (who believe the mind is nothing more than mental states within the physical brain). Now, which do you think is a more "real-world" application? Which do you think I am?

So, you see, philosophy is all over the place. There are "real-world" philosophers and there are "absurd" philosophers. All have there good qualities...some more than others.

Interesting. Now that is an "absurd" theory! I rather like it. I'll have to fiddle around with that one.

But as you seem to notice, the supposed "anti-triangle" is a valid opposite of a triangle, but isn't very sound, for as you said, it could be any manner of shape. A proven, yet unjustified claim.

Uh...I have trouble reading that type of stuff. Math and me are enemies!


AND TO SUM UP...
I'm glad you're a Pre-Socratic at heart. Pre-Socratic philosophy was one of my favorite subjects...if you're interested in it, you should really check out Nietzsche (if you haven't already). He's written many essays concerning Pre-Socratic philosophy (Anaximander especially, if memory serves me correct)and other Greek thoughts as well...especially his thoughts on aestheticism (art).

And I do enjoy having philosophical conversations, and so we shall converse for as long as you like. Philosophy is my passion...one day I will have PhD, but at the moment I'm a lowly individual with a B.A. in Philosophy and a B.A. in English: creative writing. And though I'm not in school at the moment, I plan on getting my Masters in both subjects very soon. And, coincidently, a co-worker of mine has a M.A. in Philosophy (though analytical), but he did have a passion for Philosophy of Religion, which I too have a passion for, although not as hardcore as he...but needless to say, we have interesting discussions.

But yeah, good discussion...