Is the concept of infinity real or imaginary?

[beero1000]

6 is the number of items I have on my desk right now.

The number 6 is a measurement of observed phenomena.

Not an imaginary concept.

You have six items on your desk. Not six.

The items are real the number is imaginary.

You have a vibrating cesium atom. Not a second.

The vibrations are real the second is imaginary.

 

[untermensche]

You have six items on your desk. Not six.

The items are real the number is imaginary.

You have a vibrating cesium atom. Not a second.

The vibrations are real the second is imaginary.

The second is an arbitrary amount of real vibrations.

But the vibrations are not time.

Time is what allows the vibrations. No time would mean no vibrations. Vibrations are proof time is real.

But items on your desk are not evidence of six.

The number six does not become real because six items exist.

 

[beero1000]

You have a vibrating cesium atom. Not a second.

The vibrations are real the second is imaginary.

The second is an arbitrary amount of real vibrations.

But the vibrations are not time.

Time is what allows the vibrations. No time would mean no vibrations. Vibrations are proof time is real.

But items on your desk are not evidence of six.

The number six does not become real because six items exist.

The number six is a real amount of arbitrary objects.

But the objects are not numbers.

Numbers are what allows counting the objects. No numbers would mean no objects. Objects are proof numbers are real.

But vibrations of the atom are not evidence of time.

The second does not become real because vibrations exist.

- - - Updated - - -

This is fun, isn't it?

 

[untermensche]

The number six is a specific amount of arbitrary objects.

So it is an imaginary concept that can be applied to anything.

But the objects are not numbers.

Most definitely not.

Numbers are what allows counting the objects. No numbers would mean no objects. Objects are proof numbers are real.

No numbers means no objects?

Insanity.

You analogy explodes.

 

[beero1000]

So it is an imaginary concept that can be applied to anything.

But the objects are not numbers.

Most definitely not.

Numbers are what allows counting the objects. No numbers would mean no objects. Objects are proof numbers are real.

No numbers means no objects?

Insanity.

You analogy explodes.

How could you possibly have objects without having a number of objects? How many would there be?

- - - Updated - - -

This has actually worked a whole lot better than I thought it would when I started...

 

[untermensche]

How could you possibly have objects without having a number of objects? How many would there be?

The objects exist without a label of their quantity. Without abstractly pretending they are all the same thing.

No vibration can exist without time.

Only fools congratulate themselves as their analogy totally disintegrates.

 

[beero1000]

How could you possibly have objects without having a number of objects? How many would there be?

The objects exist without a label of their quantity. Without abstractly pretending they are all the same thing.

No vibration can exist without time.

Only fools congratulate themselves as their analogy totally disintegrates.

The vibrations exist without a label of their frequency. Without abstractly pretending they are all the same thing.

No object can exist without numbers.

A chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game.

 

[untermensche]

The objects exist without a label of their quantity. Without abstractly pretending they are all the same thing.

No vibration can exist without time.

Only fools congratulate themselves as their analogy totally disintegrates.

The vibrations exist without a label of their frequency. Without abstractly pretending they are all the same thing.

Yes they do exist. And an arbitrary amount of them exist too.

The AMOUNT OF SOMETHING can exist.

But not merely an amount. Or a label of an amount.

Six items can exist. But not six.

No object can exist without numbers.

Absolute nonsense. I'd love to see you prove this instead of merely claiming it.

The analogy does not fit.

Time is the freedom that allows movement. Movement is something real. If movement exists then time is real too.

An amount is not a freedom. It does not allow objects to exist. They exist on their own. Their amount is an imaginary conception added on top.

You are not playing chess. You may be playing a game. But you are not saying anything I did not think of a long time ago.

 

[ryan]

Yes something that is purely and absolutely imaginary.

It is an imaginary concept of a series that does not have a final amount.

What about the series: sum of 1/2^n from n=1 to n =infinity? That comes to a final amount of 1.

You are not just looking at the concept of infinity. You are looking at the concept of infinity in combination with several other concepts.

The concept of infinity is one thing. That is just the definition.

How the concept is used in mathematics is another.

The questions is can some infinity be demonstrated?

Achilles eventually catches the tortoise, if you are watching as you fall into a black hole.

Imaginary scenarios do not define real concepts.

So far, a space-time continuum is the best description there is of the universe. Please read from link, http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html :

"It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration." .

So if you had to guess what the space-time structure is fundamentally, it may not be definitive, but a continuum should be your answer.

 

[untermensche]

So far, a space-time continuum is the best description there is of the universe. Please read from link, http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html :

I'm not going to dismiss it lightly like the absurd idea that infinity is real.

But it is an idea lacking evidence. And you can imagine a finite space/time structure.

 

[ryan]

So far, a space-time continuum is the best description there is of the universe. Please read from link, http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html :

I'm not going to dismiss it lightly like the absurd idea that infinity is real.

I never claimed that infinity is real. I don't see anyone claiming that.

But it is an idea lacking evidence. And you can imagine a finite space/time structure.

Right, but there is evidence keeping it a possibility.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not going to dismiss it lightly like the absurd idea that infinity is real.

I never claimed that infinity is real. I don't see anyone claiming that.

You are in a thread where several people are claiming infinity is real.

Since you can only apply real concepts to real entities the fact that people claim time is infinite is claiming infinity is real.

 

[bilby]

Demonstrated? It can be proven mathematically.

Of course you can always claim that mathematics is not 'real'; but the irony of doing so on the electric Internet might give untouchable pause before making a fool of yourself in that particular way.

It is defined in mathematics.

Mathematics is a real thing. A human invention. So you cannot apply imaginary concepts like infinity to it.

I imagined quite a number of ways in which you might have responded to this; But not for a moment did I imagine that you would be so incredibly crazy as to suggest that you cannot apply the concept of infinity to mathematics.

I suppose the concepts of prime numbers, infinitesimals, matrices, integers, and arithmetic cannot be applied to mathematics either?

When your position leads you to make completely crazy claims such as "Mathematics is a real thing. ... So you cannot apply imaginary concepts like infinity to it", it is time to either book into a psychiatric hospital, or change your position.

 

[untermensche]

It is defined in mathematics.

Mathematics is a real thing. A human invention. So you cannot apply imaginary concepts like infinity to it.

I imagined quite a number of ways in which you might have responded to this; But not for a moment did I imagine that you would be so incredibly crazy as to suggest that you cannot apply the concept of infinity to mathematics.

You can't apply it to mathematics.

You can't claim mathematics is infinite.

You can use it in mathematical equations.

 

[ryan]

I never claimed that infinity is real. I don't see anyone claiming that.

You are in a thread where several people are claiming infinity is real.

Since you can only apply real concepts to real entities the fact that people claim time is infinite is claiming infinity is real.

I am just arguing that you have not made a justifiable argument to claim that infinity is not real. And I have told you my position before.

Infinity, at least for moments/divisions in space-time, is very much possible.

 

[untermensche]

You are in a thread where several people are claiming infinity is real.

Since you can only apply real concepts to real entities the fact that people claim time is infinite is claiming infinity is real.

I am just arguing that you have not made a justifiable argument to claim that infinity is not real. And I have told you my position before.

Infinity, at least for moments/divisions in space-time, is very much possible.

You haven't read anything I've written.

If you had you would understand the positive claim here is infinity is real.

The default rational position is that it is not.

Just like a claim that fire breathing dragons are real.

 

[ryan]

I am just arguing that you have not made a justifiable argument to claim that infinity is not real. And I have told you my position before.

Infinity, at least for moments/divisions in space-time, is very much possible.

You haven't read anything I've written.

If you had you would understand the positive claim here is infinity is real.

Okay, but I am not making that positive claim. I am saying that we don't know, but so far the observations of space-time allow for it.

You are claiming the negative position. You will have to present a reason why space-time can't be a continuum.

Just like a claim that fire breathing dragons are real.

No, I would say it's more like saying that dragons might exist one day, somewhere in the universe. We haven't observed them yet, but we know it's probably physically possible, and we don't see any reason why they couldn't exist.

 

[untermensche]

You haven't read anything I've written.

If you had you would understand the positive claim here is infinity is real.

Okay, but I am not making that positive claim. I am saying that we don't know, but so far the observations of space-time allow for it.

No human conception either allows it or prevents it.

We can only say whether something is rational or not.

And applying an imaginary concept like infinity to a real entity like time is irrational.

You are claiming the negative position. You will have to present a reason why space-time can't be a continuum.

If I claim that the Tooth Fairy is imaginary do I have to defend that claim?

Do I have to prove something that has no evidence to support it is imaginary?

Or is that what we assume all such claims are until proven otherwise?

 

[ryan]

You are claiming the negative position. You will have to present a reason why space-time can't be a continuum.

If I claim that the Tooth Fairy is imaginary do I have to defend that claim?

A tooth fairy that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years would have a very diminished probability of existing, but it wouldn't be 0. Infinity must go unnoticed, and it would be unnoticed. So your claim is unfalsifiable.

Do I have to prove something that has no evidence to support it is imaginary?

The imagination can be right. Everything we rationalize, assume, theorize, predict, hypothesize, claim etc. comes from the imagination. Sometimes it's right.

Or is that what we assume all such claims are until proven otherwise?

You are still in an all or nothing state. There is a middle area of the unknown. The unknown is just that; it's unknown. Why assume that anything unknown can't exist?

The brain is structured with the same stuff that is out there. We are samples of the universe. Everything that we think of is real because it is happening, dually or not, in the universe. The "imagination" of infinity may have come from the consciousness being part of a continuum. We often have correct "imaginations", or I would say instincts/intuition, probably because we are a real sample of a lot of what is out there.

That is at least how I am saying that we might be right about infinity even though it comes from the imagination. It might literally be a part of our imagination.

 

[fromderinside]

Mathematically infinity means arbitrarily large. Many say it is ultimately the highest counted number plus one (n+1). So if it can be counted it is a number other than infinity. However if it can't be counted, that is separation has a minimum time between increments (base  Planck units) then it can't be logically counted in infinitesimal increments (less than Plank's base unit for that physical dimension) it has to be infinite.