[andreasva (OP)]

Does that make a lava lamp infinite as well?

Face it, you lost this debate Kryptid.  And if you could bury your pride and ego for a moment, you might just figure out that question of yours someday.

MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

I didn't realize we had a finite quantity of countable numbers, and the one just after that is the infinite finite number greater than all other regular finite numbers.

Interesting.

Considering you still believe this woefully misguided attempt at converting infinity into a numerical value, it's little wonder you can't wrap your brain around reality. 

Infinity = Constancy of Change
Finite = Absence of Change

This perfectly describes both reality and mathematics.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Mark Twain

Willful ignorance is a choice, not a life sentence. 

[opportunity]

Without throwing a spanner in the works to this discussion, and without being too metaphorical, "if" all the laws of time and space, and their inherent platitudes, were like a snake chasing its tail, compensating for each other, in time, the universe could be endless, yet confined to a set of laws resolving its set of laws with each of its own sets of laws....with no end.....

[opportunity]

On the one hand the concept is finite as a snake chasing its tail, on the other, its infinite, it never ends on that quest.

[opportunity]

Key to that infinite struggle, as a snake chasing its tail, could be EM and G, light and location of actual mass.

[mad aetherist]

Key to that infinite struggle, as a snake chasing its tail, could be EM and G, light and location of actual mass.

The universe consists of praeons (making the praether), & aetheons (an excitation of the praether)(making the aether), & gravity (the bulk acceleration of aether)(giving us mass), & photons (an annihilation & excitation of the aether), & photinos (emitted by photons) (em radiation)(an annihilation & excitation of the aether), & elementary particles (confined photons).

Confined photons are made by free photons that have caught their own tail (alltho some believe that a loop can also involve two such photons forming one loop)(& or two side by side photons forming a bi-loop)(a neutrino).

So, a snake chasing its own tail is closer to the truth than praps u might think.

Anyhow the universe that we see & feel is a lot of processes.  The only thing in there is the praeon.  Aether can communicate at over 20 billion c kmps by way of the simple bulk flow (gravity & inertia).  And aether can communicate at c by way of the flow of excitations (photons).  And aether can communicate at say 5c by way of the transverse flow of photinos & at c for the longitudinal flow of photinos (em radiation).  Praeons can probly communicate at who knows what speeds, probly one speed for bulk flow, & another speed for the excitations that create aetheons (& giving us QE praps). 

[opportunity]

Good point. Is it about what works or what doesn't work that has to constantly resolve itself for not working?

Create the gap between the head and the tail, the problem, and you have infinity resolving itself as a circle in time...it could seem.

[opportunity]

The real question is how is this a resolution between the first principles of time and space.

[opportunity]

The aim of course is not to throw the contemporary scientific train of thought off track......no derailment of thought.....

[opportunity]

….at worst, a re-piecing of the puzzle of facts to give a new picture outcome....

[Kryptid]

And if you could bury your pride and ego for a moment, you might just figure out that question of yours someday.

Going by your definition of infinity as "constancy of change", the lava lamp would indeed be infinite. Actually, every single subatomic particle in the Universe (and even the quantum vacuum) would be infinite because everything is constantly changing. That is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

I didn't realize we had a finite quantity of countable numbers.

We don't nor did the definition you quoted imply such a thing.

….at worst, a re-piecing of the puzzle of facts to give a new picture outcome....

You seem to have forgotten that time when you were told by a moderator to stop multi-posting.

[opportunity]

Ouch, nothing to add scientifically then?

[opportunity]

Answers are limited here, I get that.

Don't worry, I'm over my golden age of posting.

[andreasva (OP)]

We don't nor did the definition you quoted imply such a thing.

The text book definition clearly defines infinity as "a number".

What number?

Then it implies, "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"

Clearly, it implies exactly what you say it doesn't imply. 

We're eventually going to run out of quantities or countable numbers somewhere.

Infinity appears to be a +1 thing.

Even if I took it out of context, and assumed we could count indefinitely, then infinity doesn't exist at all, because we never run out of countable numbers to reach infinity. 

What sense does any of that make?

If I created an idea as such, and posted on a site like this, I'd be crucified by everyone.  Moderators might even shut down the thread if I kept arguing what I saw as the truth, which is clearly nonsense. 

Infinity is not a numerical value.

Infinity = Constancy of Change
Finite = Absence of Change

The more constant the change, the more constant that state.  Light would be a pretty good example. 

Unless you want to suggest 299792458 is an infinite number. 

[opportunity]

Cantor apparently went mad, searching for the aleph....|I read his book....amazing work....truly amazing how the mind can challenge the idea itself of mathematics....to the point the human mind will always go beyond mathematics...despite criticism...

[Kryptid]

Then it implies, "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"

Clearly, it implies exactly what you say it doesn't imply. 

The definition doesn't say that there are a limited amount of countable numbers.

We're eventually going to run out of quantities or countable numbers somewhere.

I don't see how. There is no conceptual limit to how many zeroes can be placed after a one to create a very large number. Maybe a limit based on the number of atoms you could use to form a piece of paper or computer to write it down on, but not a limit conceptually.

Even if I took it out of context, and assumed we could count indefinitely, then infinity doesn't exist at all, because we never run out of countable numbers to reach infinity. 

The inability to count to infinity doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a concept. You can't count to pi or the square root of negative one either. In fact, your very inability to run out of numbers to count is itself proof that there are infinite integers.

What sense does any of that make?

Plenty enough.

If I created an idea as such, and posted on a site like this, I'd be crucified by everyone.  Moderators might even shut down the thread if I kept arguing what I saw as the truth, which is clearly nonsense. 

Obviously not, as I don't see anyone here but you challenging the actual definition of infinity.

[opportunity]

Why don't we set ourselves an experiment to perfect the circle using an Algorithm than inches ever so closer to that end? Will we ever get there as based on what is already happening around us in terms of time and space?

[opportunity]

Why is a circle important?

Its basic to a point source of light emanating waves. It should be, right? Otherwise its on something wobbly.

[andreasva (OP)]

The definition doesn't say that there are a limited amount of countable numbers.

Not directly of course, but it does clearly define infinity as "a number".

Then it clearly states, "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"

What "number" is infinity? 10^300? 10^1000?  10^1000000?  Are one of those the magic infinity "number" that is "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"?

Oh wait, I think I get it.  When I say 1, infinity = 2.  When I say 2, infinity = 3.  When I say 3, infinity = 4.  This is fun!

It's the marco polo infinite numbering game.  Makes perfect sense...   

You cannot refer to infinity as a numeric value, which is exactly what the definition does do. 

That's why:
Infinity = Constancy of Change
Finite = Absence of Change

[Bored chemist]

I think this perfectly sums up all 117 posts.

Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change

Nobody else thinks so

[opportunity]

Its difficult to look ahead beyond the works of those who have stressed beyond these current arguments.


Is infinite time or space, or both as one?