[andreasva (OP)]

The square root of negative one is a good example.

I'm talking about reality.  Infinity is not a number.  No matter what you do, you are physically expressing every number in a finite manner, whether it's solvable or not.

The change in the value is what signifies an infinite number, not the size or concept.  The square root of -1?  So what?  That doesn't describe infinity.  Not even close. If it did, that would = infinity.

The text book definition clearly states "a number".  It doesn't differentiate, and specifically refers to a quantity and countable numbers. 

What number, or concept, or non-integer are they referring to in the text book definition?

If they knew the answer, don't you think they would have put it in the definition?

Numbers are always finite, real, imaginary, integer, non-integer.  You have to jot them down somewhere, and know what they mean.  This, ∞, is not a number, it's a symbol.  This, ∞, is a natural variable, possessing an infinite number of values over time, because it's in a constant state of change. 

infinity = constancy of change

   

[andreasva (OP)]

There is a fine line between a finite and infinite universe, and neither can coexist in the same state.  It's one way or the other.  Finite is not conducive to our existence, because it lacks motion, and time.  Finite is an end state.  It's like Hawking's said, if you took all the positive energy against all the negative energy in the universe it would cancel itself out, in addition, to a finite state.  Stop change, stop motion, and C=0 universally, then we cease to exist.  Finite is not good. 

I think there's been too much misconception about what infinity represents.  All I'm saying, is change.  Seeing as the entire universe is in a constant state of change, is it so hard to believe we are infinite?

That does not mean infinite dimension, or an infinite number of stars, or immortality, or endlessness for anything in the universe at this point in time.  It actually means quite the opposite.  Life and death.  Entropy.  Change is inevitable.  Change itself is a constant, like C.  Infinity represents the constant of change. 

[jeffreyH]

I am currently looking at a finite plastic ruler. Finite is not good, oh my god we are all DOOMED! Better have a cup of tea then.

[andreasva (OP)]

I am currently looking at a finite plastic ruler. Finite is not good, oh my god we are all DOOMED! Better have a cup of tea then.

Cute...

But you know as well as I do that if you were looking at the ruler in a quantum state, it wouldn't look so finite, would it?  There would be a whole lot of activity going on.  You could say, constant motion which results in constant change over time.  Every second that ticks by actually results in a slightly different ruler the longer you look at it.  Eventually, the numbers will fade, and the plastic will start to break down, and that beautiful finite ruler will crumble into dust.  Not so finite anymore.  The Quantum world is freaky.   

Thank goodness we're bound to a relative view of the universe as defined by Einstein, and can interpret things such as a plastic ruler in a simple finite manner at the macro scale, as you so elegantly demonstrated.   

[Kryptid]

Infinity is not a number.

I guess that means that you can't say |1|>∞>0, since "greater than" and "less than" don't apply to non-numbers.

What number, or concept, or non-integer are they referring to in the text book definition?

Infinity, what else?

If they knew the answer, don't you think they would have put it in the definition?

They did.

Numbers are always finite, real, imaginary, integer, non-integer.

Source?

I'm also curious: do you think there are a finite quantity of numbers on the number line?

[andreasva (OP)]

I'm also curious: do you think there are a finite quantity of numbers on the number line?

That would be ridiculous, of course not.  There is an endless supply of numbers, which would take an infinite amount of time to express in a finite manner.

    What number, or concept, or non-integer are they referring to in the text book definition?


Infinity, what else?

Which is why number "infinity" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard you suggest so far.  You are referencing infinity finitely if you didn't notice.

Numbers are linear, or sequential.  Each value represents a position on a number line, with an infinite quantity situate in either direction. 

So you're suggesting there exists a finite numeric value called infinity, that lies outside the concept of numbers as we understand them?

If they knew the answer, don't you think they would have put it in the definition?

And even though you seem to understand this, and those who created the definition also apparently knew this, failed to explain it is a number that lies outside our concept of numeric values as we understand them?  It's not only greater than any countable quantity or number, it's something entirely different than a number. 

Hmm, sure, that makes total sense.  A completely Imaginary finite definition of a number value called infinity, like the blue fairy. 

And without a single shred of evidence, you're willing to believe this completely "imaginary" value is fact, based solely on someone else telling you it's a fact? 

It's an imagined numeric value that somehow escapes a finite reality of numeric values.

You don't see a problem in this?

Sounds an awful lot like the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster to me.

[andreasva (OP)]

I guess that means that you can't say |1|>∞>0, since "greater than" and "less than" don't apply to non-numbers.

No, not exactly.  It's not a number, it's a variable possessing many values, infinitely changing over time.  Those values are situated between 0 and |1| at any given moment in time.

Infinity is not "a number". 

I said this on page 1.  "Infinity is an infinitely variable state."  It is analog.  We can only approximate this analog state numerically, or digitally, in a finite manner.   

[andreasva (OP)]

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

This textbook definition of infinity is wrong, clearly.  As I said, it is conjecture at best, and nonsense at its worst.  It is completely arbitrary and totally contrived.  It means nothing.

Think I'll count to infinity now.

1, 2, infinity.

Phew. All done.

I'm tired, think I'll get a bite to eat. 

Oh wait, let me solve pi first.

3.∞

What was so hard about that?

[andreasva (OP)]

I'm a reasonable and patient person, with a dry sarcastic sense of humor.  I've been at this a very long time.  35 years in fact.  I've been looking for that proverbial needle in the haystack.  It's that fundamental flaw in our reasoning and logic that is impeding our effort to move forward in figuring out the universe.  And solve gravity hopefully someday, and before I die preferably.  So, I erased the blackboard, and started from the beginning.

I've taken a lot of abuse on these forums over the years, but I'm a big boy, and can easily dismiss my own flaws in reasoning and move on to another path.  I let the mayhem occur, and walk away licking my wounds and my pride, and then simply re-evaluate my reasoning.  They were right, I was wrong.  So what?  I'll get over it.  I'll sacrifice being embarrassingly wrong 1000's of times, just to find that single flaw, which I know instinctively exists.  I'm sure we all do.

I found that needle, and I know it's right, against all probability and conventional wisdom, and people way smarter and far more knowledgeable than I.

If we aren't here trying to figure this thing out together, what's the point of these "New Theories" forums?  To boost each others ego's, and point everyone back to what we think we know as fact?  We all know something is wrong, or we wouldn't be hanging around these crazy forums day in and day out.   

I like to say I found it, but truly, this is the work of many people engaging in debates over the years.  Steering me down a path of logical flaws, until those flaws slowly vanished, and only a question remained.  Even you Kryptid, and Bored Chemist, and JeffreyH, and Opportunity, and Bogie Smiles, and many, many others.  You're all contributors in your own way, either by opposition, and/or agreement.  My methods may be unconventional, but it's all I have, and all I can afford.  I used my brain, and checked my reasoning against others.  That beautiful analog processor we all have, which has no built-in error detection and correction subroutines, and is susceptible to corruption via a multitude of internal and external inputs, both good and bad.  It is the only way to solve infinity.  Deductive reasoning.  No, it can't be proved, but it does get to a point where it can't be disproved either, and just makes better sense. 

We are left with a choice.  A question.  I certainly can't make anyone accept my conclusions, and I know that, but I know it's right.  I don't believe it, I know it.  Like I know 1+1=2 in the real world.

The answer I felt, started with 0.  A completely uninteresting and totally neglected value. Should be simple, right?

0 is what the universe should be, but we're here.  Then, upon further investigation, you come to the realization that 0 is what it can never be.  To achieve 0 would require a complete dimensional collapse into nothingness.  That makes no sense logically, because there's always more space to fill that void left behind.  But the idea of 0 is real, so it can only be seen as a potential state of the universe.

0 is the first real number in the universe.  It is naturally finite, and naturally absolute. 

The universe can count to the absolute finite value of 0 all by itself, naturally.

Logically, that makes no sense, because the act of counting itself requires at least one more finite value.  So, how high can the universe count?  As stupid as that might sound. 

The universe is considered finite, so the universe must be 1, or so you might think.  If you're thinking I suppose.  The problem is that pesky infinity.  That says there is a limitless amount of numbers, and since we're considering our universe is finite, there must be an infinitely rising quantity of universes, each representing a different finite value.  That makes no sense.  The universe doesn't physically count.  It's only the fundamental idea of counting that could exist.  But, it has to be based on something physical, because the universe is following math precisely. 

So, back to 1.

If the absence of a dimensional state can't exist, then something else must replace it in its absence.  Logically speaking. 

That state, is the absolute value of Ι1Ι.  That value, although I am hesitant to use this term, as it may confuse people, represents *infinite (*in the literary sense) empty dimension only.  I know, I realize I am mixing apples and oranges in that statement, but I think it's easier for people to comprehend as they're more comfortable with the term and what it implies.  Ι1Ι itself in this empty dimensional state, only possesses the potential for infinity in reality.  Ι1Ι itself is a finite state of potential existence, and also an impossible state for the universe.  Infinity gets in the way of it.  It's a potential state that is completely void of energy, and motion, and anything that we would construe as a definable subset of the whole.  It is made entirely of itself only.  A perfect solid, so to speak, derived entirely of empty space.  Any value to describe it can only be seen as 1, and that value is absolute. 

Ι1Ι is the next real number in the universe.  It is naturally finite, and naturally absolute.

So now, our universe can count to the absolute finite value of Ι1Ι, all by itself, naturally, and that's as high as it can go.  There's no room for anything more, as it occupies all of space.  It is the exact opposite or inverse of 0, and exponentially different in nature.   

These potential finite values of 0 and Ι1Ι, forms the basis for all mathematical reasoning and logic in the universe.  They don't exist, and can't exist physically, which forces that potential between them to infinity.  0 and Ι1Ι is where the potential for all physics and math lies, that is physically defined in infinity by a universe, virtually.  There's lots of 0's and 1's to choose from in infinity. 

We are a reflection of what the universe is trying to be, but never can be.  It cannot be nothing or something in the absolute sense, so it is everything else in between in a non-finite, non-absolute, infinite state.

Infinity is not defined by scale, or the size of a numeric value, it's defined by variability and change, and of course, the potential to be a finite state.  The size of the entire universe collectively has the potential to be Ι1Ι, not infinite, or nothing, 0.

Finite bad, infinite good.  (Caveman speak) 

I stand by my reasoning.

0<∞<Ι1Ι   

No one can tell me this is wrong, and consequently, I won't try to convince anyone it's right.  I can only share my reasoning, and defend it when required.   

The choice is yours. 

[Bored chemist]

What was so hard about that?

Apparently, the hard bit was understanding the definition.
It must be hard; you failed.

I'm a very humble and patient person,

It's remarkable how often people need to tell us they are humble...

[andreasva (OP)]

Apparently, the hard bit was understanding the definition.

I understand where the definition came from. 

The magical flying spaghetti monster, greater than all other mere mortal finite numbers.

It lives in the imagination of those who communicated with infinity directly, and those who now propagate its teachings.  It is the number of all numbers, greater than man can count, or amass quantities.  All hail infinity.   

Like I said, the choice is yours.

[andreasva (OP)]

Isolate the accepted definition of infinity.

A number greater than any countable number.

Seeing as we don't run out of finite numbers, infinity invalidates itself in the definition. 

And also cannot be referred to as a number in this manner by any stretch of the imagination, because it can never exist.

If it did, 3.15=∞, because it is greater than pi, which is infinite. 

There is no specific infinite number, and the definition clearly suggest infinity is "a number greater".  There are lots of infinite numbers. 

And then you run into the other problem.  Infinity appears to be 1-direction in that definition, and only applicable to positive numbers.

-2 < -1

I don't know about you, but I can count negatively for a pretty long time.  So, is -1 always infinite?  It's greater than -2.

They could have at least had the decency to add the negative clause.

A negative number less than any countable negative number.*

*excluding negative quantities, which makes about as much sense as the actual definition we're conjuring.

Either infinity doesn't exist according to the definition, or the definition is incorrect. 

Infinite numbers are not about the greater size of the value, it's the fact that the resolution represents infinite change over time.  It would take an infinite amount of time to resolve pi, and with each moment that passes, the value of the whole changes.   

That's not a number, that's an infinite condition. 

I'm really kind of shocked that I would receive so much push back on it, in favor of a completely imaginary definition that makes no actual sense.  It's number infinity!  What?  I have no idea what you guys are rationalizing.  The definition is flawed. 

Numbers are finite, created by us to understand the universe in a finite manner.  Numbers are digital.  So, referencing "a number" greater or otherwise in the definition, makes infinity=finite.  Period.

Numbers are finite by design.  That's the way we made them, so we could count for trade.  3 pelts for an axe.  They weren't designed to be infinite, and cannot be retrofitted in an infinite manner.  Numbers are finite, intentionally.     

It is wrong. 

[andreasva (OP)]

Okay, moving on.

Here's another piece of evidence based on actual physics to support my hypothesis.

Olber said that an infinite universe would suffer a heat death, because he looked at the universe like this.

0<∞

That made the universe infinite and static (finite) at the same time.

Modern physics changed it to finite like this.

0<1<∞

They pushed infinity out of the universe.

As I said, we cannot be finite.  If the universe was finite, nothing would happen, because x=x, which is all that would ever happen.  There are only 3 choices for the universe, 0, Ι1Ι, and ∞, because x=x.

The universe needs a dynamic state, and ∞ is the only variable in x that can give us a dynamic state, because it is a non-finite value in x=x.

As I said a while back, we move 3-dimensionally, and that the universe is actually 1-dimensional in orientation.  When we see something moving in a linear manner, like sending a rocket up into space, or throwing a ball, it's actually moving in the outward direction.  The more at rest we are, the more inward we move.

This has to do with being homogeneous.  Homogeneity is the state where everything sees the universe from a spherical perspective, looking outward 3-dimensionally.  Everything thinks its in the exact center of the universe.     

All photons are moving outward, because their motion is constant.

As Olber suggested in his version of an infinite universe, we would suffer a heat death.  Although his version of infinity was wrong, his idea and calculations were correct.  If it was 0<∞, yes, that's what would happen everywhere. 

I changed the layout an added a finite limit of [1], which corrects his interpretation, while still maintaining ∞.

0<∞<Ι1Ι

Outward in distant space, our outer edge is suffering the heat death that Olber discussed in his theory.  It is happening, exactly as he predicted, but the universe is not static, or infinitely old, and also has an orientation.  This heat gathers at the far edge in distant space.  The photons are beating against the outer edge, which in turn keeps the universe churning.  Well beyond our detection.  The universe is a gradient of hot and cold.  The universe recycles, infinitely.  Matter transfers energy to photons, which eventually make their way to the outer edge. 

As I've said, we are reflection of what the universe is trying to be, but never can be.  We are in a thermodynamic state, sinking to the cold bottom inward as we continue to cool and condense.  There is an infinite amount of space in either direction, so it's not really a problem of how much we condense, because we are bound to a relative perspective.  It all looks finite, but it's not.  We are changing at a constant rate.

As JeffreyH pointed out, that ruler only looks finite.  It's state as a ruler is a temporary finite value.  It is changing from the moment it is manufactured, and is never actually finite.  It's a temporary illusion of sorts, and infinite in nature.  Finite values are not maintainable indefinitely.  They are changing from the moment they are created into something else.       

[Bored chemist]

I understand where the definition came from. 

Yes, it came from Google.

I said you didn't understand the definition. I didn't say you didn't understand where it was from.

The rest of your posts prove my point.

[andreasva (OP)]

Yes, it came from Google.

I said you didn't understand the definition. I didn't say you didn't understand where it was from.

The rest of your posts prove my point.

I don't care how many definitions you throw out there, infinity is a not a number, anymore than finite is a number.  We use numbers as a tool to understand finite and infinite states.  Numbers are finite by design.  It was intentional.   

Which proves my point.

The definition of infinity comes from the magical flying spaghetti monster. 

You are free to choose whatever is you want to believe.  That's your prerogative.

I'm going to stick with the mathematical facts.

x=x

The universe cannot be finite.  Finite is the absence of change, by definition.  It is final.  Our universe is following mathematical laws.  If it wasn't, e=mc^2 would not be our reality. 

There are only two states the universe can be in, finite or infinite.  0 is a finite value no matter how you choose to look at it, and our universe is clearly not 0.  I added the absolute finite value of Ι1Ι, which limits what infinity can be at any given moment in time. 

Our current understanding of infinity is wrong.

Infinity is the equal and opposite reaction to the absence of change, which would be the constancy of change. 

You are confusing the mainstream literary meaning with a practical meaning as applied to a scientific definition.  It's not an endless static universe, or timelessness, or eternal existence, it is the constancy of change. 

Yes, it came from Google.

And don't forget, you were the one who threw out the definition from Google, not me.  You claimed it was proof I was wrong. 

So I suppose you are now agreeing with me?

You clearly do not understand infinity any better than Google's definition, or you wouldn't have thrown it out there in the first place, knowing it was wrong or woefully deficient, which it clearly is.  You believed it to be evidence, blindly. 

At this point, it's just wilful ignorance on your part. 

It's just too simple a solution for people to wrap their brain around apparently. 

Is their anything in the entire universe that can possibly be identified as truly finite?  No.  That's the entire point of trying to find constants, so we have a reference frame to judge other things.  Not so easy to find, and even harder to pin down with any sense of certainty.  Every single constant we've identified is theoretical, and not fully understood. 

Even when we observe the whole of the entire universe to be expanding, with our own two eyes, which makes it a non-finite value, we call it finite.  Mind boggling really.  A non-finite finite universe.  x≠x. That makes a lot of sense.     

[andreasva (OP)]

Okay, so a quick recap.

As stated on the very 1st post, infinity is an infinitely variable analog state.  By it's very nature, analog cannot directly convert to a finite numeric value, and can only be approximated.  Numbers are digital not analog.  This is well understood in mathematics, and in science, as the universe can pretty much be described in waves.  The idea of number infinity is the logical equivalent of 2+2=tree.  It makes no sense.  It makes infinity=finite. It is a contrived concept, and stands in error.  We can recognize a number as an analog condition by the continuous change in value over time, but numerically, it is only an approximation of that analog condition.

Numbers are a tool used to describe reality, which is either finite or infinite, but numbers themselves do not constitute our physical reality.  Finite values coincidentally match finite states precisely, as numbers were invented before any such understanding even existed, but we know now finite states are never truly finite numerically in our universe.  Finite is a temporary condition in our universe.  The reason is pretty obvious once you realize we are analog.  Finite values are a digital representation of the underlying analog state which is undergoing constant change, and in which we are immersed.  Apparent finite objects, such as a ruler, are not quite as real as the underlying analog state they are derived from.  How finite an object appears is dictated by the amount of change that state is undergoing over time.  The more constant the change, the more constant that state appears over a longer time frame, and the less constant the change, the more finite that state appears, but for a shorter time frame.  Constancy should not be confused with finite.  A photon for example, is not a finite element.  It is simply a state undergoing the maximum observable constancy of change, making it appear as a constant.

This is exactly what we observe.  Not one single square millimeter of the universe can be construed as finite.  This is by direct observation in science.  The universe cannot be defined as finite, because it is not what we observe, and it is both mathematically and logically impossible to even make that claim.  Everything is moving towards a finite ending of some sort, which makes the process infinite in nature by default.  There is no other option.     

The universe itself is infinite, because x=x.  If the value of x was finite, our universe could never have existed. Period.   

Infinite = constancy of change
finite = absence of change

I'm going to try and move forward from this topic.

[opportunity]

Its very hard to see any type of significant "pattern" of knowing how to play this planet, as the planet will only play out as dumb as it seems...as gross and chaotic....because the design was never there to start with, historically, that feedback, that awareness, the intention of awareness, or the faith in it. It would be surprising if it happened quickly....our ability to know how to "run" from what we don't know about this planet when we need to run.

[andreasva (OP)]

seeing the patterns in that infinity.

Long ago when I started this endeavor, I referred to the universe as a giant duplicator.  It reproduces the same things over and over and over.  It's a pattern, like life itself.  The only ingredient is space.  It's remarkable.  The primary reproduction is hydrogen, as far as matter goes.  And that hydrogen then transforms into the multitude of elements we experience in our sense of reality.  And that's a finite limit of various elements on the periodic table.  That primary hydrogen condenses into stars, forming more complex elements, which get shed off to form planets, and it all eventually gets sucked into black holes, which kicks back radiation in the form of high speed elementary particles.  But it's all the same stuff, and same processes duplicated over and over again.

Thanks to Olbers' heat death paradox, I now see that this machine we call the universe is a very tedious and responsible recycler of energy, as well as a duplicator

Where are all the photons headed?

Outward.

Makes perfect sense, and fits sciences definition of that post big bang state nearly precisely.

These excess photons must be gathering on the outer edge of the universe, creating a tremendous amount of heat, probably in the form of plasma.  As they combine to form heavy particles, gravity takes hold and starts pulling them inward and away from the chaos and heat.  I see this continual gradient of hot to cold 3-dimensionally in my mind.  Gravity is a negative force, pulling everything impacted by gravity towards the cold center, filtering out things that aren't impacted by gravity.   

As I've suggested, we are a reflection of what the universe is actually doing.  A copy of that higher state, so to speak, but copies are always slightly less than the original.  But there's still a parallel, or pattern to it.  Even a hot cup of coffee mimics the greater process.  Pour cold milk into that cup, and it immediately sinks towards the bottom, because heat rises.  Heat goes out, cold goes in.  A simple natural process.   

[opportunity]

I agree....the universe is a great reflection.

When I look in the mirror, I understand the image is a distance beyond in the mirror the same distance I look into it, and thus double.

Where's our best lab? Here on Earth or in space to see the stars with more apparent clarity?

[andreasva (OP)]

Where's our best lab? Here on Earth or in space to see the stars with more apparent clarity?

Precisely.  Earth.  You have to understand the fundamental nature of our existence, before you can jump to conclusions and start working the numbers.  You can get lost in the numbers trying to find an answer.  What we see in the mirror isn't our reality, it is a reflection of our reality.  You can't trust light, blindly.