I can't imagine infinity

Ask questions, find resources, browse the virtual shelves.
User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: I can't imagine infinity

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:24 pm

Beyond wrote:Existence........I am making this post. Therefore i exist. I am a very small part of something that is either finite, or, infinite. That's about all that is possible to say on the subject for now. Have an infinitely nice, finite day :!:
I don't buy it. I'm reading this post, so I know that I exist, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate to me that you do. You- along with all your posts- could just be a figment of my imagination.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: I can't imagine infinity

Post by Beyond » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:24 pm

Vice-versa on that Chris. I would imagine that believing that one exists in the first place, takes a certain amount of faith, based on the experience. And then the faith grows as each experience comes along. Until it becomes 'normal'. Such as chatting with others on the Good Ship Asterisk. Of course if one thinks it's just their imagination, try changing it. If it won't change, then it's not just imagination, i should think.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: I can't imagine infinity

Post by BMAONE23 » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:28 am

But what if most of the asterisk posts come from one person with an extremely fractured multiple personality dysfunction? How would you go about proving that Neufer, Owlice, Beyond, Chris, and other posters aren't in fact different personalities of the same person? Perhaps Chris and Harry are different sides of the same coin? :wink:

mst66186
Ensign
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: I can't imagine infinity

Post by mst66186 » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:21 am

bystander wrote:...
∞ is not an integer, so your statement "for all numbers x, where x is a member of the set of integers, there is no x such that the successor of x is ∞" is true by default, because ∞ is not a part of the set. That does not mean there exists a greatest integer.
I believe I should have written 'cardinal' rather than 'integer' although the difference seems to be slight, cardinals are specifically for talking about the number of elements in a set, as in the discussion above (so the number of Plank volumes in the observable universe would be a cardinal number). I have looked at the definition of cardinal number, and they are transfinite. I have one last question on this topic before I give it a rest and get back to the lectures. I can't find the answer elsewhere on the Internet. I don't know whether you can answer this for me or whether I need to put this on a math forum, but please let me know either way:
:?: is it also true that there is no x, where x is a finite cardinal number, such that the successor of x is Aleph Null?

Unlike ∞, Aleph Null is a member of the set of cardinals, so the above is not true by default, although I believe it is true. That is probably what I should have put originally. Thanks again for your time.

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 20396
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: I can't imagine infinity

Post by bystander » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:31 pm

mst66186 wrote:I believe I should have written 'cardinal' rather than 'integer' although the difference seems to be slight, cardinals are specifically for talking about the number of elements in a set, as in the discussion above (so the number of Plank volumes in the observable universe would be a cardinal number). I have looked at the definition of cardinal number, and they are transfinite. I have one last question on this topic before I give it a rest and get back to the lectures. I can't find the answer elsewhere on the Internet. I don't know whether you can answer this for me or whether I need to put this on a math forum, but please let me know either way:

:?: is it also true that there is no x, where x is a finite cardinal number, such that the successor of x is Aleph Null?

Unlike ∞, Aleph Null is a member of the set of cardinals, so the above is not true by default, although I believe it is true. That is probably what I should have put originally. Thanks again for your time.
I'm not really sure what your point is here, but to get a definitive answer you will probably need to go to a math forum. IMHO you are not looking for the cardinality of Planck units, but rather a count of them. The set of counting numbers (aka natural numbers) is more appropriate.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

charlieo3
Ensign
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:53 am

Re: I can't imagine infinity

Post by charlieo3 » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:10 pm

"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." -- Woody Allen (The same could be said for 'infinity.') :-)