On Oct 5, 2:27 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote: > The purpose of this post is to try to understand what > might be meant by the concept of 'infinity'. This appears > necessary because it is not clear as to how even the > limitless and finite, or measurable, can be linked to the > concept of the infinite, since there is, for example, no > number called infinity, no location that has a coordinate > of infinity, and so on. > > There are different kinds of infinities which, I think, > are not all equally easy to identify and understand. > In what follows, I use the example of space, because > this is, perhaps, the easiest kind of infinity to deal > with. I think it should be possible, however, to find > ways to apply the following general definition of an > infinity to infinities of all kinds. > > GENERAL DEFINITION OF AN INFINITY !! TA DA !! :) > > An infinity is a reality which forms a basis that > enables the existence of the finite, the countable > or measurable, but is not in itself either countable or > measurable. > > SPACE AS AN EXAMPLE > > As an example of what I mean by this, take the > measurement of a distance AB, between spatial > locations A and B. The locations exist in space, and > are identified by some content of space, such as the > ends of a ruler, as a convenient example. The > measurement of the distance requires the definition > of a unit of the measurement, which can be arbitrarily > small. What this means is that, however small the unit > for the measurement of distance might be, it can > always, forever, be made yet smaller. > > This process identifies the existence of an underlying > reality, which supports this possibility, but is necessarily > forever beyond it, and unreachable to it. This underlying > reality can be identified by what we refer to as 'continuity'. > The nature of continuity is, therefore, that it supports and > enables the process of measurement, as something > finite, expressed in countable form, but is not itself > intrinsically measurable, or countable. It is not merely > an extension of the limitlessly small - there is a > QUALITATIVE difference between continuity and the > endlessly small. > > Continuity is thus an infinity, as a reality that is not > in itself measurable, but underlies, or supports and > adopts, though distinct in itself, the finite measure that > it enables. > > In the opposite direction, that of greatness of extent, > we have a similar consideration. By extent I mean a > distance, such as AB which, however, is increasing, > in the sense that the total measure is becoming greater, > without the unit for the measurement being altered. > > It is the case that, however great this measure may > become, it can forever be made greater than before. > This, again, identifies an underlying reality that is > necessarily forever beyond the process, and > unreachable to it. I refer to this underlying reality as > simply 'space', for want of a better word. The nature > of space is, therefore, like continuity, that it supports > and enables the process of measurement, as something > finite, expressed in countable form, but is not itself > intrinisically measurable, or countable. (I assume a flat, > open space, and not one that is closed, like the surface > of a sphere) > > Space, like continuity, is thus an infinity, as a > qualitatively distinct reality that is not in itself > measurable, but supports and adopts, though > remaining distinct in itself, the finite > measure that it enables. > > The result is that the size of space is currently that > of the size of its contents. If one goes to the edge of > the contents of space, one can be said to go to the > edge of space. If one goes beyond this, one expands > the contents of space, as oneself a content of space, > and expands the space. It does not mean that the > extra extent, into which one goes, is an extent that > already exists. It means that space automatically > provides whatever extent its contents require, but > does not have to be said to provide any extent they > do not require. One thus does not speak of an > 'infinite extent', since the infinity of space only > provides 'extent' in so far as its contents require it. > We thus do not ever have to deal with a concept of > an 'infinitely distant' location, which is really a > contradiction in terms. > > That is the nature of an infinity, that it supports and > enables the finite and measureable, while not, in itself, > being finite or measurable. > > Thus continuity and space are aspects of one reality, > called space (I don't like using the same word twice, > but the language is deficient), which is, in itself, an > infinity. It has no intrinsic size or number of dimensions, > but supports and enables whatever size and number > of dimensions its contents may require. > > Alen
Infinity is an impossible to determined amount, being it space or everithing else. That is why we can write 2.infinite=3.inf....=infinite. And the microinfinite is a similar amount but now two small which we can't determine. So if you like to speak about the infinity you can speak only about the untruth in fyssic.
