Question Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?

[Atlan0001]

We would have no problem dropping into a macro-verse blackhole, but macro-verse / micro-verse [[hot]] white holes don't stick around for even a split second (here one instant, gone the next, leaving materialism to universes). Macro-verse and micro-verse are one and the same indistinguishable primordial entity at them, no macro-micro separation, no macro-micro distinction, as the singularity of the BB/Planck horizon constant. Thus unapproachable constant horizon (been there forever; will be there forever; a constant of horizon (and the one also defining -- always springing from its singularity -- forces and constants)).

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

We would have no problem dropping into a macro-verse blackhole, but macro-verse / micro-verse [[hot]] white holes don't stick around for even a split second (here one instant, gone the next, leaving materialism to universes). Macro-verse and micro-verse are one and the same indistinguishable primordial entity at them, no macro-micro separation, no macro-micro distinction, as the singularity of the BB/Planck horizon constant. Thus unapproachable constant horizon (been there forever; will be there forever; a constant of horizon (and the one also defining -- always springing from its singularity -- forces and constants)).

Yep it bends the mind for sure to think that infinity can have different meanings and different perspectives in what we like to call a universe.
An infinity that can't be escaped is in all essence an infinity, but as just one part of infinity is it really infinity?
I tend to think of black holes as just time wells with no other reality attached to them.
They just continue to contract time/space forever shrinking time/activity.
Self regulated so they can never become infinite mass points because activity becomes infinite smaller with infinite longer time as they contract.

Outside our BB infinity my guess is it's more of the same forever.
Endless BB areas that each one is infinity.
Dark flow points to either a very big mass dragging galaxies together and away to set places in what should be an even expansion of our BB.
Or the universe has some very weird mechanism for dark flow.
Bet dark flow is the neighbors gravity

 

[Catastrophe]

Mathematicians Measure Infinities and Find They're Equal ...
https://www.quantamagazine.org › Mathematics

12 Sept 2017 — First, both sets are larger than the natural numbers. Second, p is always less than or equal to t. Therefore, if p is less than t, then p would be an intermediate infinity ... They wanted to know whether the second one did as well.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 08/07/21

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Mathematicians Measure Infinities and Find They're Equal ...
https://www.quantamagazine.org › Mathematics

12 Sept 2017 — First, both sets are larger than the natural numbers. Second, p is always less than or equal to t. Therefore, if p is less than t, then p would be an intermediate infinity ... They wanted to know whether the second one did as well.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 08/07/21

Cat

If infinite regions can each have infinity then does infinity even exist?
Infinity could be just a math problem and not a real part of an infinite/infinite universe that has no end, start or infinity other than more of the same infinite regions.

 

[Catastrophe]

I have been pointing out that infinity ( = n/0 ) is a mathematical abstraction, and has no meaning in reality.

Cat

 

[greenrivet]

I have been pointing out that infinity ( = n/0 ) is a mathematical abstraction, and has no meaning in reality.

Cat

Hi Cat, a week or so ago I was going to take my non scientific questions off the forum and just read all posts and try and work out my questions myself ; but having read your note above, I have to stick my nose over the parapet again;. When you say " infinity is a mathematical abstraction, and has no meaning in reality." .....I'm sorry , but what did you mean ? In reality, infinity (to me) is a fact, and how could infinity in past time and future time and distance in all directions, not be a fact ?Are you saying maths disagrees with infinity ? You probably answered this decades ago, and if so I apologise.
Many thanks

 

[Catastrophe]

greenrivet, welcome back. No apologies necessary.

Infinity is not a number It is defined as (any) divided by zero. When you have certain mathematical equations, all is well so long as a have a number at the bottom. Dividing by something small will give a large answer. However, as you approach an axis (with a 0 value) the answer grows rapidly very very large. Now, if that mathematical equation is being applied in physics, the value may become meaningless in reality if made equal to zero. For example density = mass/volume. If something has mass, it is very unlikely, in the real world, to have no volume. Hence, to solve this equation lies outside practical reality. That is what I mean by mathematical abstraction.
Take another example. Speed = distance divided by time. If an object (in the real world) travels a distance it cannot do so in zero time. Hence infinite speed does not exist in the real world. So division by zero, although allowable in mathematics, creating the imaginary infinity, does not exist in the real world. It is an idea abstracted from a mathematical equation obtained by inserting an impossible variable.
You may well find objections in some quantum mechanical situations, but I am talking about the macroscopic world as we perceive it.

Now this bit: "In reality, infinity (to me) is a fact".
Just let me start please with my flatlander. That is a creature living in 2 space dimensions on the surface of a sphere. That surface is its total world - there is no up or down. Now the flatlander can wander its world 'to infinity' - never stopping until the end of time, until its infinity, because it is trapped in two-dimensional space. You can say that its world (the surface of the sphere) is infinite, but to a 3-dimensional creature it is simply perceived for what it is - a finite surface. The important point of this story, is that one creature's infinity is another creature's 'balloon'.
So what do we mean by infinity? Mathematically, we now that it is defined by n/0, but reality 'breaks down' as we try to make the unreal substitution of something real, but very small, by zero. The problem is that the zero is meaningless in the context of the equation.
So, I repeat, what do we (in reality) mean by infinity? In truth, we do not know, because we are unable to experience it. Mathematically, infinity is not a number.
I'll prove it. There is a common waste of time which goes add one to infinity, so the 'first' infinity cannot be infinity. So, if we add 1, then another 1, then . . . . . . we can make the 'equation' n + 1 = n + 27, or any such statement you like. If this were a real equation, you could subtract infinity from each side, and end up with 1 = 27, which is untrue. You can apply this to distance. Walk an infinite number of miles (infinity) then walk one mile more, and one more, . . . . . . so infinity is unreal - you will never get there.
So what we mean, in the real world, when we discuss infinity, is just a very long distance, or a distance too long to imagine.
"Are you saying maths disagrees with infinity?" No. I am saying reality disagrees with infinity.
You mention time. Much of our language and therefore concepts, is governed by our senses. We see that everything we can observe on this planet has a beginning and an end. We even know that this planet itself condensed out dust and gas, and we know that it will end, probably when the Sun expands beyond the orbit of Venus in about 5 billion years time. Therefore we surmise (and believe) that everything has a beginning and an end. Then we try to apply this anthropocentric view to things we do not (and cannot) understand - like the flatlander. The big bang model (it is not well enough established to be a theory) works very well, starting from a tiny fraction of a second after t = 0. For the moment, say t = 0 represents the start. Because we are about to divide by zero, that is imagine the Universe at inception, physics (reality) breaks down and we get this imaginary singularity of 'infinite' density and 'infinite' mass and all that sort of imaginary stuff. We do not know what happened in that tiny fraction of a second. Because we are extrapolating time backwards (if the Universe is expanding, then it must have started from nothing) we get the idea that things happened in tinier and tinier fractions of time.
Now, we do not know either way, but instead of this fictional singularity, there may be a nexus, a passage, like the neck in the old eggtimer. In this case the Universe did not 'need' a beginning and does not 'need' an end. In mathematical parl ance, it is infinite. But, what if we are the flatlanders? Maybe a being with more far-reaching senses would just see the Universe as a bubble. Here we get into difficulties, because Universe is defined as 'all there is' - but we are outside reality here and imagining a nexus instead of imagining a singularity. So we need not worry. There maybe 'exoverses' but we don't need such a word yet. If we want to indulge in Philosophy, we can invent a word, but if we persist in our trips of fancy, we will have to invent, and agree, suitable vocabulary.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask any further clarifications or other questions.

Cat











Contd.

 

[greenrivet]

Hi Cat, many thanks for the large reply, and from it, maybe this flight of fancy is maybe where I am, whereas scientist seem to have to prove it my maths for it to be proven fact. For me, just because it cannot be proven it , the maths are either wrong , misunderstood, or not yet discovered.
A couple of points from your reply....
1. quote ."For example density = mass/volume. If something has mass, it is very unlikely, in the real world, to have no volume. Hence, to solve this equation lies outside practical reality. unquote" Yes it lies outside of practical realiy because how would it be known if its beyond this universe, where there maybe absolutely nothing (whatever nothing that has a dimension is) . I guess I'm not referring to the real proven mathematical world.
2, The flatlander ref above verses the 3D creature it is simply perceived for what it is - a finite surface ................but for me , you do not mention what is outside the globe going right out to infinity.
3.Above you mention ...."The big bang model (it is not well enough established to be a theory) works very well, starting from a tiny fraction of a second after t = 0. For the moment, say t = 0 represents the start. " .........could it be possible that there were already galaxies here before the BB .....?

So yes, I seem to be imagining a lot.....and its always to do with endless travelling outside this universe. towards infinity and there being no brick wall to stop me going further....impossible....to think beyond nothingness....
kind rgds

 

[Catastrophe]

Hi greenrivet, let me look at these points:

1. " I guess I'm not referring to the real proven mathematical world.".
Yes, but real and mathematical are not always the same. When you get 'mathematical' which suggests something impossible, then the maths is not real. You can have boundary conditions in maths which seem to mean something, like n / 0 , but which cannot exist in the real world, as far as we are able to ascertain. Like the flatlander cannot understand anything 'off' the surface of the sphere.

2. For the flatlander, there is no 'outside the globe'. It just does not have the ability, the senses, to understand that. It lacks the 'eyes'. 'ears'. etcetera to be able to understand 'outside' the globe. Of course, the 3D creature can see the globe, but then it has its own limitations when it comes to infinity. I know that it is difficult to understand, because we are flatlanders in our world.

3. According to a cyclic model, there is another 'phase' of the Universe before the nexus. The nexus may be like going through a black hole and coming out through a big bang. And the same at the end pf our Universe. Just a change of phase rather than a beginning and an end. Like the flatlander looking for the 'end' of the surface. Or like looking for the 'end' of a circle. There is no beginning and no end.

Does that help at all?

Best wishes,

Cat

 

[greenrivet]

Yes it does, especially number 3. many thanks

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes it does, especially number 3. many thanks

You are very welcome Cat

 

[Patrick fenex]

Mathematicians Measure Infinities and Find They're Equal ...
https://www.quantamagazine.org › Mathematics

12 Sept 2017 — First, both sets are larger than the natural numbers. Second, p is always less than or equal to t. Therefore, if p is less than t, then p would be an intermediate infinity ... They wanted to know whether the second one did as well.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 08/07/21

Cat

This answer shouldn't surprise anyone. Since limitless, and boundless are both synonyms for infinity. You cannot have limits upon any reality, or process that is infinite.

 

[Patrick fenex]

As far as I have learned Maths and Physics, Infinity is something that does not have an end or is literally innumerable. But, the question is, can one infinity be larger than another infinity.?Like, a set of natural numbers is infinite. Same is a set of negative numbers. But, I think that a set of natural numbers should be greater than a set of negative numbers. Because, a set of negative numbers always add up to something negative whereas a set of natural numbers always add up to positive.

I am quite young to say that, but still, can one infinity be greater than another infinity?

I would have thought that the set of integers, could be described as a positive, and negative ray. Both being the absolute value of the other. The beginning of the ray being zero for both positive and negative counting numbers, is a perfect description for the definition of absolute value.

 

[Catastrophe]

"I would have thought that the set of integers, could be described as a positive, and negative ray. Both being the absolute value of the other. "

Patrick, please correct me if I misunderstand, but infinity is not a number and cannot have +ve and -ve values.

Cat

 

[Patrick fenex]

"I would have thought that the set of integers, could be described as a positive, and negative ray. Both being the absolute value of the other. "

Patrick, please correct me if I misunderstand, but infinity is not a number and cannot have +ve and -ve values.

Cat
[/ there I go again using wrong terminology sorry about that.

 

[Catastrophe]

Patrick, "This answer shouldn't surprise anyone. Since limitless, and boundless are both synonyms for infinity. You cannot have limits upon any reality, or process that is infinite."

Absolute spot on!

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

This answer shouldn't surprise anyone. Since limitless, and boundless are both synonyms for infinity. You cannot have limits upon any reality, or process that is infinite.

The universe could be even weirder than we think.
Regions of infinity that make infinity a mute point.
Each BB region infinity in an endless sea of BB areas each one infinity.

If we can have 1 BB area that seems infinite then why not 2 etc

 

[Catastrophe]

!If we can have 1 BB area that seems infinite then why not 2 etc " My emphasis.

Maybe If and seems are the operative words?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

An infinity of finite universes is at once -- translates to -- an infinity of infinitesimal points: Something I've long pressed here on the forum. I wasn't aware of physicists' defenses of the infinitesimal separate from the infinite until just a few days ago. I wasn't even aware that 'calculus' as invented almost independently by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz was originally known as the "calculus of infinitesimals" or simply "infinitesimal calculus." Infinitesimal ("greater than '0' but less than '1'") is not less than infinite ('1') actually, but a full equal to infinite ('1'). If there is a difference between infinite and infinitesimal, it is about the same difference, if not exactly the same difference, as between Universe (U) and Multiverse. I will make it: about the same difference, if not exactly the same difference, as between Universe ('1') and Multiverse (greater than '0' but less than '1').
-----------------------------------

What is the distance in time between two ticks on the real time universal clock? A most discreet distance; An infinitesimal distance ("greater than '0' but less than '1'). Thus also not the Planck time which is far more discontinuous in fact, though finitely "along with Planck length defining the scale at which current physical theories fail".
-----------------------------------

One might say, and it is a reach herein, that 'infinite' is essentially open systemic "unity" while 'infinitesimal' is essentially closed systemic "divisions to infinity" (the realm it shares with 'finite').

 

[DrRaviSharma]

I do not know if anyone brought the description of Infinity and Whole Number from Upanishads, part of the knowledge books written in Sanskrit, but it can be roughly translated as:
It is called Complete. If you takeout Complete from Complete, you are left with Complete -- implying infinity!
Also the Complete is beyond innumerable! Thus Infinite and innumerable are different.
from here came also the first concept of Zero and 1 whole number.
I received Apollo Award NASA 1969 and PhD- Particle nuclear -USA in 1966 and Post Doc 1967 at Yale.

 

[Catastrophe]

Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?

Dr Ravi Sharma, Thank you for your post, but is "complete" = "infinity"?

You say "implying", but does that answer the thread subject?
Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?

Since infinity is not a number, I would not have thought you can treat it as a number.
You will have noted the arguments involving infinity + 1 etcetera. Is this not treating infinity as a number, because otherwise how do you manipulate a (concept + number) ?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

The universe could be even weirder than we think.
Regions of infinity that make infinity a mute point.
Each BB region infinity in an endless sea of BB areas each one infinity.

If we can have 1 BB area that seems infinite then why not 2 etc

You're joking right? "2', or two dozen, or two zillion-zillion, would make them proportionally infinitesimal, or since counted, also finite, but ends unification.... ends their being infinite.

With "2' you did a measurement. If the Big Bang were the one "Creation" from "Nothing" and "Nowhere", it then was infinitely immeasurable, there being "nothing" in its space and time (it being all its space, all its time), nothing of mass and energy (it being all its mass, all its energy), to measure it against. It easily violates / violated conservation of mass-energy, easily violated all laws, all physics (even the physics of hot and cold), since there was "nothing" around there / then to measure it, so to prevent it. Physicists created the "naked singularity" of the Big Bang, regarding space and time, mass and energy, from this their distance from it, and like gods give it confining laws and physics, including a closed systemic confined finite space and closed systemic confined finite time.

They also totally reject the idea that maybe it is always, spacelessly, and timelessly, therefore in all space, in all time -- singularly and plurally, "a work in progress". The Planck level horizon, inclusive of 'c', inclusive of..... The cone shaped illustration, the bell shape, should not be illustrated left to right, but turned 90 degrees where the BB becomes the Planck level bottom and those galaxies illustrated the top.... Then, above that, a mirror reverse image from galaxies to Planck illustrating time reversal via black holing to Big Crunch > Planck / Big Bang, though always closed systemically infinitesimal / finite (immeasurable locally there / then). A rotating merry-go-round work always and forever in progress.

 

[josefnspace]

No. One infinity cannot be larger than another.

How can there be room for more than one infinity?

posit eight 'realms' from
base reality coordinate
0:0:0

 

[josefnspace]

Sorry, but I think you're mistaken here. If you can continue to subtract a value, then you're not starting at infinity and you're not ending at infinity because you can ALWAYS subtract one more. If you can continue to add a value, you're not starting at infinity and you're not ending at infinity because you can ALWAYS add one more.

Again, Infinity is a concept; not a value that can be acted upon.

-Wolf sends

' absolute value '

 

[Broadlands]

Sorry, but I think you're mistaken here. If you can continue to subtract a value, then you're not starting at infinity and you're not ending at infinity because you can ALWAYS subtract one more. If you can continue to add a value, you're not starting at infinity and you're not ending at infinity because you can ALWAYS add one more.

Again, Infinity is a concept; not a value that can be acted upon.

-Wolf sends

Exactly! Discussing infinity is fodder for those academics drinking lattes in the faculty lounges. But it is little else of practical significance to the eight billion people trying to make a living and just get along. Maybe politicians who think that there is an infinite amount of money they can use as they wish? That may be a definition of infinite?