Infinity

[Atlan0001]

In the thread "From a drop of water...." I mentioned the other to time being the fourth dimension of space . . . space being the fourth dimension of time (three dimensions of time, one of space).

I didn't catch the originating article but a generalized version of the scientific article is out where physicist researchers are now working with this same other to Einstein's Special Relativity spacetime geometry. How the superluminal can exist without really being superluminal thanks to a multi-dimensionality of time, something I've long been dealing in in my posts.

 

[Atlan0001]

I should say, using that multi-dimensionality of time geometry, how the superluminal can exist without really being superluminal, a multi-dimensionality I've long been dealing in in my posts.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense,

When you play serious chess, like I did, at County, or even serious club, levels, you have to write down all your moves. You have time limits like 30 moves per hour. There are special clocks, which are two clocks stuck together. You make a move and hit your clock, and it stops and the other clock starts.
Writing down moves is easy. e2-e4, or P-K4. Along is abcdefgh, across is 12345678. So a2-a3.

So, to answer the question, there are no infinities in chess!


Cat )

 

[Ignat]

Can you multiply infinity by 2?

At least for 3! It's going to be endless anyway.

 

[Catastrophe]

Infinity is not a number.

Cat

 

[stanwaterman]

Is infinity unreal? We talk about infinite space or an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 a sort of endless division by 2 or whatever. But I wonder how real Infinite actually is.

• Take an infinite line and join the ends. Is it a finite circle? Or is it an infinitely expanding circle?
• How about the real numbers between 0 and 1. If you integrate from 0 to 1 you get 1. Is that like joining the ends?
• And, even if the universe is closed (as opposed to an infinite flat Euclidian one) can it expand infinitely?

It seems as if there is a resolution (like joining the ends) but more profound. As if there is something more fundamental than 'joining the ends'
I cannot crack it. Anyone?

An infinite line has no ends to be joined!
If you add all the numbers between 0 and 1, which you can't because there is an infinity of them, they would add to infinity, if you could add them!
Don't know what you mean by a 'closed' universe. We can be pretty sure that our universe is finite as it only started a bit over 13bn years ago and it has trillions of years to go, we are in a very early stage.
We don't know what is 'outside' our universe, or if there is an 'outside'!

 

[stanwaterman]

At least for 3! It's going to be endless anyway.

Yes you can because there is an infinite number of different infinities!

 

[stanwaterman]

Yes you can because there is an infinite number of different infinities!

 

[Catastrophe]

An infinite line has no ends to be joined!
If you add all the numbers between 0 and 1, which you can't because there is an infinity of them, they would add to infinity, if you could add them!
Don't know what you mean by a 'closed' universe. We can be pretty sure that our universe is finite as it only started a bit over 13bn years ago and it has trillions of years to go, we are in a very early stage.
We don't know what is 'outside' our universe, or if there is an 'outside'!

We can be pretty sure that our universe is finite

A (D + 1) knows that. A (D) can only guess.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

If you add all the numbers between 0 and 1, which you can't because there is an infinity of them, they would add to infinity, if you could add them!

Not true. You are wrong unless you have taken a bread loaf divided into an infinite number of pieces and fed an infinite number of mouths. Or maybe you have.

 

[Gibsense]

Don't know what you mean by a 'closed' universe. We can be pretty sure that our universe is finite as it only started a bit over 13bn years ago and it has trillions of years to go, we are in a very early stage.

The idea of a "closed universe" is like imagining the universe as a giant loop where you'd eventually end up where you started if you travelled far enough like a sphere surface. The debate about whether the universe is finite or infinite is still open, and it's tied to its shape. Some agree on a finite universe because of the Big Bang theory, while others think it could be infinite and flat. It's a big issue in cosmology that keeps scientists employed

 

[Gibsense]

At least for 3! It's going to be endless anyway.

I don't think infinity exists.
If we think about 4D topology, mathematicians - for example - state that 3D links in a chain can be pulled apart without breakage and that 3D knots are no longer knotted in 4 spatial dimensions. What is non-sensical in our 3D is reconciled in 4D or higher dimensions.
In 4D, things we find impossible in 3D, like untying knots without breaking them, can actually happen. So, while infinity might feel abstract and hard to grasp, in a higher-dimensional reality logic is satisfied (and infinity is unreal). Maybe

Cat's D+

 

[Ignat]

I don't think infinity exists

Mathematics and the material world (Matter) are different things. There may be things in mathematics that cannot be in the material world. Conversely, what can be in the material world cannot be described using mathematics.

 

[Ignat]

Yes you can because there is an infinite number of different infinities!

You could say that!

 

[Catastrophe]

A Moebius Strip is infinite to a flatlander, but a (D + 1) can see trillions of them.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

There is infinite room in an infinite universe for infinite expansion.

I would agree but only if 'space' in a geometrical sense replaced 'universe' in your sentence. It seems to me that nothing is nothing until something . That is to say that 'nothing'/zero can be infinite but 'something' cannot. Makes sense to me.

 

[Gibsense]

A Moebius Strip is infinite to a flatlander, but a (D + 1) can see trillions of them.

Explain please. The trillions

 

[Atlan0001]

Everywhere-land equates to Nowhere-land. Everythingness equates to Nothingness.

Utopia : Gk. u-topos : no-place : Nowhere-land.

Infinite density is at once infinitesimal density, relatively speaking '0' or infinite '0', there probably being no absolute of '0'.

To be continued maybe . . . I'm being summoned!

 

[Catastrophe]

Explain please. The trillions

A flatlander universe, in this hypothetical mind exercise, may be likened to a bubble. These analogiees need care. There are actually two versions - one separating space and time; the other considering spacetime as the bubble. Don't forget, analogies are only temporary pegs to suggest mechanisms or situations.

With either, the bubble represents the universe (as perceived by the flatlander), but perceivef by a (D + 1) as a separate "bubble". Hance a (D + 1) could perceive any number of flatlander bubble 'universes', if they existeed. According to either analogy, there is no objection to innumerable flatlander 'universes'.

A Moebius Strip is an alternative to a sphere in either analogy, since it has one (continuous) surface, and appears independent to a (D + 1).

Is that O.K.?

Cat

Infinity is a silly word used by n dimensional intelligences to cover up what they don't understand. It is, however, understood, for what it is, by n+1 dimensional intelligences. Simply an illusion.

Page 8 - Question - Cyclical Universe

Page 8 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

 

[Atlan0001]

A flatlander universe, in this hypothetical mind exercise, may be likened to a bubble. These analogiees need care. There are actually two versions - one separating space and time; the other considering spacetime as the bubble. Don't forget, analogies are only temporary pegs to suggest mechanisms or situations.

With either, the bubble represents the universe (as perceived by the flatlander), but perceivef by a (D + 1) as a separate "bubble". Hance a (D + 1) could perceive any number of flatlander bubble 'universes', if they existeed. According to either analogy, there is no objection to innumerable flatlander 'universes'.

A Moebius Strip is an alternative to a sphere in either analogy, since it has one (continuous) surface, and appears independent to a (D + 1).

Is that O.K.?

Cat

Innumerable, countless, point-bubble universes?! (Mandelbrot set?! (in its infinite breadth, pointing directly to an infinite breadth, goes infinitely infinitesimally (infinitesimally infinitely) broadly deep in breadth at every point of it)?! Such is a Flatlander's Flatland "Mandelbrot set".)

So, no more than we escape vastly higher dimensionality within our box-4 dimensions of dimensionality, do Flatlanders escape vastly greater dimensionality within their flat-2 dimensions of dimensionality! In a Menger Sponge we get the Flatlander's greater (larger) dimensionality of/within Flatland Sierpinski carpet as well as our own higher (larger) dimensionalities of/within cubic Menger sponge.

So, there is something 'aethereal fine' to all that folding (all that folded away) surface SPACE! Something more to all that "accelerating expansion of universe" (re: All that accelerated expanse of universe)?!