Infinite Space and Endless Time

About our relation to them...

i think it depends on the definition of the manifold

space is something which is bidirectional, and time is something which is unidirectional. infinity is the limit of a manifold at which a successor operation points to itself. our relation to them is that we study mathematics.
50% Voted for by Hamumori, Princess Wolf.
View 1 comment Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
- Oral Fixation
  December 20, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  Interesting points reguarding demensional time.
  http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=3087
  
  I think the person who wrote it has some interesting points and seems relatively accurate.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

Infinity is unperceivable

Hypothetically, how would you propose to remove said chair from the infinity? Why do you assume infinity would be linear nessisarily? How would infinity have any tangible form at all? Absolutes cannot exist perceptually without being relative, and so perceptually cannot truly be absolute.

The chair is a construct of your mind, just as much as you are. Infinity has no form to support these constructions. I think this was what grant was getting at. Their is no difference between you and the chair, you are relative on a supporting continuum.

As far as I know, 0 x Infinity is the formula for interger. Mathematically represented as (1-1)/1 x 1/(1-1) in its simplest form. Because zero and Infinity have no displayed value in math (eg 2x0=0; number of zero references becomes undefined. The neutral polarities are left unmeasured), they result in every possible number at once in most circumstances (mathematical singularities).

..Just a thought

Voted for by Molzahn.

Add a comment

My Paradoxical Insight

Within "infinite space", any area within it is infinesimally small, and therefore in relation to infinity, it does not exist... same with "endless time", any time period within it is infinitally small, and therefore does not exist. So, therefore, in relation to infinite space and endless time, we do not exist, and therefore, our problems do not exist. So cheer up!

Voted for by wbiro.

View 10 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
arksi
December 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

that's a great way of thinking about it...too bad for us, infinity is pretty much meaningless because we won't ever be there to witness or experience it, since our physical time on this earth is so limited (and even with subsequent lifetimes, supposedly we wouldn't know about the previous ones)
- grant
  December 2, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  I disagree
  You can experience infinity while in this lifetime. It has been called being "present in the now". It happens when you are outside your head and there is a realisation that there is no you or self. There is only the experience of everything. It is like a 360 degree view of the world with no viewpoint or point of view. There is no point of view because there is no analysis of experience in this "now" state. There is ONLY experience with no point to view from. The point being the self which is a self construct anyway..
Energizer Bunny
December 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

from a Christian perspective though our time is not limited, only our earthly time.
TeChNoWC
December 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

I came up with this problem awhile ago, and discussed it somewhere on this site. However, it was more to do with distance and time, that being that increments can be infintesimally small and then therefore do not exist. However, with time, we break up points of 0 (no change of duration) into moments, like a photograph, for instance. There is a cease in the flow of time depicted.

One would consider though that the universe becomes relational. To an infinite object, the finite would be of no fractional comparison, and therefore non-existent in comparison, or so the observation goes. Either three inferences can be made from this: there is no such thing as the finite and bounds are illusional, or that the finite does exist, or that nothing exists.

Question: Would an object that is of infinite size be made up of infinite particles that become more numerous as we examine them in ever decreasing size? Eg an infinite (never-ending) row of chairs is made up of even more infinite chair legs (4x), and even more infinite woodchips, and even more infinite atoms, and even more infinite quarks etc etc until you have even more inifinite infinitely small particles (of which particles are infinitely small no matter the general size of the object at hand).

So conceptually, when multiplying an infinite property (infinetly small size) by another infinite property (or even finite property; this being infinite amount) then you have a cohesive result. However, when simply multiplying an infinite amount, or an infinite size, by a finite concept of its own property, than it simply fails to increase or decrease beyond the amount of infinity (that is, a surplus still exists). So taking away or adding on another chair wont change the fact that we have a never ending row of chairs. And neither will making the infinetly small particle any bigger, (by multiplication not addition) because you cannot turn an infinite property into a finite by increments.

Hence, 0 * 5 = 0

Infinite distance would also be aknowledge as any finite distance, because the finite distance could be broken into infinite fractions, eg, between the numbers one and two there are an infinite number of fractions. But this would only be possible if we hypothetically decreased the fractions to a point of non-existence, in which case there are a bizzillion bizzillion bizzillion (well, bascially infinite) zeros that you could fit into any finite distance. Now if we were to move across this so called infinite distance, it would seem that it would take forever, because it is infinite. But it would only take (assuming fixed speed for all hypothetical motion) as long as the size of the object in relation to the distance, and we are finite, just like the observable distance. It would only take forever if the particle too were of the infinetly small size as were the fractions of the distance (allocated for the non-existent object).

Conclusion: Us being bigger than an infinetly small particle is only due to the fact that in comparison the finite is infinetly bigger than the infinetly small (infinite number of zeros, if you may; but the concepts are different so instead it is an infinite number of infinitely small particles) and we are seemingly non-existent to the infinite only because of our purported infintesimal relation to its size.
grant
December 2, 2006
Edit | Reply

There is no size with which to measure in order to relate. Infinite is just that, infinite. It is immeasurable. We only measure things by seeing one thing in relation to another.( E.G, the marks on a ruler in relation to another object placed beside the object that is the ruler with it's marks.) No point in having a mathematical equation that describes infinite. If one experiences the infinite there is the experience that there is no "one" (self) having the experience. There is only infinite. No relationship with it (so no measure in relation to) because when experiencing the infinite you become it (which paradoxically means there is, in fact, no you). There just IS.
- Energizer Bunny
  December 2, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  grant
  ~~~There is no size with which to measure in order to relate. Infinite is just that, infinite. It is immeasurable.~~~
  
  I agree. How can you measure what is immeasurable?
TeChNoWC
December 2, 2006
Edit | Reply

Not true. If you take something away from the infinite, then it is still infinite. A line unbound is infinite, but a line bound only at one end is also infinite. Decreasing the infinite by increments does not decrease its eternal value. So, infinite minus TeChNoWC, still equals infinite. So I can still be seperate from an infinite sum. An infinite row of chairs does not equate me to being a chair, simply because we all must be part of that infinite number. This, my friend, is a philosophical and mathematical fallacy.
grant
December 2, 2006
Edit | Reply

There is no mathematics for there to be a fallacy. You are as much a chair as a chair is you. The chair is a you construct. You are a you construct. Constructs aren't real.
TeChNoWC
December 3, 2006
Edit | Reply

Ok grant, I think you are making up crap now..... Is this like Brahman oneness or like singular existence theory or what? Seriously though, if we are talking of mathematics then there is an obvious seperation between one unit and another (assuming mathematics is true). Thus, I dont have to be in the line of never-ending chairs. Something can be infinite without being everything. It is a very simple concept to grasp and I dont know how to make it any plainer to you, grant.
- grant
  December 3, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  By stating something as fact "something can be infinite without being everything" does not explain anything. "obvious seperation" is the illusion. The illusion of seperation. Nothing is seperate. The phenomenal fact that no thing exists in isolation from another thing represents the myth of seperation even at the phenomenal (physical) level. Phenomenally you are not aware of heat unless you have been aware of cold in order to evaluate the sensation in degrees of comfort. In the experience of the infinite there is no evaluation (no value judgement). The "simple concept" you allude to that you say i don't grasp is the illusiory and phenomenal where a universal "grasping" is irrelevent. An eskimo, due to the climate he is used to experiencing, will not grasp your concept of cold. No universality is necessary in this phenomenal universe. But in the experience of the infinite where value and values are of no consequence the eskimo and the sahara desert inhabitant are equal only in the transcendance of the duality/polarity of phenomenal existance with it's value judgements.