Infinity and Beyond

[Sparky]

I guess i am trying to understand the use of "infinity" in math from a philosophical perspective. Of which, both areas are out of my reach.

But, not being encumbered by the thought process, i proceed!

It seems to me that inf. is applied and used in math as if it were an absolute. In calculations, absolutes have to be used to arrive at a real world conclusion. But inf. is not an absolute, it is a process, and once the process is halted along it's progression in order to obtain an absolute, there is no longer inf.!

I really do not like the conclusion that mass goes toward infinity when approaching C..is my understanding correct?....Does this mean that my mass is greater when i waddle into the kitchen than when i was reclining in my lazyboy?..My mass is usually greater when i return from the kitchen, though. And nowhere did i encounter inf.!!..

What is it about mass that becomes infinite when moving at +C?
Inf. mass would be another BB, wouldn't it? Wouldn't mass have to "self-create" in order to attempt to fill that inf. it was now in?
i just see problems with this scenario.

Now, the other infinite!...the singularity!...Here we go again, but toward the inf. small!..two problems i have with this, small probably has a boundary! And a singularity is treated as an absolute and defined as a point within a dark hole, for instance.

Now, for those who have wasted their time reading this, thank you, and could you set me straight on what i do not understand?

Just don't tell me that i have to believe...

[Goldminer]

I guess i am trying to understand the use of "infinity" in math from a philosophical perspective. Of which, both areas are out of my reach.

But, not being encumbered by the thought process, i proceed!

It seems to me that inf. is applied and used in math as if it were an absolute. In calculations, absolutes have to be used to arrive at a real world conclusion. But inf. is not an absolute, it is a process, and once the process is halted along it's progression in order to obtain an absolute, there is no longer inf.!

I really do not like the conclusion that mass goes toward infinity when approaching C..is my understanding correct?....Does this mean that my mass is greater when i waddle into the kitchen than when i was reclining in my lazyboy?..My mass is usually greater when i return from the kitchen, though. And nowhere did i encounter inf.!!..

What is it about mass that becomes infinite when moving at +C?
Inf. mass would be another BB, wouldn't it? Wouldn't mass have to "self-create" in order to attempt to fill that inf. it was now in?
i just see problems with this scenario.

Now, the other infinite!...the singularity!...Here we go again, but toward the inf. small!..two problems i have with this, small probably has a boundary! And a singularity is treated as an absolute and defined as a point within a dark hole, for instance.

Now, for those who have wasted their time reading this, thank you, and could you set me straight on what i do not understand?

Just don't tell me that i have to believe...

IMHO, You do have to believe! You have to believe that you haven't lost your mind!

If this tiny dot (.) moved at c, it would use up the entire Universe's mass! Now the LHC reports that protons and electrons have been accelerated to close to c. Have you noticed that we have been absorbed into any of these particles? I haven't. Somebody is making up big stories!

As to setting you straight, just do that yourself, and don't bend over near any of these nuts!

[klypp]

There is a logical rule saying that the infinite can not become finite and vice versa.
Infinity is not a number.
One consequence of this is that you cannot approach or get closer to infinity. You can cut a zillion miles off your infinite rope. You are still left with an infinite rope.
No matter how much your mass increases in the kitchen or by running, you are still as far away from infinite mass as you used to be.

Stephen Hawking will tell you that at a singularity the laws of physics will break down. This is of course nonsense. The laws of physics cannot break down. If they could, they wouldn't be laws of physics.
What breaks down is Hawking's "laws" of math.

Goldminer is right. Stay focused!

[JaJa]

There is a logical rule saying that the infinite can not become finite and vice versa

Do you know if there a logical rule which says infinite and finite are like two sides of a coin, or that from a material view-point, there is no finite. Person dies, body decays, and ultimately the particles that held a particular form for however many years return to the environment.

One consequence of this is that you cannot approach or get closer to infinity.

Would you say protons, neutrons and electrons (or plasma) are pretty good candidate/s for being infinite?

I guess i am trying to understand the use of "infinity" in math from a philosophical perspective.

A philosophical feast... so to speak.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-02.htm

[klypp]

As always, words have different meanings in different contexts. This goes for "infinity" as well.
I feel my previous post is not clear about this. So I'll add this definition from Lawrence Spector's math page:

INFINITY, along with its symbol ∞, is not a number and it is not a place. To become "infinite" is the mathematical idiom we use to describe a property of the values of a variable. It is the following.

DEFINITION 4. "becomes infinite." We say that a variable "becomes infinite" if, beginning with a certain term of a sequence of its values, the absolute value of that term and any subsequent term we might name is greater than any positive number we might name, however large.

The italics are mine.

"Any positive number we might name" is a number. Infinity is not a number. Math deals with numbers, but for some reason they use the term "become infinite" when they deal with real big numbers.
Nothing wrong with that, except...

If you mix the two "infinites", you get nonsense.

[klypp]

Jaja, I´m not sure where you want to go...

This I can say. A person, a body, a particle are all finites. We make definitions in order to differentiate between these objects. A person do seize to exist at some point, even though his constituents remain in some form. The churchyard oaks are not persons.
And no, I don't think protons, neutrons or electrons are infinite.

Now, there might be some secret message in the notes to Blavatsky´s book. I couldn´t find it.
Please tell me, what are you getting at?

[JaJa]

Jaja, I´m not sure where you want to go...

Why is it assumed that I have an agenda or that I have to be getting at something?

And no, I don't think protons, neutrons or electrons are infinite.

Great, what happens to them when their lifespan ends, do you think? Is there any point studying energy/matter conservation, seems like a bit of a waste of time now?

Now, there might be some secret message in the notes to Blavatsky´s book. I couldn´t find it

A secret message wouldn't be very secret if it could be found now would it.

[klypp]

Great, what happens to them when their lifespan ends, do you think? Is there any point studying energy/matter conservation, seems like a bit of a waste of time now?

Ah, so that's what you meant! Do protons, neutrons or electrons live forever?

What i think is this. Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. They can however be transformed. And since everything else in the universe seems to be constantly changing, I'd suspect these bastards to be subject to change as well.

Whether they are or not - wouldn't studying energy/matter conservation be worthwhile in any case?

[The Great Dog]

As mentioned, there's a big difference between infinity and a large number. You can always add "one" to a large number, but infinity plus one is still infinity.

The hotel Infinity is full. One night, infinite Shriners show up needing rooms. What does the clerk do? He simply moves all the guests into the even numbered rooms, since the set of even numbers is infinite. The infinite Shriners can then occupy the infinite set of odd numbered rooms.

The clerk can do that as often as needed: every fourth numbered room, every 1200th numbered room, etc. The hotel Infinity can always be full, yet accomodate infinite new guests.

[JaJa]

Ah, so that's what you meant! Do protons, neutrons or electrons live forever

Well, actually, I asked you're views on whether protons, electrons, and neutrons could be regarded as infinite (perhaps I should have said eternal) and you said no... although you are happy enough, it seems, with the conservation law which states they cannot be created or destroyed.

They can however be transformed

If "A" transforms into "B" would you say "B" is completely original or that "B" is simply "A" in an altered state?

Whether they are or not - wouldn't studying energy/matter conservation be worthwhile in any case?

Well, if protons, neutrons and electrons can be created and destroyed, i.e. they are finite, then there would be no conservation law, so no, study wouldn't be worthwhile.

[klypp]

First, I said that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. I also said that everything in the universe is constantly changing. Motion, evolution, change seems to be a fundamental property of the universe.
This means that matter can be transformed into other kinds of matter. Energy can be transformed into other kinds of energy. In neither case is energy/matter destroyed or created.

The electricity fed into your computer may come from a nuclear power plant. If you know this, it might be meaningful to say that your electricity is “transformed nuclear energy”. But there is no way you can tell apart this electricity from electricity produced by a water turbine. The two “electricities” are exactly the same.
Helium can be a product of hydrogen fusion, but nearly all helium on earth comes from radioactive decay, mostly from uranium and thorium. So what is it? Transformed uranium or transformed thorium? Can you tell them apart?

A conservation law does not prohibit change. On the contrary, change is precisely what conservation laws are about! The American Heritage Science Dictionary has this definition of conservation law: “Any of various principles, such as the conservation of charge and the conservation of energy, that require some measurable property of a closed system to remain constant as the system changes”.

“As the system changes” - and this goes for the universal conservation law I believe we’re discussing here as well. Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, only transformed.
Hydrogen fusion results in destruction of hydrogen and creation of helium. But no matter has been destroyed or created - matter has only been transformed.

Hydrogen and helium can come into existence and disappear. They have a lifespan. They belong to the elements. A name given because they were once believed to be just that - elementary. We now know they are not. The same goes for neutrons, protons and electrons. Most physicists no longer believe they are elementary. They have a lifespan.

[JaJa]

First, I said [...]

The electricity fed into your computer [...]

A conservation law does not prohibit change [...]

Wow did I say that... anyway...

Hydrogen and helium can come into existence and disappear. They have a lifespan.

The fact that so-called elementary particles re-arrange into something else does not mean they come into and disappear out of existence, that's just a play on words. The elementary parts remain unchanged, they are just organised differently. Hence matter remains constant... or if you like, infinite, eternal, forever, never ending, perpetual etc etc.

They belong to the elements. A name given because they were once believed to be just that - elementary. We now know they are not. The same goes for neutrons, protons and electrons. Most physicists no longer believe they are elementary. They have a lifespan.

Thank you for the 1st grade style lecture but I'm not sure what the statement most physicists no longer believe they are elementary is supposed to mean. Have they been shown not to be elementary because we all know where we end up when we listen to physicists and their wacky beliefs... besides, will smashing elementary particles together reveal new elementary particles... or are we simply seeing fractalized pieces of the same never-ending bits of matter at whatever scale technology allows us to smash and see.

[klypp]

Hydrogen and helium can come into existence and disappear. They have a lifespan.

The fact that so-called elementary particles re-arrange into something else does not mean they come into and disappear out of existence, that's just a play on words.

Read this again. I did not say that elementary particles came into and disappeared out of existence. I said that hydrogen disappeared and helium came into existence. Is that just a play on words?

besides, will smashing elementary particles together reveal new elementary particles... or are we simply seeing fractalized pieces of the same never-ending bits of matter at whatever scale technology allows us to smash and see.

If CERN is correct about smashing protons to pieces, then a proton is not an elementary particle. An elementary particle cannot be fractalized - by definition.
"never-ending bits of matter"??? If matter consists of elementary particles, it ends there. There is nothing more elementary.

The elementary parts remain unchanged, they are just organised differently. Hence matter remains constant.

Right! An elementary particle cannot change. It can reorganize, rearrange, recombine... but the elementary particle itself cannot change. It does not have a lifespan. It is eternal.

Why do you think such particles exist? If everything they combine into is observed to change, why aren’t the particles themselves subject to change? Isn’t this just as much a “wacky belief” as the beliefs of most particle physicists?

You're an empiricist. Give me one empirical example of an material object without a lifespan.
Until you do, I'll stick with a philosophy saying that matter is eternal, but every one of its appearances can be shown to have a lifespan. Change is universal.

[JaJa]

Read this again. I did not say that elementary particles came into and disappeared out of existence

Please read what I write instead of reading into what you think I am writing and we could avoid this unnecessary gamesmanship. Hydrogen and Helium are atomic structures. To say atomic structures come into existence and disappear when they are constructed from parts that are always there is misleading.

If CERN is correct about smashing protons to pieces, then a proton is not an elementary particle

Elementary is a word which underscores the limitation of human technology. If you smash particles together at a scale technology allows and you continuously discover new particles then you get never-ending bits of matter.

If everything they combine into is observed to change, why aren’t the particles themselves subject to change? Isn’t this just as much a “wacky belief” as the beliefs of most particle physicists?

You need to clarify what you mean by change because change that is defined by particles bonding with other particles is not the same as saying change to matter/mass.

You're an empiricist. Give me one empirical example of an material object without a lifespan. Until you do, I'll stick with a philosophy saying that matter is eternal, but every one of its appearances can be shown to have a lifespan. Change is universal.

I have debated the definition of empirical with you on another thread but that doesn’t make me an empiricist. Your challenge for a material example is like asking me to demonstrate what mass is. This isn’t an uprising against your philosophy believe it or not. I agree with the above.

There is a logical rule saying that the infinite can not become finite and vice versa

And so we return to the original point that has been lost in unnecessary hubris. Given what we know about the nature of matter and energy isn’t it fair to say that matter, which has no finite or measurable limit, is infinite by definition. Ergo, infinite matter that organises into finite structures is an example of infinite becoming finite albeit in appearance.

[webolife]

Klypp and JaJa,
You seem to be speaking of two sides of the same coin... here's my take: matter and mass are thus far physically undefineable terms... we can observe the behavior of matter, and measure mass mathematically, all the while recognizing that mass is not matter, nor matter mass. If we define matter as a structure, then we are left with the question of elementary particles composing that structure, or with the geometry of the structure... which is it? Is "matter" the particles, or the geometry of the structure/system? (Either) Does "mass" count particles, or describe geometric symmetries? (Both) Do conservation laws declare the eternity of matter, or the constant change of material structures? (Either) Does "infinity" connote or imply no beginning or end, or is it possible that matter and energy have distinct endpoints, analogous to the "infinite" real numbers found between zero and one? (Both mathematically sound) Physically these terms have no clear definition, so the argument is philosophical rather than physics.