The Significance of infinity

[NeoFighter5]

@ ML: hmmm. . .true, humans do find it hard to believe our existance ends so quickly. . .we are basically a blink of the eye. . .one moment where around, and next where not. . .the only trace we leave that we ever existed are our remnants. . .kids. . .as Alphonse de Lamartine said: "Limited in his nature, infinite in his desire, man is a fallen god who remembers heaven". . . .we have seen it, we have been there, and are ultimately denied the opportunity to reach it. . .

@ MF: i have this way of thinking, that He planned it all along. . .assuming you believe in the bible. . .why did He put the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden?. . .if all powerful, i dare assume that He can see the future. . .he knew what would happen with adan and eve, he knew that satan would rebelled(?). . .why allowed it?. . .are we just rats in an experiment to see what happens when we are left to our own devices?. . .has He already created other races, perfect races, and continues to observe us and yet do nothing?. . .

. . .haha, forget my nonsense. . .i get carried away sometimes. . .

[Zotar]

The meaning of life is to live and learn in my opinion. Another philosophy that i've almost adopted is, All of this has happened before, and will happen again.

Like Einstien's theory of infinity. The symbol he used was a figure 8, a cycle that over-lapps at a point and then reapeats. Other People think of a mobia-strip, A three dimentional form with Only one side. when ever you draw a line along the axis of the strip, It goes right around running parralell to itself every cycle. Parrelel time-lines, yet reapeating time-lines and really the same cycle.

Everything that has happened has already happened, and will happen again. Thats infinity in a nutshell according to Einstien. A beginning always merits an end, yet every end is a beginning. Creation merits destruction, destruction leaves opportunity, Opportunity allows Creation.

Ponder that a while. As God has no true beginning and no true end, so does time.

I have another thing to add. In a figure 8 there is a cross over. perhaps that is a time of revelation, or prophecy, A time when fate is revealed AND decided AND Fullfilled all at once but at different points in the cycle. Just speculation.

[JET73L]

[quote=NeoFighter5]@ ML: hmmm. . .true, humans do find it hard to believe our existance ends so quickly. . .we are basically a blink of the eye. . .one moment where around, and next where not. . .the only trace we leave that we ever existed are our remnants. . .kids. . .
[quote]
Actually, at least several different religioons and a number of philosophical ideas believe that a person is not truly dead until... think of a person;s life as a stone being dropped in a pond, where the surface of the pond is everything living humans can percieve. The stone itself is gone in an instant, but the ripples are still there, and the belief is that one ius only completely dead when the ripplesare compll,etely gone. In a pond, this can happen eventually, the kinetic energy being dispersed through the air and the mud at the sides and bottom of the pond, eventually leaving the water completely, but in the flip side of the coin, to mix a metaphor, the life side as opposed to the pond side, the ripples buildc upon each other, a poersons descendandts and projects and history building until theobnly way for one to have completely died out is for all the water in the pond to have completely ddried up, for alll traces of humanity toi have been c ompletely extinguished (which, on a matter/energy scale, shall only be when the entirety of existence ceases, and all matter has dissolved to pure energy), and even then the "soul" (word chosen for ease of explanation) may live on. This is true philosophic infinity.

[Terminal Est]

Somebody get my sister over here! Est, you're needed!

What am I to say? I would get burned at the stake alongside with you.

While time itself may be measured through means otherwise countering the general definition that we have given it, whether or not science is correct that all must end, infinity as we perceive it certainly is spiritual masturbation, and even the latter has to end eventually. XD

I think mankind understands more then it realizes, otherwise, to this day, why would we still live with such unfeasible ideas as infinity and eternity? These only serve to psychologically counter what we interiorly know, dread and deny. And even if it were to be real, it does not mean that we are a part of it, but how else are we going to sell mini guillotines to rich aristocrats?
The way the human psyche works however, or as I understand it, will always come with such conclusions and ideas...they are a part of us, and a significant one in order to live through life, therefore, the human nature which has helped to create these illusions more then suggests that it can never be real.

A moebius crest is technically infinite, but does it end once you cease to trace its physical image with your finger, or did it never start and will never end because it is attached and is merely ''there''? The point is that while we are not always cognizant of much of anything and all the big questions, most of the answers that we attribute to such are often shields, even philosophy has its flashy quotes used to appease what it suggests, depending.

You are not wrong at all. If Hell exists and you go there for suggesting this, fear not, it will come to an end eventually. XD

Like death...is it infinite, or is it nothing at all? Nothing is only defined by the lack of anything, therefore making it something, and it is not ''death'' if you go to a promised land or go through spiritual transition to ''live forever''...oops, off track. XD

[Morgana]

See the problem with that is that, we, as humans, can no more disprove that than we can prove it. So death may happen forver without anyone realizing it.


however, there's more to it than that, I think.


Hah, witch jokes, that's great. MY...great-something grandmother was from Avalon.

[Terminal Est]

My ancestors were merely a bunch of farmers who revolted against their government...but GUILLOTINES, ha ha.

No, there is nothing of this nature we can prove or disprove, however with things such as these which hold next to no substantional matter as aside from our opinions and the ideas behind and after them, how can we ever even be sure that such things are even real and not a product of our awareness? Some things cannot be pinpointed, however I do not believe that mankind looks in the right place. After all, philosophy is merely the word we used before we knew what psychology was...still, that does not make it any more real.

Granted though, everything, even ghosts, so to speak, must have a root somewhere.

[MidgarFanatic]

Originally Posted by Terminal Est

My ancestors were merely a bunch of farmers who revolted against their government...but GUILLOTINES, ha ha.

That does not sound so bad, my ancestors were just a bunch of Vikings who came to North America and raped and pillaged. Ahhh, good times.

Originally Posted by Morgana

See the problem with that is that, we, as humans, can no more disprove that than we can prove it. So death may happen forver without anyone realizing it.

And we probably never will… unless we find a way of bringing people back from the dead for first hand accounts. But then we would have to deal with that whole “muuuussst eeeat braaaaiiiiins” nonsense. I think we are much better off with a little bit of the unknown; it does keep things interesting after all. XD

It is like other fields of study that can be just as uncertain. Like history for example. How do we REALLY know that man invented the wheel, or that the Crusades actually happened, or that Fleming discovered antibiodics by accident, especially since there is no one from these days who can give us a first hand account. We believe they happened because of oral histories and written texts, which of course are all subject to alterations, eliminations, and interpretations. So why not science as well? There are widely popular beliefs as to things that have happened, but nothing is 100% certain. Perhaps I am just thinking too much into this.

But I do not know anymore than the next person if there is a Hell (or any kind of afterlife for that matter) or not, but, honestly, I do not really care if there is or not, as it is really something I have no control over. If there is then I’ll be happy to see it; if there isn’t, then who cares… I'm DEAD! But as macabre as it may seem, I tend to lean towards the latter.

Originally Posted by Terminal Est

A moebius crest is technically infinite, but does it end once you cease to trace its physical image with your finger, or did it never start and will never end because it is attached and is merely ''there''?

This reminds me of the Ouroborus symbol, that of a serpent swallowing it’s own tail, and forming a never ending cycle. A fascinating and ancient symbol indeed and proves that ideas such as these which we are discussing have been around at least as long as the earliest philosophers. Although we do not “usually” use such analogies anymore to express our interpretations on such ideas, it still makes for interesting visual brain vomit.

As for “infinity”, well, there have been some impressive ideas of what is really going on here on this forum, but I just really don’t know. But I do know that it is all about context, as it depends on what you are speaking of. I’m sure both zealots and scientists can agree that there is an infinite end to many incorporeal things, such as the infinite limits to mathematics. So I suppose, at least in this respect, infinity does exist in some form.

But whether there is an infinite limit to that which we can touch and manipulate, or one day hope to, I suppose we will just have to wait and see, until we one day fly our spaceships into that wall at the end of the universe.

[Terminal Est]

So I suppose, at least in this respect, infinity does exist in some form.

Indeed, but the problem lies in that our human minds attempt to define something that is not human. I agree with the context in which we put everything, it is just hard for me to accept the supposed definition of something non human when it stems from our reasoning only, which in my opinion is flawed because we are ''making it up'' based on what we universally feel. The only thing that helps me define is the lack of definition to begin with, because what we give it comes from ourselves and not from the source of what may, or may not, exist.

People may not like the fact that bears can attack people and kill them, but we know it to be true either way, for example.

It is like other fields of study that can be just as uncertain. Like history for example. How do we REALLY know that man invented the wheel, or that the Crusades actually happened, or that Fleming discovered antibiodics by accident, especially since there is no one from these days who can give us a first hand account. We believe they happened because of oral histories and written texts, which of course are all subject to alterations, eliminations, and interpretations. So why not science as well? There are widely popular beliefs as to things that have happened, but nothing is 100% certain. Perhaps I am just thinking too much into this.

I understand this, but things such as history are things we know have existed, or something similar to what we believe has occurred. We have some leads, while as to God or infinity, we have nothing, aside perhaps in the matter of emotional reasoning. If we find a dinosaur skeleton, we know it used to be real at least, even if we know not its colour, when exactly it lived or what it might have fed upon.

This reminds me of the Ouroborus symbol, that of a serpent swallowing it’s own tail, and forming a never ending cycle. A fascinating and ancient symbol indeed and proves that ideas such as these which we are discussing have been around at least as long as the earliest philosophers. Although we do not “usually” use such analogies anymore to express our interpretations on such ideas, it still makes for interesting visual brain vomit.

Is it not ironic then, that history, as we have just spoken of, is not entirely sure of the origin of the Ouroborus symbol?
I always loved it though, it can mean so many things, and certainly has tie ins with the concept of infinity. We are certainly not the first to wonder of it. But even if its idea has been around for so long, it still seems so unfeasible to me as opposed to what we make of it.

Or perhaps I am thinking too much on it as well.

That does not sound so bad, my ancestors were just a bunch of Vikings who came to North America and raped and pillaged. Ahhh, good times.

And you have had your asses handed to you by Indians! Oh well, my ass was handed to me by just about everyone. XD

But...

...GUILLOTINES.

[MidgarFanatic]

Originally Posted by MidgarFanatic

I’m sure both zealots and scientists can agree that there is an infinite end to many incorporeal things, such as the infinite limits to mathematics. So I suppose, at least in this respect, infinity does exist in some form.

I wish to contradict myself for a moment if I may. I was looking through some old school work of mine and came across a mathematical theory which is somewhat pertinent to this discussion, as it is connected to the idea of infinity.

I mentioned the infinite limits to mathematics... what I was thinking of at the time was something like adding integers (e.g. 1+1=2+1=3+1=4+1=5+1=6 etc. forever), and of course this can also be done with subtraction, multiplication, and dividing as well, amongst other more complicated mathematical functions, such as ratios and exponents. And I am sure that few would argue with me on this... but there is another theory...

This is difficult to explain, so I will do my best... Imagine a runner making a trip around a 100-meter track. Eventually, he will get half way to the end, which will be at the 50-meter point. From the 50-meter point, he will be half way to the end at the 75-meter point. After that he will be half way to the end from the 75-meter point at 87.5 meters, and so on and so forth. Now if mathematics in fact have no limits, then you should be able to divide his trip to the finish line in half an infinite number of times and, as a result, he should never be able to cross the end, because he will always be half way there. However, as we know, he will eventually make the 100-meter journey to the finish. How is this possible?

It is a bit to wrap one's brain around, but does this make any sense? Perhaps even mathematics has it's limits.

[JET73L]

The thing is, people don;t stop at every halfway mark, they're just theoretically measured at every halfway mark. At the point where the halfway marks are so compacted that they can;t be measured before the person passes to the next point, the process becomes irrelevant, and the person passes over the finish line anyway. It's like acchiles and the tortoise. The tortoise gets a head start of, say, 10 meters. By the time acchiles runs 10 meters, the tortoise has gone, say, 1 meter. Achilles runs another meter, and the tortoise has moved 10 cm (fast tortoise. Or long legs. like a galpagos tortoise. I always thought of box turtles). sol he runs another 10 cm, and the tortoise has moved 1 cm (assuming that achilles has an equal meter per second speed at each part of his stride). Here's the tricky part: If achilles' task is to catch up to the tortoise, he can;t do it, because if he trid, he would kjust kick the tortoise out of the way. BUT, and here's the catch, since the task is usually to beat the tortoise in a race, all he has to do is pass the tortoise. It takes him maybe 1/4 second to run around it, or jump over it (more if iot's a galapagos tortoise), but he's passed the tortoise, so if he has enough stamina to keep ahead of the tortoise befor ethey reach the finish line, he's done it.

THis is the problem with people trying to assign a literal meaning to a figuratice example. Like Schrodingers' Cat. He never put a cat in a box for an hour with a cyanide capsule linked to a radioactive isotope with a half life of 1 hour. He made up such an example to show how stupid he thought it was for people to assume that quantum mechanics apply on a macroscopic level.