TED Conversations

Mark Southerland

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Infinity exists regardless of mankind's ability to conceptualize it.

Thought experiment:

Let's say we figuratively put everything in existence into a box. In order for that box to take shape as a 6 sided construct, we have essentially created boundaries to what is inside the box and what is outside the box.

What is outside the box is the continuation of infinity whether it be infinite solid, space or matter interspersed with space.

Infinity therefore cannot be bounded and cannot be measured. No limit exists as well as no point of origin. Infinity has always been infinite.

Now due to the universal truth that is infinity and I say that to mean that we can always trust infinity to be the quality of infinite, we can then know that infinity is a quality that can be applicable to an infinite number of qualities.

Infinitely large
Infinitely small
Infinite time
Infinite space
Infinite matter
Infinite levels of intelligence or life forms
Infinite forms of energy
On and on because infinity has room for everything.

Infinity has its concept and function in mathematics, but I think infinity proves itself to exist in the physical realm as well.

If infinity is limited, then educate me on the word that is that which is beyond infinity. If this is so, then our definition of infinity is incorrect.

Thank you

Topics: Infinity
+5
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 6 2013: I was curious if anyone had any thoughts on this idea? Does infinity,assuming it exists, exist in it entirety right now; or is it growing infinitely large?Growing at the speed of light? Faster?
    My guess is that it exists whole somehow. But doesn't that somehow imply a "container"?
    • thumb
      May 6 2013: While I feel that we lack sufficient knowledge and understanding of "infinity" to model it with any reasonable accuracy, there's definitely no harm in speculating. I would postulate that infinity cannot be easily defined (or bounded) in terms of any of the usual constraints that our human brains are capable of processing (time, spatial dimensions, etc). That being said, I intuitively share your opinion that infinity already exists wholly - at least as we understand it. The speed of light (or even anything that's faster, but measurable) seems far too finite a limit for that which is infinite. However, I have very little confidence in the validity of my conjecture.
      • May 7 2013: Thank you for assuring me Im not mad. So the absurdity of this whole thing is that it exists whole but has no boundaries....I don,t think our minds bend that way....
        • thumb
          May 7 2013: Indeed not. As computationally impressive as our brains can be within the scope of our own world, they are designed to process structure and consistency. It's entirely possible that infinity has "boundaries", but not boundaries that can be defined in terms of any parameters our minds are physically capable of understanding and thus, for our own purposes, infinity may as well be limitless.
      • thumb
        May 7 2013: Hi Stephen and Jacqueline, as you say, "infinity already exists wholly" and also that thinking within the box of time and space there is no way we can 'picture' it.

        There is this book I highly recommend
        http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/documents/DLW.pdf

        We are spirits in a body, and if we limit our thought to that body, we're not going to get anywhere.

        This is part of what it says regarding that on page 1,
        "The reason so many people do not grasp this is that they love what is earthly and are therefore reluctant to lift their thinking above it into spiritual light. People who are reluctant can think only spatially, even about God; and thinking spatially about God is thinking about the extended size of nature.
        This premise is necessary because without a knowledge and some sense that Divinity is not in space, we cannot understand anything about the divine life that is love and wisdom, which are our present topic. This means there can be little if any understanding of divine providence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, infinity, and eternity, which are to be dealt with in sequence."
        And then it goes on..
        Edited, I hope it looks better now :)
        • thumb
          May 7 2013: Adriaan, you make good points. Thank you for sharing the link, I will take a look.
        • May 7 2013: Hi Adriaan. The reason i don't accept "divine" interpretations is because of lines like "there can be little understanding of divine providence...and we cannot understand anything about the divine life..."ect.
          I, a born iconoclast,has to ask, who is it that understands this and so gets to claim i don't..
          The answer is a man with a pen.
          My premise is that we can.t know, yours is that you already do.
          My answer is you do not.
          But i respect your right to be wrong.
      • thumb
        May 7 2013: Sorry to hear you were born that way Stephen :)

        However, I think we are saying the very same thing.

        "My premise is that we can.t know, yours is that you already do."
        No, I'm also saying we can't know, because it is not in our realm. All this discussing the size and place of infinity is not going anywhere for the 'simple' reason that we don't know.
        • May 7 2013: I'm sorry i was born that way too Adriaan. Life is easier as a follower.

          I'm glad we agree on what
          is unknowable.
      • thumb
        May 13 2013: 0 = = the null set; there is nothing in it

        ∞ = the set of everything or the set of all sets.

        (But What are these! Wikipedia has no clue!)

        ⧜ = incomplete infinity


        ⧝ = tie over infinity

        ⧞ = infinity negated with a vertical bar

        They all (3) have UTF-8 codes; so they have to be important. Some mathematician had to think them up so they must be significant!
    • thumb
      May 12 2013: Yes, you are correct. It does imply a container. The previous post about a circle is curious. We can have infinite points on a circle but we feel a type of closuer with the idea it is not really an infinite number of points.

      When you graph 1/x, we know that x cannot equal zero but we can get as close to zero as we want, right up next to it if we like. So we have a line that the function implies never touches the x axis, yet continues to exist on and on into an infinity of smaller and smaller numbers.

      Crazy....

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.