# Does infinity exist in real world?

#### sushi

##### Prolific Member
examples of infinity (or things that seem infinite) in real world:

time
energy
very large numbers (such as number of atoms or galaxies)
Pi or mathematics
immortality (without death)

the basis of infinity sets is that if you keep adding 1 (number), things would progess to infinity.Nevertheless, if you stop adding 1, infinity will end, making infinity null.

the question is , can you keep adding one to something in the real world (or increase indefinitely)?

I want to know the arguements for and against actual infinity. thoughts?

#### ryuzaki1

##### lonely observer of time
Re: Does nfinity exist in real world?

infinity is not the continuation of a constantly increasing number neccesarily. we recycle lots of materials in the 21st century and as long as we dont reduce them to useless rubble or ashes as some people do and dont use more than can be produced by refining and recycling combined then you could consider it infinite. as it simply never runs out.

but of course, just as it sounds, it is human made. not something nature provides us with naturally. you could call any form of matter that can reproduce itself enough to never run out infinite. but we have yet to find such a thing really. for now, all we know, everything seems finite.

#### Haim

##### Worlds creator
Re: Does nfinity exist in real world?

It is a sort of function or variable,it can represent many numbers,but is not a number itself.
like y=x+1,"y=x+1" does not "exists",outside our brain,asking if y=7(where x=6) exists is not asking if "y=x+1" exists.

#### Inquisitor

##### Well-Known Member
If space and time are actually one and the same, then beyond the boundaries of space, time does not exist, hence time is finite. But what happened before the Big Bang? Can we count the "moments" before the Big Bang as time when space did not yet exist? Does time exist independent of space? What happens if the universe contracts? does time cease to exist where there is zero matter/energy?

#### computerhxr

##### Village Idiot
This is what confuses me.

You can divide a number an infinite number of times, creating infinitely smaller numbers. So between 0 and 1, there are infinite pieces, right? Also, between 1 and 2, there are an equal number of pieces. How many pieces between 0 and 2? In that sense, I imagine that infinity is fractal making everything infinite. So when we discover everything inside atoms, we will eventually discover smaller parts, and then smaller, and so on, indefinitely. The same goes for looking out into space-time, it's never ending but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a defined edge or limit. I guess the speed of light is the defined edge of our relative existence.

I assume we live in this fractal reality.

#### Gather_Wanderer

##### Space Jokes.
This is what confuses me.

You can divide a number an infinite number of times, creating infinitely smaller numbers. So between 0 and 1, there are infinite pieces, right? Also, between 1 and 2, there are an equal number of pieces. How many pieces between 0 and 2? In that sense, I imagine that infinity is fractal making everything infinite. So when we discover everything inside atoms, we will eventually discover smaller parts, and then smaller, and so on, indefinitely. The same goes for looking out into space-time, it's never ending but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a defined edge or limit. I guess the speed of light is the defined edge of our relative existence.

I assume we live in this fractal reality.

That is an infinitesimal.

I don't see a reason why there would be any lower or upper bounds on the universe. I think one day we'll find out that the universe has always (more or less) been here, simply changing form. And that its 10^26m observable size is only a marble in an abyss.

I also don't believe there is an absolute vacuum or nothingness. I don't think there's any kind of vacuum at all anywhere to be honest. Energy must have a medium (and a reference point in order for us to make sense of it). String theorists for the last few decades have basically been knocking on the door of observational limits (well, that's exactly what they been doing) and finding out there might be more behind our reality, and it might be somehow relevant to how our world works but unfortunately we can't physically go there.

#### computerhxr

##### Village Idiot
I also don't believe there is an absolute vacuum or nothingness. I don't think there's any kind of vacuum at all anywhere to be honest. Energy must have a medium (and a reference point in order for us to make sense of it). String theorists for the last few decades have basically been knocking on the door of observational limits (well, that's exactly what they been doing) and finding out there might be more behind our reality, and it might be somehow relevant to how our world works but unfortunately we can't physically go there.

Good point! Nothingness is another form of something. I imagine that the universe is still a singularity. Everything else is just a vibration from the irrationality of existence itself. So infinite would also be signular. Everything exists, even ideas that haven't been thought of yet. Take DNA for example, it can be combined to create different species if we understood it. So do they exist because they are possible, and all the materials already exist for them?

That's why 0 and infinity are so special. The both exist in reality and conceptually. Do we even exist or are we just an image created by this irrationality.

That is an infinitesimal.

I don't see a reason why there would be any lower or upper bounds on the universe. I think one day we'll find out that the universe has always (more or less) been here, simply changing form. And that its 10^26m observable size is only a marble in an abyss.

Light is the perception of bounds. Which is why blackholes are difficult to understand. Eisenstein didn't think they were real but he theorized about them, right? The reason that he doesn't think that they are real is probably because it's a shift in reality. A shift in reality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that it exists outside of out perceivable reality. Black holes don't "really" exist, they are just giant balls of matter. They aren't holes at all really.

It would take infinity to reach zero. Zero is an anchor in reality that everything else is bound to and the same with infinity.

Also, I think it does affect reality. But it affects it so slowly, that we can't measure it with all of the space-time ever to exist. One tick of time from would be infinite ticks in time from our perception.

#### Animekitty

##### baby marshmallow born today
The distance between you and any object is space is finite but the distance between you and the edge of space is boundless. Space has no boundaries just like fantasia in the movie the neverending story. Existence as Nikola Tesla knew is was space wrapping into itself as a 3D vortex.

#### Gather_Wanderer

##### Space Jokes.
Good point! Nothingness is another form of something. I imagine that the universe is still a singularity. Everything else is just a vibration from the irrationality of existence itself. So infinite would also be signular. Everything exists, even ideas that haven't been thought of yet. Take DNA for example, it can be combined to create different species if we understood it. So do they exist because they are possible, and all the materials already exist for them?

That's why 0 and infinity are so special. The both exist in reality and conceptually. Do we even exist or are we just an image created by this irrationality.

Light is the perception of bounds. Which is why blackholes are difficult to understand. Eisenstein didn't think they were real but he theorized about them, right? The reason that he doesn't think that they are real is probably because it's a shift in reality. A shift in reality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that it exists outside of out perceivable reality.

It would take infinity to reach zero. Zero is an anchor in reality that everything else is bound to and the same with infinity.

Also, I think it does affect reality. But it affects it so slowly, that we can't measure it with all of the space-time ever to exist. One tick of time from would be infinite ticks in time from our perception.

That's what infinitesimals are. Things that infinitely approach zero but never get there.

As much trouble as people have with infinity and infinitesimals, if people were more careful conceptually, they'd have a lot to chew on with zero. Infinity makes a lot more sense to me by comparison. Even the universe beginning at t ^-34 seconds...
What is nothingness????!!!!!

#### sushi

##### Prolific Member
Re: Does nfinity exist in real world?

It is a sort of function or variable,it can represent many numbers,but is not a number itself.
like y=x+1,"y=x+1" does not "exists",outside our brain,asking if y=7(where x=6) exists is not asking if "y=x+1" exists.

its either a continuous or discrete set(mathematics) that runs on indefinitely.

But then is infinity possible without any increase?
(reproduction or repetition cycle is a good point, but my mind cant find any other variables)

#### Haim

##### Worlds creator
Re: Does nfinity exist in real world?

its either a continuous or discrete set(mathematics) that runs on indefinitely.

But then is infinity possible without any increase?
(reproduction or repetition cycle is a good point, but my mind cant find any other variables)
That the thing it is a function you can not add 1 to a function with a result that still make sense.
y=x
you can not add +1 to y=x because they are different things one is a number the other a function that represent any number.This is where the paradox created by the logic error the you can combine entirely different things.
what is +1 ?undefined,it is +1.
what is +? 2 (2 of the same thing).

#### Brontosaurie

##### Banned
Infinity is just oneness from a certain angle, and oneness is the sum of all that exists. So in a way, what the concept of infinity refers to is as real as it gets, but the concept itself is a perception and thus necessarily biased, fragmentary and incomplete.

#### Glaerhaidh

##### straightedgy
Infinity doesn't exist on the observable scale, it's a theoretical or otherwise inaccessible concept of measure.

You are not going to interact with an infinity in your lifetime (aside for theory, including mathematics, which is very useful). You are instead surrounded by the practical infinity that is the multitude and vastness of everything around you that makes you insignificant.

Once we enter infinity all laws of physics only offer approximations and irreducible equations.

Infinity is currently a scientific substitute for "we don't know yet".

#### _cdub

##### Redshirt
Infinity in math shouldn't be mixed with infinity in physics.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

#### TimeAsylums

##### Prolific Member
Infinity doesn't exist on the observable scale, it's a theoretical or otherwise inaccessible concept of measure.

^

we live in a finite universe, therefore infinites do not exist.

Keywords: theoretical, but even more importantly: Concept (aka, abstract, not physical existence)

#### Brontosaurie

##### Banned
very large numbers (such as number of atoms or galaxies)

This gives the clue that infinity is actually about division, not expansion. The finite is the result of our perceptual divisions. As we see that anything can be divided more and more, we know that the reality to be found beneath is simply oneness, and that is infinity. Space isn't infinitely added together. It's just there.

#### zerkalo

##### .
This gives the clue that infinity is actually about division, not expansion. The finite is the result of our perceptual divisions. As we see that anything can be divided more and more, we know that the reality to be found beneath is simply oneness, and that is infinity. Space isn't infinitely added together. It's just there.

love this post

#### Sinny91

##### Banned
Perhaps Redbaron can help us answer these questions, via the application of Natural Science.

#### Brontosaurie

##### Banned
Perhaps Redbaron can help us answer these questions, via the application of Natural Science.

Hello my name is Natural Science and i'd like to apply for this job at Mac Donalds the non-horse diner.

#### Pizzabeak

##### Banned
There's more than one infinity.
This gives the clue that infinity is actually about division, not expansion. The finite is the result of our perceptual divisions. As we see that anything can be divided more and more, we know that the reality to be found beneath is simply oneness, and that is infinity. Space isn't infinitely added together. It's just there.

This passage is just baseless philosophical wordplay. Sure it sounds deep but there's no indication whatsoever that space isn't also infinite (or finite for that matter) or that the expansion-division isn't one and the same anyway. Something is primarily stuck in a particular configuration. It's difficult for three dimensional matter to perceive anything other than what it was made to. Not exclusive to division.

#### WookieeB

##### Active Member
Answer: NO

With respects to the infinite past -
1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

In the case of beginning with some finite quantity and adding (or dividing) a finite quantity, it always equals a finite quantity. One would never arrive at infinity even if they keep on adding forever. Infinity in this case serves merely as a 'limit' which one will never attain.

#### Brontosaurie

##### Banned
This passage is just baseless philosophical wordplay. Sure it sounds deep but there's no indication whatsoever that space isn't also infinite (or finite for that matter) or that the expansion-division isn't one and the same anyway. Something is primarily stuck in a particular configuration. It's difficult for three dimensional matter to perceive anything other than what it was made to. Not exclusive to division.

Baseless philosophical wordplay? Yes. Can't disagree with that.

I didn't mean to say that space isn't infinite, but that infinity is the same thing as oneness, approached from the other end. It's like a circle having both none and infinitely many divisive angles. In the context of this thread, it means that infinity is real - not in the sense that any one thing or dimension goes on infinitely (which i would call an oxymoron), but in the sense that infinity is equivalent to oneness which is supreme reality. Infinity isn't "perhaps real, pending physics" or anything like that. It's a priori as real as it gets.

There is only one infinity because the concept precludes definitions. It can't be infinite if there's several. If there are several, they end and begin somewhere and thus aren't infinite. Still, the mathematical specialized concept of infinity is of course viable when studying a specific hypothetical variable/dimension/relationship. But when it collapses into reality, there can only be one infinity and that is all.

Not sure about the meaning of your last three sentences. Isn't division how perception compresses reality? How else could that happen? Please explain or give examples.

#### _cdub

##### Redshirt
Baseless philosophical wordplay? Yes. Can't disagree with that.

I didn't mean to say that space isn't infinite, but that infinity is the same thing as oneness, approached from the other end. It's like a circle having both none and infinitely many divisive angles. In the context of this thread, it means that infinity is real - not in the sense that any one thing or dimension goes on infinitely (which i would call an oxymoron), but in the sense that infinity is equivalent to oneness which is supreme reality. Infinity isn't "perhaps real, pending physics" or anything like that. It's a priori as real as it gets.

There is only one infinity because the concept precludes definitions. It can't be infinite if there's several. If there are several, they end and begin somewhere and thus aren't infinite. Still, the mathematical specialized concept of infinity is of course viable when studying a specific hypothetical variable/dimension/relationship. But when it collapses into reality, there can only be one infinity and that is all.

Not sure about the meaning of your last three sentences. Isn't division how perception compresses reality? How else could that happen? Please explain or give examples.

Between any two numbers is an infinite set of numbers. This is called uncountably infinite. You can say there is a max and min, but the size is infinite. Then there is the set of natural numbers. This is 1, 2, 3, 4, ... This set is is called countably infinite. The uncountable set, even though it has bounds, has a length that is larger than the countable one. It gets tricky when dealing with infinite values, but they are workable.

Finite values can even be given to infinite series. 1+2+3+4+... for example can be given a value of -1/12 (really weird stuff) through methods like zeta function regularization. So yes, there are different levels of infinity.

Saying collapses into reality is kind of ambiguous. What do you mean by this?

#### Gather_Wanderer

##### Space Jokes.
Answer: NO

With respects to the infinite past -
1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

In the case of beginning with some finite quantity and adding (or dividing) a finite quantity, it always equals a finite quantity. One would never arrive at infinity even if they keep on adding forever. Infinity in this case serves merely as a 'limit' which one will never attain.

I agree with this. Temporal series of past events is certainly NOT infinite and our 4D space-time is not infinite and probably causal.

BUT

There might be more than our 4D space-time and it could be non-causal and infinite.

I'm still trying to reconcile the finite with the infinite though. How can a finite 4D 'material' space-time exist within an infinite reality? (Reality for lack of a better description. I don't know what to call a 'space' beyond our space. Hyperspace.)

#### onesteptwostep

##### The Lance of Longinus
Infinity could exist, but I think in relation to reality we have to talk in totalities.

If we're talking about whether there's an infinite number of atoms (or quarks/leptons) in the 'universe' or existence, who knows?

If we're talking about irrational numbers, there's an infinite series of numbers (like for pi obviously), that keeps on going on and on and same with the sets of numbers between any two digits.

As for immortality the description there seems to be more subjective in nature rather than objective.

If we take the deconstructionist route, what does 'existence' or 'exist' in the phrase "Does infinity exist in the real world?" actually imply?

Or actually, what is infinity in the first place? What does it even mean when it says 'real world'? and so on.

#### 420MuNkEy

##### Banned
I think the problem here is in human thinking. We want to quantify things. It's how we conceptualize our observations and make sense out of the world.

If we arrive at infinity, it's probably a good sign that we're thinking about the thing wrong. I think it's easy to forget that numbers aren't actually real, it's just an imperfect abstraction layer we use to make sense of things.

#### sushi

##### Prolific Member
^

we live in a finite universe, therefore infinites do not exist.

Keywords: theoretical, but even more importantly: Concept (aka, abstract, not physical existence)

we don't even know if time or the universe is infinite or not. Anyway I should have polled this thread. Numbers are invented for the sake of measurement.

Infinity-somthing without end or stop (or as the sum of all that exists)

the opposite of infinity is something that has end, or zero.

the argument for time is not infinite is that since a day ends, time will end consequently as well. or since time has a beginning, it will end as well. ( or it could be possible that something that begins will never end contrary to matrix quote)

#### computerhxr

##### Village Idiot
This gives the clue that infinity is actually about division, not expansion. The finite is the result of our perceptual divisions. As we see that anything can be divided more and more, we know that the reality to be found beneath is simply oneness, and that is infinity. Space isn't infinitely added together. It's just there.

That's why I call infinity is a fractal environment. If any increment of space is infinite, and you can divide it infinite times, then that is the definition of a fractal.

A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop.

The reason I like the fractal concept of infinity is because it means we live in a fragmented reality, and we're seeing the dominant image. I don't think any timeline deviates far from what we perceive as reality, I just think most realities are almost exact copies. Even with the butterfly effect, there is a common anchor to the chaos. Even in the most chaotic environment, there are limitations to how much change one is capable of relative to another point in space-time. Like, there's very little chance I will make it to the moon in the next 10 seconds.

We each have a perceptional anchor with this fractal sensory perception. I'm talking sub-atomic perception so it's something that has little to no effect on us. The dominant perception of reality is what everything agrees to, otherwise it will disrupt space-time. Everything has a cause and effect (naturally).

With the double slit experiment, we observe something that appears to go back into time in-order to adjust for observation. So intuition itself is a fractal sense. We can see slightly into the future and adjust early.

I really don't think that there is a billion copies of myself all with totally different realities. They all are drawn to a singular anchor. There are limits to infinite values, which causes a deviation (fracture) in what we rationalize as a linear dimensions.

In short, it's infinite but we can measure and perceive it because we are made up of a bunch of infinite atomic and subatomic parts. It has no end, but that doesn't mean you can't measure infinity. Unless of course I'm wrong and atoms aren't infinitely small inside.

The only thing about fractals is that you can't see the smallest edge ever. It takes time to traverse the layers giving yourself more fidelity in your abstract perception of different space-time dimensions.

Plus, there are lots of things in nature that are fractal. The golden ratio for example. This would support a mirrored reality where nature is reflective of the basic fractal rules of the universe.

#### sushi

##### Prolific Member
That's why I call infinity is a fractal environment. If any increment of space is infinite, and you can divide it infinite times, then that is the definition of a fractal.

The reason I like the fractal concept of infinity is because it means we live in a fragmented reality, and we're seeing the dominant image. I don't think any timeline deviates far from what we perceive as reality, I just think most realities are almost exact copies. Even with the butterfly effect, there is a common anchor to the chaos. Even in the most chaotic environment, there are limitations to how much change one is capable of relative to another point in space-time. Like, there's very little chance I will make it to the moon in the next 10 seconds.

We each have a perceptional anchor with this fractal sensory perception. I'm talking sub-atomic perception so it's something that has little to no effect on us. The dominant perception of reality is what everything agrees to, otherwise it will disrupt space-time. Everything has a cause and effect (naturally).

With the double slit experiment, we observe something that appears to go back into time in-order to adjust for observation. So intuition itself is a fractal sense. We can see slightly into the future and adjust early.

I really don't think that there is a billion copies of myself all with totally different realities. They all are drawn to a singular anchor. There are limits to infinite values, which causes a deviation (fracture) in what we rationalize as a linear dimensions.

In short, it's infinite but we can measure and perceive it because we are made up of a bunch of infinite atomic and subatomic parts. It has no end, but that doesn't mean you can't measure infinity. Unless of course I'm wrong and atoms aren't infinitely small inside.

The only thing about fractals is that you can't see the smallest edge ever. It takes time to traverse the layers giving yourself more fidelity in your abstract perception of different space-time dimensions.

Plus, there are lots of things in nature that are fractal. The golden ratio for example. This would support a mirrored reality where nature is reflective of the basic fractal rules of the universe.

I think you have a point, but we haven't invented instruments that can see things in planck or very small scale. They say the smallest scale is a string (string theory), and that is yet to be verified......

there is also the theory that space can be divided into smallest discrete quantas or units, as well as time(chronon)

Or the fact that space time can be like points on a cordinate field or (time)line, there coulbe no such thing as point infinity (or maybe the field is infinite...)

If we take the deconstructionist route, what does 'existence' or 'exist' in the phrase "Does infinity exist in the real world?" actually imply?

Or actually, what is infinity in the first place? What does it even mean when it says 'real world'? and so on.

not on paper, as a mathematical construct, but rather in our tangible reality/universe and in nature.

#### Wilford77

##### Banned
Its difficulty in trying to solve some of the abstract questions related to infinity is that these problems fall beyond the more established mathematical theories