Infinity -just maths or any physical existence?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of infinity, questioning whether it has a real physical existence or is merely a mathematical construct. Participants explore various aspects of infinity, including its implications in physics, mathematics, and philosophical interpretations, without reaching a consensus on its nature or existence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that while infinity may not manifest as a physically eternal quantity, the universe itself could be infinite in size.
  • Others argue that singularities in physics, such as those found in black holes, represent mathematical infinities that may not correspond to physical realities.
  • A participant questions the paradoxical nature of infinity as a mathematical object, suggesting it is counter-intuitive but not paradoxical.
  • There are discussions about different types of infinities, including potential and actual infinities, as distinguished by Aristotle.
  • Some participants assert that physical models often contain infinities, but whether these are "real" remains an open question.
  • There is a debate about whether mathematical concepts need to have real-world occurrences, with some participants disagreeing with this notion.
  • The concept of experiencing infinity through reflections in mirrors is discussed, with differing opinions on its validity and implications.
  • Participants engage in a nuanced discussion about the distinction between compatibility of observations with singularities and the actual demonstration of their existence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of infinity, with no clear consensus reached regarding its physical existence or the implications of mathematical infinities in the real world.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved definitions of "true infinity" and the dependence on interpretations of mathematical and physical concepts. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives without definitive conclusions.

  • #31
arildno said:
Well.
Isn't it a distinction between a) finding results compatible with an existing singularity, and indeed derivable from regarding it as existent and b) To show the singularity's existence?

TrickyDicky said:
Yes, and it's a clear distinction in science.
Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
AlephZero said:
Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.

This reminds me on Copenhagen's school. How can I know that results of the data prove that you (or anyone else) exist behind the computer...
We all know we all exist, but according to Copenhagen's school this is not the case because I'm not observing you and you're not observing-so how can you know I exist behind your computer, and how can I know that you exist behind my computer.
Obviously there is something wrong with this hypothesis, or it needs to be extended, because despite all the experiments show, Moon (and everything else) does exist even when none is observing it.
 
  • #33
AlephZero said:
Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.

No, first please explain how making the distinction quoted in my post contradicts in any way what you write above.

If the first part of your first sentence refers to a) and the second refers to b), the distinction just points out that b) is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for a).
 
Last edited:
  • #34
AlephZero said:
Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".

The map is not the territory.

Well, b) implies a) but generally a) is all we can do :-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
9K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K