What is (the nature of) infinity?

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,132
3,930
Considering that this is the philosophy board, it is rather strange to assume that every philosopher knows the details of such matters.

I have no idea, as I don't speak that language. Please provide a theoretical account, in English, of how infinity occurs in the real world.
I don't have too. Even when this is a philosophy subforum, the issue of PHYSICS was invoked. When one claims that "... infinite results in physics are considered as meaningless and useless as paradoxical results..", then it is a valid response to cite EXACT examples of where such a claim is false. I have produced just a few of these examples in which such singularities are not only part of the theory and description of these real-world phenomena, but also have been detected. It is a physics issue, and there's no dumbing it down. It makes zero sense to me to make claims about something that one has no knowledge of in the first place.

Please note that this is still a "Physics Forums" and unlike other other public forums, there are professional physicists, mathematicians, etc. on here. So if anyone tries to strengthen his/her arguments by invoking such subject matters, but using it based on lack of understanding or outright ignorance, then one should expect to be corrected. The Global PF Guidelines STILL apply in here, and that includes the spreading of misinformation regarding these subject matters.

Zz.
 
46
0
I don't have too. Even when this is a philosophy subforum, the issue of PHYSICS was invoked. When one claims that "... infinite results in physics are considered as meaningless and useless as paradoxical results..", then it is a valid response to cite EXACT examples of where such a claim is false. I have produced just a few of these examples in which such singularities are not only part of the theory and description of these real-world phenomena, but also have been detected. It is a physics issue, and there's no dumbing it down. It makes zero sense to me to make claims about something that one has no knowledge of in the first place.

Please note that this is still a "Physics Forums" and unlike other other public forums, there are professional physicists, mathematicians, etc. on here. So if anyone tries to strengthen his/her arguments by invoking such subject matters, but using it based on lack of understanding or outright ignorance, then one should expect to be corrected. The Global PF Guidelines STILL apply in here, and that includes the spreading of misinformation regarding these subject matters.
My point is that so-called "science" (physics and the like) can never know anything, never explain anything, but can only describe. These descriptions can be of use for human beings, in order to do certain things. Let me explain the difference between knowing and describing. Knowing would mean: being able to describe completely accurately. But "science" can only approximate complete accuracy in its descriptions. Thus quantum theory is a more accurate (namely more workable) description than atomic theory. But atomic theory had already been dismissed and quantum theory been anticipated by a philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, on a philosophical basis. Likewise, I - a contemporary philosopher - can already dismiss quantum theory, for the simple reason that a precise quantum cannot exist (as there is nothing to "cise", to cut). The idea of a "quantum" is atomic theory once again, or, to speak with Nietzsche, the soul superstition. Man cannot think but about "things", cannot be conscious but of "things". But atoms do not consist of "things".

Heidegger marked the end of philosophy: the point where philosophy became science. This science is not the science I have put between quotation marks above. It is best formulated by Neumann:

"I use "science" in its original meaning, scientia, knowledge of the way things really are. It is the only genuine science and it is readily available always and everywhere. [...]
Science is the simple realization that whatever is experienced -- a self, a world, the law of contradiction, a god or anything else -- is nothing apart from its being experienced. Science's reality is nothing but empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. [...] Existence as a whole is now understood in such a way that it only exists in the first place insofar as it is produced by the man who perceives or produces it (durch den vorstellend-herstellenden Menschen [Heidegger, "The Age of the World-View"])... [...] this very thing, "that the world itself becomes a view" is the essence of science. In this regard, Nietzsche claims that, for science there are no facts, only interpretations or methods -- methods of experience, points of view. There is nothing inherently rigorous or mathematic in scientific method which, rightly understood as it rarely is, means nothing more than nihilist experience, any way (or method) of experiencing -- whether it be that of a tiger, an infant or an Einstein. Science is the realization that reality is nothing but mere experience, methods of perceiving or thinking. This "definition" of science, like all theories and thoughts, is no more than another empty experience or method."
[Harry Neumann, "Political Philosophy or Nihilist Science?"]

From your passionate nature, ZapperZ, which I have now witnessed for the second time - your political passion for "science" is evident from your attempt to appear superior to a "layman" by giving a display of your knowledge of hieroglyphics -, I suspect that for you it is political philosophy, not nihilist science ("philosophy" used in its original meaning, philosophia, love of knowledge - of the way things really are...).
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
Please tell me how one may conceive of the infinite.
Studying is usually a good way to learn a subject.
 
Last edited:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,132
3,930
My point is that so-called "science" (physics and the like) can never know anything, never explain anything, but can only describe. These descriptions can be of use for human beings, in order to do certain things. Let me explain the difference between knowing and describing. Knowing would mean: being able to describe completely accurately. But "science" can only approximate complete accuracy in its descriptions. Thus quantum theory is a more accurate (namely more workable) description than atomic theory. But atomic theory had already been dismissed and quantum theory been anticipated by a philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, on a philosophical basis. Likewise, I - a contemporary philosopher - can already dismiss quantum theory, for the simple reason that a precise quantum cannot exist (as there is nothing to "cise", to cut). The idea of a "quantum" is atomic theory once again, or, to speak with Nietzsche, the soul superstition. Man cannot think but about "things", cannot be conscious but of "things". But atoms do not consist of "things".

Heidegger marked the end of philosophy: the point where philosophy became science. This science is not the science I have put between quotation marks above. It is best formulated by Neumann:

"I use "science" in its original meaning, scientia, knowledge of the way things really are. It is the only genuine science and it is readily available always and everywhere. [...]
Science is the simple realization that whatever is experienced -- a self, a world, the law of contradiction, a god or anything else -- is nothing apart from its being experienced. Science's reality is nothing but empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. [...] Existence as a whole is now understood in such a way that it only exists in the first place insofar as it is produced by the man who perceives or produces it (durch den vorstellend-herstellenden Menschen [Heidegger, "The Age of the World-View"])... [...] this very thing, "that the world itself becomes a view" is the essence of science. In this regard, Nietzsche claims that, for science there are no facts, only interpretations or methods -- methods of experience, points of view. There is nothing inherently rigorous or mathematic in scientific method which, rightly understood as it rarely is, means nothing more than nihilist experience, any way (or method) of experiencing -- whether it be that of a tiger, an infant or an Einstein. Science is the realization that reality is nothing but mere experience, methods of perceiving or thinking. This "definition" of science, like all theories and thoughts, is no more than another empty experience or method."
[Harry Neumann, "Political Philosophy or Nihilist Science?"]

From your passionate nature, ZapperZ, which I have now witnessed for the second time - your political passion for "science" is evident from your attempt to appear superior to a "layman" by giving a display of your knowledge of hieroglyphics -, I suspect that for you it is political philosophy, not nihilist science ("philosophy" used in its original meaning, philosophia, love of knowledge - of the way things really are...).
You have somehow either hijacked this thread, or turned it into what it is not- the function of science.

You haven't been able to dispute the FACT that before someone can use something in his/her favor, one has to actually understand what it is. Someone invoked something in physics to support a point, but it was used in the wrong manner. I never made ANY argument that science knows everything, and so, I have no clue on where this diatribe is coming from.

If you argue about something that you have only a superficial knowledge of, would you take your opinion seriously? Or more importantly, do you think you have arrived at a conclusion that is based on the intimate knowledge of the subject matter rather than based on ignorance?

The whole concept of "infinity" has a strong mathematical base. Whole chapters on complex analysis are devoted to it. It is an extreme oversight if anyone dealing with the issue of "infinity" to be ignorant of the mathematics involved. And then to argue that it isn't based on "real world" while ignoring the application of such concepts in many parts of physics is just plain wrong.

No matter how much you try to derail and confuse the issue, those are the issues in which you haven't tackled. Stick to the topic and produce an argument on why all those examples I gave are not valid. It is not my fault that you are unable to comprehend basic mathematics. I am not the one who was asking about things I know nothing about.

Zz.
 

Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,491
27
This thread has wandered way too far from the original topic.
 

Related Threads for: What is (the nature of) infinity?

  • Posted
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top