Ok. How can something be near infinity, though? "Near" implies proximity. Proximity implies that some aspect can be defined absolutely. I guess I don't understand how something can be described as "near" something that by definition has no "edges."

Haven't we decided that infinity does have very clear edges? It either is, or it isn't. However, how much it isn't, can be pinned down. It's sort of like how, if we're not dead, we can describe how not-dead we are. Or, the way we can (mathematically, even) describe how fully a chemical reaction has occurred.

Maybe this only makes sense to me.

I think the mathematical term you're looking for is approaching infinity.

The universe approaches infinity. But it is not infinite(That we know of)

Thanks, yes, that's it. I almost never use math anymore, so it's difficult to think of the terms.

Well, to describe how fully a chemical reaction has occurred don't you need a closed (non-inifinite) system? You can describe the rate at which reagents are consumed, etc., but without defining how much of everything exists in the system how can this be measured?

I suppose you could say that a piece of string's length is infinity minus 5 meters, but that still doesn't really say anything about how long the string is in practical terms.

That makes more sense.

It makes sense to me for something to be eternal, no beginning nor end. The universe is and will always be.

False. The whole numbers are equinumerous with the even numbers. This is easy to prove. Define a function from the whole numbers to the whole numbers, such that f(n) = 2n. This function is a one-to-one correspondence between the whole numbers and the even numbers, showing that those two sets are equinumerous.

If you want a bigger infinite than the whole numbers, you need to get to the real numbers. The proof here is a little more difficult, but the basic idea is pretty straightforward. What you do is rely on the fact that any real number can be written as a decimal with an infinite number of places. Then you write out a list of such decimals - as many as you can count. This list will be no bigger than the set of whole numbers (since you can count the members of the list). Then, you construct a new decimal number that is guaranteed to not be on your list, just by using a little trick. (You just say: if at the nth member on the list, the mth decimal place is "1", then the decimal place on the constructed number is "0"; otherwise, let the decimal place on the constructed number be "1"). This constructed decimal number is a real number, but it's not on your original list; but, by hypothesis, your original list contained all the numbers you can count. So, you've proven that there are more real numbers than whole numbers. As a corollary, you've proven that some infinities are bigger than others.

Edit: woops, error in my maths.

My head just exploded.

..at "equinumerous".




me too

You want infinite?


This post = infinite boredom.

< joke about colors of infinity removed >

Maths ain't for everyone, s'pose.

I love math, but I'm drunk, so your post appeared as one large blur unfortunately.

You're basically saying that because a line with infinite length has a finite width, that means it isn't infinite.
Just because the universe is not infinite in space, does not mean that its expansion is not infinite through time.

Am I?


Oh, time. That'll send us off on a whole other tangent... What is time? Time has but one point.

I was kinda hoping for an infinitely large blur.

Ah, then take the distance from where you are, to where you can obtain more drink, multiplied by two, for the round trip, add to that the distance from where you are to where you can pee, also doubled for the round trip and multiply this with the number of drinks you've already had plus the drinks you still want to consume, measured in feet -the distance, not the drinks.

If your answer progresses towards a vertical asymptote with an infinite discontinuity because the distance to where you can pee exponentially increases while the whole issue of staying vertical decreases..

then you're drunk

I believe you're thinking of the Black Hole information paradox. Though if I'm not mistaken, Stephen Hawking (one of it's main proponents) stopped advocating it a number of years ago.

You've got science to back that up, or are we going to drag the thread into philosophical discussion now?

Time is a series of yarn threads being toyed with by kittens. Prove me wrong.

Also, I hate your avatar. It's so......hypnotic.....*Wiggles head with it.*

That seems to the be the only thing I can find now, but wherever I read this, it said nothing of Hawking or a paradox of a living black hole. And claimed to be a new discovery based on the radiation left after a black hole dies. I don't know, I've never read much about this stuff until recently. So until I can find what I read, I'll totally retract what I posted.

Probably just confabulation.

Very well said.

This is one of the most epic posts I've ever read.

Someone's never tried measuring human stupidity.