Devans99

I do not agree with the bijection procedure; it gives the wrong results; see Galileo's paradox. No, it can't be thought of as a quantity; its defined ...

Infinity requires 'when you change something it is never changed' as an axiom. If you apply that axiom to real life you find it inductively in error.

That is just waffle. Address the axiom: 'when you change something, it is changed' Do you buy it or not? If you buy it, you don't buy infinity.

You are arguing contrary to a basic axiom I believe in: 'when you change something, it is changed'. Infinity in mathematics does not follow this axiom...

I have spent years looking at infinity, I am entitled to my opinions.

You are very closed minded and rude.

OK so thats equivalent to saying 'I have this set to which I can add to and the size does not change'. Thats nonsense - anything you add (non-zero) to...

But we have good evidence that the speed of light is constant and the rest follows. We have no evidence for 'stuff that we change that does not change...

A more basic form of the axiom: 'if I change something, it changes' could be adopted. Infinity runs contrary to this axiom (which applies to the domai...

The width of a number is 0, so the number of real numbers between 1 and 2 is 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED. An actual infinity of numbers may appear to exist in o...

The problem is infinity does not follow the axiom: 'if I add (non-zero) to something, it changes'. Thats such as basic axiom, taken as reality by most...

I agree. I'd also add: - Its not a quantity either - Because it's not a quantity, it is not valid for use as a value of various physical quantities li...

Maths should not run contrary to logic. Where in logic do we find objects that behave like X+1=X. Things that we change that do not change? Where in r...

All the core mathematical quantities (integers, reals, complex, vector, matrix, etc...) obey the arithmetic operators or common sense extensions of th...

Maths has made up magic 'numbers' that you cannot assign to any variable and you cannot use with the arithmetic operators. What are normal people mean...

OK Galileo's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_paradox There are more numbers than there are square numbers yet each number has a squ...

Your statement above runs completely opposite of any logic. How can a quantity not change when you add another positive quantity to it? Thats impossib...

But there are no infinite numbers. There is no greatest number (because X+1>X), so there can be no number larger than any finite number. I am not usin...

An infinite number is a number bigger than any number... same contradiction. If I can't assign it to a variable or count with it? No other number beha...

But infinity cant't be bigger than any number because then it would not be a number. That's the mother of all contradictions. So all the stuff about t...

If a number is neither assignable or countable; then what sort of a number is it? It is not a number.

I've corrected the typos in the OP now. Sorry.

It's the commonly used definition. What definition would you give of infinity?

We know that time slows in the presence of gravity. The intense gravity of the big bang would have caused time to run very slowly, maybe even stopping...

Infinite in your head only, not mathematically: width of a number is 0. How many in an interval sized 1? 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED. Infinity is greater than a...

I make that case here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/241257

But we would agree that the Trinity is in conflict with reason so should not be an act of faith?

Faith is 100% belief in something without proof.

Maybe it's better to say 'I induce the axioms of arithmetic are true from volumes of existing evidence' rather than 'I have faith in the axioms of ari...

It's rather that it does not fit maths (leads to a divide by zero error) rather than it fits my position. So my argument stems from a believe in logic...

Faith can be in conflict with reason: people have had and do have faith in all sorts of different Gods. Some of that faith must be misplaced.

I am a faithless heathen :grin: God quite probably exists sums up how I feel.

Oh dear. I've noticed a whole in my argument. It allows you to get something from nothing timelessly. I would like to withdraw this argument for furth...

I don’t think it hangs together logically: ‘The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold") hold...

Potential infinity I will leave to one side. You can view actual infinity as the set of natural numbers { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }. The '...' indicates it is...

But there are only finite numbers: 1. If actual infinity is a number, there must be a number larger than any given number. 2. But that’s contradictory...

Then your axiom system contains magic. I'm trying to stay on the scientific side by avoiding magic. 1. The number of events in an infinite regress is ...

Not sure I entirely agree but thank you for your time also... very thought provoking.

A magician pulling a rabbit from a hat without using a trick of some sort. Well the square is similar to a circle but an octagon is more similar but I...

But just because we can imagine something it does not mean it is possible. I can imagine squaring the circle all I like but its still impossible.

I would say it's a work in progress. All models of this nature have problems. This model has less problems than most IMO.

I disagree with the conventional definition. It leads to a divide by zero error.

So it would not exist, how can something have no size and exist?. A point is purely in our minds. How many things do you know that exist and have leng...

Well I can understand not wanting to depart from the Presentist view point; it is after all our gut feeling for the way the world works. But presentis...

I would dispute that. I mathematical point is defined to have length=0. How many points in an interval length 1? 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED. Any sensible defin...

A continuous circle is only possible in the mind. In reality circles are made of molecules of material which are discrete all the way down.

Sigh. I give up. You are very set in your ways.

Infinity is defined to be bigger than anything else. That means there can only be one infinity by definition.

I think you have not addressed my argument... you have just introduced magic numbers that obey different, mad rules to all other numbers.

They are so! Actual infinity is not a number: 1. If actual infinity is a number, there must be a number larger than any given number. 2. But that’s co...