New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: I do not and cannot adapt your view of the origin of existance.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I understand. But it is ironic that you would chose those words, because my view is that existence had no origin. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: please give your definition of infinity.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As stated earlier in this very long topic, I use the standard dictionary definition: "something without limits or boundaries; always unlimited. For example, the concept of being unlimited by always being larger than any imposed value or boundary. For some purposes this may be considered as being the same as one divided by zero."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>why don't you give us your definition of eternal as well. In your opinion, is infinite different from eternal and if so how?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Eternity is infinity as applied to time. It means "without beginning or end". -|Tom|-

From Oxford dictionary:

infinite: endless, without limit
endless: having no end, never stopping
limit: line or point that may not or cannot be passed


Let's try to find a definition for the infinite not based on negation or exclusion. Can TVF give a definition of infinity describing what it is explicitely (please not the essoteric x=x+1) and without an implicit negation. I don't think so.

Infinity is the negative perception of reality. It's darkness, mysticism and theism, It's simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: Is <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>^<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> a legal operation? If not, why? If so, why?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, it is "legal" (in the mathematical sense). It has been proved in math that anything "less" than <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>^<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>, such as <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>^n, can still be placed into a one-to-one correspondence with Aleph null, the lowest order of infinity. However, <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>^<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> cannot. So it is a higher order of infinity.

This has no particular significance for this discussion that I can see. But JoeW raised the Continuum Hypothesis (without ever explaining why he thought it related here), and that theorem questions whether or not there might be levels of infinity between the two just mentioned. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: Let's try to find a definition for the infinite not based on negation or exclusion. Can TVF give a definition of infinity describing what it is explicitely (please not the essoteric x=x+1) and without an implicit negation. I don't think so.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't see any defect in using negations or in the definitions I gave. However, to answer you directly, both of these seem to involve no negations:
* "the concept of ... always being larger than any imposed value or boundary"
* "one divided by zero"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Infinity is the negative perception of reality. It's darkness, mysticism and theism, It's simple.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That rather emotion-laden description strikes me as itself heavy on mysticism. But perhaps everything is in the eye of the beholder, including reality.

Or maybe those of you opposed to infinity have a darker view of reality because there is not as much light in your finite universe as there is in our infinite universe. <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: GOBBLE-DE-GOOK<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I understand why it might appear that way to anyone unfamiliar with the value of infinity in many practical applications. That is one of the things calculus is about.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So what happens if all the "Finite" forms cease to exist all at the same time? That is possible isn't it?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, not possible. No form can ever cease to exist any more than it could come into existence. "Eternal" means it has no beginning <i>and no end</i>. -|Tom|-