infinity

nothing time dependent would mean anything. nothing would be "new" or "old."

we measure "oldness" by anticipating obsolescence or by comparison relative to the expected end of usefulness (death, expiration, or again anticipated obsolescence). with an infinite continuum, there is no expected end or obsolescence and we can't judge age relative to an end since there is no end.

we measure "newness" by either age relative to first appearance, or we consider the originality of a thing. with an infinite thing, there is no first appearance, and the thing has all possible properties so it can't be judged novel by any judgement of originality. we could be impressed with the originality compared to our own ideas, but recognizing a thing as infinite we should not be surprised to find it is everything it can possibly be, including all of the things we haven't thought of yet.

 

Idk but I'm looking forward for the future.

 

Think about infinity and then think about 'no infinity' and see if you can tell a difference.

 

can new excist without old?

 

If, as I think H20 was alluding to, nothing and infinity are equivelent, think about what that means. It is through nothingness that there is nothing "new" per se. It is through infinity that everything is new. They are one. Think about it.

 

Just like the circle can represent 0, which is nothing, or infinity, which is continuance.

 

infinity is endless

always new, never new, everything, always, in one

 

what does this mean exactly?

 

I agree with the man that said that.

I think if the universe/'s are truly infinite then everything has happened already and will continue to happen forever, but simultaniously progressing in every different way possible. For instance, in a seperate realm of the universe you would be the one answering me.

 

infinite dimensions

now what's up?

 

By the way, this is the symbol for infinity:

∞

 

It means infinity is a constant. Read Postal's post above. He explains it pretty well

 

infinity is a notion of set theory

it cannot be understood without getting into math

here is an explanation of what infinity is from another thread back in the day (but words can be limited in explaining the phenomenon of course) (thread can be found at http://forum.grasscity.com/science-nature/746551-infinite-infinities.html):

A= {1,2,3,....,n,...}

B= {2,4,6,....,n,...}

C= {3,6,9,....,n,...}

keeping in mind cantor was into set thoery (all the above are sets) here goes:

set A shows all positive numbers all the way to infinity and beyond...

set B shows all positive even numbers all the way to infinity and beyond...

set C shows all positive divisible by three all the way to infinity and beyond...

now one could argue set A will have more numbers in it because set A emcompasses numbers set B and set C does not include like 5,7, etc....

the same logic says set B has more numbers than set C...

but cantor saw when you creates these sets and extend them into infinity ALL SETS HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF NUMBERS IN THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE INFINITE SETS....(this is where we go wtf?)

your logic says "aw man thats crap, set A has more numbers in it"....and thats what cantor said....and theorizes that there are numerous infinities.

NB: actuallyi the smybol for infinity, the sidewways eight comes from cantors original notation (he used the hebrew letter aleph to denote an infinite set, א , which eventually closed at the sides by handwriting and ceame the infinity sign we know today...

 

and right after i wrote the above post, the Infinite infinities thread got deleted...i messaged rmjl about it because WHAT THE FUCK man?!?!?!

 

its official, im a moron because when i quoted the infinite infinity thread i misquoted it with a parenthesis at the end of the url....thats rather embarrassing because i also messaged rmjl about it....well, i messaged her again apologizing and apologize to you as well....that thread is at http://forum.grasscity.com/science-nature/746551-infinite-infinities.html and i think it should work now....duh

 

What is the difference between infinity, infinity x 2, and infinity x 3? Because that is essentially what is being expressed in the sets. The final set uses one in every three numbers. This is essentially 1 out of every 3 numbers, 1/3. The second is 2 out of 3 numbers, 2/3. The first uses all three out of three numbers, 3/3. So in this example the 1/3 set could be looked at as the base infinity. The 2/3 could be looked at as infinity x 2. The 3/3 is infinity x 3. Base Infinity=the infinity in which you use 1 out of every 3 numbers. If you can multiply infinity into a bigger number, it cannot be infinity, can it?