PSI Blog 20251208 Mathematical Definition of Infinity?
No. To define is to
make finite.
PSI Blog 20251208
Mathematical Definition of Infinity?
No. To define is to
make finite.
Thanks to Doug Gill for this pertinent question question concerning the proof of infinity as a non sequitur:
“Thanks for this
great article and your other writing on infinity. Is it possible to formulate a
generalized mathematical definition of infinity? Do you know of anything like
that? We have your discussions and many examples in mathematics. Cantor's
diagonal slash argument is a great example. However, listing examples alone
does not give us a definition. It would have to be in a mathematical format,
not linguistic, such as infinity is something that goes on forever.”
[GB: I can’t imagine
any such equation being anything short of infinitely long. All of math is an
abstraction, a shortening of the infinite characteristics we observe in any
part of the Infinite Universe. That is why Newton’s mechanics was so
successful. I have defended and modified his mechanics in Chapter 15
(Neomechanics—the Reduction) of "The Scientific Worldview."[1]
I define neomechanics as “Classical mechanics with the addition of infinity
and its consupponible assumptions.” As
I have pointed out, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle led to the demise of
classical mechanics, although Heisenberg didn’t know that. Theoretical
physicists had a choice: Consider the unknown as either finite or infinite.
Regressive physicists continued to choose finity with the Copenhagen school
leading the way: They included probability as one of the finite causes
for any effect.
Progressive physics candidly includes infinity, as we do in the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All
effects have an infinite number of material causes). The Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it
is often possible to know more about anything) is a consupponible[2]
correlative. We still have to use probability, of course, but we must admit
that rounding off any causal equation is necessary to provide useful
information.
The beauty of
neomechanics is its overt recognition of the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity
(The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). With
everything in the universe being bathed in aether particles (aetherons, as I
call them) there is no way a finite equation could be devised to describe the Infinite
Universe. All would have to end with ad infinitum or the
infinity sign ∞. Occasionally I hear of folks who claim to have done that after
the fashion of Laplace, who imagined an omnipotent demon capable of using the finite
equations of classical mechanics to predict the future and postdict the past
perfectly. That could never happen of course. But its destined failure nicely
illustrates the Achilles heel of classical mechanics and the naivety of Laplace,
Heisenberg, Einstein, and regressive physicists and cosmogonists in general.
Let me sum up by
quoting Google AI on pi:
“The latest record
for calculating pi is over 300 trillion digits, achieved in May 2025 by KIOXIA
and Linus Media Group, breaking previous records set by other teams in 2024 and
2022. While these vast numbers are impressive, only a handful of digits (around
15-16) are needed for most scientific and engineering calculations, like those
used by NASA.”
Nuff said, and that
is only one of the infinite number of factors an equation for the Infinite Universe would require!]
PSI Blog 20251208
Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second Edition of
"The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading
to the rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological
Revolution,” the demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of
enlightenment to come. Buy Now.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment