(February 22, 2016 at 9:55 pm)scoobysnack Wrote:(February 22, 2016 at 9:14 pm)Living in Death Wrote: Hi, all.
This is something which I'd considered a while ago. My logic is a little shaky but my proposition doesn't appear to be too full of holes.
I guess the principle belief that 0 = infinity would assume that values exist as absolutes. If we were to say that nothing exists, there would be an endless stream of nothing. This was practically the core belief (and, more to the point, revelation) when I was considering this principle for the first time.
I really don't think my assumption functions in mathematical environments that do not assume absolutes, rather they function as relativistic. In other words, if you have none of something, that doesn't suddenly form a singularity in the space where that something would inhabit.
My point is that, if we were to create a closed environment involving only a single inhabiting factor, if said factor did not exist (and assuming that this system was an undefined size, eg. the universe), would that not create a space infinitely large? If borders had a value of zero, would they not cease to exist and thus render a potentially infinite empty space?
I think the reason that this is a difficult problem for me (and maybe for most people, too) is that 0 and infinity are both practically irrational. I believe that the principle of 0 was originally suggested by an Arabic mathematician, but I personally think that it does not infer mathematical properties, rather more philosophical. If we were to hypothetically state that 0 does unarguably equal infinity, it would point towards my two beliefs that, 1. it is not strictly mathematical, 2. it is irrational and thus would not strictly have any place in rational mathematical works (though perhaps hypothetical mathematics).
Alas, 0 exists as a placeholder for the lack of any element (and of course as a suffix for factors of ten). I see why it is still relevant even today. I suppose my attempts to rationalise it by, ironically, quantifying it with an irrational value is simply my way of showing that it is more complex of a value than we may originally think back in primary, secondary, or even college.
That's my rant over, at any rate. I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions on the matter. Oh, and perhaps an item of argument; is 0 odd or even?
I don't have an answer to your question. Zero considered it can't be divided or multiplied by anything and result in anything else than zero, might mean it's infinite, but I don't have an answer to that.
Something I want to share is a documentary about fractals which talk about infinity. One of the more interesting videos I've seen. Nothing about religion, this was shown to me by my friend who is a member of mensa and super smart. What this talks about is how things are infinitely small, or infinitely big. For example when trying to measure the circumference of a nation, or anything it's infinitely long depending on how close you measure it.
This is a great doc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvXbQb57lsE
I don't have time to watch the video at the moment, but it sounds like the divisional problem and is really talking about precision. With a very small unit of measurement, you will get a very large number, and with a smaller unit, you will have better accuracy. However, you will always have a finite number. If it was infinite, then no matter how much time and patience you had to measure to the smallest degree, you would never be able to reach the end. If it is infinite, then this would also be true, when using larger units. Similarly some say, that if you divide a number by two (and keep doing so), that you will reach infinity. While the process may be potentially infinite, by my math, at each division, you will end up with twice the number of points, that you had previously, but at no time, will you reach an infinite number of points. Unless by infinite, you mean a somewhat common usage of a very large number, and not an actual infinite.
I only had a chance to skim through the video on the recent debate between Professor Grayling and Rabbi Rowe. But I think that an interesting point that Rowe brought up, is that infinity requires that the thing in question is unbound by nature. Existential objects (which I am taking to mean physical objects) are necessarily bound by nature. Therefore, a physical object is necessarily finite. I'll have to watch the video fully and do some more research, but I found the concept interesting.
