There are infinite natural numbers. You can take each of those natural numbers and multiply them by 2 and get a new infinite amount of natural numbers. You can repeat this on the new infinite set ad infinitum. You can do the same thing with 3,4,5 etc. on any of those sets ad infinitum. and exponentation, tetration, etc. on any of those sets ad infinitum. Then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And…(infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And…) continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And…(…)…
>>18449892There's only 1 infinity, but there's infinite ways to approach it
>>18449892Nothing is infinite, infinity doesn’t exist and cantor was a jewish fraud
>>18449892infinity doesn't mean "contains all". There are an infinite numbers between "1-2", 1.1, 1.2, 1.3525631, and so on, but none of them are 3.
Want to have your mind blown OP? The number zero (0) is also considered an infinite. Infinite doesn't necessarily mean "biggest number" is just means an uncountable number, either uncountably big or uncountably small. In information theory, complete global entropy is generally considered identical to a vacuum state since no useful information can be derived from either
>>18449921Undivided spectrums do exist.
No.Infinity is purely theoretical, like triangular circles.Numbers are actually real, but the universe isn't infinitely big so it can only fit so many numbers.Basically, numbers are kind of like bits. Information itself, has to be grounded in the real.So there is a maximum number, an ultimate value. It's just so incomprehensibly large that you can't imagine or calculate it even if you had thousands of years and a supercomputer. You could effectively, for the purposes of engineering and so on, treat that value as infinity. But it won't be fully precise, just within a threshold of tolerance.If we could somehow determine this value, it would be extremely easy important for all sorts of applications, because ratios. Maybe they already have, and it's a big secret.
>>18450788>but the universe isn't infinitely bigoh so is it shaped like a ball or a box? how far away are the sides?
>>18449892>/his/ starting to understand high school math
>>18449892>You can take each of those natural numbers and multiply them by 2 and get a new infinite amount of natural numbers.it is the same infinite amount if amount means cardinality
>>18451664Who knows?Anyways, an infinite amount of time has not passed since the big bang and cannot pass by definition, so it follows the universe is temporally bounded.
>>18449892Unless the universe is infinitely divisible and each part can contain information, there is a limit to the amount of natural numbers that can be represented.
>>18449921>in this system with it's made up rules I proved that not-finite=finite>but wait, if it has a size which can be compared it is finite by definition, a size implies a limit >akshually you're wrong, according to these math incantations with internally consistent rules that are made up the presupposition is true>the presupposition is wrong, finite =\= not-finite>b-b-but you're making a presupposition too!>Yes, I am presupposing a logical axiom that something is not what it's not, a set by definition is encapsulated, is defined, is an amount, and therefore is finite, and cannot be not finite>b-b-but the math priests and the math Bible verses said..
>>18452815>cannot pass by definitionIf reality didn't have a beginning, there would be no beginning-point infinitely far away in the past. There would just be arbitrarily many points going further back each of which is finitely far away in the past. So there'd be no point where you could say an infinite amount of time must have passed between then and now.
