[socratus]

In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
of a word “infinity”.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line,
never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely
(atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) a сonnection between the infinite and the concrete,
2) a сonnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,
3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.
But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.
======================
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
(method of renormalization) .
.However, R. Feynman said, that:
«The method of renormalizations is a way
to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? »
================
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
The Universe is Nothing: T=0K.
The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K.
Absolute God can exist only behind this
Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.
=====================
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".
What a geometrical and physical parameters can
the “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?
==============
Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".
And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light
is a privileged particle.
Only the light quantum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?
No.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest
its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse.
1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse
(Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2p)
a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter
and is known as electron.
A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.
It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs.
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2π.
So it can work only with particle that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.
His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes
" from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.
====================
On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles,
only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
==================

[abebayehu]

infinity is the boundary of the universe and of everything with some respect
and the only resonable term that best justify the alpha and Omeganess of God

[mkirkpatrick]

Infinity is the boundless all that is all boundless,and being so just IS!God is the replica of this,and also just IS!

To venture beyond IS,is to lay a trap for the unwary,for who among us can describe the
indescribable!

regards michael.

[Eric]

socratus,

Nice post.

I agree wholeheartedly that finite, whether it be in mathematics or physics, is one big fudge of the truth. Disregarding infinity, especially using tricks to pretend they haven't, is complete BS.

God is a point beyond infinity. God is actual (absolute). God exists (is).

Infinity is within an absolute point and finite is within infinity.

Infinity says that although finite appears to exist, it doesn't actually exist and they're both in a point that does exist.

This doesn't mean the universe does not exist, because the only thing that does not exist, is absolutlely nothing.

That's not the whole argument, but a good portion of it.

[theunify]

May I add the anthropic principle, so that if beings are created to observe their surrounding their surrounding must have evolved to infinity before this occurs, therefore everywhere we look we will find infinites, those on top of other infinities, creat the total Universe.

[Eric]

Actually, you can't include any existing principle in mathematics or physics. All of them are assumptions and time is no exception.

It is impossible for theory to advance, using an axiomatic system of logic. Deriving a proof(s) from an assumption works in application, because to make things and go places, only requires an approximation to a high degree of certainty.

To make an advance in theory, requires an initial proof that is not derived from an assumption. All other proofs that follow, will also have to contain no assumptions.

[dleviwing]

The terms “infinite” and “eternal” are of the form, immeasurable. You cannot assign a number to them, so, they are also NOT mathematical. These are philosophical terms that only apply to philosophies, and in science, these philosophies or opinions are called theories. If your theory or opinion includes the concept of a god, then it is religion. God is infinite, god is eternal;; God that sounds familiar!!!!

If something is finite, it can be measured or a number can be obtained for it. What’s the confusion?

[Eric]

The terms “infinite” and “eternal” are of the form, immeasurable. You cannot assign a number to them, so, they are also NOT mathematical.

Then why does mathematics thinks it's dealing with infinity? The infinite set, transfinite, etc?

If something is finite, it can be measured or a number can be obtained for it. What’s the confusion

Any value >0 is an approximation. An axiomatic methodology derives theorems that are called "proofs" and can be used as such in application, but to say that mathematics as a whole is provable theoretically, is to say "we assume therefore we know". An axiom, of course, being an assumption.

Mathematics rises to no higher degree of certainty than physics.

If your theory or opinion includes the concept of a god, then it is religion. God is infinite, god is eternal;; God that sounds familiar!!!!

I for one, say that God is beyond infinite or eternal. As for a theory of the "Absolute", it can be shown to be mathematical with a non-axiomatic proof. This same proof can also satisfy the goal of physics. If it happens to satisfy the big questions in philosophy and religion as well, who's to say that it shouldn't?

Mathematics and physics boil down to LOGIC. That's where they came from and that's where they're heading. There is a higher logic that has not been used yet. Absolute logic rather than relative logic. Axiomatic logic is relative logic. It will NOT result in a TOE.

[Aiya-Oba]

Thanks Eric, for your bold obsrvation,that humanity needs a new Logic;an absolute logic.
There is a great breakthrough awaiting humanity in our understanding of the Universal logic of the Cosmos.It is similar in magnitude to the understanding that gave way to human's ability to harvest nature's infinite Power (Nuclear Energy).
In the same way that nuclear energy remained elusive to all of human history until the 20th Century, there is Nuclear Logic Theory (Equator of Self-contradiction), this elusive central principle of matter energy, when understood and explored , will usher humanity into totally new awareness, that will lead to a unified understanding of the common crux of religion, philosophy and science: That the Self-creator and Equator of All in all-Cosmos is God.
-Aiya-Oba (Poet/Philosopher).
Advocate of:
Nuclear Logic Theory.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Eric Any value >0 is an approximation. An axiomatic methodology derives theorems that are called "proofs" and can be used as such in application, but to say that mathematics as a whole is provable theoretically, is to say "we assume therefore we know". An axiom, of course, being an assumption.

I believe you have the concepts of accuracy and precision confused as being numbers. Numbers only represent quantitatively, and thus their values represent the degree of accuracy or precision (aka, probability and uncertainty). Mathematics is a defined set of rules and thus it is not subject to the need for proof. Your name is Eric by definition, not by measure.

I for one, say that God is beyond infinite or eternal. As for a theory of the "Absolute", it can be shown to be mathematical with a non-axiomatic proof. This same proof can also satisfy the goal of physics. If it happens to satisfy the big questions in philosophy and religion as well, who's to say that it shouldn't?

Anything imaginary or nonexistent is beyond infinity or eternity.