4 ms·

I find the article a bit pointless. The concept of infinity is made up by men. Just like the concept of numbers or logic. There doesn't exist something like a

I find the article a bit pointless. The concept of infinity is made up by men. Just like the concept of numbers or logic. There doesn't exist something like a 'four' in reality, this only exists in models that we have created. Therefore it goes without saying that there is no 'infinity' in physical reality. On the other hand, nothing is keeping me from creating some model of reality that has infinity in it.

jacobmoe 8y ago
"4" is a concept, but you don't deny that the 4 turnips on your table do have physical reality, do you? Is the notion that there are an infinite number of turnips spread out through an infinite universe "just a concept" whose physical reality we don't have to bother ourselves with, in a way that those 4 turnips aren't?
- zaarn 8y ago
  I will not deny that a collection of atoms, mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, with the rough weight of 4 turnips, is on the table and looks like 4 turnips. The 4 turnips do have physical reality but on the other hand, the 4 in this scenario is not a realized concept, there is nothing physical about the 4 in this scenario since all the things in it are made of particles made of mostly nothing.
simonh 8y ago
The point in contention isn't that infinities can be imagined, it is whether they are useful - specifically in the context of cosmology. Numbers are clearly useful, otherwise it would be difficult to explain the importance we ascribe to the value of our bank balances. However just because you can formulate a model of reality including infinities it does not therefore follow that this model must be useful, or that infinities must be useful.
- cjohansson 8y ago
  usefulness is a pragmatic attribute, it does not by itself say that something really exist in reality, unless you believe that everything that is useful exists. I think the OP do not believe that everything that is useful exists in physical reality, therefore seeing four tables does not mean that fours exists in physical reality separated from tables or other objects. So you are probably using different metaphysics.. But sure, since the days of William of Occam pragmatic metaphysics have been popular, but again popularity does not necessary prove something is right. Just explaining both sides of the argument here and trying to resolve the potential missunderstandings
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    > does not mean that fours exists Of course "they" do - just like anything you care to use a word for, e.g. "humans." All words are, in fact, abstractions, and these abstractions do exist in a meaningful sense.
- jerf 8y ago
  "The point in contention isn't that infinities can be imagined, it is whether they are useful - specifically in the context of cosmology." Going the other way may be more useful; is it possible to create a correct model of reality that does not at any point use infinities? You could have alternate correct models that do, but if you can create one without them you'd have a reasonable basis to call the infinities in the other models unnecessary and nonexistent. (I would suggest before anyone rush to correct me that they read what I said carefully. For instance, "reasonable basis" != "undeniable proof", which experience leads me to believe is a difference a hypothetical replier might, in their rush to reply, overlook. Also note the two clauses in the question; if it is simply impossible to create a correct model of reality at all, we may never get to the "infinity" portion of the question.)
  - simonh 8y ago
    If you could do that - create a correct model of reality - at all infinities or not, there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it. :)

jacobmoe 8y ago

"4" is a concept, but you don't deny that the 4 turnips on your table do have physical reality, do you? Is the notion that there are an infinite number of turnips spread out through an infinite universe "just a concept" whose physical reality we don't have to bother ourselves with, in a way that those 4 turnips aren't?

zaarn 8y ago
I will not deny that a collection of atoms, mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, with the rough weight of 4 turnips, is on the table and looks like 4 turnips. The 4 turnips do have physical reality but on the other hand, the 4 in this scenario is not a realized concept, there is nothing physical about the 4 in this scenario since all the things in it are made of particles made of mostly nothing.

simonh 8y ago

The point in contention isn't that infinities can be imagined, it is whether they are useful - specifically in the context of cosmology. Numbers are clearly useful, otherwise it would be difficult to explain the importance we ascribe to the value of our bank balances. However just because you can formulate a model of reality including infinities it does not therefore follow that this model must be useful, or that infinities must be useful.

cjohansson 8y ago
usefulness is a pragmatic attribute, it does not by itself say that something really exist in reality, unless you believe that everything that is useful exists. I think the OP do not believe that everything that is useful exists in physical reality, therefore seeing four tables does not mean that fours exists in physical reality separated from tables or other objects. So you are probably using different metaphysics.. But sure, since the days of William of Occam pragmatic metaphysics have been popular, but again popularity does not necessary prove something is right. Just explaining both sides of the argument here and trying to resolve the potential missunderstandings
- Koshkin 8y ago
  > does not mean that fours exists Of course "they" do - just like anything you care to use a word for, e.g. "humans." All words are, in fact, abstractions, and these abstractions do exist in a meaningful sense.
jerf 8y ago
"The point in contention isn't that infinities can be imagined, it is whether they are useful - specifically in the context of cosmology." Going the other way may be more useful; is it possible to create a correct model of reality that does not at any point use infinities? You could have alternate correct models that do, but if you can create one without them you'd have a reasonable basis to call the infinities in the other models unnecessary and nonexistent. (I would suggest before anyone rush to correct me that they read what I said carefully. For instance, "reasonable basis" != "undeniable proof", which experience leads me to believe is a difference a hypothetical replier might, in their rush to reply, overlook. Also note the two clauses in the question; if it is simply impossible to create a correct model of reality at all, we may never get to the "infinity" portion of the question.)
- simonh 8y ago
  If you could do that - create a correct model of reality - at all infinities or not, there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it. :)