In what ways is "infinity" conceptually equivalent to "never?" In what ways is it not?

[Anonymous No.10255470]

If I throw a ball upwards with escape velocity when will it fall back down to Earth?

It will never fall back down to Earth.
It will take an infinite time to fall back to Earth.

[Anonymous No.10255489]

There is no such thing as taking infinite time because there is no way of reaching infinity.

[Anonymous No.10255499]

>>10255470
>something will never happen and something will happen after an infinite amount of time are equivalent statements
My intuition and the english language want to have a small conversation with you,

[Anonymous No.10255506]

Parallel lines on a plane are said to meet at infinity because they intersect when mapped on to the riemann sphere, even though they never actually intersect on the plane.

[Anonymous No.10255522]

>>10255499
What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.10255589]

>>10255489
This.
You're misusing the concept of infinity by trying to turn it finite.

[Anonymous No.10255595]

>>10255589
Does that mean it's impossible for the universe to have always existed?

[Anonymous No.10255626]

>>10255522
why would they be the same

[Anonymous No.10255627]

>>10255595
Maybe not the universe. But god, yes for sure.

[Anonymous No.10255645]

>>10255626
>something will happen after an infinite amount of time
When will it happen? Never
>something will never happen
When will it happen? Never

What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.10255647]

>>10255627
Isn't that just special pleading? (explaining something seemingly impossible by pushing it back to something that you can assume to not have the same logical limitation)

[Anonymous No.10255653]

>>10255645
imagine you have a guy named zeno that gets closer to a finish line. every minute he gets 1/2 as close to the line as he was before.
after an infinite amount of time, he wont have any closer to get, and then we can safely say he reached the finish line

if you have a man named braindead, and have him stand still (he cant do anything else since hes braindead) he will never get closer to a finish line, so he never crosses it, even after an infinite amount of time.

look at how easy logic is when you think about things rather than words.

[Anonymous No.10255657]

>>10255470
>when will it fall back down to Earth?
at two infinity?
t = 2 inf ?

[Anonymous No.10255673]

>>10255647
Well, let's see. You may be finite, but you are on top of something larger, the Earth. The Earth may be finite, but it's in something larger, the solar system. The solar system is finite, but it's contained in something larger, the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way galaxy may be finite, but it's contained in something larger, the universe. The universe may be finite, but it's contained in something larger, the multiverse. The multiverse may be finite (according to some there is a finite number of universes in the multiverse), but why are we to assume that this is the end of the story just because we can't see beyond this horizon. We have looked past supposed inscrutable horizons time and time again. Why should we assume that this time, THIS one is really the one beyond which there is nothing more. It's possible that the infinity you seek is found right here. You may call it god.

[Anonymous No.10255678]

>>10255653
Yes but in Zeno's paradox, you're creating an infinity that's defined in incrementally smaller steps in order to get asymptotically closer to a given number.
You in fact have two infinities that counteract each other:
1) A set of numbers being added together
2) A set of the sizes of the intervals between the numbers, which is decreasing proportionally with each step in the first set, with the result that the infinite additions never cross a certain point on the number line.
It's not that you can never cross that line, it's that you're effectively and progressively freezing time.

If you assume linear time, where each step is the same as the preceding step, you've got a very different situation.

[Anonymous No.10255690]

>>10255673
Right, so all we can say about is "we don't really know."
But ultimately, it doesn't answer the question. This set of ever larger and older structures containing existence still has the problem of infinite past. It doesn't matter whether it's framed as "the universe has always existed," or as "there's an infinite nested hierarchy of structures containing all existence that progressively spans back in time."

[Anonymous No.10255693]

>>10255678
ad hoc

you're creating an infinity that's defined in incrementally smaller steps
i dont even know what that means, im not creating an infinity

>It's not that you can never cross that line, it's that you're effectively and progressively freezing time.
this almost means nothing, standing still for an infinite amount of time, is still doing something for an infinite amount of time
its an infinite process that doesnt "fall back"

assume you have a guy called right and a guy called left, they both start at 0.
right moves 1 step right on a plane every minute, left does the same but towards the left
right will eventually move past 10 units to the right of the start
left never will.

now theyre both moving, now proportion isnt even a factor.

[Anonymous No.10255706]

>>10255693
>you're creating an infinity that's defined in incrementally smaller steps
i dont even know what that means, im not creating an infinity
Do you understand that this "paradox" simply describes an asymptotic approach to a given number, which is done by reducing the size of the steps? And do you understand that this is different from a situation where the sizes of the steps are not modified?

It's an infinite addition of numbers that are getting infinitely smaller
vs
An addition (of time going back into the past) of equal sized numbers.

[Anonymous No.10255719]

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity
An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.

- not a number, otherwise by definition it would be bigger than itself

[Anonymous No.10255721]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBp0bEczCNg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVZqPaH94qU

[Anonymous No.10255722]

>>10255690
Time doesn't play into it. This hierarchy of structures is eternal because time is something that exists only in our local universe. "Outside" of the universe, time has no meaning at all.

[Anonymous No.10255724]

>>10255706
>Do you understand that this "paradox" simply describes an asymptotic approach to a given number
do you understand that its still an infinite process and that this isnt an issue.

>And do you understand that this is different from a situation where the sizes of the steps are not modified?
its literally not different in any important capacity at all

just talk math instead of spewing shit about stuff that you obviously havent worked with.

youre just proving my point when i said "ad hoc"
In the exact same post i made a totally different scenario that follows your arbitrary rules about "you cant change the size of steps"
or "you cant have a stationary point", and yet you havent even so much as fucking mentioned that.

[Anonymous No.10255733]

>>10255722
> time is something that exists only in our local universe
Do we really know this to be the case?

[Anonymous No.10255742]

>>10255733
I suppose we don't, but it's probably safe to say that by whatever processes these structures "evolve" these would be acausal processes. These would be phenomena we don't have any understanding of at all and likely never will.

[Anonymous No.10255756]

>>10255724
Zono's Paradox is a thought experiment where the sizes of the steps are changed.
The thought experiment of an infinite past is one in where the sizes of the steps aren't changed.
There's nothing "ad hoc" here. They aren't arbitrary rules. The entire point is to discuss a scenario with these specific rules.

The finish line in Zeno's Paradox can obviously be reached because in reality, the intervals between ticks of the clock don't shrink. You're just forcing an orange into a discussion about an apple.

[Anonymous No.10255760]

>>10255742
>acausal processes
Guess it's hard to even discuss this when the words available to us have time as an implicit assumption.

[Anonymous No.10255785]

>>10255760
It is hard. But what makes it easier is remembering that time itself as you perceive it is an illusion. We occupy a block universe, and time is just a measure of the expansion of the universe. Think of the entire history of the universe as, I don't know, a solid mound of jello. The time slice you occupy is just the surface of the jello where the knife sliced off a chunk of the jello. But all the jello behind this surface and ahead of this surface is all still there. It doesn't disappear because you sliced it. Passing through the jello, you cannot see ahead or back. But despite that, what's behind you and ahead of you is still physically "there". Except you just can't tell. You are like a fish in jello to mix metaphors. This sounds retarded I guess but I'm trying to paint a picture.

[Anonymous No.10255786]

>>10255756
>You're just forcing an orange into a discussion about an apple.
actually kill yourself, thats you
youre the nigger who's still ignoring my separate process with Right and Left
youre the nigger who's somehow making infinite processes all made up of the same tasks
and im not even the person who's talking about the "infinite past"
thats a totally separate thing thats not even in the fucking OP post

[Anonymous No.10255789]

I'm at least somewhat sure that there is more than one infinity, and that some are "bigger" or "smaller" than others. My examples would be the limits of quotient functions, which can end up being real numbers, even if the limits of either function is undefined i.e. is infinity.

Some mathematician is probably going to come along and BTFO my poor understanding of maths anyway.

t. only has a minimal understanding of maths

[Anonymous No.10255791]

>>10255470
Saying that something will take an infinite amount of time implies that that thing is getting closer to happening as time goes on but never happens.

[Anonymous No.10255817]

>>10255786
Must be hard to walk with such a massive stick up your ass.
I'm not interested in your arbitrary scenario which injects a pomegranate into a discussion about an apple. You posed that scenario to a discussion about the infinite past, not to OP's question.
God I love this site.

[Anonymous No.10255829]

>>10255785
It makes sense conceptually so long as I don't actually try to apply it anything in the real world.

But I'm still not clear on whether this is a product of our mathematics or is the case in the real universe. I mean, we have negative numbers for instance, but you can't have a negative number of blades of grass in your lawn.

[Anonymous No.10255861]

>>10255817
>You posed that scenario to a discussion about the infinite past, not to OP's question.
literally wrong.
>>10255626
thats my first post

[Anonymous No.10255862]

>>10255595
It means it's impossible to describe the universe as having an infinite property like existence, because "having" implies a separation between the haver and what is had, infinity cannot be separate or "had". It is beyond the scope of our language, but doesn't mean the universe isn't infinite.