The nature of infinite

[salvemaster]

Lately most of the posts in this forum have been on a scale too large to really comprehend, and i find myself, more and more, having to reply with either a stumping paradox or, simply, infinite.

But what really is infinite? If you think about infinite in terms of life, then you are basically saying that infinite is God, seeing as how the nature of infinite states that its boundaries are nonexistent, it is both everything and nothing at the same time.

Numerically, infinite could be two things: pi or zero. The fact that pi's digits are not confined to earthly extents must mean that it is not confined at all, right? But then again, the fact that we can so readily define portions of pi implies that it is, in fact, part of a whole; and anything that is whole has a beginning, middle, and end.

Zero, however, is essentially a variation on the nature of pi, the only difference being that zero is much more complex. Instead of having a 'never-ending' sequence of digits, zero is simply nothing, which mathematically implicates that it has no confinement and cannot be defined by digits at all.

Personally, i believe infinite is essentially just the 'ultimate opposite'. If you think of every conceptual thing in the universe, it all has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Infinite does not. Every thing in our material universe can be measured, weighed, and defined. Infinite can not. So i cannot help but regard infinite as the exact opposite of everything... but would that make it nothing?

This leads me to think that infinite it is a type of alternate dimension, where every action we take has neither an equal nor opposite reaction, a sort of mirror dimension.

Just some thoughts, have fun with this one.

[iamtheyeti]

Nothing real is infinite. It is just a descriptive term that is used in theory, not measurement of size. Real things can be measured, so you can't describe anything real as infinite. :/

[Fudopi]

Nothing real is infinite. It is just a descriptive term that is used in theory, not measurement of size. Real things can be measured, so you can't describe anything real as infinite. :/

Doesn't infinite mean it never stops?

so technically something could be infinite... I'd need a minute to think of what though and I don't feel like it.

someone else will probably quote this and tell me

[iamtheyeti]

"having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude"

[Iskatehard]

I think that something that is infinite can still have a beginning. A middle and end, though.. Eh, I guess it couldn't.

I really sort of think it's a term that's been established among people for sake of discussion. It's not really applicable itself, however.

And it's sort of odd. We do infact have some numbers that there are currently NO reason in having. Such as One Googol... It's a "real number", but the number of atoms in the visible universe don't even add up to one googol.

So.. The term "infinite" isn't really needed, as we have numbers that are seemingly "infinite" themselves, in a way.. I guess.. But yeah, like I said, I think it's just a word we use to try to express something's numbers when we don't really know anything about it for sure ourselves.

That being said.. That means once we better understand some things, we'd be able to give numbers on EVERYTHING, and there wouldn't be anything that's infinite.

Really.. Infinite seems a paradox on it's own, I think.

[Viva_La_Fiesta]

If pi has infinite digits, that means it would take an infinite time to figure out all of the digits, even if a huge computer was trying, correct?
Because if so, my calculator surely has no idea what pi really is, and I've done all my triangles wrong!

But then again, what about negative infinity (as far as numbers go)? That creates a whole other paradox.

And what if, eventually, we mathematically prove that numbers do end, and there is a limit. What implications would that have on everything?

[salvemaster]

If pi has infinite digits, that means it would take an infinite time to figure out all of the digits, even if a huge computer was trying, correct?
Because if so, my calculator surely has no idea what pi really is, and I've done all my triangles wrong!

But then again, what about negative infinity (as far as numbers go)? That creates a whole other paradox.

And what if, eventually, we mathematically prove that numbers do end, and there is a limit. What implications would that have on everything?


Good point. Assuming that it takes one unit of time to count one digit, then it would take precisely (haha) an infinite number of times to count the digits of pi. So then, wouldn't infinite make sense?

Since time is, observably, infinite, and it takes one unit of time to count one digit of infinite, then, presumably, the idea that infinite's boundaries are relative to the continuance of time is extremely plausible.

So as long as time is continuing, then the 'boundaries' of infinite are, in fact, infinite. But then again, that circuitously implies the idea that time will not stop; as well as that infinite is not so much the idea of endlessness as much as it is the idea of the possibility of endlessness.

Also, since we know pi to be infinite, and we know infinite to be relative to time, and we know the beginning of pi, then wouldn't it theoretically be possible to know the beginning of time?

Good work men, my math teacher would be fucking proud.

[Iskatehard]

In all honesty.. I really don't think pi is infinite.

And I knooowww.. That sounds stupid, and doesn't add up with a lot of what we learn in classrooms. But I think it can be ended.. Because it just doesn't make sense for it not to, honestly.

And if the numbers don't end it goddammit, then the actual relevance of it sure will.



And I don't think the negative infinite is possible.. Really.. Outside making certain things easier to represent, such as aspects of economics and such.. I don't really think negative numbers have a place.. But I might be wrong, as I'm no scientist >.>

[CTskater94]

In all honesty.. I really don't think pi is infinite.

And I knooowww.. That sounds stupid, and doesn't add up with a lot of what we learn in classrooms. But I think it can be ended.. Because it just doesn't make sense for it not to, honestly.

And if the numbers don't end it goddammit, then the actual relevance of it sure will.



And I don't think the negative infinite is possible.. Really.. Outside making certain things easier to represent, such as aspects of economics and such.. I don't really think negative numbers have a place.. But I might be wrong, as I'm no scientist >.>

pi is not infinite. pi is a set ratio, which comes out to an infinite decimel with no pattern.

[Iskatehard]

pi is not infinite. pi is a set ratio, which comes out to an infinite decimel with no pattern.

*Smack forehead.

I swear I knew that >.>'.. My bad for not really posting the above post with that in mind however. I understand the difference.

And I also would like to say.. And I know a lot of people don't agree with it.. But I do believe that pi does have a pattern.

I just don't believe it's been worked out far enough to be able to see it yet, if that makes sense..

But then again, we have worked very far into it.. So I'd be willing to put a bit of faith in the statement that the numbers are already known in order to figure it out, but the method in finding it and understanding it is so unconventional in ways that we're not finding it. I'm pretty confident that at some point or another we'll figure a reliable pattern out.

But then again, even to "test" it out, it'll take a long ass time of sorting it out even further.. And in all honesty, by the time it's figured out.. I'd say that it will be "broken down", if you will, so much that it will not really make much of any difference in relation to its use

edit-

And on that note.. If I may ask, is there any real use/reasoning for knowing what we do now by breaking it down so much? I mean.. It seems after a while, the numbers are of such small significance, they're not really reflected in any use of pi..

But I might be missing something

[Tony]

It's kinda psychological that human brains aren't meant to understand something as weird as infinity, there's always that small part somewhere that assumes that no matter how "infinite" something is it MUST have some kind of set boundaries.

[salvemaster]

It's kinda psychological that human brains aren't meant to understand something as weird as infinity, there's always that small part somewhere that assumes that no matter how "infinite" something is it MUST have some kind of set boundaries.

Exactly, you'd think that human's couldn't even comprehend the idea of infinite since they have nothing to compare it to (which is really how we determine everything else in science).

But that would imply that everything that seems infinite is just really really really big.

That or, more likely, we have just mistaken infinite for expansion, as we cannot define something that is growing because we cannot define something that does not yet have an end.

So yeah you're deff right, i guess infinite is just an idea, not really practical in any sense.

[Iskatehard]

I really don't believe any value is really infinite. I don't know if that's really because it's damn hard to comprehend, or what. It just seems so unrealistic that something could be infinite.

And yeah, I agree with the above bit about confusing things that might be expanding as "infinite".

Which I suppose leads you to thinking about the universe as a whole... I really have no idea on that, though.. If it's static and just infinite.. Or if it just is expanding.

I kind of feel if there is anything that will ever be "infinite", it would be the universe as a whole.. But shit, what exactly would we be saying is infinite about it? Obviously there are some spots in space that are completely empty.. So.. It's hard to really consider something infinite if it's made of nothing >.>'.

And shit.. The reason I have a hard time thinking it is expanding like a lot of theories say.. Is because.. Fuck, what's it expanding in!? I really don't think there is an edge of the universe, where beyond that it's simply nothing.. Really, the idea of nothing expanding in nothing doesn't seem logical to me.

[Tony]

Yeah I kinda believe it's odd how the space is "growing" while it's "infinite", something that huge that doesn't end should cover everything, so where would it expand to? It's fascinating but too much to comprehend.

[Iskatehard]

Yeah, I don't think there is really an edge/end to it.. I mean.. There might be an "edge" to the areas that have matter in them.. And maybe eventually once you get so far out, there just isn't any more matter to be found, possibly.. But if it's completely empty space, then I don't really know how we can label it as anything like "space" or something and say it's infinite..

If we were going to do that.. "nothing" would always be infinite, and that just doesn't even make sense =\

[spanky_dan]

Uhh, no fucking shit we can't comprehend "infinity", it isn't real. It's merely a concept used in various areas, most practically in maths. All infinity is, when used in maths, is an innumerably large (or small) number. Take asymptotes for example, if a line tends towards an asymptote it will continue getting closer and closer to that line, but never touch it, hence the divide becomes very very very small. That's not a great one though, because it is tending towards zero, but the concept is of a number that gets so small continually without end aka. gets infintely small.

The better example is when infinite is used with limits, or in other areas of maths. It's easier to hypothesise "as x tends towards infinity, y tends towards 1" instead of writing, "as x tends towards a very big number, like 100,000,000,000,000,000, y tends towards 1".


Stop trying to "get" infinity. It's just a concept, something that is "without end", so yes in that sense, the number of digits after Pi are infinite as they don't end, but Pi itself is not, Pi is a number between 3.1 and 3.2.

[stinkingfish]

Uhh, no fucking shit we can't comprehend "infinity", it isn't real. It's merely a concept used in various areas, most practically in maths. All infinity is, when used in maths, is an innumerably large (or small) number. Take asymptotes for example, if a line tends towards an asymptote it will continue getting closer and closer to that line, but never touch it, hence the divide becomes very very very small. That's not a great one though, because it is tending towards zero, but the concept is of a number that gets so small continually without end aka. gets infintely small.

The better example is when infinite is used with limits, or in other areas of maths. It's easier to hypothesise "as x tends towards infinity, y tends towards 1" instead of writing, "as x tends towards a very big number, like 100,000,000,000,000,000, y tends towards 1".


Stop trying to "get" infinity. It's just a concept, something that is "without end", so yes in that sense, the number of digits after Pi are infinite as they don't end, but Pi itself is not, Pi is a number between 3.1 and 3.2.

yeah infinite is a imaginary number.

however this a weird idea that I always get hung up about.

1/9 = .111 repeating
2/9 = .222 etc...
3/9 = .333 etc...
6/9 = .666 etc...
etc
but then
9/9 = 1 not .9999999999

1 != 1 by a infinitively small number.

[spanky_dan]

^Haha same!

I always think that, using the 1/9, 2/9...9/9 example as well. It seems so absurd. Obviously with 9/9 it is 1, but it's always amused me.

[Iskatehard]

If there is in fact anything that has an infinite value.. You're not going to observe it with that mindset, if that makes sense.

I think you're looking at it too technically. Now, like I said before, I have a hard time believing anything is infinite.. But if there IS something that is in fact infinite, we wouldn't be able to express it solely in numbers.. At least, not by methods referenced to above.

Not sure if that makes sense, or what.. I can try to do better if needed

edit-

I might add.. If anything has any value that is infinite.. It would be a subjective topic, if that makes sense. It wouldn't be made of matter or energy, of course.

For instance.. I suppose that you could say there are infinite possibilities in which way a song can be made. It can go on for any amount of time, hold any notes, and be any speed.. So, I suppose if you were going to sit down and contemplate making a song.. You'd realize you really in fact have infinite options as to what to end up with.

Or possibly written language. You can make up any "word", and it can be X amount of letters long. So, I suppose the real possibilities would be infinite.

Yeah.. Stuff like that can't be expressed solely in numbers, so I don't think you should try to understand the nature of "infinite" by using numbers..

[spanky_dan]

If there is in fact anything that has an infinite value.. You're not going to observe it with that mindset, if that makes sense.

I think you're looking at it too technically. Now, like I said before, I have a hard time believing anything is infinite.. But if there IS something that is in fact infinite, we wouldn't be able to express it solely in numbers.. At least, not by methods referenced to above.

Not sure if that makes sense, or what.. I can try to do better if needed

edit-

I might add.. If anything has any value that is infinite.. It would be a subjective topic, if that makes sense. It wouldn't be made of matter or energy, of course.

For instance.. I suppose that you could say there are infinite possibilities in which way a song can be made. It can go on for any amount of time, hold any notes, and be any speed.. So, I suppose if you were going to sit down and contemplate making a song.. You'd realize you really in fact have infinite options as to what to end up with.

Or possibly written language. You can make up any "word", and it can be X amount of letters long. So, I suppose the real possibilities would be infinite.

Yeah.. Stuff like that can't be expressed solely in numbers, so I don't think you should try to understand the nature of "infinite" by using numbers..

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REPRESENT INFINITE IN NUMBERS! IT ISN'T A "NUMBER".

It's a concept of a numerical value that is innumerably large, without end!

But I do understand what you mean, although I disagree. Also, I do believe that almost everything can be described by numbers.

I think the fact that with your two examples the word "any" is used, automatically means, that yes, there would be an inifinite amount of ways to write a song.

It's like permutations and combinations, if I have the three letters, A, B and C. How many ways can I rearrange them? There's a formula which you can use (fairly easy but irrelevant).

ABC
ABC
BCA
BAC
CBA
CAB

What you are doing is like an advanced permutation but with a non-finite (I do mean infinite but it's easier to understand if I use non-finite) number of sample points. By saying "any" you already show the infinite possibilities. Numbers are already involved when you say it could go for "any' length of time, from 0.1 seconds, to an infinite amount of time (not physically possible which is where this hypothesis gets weird/messy, but theoretically). So using one note you could write an infinite amount of tracks that stretch on for different times, making different pieces of music. The boundaries are limitless.

Now when you introduce all the other facets of music into an already limitless equation, you can see that there are infinite ways of making music, yeah sure, but it's still not a reality.

It's the same with the word example. Like the decimals of Pi which stretch on infinitely, yet are just the same reocurring digits from 0-9, if the words could be "any" length and with "any" letters, than of course there are an infinite amount of "words" (more like random groupings of letters) possible.

But imagine it like this, you've written trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions, times a trillion trillion trillion times a quintillion words. You've written an incredibly large number of words. Pick any. Keep adding a different letter to it. A then B then C then D (there's four new words), rearrange those, B then D then A then C (there's four new words as well), if you keep adding letters you are going to get new words which you could realistically, physically, tally as a numeral. Add a trillion new letters to every single one of your trillion, trillion, trillion times whatever number of words. Rearrange those letters, trillion times a trillion times a trillion more words.

So when do you hit infinity? You are going to keep getting new words that you can label with a number that fits into the world of our numerical system, and that is going to continually happen. You will never reach infinity, it's only theoretical, it's not something that really exists.

If the sample space is limitless, theoretically there are an infinite amount of words that you could create, but you can never reach it.


And btw, I don't only apply infinity to numbers, it's just an area where I have practically applied it.

[Iskatehard]

*Smacks forehead

My bad about that post. For some stupid ass reason I completely forgot your initial statement in your post, and kind of took your post as trying to disprove the concept of "infinite" with numbers >.>'.. Fuck, I have no idea why, though.

Haha, I do feel dumb now, I have to say =\.. But yeah, you're right, numbers and infinite aren't near as similar (might not be the right word) as people seem to think..



And I'm a bit confused with the second part of your post.. I'm gonna go ahead and re-read it a few times and hopefully sort it out a bit better. But yeah, just posting this now pointing out my bad for the confusion I had initially

[Iskatehard]

Above post


I'm a bit confused by what you mean with:

"Now when you introduce all the other facets of music into an already limitless equation, you can see that there are infinite ways of making music, yeah sure, but it's still not a reality."

How is it still not reality? Do you mean it as in said notes/songs/whatever shouldn't be considered because they're not actually made, and only exist in theoretical thought? I can understand that, but I don't think that really says anything, or belittles the fact that music is infinite, if that makes any sense.

And I see what you mean concerning the written word bit.. About constantly taking account for new "words" and adding numbers up to express how many you've made.. But I don't think that's worth very much.. I say this because you're only counting what you've previously thought up/written.. Ignore barriers of lifetime and such, and yeah.. You could sit there and constantly add letters and count up numbers. But of course, you're never going to end in your number arranging or your counting.

Considering we already know the combination is endless, to begin to try to count them would be a completely empty act, if you will. So knowing that, why even pay any thought to any of the numbers to represent letter combinations? They really aren't expressing ANYTHING about the actual "words", but they only express what said individual "making words" has written.

The numbers themselves though are completely empty and don't really express anything about the actual words and possibilities remaining concerning combination of letters. So.. I don't really feel they express anything (I repeat myself, I know), but I can see how somebody could sort of be tricked into some sort of "pseudo-expression", if that makes sense.


I can see what you mean when you say that you feel most anything can be expressed and numbers.. But I disagree because I don't think it's really being "expressed". Things with infinite outcome potential can't be expressed in numbers as a whole. If you tried to, you'd end up really just labeling outcomes with numbers.. But that's not really telling anybody anything, is it?

I would say most anything can be labeled with numbers, but not expressed/described in numbers, if you know what I mean.

(I understand you know the difference in labeling and expressing.. But for the sake of discussion, and partly just because I sort of feel I need to.. I'll go into detail on them)

There's a big difference in labeling and expressing, of course. Take two ideas, and you can label one as "1" and the other as "2". Now, switch them around and label "2" as "1", and "1" as "2". The numbers change, but it it has no affect. Things are just as they were when they were labeled differently. That's labeling.

Expressing, however.. Each number has a specific value. Mathematics formulas and such to express/explain the physical behavior of something, such as gravity, or whatever have you. The numbers involved are concrete, as in they can change. They actually have "value".

Edit

Upon re-reading your above post.. I'm a bit afraid I'm not understanding you, or something. I seem confused with the "you can't represent infinite" in numbers, followed by the "I think most things can be explained in numbers" =\

[salvemaster]

^I think i understood most of what spanky said. I'm a bit mind-fucked over some (most) of it, but if i were to briefly state my interpretation...

I'd think that infinite as a concept isn't even plausible enough to be considered real, as stated by spanky. Instead, i would say that it's the concept of the possibility of infinite, does that make sense? Since we cannot define it (which was never up for debate), we cannot say that it is infinite.

So, for example, the asymptote idea; the line will theoretically extend forever without crossing an axis, but we cannot really know that since we cannot know infinite, so we can only state the possibility of infinity. I know that's not quite what spanky was getting at, but it's what it made me think of. Idk, i guess that's really just something we knew all along.

Other than that, i get the x/9 reference, but that kind of makes me wonder about the idea that the numbers in a ratio could just be continuously expanding, giving way to the idea that it's not so much 'infinite' as it is 'not having an end'.

So maybe infinite is the assumption that something that is expanding will not stop, and endlessness is the knowledge that something is expanding?

[Skating Forever Even in Heaven]

*Smack forehead.

I swear I knew that >.>'.. My bad for not really posting the above post with that in mind however. I understand the difference.

And I also would like to say.. And I know a lot of people don't agree with it.. But I do believe that pi does have a pattern.

I just don't believe it's been worked out far enough to be able to see it yet, if that makes sense..

But then again, we have worked very far into it.. So I'd be willing to put a bit of faith in the statement that the numbers are already known in order to figure it out, but the method in finding it and understanding it is so unconventional in ways that we're not finding it. I'm pretty confident that at some point or another we'll figure a reliable pattern out.

But then again, even to "test" it out, it'll take a long ass time of sorting it out even further.. And in all honesty, by the time it's figured out.. I'd say that it will be "broken down", if you will, so much that it will not really make much of any difference in relation to its use

edit-

And on that note.. If I may ask, is there any real use/reasoning for knowing what we do now by breaking it down so much? I mean.. It seems after a while, the numbers are of such small significance, they're not really reflected in any use of pi..

But I might be missing something

*Smacks forehead

My bad about that post. For some stupid ass reason I completely forgot your initial statement in your post, and kind of took your post as trying to disprove the concept of "infinite" with numbers >.>'.. Fuck, I have no idea why, though.

Haha, I do feel dumb now, I have to say =\.. But yeah, you're right, numbers and infinite aren't near as similar (might not be the right word) as people seem to think..



And I'm a bit confused with the second part of your post.. I'm gonna go ahead and re-read it a few times and hopefully sort it out a bit better. But yeah, just posting this now pointing out my bad for the confusion I had initially

Be careful, now. You might cause some damage...

[spanky_dan]

Hahaha I'll try and explain everything more clearly. I'm loving this discussion, the different perspectives on the same topic are so amazing.

Ok, back to my post where I responded to your postulates on music and words. I'll try to describe my thoughts better.

"Now when you introduce all the other facets of music into an already limitless equation, you can see that there are infinite ways of making music, yeah sure, but it's still not a reality."

Reality was a bad choice of word. Yes all those different musical techniques are real, and yes you can create vastly different musical pieces using them.

Say you have one note, a middle C. You can create a piece of music which lasts 1 second where you hit that note once. That's one possibility of creating music. You could create a different piece of music where you hit the C twice and it lasts 5 seconds. those are two separate pieces of "music" if you will. Can you see how that train of thought could extend to "you could hit the C one billion times in 100 million seconds" or "you could hit the C an infinite number of times in an infinite amount of time" and everything that stretches in between those times?

That's barely music - that isn't music - it's just a sound, repeated. But the same example could be done using any famous piece of music, if it was just slightly altered repeatedly and the running time extended. Think Modest Mouse, what if one of their songs was increased by a minute and included a new verse. That would be a different musical creation to what it had been previously. Now if you extended that song to an infinite running time and added infinite alterations - even as slight as a more accented note somewhere in the song, that is a different musical piece.

Now imagine that they wrote a song which (bear with me) went for 100 years. If in the musical piece after the song had been going for 50 years they added a bass kick in there somewhere it hadn't been previously, that alters the song, or makes it different to the other.

That's a fairly bad example because is still exactly the same as before but with a double kick somewhere, but think of the all the minute details you can change in a song and imagine those changing over a song that went for an immense period of time. The possibilities of what you could do to a song, what you could change to make it different are conceptually endless.

Going with your hypothesis type thing, if you could live long enough to write every possible piece of music (so age wasn't a barrier to exploring different music, discovering every single thing you could change in a song and doing that) imagine if you DID write every possible song in existence. Pick any of those songs, add a second on to it and add a different note, now you have a "new" song. Add a new note or beat again, lengthen it, now you have a new song. The possibilities are infinite, by definition, as the amount of changes you could do to any piece of music would be without end, boundless, limitless.

But can you see that you can never attain something infinite by simple definition? Once you have created something new, you can label it with something within our numerical system, it may be piece #134,453,562,334,128,956............. By doing that though, can you see you would never reach infinity because it is outside the bounds of our number system? It is a concept of what is possible, but bluntly, you cannot reach it, there's nothing to reach to.

Just imagine climbing a ladder and counting the rungs as you went. If that ladder never ends, no matter how long you live for you'll never reach the top (in a cruel joke, the end doesn't even physically exist for you).

Now I'll try with the word example (in a shortened rant).

Say you've written 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000 words. Pick any of those words, add a letter to it, you have a new word. add another letter you have a new word etc. The number of words is again limitless, it could stretch on without ending, so conceptually we'd refer to that as being infinite.


"I can see what you mean when you say that you feel most anything can be expressed and numbers.. But I disagree because I don't think it's really being "expressed". Things with infinite outcome potential can't be expressed in numbers as a whole. If you tried to, you'd end up really just labeling outcomes with numbers.."

I'm not sure if we mean the same thing, but this is what I'm trying to say as well. While with both examples the possibilites are infinite, if you actually tried to number every possible outcome, you'd be labeling those outcomes with a number (no matter how vast) which is something you cannot do with infinity (I think we're saying the same thing here).

When I say that everything can explained by numbers I wasn't really referring to infinite as an example, more so just the philosophy of mathematics as something humans have created to describe the world that surrounds us.

In regards to infinite, it can't be explained by numbers, it doesn't need to. It is a concept. However, it is helpful and very practical when that concept is applied to our number system.

[Iskatehard]

Ah, right. Okay, I understand much better now, sorry about that. And I believe we're basically saying the same thing about labeling with numbers.

Yeah, you can apply numbers to something that is "infinite", but it really only has value relevant to who initially labeled it and such, I suppose.

And yeah, no point in really trying to number anything like that when it can be infinite.. Or at least not by my logic. Haha, I'd never really number things unless I expected there to be an end to whatever it was I was numbering.

And I agree that we can use mathematics to better describe and understand that around us.. But I suppose it's really only limited to matter and energy.. But if I'm wrong about that, and there's another use I'm unaware of, I'd LOVE to be introduced to it.. But I don't suppose there could be one.

Seems like once you leave matter and energy and start focusing on possibilities and such, it's not really "math" anymore, even if you use numbers to label outcomes.


Haha, shit.. I have to admit, I feel like everything I've written in this post was sort of parts of what you said in your post, so it feels kind of empty to me.. But eh, oh well.


And on another note.. And I admit, this might seem somewhat unrelated and I'm really just here brainstorming and such...

This infinite bit has me thinking of "possibilities" and such concerning science and physics.. Most notably, I remember hearing some theory (I believe it was labeled as quantum physics theory) that stated that any action actually has an infinite range of possible outcomes, just some are much more favored to happen than others..

I believe the exact example the article used was a person walking into a brick wall.. And say they kept doing it over and over and over, for millions of years.. Eventually, the person would walk into the wall, and instead of being rejected and knocked back, something else might happen. They might, for example, pass through it.


Now.. I sort of believe that theory to be a bit unreasonable, but shit.. This has me interested.. And now I'm kind of wondering if any event could have "infinite" possibilities as a result, if you know what I mean.

I always thought that to be impossible.. But eh, I think I'll go back and read further into it.

(I don't mean event as in writing a word or making a song like we've discussed above. But rather, a single action.. Not a collection of actions added up, if you know what I mean)

Edit-

And this thread also has me asking myself some other questions.. Specifically one about numbers.. Thought it's come to my thought a few times.

I often wonder if numbers are "real".. As in.. Shit.. It seems that with how we understand mathematics, they are. They're so many laws to follow in match and such, it's just completely logical, for the most part..

But then it's like "No, I know numbers aren't 'real'.. It's a tool we've created in our minds to better try to understand things".. But then that makes me question the credibility of them, you know? Perhaps the way we've constructed our formulas and such aren't really optimal, or correct even.

Sure.. In many examples, they seem very correct, and always logical.. But then we have the things that end up in #.33333333333333... and such.. Leading me to believe we might not be looking at it correctly, and there might be a "flaw in our system" somewhere...

I swear I ask myself that a lot. But shit, it's like.. If I ask it, I'll likely just sound like an idiot.