The experiences of man whereby he came to the concept of infinity.

Dear guys here, have you ever given some time and labor to think on the experiences of man by which he came to the concept of infinity?

The way I see it, it must have been when he first noticed that as he walked on and on and never reached the end of the surface of the earth on which he was walking, he got the idea that there is no end to the land on which he was walking; there, that was his very first experience of no end to walking on the surface of the earth.

And accordingly he coined the word, infinite, meaning literally: no ends, no limits.

Today, the way I see it, with every instance of the use of the word and concept infinity, basically we have the idea of a succession or more correctly the repetition of the same event like man walking step by step without end, or the sun rising in the sky every morning without any end in sight.

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, we have two generic kinds of infinity, namely:

1. What I call philosophical infinity, which consists in absolutely no beginning and no ending of something, like the concept of the infinity of God existing, meaning God exists in eternity and everywhere whatsoever how you define everywhere.

2. Mathematical infinity, which does not consist in absolutely no beginning and no ending of something, like the quotient of the division of 4 by 3 - please correct me if I am wrong, but which mathematicians have found a way to still call it infinity of getting bigger and bigger and/or getting smaller and smaller, but not endlessly without limits: because mathematicians have invented ways of making what they call infinity to be no longer endless-ness, but already now subject to computation or calculation, wherefore no longer endless, no longer without limits, no longer philosophically infinite: otherwise it would not be computable or calculable at all.

What do you guys here say?

a reply to: Pachomius

All for me grog,
me jolly jolly grog!

a reply to: Pachomius

basically we have the idea of a succession or more correctly the repetition of the same event like man walking step by step without end

If you consider the ancients concept of physical time there would be limitations.
Starlight for example might have a wavelength of 10^-7 seconds.
They could have used interferometric techniques to create a clock with an accuracy of 10^-3 perhaps?
The concept of infinite subdivisions wouldn't have been alien in any generation would it?

I personally can't recall my own beginning... and I can't fathom my own end.

So it seems... I always was. But I know that I was born on some intellectual level, and I even know in some way that I will die, but the main point of the definition of existence is the very lack of non-existence... so when we exist, there is no non-existence in us. I always thought that was interesting. I have wondered about this aspect of life a lot, personally. In life there is no death.

Cool OP.

a reply to: Pachomius

Because it is impossible to look at the sky and think that it ever ends. End how? A wall?

And there is no last number like in letters. You can add any amount to any amount and always add more.

The hexagram is an expression of infinity which is cool. You can always draw a hexagram perfectly in a hexagon, and it has a hexagon in the center so you can do it again and again.

a reply to: Pachomius

Infinity is a great meditation device I have found. It is the closest visible thing to "God" I can conceive of.

Thanks everyone for your contributions.

And please forgive me, I am asking you to do some speculation on man's earliest experiences by which he came to the concept of infinity.

Perhaps you can think of your new born infant and wonder when he is going to if ever ask you the question, whether the sun will always rise in the morning, or will there always be babies born?

The point I am trying to ascertain with your help, is that mathematicians are playing a 'trick' on us, with using the word infinity but it is not the original concept of infinity as philosophers understand it, from man's earliest experiences by which man came to the idea of infinity; but their own understanding of infinity which is not any quantity or mathematical entity that is without ends and limits – otherwise they would not be able to factor in ‘infinity’ in their computation or calculation by which they come to the idea, like that there could be infinite number of universes.

Do you notice, and correct me if I am wrong, that as we read scientists specifically cosmologists talking about the nature of the universe, they bring in the word infinity, but they use mathematics to deal with it; still the way I see them, they are shifting back and forth and thus confusing us, from the philosophical concept of infinity to the mathematical concept, and/or from the mathematical concept to the philosophical.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I just want to get your better knowledge in order that I will conform my information to the best knowledge in re the distinction between philosophical infinity and mathematical infinity.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear guys here, have you ever given some time and labor to think on the experiences of man by which he came to the concept of infinity?

The way I see it, it must have been when he first noticed that as he walked on and on and never reached the end of the surface of the earth on which he was walking, he got the idea that there is no end to the land on which he was walking; there, that was his very first experience of no end to walking on the surface of the earth.

And accordingly he coined the word, infinite, meaning literally: no ends, no limits.

Today, the way I see it, with every instance of the use of the word and concept infinity, basically we have the idea of a succession or more correctly the repetition of the same event like man walking step by step without end, or the sun rising in the sky every morning without any end in sight.

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, we have two generic kinds of infinity, namely:

1. What I call philosophical infinity, which consists in absolutely no beginning and no ending of something, like the concept of the infinity of God existing, meaning God exists in eternity and everywhere whatsoever how you define everywhere.

2. Mathematical infinity, which does not consist in absolutely no beginning and no ending of something, like the quotient of the division of 4 by 3 - please correct me if I am wrong, but which mathematicians have found a way to still call it infinity of getting bigger and bigger and/or getting smaller and smaller, but not endlessly without limits: because mathematicians have invented ways of making what they call infinity to be no longer endless-ness, but already now subject to computation or calculation, wherefore no longer endless, no longer without limits, no longer philosophically infinite: otherwise it would not be computable or calculable at all.

What do you guys here say?

a reply to: Pachomius

A fine topic indeed! And not so easy to navigate...

The idea that the infinite is that which is limitless or has no bounds was prevalent among the ancient Greeks (Zeno, for example) and persisted into the modern era (Descartes and Hume, for example, use the discourse of limitlessness in connection with the infinite). More recently, though, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, there has been much skepticism about the usefulness of this way of thinking. That is, defining the infinite in this way leads to some tricky problems.

When a thing is limited (and, therefore, “finite”), it is always limited by what it is not.

For example, if we consider the group of all apples, we find that it is finite. Why?
Because we find other things that are not apples, and the existence of non-apples shows us that the group of all apples has a boundary or limit beyond which there are none.

It is the same when we say that our knowledge is finite, we believe this because there are things we do not know. Similarly, I know that the chair I’m sitting on is finite by virtue of the fact that it has a boundary or limit beyond which there is no chair.

This is how any boundary or limit is established for any thing, the limit is that beyond which the thing is not.
So, a thing is limited by what it is not.

Here’s the weird part. Finite and infinite are (obviously) opposites.
Suppose we define them as follows:
The finite is that which is limited, and
the infinite is that which is unlimited.

Since a thing is limited by what it is not, and
since the infinite is not finite,
the infinite is limited by the finite.

Thus, defining the infinite as that which has no limits actually places limits on the infinite.
So, if the infinite is that which is limitless, then the infinite is actually finite.