| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - IS INFINITY REAL? -> Infinity: A definition | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Infinity: A definition |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 7, 2008 Views: 913 | Infinity: A definition If you Google 'Infinity' you may be surprised at the number and types of infinity that are described. When I talk about infinity, as on my main page, I am using the following definition: "Without end or limit. That which is not only without determinate bounds but which cannot possibly admit of bound or limit." This definition is taken from Chambers Concise Dictionary. I make this definition very clear on my main page on the subject. However, when someone comes along, like Ridler for example, and goes on and on about (whatever) having a bounded infinity, they are using a totally different definition (a rather strange one at that to say the least) which makes the whole argument meaningless and pointless. I do wish people would read what I have so carefully written before trying to tell me I am wrong. I am not wrong. If you read Ridler's comments you will see exactly what I mean. He is using his own definition of infinity to tell me that my definition is wrong! What on earth does that prove apart from the fact that he has serious problems with comprehending the English language? By the accepted version of what infinity is, it cannot be bounded, it cannot posses either an end or a beginning. To therefore argue that time (or anything else for that matter) has a beginning but is infinite is pure gibberish, not to mention a contradiction. I hope that this explanation and definition will prevent others from making the same mistake. Having said that very, very few people have made that mistake. |
| Posted By: Son of Ridler Posted On: Feb 8, 2008 Views: 901 | RE: Infinity: A definition It seems to me that Ridler's definition is as reasonable as your definition,Keith. I only don't understand why he thinks time has to be infinite also. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 8, 2008 Views: 898 | RE: Infinity: A definition ANY definition is reasonable! However, I chose to select the time honoured definition that infinity admits of no boundaries and that is what my article on infinity is all about. It is therefore pointless for someone to come along and say they have found something that meets my criteria of being infinite when they are using a different definition. I would have thought that to be stating the bleeding obvious. I find it amusing that one of the definitions selected by Ridler says it is "an extremely large number of something". I find that staggering!!! Infinity is NOT a number it is a description, same as small or big is a description. You can't put a value on infinity, how can you, its infinite. Ridler's problem is that he does not understand what I have said in my article or in my posts. He stubbornly continues to forge ahead regardless of what I am telling him. A very stubborn narrow minded arrogant pompous man. He needs to loosen up a little and think more before plodding along on his one course track. As for time having no end, that is just something that Ridler happens to think. |
| Posted By: Ridler Posted On: Feb 8, 2008 Views: 890 | RE: Infinity: A definition Well, I'll be as brief as possible: infinity has nothing to do with borders, except in Keith Mayes' mind. So, he INVENTED a definition. Of course my definition is different! Of course I'm comparing apples with oranges! So, am I the crazy one? No, he is the one who is prettending that his oranges taste like apples! He is trying do definite infinity just as he wants and trying to make the assertion that the infinity concept MUST be linked with the notion of border. One thing has nothing to do with the other, but he just can't realize it, because it's just to counter-intuitive to him. He just can't understand that these two things (infinity and borders-or lack of them) are unrelated! It's no used. He just doesn't get it. "I find it amusing that one of the definitions selected by Ridler says it is "an extremely large number of something". I find that staggering!!! Infinity is NOT a number it is a description, same as small or big is a description. You can't put a value on infinity, how can you, its infinite." Keith, people are not stupid. You are just a poor spin doctor. And I'll say no more about this matter. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 9, 2008 Views: 886 | RE: Infinity: A definition "I find it amusing that one of the definitions selected by Ridler says it is "an extremely large number of something". I find that staggering!!! Infinity is NOT a number it is a description, same as small or big is a description. You can't put a value on infinity, how can you, its infinite." I notice you quote me, as above, only to end by saying "people are not stupid". Why? What is wrong with that statement? Could you not think of anything intelligent to say about it? Are you saying the that statement is wrong or what? Show me where it is wrong then instead of making silly and pointless remarks! Why you fail to understand my definition of infinity, which has been understood and used by scientists for many decades, is a mystery known only to you. Lack of understanding? Narrow mind? Can't possibly be seen to be wrong? BTW, it is not MY definition, just the one I used for my article, the most accepted one. I am so very sorry if YOU don't like it. Dear oh dear. Why do you insist on using other definitions of infinity? What is the point in that? As I have previously said, there are many different definitions and ANY one could be used in an article on infinity. However, I chose the time honoured one so what is the point in you arguing about a different one? That is just senseless. Are you so stupid you are unable to grasp even that very simple fact? Calling me a spin doctor is silly, you only say that because you cannot find fault with my argument, so instead of challenging it you resort to that. Pathetic! Try finding fault with my comments in this post. Go ahead! On second thoughts, don't bother, what would be the point? You are not following the argument at all, you have simply dug a hole and jumped in. Your position can't change, no matter what. This is all about you using a different definition of infinity to mine, which makes the entire argument totally pointless, yet you are too stupid to see it. |
| Posted By: Wormwood Posted On: Feb 9, 2008 Views: 876 | RE: Infinity: A definition Hi Ridler, I have read through your comments on this thread and others and sadly for you I have to agree with Keith. I do not wish to take sides but you are making a bit of a mess of it. Keith's page on infinity does make it clear that the infinity he is talking about, and it is the same as I was taught in school, does not have any boundaries. You are talking aboiut something else entirely. keith has pointed this out to you on a number of occasons but younrefuse to acknowledge it. My advise to you is to admit it or go away, beacuse Keith does not tolerate fools, I have seen this many times. You really are pompous and arrogant as keith said. Why not just agree that you are talking about something else and move on, because keith does have a lot to offer, if you have an open mind. As for time being infinite, that is open to debate, it is not known. All the best anyway Wormwood. |
| Posted By: Ridler Posted On: Feb 9, 2008 Views: 869 | RE: Infinity: A definition "Hi Ridler, I have read through your comments on this thread and others and sadly for you I have to agree with Keith. I do not wish to take sides but you are making a bit of a mess of it. Keith's page on infinity does make it clear that the infinity he is talking about, and it is the same as I was taught in school, does not have any boundaries. You are talking aboiut something else entirely. keith has pointed this out to you on a number of occasons but younrefuse to acknowledge it." hmmm...maybe it would be better if you checked what I wrote on my 5th post on the topic "evidence". "My advise to you is to admit it or go away, beacuse Keith does not tolerate fools, I have seen this many times." Sorry, that's pretty arbitrary... You are implying this: Keith does not tolerate fools. Since I agree with Keith and not with you, you are being a fool. So, you should admit it or leave. No. I will leave when I want to leave. Neither of you have the arbitrary right to state if I'm being fool or not. Be aware that that kind of thinking is very inquisitorial and unscientific. "You really are pompous and arrogant as keith said. Why not just agree that you are talking about something else and move on, because keith does have a lot to offer, if you have an open mind." You are wrong. I have an open mind. It was him who just started with the insults, deleted some of my posts and tried to ban me (by baning my previous IP). Is this an open mind? I know that Keith has a lot to offer! He just has no space to receive anything at all... "As for time being infinite, that is open to debate, it is not known." I know but, again, check the other thread... "All the best anyway Wormwood." Thanks. Best regards, Ridler |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 10, 2008 Views: 866 | RE: RE: Infinity: A definition Ridler, From my previous post: "Calling me a spin doctor is silly, you only say that because you cannot find fault with my argument, so instead of challenging it you resort to that. Pathetic! Try finding fault with my comments in this post. Go ahead!" and "I find it amusing that one of the definitions selected by Ridler says it is "an extremely large number of something". I find that staggering!!! Infinity is NOT a number it is a description, same as small or big is a description. You can't put a value on infinity, how can you, its infinite." and "I notice you quote me, as above, only to end by saying "people are not stupid". Why? What is wrong with that statement? Could you not think of anything intelligent to say about it? Are you saying the that statement is wrong or what? Show me where it is wrong then instead of making silly and pointless remarks!" You have a habit of making stupid comments and to say I am wrong, but when challenged are unable to back them up. You are just empty talk with no substance. If you can't answer my points then why are you still here? For what purpose? |
| Posted By: Ridler Posted On: Feb 10, 2008 Views: 859 | RE: Infinity: A definition There we go... "I find it amusing that one of the definitions selected by Ridler says it is "an extremely large number of something". I find that staggering!!! Infinity is NOT a number it is a description, same as small or big is a description. You can't put a value on infinity, how can you, its infinite." I know that that definition is one of the MANY definitions writen in the Oxford dictionary regarding infinity (which, regardless of defining infinity inside coloquial or scientific speech modes-they are different, did you know?-never mentions, however, the "lack of borders criteria"...) It was me who copy/pasted the link to the Oxford dictionaty. That's a fact. However, can you please tell me and the others who are reading this: When did I USED or "selected" that very definition that you are accusing me of having "selected"? Once again: I posted a link to a site that contains many definitions of infinity. If you were a serious human being you could have easily identified the definitions that were on the line with my previous discourse. But, no! Instead, you chose the easy and manipulative path...as usual. You are a spin doctor. P.S.: Don't be childish. If, sometimes, I give up to deliver you any kind of reply, then it just happens because of my disregard for your manipulative way of arguing and not because I am not able do deliver you a straight answer. By now, you should already have learned this. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 10, 2008 Views: 855 | RE: Infinity: A definition You said "I give up to deliver you any kind of reply, then it just happens because of my disregard for your manipulative way of arguing and not because I am not able do deliver you a straight answer. By now, you should already have learned this." Oh I see. Your refusal to answer a straight question that shows that you are at fault is because I am 'manipulative'. As replies go that is, again, pathetic. You do not posses the wit to argue. When you can't think of a reply you just refuse to answer because you could not possibly admit to being wrong. Grow up. There is nothing 'manipulative' or 'spin doctor' about the point I put to you, read it again, what's wrong with it? You just don't have an answer but can't admit it. I do not expect you to answer this, because its just me being 'manipulative' again. Give me strength! |
| Posted By: Ridler Posted On: Feb 10, 2008 Views: 851 | RE: Infinity: A definition As I said before: people are not stupid. That's all that matters. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 10, 2008 Views: 847 | RE: Infinity: A definition People in general are not stupid, but you clearly are! Whenever I challenge you you are unable to respond so instead you accuse me of being "a spin doctor" or "manipulative" or you just make yet another stupid remark. I ask you to explain why you said "people are not stupid" in response to my perfectly acceptable statement, and all you can manage is to again repeat your stupid, childish and pointless remark. You are beginning to sound like a demented parrot. Is this the best that you can do? Its worse than childish. Go away, you are not worth the bother, you are quite moronic. Try to grow up and learn to admit when you have been shown to be wrong. Do not even bother to reply with yet more of your childish nonsense, enough is enough, you are hereby banned. No point in continuing trying to converse with someone who has the IQ of pond life. What a friggin idiot! If any of this is too difficult for you to comprehend, ask your mum to explain it to you. |