Circular Infinity does not exist

[nemafakei]

So you're saying that an "actual point" would have to be some sort of particle, or collection thereof?

If so, then I would not personally have used the term point, because, by definition, the particle has volume, and so is not a point, which is by definition 0-dimensional.

If that is your definition, then I agree, you can only fit so many (finite number) particles or objects between two points.

[emprworm]

if a point is actually defined as 0 dimensions...does that not equate to existing in "concept" only? (since such a thing does not actually exist in our universe, which is 3 dimensions)

[SpiceGuid]

Infinite and expanding means already infinte. You cannot expand the infinte, I mean, can you find any number greater that infinite?

Can you imagine the universe is infinite and you are smaller and smaller?

Then you can imagine the universe is infinite and yet expanding.

It is exactly the same thing.

That is a fact of actual physics: other galaxies move away from us, as demonstrated by Hubble.

However that does not prove universe is finite.

Because infinity can scale.

[nemafakei]

As I said:

""those points exist conceptually, but not actually"

Of course"

0-dimensional points have concept only. However, while they have no substance, they do have location, and occupy but a single location, as opposed to any 'solid' object, which occupies a range of loci (i.e., it exists between x₁ and x₂, beween y₁ and y₂, and so on).

"(since such a thing does not actually exist in our universe, which is 3 dimensions) "

Eleven dimensions is the current thinking, though we cannot directly perceive more than 4 (l,w,h,t), I believe.

Are you saying that an "actual point", as you put it, would have to be some sort of particle, or collection thereof?

[emprworm]

As I said:

""those points exist conceptually, but not actually"

Of course"

0-dimensional points have concept only. However, while they have no substance, they do have location, and occupy but a single location, as opposed to any 'solid' object, which occupies a range of loci (i.e., it exists between x₁ and x₂, beween y₁ and y₂, and so on).

"(since such a thing does not actually exist in our universe, which is 3 dimensions) "

Eleven dimensions is the current thinking, though we cannot directly perceive more than 4 (l,w,h,t), I believe.

Are you saying that an "actual point", as you put it, would have to be some sort of particle, or collection thereof?

i guess my whole point is this: something with zero dimensions does not actually exist. According to math, it is precisely equal to zero. It is not a something but fully a nothing. Now, I am not a Stephen Hawking (though some might like to think him and I are peers :P ), but has there ever been offered any kind of proof to suggest that something with zero dimensions can actually exist? A zero dimensional object cannot be called an object....it cannot be called anything because it has no existing property. An existing property is always > 0. Yet every property of a 0 dimensional object is = 0. Therefore, it is simply "nothing"

what am I missing here?

[Acriku]

If you have a function, f(x)=(-2)^.5x ... It will never reach y=0. So, would that not be infinite points between the y=0 line and the actual function? Or atleast there will always be points between the two, while the function goes closer and closer to y=0 and never reaching it.

[emprworm]

what is a point?

[Acriku]

A point is a designation of a location on a plane. There will always be a location between y=0 and the function I said previously.

[emprworm]

A point is a designation of a location on a plane. There will always be a location between y=0 and the function I said previously.

then it is conceptual only. a point does not actually exist objectively, but only in concept.

[Acriku]

The point is conceptual, but there are still points between the function and y=0, or we can say there is always going to be space between the two.

[emprworm]

well that is my whole POINT (lol, no pun intended).

Points are conceptual, as such an infinite amount of them exists between two points purely conceptually. This is in response to the original post that seemed to blur the line between a conceptual infinite set and an actual infinite set

[Acriku]

Glad we have that settled.

[emprworm]

Glad we have that settled.

ha ha yea. don't get used to it though. ;)