The idea of ‘Infinity’ has long attracted the mathematically adventurous. And the philosophically credulous.
Have you ever had the compelling desire to fly faster than Light? We’ll, you can’t do it. And why can’t you do it?
The folks who worked out the Theory of Relativity found that as you approach the speed of Light, the amount of energy needed to move you an inch [or for that matter, a single electron] ‘Tends to Infinity’.
The symbol ‘0’ has been around for a long time. But the symbol ‘∞’ for ‘Infinity’ however is less than two centuries old making its appearance following the birth of Science and its need for abstract measurements [the Universe is ‘Finite but Unbounded’?].
The grizzled Dharmic monks and the geezers around the fountain-square in old Athens didn’t like the word very much. Told the young’uns to try and avoid using it.
It parallels their reluctance to grant the ‘Principle of Induction’ the status of ‘Law’. A Conjecture, yes; but not Law. Party-Poopers. What was their problem?
‘Infinity’ is from the Latin In-finitas, for ‘Unbounded, Unbordered’. The bells should go off right there. To give definition is to mark a boundary. And here we begin by defining something as the ‘Unbounded‘.
Any ‘Infinity’ you can point to includes the pointer, the pointed, and the label ‘Infinity’. It is an idea, a concept, best relegated to conversations over coffee in French cafe’s and university philosophy departments.
From the Isavasya Upanishad: ‘When taken away from the Infinite Whole [Purnam], the Infinite Whole remains the Infinite Whole’.
Infinity minus ten trillion is still Infinity. That’s the definition for this formally ‘Undefined Concept’. ‘Infinity’ is that which doesn’t budge when you take something away from it. Or add something to it.
We don’t quite know what Infinity is. But we are quite sure that ‘Infinity plus one’ is the same as it.
While you snuggle into the empty space of a vacuum tube [‘Tends to Zero’], enthusiastic Scientists are vigorously seeking a ‘Theory of Everything’. Any such theory, by that very fact, invalidates itself. The folks don’t understand Self-Reference.
The understanding of the symbols: 0 [Zero], ∞ [Infinity], and I [‘Self’] are mutually inseparable. In other words, I understand all three. Or I understand none.
Wilhelm Leibniz [along with Isaac Newton] is credited with founding the Calculus. Lots of ‘Tending to Zero’ and ‘Tending to Infinity’ in it. Leibniz was alert to the Loop but avoided any direct confrontation with it [See Posts].
Not-Two 