I may have stumbled on Infinity

James (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago

Quick Summary
∞ = a concept that is boundless and endless.

Cantor said there are many types of ∞

But every ∞ that Cantor found is explainable with the number “1”.

“1” explains itself and EVERY TYPE of number,
be it a reproduction of itself
E.g (1+1+1) = 3

Or within itself
E.g 0.5 = 1/2 = 50% of “1”

“1” is also 100% complete.

Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths.

( <— Start/Beginning/Bound
) <—Finish/Completion/End

As shown before
(1+1+1) = 3

Therefore "1" is

(1) = (100%), completely bounded and ended wth itself.

Cantors work is the ∞ possibilities within the number (1).

Nothing more

It is not Absolute because it is restricted to itself.

We live in
(1) = (E=mc2)
(1) = (universe)

If we think its Absolute we create the greatest oxymoron in existence

How can the boundless/endless infinite concept be bounded/ended/ finite?

(1) also has a language

Mathematical Governing Laws
(+-) Addition and subtraction

These two symbols (with (1)) explain every other symbol
x, ÷ , √ , Etc
(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)
2 x 3 = 6

(+-) is the language of (1)

(+-) = Equal Opposite, Addition and subtraction, Positive and negative, Time space, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark, etc

What happens when an unrestricted "1" is added onto (1) ?
1+(1) =?

What is

1 + ()
1 + (1)
1 + (Maths)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)
1 + (logic)
1+ (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (finite)

Say we created a super computer that calculated every mathematical possibility in the universe and the answer is (100). What is
1 + (100) = ?
It is not 101

Absolute 100%
Infinite ∞

1 + ( 1 ) = ∞
A boundless and endless concept

1 + (+-) = ∞

We can never contemplate ∞ because it is beyond our ()

Cantor was right about God.

Thank you.

Apologies for any uneducated errors.

May 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Anonymous (145) (@) 8 years, 6 months ago ago


yoinkie (1,498)C (@yoinkie) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@notexceling, I guess i’m confused, what is your question? I see basic elements of math that you are trying to tie into a definition of infinity, but are you asking something or just stating? If 100 is the answer to the universe, it means the answer is complete, and you cant add 1 to a complete. Othere then that, I dont know what you’re trying to ask.

Anonymous (2,833) (@) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

not sure what I read actually means anything or not

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

I’m asking my friend if I’m wrong


1 + (1) = ∞ ?
1 + (+-) = ∞ ?

Asking your thoughts


Say this individual (1) did a morally good deed, promoted a positive to the world

1 + (+>-) = + ∞ ?
Would/could this be considered
Eternal positive or aka heaven?

I know I sound loopy guys, sorry.

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

In saying
God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+-)

An eternal, incomprehensible, concept, something outside of our restrictions ()
Is God an absolute infinite
Just like Cantor suspected

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

If (100) is = everything in universe
1 + (100) is not 101
It must be
1 + (100) = ∞
1 beyond all bounds and ends.
The Eternal, The Absolute

Cosmic (79) (@cosmicd46) 8 years, 6 months ago ago


Interesting discussion. I think I understand what you’re saying:
(1) is complete.
Either (1) + 1 makes (1) bigger internally or it’s not possible because (1) is already complete, i.e. it will forever remain (1) + 1, where the +1 is theoretical.
But if (1) got bigger internally, a contradiction would exist.

Proof by contradiction comes to mind. Could this be one?

dave (19) (@dkman) 8 years, 6 months ago ago


Maybe this topic is going over my head, but from your (100) = whole universe explanation I’m not agreeing with you. Let’s say the (100) = universe, this means that the universe is finite, and although the universe = (100), it is still possible to imagine or theorize a universe that equaled =(101), even though it may or may not exist.

If you assume that (100) = infinity, then your just changing the meaning of our number system to define (100) as infinity, and 1 + infinity will equal infinity.

You say:
“If (100) is = everything in universe
1 + (100) is not 101
It must be
1 + (100) = ∞” — This part can be assumed correct without any problems and isn’t revolutionary.

“1 beyond all bounds and ends.
The Eternal, The Absolute” — Now you say “bounds and ends” when before you defined (100) as infinite so your changing its definition, and not really proving anything.

Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I’ve come up with. Let me know if you can enlighten me, thanks. Either way it was fun to ponder.

Cosmic (79) (@cosmicd46) 8 years, 6 months ago ago


Just a thought:

If (1) = the universe = everything,
then nothing exist outside (1).
So isn’t the +1 in (1)+1 already part of the (1)?
If so, (1)+1 isn’t possible as the 1 in +1 is already within the (1).
Also, if nothing exists outside the (1) then infinity must exist within it.

Assume that ‘the universe’ above encapsulates all possible universes.

Anonymous (46) (@) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@a + @b / ( + – (@c)) * π = ∞ (propelling)

– @b / ( + – (@c)) * π = ∞ (counter)
@ would be the directed object or concept

Andrea (21) (@yourefunny) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

I think your logic is wrong in that you are trying to add the cardinality of the set of (1) to a number, 100, and that is why you are having trouble reaching 101.

You can only use real numbers in order to use the operations you defined

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@cosmicd46, Thank you guys for tackling the equation logically

if (1) = everything in universe

what is 1 more added onto that?

wouldnt it just be 1 ∞ something/a concept beyond bounds and ends and that is inconceivable because of our limited (1) views?

Heres another way of putting the question

Quantum mechanics says that for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.

So if we (1) are restricted by our governing laws (+-) (equal and opposite, gravitational physics)
then isn’t Quantum mechanics just stating this
+ (+ – ) ?
a law + producing something ( + – )?

infinite can exist within (1). But it is not Absolute, it is merely the infinite possibilities within the number (1). It explains itself and every possible number within it.
We come from (1) big bang and everything that was created is within it.

I hope im making sense

I agree with you. we cant reach 101 within (100).
If we add 1 to (100) we are left with not a real number anymore but a concept,
100% ∞
Absolute Infinite

Quote: “If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light.”

So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
Arent I saying the same thing as science has predicted?

Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@notexceling, There are not many types of infinity, just one infinity can account for every type of infinity simultaneously. And we cannot assume infinity is God or God is infinity, because as you said; “We can never contemplate ∞ because it is beyond our ()” we do not know the nature of infinity or God, perhaps we can’t. This does not automatically mean they are the same thing.
Infinity accounts for everything in the universe, but with infinity everything becomes subjective, “everything” suggests a limit while “infinity” suggests no limits, the two are incomparable. But in an infinite universe there is no objective point of reference to measure anything, not everything or infinity, so there is no reasonable distinction between the two.
So God=Infinity? There is no objective point of reference to reasonably conclude either way, you are left with the same situation as before, no confirmation of God, only confirmation of infinity.

Anonymous (68) (@) 8 years, 6 months ago ago


Grand Kahlib (76) (@kahlib) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@notexceling, are you talking about Imaginary Numbers? from the little i understand, i think they are a similar concept (they can even produce multiple solutions).

Anonymous (145) (@) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

He wrote it like officials write documents, saying a lot while saying almost nothing of importance, making you think that you are stupid…a very ingenious plot, if i may say so myself.

Andrea (21) (@yourefunny) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@trek79, There are actually many different types of infinity. Review Cantor’s theory on infinite sets.

, If you add a value to infinity, it is still infinity. The size of the infinity of an interval of the real number line is the same as the size of the infinity of the entire real number line. For example, the number of possible values from 0 to 1 (ie, 0.001, 0.003, all the way up to 0.99999..) is the same as the number of values on the entire real number line.

Your logic is oversimplifying the nature of infinity, and assuming that all that exists in the universe is 1, and thus God. What you quoted is totally theoretical. Something can’t travel faster than the speed of light, but if it did, then its mass would be infinite. But it cant

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@trek79, The infinity that your talking about is not infinite at all, it is merely the infinite amount of possibilities within (1).
It is restricted by mathematical governing laws of the universe.

Absolute Infinite is the ∞ beyond the ()

Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers you mentioned from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God).
I’m merely saying the same thing.
It does not matter what you call this God or even if you follow a God, as long as you believe there is a one, 100% infinite that can never be limited by our governing laws.
If you agree that God, Allah, YHWH, Absolute Infinite (or any other name you prefer to call it) does exist, then I follow the same 1=∞ that you follow.

The universe is finite.

If it agrees to the “Universal” laws of mathematics and exists within one E=mc2 then it is restricted, hence not boundless or endless

Mr. Arbiter (86) (@snaysler) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@notexceling, how high are you right now?

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@yourefunny, I’m not saying that “all that exists in the universe is 1, and thus God”,

Im saying all that exists is finite and within (1) system and a concept beyond these boundaries, which we will never understand is God, or an Absolute Infinite whatever you would like to call it.

Like I stated in the original post,

(∞) can not exist, how can infinite be finite. How can the unrestricted be restricted?
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?

but (∞) can be the ∞ possibilities within (1).

Like what Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.

Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@notexceling, How do you know the universe is finite? Mathematically? We do not know how absolute mathematical formulas will behave in circumstances other than our own dimensional perception. Quantum physics has already confirmed that the universe works on an infinite variable, so according to that the universe is not finite.
If you have one infinite then you have infinite infinites, there is no 100% infinite, that is a contradiction of terms, with an infinte; 1% of infinity is infinity, and everything in between.

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@trek79, Again all the infinites ∞ your thinking of are restricted by a value (1) and its mathematical governing laws (+-)

I’m not talking about those infinites within the limits.

Quantum Mechanics is also explained within the equation.

Mathematics studies the (+ | – ) laws to understand the (1) value.

Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | – ) laws.

Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.

The equation covers this aspect quite easily….

A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.

+ ( + | – )

Would it be wrong then if I state this is the equation of Quantum mechanics,

And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies?

I’ve been putting the equation to the test. I think it might even be the Prisca Theologia

Atheist, understand natural law exist

Pantheist, the universe is God

(1= ∞ )
Buddhism, look within yourself to find personal Nirvana. Cantors ideology is somewhat a Buddhist belief.

1 + (+|-) = ∞
Christianity, father 1 = ∞ holy spirit + son (+|-)
(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son

Surah 112
Say he is 1 (1), on all whom depend (+) he begets not, nor is begotten (+|-) and none is like him (∞)

Guys even if im not right, i think im bloody close

James (2) (@notexceling) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

In the beginning
God 1
created +
the heavens ∞
and the earth (+-)

Note the heavens being infinite ∞ must pre exist the finite (+-) so Genesis (even though it has been knocked around) has a logical mathematical correctness to it, even if its only the first line ;)

Anonymous (68) (@) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

“(∞) can not exist, how can infinite be finite. How can the unrestricted be restricted?”

because it isnt. lol

Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 6 months ago ago

@notexceling, there is a lot to the Bible that we are just discovering has relevance to mathematical, physics and quantum physics that we are now pioneering. There are a lot of indications that the ancients knew stuff that we are only just discovering, and as we discover it, things the ancients have left behind that never made sense to us before are now making sense.
I’m no mathematician, if your sums have brought you to a conclusion then great, but generally people do not understand that. You can mathematically prove God exists beyond any doubt, but doubt then rises in the translation barrier.
But how I understand things is that to get a truly objective point of reference, that we need to confirm anything and everything humanity has discovered thus far, we need to know how our mathematical and physical laws are effected by extra-dimensional phase shifts.

Viewing 24 reply threads
load more