Return to Question

I'm wondering if infinity is a concept. We know from experience that there are things for which one cannot reach the end. A long way through the space is an example. One cannot reach the end of the space because the time needed is not humanly reachable. To get the end of the time is impossible. So there are things for which, if they have an end, this end is not reachable. Intuitively, it seems that for every beginning of thinking, the lived time is the first element implied in the conceptualization of infinite.

Indeed, I ask myself if infinity is really a concept rather than a word coming out from an experience.

Therefore, talking about infinite sets give me a strange impression.

Mathematics shows that we can make a one to one correspondence natural numbers with even numbers. This is not right If there is a last number. But because of the inexhaustible number of numbers it's indeed possible to make a one to one correspondence. But it's obvious that the fact that there is also odd numbers implies that the set of all numbers is greater than the set of even numbers. We cannot reach this because we cannot end the process of counting.

If we introduce the time to reach numbers, we reach a different result. E.g. if one is walking along a road to pick up fruits. After one meter I pick up an apple and a meter further I pick up a pear and so on. If I pick up all the fruits indifferently, my basket is fuller than if I pick up pears only.

Whatever the moment I compare the basket of one who pick up all fruits and the basket of who pick up pears only, the basket of the former is always fuller.

Moreover, If there is not a temporal delay for fulling the basket there is a "step delay" which has nothing to do with time (see examples from programing in the answer of @Rushi).

So can we say that the one to one correspondence in set theory talks about nothing in real world? (Moreover there is a problem of steps).

And consequently how can we know that there are not only empty words because we are conceptually limited in a finite mind?

I'm wondering if infinity is a concept. We know from experience that there are things for which one cannot reach the end. A long way through the space is an example. One cannot reach the end of the space because the time needed is not humanly reachable. To get the end of the time is impossible. So there are things for which, if they have an end, this end is not reachable. Intuitively, it seems that for every beginning of thinking, the lived time is the first element implied in the conceptualization of infinite.

Indeed, I ask myself if infinity is really a concept rather than a word coming out from an experience.

Therefore, talking about infinite sets give me a strange impression.

Mathematics shows that we can make a one to one correspondence natural numbers with even numbers. This is not right If there is a last number. But because of the inexhaustible number of numbers it's indeed possible to make a one to one correspondence. But it's obvious that the fact that there is also odd numbers implies that the set of all numbers is greater than the set of even numbers. We cannot reach this because we cannot end the process of counting.

If we introduce the time (I use the time as a model to show precession in causality) to reach numbers, we reach a different result. E.g. if one is walking along a road to pick up fruits. After one meter I pick up an apple and a meter further I pick up a pear and so on. If I pick up all the fruits indifferently, my basket is fuller than if I pick up pears only.

Whatever the moment I compare the basket of one who pick up all fruits and the basket of who pick up pears only, the basket of the former is always fuller.

Moreover, If there is not a temporal delay for fulling the basket there is a "step delay" which has nothing to do with time (see examples from programing in the answer of @Rushi).

So can we say that the one to one correspondence in set theory talks about nothing in real world? (Moreover there is a problem of steps).

And consequently how can we know that there are not only empty words because we are conceptually limited in a finite mind?

I'm wondering if infinity is a concept. We know from experience that there are things for which one cannot reach the end. A long way through the space is an example. One cannot reach the end of the space because the time needed is not humanly reachable. To get the end of the time is impossible. So there are things for which, if they have an end, this end is not reachable. Intuitively, it seems that for every beginning of thinking, the lived time is the first element implied in the conceptualization of infinite.

Indeed, I ask myself if infinity is really a concept rather than a word coming out from an experience.

Therefore, talking about infinite sets give me a strange impression.

Mathematics shows that we can make a one to one correspondence natural numbers with even numbers. This is not right If there is a last number. But because of the inexhaustible number of numbers it's indeed possible to make a one to one correspondence. But it's obvious that the fact that there is also odd numbers implies that the set of all numbers is greater than the set of even numbers. We cannot reach this because we cannot end the process of counting.

If we introduce the time to reach numbers, we reach a different result. E.g. if one is walking along a road to pick up fruits. After one meter I pick up an apple and a meter further I pick up a pear and so on. If I pick up all the fruits indifferently, my basket is fuller than if I pick up pears only.

Whatever the moment I compare the basket of one who pick up all fruits and the basket of who pick up pears only, the basket of the former is always fuller.

Moreover, If there is not a temporal delay for fulling the basket there is a "step delay"which has nothing to do with time.

So can we say that the one to one correspondence in set theory talks about nothing in real world? (Moreover there is a problem of steps).

And consequently how can we know that there are not only empty words because we are conceptually limited in a finite mind?

I'm wondering if infinity is a concept. We know from experience that there are things for which one cannot reach the end. A long way through the space is an example. One cannot reach the end of the space because the time needed is not humanly reachable. To get the end of the time is impossible. So there are things for which, if they have an end, this end is not reachable. Intuitively, it seems that for every beginning of thinking, the lived time is the first element implied in the conceptualization of infinite.

Indeed, I ask myself if infinity is really a concept rather than a word coming out from an experience.

Therefore, talking about infinite sets give me a strange impression.

Mathematics shows that we can make a one to one correspondence natural numbers with even numbers. This is not right If there is a last number. But because of the inexhaustible number of numbers it's indeed possible to make a one to one correspondence. But it's obvious that the fact that there is also odd numbers implies that the set of all numbers is greater than the set of even numbers. We cannot reach this because we cannot end the process of counting.

If we introduce the time to reach numbers, we reach a different result. E.g. if one is walking along a road to pick up fruits. After one meter I pick up an apple and a meter further I pick up a pear and so on. If I pick up all the fruits indifferently, my basket is fuller than if I pick up pears only.

Whatever the moment I compare the basket of one who pick up all fruits and the basket of who pick up pears only, the basket of the former is always fuller.

Moreover, If there is not a temporal delay for fulling the basket there is a "step delay" which has nothing to do with time (see examples from programing in the answer of @Rushi).

So can we say that the one to one correspondence in set theory talks about nothing in real world? (Moreover there is a problem of steps).

And consequently how can we know that there are not only empty words because we are conceptually limited in a finite mind?