11th January 2006, 11:01 PM
You're taking certain liberties with assumptions and using intuition in place of logic, so in that sense yes it's true. You could also assume that 0 is nothing and you cannot have less, or 'more than' less, you could also assume that any given number is a set limit and no longer infinite.
But for what it is as a constant logically, it is a completely infinite system. Though it should be stated that other than in math itself, there is no such thing as to be counted infinitely as everything univesally applies itself to cycles to which it begins at any set point and ends at any set point yet continues as a cycle, such as a watch. The term 'infinite' is then applied for the fact that the cycle never ends except for billions of variables which alter the cycle over time to which it could hypothetically reach a point within its cycle where it can no longer function (destroyed, absorbed, etc).
But yeah, numbers themselves are wholly infinite but completely useless, they act only as anchors to the abstract or for scientific purposes in experimentation. You could say the mammalian brain has around 1,000,000,000,000 neurons, or you could say the mammalian brain has around 'apple' of neurons, as long as you apply the value of the number to a name or system it becomes meaningless to only focus on one system though it's used for universal appeal, which I understand.
But for what it is as a constant logically, it is a completely infinite system. Though it should be stated that other than in math itself, there is no such thing as to be counted infinitely as everything univesally applies itself to cycles to which it begins at any set point and ends at any set point yet continues as a cycle, such as a watch. The term 'infinite' is then applied for the fact that the cycle never ends except for billions of variables which alter the cycle over time to which it could hypothetically reach a point within its cycle where it can no longer function (destroyed, absorbed, etc).
But yeah, numbers themselves are wholly infinite but completely useless, they act only as anchors to the abstract or for scientific purposes in experimentation. You could say the mammalian brain has around 1,000,000,000,000 neurons, or you could say the mammalian brain has around 'apple' of neurons, as long as you apply the value of the number to a name or system it becomes meaningless to only focus on one system though it's used for universal appeal, which I understand.