What about consider the concept of infinity with the idea of time? Some mathematicians say that infinity itself does not exist in "real/physical" world, so closer to the idea and guessworks we have about time.
Then, if we accept infinity as a nonphysical matter, it would be connected to the idea of "timeless" proporties. Those which tend to be in a loop without caducity.

time — javi2541997

Yep, infinity & time are related in the sense that an infinite task will take an infinite amount of time.

What comes to mind is the apocryphal tale of how the inventor of chess pulled a fast one on the king he presented his invention to. He simply asked that he should be given an amount of grain based on this formula: 1 grain of sand on the first square, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, so on such that each square contained twice the number of grains than the square preceding it. The king, not having the slightest clue, agreed to do so.

It turns out the total number of grains required was a mind-boggling number - not only the kingdom, the whole world didn't contain so much grain. The inventor was promptly executed! :rofl:

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem — Joseph Stalin

What I'm driving at is this:

Little drops of water,
Little grains of sand.
Make the mighty ocean
And the pleasant land!

Our first meeting with infinity began with +1 like so:
1
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 1 = 3
3 + 1 = 4
4 + 1 = 5
5 + 1 = 6
.
.
.
$\infty$

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. In other words, our minds, having developed the idea of infinity, nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical. — Agent Smith

When you say "there are no actual infinities" I assume you mean that we space-time humans have no sensory experience of unboundedness. Everything in our evolving world is finite & temporary. That's why the notion of spacelessness & timelessness seemed absurd to early philosophers. However, as a useful mathematical concept, we no longer have a problem with the idea of Infinity, or of Zero : nothingness.

Similar absurd, but serviceable, ideas are also encountered in Quantum Theory. For example, a Virtual Particle can be substituted for a Real Particle in calculations. So, some physicists will confidently assert that a VP is just as "real" as an ordinary particle. I guess they mean that a non-physical bit of mind-stuff is mathematically interchangeable with a physical speck of matter. Yet, they may not accept some non-mathematical philosophical notions (e.g. metaphors) as equivalent, in a thought experiment, to a physical object.

"Infinity" and "Virtual Particle" are both abstract non-physical mental metaphors serving as a stand-in for Real Things. Likewise, Plato's notion of "Forms", somehow existing in an Ideal Realm, is metaphorical. It's useful as a philosophical tool for understanding the difference between Potential Perfection and Actual Imperfection. But, in what sense does an Idea exist? It's like Potential Voltage of a battery, impotent until put into circulation, i.e. a circuit from Possible to Actual. The notion of "Eternal Forms" may seem non-sensical, unless you take the concept of Potential seriously.

That's why Materialists think, "if it's not physical, it's literally inconsequential". But they seem to forget the power of Potential. An idea locked in a mind, may be useless. But once in circulation, as a Meme, an idea (whose time has come) may be more powerful than Putin's armies. Am I correct, in assuming that you had something like that in mind by labeling the "idea of infinity" as "non-physical"? "Infinity" is an unrealized Platonic Form, which serves as a repository of Potential for "Time", which has not always existed. :smile:

PS___Sorry, because of the on-going "Non-Physical" thread, I may have gone-off your un-bounded map in a different direction. :wink:

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo,

The Absurdity of Infinity :
don’t let anyone tell you that mathematics models the real world exactly, or is an empirical science, or, at its core, is an “applied” subject. It simply isn’t, and never will be.
https://wanderingmathematician.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/the-absurdity-of-infinity/

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness.
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. — Agent Smith

Sez you.

When you say "there are no actual infinities" I assume you mean that we space-time humans have no sensory experience of unboundedness — Gnomon

To tell you the truth, we do experience unboundedness: the surface of our earth, a 3D spheroid, is unbounded, yet its area is finite. I suppose unboundedness is the closest we can get to an experience of actual infinity.

a Virtual Particle can be substituted for a Real Particle in calculations. — Gnomon

Are you saying a real and virtual particle bear a salva veritate relationship with each other? That is to say, at least mathematically, in equations, the two could be swapped for each other and the equation/math wouldn't be able to tell the difference? Interesting!

Potential Perfection and Actual Imperfection. — Gnomon

That's why Materialists think, "if it's not physical, it's literally inconsequential". But they seem to forget the power of Potential — Gnomon

Aristotle claimed that there are two kinds of infinities:

1. Potential (the set of natural, even or odd numbers for example).

2. Actual (the set of actual infinities is the null set).

Put simply my OP is in line with Arisitotle's own thoughts about actual infinities - they don't exist.

As for the Idea of infinity - residing in the world of Platonic Forms - I dunno what that would look like. What is the Form of infinity?

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities.
— Agent Smith

Sez you. — T Clark

Name one example of an actual infinity.

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities — Agent Smith

Speculation presented as fact. A no no for philosophers.

mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness — Gnomon

This is kind of a non-issue with most mathematicians. If you are a set theorist you probably like fiddling with various infinities, otherwise if you encounter an endless process you'll probably call it "unbounded".

A tired subject. :yawn:

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities
— Agent Smith

Speculation presented as fact. A no no for philosophers. — jgill

Name an actual infinity, prove it exists! It's a simple procedure.

Matter doesn't use atoms as numbers in its counting. In fact the brain thinks by abstracting when it comes to infinity

Matter doesn't use atoms as numbers in its counting. In fact the brain thinks by abstracting when it comes to infinity — Gregory

Matter does use atomic counting. For example water is a ratio (2 molecules of H : 1 molecule of O).

The second sentence of your post is a truism.

The brain is like a muscle from which thoughts spring when it flexes, but these thoughts aren't entities in themselves. They are abstract beings and they spring from matter and are substanceless. Your argument is like Descartes's in the Replies. But I think it fails

Your argument is like Descartes's in the Replies. — Gregory

How?

But I think it fails — Gregory

Why?

Descartes said that the idea of God requires a soul for it to be understood. You're saying even understanding infinity requires more than matter. If you think a finite thing cannot understand infinity I would still ask for more proof of this. Epiphenominalism says thoughts are like software. Few people are going to say that each thought is accompanied by a piece of matter. I certainly don't imagine it that way

Descartes said that the idea of God requires a soul for it to be understood. You're saying even understanding infinity requires more than matter. — Gregory

:up: Yep, that's about the gist of my argument. That Descartes said something similar is amazing (am I in such illustrous company?) and also not amazing (read the next sentence). God = $\infty$ according to Georg Cantor of set theory and infinity fame.

Anyway, what's wrong with my and Descartes' argument? If no child could've moved the washing machine and the washing machine has been moved, surely an adult was involved!

Consciousness can think of infinity

Consciousness can think of infinity — Gregory

And...

Consciousness is a 0 that comes from a one. You've never read Sartre?

Name an actual infinity, prove it exists! It's a simple procedure — Agent Smith

You are the one who says there is no physical infinity. Prove your statement. :roll:

You are the one who says there is no physical infinity. Prove your statement. :roll: — jgill

Well, I haven't found any infinity that's actual. There!

Too, you have it easier. You need to furnish as proof only one infinity that's actual. Kindly do so. Thank you very much.

Consciousness is a 0 that comes from a one. You've never read Sartre? — Gregory

Pray continue...

Just as Egregore is about gods becoming actual from our thoughts, thoughts are like the gods of the body while the servant as well since they depend on the body. But my point is that consciousness can take numbers and say "they go on forever" without there being an actual infinity in thought

Egregore — Gregory

What's that?

But my point is that consciousness can take numbers and say "they go on forever" without there being an actual infinity in thought — Gregory

Yup, I understand that, but "they go on forever" is a potential infinity, not an actual one (physically uninstantiated). Yet, here we are, contemplating actual infinities; this should be impossible (how can a finite brain hold in it, infinity). That's like a man being able to conceive of menstrual cramps! Impossible, men lack the equipment to do that. It just doesn't add up (for me).

The brain is more than the sum of it's parts. It doesn't know infinity by counting but by a general, more philosophical method

And aren't souls finite?

And aren't souls finite? — Gregory

Good question! What do you think?

The brain is more than the sum of it's parts. It doesn't know infinity by counting but by a general, more philosophical method — Gregory

What is this "[...]general, more philosophical method"?

Name one example of an actual infinity. — Agent Smith

I don't have to prove it exists. You made the claim. You have to provide the justification.

Descartes said that the idea of God requires a soul for it to be understood. You're saying even understanding infinity requires more than matter.
— Gregory

Yep, that's about the gist of my argument. — Agent Smith

You haven't made an argument, you've made a statement.

You are the one who says there is no physical infinity. Prove your statement. — jgill

Well, I haven't found any infinity that's actual. There! — Agent Smith

You don't seem to understand how this whole justification thing works.

Too, you have it easier. You need to furnish as proof only one infinity that's actual. Kindly do so. Thank you very much. — Agent Smith

You don't seem to understand how this whole philosophy thing works.

You haven't made an argument, you've made a statement. — T Clark

Why do you say that?

You don't seem to understand how this whole justification thing works. — T Clark

Why? How does justification work? Pray tell.

You don't seem to understand how this whole philosophy thing works. — T Clark

Teach me how philosophy works.

I don't have to prove it exists. You made the claim. You have to provide the justification. — T Clark

Well, I did, didn't I? I know of no actual infinities. Do you?

Why? How does justification work? Pray tell. — Agent Smith

You make the statement, then you provide the justification. I think, in this situation, "seems to me" is a perfectly fine justification - it's like calling something a priori knowledge or self-evident. I would even agree in this case, but making a statement without that acknowledgement is not philosophy. Philosophy, in this context at least, requires reason. Reason requires justification for statements.

I don't have to prove it exists. You made the claim. You have to provide the justification.
— T Clark

Well, I did, didn't I? I know of no actual infinities. Do you? — Agent Smith

That is not justification of any sort. No need to go on with this. I've had my say.

there are no physical infinities. — Agent Smith

If you mean that there's nothing physical that is infinite, it seems true but I cannot be sure about it. For example, I think that it has not been proven or decided by science whether the Universe is finite or not. Then, what is the size of a physical circle (drawn on paper)? Isn’t "pi" infinite? (Actually it is not even a rational number.)

nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical — Agent Smith

In part or in whole, neither "physical" or "nonphysical" are physical (material): they are concepts! :smile: