# Infinity is nonsense ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2013, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709 "2013-07-05T11:25:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/1 "2013-07-05T11:25:39Z")
Proposition - our concepts are the result of brain activity Proposition - brain activity requires metabolic fuel Proposition - any idea of infinity requires infinite brain fuel Proposition - there is no infinite supply of brain fuel Conclusion - we cannot truly conceive of anything infinite ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/2 "2013-07-05T11:31:53Z")
Proposition - any idea of infinity requires infinite brain fuel Obviously wrong, since mathematicians have both conceived of infinity and defined it Proposition - there is no infinite supply of brain fuel There’s no evidence of anything being infinite, since it’s a concept. Conclusion - we cannot truly conceive of anything infinite There’s no evidence of anything being infinite, since it’s a concept. Just because you don’t understand it, that doesn’t make it nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/3 "2013-07-05T11:55:39Z")
The line of logic implies that we cannot conceive of any form of abstraction, and can only describe by enumeration. That is an astoundingly narrow view of cognition. > [@](#): > > Proposition - any idea of infinity requires infinite brain fuel Thus this proposition would appear unsupportable. > [@](#): > > Conclusion - we cannot truly conceive of anything infinite And this uses the all time great weasel word “truly”. There may only be one true Scotsman, but conception of ideas is a little more common. If you define “truly” as meaning enumerable in thought, the argument becomes circular, and thus invalid anyway. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/4 "2013-07-05T11:56:14Z")
Just think of the biggest number you can imagine - and add 1 ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/5 "2013-07-05T12:06:16Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Proposition - any idea of infinity requires infinite brain fuel False equivocation. Thinking of a proposition is not the same as performing said activity. ie _Thinking_ of swimming around the world requires very few actual calories. If you wanted to perform an actual infinite task, then yes, you would need an infinite source of “fuel”. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/6 "2013-07-05T12:07:06Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Just think of the biggest number you can imagine - and add 1 It clearly equals 1. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/7 "2013-07-05T12:24:11Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Proposition - our concepts are the result of brain activity > Proposition - brain activity requires metabolic fuel > Proposition - any idea of infinity requires infinite brain fuel > Proposition - there is no infinite supply of brain fuel > Conclusion - we cannot truly conceive of anything infinite This is as much nonsense as saying we can’t think about zero, because it’s nothing. Here’s why it’s false: Does it take 100 times as much effort to think about the number 100 as it does to think about the number 1? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/8 "2013-07-05T12:54:48Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Proposition - any idea of infinity requires infinite brain fuel Clearly you have a concept of infinity to be able to write that sentence, so therefore your entire line of reasoning is self-contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/9 "2013-07-05T13:00:53Z")
In the same way that we can’t “truly” conceive of a chair because we cannot imagine each of the billions of atoms that it is composed of. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/10 "2013-07-05T13:15:32Z")
Any idea of a unicorn requires an actual, physical unicorn. Therefore, we cannot conceive of a unicorn. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/11 "2013-07-05T13:38:39Z")
There are different classes of infinity. You can use certain tools to rank them, but it works differently than trying to rank finite #'s. George Cantor and limit laws would be good search terms to start with to flesh out the terms/concepts and find proofs/tools commonly used. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/12 "2013-07-05T13:47:42Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Any idea of a unicorn requires an actual, physical unicorn. Therefore, we cannot conceive of a unicorn. Doubly so for an infinity of unicorns. Oh wait … that would be infinitely so. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/13 "2013-07-05T13:58:17Z")
It seems to me that this is the same logical flaw as in Anselm’s original ontological argument for God. Just because we can conceive of a perfect being does not mean that our conception is itself perfect. And just because we can conceive of an infinite quantity does not mean that our conception is itself infinite. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/14 "2013-07-05T14:05:37Z")
Words are ridiculously slippery little things. That’s why scientists prefer math. ---
**Author:** ![Bremidon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac91a4/32.png) [@Bremidon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bremidon)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/15 "2013-07-05T15:26:32Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Words are ridiculously slippery little things. That’s why scientists prefer math. Math isn’t slippery? I seem to remember an active thread talking about how 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 +… = -1. How is that not slippery? ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/16 "2013-07-05T16:20:15Z")
> [@Bremidon](#): > > Math isn’t slippery? I seem to remember an active thread talking about how 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 +… = -1. > > How is that not slippery? They were utilizing integers which are whole numbers. None of them were rounded … (Running away) ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/17 "2013-07-05T16:35:21Z")
> [@sylmar](#): > > Doubly so for an infinity of unicorns. Oh wait … that would be infinitely so. 😉 Is an infinite set of unicorns countable? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/18 "2013-07-05T16:38:29Z")
Suggested reading: \*Mathematics and the Imagination/I] by Edward Kasner and James Newman. Quite accessible large section on the mathematics of infinity. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/19 "2013-07-05T16:45:23Z")
> [@Bremidon](#): > > Math isn’t slippery? I seem to remember an active thread talking about how 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 +… = -1. > > How is that not slippery? If you read the thread closely, you saw that it was a product of extremely precise definitions and processes. Nobody simply declared that it was so. ---
**Author:** ![Washoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecae2f/32.png) [@Washoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Washoe)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709/20 "2013-07-05T17:00:59Z")
“Look, I came here for an argument; I’m not going to just stand…” “Oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.” “Oh, I see, well, that explains it.” “Ah yes, you want room 12A, just along the corridor.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/infinity-is-nonsense/662709.md?page=2)