To Infinity and Beyond

To Infinity and Beyond

2010, Science  -   193 Comments
Ratings: 8.02/10 from 44 users.

To Infinity and BeyondDocumentary examining current ideas about very large numbers and infinity in regards to mathematics and the observable universe.

By our third year, most of us will have learned to count. Once we know how, it seems as if there would be nothing to stop us counting forever.

But, while infinity might seem like an perfectly innocent idea, keep counting and you enter a paradoxical world where nothing is as it seems.

Mathematicians have discovered there are infinitely many infinities, each one infinitely bigger than the last.

And if the universe goes on forever, the consequences are even more bizarre. In an infinite universe, there are infinitely many copies of the Earth and infinitely many copies of you.

Older than time, bigger than the universe and stranger than fiction. This is the story of infinity.

More great documentaries

193 Comments / User Reviews

  1. If the universe's beginning was when they said, then it will be a long time until that monkey is finished. I think we should focus on loving our neighbor and taking care of each other and our planet. These pursuits can lead us to tangible benefits.

  2. I agree more with Aristotle (there is no actual infinity) but in my own way. In my own hypothetical opinion/theory I devised years ago, actual infinity is subject to time and space and planck length. As time and space have a hypothetical beginning and end (e.g. birth of the universe and eventual cold ending), actual infinity cannot be infinite. Actual Infinity as a straight line of solid matter can only be as long as the longest object since the birth of the universe and cannot extend outside of those regions as it would violate the laws of nature as nothing could exist out of those regions, and matter could only extend outwards of 13.8 billion years. Maybe it could curve in on itself and wrap around like spaghetti confined to that universal area though, eventually ending filling up the area (infinite a sense but is still "less" than e.g. 14 billion to the observer)... Conceptual infinity is more of a fantasy to fix runaway numbers for mathematical purposes. The end of Infinity as a number in simple form (e.g. simple bits) can be computed, but you would use all the energy in the universe (again assuming the universe is finite). Eventually you'd run out of energy in the universe (e.g. using every last bit of usable energy possible to calculate infinity to reach the end). You wouldn't even know what the numeral end of infinity was because you wouldn't be able to observe the end of the calculation. An approximate equation can be devised however it probably can never be solved. E.g. if you could try to find out how much potential energy exists in a given area of 13.8 billion light years maybe by using stars (we kinda know how much matter there is and how much energy a star gives off before does) you could probably figure out a way to calculate it but solving it would actually require all of the energy in your equation. Not sure how black holes would fit into that though. However if energy can never be created nor destroyed in the universe maybe you can still get to the point where you can calculate something to the point where it grows so cold near the end of the universe where it physically stops or if the universe begins to contract again maybe that would be the end of your number before the bring crunch.

  3. Loved it

  4. "If I stayed on and all the other guests left..." That's false. Define the number "all the other" and you find it has no meaning. You can never specify what "all" of them are. I mean - how would you know when "all but one" were checked out? Count them? It is nonsense. Just because the words form a sentence that follows the rules of grammar doesn't mean it makes sense.

  5. in-finite only means "Dunno". It is not a number. How many cats in a peanut butter sandwich? Angels>

  6. Infinity is meaningless it is all and nothing it is not and even typing what i have typed is a waste of time for time exists in the sense that it is one of the points of reference that allows us to navigate as humans but other than that it has no meaning as life could be said to be an illusion for it ends and when it ends as it does for all then all will eventually be not so since eventually all will be not then of course we use human vocabulary which is so limited as must be somethings that cannot bedescribed with any human language for example i have experienced certain thing or whatever that cannot be i cannot explain as no point of reference to anything of thise world so must be more be we cannot being to know what we cannot know so terms like infinity mean nothing and as i say again are imposisble concepts for humans to even find any sort of way to exp´lain not iwht art music whatever so so far as we are concerned life is not infinity is not

    1. No one exists and everything is meaningless... the presence of absolutes alone is a major challenge for your worldview. You can say there are none, but that's an absolute statement, so if it's true it's false :)

  7. Infinity = life. infinity + 1 = infinity of one and one = infinity

  8. What is the biggest number? There is no bigger number because if there were, you could always add one to it. What is infinity minus infinity? If numbers don't go forever where do they end? Find out why Aristotle banned infinity from his mathematics. The first mathematician that claimed the universe was infinite, Bruno, was burned to death by the Catholic Church in 1600. Kantor settled mathematicians down and developed the single set, so humans could focus on local equations. But decimals soon proved that there are infinities beyond infinities, and Kantor suffered a mental breakdown. Is space infinitely big or simply unimaginably big? Infinity makes the extraordinary mundane and the unbelievable inevitable. Are their consequences to an infinite universe? There are an infinite number of universes. The good news is that infinity can be anything you like! Google on then,,,

  9. I didn't really get it. when you plus one to an infinity shouldn't it be infinity one? Why is it still called infnity? Is it just becasue infinity is unimaginable big number with no limit? It is unimaginably big does not mean forever isn't it? There has to be a limit for the biggest number infinity.

    1. There's no limits. That's just an illusion.

    2. If you are really, really interested in this topic, you should read up on the theory of Noetherian ring (see for instance Wikipedia) which explains the pivotal role of the ascending chain property.

  10. Time and size are all flimsy concepts when the idea of infinity is applied. In an infinite universe the only possible decision you could make to act against an inevitable set of decisions is to BE. We are all stirring ourselves sick in this madness. Making it seem as if we are individual and set apart from the nature of all things, when we are the spawn of this nature. Confining grand perfection and applying it to our lives instead of realizing what is happening, what you really are and the overwhelming fact that there IS a network of information (regardless of how it works, when and if it will 'end'). To BE though would be to experience the death of ones own ego. In this place of true being you will never run into something that doesn't make perfect sense.

    1. Umm... how does a person not be? You use alot of words but you ain't making any sense.

  11. Gonna watch the movie after work, infinity, no such thing. For every beginning there is an end. But not exactly, as with anything, energetic or passive, eventually transmutes into something else which would also seem true in the micro and macro-verse. So it's that cycle that can be viewed as truly infinite and unobservable in our short lives.

    1. Start counting. When you find the last number, let me know so you can prove to me there is no such thing as infinity.

  12. when man says something exists it becomes reality,i find this disturbing but also fascinating on all accounts.For example a photon not watched will run havoc but act normal when watched or observed.When a photon is observed it acts normally!!! what is normality in the universe reality or thought,as Sherlock Holmes would say something is afoot.

    1. The thing that is afoot is man's lack of understanding.

  13. life is.... to is or not to is.
    It's always good to revisit this doc.

  14. I dont see why space being 'infinite' -something which is an abstract concept to begin with., has to equate with a multi-verse with replicas of everyone??

    1. My personal opinion is that the multi-verse and 10 dimensional space paradigms are an effort to fill the massive holes in the big bang theory. If you take ALL of the laws of physics and plug them into a theory that the Universe always was, that is it has no beginning by our definition of time, they all work, even cause and effect.

  15. the little girl (when the children are asked: 'how big is the universe?' -who spreads out her arms and says 'that big' had the most correct answer. In that you never experience anything of the universe not within the confines of your own mind bc that is the seat of consciousness.

  16. not infinity..but 'eternity' (as per william blake, -is not time or numbers going on forever but the absence of number, time (and differentiation). It's a mystical concept and I real that is not what is being discussed above..
    it popped into my mind anyway.
    To see a world in a grain of sand
    And a heaven in a wild flower
    Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
    And eternity in an hour.'

    'If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.' william blake

  17. I think that these guys are trying to explain reality using math. This is leading me to believe that the best way i can explain reality using math is that {infinity + 1 = infinity - 1} = Reality. Everything exist within its opposite, life is a contradiction in itself.
    This idea represents the branching off of Reality into infinity. And this happens as fast as it is happening... Funny how reality happens just before you can think about it, or lol just before it happens.

  18. Since I've been aware of the nature of the universe and my restless mind has too much time to ponder infinity I have came up with an odd way of grasping it.
    Our universe is contained inside a subatomic particle.All other universes exist in all the other subatomic particles that match to our observable universe.THAT universe is made of the atoms of another subatomic universe and so is their's and so on and so on.
    The same goes for subatomic particles in our observable universe.Each one contains a universe all of it's own.Those universes are again made of subatomic particle universes.
    There you have infinity.

    Or I'm just talking out of my ass.Either way it's fun to ponder.

  19. i love the "WHOA" looks that the creepy, bald headed british guy gives the cameraman. As if to say, look at me, im so wise and mysterious and creepy and profound.

    "Infinity minus infinity can be... anything you WANT it to be?" WHOAA. That guy is a cartoon and a self- parody. Like dr. evil or something.

  20. Interesting.. but hurts the brain

  21. But i am searching for the right answer for how did zero divided into positive one and negative one and also why they do not meet to form 0 zero again .I think that there is some kind of force that is actually holding these two away from each other and the proof of this force existance is that we need a lot of energy to produce or extract negative particles in Particle accelerator or we can say that we need a large amount of energy to cancel out the energy which is holding apart +1 and -1 .

  22. According to me there are three things in this whole universe 1.Nothing 2.Everything 3.Only one. We know that 1/0=infinity supposing that 1 is a unit mass , Infinity is all the mass existing and 0 is Energy then
    0 x Infinity
    is something
    that is 1 the unit mass
    thats how the first mass came into existance.
    And bigbang occured mainly because this zero(Energy) divided into two parts
    that are 0 = +1+(-1). or
    0 = + infinty + (-infinity).
    Thats why bigbang began from NOTHING.

  23. They say that if there would be a finite infinity then what will happen to it when 1 is added . My question is that if we are saying that infinity is the biggest possible number or number of objects or number of events then how it is possible to add something in it.

  24. if imagine there is infinite numbers or events then if negative of it is added to it then it becomes zero 0=infinity+(-infinity) if there would be positive infinity then there will also be a negative infinity thus the sum of positive and negative infinity is zero 0 and we know that zero is Nothing but it is also the sum of every thing.This means that actually there is nothing.We also know that every particle has a same negative particle thus
    if there would be infinite positive particles than there would also be infinite negative particles.But remember sum of everything is zero meaning nothing.

    1. That would be true if there were only one infinity.

    2. but if there would be another infinity then it should always have its negative one.Same will be the case with all possible infinities.

    3. How do you know it will always have its negative. You are dealing with infinity here. You are stating an absolute for an unknown.

    4. dude I'm going to quote u on that one. prob the best post I've seen on this site :)

  25. Dear Grant
    We are not talking of a "man" or a "woman" we are discussing the infinite number of natural numbers and that must be able to have counted everyting -- every atom, and every electron, every star and every galaxy and every universe and every man woman and child and every hotel room. Everything!

    1. all those objects you mentioned are (a far as we know) a finite amount of objects still. assuming that, then even stuffing everything in the universe into the hotel would not make it truely infinite, so we must assume this is only a hypothetical exercise, and hypothetically you could have infinite women (or children, or dogs or whatever) in the hotel without it having to include every KIND of object/being. i believe the only true infinites in life are all constructs of the mind, for example i reason that there neednt be a number bigger than the total amount of subatomic particles in the universe, as it has no practical sense beyond that, it would just be a construct of the mind, another hypothetical

  26. Unfortunately some of the mathematicians in this program do not understand the concept. As an example one suggested a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all occupied. He then suggested that he comes to the hotel seeking a room. He proposed that a room could be made available by having each occupant move along one room, thus freeing up the first room for him.
    What he did not realise is that he must already have a room. He is already counted in the infinite number. So is everyone else and everything else, because the number is infinite!
    By definition, everything is counted in the infinite and therefore there cannot be anything exta to add.

    1. Consider the natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
      There are an infinite number of natural numbers but none of them are "A man". Thus we can at least conceive of different kinds of infinities, including a hotel with an infinite number of rooms which doesn't (yet) include him. Or consider a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, each of which has in it one woman (and no men). Then our man who turns up is not (yet) included. Capisce?

    2. This example is used often by many mathematicians....

  27. is it me or are they taking the word "infinity" in a linguistic way and trying to apply it to maths? why are they treating it like a number? I thought it was a concept, or a way of say that something doesnt end... I dont understand why they are writing things like "infinity + 1" on a blackboard... isnt that like trying to solve the equation " infinity + loads more" or "infinity + a penguin"... Have i just missed the point completley and am i talking cr*ap? please enlighten me.... :)

  28. Thinking deeply about infinity will give anybody a major headache if it's done purely in mathematical terms. The secret to avoiding that headache (and perhaps gaining some more understanding of the universe) is to convert infinity into physics. This is how "Tomorrow's Science Today" (the Kindle version on Amazon) does that. It says -

    "Page 118 of “The Grand Design” says “M-theory (that theory which string theorists now consider fundamental) has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces (the curling up of extra dimensions into tiny, invisible spaces), perhaps as many as 10^500, which means it allows for 10^500 different universes, each with its own laws.”

    Suppose there is only one universe with one set of physical laws (a megacosmos that might have an infinite number of local universes, each of which begins with its own Big Bang). 10^500 would therefore not refer to space and the number of universes but to time (Einstein showed that space and time can never exist independently of each other) and the number of “frames” existing in the cosmos. We can visualise the binary digits as generating information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie). On page 27 of Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot” (Headline Book Publishing, 1995), it is written “There is, in fact, no center to the expansion, no point of origin of the Big Bang, at least not in ordinary three-dimensional space.” This truth surely means Big Bangs (or, for the purpose of this article, the generation of binary digits) must occur in a 5th-dimensional hyperspace (time is usually interpreted to be the 4th dimension). Let’s go back to space and time never existing independently of each other. This must mean 10^500 not only describes time and the number of frames in the universe but must also refer to space after all (though not in the sense of 10^500 parallel universes existing). The article “Universe” by Charles Anthony Federer, Jr. in World Book Encyclopedia, 1967 says “Einstein’s theory of relativity implies that the superuniverse (what I called megacosmos at the start of the paragraph) has a definite size.”

    What’s outside the superuniverse? I don’t think there’s anything at all: it would be a true nothingness, or N-space. Just a vacancy for space-time-hyperspace to expand into as binary digits generate more space-time. For all practical purposes, 10^500 would equal infinity and the strange thing is – infinity will keep increasing during the eons as bits (BInary digiTS) do their thing. This is somewhat like the subset of all integers (1, 2, 3, etc.) extending to infinity yet that infinity being smaller than the infinite subset of all decimals.

    If the universe is ENORMOUSLY large, space would seem perfectly flat - just as an acre on the surface of large, roughly spherical Earth is flatter than an acre on a spherical asteroid only 10 miles in diameter. The WMAP space probe (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, launched in 2001) has confirmed that space is flat. We are presently unable to detect the closed, positive curvature of space associated with the number 10^500 and can describe the flat universe that can be detected with the Mobius loop, which is one of the two-dimensional spaces described by Euclidean mathematics which is assumed to describe a flat universe. Since separation is zero, the universe must be unified with each of its constituent subatomic particles and those particles must be similarly roughly spherical, composed of space-time-hyperspace, and must also follow the rules of fractal geometry to be made of Mobius loops. The Mobius strip is capable of describing the overall nature of the universe because assembling, in correct fashion, enough pieces of flat universe which it sketches results in a spherical cosmos (comparable to the network of theories which "The Grand Design" says may describe our universe).

    Recall that the universe may be a computer-generated hologram in which things appear distant from each other as if they’re on a huge screen but are unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place. (That “small place” is the universe’s CPU or central processing unit, binary-digit generating hyperspace.) They’re unified with all other material and immaterial things in time and space. There would inevitably be feedback between space-time and hyperspace, preventing the changing of the past from what it was or the altering of the future from its destiny. Spacetime is united with hyperspace since the latter is part of the former, and even part of every particle in spacetime. However, the restriction of processing speeds in hyperspace to the speed of light makes it appear disconnected and separate to observations and experiments.

    Empty space (gravitation) seems to be made up of what is sometimes referred to as “virtual particles” by physicists since the concept of virtual particles is closely related to the idea of quantum fluctuations (a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy at a point in space). The production of space by BITS necessarily means there is a change in the amount of energy at a certain point, and the word “temporary” refers to what we know as motion or time. Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy (lowest possible energy that a system may have) of all the fields (e.g. electromagnetic) in space, and is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter. Binary digits might be substituted for the terms zero-point energy (since BITS are the ground state or lowest possible energy level) and vacuum energy (because BITS are the underlying background energy of empty space). Relativistically, space can’t be mentioned without also mentioning time which can therefore also be viewed as gravitation (since “dark matter” is invisible but has gravitational influence, its existence could be achieved by ordinary matter traveling through time).

    This “small spot” things are generated from could be the cosmic equivalent of the fixed-point theorem.

    “There is a powerful statement in mathematical topology known as the fixed-point theorem. The (best known, among hundreds, because of its wide use) fixed-point theorem, which was proved before World War 1 by the Dutch mathematician Luitzen Egbertus van Brouwer, states that when a surface is subjected to certain forms of continuous distortion, at least one point of the surface will remain fixed, or stationary. Put in this dry, abstract way; the theorem may not seem remarkable, but it has many impressive consequences for the physical world. The fixed-point theorem … applies to the human head and other spheres, such as the Earth. It states that mathematically, a sphere cannot be associated with a continuous field of radiating lines without there being a fixed point. For a head of hair this means that there must be a fixed point, or whorl, from which the hair radiates. For the Earth this means that the wind cannot be blowing everywhere on the surface at once; there is always a tranquil spot.” (from Dr. Crypton’s Puzzles and Mind-Teasers: Omega Science Digest, March 1983).

    The most important words in the above paragraph are “… a sphere cannot be associated with a continuous field of radiating lines without there being a fixed point”. Sphere refers to the description of the universe on pp. 145-149. A continuous field of radiating lines would mean these lines are “BITS of spacetime - this book’s proposed building blocks of all matter, forces and spacetime”. These form every fermionic and bosonic particle in the 3+1 dimensions of space and time (picture space-time as the surface of an expanding balloon).The fixed-point is not on a surface but is in 5th-dimensional hyperspace (picture the 5th-D as the centre of the balloon).

    If, as has been suggested, frames are created in the 5th dimension by bits and their very rapid display results in the macroscopic motion we see; what causes the microscopic motion of bits switching on and off in order to display frames? Could it be that Stephen Hawking’s/Leonard Mlodinow’s book “The Grand Design” indirectly supplies a clue on pp. 160-161? Speaking of space dimensions and gravity, it says “In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun …” and it also says “In three dimensions the gravitational force drops to ¼ of its value if one doubles the distance … in five dimensions it would drop to 1/16 …” Gravity is only the warping of space-time and hyperspace - so in the 3 dimensions we normally experience, a certain amount of energy is required to turn a bit on or off but in the 5th dimension, computing power would be magnified because switching every single bit on or off would only require a fraction of that energy (“a small disturbance”). Therefore, creating a unification from BITS (BInary digiTS or Binary digITS) only using the 4 dimensions we’re familiar with could exceed the power of our computers and might produce a unification that was a uniformity with no oscillation between on and off states. This could be static in the sense of motionless – and merely a perpetually-unchanging snapshot of the universe at one instant. Processing, the movement of bits between on and off, in a 5th dimension would have none of these problems in my opinion and would be possible because of the universe’s removal from uniformity and entry to partial unification (extremely tiny removal from being totally unified DUE TO ITS FIXED POINT IN THE 5TH DIMENSION)."

    Was this little extract from the Kindle version of "Tomorrow's Science Today" interesting? It's more complete than even the most recent paperback.

  29. @ ObamaATL
    This is even better, much better:
    Top Documentary Films ? SCIENCE ? 37.Dangerous Knowledge


  30. There is no infinity because God is the End. He is also the Beginning.

    Negative Infinity = God.
    0= God.
    Positive Infinity = God.

  31. Probably the most illogical theory ever. If some mathematicians believe that there is infinity larger than infinity, why are they called mathematicians? Infinity is like religion, faith based. You cannot prove anything about it, you can just have faith in it, or not. Sigh... this documentary proved to me that a doctorate degree doesn't mean that you are smart...

    1. Not to offend you, but if you had sufficient mathematical training to be able to apply logic, you would be unable to reject mathematical infinity - many truly great minds have tried, and failed. In other words: you are ignorant of mathematics, yet feel you can reject its conclusions out of hand based on your intuition. What you're doing is demonstrating how limiting a lack of education truly is. I hope there are parents here who take note of that.

  32. Fantastic stuff, but I don't know about the odd asides in the presentation, scriptural, philosophical, and ponderous utterances in poetic fashion. Overshadows the show's otherwise great credibility.

  33. Brain hurts. Great documentary, very informing. Slight bias towards those who believe in infinite universe, but lean that way myself, so am not v. bothered.

  34. infinitely awesome :)

  35. Now that was Bad A#%

  36. no one can understand more and more about infinity.

  37. Just to add to the debate (which I actually enjoyed more than the documentary, being well versed in the concept of infinity as a scholar of maths and physics) - I read an interesting book a couple of years ago in which the main assertion/theory of the book was the same as another poster.
    And that is that human consciousness is the true constant, because without it, there is no science or no universe. In essence, the main point is that without humans to observe the universe, there is no point in the universe. I suppose it's just another "if a tree falls when nobody is around" argument, but it was still interesting reading. Unfortunately the name and author of this escapes me at this time, and I gave the book to a friend. ("Never lend a book" - Commander Adama)

    However, while I found it interesting reading, I still trust in the scientific method above all else. The use and application of it has been the catalyst for unprecedented scientific advancement over the last century (although I'm sad to see that one of the consequences of this is a vast number of people who lack scientific knowledge, and even reject the scientific process - but while all the time complaining about it on their computers, of course)

  38. Suppose there are infinite nos of pack of cards and each set has two jokers,so it is logical to conclude that in this infinite nos of cards there will be more jokers than any other cards,infinity lies in to the limits of our brains but every thing in this world is finite.

    Then the cycles of creation and destruction has infinite nos of cycles,coz it is like a circle with no starting or ending points,it goes on and on and on

    Anurag Awasthi

    1. It is impossible to have an infinite number of anything because Infinity is not a number! It is a symbol that is used to describe a never ending state of affairs.

    2. Isn't what you describe instead "perpetuity"?

    3. @etats,

      Can't seem to reply to your comment directly;))

      "Perpetuality" implies some type of cyclic event like a cat with a piece of toast strapped to its back will achieve perpetual motion when thrown of an infinitely high cliff.

      It is not quite the same as infinity.

  39. @Robyn318:

    I am still waiting for my inter-library "Barbours book"
    Have to read it again to answer you properly.

    But don't know if he will have a "hurdle" to remove time and motion from the equation, in quantum physics there is no time and motion.

    He is not removing the observer from the equation, the observer is the one that collapses the waveform to give motion, therefore time.

    But like I said, will have to read it again.

    1. @Achems Razor
      I finished Barbour’s book quite a while ago and it has taken me this long to respond because every time I tried to respond I would automatically go into a rant; so I stopped and thought some more. Now I am ready to respond.

      This is a screenplay, more akin to Jurassic Park & Avatar than a scientific theory. ‘Mists’ obscuring the placement of one space-event after another; no matter how you try to ‘obscure’ such events, TIME exists between them. You have ‘snapshot’ one (event 1), then the obscuring mist (event 2), then snapshot two (event 3). By virtue of the fact there are 3 separate and sequential events, physics mandates the passing of time, no matter how miniscule its measurement may be.

    2. @Robyn318:

      Yes, time would seem to exist between the mists, because we as sentient beings have no other recourse but to live in "time" but since time is an illusion to many scientists, puts it into a different perspective, as Barbour said our unlimited nows are forever frozen in time, but in our linear reality we pull out the frozen snapshots one after the other every, say every Planck sec.

      So in quantum probability when the wave peaks in our reality is when our now is viable, superseding all other nows we have chosen not to take or due to other mitigating circumstances but are still as viable.

      I know it is hard to comprehend that everything is static and everything already happened, no past present of future. But in the quantum world no such thing as time or space.

    3. Was a very good debate, I learned a lot. Thank you

  40. @Achems Razor
    I just finished chapter four and so far I can grasp his idea of our reality being ‘time capsules’, all pre-existing, waiting to be experienced in the next ‘instant’, like memories. I think he is going to have a big hurdle to overcome by removing both time and motion from the equation, though it seems obvious that you cannot have motion without time.

    He seems to be pursuing the Machian model of Absolute Universe. I see a potential problem in his reasoning (pg 69, 9 lines up from bottom): “We must not think of the history of the universe in terms of some walker on a path who can move along it at different speeds. The history of the universe is the path.”

    He seems to be removing the observer as an integral part of reality; quantum physics says the observer must be included. In the Machian view, everything inside the universe IS the universe and nothing exists outside of it, and you cannot perceive time by experiencing yourself only, it has to be perceived relative to an outside experience. I am hoping he will explain why he thinks I do seem to experience time.

  41. At least two media are capable of slowing down light tremendously -- Einstein-Bose condensates, and hot rubidium gas. These have both been used to halt light entirely. This was first achieved on a temporary basis in experiments conducted in 2001.But the space could not be wrapped:))

  42. Epic_Logic:

    That is what is called a math one-liner, Yes?

    Where parallel lines meet at infinity.

    1. Yes indeedy...

      There are 3 types of people in this world @Achems... those that can count and those that cant.

  43. Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x].

  44. I wonder .. If there is an infinite number of variations .... can there be a variation where is no infinity ?

    1. an infinite number of such variations, no doubt.

  45. ive seen things you people wouldnt believe... thats a bladerunner fav soooo watching this doc.

  46. If you have a ray of light coming from a place where the image entering the zero point changes every second, 0,1,2,3...and it takes eight seconds for that ray of light to reach the observer, while it is true that after eight seconds the observer will see '0', 8 is on the zero point side.

    1. Yes, by our 3 dimension linear perspective, but in the perspective of the photon itself, would be zero, because for even a photon to exist, has to travel at "C" therefore there is no time , static.

    2. I can understand that light is a photon and a wave, seemingly at the same time; and I get that light travels at ‘C’ (very fast by our standards); what I cannot get my head around is that it can be in two or more places at the same time. There seems to be an inconsistency here: It seems that if that is true, then when I look at the sun, a constant unbroken light source, (through a filter for protection), I should see a still image because the same photon is at both ends, instead I see a video. And it seems if it was true, that light should be ‘instant on’ all over the Universe, not requiring ‘light years’ to get from point A to point B.

      I can understand the concept of dead or comatose people not experiencing time because they are not in an ‘active’ reality, but a photon is. Obviously I am missing something here, what is it?

  47. @Achems RazorI ordered Barbours book it will be here in a week +/-The zero point space-time event at both ends of a ray of light is incorrect.I've been thinking about your take on time, and its validity has helped clarify my perception of Time. I think it is a software program run on the operating system of the conscious mind, specific to each observer, independent of space, engaged in the separation of stimuli received from the five senses, for the purpose of keeping each perception distinct and each instant separate, so the mind can process this data into information, with the intent of interpreting the environment.

    1. Also have "Barbours" book coming, via my library.

      True, in the sense everything we hear, see and touch comes to us as electrical impulses in the brain.

      Elaborate on your zero-point spacetime paradigm.

    2. @Achems Razor
      I received Barbour’s book yesterday and started reading it; already I like the idea that he was unwilling to submit to the uncompromising, rigid rules of academia that demand conformity for income and instead chose an avenue that allowed unencumbered thinking.

  48. this doc is awesome.

  49. jack1952

    Must be spooky actions at a distance... (LOL) "A. Einstein."

    1. Achems Razor

      Maybe thought waves move at the speed of light. Or is it thought particles?

    2. Thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain from electrical
      signals firing our synapsis, don't know if that causes waves of particles.

      For more info on light and other matters, click on the link I gave to @Robyn above on Michio Kaku's universe.

    3. Don't know that thoughts have a substance as waves or particles.

      For more info about nature of light and time check the link I gave to Robyn318.

      Re:...Dr, Michio Kaku's universe.

  50. Whoa ... okay, not sure what I was expecting :) . Great start to this film too ... Horizon must have a few mystery writer's on the team. Honestly, at the start I figured, what's the big deal, who has a problem with infinity. It just means all things are possible (maybe even probable). Seems to me, the 'more' we seem to 'know' about our observable universe, the less 'real' it becomes, re: the weight of measurement (all the stuff/matter amounts to ? very very light-ness of being); time is illusion (re:past,present,future all exist in the same 'time/moment'); everything we see/feel/imagine,etc. may not 'exist' until fractions of a second before we (decide to) observe it ... what I am personally interested in, is how does this learning contribute in some meaningful way to my imagined life? This is what it all comes down to my friends (good song :) ... for me - how do I imagine/create a Better reality - the possibilities are, dare I say, Infinite (or not :). Great teaser film
    P.S. I got myself registered on this 'new' comment system - looks like it could be interesting...

  51. yes, everything is relative; when i succeed at counting to 100 i have failed to count to 1000... God said 'let there be light ',but only if my mind says let there be God...:)

  52. @ Achems Razor

    That's amazing. I was thinking about the parked car scenario when I was typing out the post to Robyn. The first time I experienced this I was on a school bus and I grabbed the seat in front of me because the bus driver was not in his seat.

  53. @Robyn

    Yes, @jack 1952, is dead on, all motion is relative to the observer. See, "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies"

    You can also experience a shift in perspective, have you ever say, sat in your parked car, when out of your peripheral vision the car parked next to you started to move forward, you are taken aback! seems like you are moving backwards! The reaction is of course to slam the brakes.

    1. lol absolutely...but is much more unnerving when it happens and you are stopped (tho' not parked) in traffic. That might explain some weird accidents.
      @jack 1952 , did you ask the bus driver where he 'went'? :)
      while we generally chuckle about those experiences, they do support the quantum world theories, which got me thinking about the simulation concept. When you look closely at something, do you sometimes 'see' it pixelated?

  54. @ Robyn

    Mathematics give us more than possibilities. Given a formula and then plugging in all the variables the answer will always be the same. If the outcome differs from our observations then the formula must be incorrect. At one time scientists believed from the Big Bang theory that the universe would eventually collapse back in on itself. When the Hubble telescope showed that the universe was expanding at an accelerated rate, they knew something was wrong in their calculations. This was how they arrived at the new theory of dark matter. It fits the mathematical model. It may not yet be correct. There may still be other factors involved that have not been observed as of yet.

    The picture on the wall that you alluded to in an earlier post does move from that point in space. The earth is spinning and rotates around the sun; the sun moves in the galaxy and the galaxy moves through the universe. It may appear static but it reality it isn't. Motion is relative to the observer and that is measured according to the relationship between the observer and the observed.

  55. @Achems Razor & Jack1952 or anyone else out here in cyber land

    Is anyone familiar with how wavelengths are affected when they are deflected? If so can you steer me toward some literature; I am especially interested in the echo effect. Thanks

  56. @Jack1952
    My point is that mathematics shows potential possibilities, not all of which are probabilities.

  57. @ Robyn

    You cannot create Shangri La because you cannot possibly include all the mathematical factors into your equations. It is not the mathematics itself. One unforeseen variable will skew your calculations and the perfection of Shangri La will be lost.

  58. @Achems Razor
    I'll go to Barnes & Noble today to get Barbour's book and read what he has to say. Im hoping it isnt all mathematical equations because I dont hold a lot of credibility on mathematics alone. Although I agree that life is mathematics; I can show on paper how I can borrow a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion dollars, buy up all of the real estate on the Earth, change the rules and laws of the world and turn it into Shangri La. In reality, the probability of that happening

  59. @Achems Razor
    First of all, I dont judge; none of us, even the physicists, have a clue as to what is going on, all we can do is look at the evidence, compare it to what we already know and make a hypothesis. In the end, reality may be something completely different, outside of our current understanding of possibilities.

    Let me ask you a couple of questions then: Since you think that time and space are locked in a four dimensional composite called space-time, how do you propose that time will separate itself out and start diminishing to the state of ‘zero’, leaving the other three dimensions intact?

    And… If Time is a consequence of movement only, and I place a picture on my wall for ten years, and it never moves from that point in space for those ten years, it must not exist in time, and yet I can walk by and observe it, how is it possible that I exist in Time and the picture does not?

  60. @caligula:

    Well no, I think you are fuc1<ed (LOL)

  61. @Robyn:

    Einstein's theory of "Special" relativity showed that time and space cannot be separate entities, but must be considered as a four-dimensional spacetime.

    I don't class time as a wave or any other substance except as a dimension, one that is actually formed by movement, even a heart beat requires movement, one beat after another, and so on. The quantum spin of quarks, up spin down spin etc:

    Time seems to be a constant in our reality yes, but in the greater reality there is no time, again have to say from a photons perspective because they are at the speed of light everything is static, therefore "Barbour's" idea of a static universe.

    And "Barbour's" idea that we are forming our reality every Planck second from our "Nows"

    Without appearing to sound like a hippie everything must be moving and grooving because of our consciousness. But don't take that to the bank, I really don't know.

    Actually Barbour's "End of time" book is very explanatory, some good maths in there to back up his theory about time.

    I don't have his book, got it from the library two years ago, will have to get it out again. I guess have a good memory (LOL)

  62. Robyn & Achems razor, I’ll try to stay in the present snapshot-I’m having sex-but if tomorrow comes, I’m out of luck because the PSE&G bill is due in 3 days & it’s $600.00 bucks…my car insurance bill is fast approaching after that & so will the mortgage…wondering if there is a way to freeze all these BS…

  63. @Achems Razor
    I am in agreement about the computers.

    Im back at post 86: Is it possible for time to stop? Let’s explore the possibility.

    The way I see it, in order for Time to stop it would have to become a separate entity from space, so that space can exist and time ceases to be; and instead of space-time, there is just space. I view space and time as separate entities, so Im ok there. If time is a wave, is non-regenerative, and travels far enough, the wavelength would tend to spread out and eventually ‘flat line’, leaving only space perceivable. Is it possible? I don’t know. Is it probable? I don’t think so, but I don’t know that either. I see time as a constant, as long as there is an observer, there will be time.

    I think it is more probable that time, to the observer, would ‘appear’ to stop. The wave-lengths of light carrying the video facsimile of movement would spread out more and more as it traveled through space, until it too flat lined, then separated into individual photons (each carrying a still image). As the photons traveled farther and farther, the distance between them would continue increasing until eventually a single photon is detectable, leaving the still image viewable and the illusion of motionless.

  64. @Robyn

    Yes, we will probably know almost everything, but not by the human brain trying to compute everything alone, it will be by super quantum computers in the future, and if we do not succeed in blowing ourselves up first, that is almost a given!

  65. @Achems Razor

    In completing my thought from post 91; I dont see evidence for the existence of more than one Universe and I don’t see evidence why there isnt more than one, and since our individual observations of factual reality are distorted by the truisms, the biases and the epiphanies that have come together to make us who we are: and when you combine that with the filters, both biological and psychological, that new data must be strained through to reach our intellect and ability to perceive them, I wonder if we will ever know or agree about knowing anything.

  66. @Achems Razor

    When I was in my twenties, in a bad marriage, raising a family and trying to make sense of ‘my’ existence; I escaped my reality by reading (and fishing). I read Freud, Jung, channel(ers) like Jane Roberts, , all the psychological case studies I could get my hands on from the 1930’s to the 60’s, reincarnation and other subjects I cant think of right now. If I wasn’t working, I was reading or fishing, often reading and fishing.

    In the end I came away with a concept similar to Barbour’s in that we are part of a collective cosmic consciousness that strives to ‘Understand’; and in that striving process, we choose to revisit life each time we die, once as m*rderer, then as m*rder victim, then as privileged and wealthy, then as impoverished and without recourse; not in any specific order but as our consciousness dictated the need; until we each individually experienced every possibility available to us. And from that I eventually came to see that life is nothing more than the desire of atoms (or some part of the atom) to experience existence in different forms; and that is where I remain today.

  67. @ Achems Razor - Like you say, I always just thought of time as motion, plain and simple.

    I even thought for a while that all the bizarre things we're finding with Quantum Mechanics surely must be just physicists making up new rules to fit with a math mistake :), but things like the Double Slit Experiment seem to be proof that there's more going on than what we can comprehend.

  68. @Robyn

    My take on time is simple and straight forward, Time is nothing but a measure of the changing positions of objects.

    I have also been following "Julian Barbour," a well known theoretical physicist on his theory and book "the end of time" for a number of years.
    I will quote verbatim a synopsis of his book, from a write up from Discover magazine.

    "Julian Barbour is convinced we are all immortal. Unfortunately, in a timeless universe immortality does not come with the same kind of perks that it does on Mount Olympus. In Barbours vision, we are not like Greek gods who forever remain young."

    "We still have to buy life insurance, and we will certainly seem to age and die. And instead of life after death, there is life alongside death. We're always locked within one "NOW" Barbour says. We do not pass through time. Instead, each new instance, each "NOW" is an entirely different universe."

    "In all of these universes, nothing ever moves or ages, since time is not present in any of them. One universe might contain you as a baby staring at your mothers face. In that universe you will never move from that one still scene."

    "In yet another universe, you will be forever be just one breath away from death. All of those universes, and infinitely many more, exist permanently, side by side, in a cosmos of unimaginable size and variety. So there is not one immortal you, but many: the toddler, the cool dude, the codger."

    "The tragedy-or perhaps its a blessing-is that no one version recognizes its own immortality. Would you really want to be 14 for eternity, waiting for your civics class to end?"

    To sum it up as I have said in my posts everything is static, every conceivable thing has already happened, all events, all probabilities, past, present and future. We are pulling snapshots out of our static picture book album to form our ongoing reality from our "NOWS" Therefore our seemingly flow of time every Planck second.

    Sound weird? You betcha! But so is quantum physics/mechanics.

  69. If by absolute you mean, is Time the all-there-is, the ultimate dimension that defines everything and controls everything; I would have to say no. The way I see it there has to be a medium, a platform upon which Time is situated, that allows it to respond the way it does. How can you build a stable reality on a dimension that can be stretched, compressed, refracted, duplicated, spread-out, folded, affected by velocity and by-passed? That is something I cannot get my head wrapped around…yet.

    Is it possible for time to slow down (expand) as a correlation of longevity? Sure, why not. Especially if it turns out that time is a wave. And it is possible that what is being viewed in the deep space telescopes is a compression of photons (or waves) from the Doppler Effect, giving the illusion of acceleration. Just a thought.

  70. Correction: should be UK telegraph

  71. @Robyn

    I would say that time is itself an illusion. Am familiar with Leonard Susskind and Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. And know all about how observing the deep field of space is time travel to the past.

    Is time slowing down? If time is absolute-then a group of scientists from the university of Basque county in Bilbao, and Spain university of Salamanca, have offered a different idea.

    Of distant galaxies that look like they are accelerating because our deep space telescopes are looking back in time to observe them, to when time was going faster.

    The theory in new scientist and OK telegraph Re: paper published in physical review D. time is slowing, it could be everything in billions of years would actually come to a halt.

    Would that mean that everything freezes in place forever? Apparently!

  72. @Achems Razor I never saw Time and Space as absolutes, they are dimensions and yes, they are seemingly fundamental to our perception of reality; especially given the software our bodies use to interpret them.

    I would say that our ‘perception’ of time is an illusion: When the mind is focused on impending dread, time seems to expand and those minutes seem much longer than ‘normal’ everyday time. And when engrossed in a situation that has your interest and entire focus, our perception of time enters a ‘flow’ where hours literally go by that are perceived as minutes. But time is a constant, a state of progression that can be seemingly duplicated, expanded, contracted and carried by light; that when finished being manipulated in such ways as these, ‘snaps’ back (under most circumstances) to where it would have been, if not manipulated.

    I understand the space-time interval between the two ends of a ray of light as being zero. What that means is that when a ray of light is emitted from a star eight light years away, the instant the photons are emitted, time at that space (the star) is zero and counting forward, second by second, until eight light years later it reaches the observer; at which point the observer is seeing the star as it existed eight light-years ago. Hence, zero space-time at each end of a ray of light. Einstein was absolutely brilliant!

    (That is one of the mystifying qualities of light; being able to ‘capture’ a moment of space-time on a photon and transport it through time. This is the Hologram Effect Leonard Susskind was talking about happening around the Event Horizon of a black hole, when he disproved Hawking’s Information Paradox of black holes destroying information. Since the photons carrying the information cannot be destroyed and cannot escape the gravitational pull, they will exist somewhere inside the Event Horizon, presumably forever.)

    Though the light did carry an image of space-time over a great distance, it did not create time; it created a facsimile of a space-time event, in the form of information, and carried it along ‘on the back of time’, from the star to the observer, and released that information once it reached the observer’s retina. Even though the observer is seeing the star as it appeared eight years ago, back at the star it is still eight years later, and the moment the observer stops looking at the facsimile star, time for him is eight years later also. Time is unchanged by light, only slightly manipulated by it.

  73. awesome doc. but yea..The host is overly dramatic with his dramatic B/W lighting lol.

  74. @Abner
    By stating that traveling in one direction will result in returning to the start position implies that the universe has a shape which folds back on itself. All shapes have edges/borders meaning something must contain them.... so what contains the finite universe ?
    Its a vexing conundrum....
    Either the whole multiverse doesn't actually exist except as a construct of thought or the multiverse is finite and nothing exists beyond except as potential until it is observed, at which point, more physical space is added in an effect like the double slit observer experiment. The infinite hotel room in a sense.
    Just my thoughts.

  75. woh, that blew my mind....

  76. @ Darnell
    In my view the universe is not infinite as such. It is that there is no edge and no middle. All places are the center; no place has special privilege. Travel far enough and one returns to where they started.

  77. Here is a question to ponder. If the universe is infinitely big and infinitely small as some say, then what is the meaning of distance? Its concept would not be valid.

  78. If you say that 'Space' is infinite, meaning whatever that space is that our universe is expanding into... then yes I could agree. But it does not make any sense to me intuitively, logically, or mathematically how our universe can be infinite. Its impossible. In an infinite universe there is no beginning and hence no Big Bang. The two ideas can hold no water with each other.

    Is this only obvious to me...

  79. @Robyn:

    Einstein himself said... I quote, "People like us, who believe in physics. know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persisted illusion".

  80. @Robyn:

    I will try to answer your question, but it is somewhat difficult.

    When you consider time as it is, it is basically what we think is our reality, but that is an illusion, there is an underlying reality.

    Space and time have fallen from their absolute status. They are both created through the act of perception, and so belong to the relative world of experience. This is not to imply that they are not fundamental to our experience, they are the dimensional framework within which we structure our mental image of the world.

    But we deceive ourselves when we assume that they are also fundamental to the "underlying reality". There is much more than our 5 senses can assimilate.

    Now this may sound like new age stuff, but I assure you it is not, See..."youtube-a conscious universe-the observer effect" top theoretical physicists. And google..."Julian Barbour" on his end of time theory.

    Now, all time is relative to the speed of light, but Einstein called the "spacetime interval" between the two ends of a light ray is always "zero".
    All we need to recognize is that from a lights perspective, it travels no spacetime interval, therefore no time involved, static.

    What we conceive of the speed of light is different from lights point of view. Light travels no distance in time, and has no need of speed.

    What we take to be the speed of light is what is the ratio created in our image of reality, therefore fixed, and therefore the linear arrow of time.

  81. As difficult as an infinite universe is to comprehend, a finite one is incomprehensible. For the universe to appear from non-existence and then to exist into non-existence I find counter intuitive. This could be the way it is, but its like watching the Sun move across the sky but still knowing that it is the earth that is spinning. It challenges the senses.

  82. @Achems Razor I agree that the ‘speed’ of light is accepted as a universal constant; but the light can be extinguished; however improbable, it is still possible: Whereas time will always move onward, whether or not light exists; whether or not an observer exists.

    Im not following your logic that time exists because of light and that light is creating space at the rate of 186,000 mps. Light illuminates space by reflecting off of it and making it observable at the rate of 186,000 mps; in order for that to happen, space has to already be there as an obstacle. Please elaborate.

    The speed of light is measured in relationship to time, as miles per second. Time is not measured against the speed or quantity of light; a light-year is a measure of distance not time and Space-time is a requirement of existence; in order for something to be, it needs to occupy a point in space…at a certain time.

    One of the problems I have with the BB is that whatever exploded or inflated had to exist before the Singularity; it may not have occupied space, but it did have to exist in time, even if only for a trillionth of a second. And to think that space did not exist more than 13.7 billion years ago, that implies that space is finite, in one direction, and its boundary can be found at a distance of 13.7 billion light years in the past, and if that is true, the Universe also is finite, because we have found one of its edges.

  83. When I was in high school-many eons ago-I thought about space-not space-time or similar bs—just physical space & I thought then that there can NOT possibly be a limit to it…now, retired at 46 with money to burn, I don’t see it any different…I always thought & still do, that going down the quantum level, you might hit a limit but not going out into space…I can NOT see how you could possibly hit a limit-a wall if you wish- because you just can imagine that there’s space behind that wall…I had zero problem imagining an infinite space then, and I have zero problem imagining an infinite space now…if I had an spaceship with infinite fuel I could travel thru an infinite space forever, never reaching an end…without all the brouhaha, I can imagine infinity & it’s the more logical thing for me…

  84. Not sure if it's been stated but, if infinite universes is the reality and rule then chances are that only one consciousness is the constant.

    It's a bit hard to explain and to get your head round but it would mean someone will live until the end of time because they exist in the universe where every chance they could die they simply carry on living. This would mean they would be in effect immortal. This entity is one existence with an infinite number of dopplegangers who will die at every fork in the road. These dopplegangers live on as part of the constant when they die though.

    As for everyone else? They may simply not exist at all and consciousness is just an illusion. Of course, that may be pure bunk.

  85. @Robyn:

    Interesting take on infinity. You mentioned time as the governing factor for infinite measure.

    There are boundaries for time, as a matter of fact, time would not exist without light measurement,

    For a long time it was assumed that space and time were fundamental to the underlying reality. Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that what we observe as space and time are but two aspects of spacetime. It varies according to the relative motion of the universe.
    They are both created through the act of perception.

    Light is a universal constant, always at 186,000 miles per sec. no matter how fast you are moving.
    But from lights point of view it has taken no time, no distance to do so. It traverses no spacetime interval.

    However, and this the key to what I am getting at, when we perceive the world from our frame of reference, our perception "stretches out" the zero interval, and divides it into a certain amount of space and time.

    Since the total interval remains zero, the amount the amount of space created exactly balances the amount of time created. "For every 186,000 miles of space, we create 1 second of time."

    That is why have said in my previous posts, everything happens all at once, the past, present and future, it is static, it exists in light, which makes time.

  86. My take on Infinity is that Time is the only infinite measure; everything else is finite within its confines, no matter how massive a perceived observation is, or to what extent a concept can be drawn out, its existence is limited to be within the boundaries of Time: And if you have boundaries, you cannot have Infinity.

    I see the Universe as a huge bubble, with a fixed volume, that is floating around in another medium just like a large soap bubble that floats in the air; its outside surface expanding laterally and diminishing vertically, then expanding vertically and diminishing laterally, moving back and forth in a very deliberate, methodical, undulating motion. This undulating motion of the perimeter is causing surface tension to increase and decrease, releasing energy in the form of microwaves (CMB). This would account for the almost uniform CMB noise along with the 10% increase of CMB noise on one side, possibly because of the increase or decrease of surface tension in that area over other areas.

    As I state previously, I perceive Time as a dimension outside the constraints of the Universe. I am not a proponent of the Big Bang because there are too many inconsistencies with what is observed and what is theorized. I agree with Garthecho in that it doesn’t make any sense that all of the energy and matter of this Universe were ‘born out of nothing’; there had to be something before the BB and if there was something, it had to exist in Time.

  87. This was a great doc, didn't make my brain hurt but certainly stretched my capacity for real understanding versus intuitive understanding.

    In my opinion, and only in my opinion as I'm not a mathematician, there are only 3 numbers that really matter.

    0, 1, 2

    From these three numbers all the others become possible because you have nothing, something and more-than-something.

  88. @Garthecho

    Not saying the universe is infinite or finite, but time does have certain boundaries, re: time dilation, and time is relative to the observer.

    The faster a body goes the slower of time to the observer watching the observed, and approaching the speed of light, time literally stops, forever frozen in time to the observer, but the one travelling would be normal time in progress.

    At a photons perspective everything is static, no time exists.

  89. As insane as the concept of an infinite universe sounds, I think it is the only rational explanation. To me it would actually be more insane to have boundaries in our universe. Take time, for example. To have boundaries in time is to imply that matter was born out of nothing. To me, THAT'S insane. What makes more sense... Everything appeared from nothing, or everything has been here forever in some form? I think only the latter makes any sense at all.

    The cool thing is, infinity is both very mystical yet scientifically sound.

  90. @ Achems Razor

    You never fail to restore my faith brother, thank you!!

  91. @ think

    What possible advantages do corporations achieve by controlling the science of math as it applies to the universe? Not everything on Earth is part of a corporate scheme. Surely the contemplation of the concept of infinity is not a threat to Wall Street.

  92. @Think:

    There is no other way to look at the universe except through the scientific method!

    Math is not something that humans made!

    Math is a universal constant! 2+2=4 PERIOD!!

    Whatever else you are saying is nonsense!

  93. maths is just a language humans made i gave an example of 0 to 9 same applies to binary,Chinese or hex or else same thing happens just try it once. and like other languages even maths is imperfect like u cant write Arabic or french or many languages with correct pronunciations in English or another language cannot 100% emulate other languages.same way u cannot understand universe with maths. do u even know maths explains that this universe is 15 billion years old but the prove recently discovered is that its much much more older than that and there r lots of thing present cosmology theories are going wrong .eg. in most places Einsteins theory of relativity is going wrong and scientist r coming up with new theories already. more over u should also know every language has limitations so does maths.before Galileo earth was the center of the universe and they had calculations to prove it was right what changed then observations because they were very strong.all i am saying is make ur theories according to right observation, dont observe around the theories this way u will go wrong.
    the problem we have here is that what ever we learn in the school is believed to b right. and some how we don't like to unlearn things.which is very important .do u know when all this theories about the quantum theory and cosmology came up during pre and post 2 world war at least most of that times they could not even observe most of what they were saying.why are we still around that.they were creative people but what about us creativity in science is dead in our era.and those who r trying to be creative are being outcast because corporations don't like it and they r the ones who run or school(not directly). we need a different language to understand the universe.and more than 40% or scientist are already doubting the big bang theory.this will happen to pretty much all of the theories with time.because 1st every theory is hypothetical then this lame maths proves it and it suddenly becomes accepted by the all because it didn't have faults of previous theory but eventually with time it will also be succeeded with another theory.and so on don't u people see this happening already.
    why do u think quantum physics with everyday observations becoming more and more out of control because the theory can no longer accommodate these findings and when u put them in that theory weird thing happen with it.its same like mad man saying some thing wrong and then tries to prove it what happens his world becomes weird to all normal people.
    i don't want to go any further because i know most of u don't even understand what i am trying to say and the ones who will understand will oppose because they r not ready to unlearn just yet or don't want there beloved subject to be portrayed like this i completely understand this.but also remember the purpose of language man made. maths was created to calculate physical world if u modify it,it will also collapse same like this theories (infinity is greatest paradox of maths).when ever a theories has paradox its means there is room of another theory. well i want to stop here there is no point of argument when u don't want to open ur mind in understanding things.

  94. @ Abner

    Good point. However, do the things that these numbers represent or what is being counted, can this also be infinite? Do we have enough information to allow an answer to this question?

  95. Numbers, as we know it, can and are infinite due to the fact that they do not exist as physical entities. They are, as presented, merely thoughts, ergo, they occupy no real space as we know it and are therefore allowed to be infinite.

  96. @ Atrophy

    I would go a step further and say that cosmology and especially quantum physics makes very very accurate predictions about real world events. Then we observe those predictions to actually happen just as they predicted, this is the hallmark of good science. It must make accurate predictions, Feynman once said that quantum mechanics makes predictions so accurately it would be like measuring the continant of South America down to the width of one human hair, now that is a very very small tolerance. Yet people with not one spec of scientific or mathematical training want to say its wrong because it does not fit in with their intuitive feel of the world. That is both arrogant and ridiculous.

    As long as humans place more trust in their own measured and found lacking intuition, the scietific issues of our time will never be solved. The ancient world ran on intuition and instinct, look at the beliefs and explanations they came up with. Intuition supports a Earth centered universe, after all you can look into the sky and see the planets and sun moving around us. Intuition supports the idea of an intelligent designer, our intuition and instinct tell us that any complicated system could not arise from chance and therefore must need an intelligent designer. Intuition supports a static Earth that isn't moving at all, after all we never get thrown about which is what you would expect if you were standing on a sphere spinning at 1,038 miles per hour while circling the sun at 67,000 miles an hour isn't it? It is so apparent that intuition has no place in science that when someone tries to invoke it as an explanation they immediately expose the fact that they have no idea how science works at all, nor why it is so valuable.

  97. @think
    'actually the smallest no is 0 and biggest is 9 its that simple'
    I think I see where you're coming from. BUT !!, If you count in binary, 0 is the smallest and 1 is the biggest, 0 and 8 for octal, 0 and 9 for decimal, 0 and F in hex. I don't have the ability to use Chinese symbols but they use single characters to represent 0 through 10 and then for 100, 1000, 10000 and so-on. Other languages do the same. You are confusing our textual representations of these values with the actual weight of the number. If you add 1 to any value its weight is increased, NEVER does it return to 0, until you subtract and the same happens with subtraction, going into negative numbers. Such is the concept of infinity, very real even if impossible to achieve physically.
    As for adding new forces, partials and mass is simply factoring things we can now quantify with new proofs or by reducing an equation we know the answer to, a simple example being a planetary orbit, if we find variations in the solution that means there are additional forces we haven't discovered so we keep looking till all things are explained.
    A+B=C If we know A and B then C should be the given answer, If its not then we have to factor something else into the equation then we test it again.
    Mathematics is all theory, but it is a theoretical construct built to represent our universe and the things within it as accurately as we understand them. The numbers and equations in Cosmology and Quantum physics are not wrong unless they fail time and again to explain the forces at work.
    Hopefully this saves Waldo from having an aneurysm.

  98. @ Psinet

    I got so bogged down in replying to much of what you asserted that I forgot to make an assertion of my own. It is not necessary for things to be infinitly smaller and smaller for the universe to be infinitely large. Can you explain the logic that led you to the conclusion that infinity must go in both directions to make sense? I still stand by the fact that we have yet to find the bottom, so to speak, but even if we did it would not mean that the universe then has to be finite. This may seem intuitive to you, but as I have stated and has been proved time and time again, intuition fails to explain complex systems such as the universe. You say intuition created science, thats absolutely false. Intuition created religion, reason created science to replace failing intuition.

  99. the universe isnt infinite, unless you believe in the multiverse theory :S

  100. @ Think

    Thats the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard stated on this site, and you say it with such faith in yourself. Infinity is used in real world mathematical calculations, how would you express a algebraic inequality without the use of infinity? And to state out right that all of cosmology and quantum mechanics is wrong, by what authority or amount of education do you assert this rubbish? You know what, never mind- your statement was so full of it and condescending I need not make a rebuttal- no one will take it seriously.

  101. @ Psinet

    Planck units are clearly defined in terms of fundamental constants and yet, relative to other units of measurement such as SI, the values of Planck units are only known approximately. They are not the smallest thing in the universe, they have been said to be the smallest amount of time or distance at which man can make sense of things. This does not mean at all that they are the smallest thing, first of all they are a unit of measurement and not a thing at all, and secondly just because man has yet to be able to measure anything smaller does not mean nothing smaller exists. And no, instinct and intuition did not create science; science was created by reason because intuition and instinct were found lacking when attempting to explain the world around us. You may disagree with me, but as a physics major and mathematician I hardly think I can be called "misinformed"- nice try though.

    I never said infinity made your cell phone work, again nice try but no straw men today. I said the same math that supports the existence of infinity makes your cell phone work. And sorry but all mathematics are equal, if you study past a simple understanding of mathematics you can plainly see that one discipline is only an extension of another. And to say infinity is mathematically useless is an absurd statement. It is a required concept for many mathematical expressions. That statement alone tells me you are in over your head. How for instance could I express an algebraic inequality without the use of infinity?

    How can you say you reject something simply because it is not intuitive and expect any scientifically minded person to take you serious? Math is a man made language, but it expresses truths here in the real world no matter how complicated or in depth it is. If you have three apples and add one you now have four, you want to call three or four something else go ahead, it still states the same real world principle. All mathematics is based on that very simple and very real principle, even though many mathematical disciplines take that same logic much further.

    If we all followed your logic of only believing what was intuitive we would also discount relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are unintuitive. In fact we would reject the vast majority of science as most things requiring a scientific explanation are unintuitive or they would not require scientific methodology to figure out would they, we would just intuitively know the answer.
    To say you reject god’s existence simply because it is unintuitive is ridiculously closed minded and simple. I reject god’s existence because it is not a logical or reasonable belief based on the scientific knowledge we have. But I would never reject anything simply because it is unintuitive no more than I would accept something because it is intuitive. You are aware that the vast majority of faith is explained by the person intuitively believing in god, right? That basically means you are following the same logic that lead to their blind belief in god, which is exactly why science tells them it is an illogical belief, because it is based on intuition and not evidence.
    I will not go far as to say that quantum mechanics necessarily need be invoked to explain you crossing a room. That can be explained intuitively; it is a finite distance and can be crossed given enough time by simply walking from one wall to another. But that is absolutely inconsequential to the question of infinity. Sorry but I think it is you that is severely misinformed. Don’t believe me, I challenge you to go to any physics thread, there are many on line, and assert the universe cannot be infinite because your room isn’t infinite or cannot exist because your room can be divided infinitely and yet does not contain multiple universes. I assure you they will not be as kind as I have.

    That said, I was attempting to have a civil conversation with you about our difference of opinion, but I detect a bit of aggression and condescension in your reply. I have no interest in some juvenile who is smarter than who argument, if that is your intent please refrain from responding and we will agree to disagree right here.

  102. well first of all the calculations relating to infinity are not used in real calculation.they r just for imaginative calculations like maths is of two one kind to calculate real world calculations and other to just prove theorems and imaginary calculations. and there are no calculations which include infinity to make cell phones or internet. or any other things.
    infinity doesn't exist at least in this universe. its just an illusion.actually the smallest no is 0 and biggest is 9 its that simple(Example: when u make travel around earths equator u feel u can travel forever (to infinity) but actually ur repeating whenever u pass ur starting point)same way when ever ur counting from 0 to 9 and then 10 to 19 (again 0 to 9)and so on and same thing keeps happening.see ur just going around the circle.
    more over there is huge problem with the cosmology and quantum physics believe me there needs to be some documentary made on this because both of them r completely wrong .the problem with them first they r imagined (making blind views) by the scientist using this same kind of imaginary maths which is not real then they discover thing they try to fight that in that imaginations they then its becomes more buzzard and the whole system they make collapse. then they try to add more partials or mass or forces (which in reality does not exist) to its which make things more complicated then at the end everything becomes so frictional even they themselves cannot understand this .i call them genius fools.
    we think this generations is king of maths but sorry to say in future we will b known as dumbest then the people before us. people of older generations also did the same 1st they made some idea about thing then fit there discoveries to it.what different r we doing.this is not science. science means observe and then forming a view about it.
    the main problem our society around the world facing is what ever we r studying at schools is already outdated at least by 10 years. plus what ever there is ,its its so complicated we don't understand it(in most of the schools even teachers them self don't understand what they teaching coz scientist them self don't understand it).

  103. First of all, I love the way super nerds insult each other. Nothing could be funnier :^)
    I loved the way the adults appeared to give just as silly answers to the questions as the children. I hope some people remember that next time they talk down to a child. What does anyone really know.

    Hmmm, how to articulate this thought?...

    I think the biggest problem in solving the infinity question is language. The word universe seems to have different meanings or different pictures come to mind to most of us. The same can be said for concepts of god(s), even within any given religion, from one follower to the next they will understand god differently. Something that hasn't been seen or experienced will always be abstract.

    The way I imagined infinity is;

    What if we used a concept other than just a number or symbol to describe infinity, like matter or vacuum space, one a thing the other a non-thing?

    In the simplest terms I can think of the universe is made up with both matter and vacuum space (From what I understand of reality of course. Time, is another story altogether).
    Since we have both matter and vacuum space in the same reality neither matter or vacuum space can be infinite because they cancel each other out. If there is a spot where there is neither matter or vacuum space neither can be infinite because there is place with out it, there fore subtracted from infinite and is possibly countable. But, looking at them together as a whole, may be the direction to infinity. So maybe the truest statement you could say is that, "reality is infinite" and leave the words universe(s) and god(s) and number(s) alone. I don't know if that answers any questions about infinity but I'd love to here what anyone thinks about it.

    How about this, if there is a place void of a subject of infinity (like monkeys on type writers) it is not infinite by definition.

    0 = somenonthing that hasn't, doesn't, won't ever exist.
    1 = something infinite.

    I love how the numerals zero and one look like female and male genitals, neat eh?

  104. @Psinet:

    I suggest you look into quantum physics, the reason you can walk from one side of the room to another is because you are collapsing the waveform to give you a moment of time one after another, your "Nows" that is flowing at Planck length, everything comes from Planck scale, If you did not collapse the waveform there would be no flowing of time.

    Does not mean that the universe is finite.

  105. The reason I can walk from one side of my room to the other, is because the universe is FINITE - the smallest unit of measurement is a soluble metric that can be transversed.

    In an infinite universe there is no such thing.

  106. There is no such thing as infinitely small.

    Therefore this universe is not "infinite".

  107. @Waldo - I am sorry but you are misinformed. We have found the smallest thing. It is not a particle. It is the limit at which small has any meaning. Planck Length - google it.

    You do have instinct and intuition, and it has served us well for a million years at least. Our instinct and intuition created science. And I am sure your intuition will serve you fine in the Middle East as well as hee - they are not seperate universes, just some strangers.

    Denying infinity because I cannot conceive it is the ONLY reason to discredit it. I have the same opinion of God.

    And it is purely ridiculous to assert that infinity makes cell phones and the internet work. Utter garbage.

    Not all maths is equal, my freind. Not all maths applies to real life. The universe is real and not made by us, maths is a language created by us and possibly not applicable in all its forms.

    This talk of "infinity" sounds suspiciously mystical and superstitious to me. It is unfalsifiable, mathematically useless (infinity is a non-answer in maths) and reminds me of the search for God.

  108. @ Psinet

    Infinity may indeed work both ways, every time we think that we have discovered the most fundamental particle we find it can be subdivided into other particles. You act as if we have found the smallest thing possible and can go no further, this is not true at all. We are only just discovering the quantum world and have no idea how deep it goes. You say perhaps infinity is so hard to grasp because it isn't real, I say maybe we can't grasp it because it is so far beyond our everyday experience of the world around us. Yes, our instincts and intuition serve us well in the world we percieve and experience everyday, but we live in a world that deals with distances and measures within a certain range. We do not deal with very very large numbers or very very small numbers everyday, and have no intuition or instinct to serve us when we do.

    To say that we do have intuition or instinct concerning these things is ridiculous. Its like saying that my instincts and expectations of society would serve me well in say a Middle Eastern country, when they were developed here in the US which is an all together different kind of place. It doesn't mean I am dumb or unimaginative or that their society is wrong in some sense, it means I am somewhere that I have never been nor have my ancestors, and consequently I have no intuition or instinct to serve me in this situation.

    In the end of course it is up to you what you believe. But if your only reason for denying infinity is because you can not concieve of it, your world must be pretty boring in my opinion. A purely intuitive world doesn't allow for any awe or mystery, and fails to grasp many scientific concepts not just infinity. I for instance can not truly grasp the mechanics of the quantum world, as most can not. But I don't say that therfore the laws of quantum physics is all a figment of some scientists imagination.

    The same math that makes your cell phone and the Internet possible dictates that infinity is real, in my opinion we have to accept it. We can't say ok this math has a direct relationship to the real world, but that same math carried out to its logical conclusion is just imagination. In my opinion either math works and has a relationship to the real world, which is obviously the truth, or it doesn't. And if we accept that it does we must believe all of what it has to say, not just what we can concieve of.

  109. wouldnt the light from the big bang have created the first light in the universe?

  110. @ Atrophy

    Well said. And besides - perhaps we all know everything. And, "Golly, we're just messing around." Cheers to all.

  111. Science has taken great pain and effort in creating Laws and Dictums, that are based in reality; generated from measurable, repeatable experiments, in order to have an orderly, understandable quest for more knowledge. It has served us well, allowing man to understand Newtonian Physics, have a mental grasp of Quantum Physics and dabble in Theoretical Physics.

    Numbers like Infinity and Graham’s Number are virtual numbers…they don’t exist in fact, only in concept. They are useful in making equations more comprehensible, but are not valid when used to interpret reality because they are not clearly defined. Mental clarity comes from defining an unknown word or concept with those that are fully understood; doing otherwise only broadens the realm of uncertainty and leads to circular reasoning that blurs the line between Possibility and Probability; which is not conducive to constructive comprehension.

    An example of this is the concept that a monkey banging away on the keys of a typewriter for infinity will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare, line by line. This is a virtual concept, not grounded in reality, and in fact would probably never happen. A monkey is a biological entity, governed by muscle memory, boredom and fatigue. A time will be reached when the monkey will settle into a rhythm of hitting the same keys over and over in cycles, whether it is a cycle of ten thousand keys or one hundred keys; and as time went on the probability is that the number of keys would tend to diminish, making the probability even less likely.

    I can understand the concept of Infinity; that no matter how large the parameters of our knowledge become, there will always be more to ascertain. There will always be something outside of our understanding that beckons us onward. But is this reality, or will there come a point, as in Eastern Philosophies where enough is known, and understanding starts to turn back on itself and instead of the dissection of our observations, we view their gestalt and turn our outward search for Infinity inward, back toward zero, as Professor Zeilberger thinks?

  112. @maqsood: said "time is also infinite?" And as @Atrophy: said,"that it has already happened using the observer effect as a potential"

    My take is, that everything already happened, past present and future.
    Everything is static, like a picture album full of snapshots, forever frozen in time, time and space/spacetime itself are illusions, at the level of observation of a photon achieving the speed of light, Time stands still/static, there is no time, and at the atoms level there is no matter, an atom is 99.9999% empty.

    Using the "observer effect we are pulling snapshots out of our static picture album to form our ongoing reality with our "nows" but because of unlimited probability fields in the vast sea of unrealized potentialities, we form our ongoing realities with our seemingly unbroken flow of our "nows" therefore, linear time going forward.

  113. This is super hard to understand.

  114. It is entirely possible that the concept of infinity is so hard to grasp - both intuitively and mathematically - because it is simply a figment of imagination.

  115. I wont answer all the points above as it is late and I am tired - but I think people might be suprised by their own limitations of the concept of infinity.

    If the universe is infinite, then how come there is no such thing as "infinitely" small? What, infinity only works one way?

  116. Trying to understand the concept of infinity is like trying to dig a hole on the shore and fill it up with the entire sea. Our minds are not fit for it. It's funny how anyone who has ever watched star trek doesn't find the idea of infinitely many parellel universes baffling at all!
    Good documentary, but the music and the thrilling style make me a bit angry! I guess it's the usual dumbing down affecting UK media. Having said that, the monkey was really cute! Definitely cuter than the children...

  117. @Richard, that doc is already in this site.. I watched it already - very interesting indeed

  118. this has been my idea of the universe since I can remember! InFINITY. MIBII hit it on the head with the aliens playin marbles with our universe.

  119. It's it amazing how, even a documentary on infinity, has to graft in the usual knee-jerk PC crap. The world will go through its final cataclysm, dramatic pole shift, sinking continents, roaring surface temperatures, billions upon billions dying, nuclear holocaust, the return of Jesus Himself, and the BBC will still put in its token multicult faces in its show. And then they say religion is dead!!!

    I guess the one good thing that will come from the end times is that the BBC too will disappear for ever

  120. This documentary was a complete waste of time. 90% of it merely discuessed the SIMPLE fact of infinity OVER AND OVER AND OVER... We get it. You don't need to talk about how you can just add 1 to any number to make a bigger number. Say it once. Leave it at that. Move on. But noooo.... later on: "Oh well you could have inifinity times infintty.." And then Infiniity X googleplex X grhamns number X infinty^2.. YEAH WE GET IT.

  121. The thing about monkeys typing out the entire works of Shakespeare is that it has already happened. We are monkeys after all, well apes actually. But that's beside the point. If it demonstrates anything, is that randomness is not a factor in our universe and things 'assemble' based on controls. Its like trying to assemble a puzzle you can try every piece one by one until you have a complete puzzle or slot them together observing their fit to arrive at the finished product much sooner.

    Infinity to me is a state, not a number. Its not quantifiable. The universe cannot be infinite, yet how can it not be. Ive tried many times to wrap my head around it and it drives me nuts.
    Enter my personal '0 theory'.
    One train of thought, the physical universe does not exist, call it a matrix if you want. But anything occupying space, requires infinity, like the infinite hotel room and thus cannot exist except in theory. A construct of imagination.
    However, using the observer effect a finite physical universe can actually exist. The further we look, the further there is to look. Beyond our scope of observation it doesn't yet exist physically but as potential.
    I'm just a nobody who contemplates this stuff on his spare time so what do I know ?

  122. time is also infinite?

  123. I don't get it. Numbers were created by man just like God is man made. I'm back to square one.

  124. Infinitely great doc.

  125. lol... infinity. and I thought passing English in school was hard.

  126. If the universe is a simulation then the simulators thought of everything, every tiny detail. We are able to trace reality back through natural processes, for instance we can trace the evolution of any given species all the way back to a single common ancestor. In fact, we can trace the origin of the universe itself back through time and see the processes that shaped into what it is now. That would mean whom ever simulated this universe had to do one of the following:

    (A.) Start with universe we have now and reverse engineer it back to the big bang, keeping everything consistant down to the finest detail.

    (B.) Start with the big bang and resulting laws of physics and then let things manifest themsleves accordingly, again keeping everything consistant down to the finest details.

    Either way, I am less impressed with the computing capabilities than I am with the abilities of the entity that simulated this to form such a complex and consistant yet fictional system. Every fiction we create breaks down at some level, if you look close enough you can see it is a fiction. Perhaps this is why quantum mechanics becomes so unintuitive, because we are approaching the level at which the fiction breaks down.

  127. @ Psinet

    What logic do you use to support the two folowing assertions?

    1. "If the universe is infin(i)te, then the space between the walls of my house is also infinite."

    2. "Furthermore, if the universe was infinite and any given space can be fractionally divided infinitely, then these infinite multiple universes should also be contained within the walls of my room."

    Simply because the volume of any given room can be divided infinitely doesn't make that volume infinite or able to contain the infinite. In fact it suggest the volume is finite because you were able to mathematically divide it and reach a real number as a solution, infinity divided by any number equals infinity.

  128. D@rn, was going to watch a movie on TV, now have to try to answer @Psinet:

    If the universe is infinite yes, you can walk from one wall to another, with each step you take you are delving into probabilities, one Planck second of a now, each successive step is putting you into a probable universe, forming your reality of walking, in actuality you are making a succession of universes with each step, as in schrodingers cat, you are flipping the universe each Planck second with your "nows" but the other probable actions you did not take, say to make a turn etc: are still as real and viable.

    And yes the other universe's are co-existing with this one but on a different vibrational level, re string theory. You do not see them because we on this universe are riding on the atoms that are stationary to us re: the vibrational level that we are in, not following others that are flicking in and out of existence ad infinitum.

  129. We are not insignificant,we are part of infinity.
    But infinity minus one insignifact is still infinity so maybe we are insignificant o_O

  130. Loved it!! Best documentary concerning infinity that I have ever watched. Could have done without the narrator guy and his weird staring into the camera bit, but otherwise I give nine out of ten.

    Concerning the subject of infinity:

    The core of the comological arguement is that infinite regression is physically impossible, and therefore some supernatural power (god) was required for the universe to be created. Of course if you then ask who created god and so on and so forth they reply that because god is supernatural our physical laws of cause and effect do not apply to his existence. I must admit that on the face of it this is a logical arguement for the existence of some kind of supernatural creator. But if we allow for infinity to be true, that is we stop defining the world through base intuition and accept mathematics as our literal guide to the universe, we no longer need any supernatural occurrence or entity to explain things.

    The further we progress in both relativity or the quantum world the more we find that the world does not operate in an intuitive way. Our models predict the impossible, and so far most of our observations enforce it as well. Light acting as both a particle and a wave, electrons being in more than one place at one time, particles appearing from no where only to disappear again- none of this was or is intuitive- but it is reality. I don't think we will ever prove infinity exists except mathematically. Our lives are simply to short and our perspective to narrow. But I trust my life to mathematics every day, we all do, and it has yet to let us down once. If math says infinity "is" then thats good enough for me, it "is". Until we have some kind of observation or data that proves it to be truly impossible, I see no reason not to believe in it.

    Defining the world based on intuition is silly. Since when did we place so much faith and power into intuitive knowledge? I mean you can't even get a decent job with only intuitive knowledge, they all require some kind of degree or at least high school diploma. Yet we want to think our intuitive knowledge and limited senses can decipher the mysteries of the universe, thats silly. The whole point of creating the scientific method, you know Descartes and Bacon and all that stuff, was because intuition was measured and found lacking.

    I believe mathematics was discovered by man, not invented. I realize man decided what to call each integer and what to call each process used to manipulate them- but he didn't decide that two plus two equals four- he discovered it did. No matter how complicated or abstract the mathematics is, I feel it is still rooted to reality through this same logical relationship to the real world. Therefore when we look at the world through the eye of mathematics I believe we see further and clearer than through our own five limited senses.

  131. wooow this is extremely good. so according to this. in one universe i Fu**ed katy perry in the but, in another i was president of all the countries in the world at oncee. in another i was an eskimo playing bingo all day, in another i had intercourse with animals, in another i put my d*k in a blender, lol guys this great stuff, woow

  132. Thankfully from the above theories we can be assured that the creepy pedophile-like dude in the documentary was simulated.

  133. If the universe is infinte, then the space between the walls of my house is also infinite. If I attempt to walk from one wall to another by covering half the distance before me, I can never get there. If it is 2m total distance, I cover 1m, then 1.5, then 1.75 and so on. Therefore I can never cross the room because the space can be infinitely divided.

    Furthermore, if the universe was infinite and any given space can be fractionally divided infinitely, then these infinite multiple universes should also be contained within the walls of my room.

    I dont see them.

    The universe is not infinite.

    This universe is pixelated and finite - the smallest pixel is known as the Planck Length at 1.616252(81)×10(?35) meters. Almost impossibly small, but there is no "smaller".

    This is evidence for the Simulation Argument "that reality is a simulation of which those affected by the simulation are generally unaware. The hypothesis does not have global scope (there exists reality that is not simulated) since, if true, the laws of physics in our known universe require that there is a reality that is not a simulation as there must be a place housing the machinery on which the simulation is being run."

    The Bostrom Hypothesis states:

    "A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:

    1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
    2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
    3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

    If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
    Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."

    Fascinating idea. I subscribe. What is the simulation FOR? You tell me. What is it your life is about?

  134. Good documentary but I could have done without the pointless kid interviews and creepy guy in black and white

  135. Did someone say multiple universe theory? now I have to watch.
    Actually was going to anyway.

  136. we sure are insignificant, thats for sure. If only everyone on Earth would realize it. Lots of social problems solved.

  137. I am going to need to watch this many times over to understand some of these concepts. Way to good.

  138. discovered or accepted!

  139. May be there is no end to that BUT again may be what will be discovered is that the mysterious invisibility is and the table doesn't exist!

  140. If you take a table and put on it ...every thing that has ever been heard, everything that has ever been seen, everything that has ever been written, everything that has ever been known...what is off the table is infinity. It is from the mysterious invisibility floating around that empty space/time that new things/ideas are formed with and brought on the table to be identified as being.

  141. Nah.. Infinity doesen't exist.

    1. a never ending canvas and its usable to the extent that you can stop anywhere and cut a piece to paint yours and yet keep on painting and someone else can cut from it too and paint infinitely ;)

  142. Think i´m gonna start typing random letters at once. Would be nice to write a play by chance.

    1. to me infinity as to do with Time / time is the seed of univers

  143. Oooooh mathematical Shamans scaremongering with their imaginary numbers, I think I shall indulge! Forget your instincts children kneel and pray before the holy axioms.

  144. hahaha.. Hey Nathan, I totally agree.. Super douche bag host.

  145. @ migrantworker

    I agree. This doc makes anything seem possible.

  146. Humans believe in infinity because deep down humans also believe in immortality. Perhaps infinity doesn't exist yet but we will make it to exist one day the same way we have made everything and nothing exist already.
    What is came to be by us.

  147. Great Doc.
    More than likely a healthy excercise to periodically attempt to grasp such abstract concepts with our primate brains... Funny, but for this non-believer, makes the concept of God seem far less far-fetched.

  148. If there are infinite copies of me in infinite universes, then it occurs to me that some where out there I'm making love to the woman of my dreams. Suddenly, I'm starting to feel a lot better about myself.

    Seriously, a terrific documentary. Infinitely so.

  149. I always wondered how they derived the 'multiple universe theory' I know. Interesting doc.

  150. @richard i think you mean 'run FROM the cure'

  151. richard you have to contact him in the contact above? then copy n paste the link ;)

  152. Vlatko can you please add Rick Simpson's Run For The Cure. Its a full free doc on youtube. He has cured cancer

  153. Wow. This host is a total douchebag.

  154. Thankyou Vlatko! I am amazed that through watching your docs that I understand some of this, and so thoroughly enjoy subjects that I used to go out of my way to avoid!

  155. I enjoyed it!!!

  156. Far out.