Is infinity theoretically possible?

Potential infinity is never complete: elements can be always added, but never infinitely many. “For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different.” — Aristotle, Physics, book 3, chapter 6.

Is infinity just a concept?

infinity, the concept of something that is unlimited, endless, without bound. The common symbol for infinity, ∞, was invented by the English mathematician John Wallis in 1655. Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical.

Is infinity infinity negative?

Infinity added to the biggest negative number you can think of (or minus the biggest conceivable positive number) is still infinity. So, infinity includes all negative numbers. Even infinity minus infinity is still infinity, if we’re talking about infinity here, right?

Are there infinitely many infinities?

The set of real numbers (numbers that live on the number line) is the first example of a set that is larger than the set of natural numbers—it is ‘uncountably infinite’. There is more than one ‘infinity’—in fact, there are infinitely-many infinities, each one larger than before!

Is there such a thing as Infinity?

In the past, many venerable mathematicians were skeptical of infinity and the continuum. The legendary Carl Friedrich Gauss denied that anything infinite really exists, saying “Infinity is merely a way of speaking” and “I protest against the use of infinite magnitude as something completed, which is never permissible in mathematics.”

Is there something truly infinite in nature?

The assumption that something truly infinite exists in nature underlies every physics course I’ve ever taught at MIT — and, indeed, all of modern physics. But it’s an untested assumption, which begs the question: Is it actually true? There are in fact two separate assumptions: “infinitely big” and “infinitely small.”

Can a theory have an infinite regress and be objectionable?

Sometimes it is uncontroversial that a theory that generates an infinite regress is objectionable, because the regress reveals that the theory suffers from some kind of theoretical vice that is a reason to reject the theory independently of it yielding an infinite regress.

Do we need the infinite to do physics?

Not only do we lack evidence for the infinite but we don’t need the infinite to do physics. Our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything from the formation of galaxies to tomorrow’s weather to the masses of elementary particles, use only finite computer resources by treating everything as finite.