InfinÂiÂty. It’s a puzÂzling conÂcept. Is it real, or a mathÂeÂmatÂiÂcal ficÂtion?
ArisÂtoÂtle believed infinÂiÂty could only be potenÂtial, nevÂer actuÂal. To speak of an actuÂal infinÂiÂty, he argued, is to fall into logÂiÂcal conÂtraÂdicÂtion: “The infiÂnite turns out to be the conÂtrary of what it is said to be,” ArisÂtoÂtle wrote in the Physics. “It is not what has nothÂing outÂside it that is infiÂnite, but what always has someÂthing outÂside it.”
ArisÂtotle’s logÂic restÂed on comÂmon sense: the belief that the whole is always greater than the part. But in the late 19th CenÂtuÂry, Georg CanÂtor and Richard Dedekind turned comÂmon sense upside down by demonÂstratÂing that the part can be equal to the whole. CanÂtor went on to show that there are many orders of infinity–indeed, an infinÂiÂty of infiniÂties.
But what relaÂtion does the PlaÂtonÂic realm of pure mathÂeÂmatÂics have to the physÂiÂcal world? Physics is an empirÂiÂcal sciÂence, but that hasÂn’t stopped theÂoÂrists from imagÂinÂing the mind-bogÂgling conÂseÂquences of an infiÂnite uniÂverse. To InfinÂiÂty and Beyond, a one-hour BBC HoriÂzon speÂcial feaÂturÂing interÂviews with leadÂing mathÂeÂmatiÂcians and physiÂcists, is an enterÂtainÂing exploÂration of a subÂject which, by defÂiÂnÂiÂtion, you won’t be able to wrap your mind around.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
DanÂgerÂous KnowlÂedge: 4 BrilÂliant MathÂeÂmatiÂcians & Their Drift to InsanÂiÂty
FuturÂist Arthur C. Clarke on Mandelbrot’s FracÂtals
MathÂeÂmatÂics in Movies: HarÂvard Prof Curates 150+ Scenes
I usuÂalÂly like your sugÂgesÂtions, but this docÂuÂmenÂtary is terÂriÂble. Did you actuÂalÂly watch it before recÂomÂmendÂing it?
I supÂpose I can see where you’re comÂing from, JosĂ©. The narÂraÂtion is meloÂdraÂmatÂic, and I have to admit I was a bit annoyed by all the countÂing aloud (“googolÂplexÂplexÂplex five, googolÂplexÂplexÂplex six…”). But they interÂview some very interÂestÂing peoÂple. And the subÂject is cerÂtainÂly fasÂciÂnatÂing. So…
Best,
Mike
This is a ridicuÂlous “docÂuÂmenÂtary.” The only thing I realÂly took away from this is that infinÂiÂty is whatÂevÂer you want it to be.
This was rubÂbish. Low grade self indulÂgent film makÂing. Most of the comÂments on Youtube say the same.
It is interÂestÂing to see that some peoÂple are not familÂiar with real artisÂtic craftÂmanÂship. The BBC makÂers actuÂalÂly made an effort to go beyond borÂing hyperÂbolÂic docu’s makÂing with a drumÂbeat of facts and finÂish with an exact punchÂline.
For instance, the meloÂdraÂmatÂic scenes give this abstract subÂject much needÂed feelÂing. Why would CanÂtor othÂerÂwise have gone mad? I love also the child interÂviews where some of the kids realÂly think they know the biggest numÂber. How great to have that cerÂtainÂty for some time..
For that reaÂson, I would conÂsidÂer also comÂmenÂtaÂtor Z here above simÂply a ZeilÂbergÂer. The docÂuÂmenÂtary has explained some limÂits on infinÂiÂty, but If you don’t like the conÂcept, no docÂuÂmenÂtary is going to help you there.
I disÂagree in some points:
InfiÂnite is the total of all. You cannnot add 1 to infiÂnite because it’s already there.
The hotel examÂple was very weird.
How could it be posÂsiÂble infiÂnite — infiÂnite = infiÂnite? It’s simÂple:
infiÂnite = infinte, so, infinite-infinite=0.
PeriÂod.
InfiÂnite is absolute and has no end neiÂhter start.
So the infiÂnite symÂbol is wrong, it repÂreÂsents a course that ends and starts in itself.
Just talkÂing…
by the way…interesting doc
The first 10 minÂutes were a total waste of time. It might have improved latÂer, but I doubt it. Avoid.