X-Message-Number: 21777
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 21:47:03 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #21768 Eternity

Yvan Bozzonetti wrote:

>A late answer about eternity for Mike Perry:
>
>Eternity is infinite, when you add any finite value to a finite sum you don't
>get anymore near the infinite. It may be counter intuitive one undecillon in
>no larger than one as seen against the infinite.

No, I understand you perfectly.

>  If you are looking at finite
>increments, and say you get a step closer to your objecttive in doing so,
>then your objective must be finite, not infinite.

There are different ways of looking at this. For instance, you could work 
with reciprocals, so infinite time collapses to zero, and large, finite 
time to something small but nonzero. Here you are "getting closer" to a 
goal as you "go to infinity", but it does depend on how you measure 
distance. Anyway, clearly the principle of induction is a valid way of 
establishing a property for an infinite number of things in a finite number 
of steps, and thus to make the concept of infinity more understandable, and 
reasonable too. That was mainly the point I was trying to make, not trying 
to say you are getting "closer" when the distance (in usual measure) stays 
infinite.


>For what we know of the physics, time may well be finite and so would be
>impossible.

We don't know that, however.

There are other issues about eternity that have been raised that I address 
in my book, including some "doomsday" scenarios, and even the possibility 
that the universe, after all, will prove inimical to life in the end. (Even 
that is not absolutely the end in my view, though it does create a 
problem.) As one might expect, all the objections can be answered, but that 
does not settle all the arguments. But I remain hopeful of eternal life.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21777