What is the difference between eternity and infinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidetrack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sidetrack

Guest
I am curious to know if someone in this forum can give me an answer which is satisfying.In my mind infinity is something that goes on for all time (it’s like saying you never have to say your done) while if something is eternal then it’s presence is always there.Now this is where I cant seem to work out something.By presence of something I dont neccesarily mean the presence of some material thing.For example in my opinion you can that space is eternal.I dont mean outer space in with the stars,planets and such even though I guess you can include that as well but I mean space in an even more general sense like a dimension with axioms and stuff.Yet then agian you can say its infinite because it goes on for all time,cant you?.I would like it if someone can clarify this for me.Thank you very much so for your time.
 
Eternity never ends.

Whereas infinity merely is forever.
 
Infinity is a measurement. Eternity is a time period.

Infinity can be applied to anything that is measured, such as time, space, or distance. Some believe the universe is infinite, some don’t. In geometry, a line may start at point A and continue in one direction forever, so it is infinite.

Eternity is only time. In fact, it is infinite time. Since the afterlife is believe to have no beginning or end, it is sometimes called eternity.
 
Infinity is a mathematical construct necessarily anchored in spacetime.

Eternity is a metaphysical construct necessarily anchored OUTSIDE of spacetime.
 
A Priori said pretty much what I was going to say, only (s)he said it better!
 
I think of infinity as being outside of space and eternity as being outside of time. Explaining this can get kind of deep, but here goes:

Infinity means without limit, and theologically speaking, infinity means without limit not only externally but internally as well. We tend to think only of the external sense, of spreading out in all direction and you never reach a point where you say “this far and no farther”, such as the infinite universe. But there is also the internal sense of not having not having parts or divisions. Let me explain by quoting Frank Sheed*:
“Scientists may argue whether there is any boundary of the material universe, whether one can conceive a point in any direction beyond which the material universe does not extend. This is a pleasant argument, but it has no bearing on the question whether the material universe is infinite. It may extend in all directions without ever coming to an outer boundary, but it has the myriad boundaries within itself which arise from its being composed of parts. It is incurably finite. God on the other hand is infinite. There are no parts in Him at all. He is wholly Himself in one inclusive act of being. Because He lacks the limitation of having parts, He is free from the consequent limitation of occupying space. Space cannot contain Him. He transcends space, and the things of space, and indeed all created things.”

Eternity - let me quote from Frank Sheed*:
“Eternity is not time, however much we may try to glorify the concept of time. The philosophic definition of eternity is in two Latin words, tota simul, which may be roughtly translated as “all at once”. God’s eternity means that He possesses the totality of what He is, not in successive acts as we do, but in one single act. Just as time is the duration of that which changes, eternity is the duration of that which simply is, the duration of the Being who, in one infinite act of being which does not change and does not cease, is all that He is, and all that He does.”

*Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
 
sidetrack said:
I am curious to know if someone in this forum can give me an answer which is satisfying.In my mind infinity is something that goes on for all time (it’s like saying you never have to say your done) while if something is eternal then it’s presence is always there.Now this is where I cant seem to work out something.By presence of something I dont neccesarily mean the presence of some material thing.For example in my opinion you can that space is eternal.I dont mean outer space in with the stars,planets and such even though I guess you can include that as well but I mean space in an even more general sense like a dimension with axioms and stuff.Yet then agian you can say its infinite because it goes on for all time,cant you?.I would like it if someone can clarify this for me.Thank you very much so for your time.
Click to expand...
Sidetrack:

Infinity and eternity are words that are often used interchangeably. Some subtle differences occur with different subjects: e.g., the world may well be eternal. Likewise, the soul of a man is eternal. The earth has a beginning but (perhaps) no ending. Even if the universe dies a cold death, the fact remains that the earth will probably be here: in one form or another.

Whereas, to say that God is infinite is to say that he lacks no perfection of his attributes, including no limit to his magnitude. And, God has neither beginning nor ending: hence, time is not of the same consequence to him, as a subject, in this case. What we cannot say is that the soul of man, or the earth, is infinite. The difference has more to do with how we use the words and each word’s subjects.

There are two kinds of infinity: actual and potential. Potential here does not hold the same meaning as potential (in the case of) energy, for example. It does not mean stored up, or like a coiled spring. Rather, it means that although something is tending toward actual infinity, additional units (instances of its basis) can always be added. In mathematics, there is no number infinity. It is a concept that unalterably contains a vagary at its end.

A series of numbers would be actually infinite if it contained all possible numbers and if, as a result, no new number could be added to the series. The universe would be infinite in its extension if it filled all possible space - which entails going beyond the edges of the universe, out into whatever it is the the universe is expanding into - and if, as a result, it could not be increased in size.

You’ll have to accept less than perfect clarity, I’m afraid.

God bless,
jd
 
a_priori said:
Infinity is a mathematical construct necessarily anchored in space time.

Eternity is a metaphysical construct necessarily anchored OUTSIDE of space time.
Click to expand...
An additional comment on eternity would be to say that since it is anchored outside of space & time, it is simply the act of existing … to exist without the notion of a chronological sequence of events (i.e.-sequential time) … to simply exist for the sake of existing !!
 
I agree with the ideas that have Eternity as Presence as an quality of Being which has no attribute of duration. It is the eternal NOW that isn’t anchored outside space, but is the ground that allows space and all else to exist. Of course, being a definition of something outside human coprehenson, these words are meaningless other than as a pointer
 
sidetrack said:
I am curious to know if someone in this forum can give me an answer which is satisfying.In my mind infinity is something that goes on for all time (it’s like saying you never have to say your done) while if something is eternal then it’s presence is always there…
Click to expand...
Interesting question!

I like a priori’s response.

However, it reminds me of a recent article on mathematics I read (I apologize for not having the link). The article discussed infinity. Now, there is an “infinite number” of whole numbers, 1, 2, 3…etc. But there is also an “infinte number” of real numbers, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2.3, 3.4, etc. So, the question arose, can one infinte set be larger than another?

Sorry for going a bit off topic. :o Just something to think about. Well, if you’re a math junkie! 😃
 
lifetree said:
An additional comment on eternity would be to say that since it is anchored outside of space & time, it is simply the act of existing … to exist without the notion of a chronological sequence of events (i.e.-sequential time) … to simply exist for the sake of existing !!
Click to expand...
I agree. This very notion keeps me awake at night. What is time? Existing without the passage of time is mind-boggling. We cannot even conceptualize it but rather can only consider it as a sort of abstract extrapolation. Just as an aside, I think this is where the mind/body problem lives. There is a quantum component to where the physical world and the metaphysical world sort of leach into each other. (Descartes is a hero of mine but I think his Dualism was a cop out. I suppose he didn’t have relativity and quantum theory in his bag of tricks so he can be forgiven for that one 🙂 One day it will be clear to all of us that the mind/body problem isn’t actually a problem but rather a case of perceptive capability. If something affects something else (mind—>body or body–>mind) there must necessarily be a mediator possessing the essences of both “entities” available to it. To be a Korean translator, you have to know both Korean and English languages in order to make a bridge between the two.

Even more summoning is the relatively recent theory of time possibly being quantized as well. If true, it would mean that there is a point beyond which time can no longer be divided further. (1 second, 1/2 second, 1/4 second, 1/8 second, etc, etc…down to a quantum of time where further splitting isn’t possible.) This is remarkable. Is it possible that this chunk of indivisible time is of the same essence as consciousness? A sort of ontological dimorphism? I believe strongly in science/mathematics and I also believe in the existence of God and a metaphysical reality as well. These two worlds MUST interface. This is a fascinating topic.
 
My view:

When Descartes merged algebra and geometry in the 17th century he merged the physical (space) with the abstract (numbers). The problem facing the mathematicians in the 19th century was how to reconcile the assumed continuity of space with numbers. The tacit assumption was and still is: every point in space is defined by a number and every number is associated with a point in space This assumption is referred to as the “Dedekind Cantor Axiom of Continuity”. The continuity of space demands that it be infinitely divisible (a second way of contemplating infinity along with the infinity of length, space or time). This led to the need to formalize the infinity of numbers and as it turned out the number “infinity”.

Georg Cantor created set theory in the 19th century in order to develop transfinite arithmetic, the mathematics of infinities. Cantor defined the cardinality of a set that contained an infinite number of elements as aleph(0), the first transfinite number; the rest were a sequence of ‘alephs’ derived by taking the “power set” of the previous aleph. For example,* aleph*(1) = 2^aleph(0). Cantor believed that God was the Absolute beyond the sequence of alephs, the Actus Purissimus.

However rigorously coherent, mathematical concepts, which run counter to intuition, end up in the dust bin of the academically interesting, but meaningless, unless they have some connection to reality. As far as reality is concerned, one need only consider the first two *alephs *for they gain meaning by a connection with ‘physical’ space. *Aleph(*0) is associated with the rational numbers (all the integers and ratios of integers) that are categorized by the fact that their decimal equivalents either end in 0’"s like 1/4 = 0.2500000…, repeat the same digit forever like 1/3=0.3333333333…, or repeat the same sequence of digits like 4/7= 0. 571428’571428’571428… Aleph(1) is associated with the ‘real numbers’, which includes both the rational and irrational numbers. Irrational numbers, like the square root of 2 and pi, are characterized by decimals of never ending, random digits and cannot be counted in order. The first two transfinite numbers define two modalities of space: aleph(0), the rational numbers = discrete space; aleph(0), the real numbers = continuous space. Discrete space is based on the assumption that every point in space is defined by a number; but NOT every number is associated with a point in space.

As far as eternity is concerned, one can simply considered it to be infinite time. However, since the time we experience, cosmological time, has a beginning in the big bang, it cannot be infinite because if infinite it would extend infinitely into the past and it doesn’t. Therefore, eternity must be associated with another form of time. Since time is nothing more that the manifestation of change, the only thing that could have possibly manifested change prior to the big bang is the Mind of God. , I think of God’s time as "ontological time" that extends infinitely in all directions to eternity.

Have fun. Yppop
 
a_priori said:
I agree. This very notion keeps me awake at night. What is time? Existing without the passage of time is mind-boggling. We cannot even conceptualize it but rather can only consider it as a sort of abstract extrapolation. Just as an aside, I think this is where the mind/body problem lives. There is a quantum component to where the physical world and the metaphysical world sort of leach into each other. (Descartes is a hero of mine but I think his Dualism was a cop out. I suppose he didn’t have relativity and quantum theory in his bag of tricks so he can be forgiven for that one 🙂 One day it will be clear to all of us that the mind/body problem isn’t actually a problem but rather a case of perceptive capability. If something affects something else (mind—>body or body–>mind) there must necessarily be a mediator possessing the essences of both “entities” available to it. To be a Korean translator, you have to know both Korean and English languages in order to make a bridge between the two.

Even more summoning is the relatively recent theory of time possibly being quantized as well. If true, it would mean that there is a point beyond which time can no longer be divided further. (1 second, 1/2 second, 1/4 second, 1/8 second, etc, etc…down to a quantum of time where further splitting isn’t possible.) This is remarkable. Is it possible that this chunk of indivisible time is of the same essence as consciousness? A sort of ontological dimorphism? I believe strongly in science/mathematics and I also believe in the existence of God and a metaphysical reality as well. These two worlds MUST interface. This is a fascinating topic.
Click to expand...
Clearly both Apriori and Yppop each are among those with useful and productive gray matter between their ears beyond the norm on here, imo, fro what that’s worth.

Yppop’s “ontological time” is yet equatable with Being and has no dimension of time in fact due to it’s omnipresence as a NOW independent of cosmological time except as its ground. I.e. cosmological time as a human construct is experienceable because of the component of our identity inextricably linked to that state.

As for A priori’s statement above, you might be one of the few to whom I would recommend a book that treats extensively of this topic in a cogent and methodical way. That would be F. Merrell-Wolff’s The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. and even the work that preceeds it. My guess is that you would find it vastly interesting in regard to your speculations above.

I very much enjoyed reading the last two posts!
 
Thank you for the “heads up” on Merrell-Wolff. I look forward to it.
 
[QUOT]E=sidetrack;7618435]I am curious to know if someone in this forum can give me an answer which is satisfying.In my mind infinity is something that goes on for all time (it’s like saying you never have to say your done) while if something is eternal then it’s presence is always there.Now this is where I cant seem to work out something.By presence of something I dont neccesarily mean the presence of some material thing.For example in my opinion you can that space is eternal.I dont mean outer space in with the stars,planets and such even though I guess you can include that as well but I mean space in an even more general sense like a dimension with axioms and stuff.Yet then agian you can say its infinite because it goes on for all time,cant you?.I would like it if someone can clarify this for me.Thank you very much so for your time.

Eternity relates to TIME

Infinity relates to Distance

Never do they cross paths.

BOTH are God’s Creation for different reasons and different use.

God Bless,
Pat
 
PJM said:
[QUOT]Eternity relates to TIME

Infinity relates to Distance
Click to expand...
Infinity transcends space, so it’s not accurate to say it relates to distance. Infinity relates to limits, or rather unlimitedness, not distance. There is no outer boundary that you can make bigger, and no inner boundary that you can make smaller.
 
sidetrack said:
.Yet then agian you can say its infinite because it goes on for all time,cant you?.I would like it if someone can clarify this for me.Thank you very much so for your time.
Click to expand...
Sidetrack

I don’t wish to further obfuscate* things but time does not exist it is merely a math equation that determines the earth’s position relative to the Sun. If it did exist I would, at my age, go get some more.
  • To make things more difficult.
 
I suspect that time and eternity are what is known in Philosophy 101 as a tautology.

From my pocket dictionary: 1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.

More succinctly, when someone doesn’t know how to explain something they create a tautology which sounds good, but on closer inspection it is meaningless. An example of this was used in the movie Platoon when the soldiers were back in their tents and discussing the “10,000 yard stare… you see beyond.” This may sound good but this annectode doesn’t really tell us anything about PTSD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top