An Infinite Numer of Objects?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Anyone think of any objections to the view that there are an infinite number of concrete objects - that is, spatial and temporal objects like trees, chairs, atoms and such?

I'm looking especially for objections that are not directed at the concept of infinity as such. And also looking even more specifically for objections to the idea that there might be an infinite number of concrete objects not at any certain time but over a certain finite interval time. I'm sure that's cryptic, and I'd be happy to elaborate!

Thanks!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,882 • Replies: 50

No top replies

Einstein has you answer.

0 Replies

I'm confused as to how anyone could have any objections to a view that there are an infinite number of concrete objects that isn't directed at the concept of infinity.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that there are objects.

0 Replies

Maybe he's talking about philosophy more than physics.

0 Replies

Maybe the question is about whether there is enough concrete to make these objects.

0 Replies

ebrown, I didn't know you were into humour.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

I'm confused as to how anyone could have any objections to a view that there are an infinite number of concrete objects that isn't directed at the concept of infinity.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that there are objects.

You might think, say, that there could be an infinite number of numbers (or sets, or properties) but not an infinite number of really substantive objects like chairs and atoms.

0 Replies

If you want the scientific view...

There is definitely not an infinite number of atoms.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

If you want the scientific view...

There is definitely not an infinite number of atoms.

I was thinking more philosophy, but is there some scientific law that precludes an infinite number of atoms? Is it just atoms that can't be infinite, or any physical thing at all?

0 Replies

All opf the available cosmological evidence demonstrates that the universe is finite, bith in extent and in mass/energy.

0 Replies

esmagalhaes wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
If you want the scientific view...

There is definitely not an infinite number of atoms.

I was thinking more philosophy, but is there some scientific law that precludes an infinite number of atoms?

Yes.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

Quote:

Is it just atoms that can't be infinite, or any physical thing at all?[

One pretty much forces the other. If the amount of matter in the universe is finite then the number of objects that can be made from that matter is also finite.

0 Replies

We are told that space continues to expand. If the space expands, the space between the known objects must also expand, and must by "reason" have atoms between them. Does it really?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

We are told that space continues to expand. If the space expands, the space between the known objects must also expand, and must by "reason" have atoms between them. Does it really?

If space continues to expand the distance between objects (overall) may increase but I don't know of any law of physics that requires that the space between objects be filled with atoms. Atoms themselves are objects so in effect you'd be saying that the space between atoms must be filled with atoms. That pretty much defies the entire concept of a "space".

0 Replies

fishin wrote

Quote:

I think pretty much everyone agrees that there are objects.

Actually no ! In nondualistic terms all "things" require a "thinger" (observer). In ordinary number theory the nominal level (naming a member of a set) logically precedes cardinality (counting the members). So the problem is that different observers exposed to the same scenario ...a beach say...might do different "thinging". One might count "pebbles", another "grains of sand", a third "molecules" etc....

It seems therefore that since "number of things" depends on a particular "observer" that number must necessarily be finite, because his counting career is finite.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

fishin wrote

Quote:
I think pretty much everyone agrees that there are objects.

Actually no ! In nondualistic terms all "things" require a "thinger" (observer). In ordinary number theory the nominal level (naming a member of a set) logically precedes cardinality (counting the members). So the problem is that different observers exposed to the same scenario ...a beach say...might do different "thinging". One might count "pebbles", another "grains of sand", a third "molecules" etc....

I don't see how this negates my previous comment. Whether the observers see the same "things" or not - they still see "things". Pebbles, grains of sand and molecules are all objects...

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

All opf the available cosmological evidence demonstrates that the universe is finite, bith in extent and in mass/energy.

and yet, unbounded. Finite only in the sense measurements may be made between any point A and any point B, However, The Universe may contain both points A and point B without being defined by either.

0 Replies

fishin

My point about "objects" is that they only exist with respect to "observers".

Whereas I as an atheist might conclude (as I did) that observers counting operations are "finite", a theist (like Bishop Berkeley for example) might advocate "God" as an ultimate observer/creator/counter of "infinite" extent.

I am conscious that I am playing here at the boundaries of concepts like "countable" and "uncountable infinity" and that such considerations were no playthings for Georg Cantor (celebrated mathematician of infinity) who ended his days in a mental asylum.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

[The fact there is a finite number of atoms] pretty much forces the other. If the amount of matter in the universe is finite then the number of objects that can be made from that matter is also finite.

Mathematically speaking... you are making the unproven assumption that an object must have at least one atom.

If a (infinitesimally small) chair could be made of zero atoms, then you could have an infinite number of them.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

fishin wrote:

[The fact there is a finite number of atoms] pretty much forces the other. If the amount of matter in the universe is finite then the number of objects that can be made from that matter is also finite.

Mathematically speaking... you are making the unproven assumption that an object must have at least one atom.

If a (infinitesimally small) chair could be made of zero atoms, then you could have an infinite number of them.

??? Perhaps terminology is being misused here but "zero atoms" = "nothing" - a void. It is a way to describe a perfect vacum. You can't make something (an object i.e. a chair - even an iinfinitesimally small one) from nothing.

While I used atoms for the sake of convience the same would apply for subatomic particles (which can exist outside of an atom) unless the Law of Conservation has been tossed out the window and I didn't catch it in the news. Razz

0 Replies

Again I was thinking more metaphysics than physics, but anyway.

The conservation law: I don't see why an infinite number of objects would violate that. As long as their amount of mass/energy is conserved, i.e., the grand total stays the same over time.

Say matter must be finite. Still it doesn't follow there are a finite number of objects, unless nature precludes infinite divisibility. Do scientists really say as a matter of confident law that they can rule out an infinite division of objects?

0 Replies

An Infinite Numer of Objects?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know