An Infinite Numer of Objects?

esmalgfes,

The number of objects in a Universe depends entirely upon ones personal description of a Universe.

If you have a "Big Bang" Universe then its clearly finite.

If you have an "Observable" Universe then it again is clearly finite.

But IMO there is at least an even chance that "none of the above" describes our universe.

Go to the Science and Mechanics forum thread named "Big Bang Makes it to You Tube" for a different kind of Universe.

Science and Mathematics Thread

If infinity is not a number then the philosophical objection to the statement, "an infinite number of concrete objects" is that the concept is a contradiction in terms.

aside from "concrete" being an incredibly indescript modifier, the answer is that their is in fact a finite number combinations of the molecules in the universe.

This rages from every molecule in existance being counted as well as the combination of the molecules, to finally the sum of all the mass in the universe as one object.

Finite.

The question secretly proposed by this thread is if you can define "object." But that's Philosophy for you. Can we take a relatively useful phrase and attempt to make it obsolete?

T
K
Only if we try.

I can't fathom why the Big Bang would rule out the kind of infinite scenario I was talking about, which requires only a finite time interval. The scenario doesn't require that time have no beginning.

According to the BBers all the universe; Space, time, and energies were wrapped up in a dimensionless point.

Seems to me that if that were true you could put this point in a bucket and carry it off somewhere.

And if the universe could be contained then it could not be infinite.

Of course there are several variations on a BB scenario. In some theories that I have run across the point is as large as six cubic centimeters.

If you have a different model handy then run with it See what happens

I havn't read this thread (I will later) but I want to point out that the question itself rests on the false presumption of (1) objectivism (things exist apart from their perception) and (2) "thingism": that there are beings, objects, static things. The reality is that there are only processes, constellations and patterns of energy, becoming, etc. Any so-called "object" can be seen to consist of dynamic (continuously changing) patterns of processes ("atoms", "quarks," etc.).

JLN, I like your explanation the best; it doesn't limit it to finite and infinte as a concept.

C.I., to me the concept, infinite, is completely hypothetical-theoretical. I really can't imagine an unending anything, even time. At the same time I can't imagine finitude for some things, i.e., space and time.
But just because I can't imagine them doesn't mean, of course, that they don't exist. I just see them (the IDEAS finitude and infinity) as no more than human constructs.

I don't have a scietnfic background, so my knowedge about these things are very limited. My idea about objects as a concept has been unlimited when we are told the universe is in constant expansion mode.

As a process, it explains in layman's term what we/I can understand.

JL,

I spent pretty near twenty years before I was able to think that "infinite" or "eternal" might be something more than a set of synapses in an over wrought mathematicians brain.

Just the idea that something real (describable) may be never-ending is rough for us to wrap our heads around. Perhaps that's why we invented Gods and Big Bangs.

Frankly I had thought that there may be something wrong in my head So far this has not been shown to be completely erroneous hypothesis