Is the Universe Infinite?

JlNobody:
Your points re your use of the term "mystical" are noted, and I am enlightened
thereby.
However , I still cannot conceive of an epistemological revolution of any kind which can
trivialize "questioning" of any aspects of our so-called reality. This is the precise area of our thinking in which we tend to drift apart.
Irrespective of that , please be aware
that I have an appreciation of the depths of your
probing, and do not dismiss it lightly.

0 Replies

BoGoWo, just because we can construct a concept that permits no ending of its operation, that does not prove there is in fact a physical infinity, an unending or unlimited universe. That reminds me of the ontological proof of the existence of God, coarsely put: God must exist if we can conceive of Him?

0 Replies

BoGoWo:
When you state that "nothingness ......
becomes everything" are you suggesting that
nothingness inherently contained within itself all the necessary matter/energy/ etc. to "cause this violent upheaval"? If so, you are ofcourse indirectly saying that there was always something
in our cosmos/universe(s)......this infinite continuum. You obviusly have chosen to use the
word "nothingness" as a "something" comtained in our Infinite Universe.
By the way, your realistic POV on all
subjects is always a treat to read.

0 Replies

Alkimr, thank you. I enjoy your criticisms more than I enjoy the compliments of others. Let me address your comment. You say that you "cannot conceive of an epistemological revolution of any kind which can
trivialize "questioning" of any aspects of our so-called reality. This is the precise area of our thinking in which we tend to drift apart."
I'm comforted that we might drift apart over such a correctable difference. Let me just say that if you or I could conceive of such an epistemological revolution, it wouldn't be a revolution of the future. We would have it now. I got this idea from Karl Popper, the philosopher, who argued that we cannot predict our future behaviors with any confidence because future behavior will be significantly influenced by future knowledge. To predict future behavior we would, thus, have to have access to that knowledge which, by definition, is not present knowledge. So, like our futurist-in-residence, BoGoWo, I reserve the right to speculate about future unknowns/unknowables.s

0 Replies

Both terms, "zero" and "infinity", mean without beginning, ending, or boundary. They are two ways of writing the same thing.

0 Replies

I would interpret that to mean that infinity and zero are the only absolutes.

0 Replies

It would seem that way.

0 Replies

Is it just a coincidence that if you lay two zeros side by side (and touching) they make the symbol for infinity? OO (too bad I can't make them touch).

0 Replies

Would an INFINITE universe be collateral with eternity? Conversely, is it possible that a universe which is NOT infinite can also be eternal?

0 Replies

I take it that the term "eternal" is a time reference. It would seem that you are asking, "could the spatial universe be finite, and time infinite?"

On the whole, I don't think so.

Let us consider a finite system. These are models that treat existence as being "real", as opposed to models that regard "existence" as conditional. In a finite system, there are at a minimum two states: non-existence, followed by existence. The term "followed" is the necessary ingredient for the beginning of time (defined as change). So time in finite models has a beginning and that runs counter to the definition of infinity (without beginning, ending, or boundaries, the four dimensions we can experience in our perceptual world).

A finite model is also generally regarded as an open system. That is the existence of our universe is unique, not an infinite series of cycles. There was the Big Bang, the universe expands until entropy becomes total, all motion ceases and the universal temperature becomes absolute zero. Change ceases to happen, and time ends. One might argue, I suppose that once time begins it never really ends because the end state IS different from the beginning. I think that's chopping logic.

The third consideration is boundaries. What existed before existence, what will exist after existence ends, and what lies beyond existence in between? The two most popular answers are probably God is everything beyond the finite (which to my mind is begging the question), or no one can ever know. Those answers are not very satisfying are they/ I have that same gut feeling about finite models. Finite systems aren't elegant, and they are messy causing more questions than they answer.

0 Replies

alikimr wrote:

BoGoWo:
When you state that "nothingness ......
becomes everything" are you suggesting that
nothingness inherently contained within itself all the necessary matter/energy/ etc. to "cause this violent upheaval"? .....

Not at all; my nothingness does not contain nothing, and does not contain anything; it "is" nothingness - total void - the absence of 'everything'.

But what is contained in nothingness, but does not 'reside' within nothingness, is the essence of the being of everything, that being a part of nothingness, just as nothingness, is a part of everythingness!

They are the poles of a continuum!

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

BoWoGo,

What you're describing is what many physicists have believed for the last fifty years, or so. The problem is that nasty little bits of evidence keep croping up to muddy the water and call the model into question. First, there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the perceptual universe to cause closure. Second, rather than slowing, universal acceleration appears to be increasing. Both of these two objections to the model have been dealt with, but not really in a convincing manner.

Not quite; their model sees the Big Bang as a 'fait accompli'; an event that has happened, thus there is much 'dark matter' missing that is needed to provide enough mass to reach closure - my event is 'underway, but currently still happening'! the missing dark matter is still 'happening' - winking into existence over the entire timeframe of the complete event.
When the event is complete, everything will have occurred, including the occurrence of all the dark matter that there is (or will be), from nothingness.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

BoGoWo, just because we can construct a concept that permits no ending of its operation, that does not prove there is in fact a physical infinity, an unending or unlimited universe. That reminds me of the ontological proof of the existence of God, coarsely put: God must exist if we can conceive of Him?

I am not attempting to mount a 'proof'; there is no proof (except perhaps for the fact that every time scientists assess the amount of 'dark matter' in the universe, they find more than the last time they tried, and, of course, fault the previous methods, rather than looking at the posibility that there actually now "is" more!); i am merely applying the logic of what we see, to the logic of what therefore, existed, exists, and will exist.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Both terms, "zero" and "infinity", mean without beginning, ending, or boundary. They are two ways of writing the same thing.

zero, and infinity are the poles of a continuum, as well!
Exactly! They are at once the same, and the opposite, and one holds the 'promise' of the other.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I would interpret that to mean that infinity and zero are the only absolutes.

no, all absolutes, are absolute; however all absolutes are also related to the concepts of zero, and infinity.

0 Replies

Not Too Swift wrote:

Would an INFINITE universe be collateral with eternity? Conversely, is it possible that a universe which is NOT infinite can also be eternal?

Yes, no.
[These, too, are 'absolutes' - if only men would understand that when a woman says 'no'! Laughing

]

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

...........Let us consider a finite system. These are models that treat existence as being "real", as opposed to models that regard "existence" as conditional. In a finite system, there are at a minimum two states: non-existence, followed by existence. The term "followed" is the necessary ingredient for the beginning of time (defined as change). So time in finite models has a beginning and that runs counter to the definition of infinity (without beginning, ending, or boundaries, the four dimensions we can experience in our perceptual world)..............

I see (d4) time as merely a viewpoint, without a vector reference!

Asherman wrote:

..........A finite model is also generally regarded as an open system. That is the existence of our universe is unique, not an infinite series of cycles..........

a finite universe can contain as many cycles as one would want; an infinite universe contains 'all' cycles.

Asherman wrote:

There was the Big Bang, the universe expands until entropy becomes total, all motion ceases and the universal temperature becomes absolute zero. Change ceases to happen, and time ends. One might argue, I suppose that once time begins it never really ends because the end state IS different from the beginning..........

and there is no reason to be sure something else won't happen at that, or any other point.

Asherman wrote:

The third consideration is boundaries. What existed before existence, what will exist after existence ends, and what lies beyond existence in between? The two most popular answers are probably God is everything beyond the finite (which to my mind is begging the question), or no one can ever know. Those answers are not very satisfying are they/ I have that same gut feeling about finite models. Finite systems aren't elegant, and they are messy causing more questions than they answer.

totally dissatisfying; i discard the finite as meaningless.

[very similar to religious belief, far too many unrelated, unproven, (unbelievable), coincidental 'things' are required to coalesce, to make it possible!]

0 Replies

BoGoWo, interesting thoughts. But I regard BOTH finite and infinite to be meaningless. Which is one reason I have little to say on this thread. Each concept makes no sense without the other and together they tell me nothing about the world as I experience it. I just experience "this", not this finite or infinite this.
By the way, your statement that zero and infinity are at the same time the same and opposites, is more paradoxical than any zennish statement I, Asherman, Twyvel or Fresco have ever made. Good for you.

0 Replies

Whenever I hear people thinking about the universe, I can't help but think how the people in Western Europe thought, only four hundred years or so, that the earth was the centre of the universe.
We are still busy with exploring our solar system, and I'll daresay that while it can sure be fun talking about these things, there are no definite answers to be given with our current state of knowledge.

What is infinity to us? Perhaps we feel this universe is limitless, or conversely limited, due to our three-dimensional state of mind. I don't know if there are gifted individuals out there that can easily work and understand more dimensions, I can't.
Suppose the little people we sometimes scribble on paper, would start to exist in their two dimensional world, and explore their universe. Suppose the paper is being folded in a form like a mobius eight or a globe, (talk about infinity symbols) their universe would be infinite to them, since they can't find an edge.
So perhaps we are, in turn, limited by the dimensional depth we, as humans, can explore.

Another suggestion. If our universe is limited, and at one time we manage to get a spacecraft advanced enough to go to the very boundaries of that universe, what then? It is suggested there is nothingness behind said border. But the moment our gallant spacecraft ventures behind that border, it will not be empty anymore. Right?
So is it then an anomaly? Would the border simply move along with the spacecraft? Would the craft become nothing?
Am I even making sense here?

Naj.
BTW. sorry about the english. Not my native language.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Is it just a coincidence that if you lay two zeros side by side (and touching) they make the symbol for infinity? OO (too bad I can't make them touch).

Its also interesting to note that the very idea of Zero came from India, Bablylonia, and the east.

European mathematicians, advanced as they were, were stuck in many of their theorems, proofs, etc., until the idea of Zero spread from the east to Europe, around 12th century. They had no concept of Zero. Various historians attribute mathematicians in India and Babylonia using the concept of Zero as far back as 3rd century BC.

Could it be the religions and philosophies of the east led to the idea of Zero in the east, even in an area seemingly unrelated as Mathematics?

Europeans generally liked to quantify everything precisely. The idea of Nothingness was a bit foreign. How could there be nothing/zero?

Were easterners more likely to consider ideas of nothingness than their European counterparts, due to the respective religions/philosophies/mindsets that surrounded and informed them?

0 Replies

Is the Universe Infinite?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know