Universe infinite/finite?

[Coggeh]

So heres my question , if matter cannot be created nor destroyed then on what basis can the big bang be true from a materialist perspective . But if it always existed and is infinite , well isn't that a contradiction because infinity doesn't and can't actually exist and is just a process.

So basically eh is the universe finite or infinite and how can the big bang be a solid theory if matter cannot be created out of nothing(without the workings of the spaghetti monster in the sky of course).

[yuon]

You know what? I don't think anyone here on this website can really explain what the fuck is going on. I suspect that maybe a couple of people could sort of explain it, and maybe they understand what's going on, but well...

It's a complex science thing, not a philosophy thing.

[Manifesto]

This also sounds like it should rather be a poll. But infinite.

[New Tet]

So heres my question , if matter cannot be created nor destroyed then on what basis can the big bang be true from a materialist perspective . But if it always existed and is infinite , well isn't that a contradiction because infinity doesn't and can't actually exist and is just a process.

So basically eh is the universe finite or infinite and how can the big bang be a solid theory if matter cannot be created out of nothing(without the workings of the spaghetti monster in the sky of course).

Time is an abstraction. It is a conception humans have invented in order to measure the consecutive moments it takes an object to travel through two or more given points in space.

Zero is the starting point and Infinity is represented by 1,2,3...And so on.

And since it is almost universally accepted that there is no "one last number" (a number whose quantity is unsurpassable), the conception of infinity becomes plausible.

Infinity is the ultimate point at which Idealism and Science meet, go out, have a few drinks and come back to the apartment to make babies.

Think about this: If the universe is governed largely by the unconscious forces of nature, how and why did consciousness come about?

I like to think of this metaphorically as the story of a billion planets, all inhabited by intelligent, conscious beings, all inventing their own versions of the face of God: The Billion Faces of God.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So heres my question , if matter cannot be created nor destroyed then on what basis can the big bang be true from a materialist perspective.

Actually, matter was created early in the universe's history (via primordial nucleosynthesis), and can be destroyed (turned into energy) if brought into contact with antimatter. The total energy content of the universe, however, has remained unchanged since the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang is the start of time as we know it (IE it makes no sense to talk of a time "before" the Big Bang any more than it makes sense to talk of continents north of the North pole), thermodynamics is preserved.


But if it always existed and is infinite , well isn't that a contradiction because infinity doesn't and can't actually exist and is just a process.Well, the universe has a measurable age, so it can't have "always existed" at least not in any physically recognisable form. As for infinity, the universe may be infinite, or it may simply be finite but unbounded, like the surface of a sphere. On a sphere, you can walk in a straight line in any direction parallel to the surface and eventually end up back where you started. Similarly, in a finite but boundless universe, you can (in theory) head in a straight line in any direction and eventually end up back where you started.


Think about this: If the universe is governed largely by the unconscious forces of nature, how and why did consciousness come about?

How: Natural selection.

Why: it proved to enhance survival.


I like to think of this metaphorically as the story of a billion planets, all inhabited by intelligent, conscious beings, all inventing their own versions of the face of God: The Billion Faces of God.What makes you think any naturally-evolved non-human intelligences will share the human concept of God?

[Coggeh]

Actually, matter was created early in the universe's history (via primordial nucleosynthesis), and can be destroyed (turned into energy) if brought into contact with antimatter. The total energy content of the universe, however, has remained unchanged since the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang is the start of time as we know it (IE it makes no sense to talk of a time "before" the Big Bang any more than it makes sense to talk of continents north of the North pole), thermodynamics is preserved.

Well, the universe has a measurable age, so it can't have "always existed" at least not in any physically recognisable form. As for infinity, the universe may be infinite, or it may simply be finite but unbounded, like the surface of a sphere. On a sphere, you can walk in a straight line in any direction parallel to the surface and eventually end up back where you started. Similarly, in a finite but boundless universe, you can (in theory) head in a straight line in any direction and eventually end up back where you started.

Pretty much answered everything I was looking for .....................Thanks.

[Sadena Meti]

Best book I can recommend on this subject is Steven Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell". In it, amongst another things, he presents a fantastic model of a finite but boundless universe, by condensing the three-dimensional universe that we know onto the surface of a sphere. The north pole is the Big Bang, the south pole is the Big Crunch, and the fourth dimension, time, is a vector on the surface always heading south.

[RebelDog]

Best book I can recommend on this subject is Steven Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell".That should be 'A Brief History of Time'. The book you mention is has generally the same content but it actually has nothing to do with Hawking and was produced without his approval.

Actually I've just realised everything I wrote above is a load of bullshit. My apollogies.

[mikelepore]

Similarly, in a finite but boundless universe, you can (in theory) head in a straight line in any direction and eventually end up back where you started.

I tend to think this is true because the microwave background radiation comes to us from all directions. It probably went around the four dimensional circumference of the universe, and probably did that many times while that circumference was increasing.

[mikelepore]

Actually, matter was created early in the universe's history (via primordial nucleosynthesis), and can be destroyed (turned into energy) if brought into contact with antimatter. The total energy content of the universe, however, has remained unchanged since the Big Bang.

Could the singularity have been a single photon with a huge E=hf? Since a photon also possesses linear momentum and angular momentum, I suspect all the conservation laws were in effect from the beginning. In nuclear processes we already know about a neutron turning into a proton and an electron, so a conservation of charge is easy to account for. Conservation of baryon number, I would expect that to be "not fundamental."

[New Tet]

[in re to my question of the development of consciousness]
How: Natural selection.

Why: it proved to enhance survival.

Of what?


What makes you think any naturally-evolved non-human intelligences will share the human concept of God?

Because I assume that mysticism is a universal stage in the evolution of consciousness.

[NecroCommie]

Infinite. How else could I be immortal?! Duh! :rolleyes:
And yes that is my serious answer too. However I do not believe matter to be infinite, since even protons and electrons have average ages. Sooner or later the very stuff that is matter will die out. Energies however remain, and perhaps in some larger scale there can be matter also.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I tend to think this is true because the microwave background radiation comes to us from all directions. It probably went around the four dimensional circumference of the universe, and probably did that many times while that circumference was increasing.

This makes sense. I also wonder how space could expand in an infinite universe - it's already infinite, it can't get any bigger, can it?


Could the singularity have been a single photon with a huge E=hf? Since a photon also possesses linear momentum and angular momentum, I suspect all the conservation laws were in effect from the beginning.

I rather doubt it, since at the time of the big bang all the fundamental forces were unified.


In nuclear processes we already know about a neutron turning into a proton and an electron, so a conservation of charge is easy to account for. Conservation of baryon number, I would expect that to be "not fundamental."It certainly doesn't appear to be, if the chiral anomaly is anything to go by.


Of what?

Of the species in which it has evolved.


Because I assume that mysticism is a universal stage in the evolution of consciousness.In the evolution of human consciousness, sure. Mind you, there is great variation even within human mysticism. Assuming that by "mysticism" you mean some kind of incomplete worldview with that makes statements that are unevidenced and/or declared by fiat, then it's entirely possible, but assuming that such a thing would develop similar to humans is a massive assumption to make. Magnetic lifeforms that evolved on a neutron star, for example, would find the human idea of the Eucharist baffling; indeed, they might not even recognise it as some kind of superstitious behaviour, perhaps instead mistaking it for some kind of social bonding ritual or whatever.

In short, we don't know what non-Terran intelligent lifeforms are like, so assuming that they're going to be like us is needless anthropomorphising. No doubt the gas giant-dwelling metallic hydrogen lifeforms of Gamma Cephei VI imagine aliens to be just like them too, so to speak.


Infinite. How else could I be immortal?! Duh! :rolleyes:
And yes that is my serious answer too. However I do not believe matter to be infinite, since even protons and electrons have average ages. Sooner or later the very stuff that is matter will die out. Energies however remain, and perhaps in some larger scale there can be matter also.

Any "matter" that remains after total proton decay will in all likelyhood be massive, cold and slow.

[Sadena Meti]

I tend to think this is true because the microwave background radiation comes to us from all directions. It probably went around the four dimensional circumference of the universe, and probably did that many times while that circumference was increasing.

The size of the universe increased faster than the speed of light. Hence why it is at least 136 billion light years from "end to end" and yet is not nearly that old. Space stretched behind the big bang. The background microwave radiation is "fresh" red-shifted data from the Big Bang, hasn't gone around in loops. It comes from all directions because no matter where you are in the universe, it is more likely to be near the center than the edge (compare volume of a sphere to it's surface area.

[New Tet]

This makes sense. I also wonder how space could expand in an infinite universe - it's already infinite, it can't get any bigger, can it?

Sure, but in its outward expansion, it exhausts its atomic energy and gradually cools down. Eventually, everything that is the mass of the universe precipitates back into it own center until, once more, it becomes a singularity nearly as heavy as the prior one and, either it explodes again, restarting the process or it collapses further, creating a hyper black hole in the hyper-time/space continuum.

I just made that up. And if you can make sense of any of it (especially the last bit of hyper-horseshit), I'll not laugh, I swear.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Space stretched behind the big bang.

What do you mean by this, exactly? The big bang was not an explosion (despite the name), it was a rapid expansion of space, which is still ongoing.


The background microwave radiation is "fresh" red-shifted data from the Big Bang, hasn't gone around in loops.Strictly speaking it's the light that has been reflected (and has since-red-shifted) from the first stable atoms, which was previously absorbed.


It comes from all directions because no matter where you are in the universe, it is more likely to be near the center than the edge (compare volume of a sphere to it's surface area.There is no "centre" to the universe as far as we are aware, just as there is no centre to the surface of a sphere - but make no mistake, that is an analogy and is thus imperfect. There is no reason to believe that the universe is actually some kind of hypersphere sitting in a larger space.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure, but in its outward expansion, it exhausts its atomic energy and gradually cools down. Eventually, everything that is the mass of the universe precipitates back into it own center until, once more, it becomes a singularity nearly as heavy as the prior one and, either it explodes again, restarting the process or it collapses further, creating a hyper black hole in the hyper-time/space continuum.

I just made that up. And if you can make sense of any of it (especially the last bit of hyper-horseshit), I'll not laugh, I swear.

Are you trying to make a point, or are you just spamming?

[New Tet]

The size of the universe increased faster than the speed of light. Hence why it is at least 136 billion light years from "end to end" and yet is not nearly that old. Space stretched behind the big bang. The background microwave radiation is "fresh" red-shifted data from the Big Bang, hasn't gone around in loops. It comes from all directions because no matter where you are in the universe, it is more likely to be near the center than the edge (compare volume of a sphere to it's surface area.

I'm really going to sound ignorant here but, I guess, this is the best way to cure it: The speed of light is not a constant. It varies depending on the gravitational forces that affects it.

If it's true that a beam of light will bend as it goes deeper into the gravitational force of a singularity, then it would not be whacky to think that the speed of light can be different in various parts of the universe depending on how distant or how close you are to its center.

Isn't this part of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity?

[New Tet]

Are you trying to make a point, or are you just spamming?

Um, I think so. Yes.

My point was fairly simple: that as the universe expands it cools, and as it cools all the elementary particles and debris that were expelled outward start to fall back toward the center, possibly forming a new singularity which, in turn, explodes again, recreating a new universe, or if never reaches critical mass but continues to pull in exo-matter (if such thing exist), it may become so heavy as to rip a hole in the fabric of a supra-time/space continuum much like black holes create "empty voids" in the fabric of our present universe...

Spam is good. With eggs or fried thinly and made in sandwiches with lots of tomato, mayo and a slice of avocado. Yum!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm really going to sound ignorant here but, I guess, this is the best way to cure it: The speed of light is not a constant. It varies depending on the gravitational forces that affects it.

My understanding is that the speed of light isn't affected by gravity, but wavelength is.


If it's true that a beam of light will bend as it goes deeper into the gravitational force of a singularity, then it would not be whacky to think that the speed of light can be different in various parts of the universe depending on how distant or how close you are to its center.
There is no centre to the universe as far as we know.


Isn't this part of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity?I don't think so. We can't directly observe spacetime singularities because the event horizon prevents light from escaping.


Um, I think so. Yes.

My point was fairly simple: that as the universe expands it cools, and as it cools all the elementary particles and debris that were expelled outward start to fall back toward the center, possibly forming a new singularity which, in turn, explodes again, recreating a new universe, or if never reaches critical mass but continues to pull in exo-matter (if such thing exist), it may become so heavy as to rip a hole in the fabric of a supra-time/space continuum much like black holes create "empty voids" in the fabric of our present universe...

1) You have it backwards. The universe cools as a consequence of expansion, not the other way round.

2) There is no "outward", since space isn't expanding into anything.

3) Expansion of space is actually accelerating, so the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen.

4) "Critical mass" is defined as the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction, I don't see how the term relates to cosmology.

5) This "exo-matter" of yours is an unnecessary term - it's not been detected (not even indirectly, as in the cases of dark matter and dark energy), so why posit it?

6) Black holes do not create "voids".

I'm sorry, but what you propose makes no physical sense given our current understanding of the universe.

[New Tet]

My understanding is that the speed of light isn't affected by gravity, but wavelength is.

There is no centre to the universe as far as we know.

Let's a assume that there is a specific point where the Big Bang occurred. We'll call it ground zero. That could be deemed the center, no?


I don't think so. We can't directly observe spacetime singularities because the event horizon prevents light from escaping.

Just the at the event horizon, or beginning at the event horizon and continuing all the way down into it? In other words, can it be seen by inference?


1) You have it backwards. The universe cools as a consequence of expansion, not the other way round.

I think that's what I stated.


2) There is no "outward", since space isn't expanding into anything.

There is "outward" in every direction that we look, I think, but only because our mind's eye cannot encompass the full scale of our universe. But I kinda thought that astro-physics had already produced an estimate of the size of the universe based on the red/blue shift of distant galaxies. Maybe I'm wrong here. What do you think?


3) Expansion of space is actually accelerating, so the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen.

Can you explain to my confused mind how expansion can occur without the existence of "inward" and "outward" dimensions?


4) "Critical mass" is defined as the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction, I don't see how the term relates to cosmology.

Don't some stars reach a critical mass before they explode? And I thought that it was not necessarily the "smallest" but the minimum amount of fissile material, etc.


5) This "exo-matter" of yours is an unnecessary term - it's not been detected (not even indirectly, as in the cases of dark matter and dark energy), so why posit it?

Of course, it hasn't been detected, I just made it up as my imagination wandered into the "what-is-beyond-the-outer-limit-of-our-universe" zone.
Sorry, if it's against the rules I'll not do it again. Promise.


6) Black holes do not create "voids".

That is so true! I just used the term (and you'll be happy to note that I too placed it in quotation marks from the very start!) to avoid saying that black hole singularities are so gravitationally intense that they swallow up light and mass, creating a distortion in the time/space continuum.


I'm sorry, but what you propose makes no physical sense given our current understanding of the universe.

Well I hope no Flat Earthers get a hold of my nonsense or he'll run away with it and turn it into one of their pet "theories"!

[Sadena Meti]

The Big Bang did occur at a given place. The expansion of the universe, and the direction of the expansion, which Hubble (the astronomer, not the telescope) found in the Red Shifting and Blue Shifting of the light of different stars, can give a set of vectors that point back to a single point, where the singularity or near singularity (either new or post old Big Crunch) existed. In terms of the size of the universe (136 billion light years) we are fairly close to that center, as far more stars are moving away from us (red shifted) than are moving towards us (blue shifted) to the tune of 20:1

So if the universe were represented by a 2 dimensional circle, we would probably be within the inner half radius. This can also be determined by looking at what generation of stars exist around us (I believe our sun is a 3rd or 4th generation star) vs what we can see in deep field surveys done by Hubble (the telescope, not the astronomer).

[Sadena Meti]

For those who want to read more on this subject from an informed source (Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russel) I have some of their works hosted on my website.


PDF of A Brief History of Time
http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20A%20Brief%20History%20Of%20Time.pdf

Audio Book of A Brief History of Time
http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20A%20Brief%20History%20of%20Time/

Lecture by Stephen Hawking on Universe in a Nutshell
http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20Universe%20in%20a%20Nutshell/

Relativity by Albert Einstein (PDF)
http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Albert%20Einstein%20-%20Relativity.pdf

ABCs of Relativity by Bertrand Russel
http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20ABCs%20of%20Relativity.pdf

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Let's a assume that there is a specific point where the Big Bang occurred. We'll call it ground zero. That could be deemed the center, no?

But why make that assumption?


Just the at the event horizon, or beginning at the event horizon and continuing all the way down into it? In other words, can it be seen by inference?The event horizon is the point of no return for any and all electromagnetic radiation that crosses it. The only way we "know" the singularity is there is because the maths tells us it should be there.


I think that's what I stated.You seemed to be talking as if the Big Bang were some kind of explosion.


There is "outward" in every direction that we look, I think, but only because our mind's eye cannot encompass the full scale of our universe. But I kinda thought that astro-physics had already produced an estimate of the size of the universe based on the red/blue shift of distant galaxies. Maybe I'm wrong here. What do you think?We do indeed have estimates for the size of the universe, but there is nothing to indicate there is anything "outside the universe" (a physically meaningless phrase by the way, since the universe is all that exists) for it to expand into.


Can you explain to my confused mind how expansion can occur without the existence of "inward" and "outward" dimensions? Well, imagine you're standing on what appears to be a flat plane of infinite size; but you're not alone! standing around you in perfect ranks and columns are an infinite amount of exact duplicates of yourself. You reach out and put your hand on the shoulder of the clone in front of you, and all the rest do the same. At the same time, a hand falls on your shoulder! It turns out you're not standing on an infinite plane, but you are in fact in a small self-enclosed space. Walk forward, and all your reflections will walk forward at the exact same time and at the same speed.

Now the space you find yourself in starts expanding. From your point of view, it looks like all your reflections are moving away from you, even though they're standing still. It looks like you're at the centre of this expansion, but if you had a companion in this space, the expansion would seem to be centred on him from his point of view.

Now the above analogy isn't perfect (none are) and I've probably managed to mangle it somehow, so to hammer the point home I'll direct you to this page (http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html). Try this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space) as well.


Don't some stars reach a critical mass before they explode? And I thought that it was not necessarily the "smallest" but the minimum amount of fissile material, etc.No, stars do not reach critical mass, since they are not composed of fissile material, and where would the extra mass come from in any case? Supernovae occur in aging massive stars due to gravitational collapse, where the energy gained from fusion reactions is insufficient to counterbalance gravity's inward pull.

"smallest" and "minimum" are pretty much the same in this case. If the amount of fissile material is too small, you won't get a chain reaction.


Of course, it hasn't been detected, I just made it up as my imagination wandered into the "what-is-beyond-the-outer-limit-of-our-universe" zone.
Sorry, if it's against the rules I'll not do it again. Promise.Strictly speaking it's not against the rules, but it is very unscientific.


That is so true! I just used the term (and you'll be happy to note that I too placed it in quotation marks from the very start!) to avoid saying that black hole singularities are so gravitationally intense that they swallow up light and mass, creating a distortion in the time/space continuum.The thing is, terminology in science is very exact compared to everyday parlance. For example, in astronomy and cosmology, a "void" is a name for the empty spaces between galaxy filaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament).


Well I hope no Flat Earthers get a hold of my nonsense or he'll run away with it and turn it into one of their pet "theories"!I don't think you have anything to worry about. Flat Earthers, if they're not trolls, have enough wilful ignorance among themselves.


The Big Bang did occur at a given place. The expansion of the universe, and the direction of the expansion, which Hubble (the astronomer, not the telescope) found in the Red Shifting and Blue Shifting of the light of different stars, can give a set of vectors that point back to a single point, where the singularity or near singularity (either new or post old Big Crunch) existed. In terms of the size of the universe (136 billion light years) we are fairly close to that center, as far more stars are moving away from us (red shifted) than are moving towards us (blue shifted) to the tune of 20:1

The appearance that we are at or near the centre of the universe is an illusion. If we were in a different galaxy billions of light years from where we are now, it would also seem as if we were in the centre of universal expansion.

You must remember that our intuitions, which evolved for life on this planet, do not necessarily help us when applied to areas we didn't evolve to deal with, such as cosmology and quantum mechanics. That's why such stuff seems so weird to us.


So if the universe were represented by a 2 dimensional circle, we would probably be within the inner half radius. This can also be determined by looking at what generation of stars exist around us (I believe our sun is a 3rd or 4th generation star) vs what we can see in deep field surveys done by Hubble (the telescope, not the astronomer).The reason we see more older generation stars the further out we look is due to the limited speed of light - when we look at stars billions of light years away, we're not seeing them as they are "now" (using quotes because according to relativity there is no universal frame of reference), but as they were billions of years ago.

[fiddlesticks]

The universe is probably infinite, though whether any human will live long enough to either prove or disprove this is pretty unlikely. I think humanity will self destruct before that point in time.

[Coggeh]

The universe is probably infinite, though whether any human will live long enough to either prove or disprove this is pretty unlikely. I think humanity will self destruct before that point in time.
Pretty glum outlook on things I might add .

Anyway , I don't see how anything could be infinite , is infinity not just a process ? something you can't ever reach or give a value too ? how could something be infinite if infinity can never exist ?

[Revy]

I honestly don't know. Both seem incomprehensible to me. If the universe is infinite, I find that hard to understand, if it's finite that's also hard to understand. But I guess the one that seems more logical is the idea that it's finite, because at least it ends somewhere.

[Comrade Kaile]

im going to say infinite, but the law of conservation of energy/mass kind of ruins my camp experience

[fiddlesticks]

Pretty glum outlook on things I might add .

Anyway , I don't see how anything could be infinite , is infinity not just a process ? something you can't ever reach or give a value too ? how could something be infinite if infinity can never exist ?

Infinity can and does exist. The brains capacity for learning is infinite. It's just a process of expansion that doesn't stop.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Infinity can and does exist. The brains capacity for learning is infinite.

Sure, as long as you don't mind "overwriting" so to speak the stuff you don't use.

[Il Medico]

Sure, as long as you don't mind "overwriting" so to speak the stuff you don't use.
I happens, ever wonder why you have a hard time remembering math skills or languages you don't use? Your brain get rid of it to hold new information.

Anyways, on the OP's question. It is infinite. And curving or spherical if I remember correctly, I am sure noixon will correct me if I am wrong. Anywho, there are two proposed theories of how the Universe will end. the first states that as expansion continues the bonds of gravity will be broken and matter will continue to expand into nothingness. This I believe is know as the Big chill theory. This is a rather grim slow death for the universe, I personally don't like it much. The other theory states that the universe will reach a certain point were gravity will "snap" back and return (the universe) to the singularity that started expanding at the big bang. This could begin expanding again and recreate the universe all over again. While this does not answer how the universe began it does answer how our current universe began.

[ev]

I hate thinking about this shit, it separates my mind from my body and makes me think about my mortality, gets me questioning my utilization of time and whether I should be more instinctual and less intelligent.. What benefit do I get from knowing this except the realization of my atomic insignificance and mortality as a biological entity.

Sure It may motivate me to utilize my time more effectively, but it also makes me question whether it is worth it at all considering all things will come to an end..

My only hope is that people will develop technologically in the advent of communism/anarchism that the human race will be able to survive indefinitely.. Is this more ludicrous than people believing in god, is my faith in the human race just as unfounded? I hope not.

/end rant

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I hate thinking about this shit, it separates my mind from my body and makes me think about my mortality, gets me questioning my utilization of time and whether I should be more instinctual and less intelligent.. What benefit do I get from knowing this except the realization of my atomic insignificance and mortality as a biological entity.

Perspective. The ultimate perspective, even.


Sure It may motivate me to utilize my time more effectively, but it also makes me question whether it is worth it at all considering all things will come to an end..All parties have to end sometime. Does that mean it's pointless having parties? Life is in the living, not what happens at the end.


My only hope is that people will develop technologically in the advent of communism/anarchism that the human race will be able to survive indefinitely.. Is this more ludicrous than people believing in god, is my faith in the human race just as unfounded? I hope not.

/end rantBarring the heat death of the universe, there's no physical reason why the human species cannot exist indefinately. Of course, what would be called human then versus what we now call human are likely to be radically divergent.

[kalu]

I don't know much about question in relation to physics, but with regards to philosophy the OP might want to check out The Critique of Pure Reason. "Space infinite/finite" is one of Kant's "antinomies of pure reason," basically while either may be logically true both are false because neither is the object of experience, though I can't remember Kant's full argument. That said, if the revolution were to happen tomorrow and everyone was eatin right, I'd spend the rest of my days studying theoretical physics and pondering the universe's greatness. Either that or play piano.

[ev]

All parties have to end sometime. Does that mean it's pointless having parties? Life is in the living, not what happens at the end.

No, but our lives influence the future of society - we cannot ignore that. Why go and see a movie if you already know what happens in the end.. Same thing with life, if you know that we're just going to die out so that individuals can life fruitful lives and maintain a socioeconomic system that benefits them and not humanity, then that's pretty fucked up.. If that's the case, I may as kill myself as nothing I will ever do will amount to anything.. For that matter, I may as well say "fuck communism and the liberation of workers around the world, my life in this capitalist society is rather good, i have opportunities ahead of me for my own individual prosperity and I'll live my life selfishly off the labor of others" - gg..

My life is no party, is a mission, with objectives. I deserve to enjoy it, but I also owe it to people who don't have such opportunities to promote their interests. I'm sure you'd agree on this..


Barring the heat death of the universe, there's no physical reason why the human species cannot exist indefinately. Of course, what would be called human then versus what we now call human are likely to be radically divergent.

It wouldn't matter how we evolve, what we do here today will be worth something if we survive..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, but our lives influence the future of society - we cannot ignore that. Why go and see a movie if you already know what happens in the end..

Actually if you think about it, most movies do have predictable endings, at least in a broad sense - the right wire on the bomb is cut in time, the serial killer is tracked down, Bond gets the girl. The good guys win, or at least prevent the bad guys from achieving their objectives. A well-written movie will still have suspense and excitement despite this predictability, just like a well-lived life is enjoyable and purposeful despite the inevitability of death.


Same thing with life, if you know that we're just going to die out so that individuals can life fruitful lives and maintain a socioeconomic system that benefits them and not humanity, then that's pretty fucked up..Well, are you going to sit about and complain, or are you going to make the best of a sub-optimal situation? Whining may feel good but it accomplishes very little.


If that's the case, I may as kill myself as nothing I will ever do will amount to anything..Then why don't you? I reckon it's because you have more things to live for than politics. I certainly do - I have plans and aspirations that do not depend on the collapse of capitalism.


For that matter, I may as well say "fuck communism and the liberation of workers around the world, my life in this capitalist society is rather good, i have opportunities ahead of me for my own individual prosperity and I'll live my life selfishly off the labor of others" - gg..As long as you're not actively fucking over other people in the process, I see no reason in turning down any opportunities that come up. You're not going to help others by impoverishing or denying yourself.


My life is no party, is a mission, with objectives. I deserve to enjoy it, but I also owe it to people who don't have such opportunities to promote their interests. I'm sure you'd agree on this..Well, it's your life, but describing it as a "mission" sounds far too ascetic for my tastes.

[ev]

You get what I was trying to say, although i do admit the metaphor could have been better - it still would have been bastardized by your cunning wit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You get what I was trying to say, although i do admit the metaphor could have been better - it still would have been bastardized by your cunning wit.

Actually I still don't quite understand what you're getting at - life can be unpleasant? Sure, but why focus on it? Life's too short to spend it in doom and gloom.

[ev]

Actually I still don't quite understand what you're getting at - life can be unpleasant? Sure, but why focus on it? Life's too short to spend it in doom and gloom.

Reality is what we make it, the reality of future generations is altered by our actions today. Imagine where we would be today with better social organization back in 3000BC. But no, we were fucked over royally, in a literal sense..

Life doesn't need to be "unpleasant".. it's made unpleasant by people fucking you over for their own personal benefit. It's like you're saying "okay, capitalism is fucking over the majority to benefit a upper class minority to live opulent lifestyles- but why focus on it?" Answer is, because it's fucking wrong? Immoral, and pure distasteful..

I'm not just going to say "lifes to short to acknowledge the situation and try to do something about it, how about i go back to my life and try to benefit my individual circumstances" - It's insane, we need to look at the bigger picture instead of being selfish fucks..

What do you think?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Reality is what we make it, the reality of future generations is altered by our actions today.

Which is why I think it's important to "seize the day", and not spend it in a slough of despond. One doesn't change the world by being a miserable ****.


Imagine where we would be today with better social organization back in 3000BC. But no, we were fucked over royally, in a literal sense.. That is true, but there is no use in crying over spilt milk. What has happened has happened, and it's up to us whether we pick up the pieces or not.


Life doesn't need to be "unpleasant".. it's made unpleasant by people fucking you over for their own personal benefit. It's like you're saying "okay, capitalism is fucking over the majority to benefit a upper class minority to live opulent lifestyles- but why focus on it?" Answer is, because it's fucking wrong? Immoral, and pure distasteful..The problem as I see it is that meaningful change does not occur with any great speed within the span of an individual's life - I consider it highly likely that capitalism will still be alive and kicking the day I die. This is not to say that gains cannot be made - but they are made in specific circumstances and as the result of struggles by large groups of people over time. I gain nothing by wasting my energy on getting all het up and upset at things that are beyond my personal control. Nothing except stress and grey hairs, that is, and who wants that?


I'm not just going to say "lifes to short to acknowledge the situation and try to do something about it, how about i go back to my life and try to benefit my individual circumstances" - It's insane, we need to look at the bigger picture instead of being selfish fucks..

What do you think?Well for example, I think the overfishing of our oceans represents a criminal and immoral destruction of vital resources in the pursuit of profit, but beyond not eating fish (or at least only eating fish I know has been gathered sustainably) I don't see any more I can personally do about it.

[Muzk]

I've heard once that after the 'big bang' the universe started to 'stretch' into all directions with the speed of light, I don't know why but this sounds okay to me, so, it's infinite?

When I think of the 'start' of everything I kind of hit a barrier in my head

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've heard once that after the 'big bang' the universe started to 'stretch' into all directions with the speed of light, I don't know why but this sounds okay to me, so, it's infinite?

It seems to me that in order for the universe to be infinite, it would have had to have expanded at infinite speed (a ludicrous proposition), or the universe would have had to have been infinite in extent in the first place and the Big Bang happened everywhere all at once (which I think is the idea behind brane cosmology), although I'm unsure how that squares with relativity, which forbids a universal reference frame.

[ev]

Which is why I think it's important to "seize the day", and not spend it in a slough of despond. One doesn't change the world by being a miserable ****.
Don't discriminate against miserable ****s such as myself.. :lol:
In all seriousness, it's life at the moment, from a social perspective, not an individual one.

The problem as I see it is that meaningful change does not occur with any great speed within the span of an individual's life - I consider it highly likely that capitalism will still be alive and kicking the day I die. This is not to say that gains cannot be made - but they are made in specific circumstances and as the result of struggles by large groups of people over time. I gain nothing by wasting my energy on getting all het up and upset at things that are beyond my personal control. Nothing except stress and grey hairs, that is, and who wants that?
Now who's being the miserable **** :p - I agree, there is only so much you can do, you can do something though - no matter how insignificant, it's progressive..

Well for example, I think the overfishing of our oceans represents a criminal and immoral destruction of vital resources in the pursuit of profit, but beyond not eating fish (or at least only eating fish I know has been gathered sustainably) I don't see any more I can personally do about it.
I agree with what you've said and bigger picture needs to be examined as in your example, why is overfishing taking place? etc. (social & economic organization).

[Muzk]

It seems to me that in order for the universe to be infinite, it would have had to have expanded at infinite speed (a ludicrous proposition), isn't the speed of light the maximum possible? I remember a movie about Einstein where he says that

[ev]

Personally I found the ball theory interesting, examining our spacial dimension like it's the surface of a sphere, thus being infinite.

Although I've heard other stuff, like everything originating from a single quantum atom, however quantum physics is insane and very complex..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree with what you've said and bigger picture needs to be examined as in your example, why is overfishing taking place? etc. (social & economic organization).

Well, it's one thing to examine the reasons behind overfishing, but it's quite another thing to actually get something done about it.


, isn't the speed of light the maximum possible? I remember a movie about Einstein where he says that

The speed of light represents the upper limit for objects with rest mass. Of course, spacetime itself doesn't appear to have this limitation, but even then the concept of infinite speed is nonsensical.


Personally I found the ball theory interesting, examining our spacial dimension like it's the surface of a sphere, thus being infinite.

Boundless, not infinite. While one can travel indefinately in any direction, the actual volume of space is still limited.


Although I've heard other stuff, like everything originating from a single quantum atom, however quantum physics is insane and very complex..I think you meant "singularity" not "atom".

[ev]

, isn't the speed of light the maximum possible? I remember a movie about Einstein where he says that

A simple wiki reveals:
The speed of light is the speed that light travels in vacuum and a fundamental physical constant. It is normally denoted by c, and is approximately 300,000 kilometres (or 186,000 miles) per second, about a million times greater than the speed of sound.The speed of light plays several roles in modern physics. It is the speed of travel of all electromagnetic radiation in free space, and is believed to be the speed of gravitational waves. According to special relativity, it connects space and time in the unified structure of spacetime, and defines the conversion between mass and energy. The speed of light is an upper bound on the speed at which matter and information can travel. It plays a role in general relativity as well.

You can't travel faster through space than the speed of light, however hypothetically you could travel through the fabric of space, bend space, even spacetime to make your trip seem short. - saying that the energy and technological requirements is far beyond our capacity to do so..


Boundless, not infinite. While one can travel indefinately in any direction, the actual volume of space is still limited. I meant that. :(

I think you meant "singularity" not "atom". Yeah, it was probably a quantum singularity, having said that I'm sure you know more about me in this area (I'm sure you've studied this quite vigorously actually) so it's likely I'll make a few technical mistakes or use the wrong expressions, but i grasp the general concepts.. Interesting stuff though

[mikelepore]

, or the universe would have had to have been infinite in extent in the first place and the Big Bang happened everywhere all at once (which I think is the idea behind brane cosmology), although I'm unsure how that squares with relativity,

My understanding of the brane theory is that the always-existing universe has branes which are never quite parallel but either wobbling or vibrating like drum heads. An event when they momentarily touched at a point was the big bang. The collision appears to us as a fountain of matter and energy flowing out. One might call that a point in an absolute frame, and it also denies the initialization of space and time.

[NecroCommie]

I really dont take myself as a cosmic philosopher, more as a society-one, so I'd like to ask you folks this as you have a thread on the topic.

Is there any real theory that says that the universe is just one of many, but that the cosmos is infinite. Like, to say that things get bigger and bigger and smaller and smaller for eternity. And that even an electron could contain myriad smaller micro-universes which in their turn would contain nano-universes and so on.

I remember hearing something like this from a friend of mine and it has intriqued me ever since.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I really dont take myself as a cosmic philosopher, more as a society-one, so I'd like to ask you folks this as you have a thread on the topic.

Is there any real theory that says that the universe is just one of many, but that the cosmos is infinite. Like, to say that things get bigger and bigger and smaller and smaller for eternity. And that even an electron could contain myriad smaller micro-universes which in their turn would contain nano-universes and so on.

I remember hearing something like this from a friend of mine and it has intriqued me ever since.

I don't think so. The electron for example is an elementary particle, something which it wouldn't be if it "had an entire universe inside it".

[mikelepore]

There's a hypothesis by Hugh Everett and Bryce Dewitt and others that there are an infinite number of universes, because every possibility generates all branches simutaneously. There's are universe where I just typed that and other universe where I didn't type it. In those cases where I typed it, there are universes where you read it and other universes where you didn't read it. (Et cetera.)

I think the whole suggestion is stupid because I consider it only an attempt to find a loophole to get around the fact that time travel is self-contradictory and therefore impossible. Science is supposed to be about beginning with actual observations and seeking to explain them, not about choosing sides based on the feeling "it would be so cool if this were true."