Universe = infinite or finite?

[7189]

This is a thread to discuss the above question: Is the Universe infinite or finite?

I believe it is infinite, for I have not seen a reasonable justification for it being finite, i.e. a valid definition of nothingness. There are infinite numbers (Pi), why can't the universe be infinite? Is it really so improbable? The idea appeals to me because it means infinite possibilities. Now if you consider that human imagination is finite (there are only a limited amount of thoughts a human can have in his or her lifetime), because the universe is infinite the implication is that our imagination could be reality in some area of the universe. Far-fetched I know, but it is not entirely improbable, and it is a most inspiring thought.

I find this topic immensely interesting. Please post your opinions on the matter!

[Janus]

Moved.

[karmaradical]

This question is very interesting, and should be addressed.

Personally because of the growth of the universe that doesnt seem to stop, I would say the universe is both finite and infinite on different levels.

It's finite because even though we have no method of getting to the end of space, there apparently, according to modern cosmology, is an end to it. So space seems to be a sort of being, thus finite. But space also has infinite potential to expand.

So in the end, we might as well say it is infinite.

[ComradeRed]

If the universe is infinite, that means that there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe.

I think you are looking at the matter with the concept of absolute space and time...that the universe is a rigid thing. If we remove all the matter from the universe, what most people think is there would be space and time. Instead, what General Relativity says is that we remove, with matter, spacetime.

The cosmological constant would come into play if you accept the universe to be finite, but if it's infinite and the cosmo constant is right, then a vacuum is infinitely dense. So either the universe is finite or the cosmological constant is wrong.

Look into general relativity more as this is a concern for it.

[which doctor]

I'd like to think it's infinite. But of course I'm in no position to talk about the size of the universe.

[apathy maybe]

Science currently tells use that the universe if finite.

"Common sense" might tell use that it is infinite, or that it is finite.

The universe must be infinite, because what is outside it? It is infinite by definition surely. However, by the same token it must not have a beginning or an end, for what exists outside of time?

The universe must be finite, because nothing can be infinite. Only abstract ideas can exist as an infinity, physical things cannot.

Anyway, science tells us that the universe had a beginning and and will have an end. And is finite. I think I'll stick with physics over "common sense".

[ComradeRed]

Personally because of the growth of the universe that doesnt seem to stop, I would say the universe is both finite and infinite on different levels. Well that would be a problem since the gravitational pull of this infinite matter would cause a spacetime singularity, an infinite one too oddly enough.

[Janus]

Science currently tells use that the universe if finite.
There is currently much debate over that. Furthermore, there is a difference betwen the universe and the observable universe. The later is finite.

[MrDoom]

If the universe were infinite in age or size (and thus energy), the entire cosmos would blaze with the light of infinite stars.

[RebelDog]

From Wiki;

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" when they really mean "observable universe". This is because unobservable physical phenomena are scientifically irrelevant; that is, they cannot affect any events that we can perceive.

Is there any anthropic point in asking the question is the universe infinite? The above quote says no. Our (observable) universe is finite. Whether the wider universe is finite/infinite (according to the best current physical laws we have) is just 100% speculation and must always be. Maybe it exists in superposition and is both infinite and finite! :D

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by MrDoom+--> (MrDoom)If the universe were infinite in age or size (and thus energy), the entire cosmos would blaze with the light of infinite stars.[/b] Not necessarily, it depends when these stars were created and when they died.

If the universe was infinite, it would collapse back into itself.


TheDissenter
Maybe it exists in superposition and is both infinite and finite! Possible, but what would that make it physically? :huh:

The universe is like a bag full of water and the observer is like a fish. If the fish goes to the edge of the bag, the bag would deform itself and shift water around (if this hypothetical bag had the same properties of the universe) so the fish would think it is exploring new water.

The fish would explore an infinite amount of new water. Does that make our bag infinite in its capacity? :huh:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

As far as I'm concerned, the universe is by definiton infinite.
Universe literally means everything as a whole. Hence the prefix "uni".

Everything includes everything... there cannot be a limit to everything, nor can there be multiple everythings. Only one.

[7189]

Here's an old thread on the matter in case you're interested. It addresses the issue in quite a heated way! I was a bit younger and a bit less measured in my responses but I think you'll find that not a single poster came up with a valid antithesis to my own. Anyway, it's mildly interesting, if you are very bored.

Old Infinity Thread by 7189 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=26662&st=0)

[KC]

Everything includes everything... there cannot be a limit to everything, nor can there be multiple everythings. Only one.

Of course there can be a limit to everything. See ComradeRed's explanation.

[Free Left]

No the laws of physics that govern the universe cannot mantain an infinite universe.

[7189]

OK, so in human terms...scientifically, rationally, so on and so forth, it seems unlikely that the universe is infinite.

However, what do your feelings tell you?

I know that sounds exceedingly corny, when people postulate this I automatically think of something limited in space and time, and this thought begs the question - what lies outside of that limited area?

Is 'nothing', or 'an absence of energy/matter/time etc' a good enough answer? It doesn't feel like a good enough answer to me. It's too vague. It's dismissive. And it smacks of narrow-mindedness.

Why must the science developed on this planet assume that it can make such bold pronounciations about something so much larger? It is arrogance really. How much have we observed of the space around us...not much.

People used to think the earth was flat.

People now think that the universe is finite.

There is an underlying theme in these two observations...the narrow-mindedness of science, whether it's pre-enlightenment church dominated or post enlightenment liberal science.

Science cannot convince me, for it is so limited. Obviously, as I am no scientist I am not saying limited relative to me or any other individual...limited relative to the greatness of the universe.

I think scientists need to say it's finite so they can fit it into a neat singular equation, satisfy their own hubris in a way and go to bed feeling content. Then they'll proceed the next day to examine it in small detail, all the time forgetting about the initial question and the complexity of said question because they have obscured it with formulas, fancy words and baffling expressions of a mere theoretical nature.

When it boils down to it: scientists believe the universe is finite. Philosophers believe the universe is infinite.

I was never good at science, yet I relish philosophy. I hold more stock by the more wide scale, freer, less logic based 'earthbound' thinking, and this thinking tells me the universe is infinite.

Anyway that's my view on the matter in full, in case you're interested.

[ComradeRed]

However, what do your feelings tell you? What relevance does that have to what is?

The plain fact of the matter is that according to the theory of gravity (as a matter of fact EVERY GOD DAMN THEORY OF GRAVITY be it Newtonian or Einsteinian or even third party ones like "Dynamical Gravity") IF the universe is infinite, THEN the infinite force of attraction would cause THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE TO COLLAPSE IN ON ITSELF!



I know that sounds exceedingly corny, when people postulate this I automatically think of something limited in space and time, and this thought begs the question - what lies outside of that limited area? Did you read my analogy of the fish in the bag of water? Because it answers your question right here.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Is there a way to explain how the universe is finite to someone as astronomically dense as myself?
(get it?)

But seriously... everything you're saying is going way over my head.

[ComradeRed]

Is there a way to explain how the universe is finite to someone as astronomically dense as myself?
(get it?) I'll try.

Well, everything that exists must exist somewhere at some point in time, right?

The universe is commonly seen as a colloseum, where everything is stored within. This is not entirely true.

Rather the universe is like a sports game which is defined by what happens within it.

In this respect, if you try and "leave" the universe, you couldn't because where would you be? :huh:

(In geek-speak you would approach an infinitely assymptotic flat spacetime :P)

What happens is that the universe "stretches" so that you have a place and time to be. So if you keep going in one direction, the universe will keep "stretching" and eventually behave like you are in a vacuum (approach flat spacetime).

I hope that made sense, if not I can try and simplify it some more.

[RebelDog]

THEN the infinite force of attraction would cause THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE TO COLLAPSE IN ON ITSELF!

Yes of course it would but if there is a infinite universe beyond our observable universe which we can never interact with, then it renders this irrelevant also. The universe beyond our observable universe could at this moment be collapsing in on itself but gravity travels at c at so its effects will never reach us whilst space/time travels beyond c.

[karmaradical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:20 AM



I know that sounds exceedingly corny, when people postulate this I automatically think of something limited in space and time, and this thought begs the question - what lies outside of that limited area? Did you read my analogy of the fish in the bag of water? Because it answers your question right here.
So some there is some dude holding us in a plastic container outside the universe?

Cosmology is fun!

[RebelDog]

I think I realise now that an infinite value for gravity would slow space/time expansion down and reverse it. We would indeed know if there was a collapse. :rolleyes:

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+Sep 19 2006, 06:38 PM--> (The Dissenter @ Sep 19 2006, 06:38 PM) I think I realise now that an infinite value for gravity would slow space/time expansion down and reverse it. We would indeed know if there was a collapse. :rolleyes: [/b]
Not quite, if the universe were infinite in size, there would be no big bang.

How did it start? Or was it "always there"? Like "God" :rolleyes:


Originally posted by [email protected]

So some there is some dude holding us in a plastic container outside the universe?

Cosmology is fun! I wish I could say I've come across physicists who don't take examples so literally...keywords "I wish"!


TheDissenter

Yes of course it would but if there is a infinite universe beyond our observable universe which we can never interact with, then it renders this irrelevant also. The universe beyond our observable universe could at this moment be collapsing in on itself but gravity travels at c at so its effects will never reach us whilst space/time travels beyond c. But force doesn't work by means of velocity, force works by means of acceleration.

Acceleration = time derivative of velocity.

The derivative of a constant = 0 definitionally.

The acceleration of light, i.e. the time derivative of a constant is...?

Your theory also depends on absolute space and absolute time, whereas it is observably relative (hence the huge success of general relativity).

[7189]

Why do you assume that earthly sciences are applicable to the universe, Red?

[KC]

Why do you assume that earthly sciences are applicable to the universe, Red?


Because they're not "earthly sciences".

[7189]

THEY ARE EARTHLY BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVELOPED HERE ON THIS PLANET, BY HUMANS OF THIS PLANET WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE OF SPACE (FURTHEST ANYONE'S BEEN IS THE MOON).

SO HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE THAT THIS EARTHLY SCIENCE PROVES THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE (I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE) IS FINITE?

WHY MUST EVERYTHING BE CONDENSED...WHY MUST EVERYTHING BE FINITE?

[Ze]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:12 PM
THEY ARE EARTHLY BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVELOPED HERE ON THIS PLANET, BY HUMANS OF THIS PLANET WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE OF SPACE (FURTHEST ANYONE'S BEEN IS THE MOON).

SO HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE THAT THIS EARTHLY SCIENCE PROVES THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE (I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE) IS FINITE?

WHY MUST EVERYTHING BE CONDENSED...WHY MUST EVERYTHING BE FINITE?
so if it is finite, what's at the end of the universe?

[KC]

so if it is finite, what's at the end of the universe?

That question makes about as much sense as asking "What's at the end of the earth?"

[Dyst]

I have a theory that we could also discover wether or not the universe is finite by using microscopes.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe if we found the smallest particle of matter (sorry, I'm not really into science-talk, epsecially not english) that is undividable and is what all matter is made of (or if this even exists,) then maybe that would have a say or not on wether the universe can be considered finite or infinite.

For example, if there is not an "undividable" piece of matter, but all components imaginable can be chopped in two (heh) then wouldn't that mean that the "universe" is in fact... infinite.

Am I making any sense at all?

[KC]

For example, if there is not an "undividable" piece of matter, but all components imaginable can be chopped in two (heh) then wouldn't that mean that the "universe" is in fact... infinite.

Just because something can be divided up an infinite number of times doesn't make it infinite itself. I can keep dividing 5 by 2 infinitely, but that doesn't mean that 5 is infinite. 5 is 5.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 12:25 AM
Just because something can be divided up an infinite number of times doesn't make it infinite itself. I can keep dividing 5 by 2 infinitely, but that doesn't mean that 5 is infinite. 5 is 5.
5 is actually 1+1+1+1+1. Or, to take it out of the system humans have created; something, something, something, something and something. If you think like that, you actually couldn't divide 5 by 2 even once, as the answer doesn't consist purely of 1's (or "something's"). Remember we are talking about amounts.

[7189]

The limit of our science is so plainly obvious. Assuming that from such limited knowledge we can postulate that the entire universe (that is to say the universe beyond the tiny confines of our telescopes) is finite is arrogant folly.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:23 PM
The limit of our science is so plainly obvious. Assuming that from such limited knowledge we can postulate that the entire universe (that is to say the universe beyond the tiny confines of our telescopes) is finite is arrogant folly.
Whereas postulating that it is infinite on no empirical evidence is prudent and reasonable.

[7189]

It's more likely to be infinite than finite simply because there is no proper definition of nothingness around. People say the universe is expanding - what's it expanding into. And the area beyond the area it is expanding into? What's that? 'Nothing' is not a good enough answer. It is still space, it is still something.

The best thing to say is, the observable universe is expanding (if indeed it is). But to say that the entire universe, whose reaches extend fathomless distances beyond our view, is finite and expanding is in my opinion, arrogant folly.

I am merely questioning the strange belief, which is held by many here, that science is unquestionably correct on this matter.

Philosophy, in my opion, is a better method. That's why I originally posted it there, before the thread was moved here.

[RebelDog]

It's more likely to be infinite than finite simply because there is no proper definition of nothingness around.
As Comrade Red has explained earlier, matter/energy creates the space/time around it. Space/time exists because matter does. This is currently the best explanation in my opinion. As for nothingness, such does not exist and is indefinable. Why try to define 'nothing' its pointless.


People say the universe is expanding - what's it expanding into. And the area beyond the area it is expanding into? What's that? 'Nothing' is not a good enough answer. It is still space, it is still something.

The universe is the only entity and it expands because space/time is stretching. It is not expanding in to space, it is space/time expanding.


The best thing to say is, the observable universe is expanding (if indeed it is). But to say that the entire universe, whose reaches extend fathomless distances beyond our view, is finite and expanding is in my opinion, arrogant folly.

You say the best thing to say is the observable universe is expanding. I agree because this is what we observe and it fits the emperical data. Surely not arrogant folly. What lies beyond our observation we will never know but there is surely galaxies beyond our observable horizon because they travel beyond the speed of light. Why would space/time expand at a rate not beyond the speed of light when nothing stops it going beyond the speed of light? What would make it stop at the speed of light? Again not arrogant folly but a good explanation of relativity at work in our universe.


Philosophy, in my opion, is a better method. That's why I originally posted it there, before the thread was moved here.

Possibly. Both methods are searching for the truth.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neither.

[Dyst]

[quote]As for nothingness, such does not exist and is indefinable. Why try to define 'nothing' its pointless.[quote]

A typical reaction from people. Whatever is incomprehensible for our logic we throw off as non-existant.

[Jiub]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 03:12 PM
Neither.
If it is neither, what is it then?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:31 PM
[quote]As for nothingness, such does not exist and is indefinable. Why try to define 'nothing' its pointless.[quote]

A typical reaction from people. Whatever is incomprehensible for our logic we throw off as non-existant.
But surely by definition, "nothingness" is non-existent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Haven't got a clue, I am not 'god'.

[piet11111]

i think i once read something that if we where to go to the hypothetical edge of our universe that we would find ourselves in another dimension.

also i once read that if we where to go into a perfectly straight line we would end up at the starting point as space is potentially curved.

but then again this stuff is way above my understanding so dont blame me if im talking non-sense.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 22 2006, 03:34 AM

[quote]As for nothingness, such does not exist and is indefinable. Why try to define 'nothing' its pointless.[quote]

A typical reaction from people. Whatever is incomprehensible for our logic we throw off as non-existant.
But surely by definition, "nothingness" is non-existent.
Yes. But this thread has resulted in pure speculation.

[RebelDog]

Rosa Lichtenstein

Haven't got a clue, I am not 'god'.

Then we should ask Tony Blair or George Bush what the reality is, because they speak to god all the time and they could ask him/her/it.

[ComradeRed]

Hmmm...for some reason my last reply wasn't added.

My main point was that 7189, you are looking at things through a Newtonian lense.

If there was absolute spacetime and if the universe was finite, then you could leave the universe. That's why Newton argued that since it was absurd to propose spacetime would be relativistic, the universe must therefore be infinite.

However, as Einstein proved, spacetime is not absolute. It is instead relativistic.

Which means that a meter on Earth is not the same length as a meter in "deep space" (deep space being where there is such little mass that it asymptotically approaches flat spacetime). It depends on the observer...there is no one "right" measurement.

This throws a wrench in the idea that there is something "beyond" the universe (where would it be though? Spacetime would deform to incorporate this phantom object into the universe).

There is just too many problems accepting the idea that spacetime is absolute...like the Mercurian perihelion.

Though I am starting to suspect that this is well beyond the scope of mere philosophers. It's the work of scientists, afterall.

[7189]

You have replied mainly to my post with baffling scientific terms, absurd logic and an apparent misunderstanding of my words.

It is become difficult for me now to continue this argument, not because your arguments are better, simply because we are coming at this from different angles.

Let me try and address the different responses to the best of my ability.

Firstly, The Dissenter.


As Comrade Red has explained earlier, matter/energy creates the space/time around it. Space/time exists because matter does. This is currently the best explanation in my opinion.

~and~


You say the best thing to say is the observable universe is expanding. I agree because this is what we observe and it fits the emperical data. Surely not arrogant folly. What lies beyond our observation we will never know but there is surely galaxies beyond our observable horizon because they travel beyond the speed of light. Why would space/time expand at a rate not beyond the speed of light when nothing stops it going beyond the speed of light? What would make it stop at the speed of light? Again not arrogant folly but a good explanation of relativity at work in our universe.

Firstly you say that matter/energy creates space/time around it. Fair enough. This doesn't disprove infinity though does it?

Now, concerning arrogant folly. Our planet has a body of scientific knowledge dedicated to it. This science, concerning our planet, isn't even complete. Now we have some established paradigms such as gravitational theory, and these are more or less foolproof. What I'm trying to say is that it is arrogant folly to assume that because we have a few more-or-less foolproof theories here on earth
- theories which can be tested at leisure - we can invent foolproof theories
concerning the Universe which is infinitely larger and more complex than this piddly little planet we live in, and at this stage almost impossible to observe in any precise scientific manner. There is the arrogant folly I referred to earlier my friend. It wasn't regarding the observable universe (however, even that hasn't been exhaustively examined yet), but the entire universe!

Your remarks about the fact that galaxies are beyond our observation because they are too far away for light to reach us is more or less accurate. Same principle as a candle. The further away you move from it, the dimmer it becomes, until eventually there is only darkness. This doesn't disprove my theory either.


As for nothingness, such does not exist and is indefinable. Why try to define 'nothing' its pointless.

Defining nothingness proves finity, as I have explained on many occasion both in this thread and in my old thread. If you dismiss this simple fact then you will never prove that the universe is finite. Again, I think you agree with me.


Possibly. Both methods are searching for the truth.

How true.

Conclusion: Judging by your posts, you seem to be an infinitist too! Please indulge my curiosity by telling me your exact standpoint on this polemic! I would be much obliged.

[7189]

Dyst


A typical reaction from people. Whatever is incomprehensible for our logic we throw off as non-existant.

Indeed!

[7189]

Citizen Zero


But surely by definition, "nothingness" is non-existent.

Indeed. Logically, the universe must be infinite then. For you cannot have a finite universe without nothingness.

[7189]

piet11111


i think i once read something that if we where to go to the hypothetical edge of our universe that we would find ourselves in another dimension.

also i once read that if we where to go into a perfectly straight line we would end up at the starting point as space is potentially curved.

but then again this stuff is way above my understanding so dont blame me if im talking non-sense.

These theories are often ludicrously unfounded by scientists trying to find a name for themselves by postulating visually interesting concepts. Typical scientific response to a subject that far exceeds the bounds of science.

[7189]

Dyst


Yes. But this thread has resulted in pure speculation.

Indeed it has, because none of us will ever see it resolved with proof in our lifetime. I am merely challenging this prevalent narrow-minded opinion that the Universe is finite. There are so many who believe so firmly that's it finite and without good reason. I am as stubborn in my feelings about it being infinite as they are, but I have a point which no-one has answered satisfactorily so far: this point concerning nothingness.

[7189]

My main point was that 7189, you are looking at things through a Newtonian lense.

If there was absolute spacetime and if the universe was finite, then you could leave the universe. That's why Newton argued that since it was absurd to propose spacetime would be relativistic, the universe must therefore be infinite.

However, as Einstein proved, spacetime is not absolute. It is instead relativistic.

Which means that a meter on Earth is not the same length as a meter in "deep space" (deep space being where there is such little mass that it asymptotically approaches flat spacetime). It depends on the observer...there is no one "right" measurement.

This throws a wrench in the idea that there is something "beyond" the universe (where would it be though? Spacetime would deform to incorporate this phantom object into the universe).

There is just too many problems accepting the idea that spacetime is absolute...like the Mercurian perihelion.

Though I am starting to suspect that this is well beyond the scope of mere philosophers. It's the work of scientists, afterall.

Comrade Red, you are clearly of the 'science camp' concerning this matter. I respect your affiliation. But now I challenge it.

You have just flung a load of expressions and words at me that have no meaning to most people. You don't explain them adecuately, lending no strength to your argument. These are derived from theories that HAVE NOT been proved. How can you prove that the universe is relativistic? How can you prove 'deep space' unless you have been there yourself? Newton and Einstein theorised. A lot of what they discovered was enlightening, and concerning our planet very true, but to take one or the others word as absolute is wrong. I am not a Newtonian, I am a free thinker when it comes to this issue. I use my own logic and intuition on the matter. My logic tells me that as nothingness will never be defined, the universe is infinite.

Before you can provide an adecuate definition of nothingness, and convincing evidence of the Universe's 'frontiers', Comrade Red, I think you should be less disdainful of philosophers. The last thing we want is an acrimonious debate on our hands here. They tend to degenerate.

[ComradeRed]

Comrade Red, you are clearly of the 'science camp' concerning this matter. I respect your affiliation. But now I challenge it. All us scientists knew this day would come when philosophers would overturn math, logic, and empiricism! :lol:


You have just flung a load of expressions and words at me that have no meaning to most people. You don't explain them adecuately, lending no strength to your argument. These are derived from theories that HAVE NOT been proved. Look, if you are right, that IF there is a limit to the universe THEN you could "leave the universe", that means that space is "absolute".

That means that it doesn't curl up, distort, or change forms. The universe is like an infinite number of "space bricks" piled up that we could simply leave (supposing this heap to be finite).

If that is the case, then Newton was right and Einstein was wrong.

But you still have a problem needing answering: the mercury perihilion.

Seeing as I really don't have the internet yet and I'm stealing this from someplace else, I am afraid I will have to give you a link: Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion_shift_of_Mercury%27s_orbit). That will explain the phenomena quite well, far better than I could do under these conditions.

You may learn that you cannot directly test everything...e.g. Spacetime distortions, etc. You can, however, indirectly test for these things (e.g. by passing light through a black hole, etc.).

Silly me for using empiricism! I should have instead used the Platonic might of "pure reason" :lol:



Before you can provide an adecuate definition of nothingness, and convincing evidence of the Universe's 'frontiers', Comrade Red, I think you should be less disdainful of philosophers. The last thing we want is an acrimonious debate on our hands here. They tend to degenerate. Yeah, I might get jumped by rich white chavs! :o

Woops, I mean philosophers! :o

Seriously, the philosophers are part of the superstructure of society; name me one non-reactionary philosopher.

And also, you commit a grievous philosophical error here (:o How the hell would I know that?!?): you mistake your (mis)understanding of an issue to be the entirety of it. If I use terms you don't understand you either say "What the hell are you talking about" or look them up in an appropriate reference.

I guess philosophers just do their own shit.

[bezdomni]

I guess philosophers just do their own shit.

They are "free thinkers".

So free, they have left behind logic, empiricism and reasoning far behind. This actually goes to prove that Newton was right - they have left the universe!


These are derived from theories that HAVE NOT been proved.
Are you asserting that relativity has not been "proved"?

If not, what contentions used by ComradeRed haven't been sufficiently proven?

[7189]

Neither of you have provided a good answer to my question, therefore at this stage your arguments and all their pithy remarks fall embarrasingly flat on their faces.

[7189]

All us scientists knew this day would come when philosophers would overturn math, logic, and empiricism!

How can anything concerning the universe be empirical? It can't because you cannot examine the universe in a lab as you would a dead insect.



But you still have a problem needing answering: the mercury perihilion.

Answer my question first. Anyway, I can't see how the orbital irregularities in our solar system have any solid bearing on the entire Universe. There is great arrogance in this. Scientists should not approach this subject, or if they do with a little less arrogance. They assume that the stuff around them can apply to the stuff beyond their vision!

This reasoning is about as stupid as the old view that the Earth was flat, or that the Sun orbited the Earth! Time will disprove these arrogantly brash theories, as it always has done.


You may learn that you cannot directly test everything...e.g. Spacetime distortions, etc. You can, however, indirectly test for these things (e.g. by passing light through a black hole, etc.).

Silly me for using empiricism! I should have instead used the Platonic might of "pure reason"

You cannot directly test it therefore whatever you say is ultimately unfounded. Passing light through a black hole is earthbound. This is the point I made earlier: that the transposition of earthly theories onto the canvas of the universe is arrogant folly.

[7189]

Are you asserting that relativity has not been "proved"?

If not, what contentions used by ComradeRed haven't been sufficiently proven?

Read the post before this.

[ComradeRed]

This is getting boring. You may as well cover your ears and start screaming "LALALALA" at the top of your lungs...it would be a better argument.


Neither of you have provided a good answer to my question, therefore at this stage your arguments and all their pithy remarks fall embarrasingly flat on their faces.
I suggest you learn some better reading comprehension skills as it has all ready been adequately explained.


How can anything concerning the universe be empirical? It can't because you cannot examine the universe in a lab as you would a dead insect. By this "logic" evolution is not empirical since it occurs in nature as opposed to the "lab".


Answer my question first. Anyway, I can't see how the orbital irregularities in our solar system have any solid bearing on the entire Universe. There is great arrogance in this. Scientists should not approach this subject, or if they do with a little less arrogance. They assume that the stuff around them can apply to the stuff beyond their vision! Your right, obviously orbits have no implication for anything at all. As a matter of fact, absolutely nothing has anything to do with how the universe works :rolleyes:

I did answer your question, the orbital irregularities are based on the curvature of spacetime.

Maybe you could use some of that "pure reason" to pull your head out of your ass and quit acting all high and mighty because your some failure as a thinker.

Look ,you obviously can't understand math (your a philosopher afterall), so that means anything that I can do to demonstrate that General Relativity is accurate to any arbitrary degree. And since you reject empiricism and logic as ferverently as an Austrian Economist, it is therefore impossible to reason with such a lumpenproletariat as you!

And no, that's not an ad hominem, because you obviously don't understand what the hell I am saying!



This reasoning is about as stupid as the old view that the Earth was flat, or that the Sun orbited the Earth! Time will disprove these arrogantly brash theories, as it always has done. If only time would disprove such a priori nonsense as philosophy!



You cannot directly test it therefore whatever you say is ultimately unfounded. Passing light through a black hole is earthbound. This is the point I made earlier: that the transposition of earthly theories onto the canvas of the universe is arrogant folly. Your "point"...? The only point you have ever had was on the top of your arrogant philistine head!

Look, if space curves...hell, if it doesn't How the hell do you explain black holes existing??? :huh:

Your crack pot ideas are nonsense completely decoupled from reality AND YOU CALL THEM "SCIENTIFIC"? In what sense do you deform such a word?

Look, you obviously don't understand what you are talking about...all you are doing is back seat driving science (or trying and failing to).

Why don't you just go back to what the meaning of "is" is?

[karmaradical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:19 AM


Comrade Red, you are clearly of the 'science camp' concerning this matter. I respect your affiliation. But now I challenge it. All us scientists knew this day would come when philosophers would overturn math, logic, and empiricism! :lol:

Science and Philosophy should skip hand in hand. Science without a little philosophy is boring, but to reject "The science camp" in philosophy is even more dangerous!

Philosophy needs science like courtney love needs heroin.

[ComradeRed]

Science and Philosophy should skip hand in hand. Science without a little philosophy is boring, but to reject "The science camp" in philosophy is even more dangerous!

Philosophy needs science like courtney love needs heroin. True, philosophy needs science (as I mentioned, philosophy is a backseat driver to science).

But science does not need (or even want) philosophy since the philosophers don't get the story straight on what happens empirically.

Science needs philosophy like one needs a hole in the head.

[karmaradical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:37 PM

But science does not need (or even want) philosophy since the philosophers don't get the story straight on what happens empirically.

This I can understand.

This offshoot discussion reminds me of the current state of the fucking idiotic "New Age" movement. The "union" of new age metaphysics and quantum physics is absolute bullshit.

[Dyst]

In my opinion scientists tends to get too involved in what they discover that they never actually realize how it may function together with rest of the universe.

Probably caused by too long education which have dried out the imagination.

[RebelDog]

I think we get bad philosophers and we get bad scientists. I think both are essential fro human progress and understanding. The good ones in both fields will come through in the end.

[7189]

ComradeRed your response greatly lowers your standing in this polemic. You react like a petulant child. Shame, because I was hoping for a good discussion.

Anyway. I like reading about these scientific theories and I find them very interesting. But they seem to set out with the desire of restricting themselves to proving that the universe is finite.

For instance. Instead of space going on and on forever in all directions, you have to have a curve that goes back on itself, simply because we cannot conceive of there being infinite energy, time, matter and so on, because in our brains this is an impossibility, just as computing Pi is an impossibility. We assume (which makes an ass out of you and me by the way), that infinite amounts of energy, time and matter couldn't possibly contain themselves and therefore must exist in some finite boundaries whether they be cube shaped, flat, curved et cetera.

This doesn't really address the question of infinity, it is mainly concerned with form of a finite universe. The universe being finite was a hypothesis, and these are hypotheses built on that one hypothesis. They are not hypotheses built on a solid truth.

Also, the evidence relating to this is only from our neighbouring area in space. Hence, applying it to everything is obviously brash and as I have been saying arrogant folly. It's like a man who, sitting on a rock on the beach in Medieval Ireland, looks out across the Atlantic and because it looks flat and because he hasn't seen anything that resembles a sphere in all his life, assumes that the earth must be flat...the whole earth. Well he was very clever wasn't he?

Referring back to my initial post my points against the finite universe argument are:

1. It is beyond our reach and therefore solidly declaring it to be finite is arrogant folly.
2. If a number like Pi could exist, why not an infinite universe?
3. Define nothingness.

Now these points have not been properly addressed by ANY OF YOU!

So I think science should be less certain of itself. Considering the many paradigm shifts it has experienced in its history, declaring with full certainty that the universe is finite simply because one cannot conceive of it being infinite is arrogant folly.

You are right, I am not a scientist. Nor am I really a philosopher. I suppose I like to think I am, and it seems logical to me to approach this topic philosophically because it is out of the reaches of empirical knowledge, because it's so unbelievable huge, but to be honest I don't know what I am at this point as I am very young. I don't feel like a failed thinker. I'm far too young to be failed at anything. I am merely testing the water so to speak. However I still haven't received a satisfactory response to my above points, specifically: what is nothingness? If you could oblige me I'd be most appreciative, however, no need to call me a lumpenproletarian or a philestine. We're only having a very hypothetical discussion about the universe!

If I am such a 'failed thinker', maybe you could help me up from the 'ashes of my failure' by elucidating your responses better instead of throwing arrogant glib remarks at me. You may as well not post then. You still haven't clearly answered the question: 'what is nothing?'

Remember, I originally posted this in philosophy. I expected discussion with philosophers on the aesthetic value of such a concept. Someone else moved it here, not me. So think twice before you heap scorn on my philosophical approach. I didn't start this thread to provoke responses from scientists.

But as it has turned out that way, we may as well try and be constructive about the whole thing eh?

[ComradeRed]

Your points are becoming absurd, 7189, as well as your analogies.



Anyway. I like reading about these scientific theories and I find them very interesting. But they seem to set out with the desire of restricting themselves to proving that the universe is finite. You haven't understood a word I have said, have you?

Just ignore that whole schpiel about Newtonian cosmology, and everything else I said and (Holy Shit!) you have a point! :o

Well, I don't know what crack pot theories you are looking at, or what "theories" you are referring to, but as a concequence of General Relativity, which is EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED QUITE WELL, there is implications that the universe is finite. And of course this *must* be wrong "philosophically" :rolleyes:

It is *obviously* infinite a priori and as "materialists" like you know, the a postereori is *obviously* derived from the a priori. How silly of vulgar scientists like myself to look at reality for science while cocktail party philosophers like yourself simply *wish* for something to be so and -- low and behold! -- it is so! :rolleyes:



This doesn't really address the question of infinity, it is mainly concerned with form of a finite universe. The universe being finite was a hypothesis, and these are hypotheses built on that one hypothesis. They are not hypotheses built on a solid truth. Infinity is neither a number nor quantifiable, genius. But don't let this stop you!



1. It is beyond our reach and therefore solidly declaring it to be finite is arrogant folly.
2. If a number like Pi could exist, why not an infinite universe?
3. Define nothingness.

Now these points have not been properly addressed by ANY OF YOU!
Look, these questions are irrelevant!

You may as well ask "What 'is' 'energy'?" You'll piss away your time just as easily.

You want to know my point which I have had all along that you blissfully ignore!? Well it's so simple that I doubt you could understand it:

Science works around reality, not the other way round.

I don't give a fuck how "nice" you think it would be if the universe was infinite, reality indicates it to be otherwise!

"Oh but the Atlantic Ocean blah blah blah."

All oceans have the same god damn water, philistine! Surprise! :o The whole universe has the same spacetime, and the properties of spacetime is invariant to position; IT'S ONE OF THE SYMMETRIES OF GENERAL RELATIVITY!

But GR is wrong since it doesn't predict an infinite universe, right? :rolleyes: Your circular logic will never cease to astound me.

Why does pi exit? Well it doesn't physically because spacetime is quantized, so a circle cannot physically exist except as an approximation! Thus pi does not exist except in the world of mathematical platonism, which should be the community you are *****ing towards rather than science.

Nothingness? If you remove all the matter-energy from the universe, what do you get? I bet you would think it would be space and time; however, that is incorrect according to observation.

If you remove all the matter-energy from the universe, you also remove spacetime. Spacetime is a form of radiation from matter; that's the theory of General Relativity.

So nothingness is a hypothetical place that has no matter, though if we observe this place we would send photons there to observe it and it would then cease to exist. Matter would be there and then so would spacetime.

Which is the reason for one of my earlier points of why you cannot observe "nothingness" and why "nothingness" doesn't really exist physically (i.e. in reality).



Remember, I originally posted this in philosophy. I expected discussion with philosophers on the aesthetic value of such a concept. Someone else moved it here, not me. So think twice before you heap scorn on my philosophical approach. I didn't start this thread to provoke responses from scientists. Well look, it doesn't matter how pretty or beautiful your theory is. If it doesn't match with reality, it's wrong.

Philosophers seem to ignore that point and continue discussing irrelevant matters, and really you have parted all and any scientific rigor (or indeed anything loosely resembling a scientific method) in your pursuits.

Consequently, you want this to become a metaphysical question...one without a definite answer that is really just a waste of time. The problem is that it isn't a metaphysical question, it's a physical question (one with a definite answer which has been given, according to the observations of modern science).

If you want to talk about metaphysics, talk about "God" instead of the universe. "God" unlike the universe is pure superstition, which means you can delve as "deeply" as you'd like metaphysically.

But leave science to the scientists.

[The Rover]

My take on it, and what I sort of got from my very miniscule understanding and study of quantum theory is that it is not a universe, but a multiverse. So, therefore, we live in a finite universe within an infinite number of other universes. Our universe would also have to be finite in order for all the mass in it to compact into a tiny lump so that it would explode.

Thats my take on things, tell me if I'm wrong.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:44 PM
so if it is finite, what's at the end of the universe?
A restaurant, of course. :D

[7189]

Don't patronise me. I have read about damn theories and yes I understand them. General relativity great, but its a hypothetical assumption, it has no valid proof. And with valid I don't mean shining a torch through a hole. Use your head man! How could it be proved? The furthest any man's been is the moon, so don't be so idiotic to assume that earthbound theories can be transposed onto the whole universe. This is what I've been saying the whole time, yet you've blindly ignored it.

You are so certain of these theories, but what's to say they won't be disproved in 10, 50, 100 years time? You don't question. If you don't question that makes you blind, which means you have just as much worth as a religious zealot. Which is none. You're letting science spoonfeed you crap. You poor blinkered child. You're clinging to a bunch of empty concepts, because you simply cannot take the truth like a man. Damn scientists, so arrogant, so full of themselves and their narrow-minded theories just to satisfy their own need feeling of self importance. It's intellectual masterbation, whilst looking at themselves in their mind's mirror! Scientists can't bear the thought of not being able to define something. All they do is ruin a potentially beautiful idea with crap hypotheses. Well you can linger in the dark if you want, but I wont. But you will learn when the next paradigm shift comes in cosmology that proves me right.

Now you can fling all the theories you want at me, but none of these things have been properly proved as you yourself have admitted. So go and hide in the dark with the rest of the science crowd and I'll find someone who is more intellectual and open-minded to discuss this with, instead of a bad-mannered overly arrogant science snob.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:37 AM
Don't patronise me. I have read about damn theories and yes I understand them. General relativity great, but its a hypothetical assumption, it has no valid proof. And with valid I don't mean shining a torch through a hole. Use your head man! How could it be proved? The furthest any man's been is the moon, so don't be so idiotic to assume that earthbound theories can be transposed onto the whole universe. This is what I've been saying the whole time, yet you've blindly ignored it.

You are so certain of these theories, but what's to say they won't be disproved in 10, 50, 100 years time? You don't question. If you don't question that makes you blind, which means you have just as much worth as a religious zealot. Which is none. You're letting science spoonfeed you crap. You poor blinkered child. You're clinging to a bunch of empty concepts, because you simply cannot take the truth like a man. Damn scientists, so arrogant, so full of themselves and their narrow-minded theories just to satisfy their own need feeling of self importance. It's intellectual masterbation, whilst looking at themselves in their mind's mirror! Scientists can't bear the thought of not being able to define something. All they do is ruin a potentially beautiful idea with crap hypotheses. Well you can linger in the dark if you want, but I wont. But you will learn when the next paradigm shift comes in cosmology that proves me right.

Now you can fling all the theories you want at me, but none of these things have been properly proved as you yourself have admitted. So go and hide in the dark with the rest of the science crowd and I'll find someone who is more intellectual and open-minded to discuss this with, instead of a bad-mannered overly arrogant science snob.
Thats way over the top. You sound like your going to break in to a chorus of 'all creatures great and small'. Whilst GR is certainly not completely emperically proven its the best way we have at the moment of describing the workings and geometry of 'our' universe, yes, the one we live in, the one our planet earth orbits the sun in. The universe that all events take place in. One universe. One does not need to explore the entire universe to know its workings anymore than one must circumnavigate the entire globe to confirm it is round.

GR is an enormous leap forward for the human race and our scientists today stand on Einstein's shoulders and take a better informed look at the universe because of it. GR breaks down at small scales and possibly on the biggest scales but it as essential tool for developing a better description of the universe. Einstein developed relativity because he questioned things and rejected the status-quo. He was a visionary who developed a theory that is crucial to the human development and understanding of nature and reality.

[ComradeRed]

eneral relativity great, but its a hypothetical assumption, it has no valid proof. And with valid I don't mean shining a torch through a hole. Use your head man! How could it be proved? The furthest any man's been is the moon, so don't be so idiotic to assume that earthbound theories can be transposed onto the whole universe. This is what I've been saying the whole time, yet you've blindly ignored it. Well thank goodness you've become a philosopher instead of a scientist! But either way, I'm sure you could find your way into being unemployed.

You obviously don't understand the significance of General Relativity, or you don't know how to do science. As I stated before, philosophers are would-be backseat drivers to science.

Just leave science to the scientists, please. Use your "pure reason" with whatever else you like (clearly observations and empiricism are useless in your "scientific" method).

Black holes have been empirically observed and there have been experiments done on them (though this "vulgar" empiricism is no match for your "pure reason" :lol:).

So according to your "reasoning", we should send someone (or better yet, some group of people) into a black hole so we'd "been there"?

You really are clueless about reality; please don't leave your ivory tower again, I think the scientific community can "manage" without your..."contributions".


You are so certain of these theories, but what's to say they won't be disproved in 10, 50, 100 years time? You don't question. Of course I question; it's just my questions are beyond your simian mental faculty.

As it stands right now, there is legitimate reason to believe that quantum field theory (and quantum mechanics) is the theory needing investigation rather than General Relativity.

QFT and QM assume a Newtonian universe...which is clearly flawed (despite your allegations). QM and QFT also assume that particles take up no space...which is also a source of feasible error.

There are a number of serious problems with QFT (most which wouldn't be appreciated in this community), and a number of serious problems - some the source of some of the QFT problems - in QM. We know this by quantiztion techniques applied to General Relativity and (yes, I know this will appease you) Newtonian cosmology.

And when you use QFT on spacetime itself, you run into a number of problems. Like, the current QFT paradigm says that all forces are mediated by bosons, (e.g. Dr. Zee's book QFT in a nutshell gives the example of a matress being quantized produces a mediating boson for the mattress -- a "matron"), so what is it for spacetime?

Or would spacetime be its own mediating boson? If so, wouldn't this lead to an infinite creation series of bosons? If not, then what is it? And why haven't we observed it? :huh:

So really, you are looking at the wrong thing to be critical of...even if your "method" worked.


Now you can fling all the theories you want at me, but none of these things have been properly proved as you yourself have admitted. My goodness, you are no better than Creationists about debunking evolution merely because it is a "theory" therefore it is wrong (because as we all know theories are never empirically supported) :lol:

Just because you don't like how science works doesn't equate to it being wrong!

I would highly suggest reading Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, you really don't have a clue about General Relativity and how it is empirically supported.

Your arguments have been trying to drag a topic in physics into the murky waters of metaphysics, when it clearly does not belong there. You need to get a better grounding of physics before you go about "debunking" it like Hegel (or whatever wacky philosopher) tried to.

[7189]

Still like a complete empty headed village idiot you don't bother to read my post and you launch stupidly into another mind numbingly boring riposte. You truly are a dullard ComradeRed. I'm not saying these theories are wrong. I'm saying that it's arrogance to say they apply to everything. Read properly you dyslexic. Once you start reading what I write properly then this damn argument can go somewhere, you damn fool.

[Dyst]

Please calm down!

While I to an extent actually agree with you 7189, you're posts have started looking more like simply name-calling instead of arguments.

[RebelDog]

I'm not saying these theories are wrong. I'm saying that it's arrogance to say they apply to everything.

I picked this out of your diatribe 7189. Can you please explain what exactly you mean by "it's arrogance to say they apply to everything."
Please elaborate on what would have been acceptable. Do theories exist (whether proven or otherwise) whose application refers to merely a section of the universe?

[7189]

These theories may apply to the observable universe, that is to say all we can see with our most advanced telescopes, but to say they apply to the entire universe is absurd.

It is my firm belief that because the entire universe and its infinite complexities are beyond the realm of empirical knowledge, we must bring in philosophy.

Now to deny this is to be a fool, because it is the truth and ComradeRed has even admitted this himself.

He just blindly continues to rant against philosophers simply because in his mind science is indestructible and infallible. He conveniently forgets about paradigm shifts and the fact that science is earthbound. Hence he is a worthless zealot.

Even some of the most foremost scientists in this field accept that they could be wrong and that science may well not be the answer to this great riddle. This is because they are wise.

Say what you want about philosophy, but if it hadn't been for philosophy science would never have come as far as it has. It was philosophers who asked the questions, and scientists who tried to find the answers. They succeeded in many earthbound subjects, but for the universe, it is far too early to be certain of theories.

[RebelDog]

observable universe

This term applies to that which is theoretically possible to observe and get information from.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/observable-universe


The word observable used in this sense has nothing to do with whether modern technology actually permits us to detect radiation from an object in this region. It simply means that it is possible for light or other radiation from the object to reach an observer on earth.

If it were the case that such an arbitary spacial description of the universe was for instance 'what the individual sees with that individual's means' then chaos would ensue and neither science or philosophy would have any foundation for which to set any basic reality.

If you read the proper definition of our 'observable universe' then we must conclude that the universe has a set of physical laws by which everything in the universe obeys and that which lies outwith our observable universe, since it cannot affect it, is forever irrelevant.

[ComradeRed]

Still like a complete empty headed village idiot you don't bother to read my post and you launch stupidly into another mind numbingly boring riposte. You truly are a dullard ComradeRed. I'm not saying these theories are wrong. I'm saying that it's arrogance to say they apply to everything. Read properly you dyslexic. Once you start reading what I write properly then this damn argument can go somewhere, you damn fool. Listen, you pig ignorant philistine, when you pull your head out of your ass maybe you'll understand the basic premises of scientific logic:
You cannot reject a theory without proposing a suitable replacement that embodies greater empirical proof than the previous theory.

You have blatantly rejected time and time again General Relativity (though you deny this, then go on to reject, and then deny rejecting it again, ad nauseum); what the hell kind of reasoning do you have behind it besides muddled philosophical psychobabble?

Oh, that's right: NONE!

Then you go on to assert that I'm not reading your posts? I think you have it backwards, your not reading any post properly (maybe someday you will gain a reading comprehension greater than that of an eight year old's). (Don't believe me? Take this quote as an example:

Now to deny this is to be a fool, because it is the truth and ComradeRed has even admitted this himself. )

Don't even bother maundering about:

He just blindly continues to rant against philosophers simply because in his mind science is indestructible and infallible. He conveniently forgets about paradigm shifts and the fact that science is earthbound. Hence he is a worthless zealot. Obviously you haven't read my last post adequately. That is very unfortunate, maybe you would have actually learned something.



Say what you want about philosophy, but if it hadn't been for philosophy science would never have come as far as it has. It was philosophers who asked the questions, and scientists who tried to find the answers. They succeeded in many earthbound subjects, but for the universe, it is far too early to be certain of theories. No, once again your arrogance and your conceit blinds yourself from reality (the dreaded thing! :rolleyes:).

Philosophers are would-be backseat drivers to science. Ones that ask "profoundly deep" questions like "What is infinity?" Then when math all ready has the answer, they pride themselves in "being the stimulus" for the "mathematician" to go and "find" it :rolleyes:

You should really just go back to your ivory tower, as I had suggested earlier; you do no good in science (or reality for that matter).

[7189]

Ah go back to your damn lab you back room boy. Most scientists have no influence, they are social inadequates, and you ComradeRed are the king of said bunch. You can say whatever you want in any tone you want but it's all crap, simply because your words are like drops of vomit: pointless and ugly. They are utterings of a blinkered, mentally-repressed social reject. The worst thing is that you really are full of shit. If you were so certain of your convictions you wouldn't have to keep coming back here. I think this proves your own pathetic state. Damn nerd. You have no backbone. Go back to your damn microscope and leave the real questions to us philosophers. This is my last post.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 04:17 PM
Ah go back to your damn lab you back room boy. Most scientists have no influence, they are social inadequates, and you ComradeRed are the king of said bunch. You can say whatever you want in any tone you want but it's all crap, simply because your words are like drops of vomit: pointless and ugly. They are utterings of a blinkered, mentally-repressed social reject. The worst thing is that you really are full of shit. If you were so certain of your convictions you wouldn't have to keep coming back here. I think this proves your own pathetic state. Damn nerd. You have no backbone. Go back to your damn microscope and leave the real questions to us philosophers. This is my last post.
So this is what it looks like when somone loses an argument gracelessly.

[Prawn Connery]

I find this topic fascinating, and I must say I agree with 7189.

The problem with this discussion is that it was intended (and rightly so) for the philosophy forum but was moved here, where it was swamped by scientists.

This is a philosophical issue not a scientific one, simply because it's as abstract as discussing the meaning of life: the universe is unempirical, it cannot be tested.

Jazzrat, 7189's final post shows his complete frustration with the constricted scientific mindset of the other posters in this forum. They are indoctrinated by the hubris of modern science, a terrible shackle on their minds.

What started out as an uplifting musing on the wonder of infinity became a dull debate over scientific technicalities and his dillusionment is evident and understandable.

ComradeRed never addressed his arguments, instead hurling insults and bringing in these boring hypotheses which are completely ridiculous.

I think you'll find that 7189 won the argument several times over, Jazzrat.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Prawn [email protected] 4 2006, 03:09 PM
I find this topic fascinating, and I must say I agree with 7189.

The problem with this discussion is that it was intended (and rightly so) for the philosophy forum but was moved here, where it was swamped by scientists.

This is a philosophical issue not a scientific one, simply because it's as abstract as discussing the meaning of life: the universe is unempirical, it cannot be tested.

Jazzrat, 7189's final post shows his complete frustration with the constricted scientific mindset of the other posters in this forum. They are indoctrinated by the hubris of modern science, a terrible shackle on their minds.

What started out as an uplifting musing on the wonder of infinity became a dull debate over scientific technicalities and his dillusionment is evident and understandable.

ComradeRed never addressed his arguments, instead hurling insults and bringing in these boring hypotheses which are completely ridiculous.

I think you'll find that 7189 won the argument several times over, Jazzrat.
Hi 7189 welcome back.

[Hit The North]

This is a philosophical issue not a scientific one, simply because it's as abstract as discussing the meaning of life: the universe is unempirical, it cannot be tested.

Are you arguing that the universe isn't empirically real? What is it then: a figment of your imagination?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Prawn [email protected] 4 2006, 02:09 PM
I find this topic fascinating, and I must say I agree with 7189.

The problem with this discussion is that it was intended (and rightly so) for the philosophy forum but was moved here, where it was swamped by scientists.
"Swamped by scientists"? You mean people who follow a rational thought process? The only person I know that can actually even begin to claim to be a scientist in this thread is ComradeRed.



This is a philosophical issue not a scientific one, simply because it's as abstract as discussing the meaning of life: the universe is unempirical, it cannot be tested. The universe is a concrete thing, not an abstraction like a meaning. It is exists regardless of any philosophical judgement.


Jazzrat, 7189's final post shows his complete frustration with the constricted scientific mindset of the other posters in this forum. They are indoctrinated by the hubris of modern science, a terrible shackle on their minds. (A small quibble, but my name has a double t for a reason, I'd quite like it if people wrote it with this in mind. Very, very minor quibble though.) These 'constricted' minds as you call them are not shackled by a hubris as you claim, rather clear headed and rational human beings. They use only the material evidence they have and extrapolate for the universe, and thus far the method has proven effective.


What started out as an uplifting musing on the wonder of infinity became a dull debate over scientific technicalities and his dillusionment is evident and understandable. What you mean is that some pretentious ponderings were served up with a good dose of reason, and some of the "philosophers" are finding this hard to swallow.


ComradeRed never addressed his arguments, instead hurling insults and bringing in these boring hypotheses which are completely ridiculous. He used insults, I assume, because he was fustrated. As for the 'rediculousness' of his claims, care to enlighten me as to why you think they are such?


I think you'll find that 7189 won the argument several times over, Jazzrat. Not the impression I got from this thread Praw Conner.

[ComradeRed]

ComradeRed never addressed his arguments, instead hurling insults and bringing in these boring hypotheses which are completely ridiculous. You know, I learned from a young age there is a difference between what is and what appears to be. Perhaps you would be so kind as to do the same, as I have given argument; it just appears to those who are more philosophically inclined to be "completely ridiculous" (who knew empiricism could be such! :lol:).

The "arguments" brought up by 7189 really are completely irrelevant (the "nature" of "infinity" is a math (precalculus to be precise) question, not a physical one, etc.). But to assert that such a response is "dodging the question" is damn frustrating!

It's not that 7189 was asking "deep questions" that were "beyond" my comprehension, it's that he was asking the wrong questions for any scientific development. To simply say "General Relativity is wrong because of x,y,z" and not give any replacement for it contradicts the scientific process.

But that's not what 7189 did...he did give a replacement, as I pointed out earlier, it was a return to Newtonian cosmology. However this paradigm had its fair share of problems that the General Relativity paradigm fixed. As of now, the most likely replacement for "Classical General Relativity" is Quantum General Relativity (remember that quantized field theories are the whole picture and that classical pictures are mere approximations).

But that means that it would develop and explain all the features of classical general relativity that are currently not really well explained (e.g. Black holes, the nature of the laws of physics at the beginning of the universe, etc.)...not rejecting it all together!

This argument that you bring up again I find ri-god damn-diculous:
This is a philosophical issue not a scientific one, simply because it's as abstract as discussing the meaning of life: the universe is unempirical, it cannot be tested. Uh, no, not really. It's actually quite simple.

The universe is basically a collection of events that occur within it (these events define the universe, rather than the other way round). But I would assume you are referring to spacetime specifically.

It's an evolving network, like the internet if we notionally think of all websites as relativistic events in one reference frame or another.

As though space and time were a priori objects that had no influence of the motion of bodies in reality :lol:

How bodies move directly deals with the nature of space and time! Now how the hell anyone can dispute this is beyond me.

[markofthebeats]

The universe is very large. I mean ridiculously large! Our planet, Earth, belongs to a system of one hundred planets. This system is named Satania. One hundred systems make up a constellation. Ours is called Norlatiadek. One hundred constellations makes up a local universe. One hundred local universes makes up a minor sector. One hundred minor sectors make up a major sector. Ten major sectors makes up a superuniverse. Seven superuniverses orbit The Central Isle in which one trillion perfect spheres radiate beauty. This consists of the first two stages of universe activity: perfect and perfected. We, as humans, are an experiencial deity whose purpose it is to be a creature in order that our perspective can include an animal life. We are spiritual beings at the beginning of an unmatched adventure! Formulating beyond the superuniverses are the gigantic masses that will later form the third, fourth, and fifth epochs of universe reality. The universe exists in perfect order, perfect love, truth, beauty, and goodness. To put a limit on absolutes is laughable. We are the being who gets to experience eternity in a sequencial format... we essencially learn infinity. There will never be an end to absoluteness, only new expressions of it, and we're here! This is the beginning! Don't let our finite problems limit your view of your imminent infinite destiny! A marriage of cosmology, science, religion, and philosophy can be found at urantia.org. We are the revolution we were always waiting for!

[ComradeRed]

Is it just me, or does that post seem like spam advertising urantia.org?

[7189]

Firstly I apologise for the outburst of insults before. I was exceedingly frustrated and to be honest I'd been taking a lot of crap from Comrade Red the whole damn argument, for no good reason. So I threw a bit back at him, to even things off.

Now I've mulled over this topic and how best to approach it in a polemic and I decided to have another go. Also there are new posts here that direly need to be addressed.

Prawn Connery, I appreciate the support (you seem to be the only one on here who actually agrees with me, which is rather disheartening) but you are actually distorting my views. This subject isn't entirely unempirical, obviously some aspects of the universe are observable and will be within concrete scientific reach in the future. However the issue of the size of the universe is unempirical. It may be hypothetical but it certainly isn't empirical. It's not empirical because you cannot test something that size. General Relativity is based largely on thoughts and a few earthbound experiments. This is hypothetical talk. Now I always thought without empricism science has no solid grounding. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now Comrade Red you always speak of the form of the universe, but you don't directly address the question of infinity, specifically the point I make about nothingness. If you could do so I'd be much obliged.

Basically, could you tell me how General Relativity proves that the Universe is finite?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:12 AM
If the universe is infinite, that means that there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe.

I think you are looking at the matter with the concept of absolute space and time...that the universe is a rigid thing. If we remove all the matter from the universe, what most people think is there would be space and time. Instead, what General Relativity says is that we remove, with matter, spacetime.

The cosmological constant would come into play if you accept the universe to be finite, but if it's infinite and the cosmo constant is right, then a vacuum is infinitely dense. So either the universe is finite or the cosmological constant is wrong.

Look into general relativity more as this is a concern for it.
What does all of this mean...?

Can you explain in it more simpler terms.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 9 2006, 03:57 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 9 2006, 03:57 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:12 AM
If the universe is infinite, that means that there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe.

I think you are looking at the matter with the concept of absolute space and time...that the universe is a rigid thing. If we remove all the matter from the universe, what most people think is there would be space and time. Instead, what General Relativity says is that we remove, with matter, spacetime.

The cosmological constant would come into play if you accept the universe to be finite, but if it's infinite and the cosmo constant is right, then a vacuum is infinitely dense. So either the universe is finite or the cosmological constant is wrong.

Look into general relativity more as this is a concern for it.
What does all of this mean...?

Can you explain in it more simpler terms. [/b]
Have you ever had a baked potato? Well, the heat from the baked potato radiates off over time.

All general relativity is saying is that spacetime is just another form of radiation that's given from all forms of energy...just as our baked potato gives off thermal radiation, so too does all matter give off "spacetime radiation".

So if we remove all the matter from the universe, we would remove every possible source for spacetime radiation. Which means there would no longer be any spacetime at all.

The "traditional" view is that if we remove all the energy in the universe, what we woul have left is spacetime. However this is relatively flawed because it is incompatible with Special Relativity (for a long explanation shortened in mathematical jargon: the derivative of a constant is zero, the speed of light is constant, the time derivative of velocity is acceleration, what therefore is the acceleration of light? The traditional answer is 0 but that makes no sense!)...and special relativity is empirically verifiable.

Now does that mean that General Relativity is just a hosh-posh of mathematical manipulations of Newtonian gravity and special relativity? No, it makes definite predictions and explains a larger body of phenomena than Newtonian gravity did.

For example, Black Holes would never be known to a Newtonian cosmologist...since there is no "maximum speed" then one could always "go faster" to get out of a gravitational pull.

We do know there are black holes out there (there is, as a matter of fact, one in the center of the galaxy (if I recall correctly)), and there is empirical research being done on them (Dr. Kip Thorne and Dr. Stephen Hawking are two that come to mind who are doing empirical research).

But does that make sense? I haven't eaten yet nor have I drunk any coffee, so that is probably rambling around a bit.


7189
Basically, could you tell me how General Relativity proves that the Universe is finite? Later, I need to eat first and then finish some work, then I will get back to General Relativity and the cosmological constant.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by 7189
Basically, could you tell me how General Relativity proves that the Universe is finite? Well, there are two camps in General Relativity: one says the universe is finite and uses the cosmological constant (equal to 2 per radius of the universe squared) and another which says the universe is infinite.

The problem is that we don't know if Einstein's field equations work if you simply set the cosmological constant to zero (since, as it is shown in basic calculus, lim_{x-> infinity} x^-1 = 0).

There are some serious problems with the cosmological constant, either way if you accept it or reject it. If you reject it and set the universe to be infinite, why doesn't the gravitational pull of the infinite mass cause the universe to collapse? IT would be an infinite force, afterall.

That's just one minor problem, there are dozens of others.

And it's just as bad if you accept the cosmological constant (though as an added bonus, it's easier to solve Einstein's field equations)...especially when applying it to quantum field theory to make QFT background dependent.

It's just a mess of a problem that needs clarification.

But if you accept General Relativity (usually in cosmological models), you are tacitly accepting the cosmological constant; if you notionally set the universe to be infinite, that means that there can be a perfect vacuum (one without any mass in it) and supposing that gravity will "stop working" at some distance.

The implications from the supposition of the universe being infinite, using empirically verifiable Newtonian gravity alone (which has empirical problems of its own), will give you contradictions and predictions contrary to observation.

Look up stuff on the cosmological constant, it will explain it far better and far more detailed than I have done.

[0ntology]

The human imagination can't really be finite.

The imagination only ends when the living being (in this case, humans) ceases to exist.

If humans were able to live forever, the imagination would just keep growing, due to new experiences, changes in society, development of emotions, etc.

[EwokUtopia]

Scientists are allways discovering that the smallest things are allways made up of many parts, and the biggest things are parts of others. For instance, we could move up:
from when humans thought the earth was the centre of the universe
>to the Earth being part of a Universe Centred on the Sun
>to the Sun being a part of a cluster of stars making up the galaxy that is the universe
>to the Galaxy being one of many in a cluster of Galaxies
>to the Galactic cluster being a part of a cluster of clusters


Or we could move down:
from thinking a Human (for example) was divided into organs and bones
>to those organs being divided into cells
>to those cells being divided into organelles
>to those organelles being made up of Molecules
>to those molecules being made up of Atoms
>to those Atoms being made up of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons
>to those being made up of quarks



My point being that the biggest thing humanity has ever been able to think of has allways been prooven to be a smaller part of something infinately bigger, and the smallest thing has been comprised of greatly smaller parts. I dont think anybody thinks modern science is all knowing, indeed, humans are still quite primitive compared to what we could one day be. So it would stand to reason that what we think of as "the universe" is merely a smaller part of something infinately greater.

Perhaps the silly apes running around on this insignificant pebble will one day unpeel another layer of the universal mystery, and who knows, we may even travel around our galacic neighbourhood oneday as well. Heres to hoping.

[Concept]

Perhaps the silly apes running around on this insignificant pebble will one day unpeel another layer of the universal mystery, and who knows, we may even travel around our galacic neighbourhood oneday as well. Heres to hoping.

i'll toast to that
the stuff they teach us is really only temporary education
there is no proof it is finite or infinite...the possibilities r endless right now

[redcannon]

the universe is finite, and here is why:

suppose we have a stick in the ground, lets call in stick A. Another stick in the ground, Stick B, is 1 foot behind it.
If the universe was infinite, then that would mean that the universe was infinite distance from Stick A. But then how far away would it be from stick B? It would have to be infinite + 1 foot. And there lies the problem. Infinite + 1 foot does not make sense mathematically.

Also, the universe is expanding (it has been proven). How can you expand an infinite universe?

we find it hard to concieve the true nothingness that is outside the universe simply because we have never come in contact with true nothingness inside the universe. Even the vacuums of deep space are teeming with particlies flying every which way.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:30 pm
suppose we have a stick in the ground, lets call in stick A. Another stick in the ground, Stick B, is 1 foot behind it.
If the universe was infinite, then that would mean that the universe was infinite distance from Stick A. But then how far away would it be from stick B? It would have to be infinite + 1 foot. And there lies the problem. Infinite + 1 foot does not make sense mathematically.
Not necessarily. On a number line, which is infinitely long in both the positive and negative directions, there is a finite distance between two points.

On an infinite plane, the concept holds.

In an infinite dimensional space, the concept still holds.

In a finite dimensional space, the concept holds.

Distance doesn't depend on how big the space is, it depends on the metric of the space.

[chimx]

wikipedia sounds smarter than any of you buggers on the subject, so i defer to them as being more relevant to the discussion than anything anyone here has presented:

"A majority of cosmologists believe that the observable universe is an extremely tiny part of the "whole" (theoretical) Universe and that it is impossible to observe the whole of comoving space. It is presently unknown whether or not this is correct, since according to studies of the shape of the Universe, it is possible that the observable universe is of nearly the same size as the whole of space, but the question remains under debate. If a version of the cosmic inflation scenario is correct, then there is no known way to determine whether the (theoretical) universe is finite or infinite, in which case the observable Universe is just a tiny speck of the (theoretical) universe."

--

Now, the speed of light is finite, therefore the observable universe is finite and dictated by the speed of light and the time since the big bang. That's about 47 billion light years, which I can't even really comprehend, so for the sake of my own understanding, I shall assume to mean bajillions upon bajillions of miles.

[The Bitter Hippy]

hang on...47 bn?

The observable universe has a radius of ~13.7 billion light years.

The big bang happened that long ago, that's how far it is theoretically possible to see. And that's ignoring most of the physics.

[lithium]

Yeah the observable Universe has a radius of roughly 12-14 billion light years, but the actual size of the Universe does not have to be this size. Don't ask me why, I wasn't paying attention in General Relativity in uni :(

As to whether the Universe is infinite or not - and I dunno if this has been mention earlier - the most widely accepted theory was, until recently, that it was a closed Universe. This means that the Universe can be likened to a two-dimensional sphere: basically like the surface of a ball - if you travel in a straight line you get back to the same place and you can keep travelling around forever, but there is still a finite "surface" area. The idea also stated that the Universe is expanding, but will slow down, stop, and then reverse and contract.

However, some observations (can't remember which instrument) in or around the year 2000 seemed to show that at some stage in the Universe's history the whole thing started to expand at an increasing rate. So now observations are telling us that not only is the Universe expanding, but that this expansion is getting faster. This energy has to come from somewhere, and this has been named Dark Energy (like Dark Matter was named for the matter we can't directly see).

Hmmm.. At least some good came of that module!

[Pandore]

someone once said "if u close ur eyes u'll see the infinity "

[The Bitter Hippy]

that someone was a bit thick then.

Closing your eyes shows you the residual impulses knocking around on your retina and optical nerves, as well as what light gets throught your eyelid. :D :P

a very good book for thinking about the universe and its size is hawkings' "a brief history of time". it's designed for a moderately intelligent adult who is willing to think about ideas, and includes no formulae (i think).

Hawkings, apart from being the greatest theoretical phsycist of the last few decades, is an amazing describer of complex physical principles for laymen.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:54 pm
Yeah the observable Universe has a radius of roughly 12-14 billion light years, but the actual size of the Universe does not have to be this size. Don't ask me why, I wasn't paying attention in General Relativity in uni :(

As to whether the Universe is infinite or not - and I dunno if this has been mention earlier - the most widely accepted theory was, until recently, that it was a closed Universe. This means that the Universe can be likened to a two-dimensional sphere: basically like the surface of a ball - if you travel in a straight line you get back to the same place and you can keep travelling around forever, but there is still a finite "surface" area. The idea also stated that the Universe is expanding, but will slow down, stop, and then reverse and contract.

However, some observations (can't remember which instrument) in or around the year 2000 seemed to show that at some stage in the Universe's history the whole thing started to expand at an increasing rate. So now observations are telling us that not only is the Universe expanding, but that this expansion is getting faster. This energy has to come from somewhere, and this has been named Dark Energy (like Dark Matter was named for the matter we can't directly see).

Hmmm.. At least some good came of that module!
the first thing you mentioned is called the "big crunch" theory, and that was dropped in 2002 I thought.

And I thought that the second theory is why we can see significantly farther into the universe than since big bang occurred, because it has been speeding up in expansion.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I think the universe is infinite. You know why? Because it makes sense. I dont know why, it just does. It could just be that I'm really stoned but yeah. Thats my two sense.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 27, 2007 06:32 am
Hawkings, apart from being the greatest theoretical phsycist of the last few decades, is an amazing describer of complex physical principles for laymen.
Fame does not equate to skill. Hawking is a rather skilled mathematician, no contest. But making general relativity go from 3+1 dimensions (the -+++ metric sign) to 4 dimensions (++++ or ----) is not by any means making great strides in theoretical physics.

Yes it was a rather important step in the "Sum over metrics" attempt at Quantum Gravity, but other than that...he's done mathematical work in astrophysics and mathematical work in black hole thermodynamics.

He's like Dirac; a splendid mathematician, but a mediocre physicist.

[Eshlonn-the-leader]

in a sense it is finite. But, that is in our dimension. See, there are varying degrees of the universes. it might be what most people would call, "Parallel Universes". Think of it like a giant rubix cube, that never ends in each direction. Each cube represents a universe. this isnt an actual Cube, but let's pretend it is. There is a universe for everything. Like right now, in one universe, a giant dinosaur with swastikas and monkeys for teeth is terrorizing the living garden gnomes in your back yard. Anything. Therefore, no. it is no finite.... but in this Universe, it might be. This is just a theory. not my theory either. Dr. Bruce Goldberg once used this in a book.

[The Bitter Hippy]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+January 28, 2007 03:59 am--> (ComradeRed @ January 28, 2007 03:59 am)
The Bitter [email protected] 27, 2007 06:32 am
Hawkings, apart from being the greatest theoretical phsycist of the last few decades, is an amazing describer of complex physical principles for laymen.
Fame does not equate to skill. Hawking is a rather skilled mathematician, no contest. But making general relativity go from 3+1 dimensions (the -+++ metric sign) to 4 dimensions (++++ or ----) is not by any means making great strides in theoretical physics.

Yes it was a rather important step in the "Sum over metrics" attempt at Quantum Gravity, but other than that...he's done mathematical work in astrophysics and mathematical work in black hole thermodynamics.

He's like Dirac; a splendid mathematician, but a mediocre physicist. [/b]
i stand corrected. :blush:

[Pandore]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 27, 2007 02:32 pm
that someone was a bit thick then.
Closing your eyes shows you the residual impulses knocking around on your retina and optical nerves, as well as what light gets throught your eyelid. :D :P

thnx for clearing this to me (although im into biology so i know this ... :D ) i think the person who said that when u close ur eyes u see the infinity has a really big imagination :P

Anyway as far as i can see it (although i got great ideas from this debate , but im not that good in mathmatics or physics) the universe is infinite , maybe im just childesh but when u say its close , ill be thinking "and what's outside of it ?" ... maybe after discovering the empty spaces , man will discover something else that will explain that it can be it , all of it in an closed space and outside there is nothing at all but untill then ill keep asking....

[Ol' Dirty]

I think that we should consult Velocijesus on this matter. :D

In all seriousness:

Infinite: having no definable boundaries.

:wacko:

Now, I suppose, it would be a good idea to have a concrete definition of universe:

Universe: All the matter and energy in existence.

Your question is whether the universe is infinite or finite, correct? In that circumstance, I say that I would lean towards the opinion is finite, but I don't quite have an highly swayed opinion one way or the other. I'll abstain for now, but once I've read up on the subject a bit more I'll respond in a more lengthy fashion. :)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Finite.

-Alex