The Universe

[The Feral Underclass]

Two questions are proposed by the acceptance that the universe is a fact. Firstly, is the universe infinite? Secondly, contrary to that question, is the universe finite?

If we are to remove the existence of humanity from the history of this fact we are left with an expanse of space that proposes two questions that cannot be answered by science at this moment. Further to that, I assert that they never can be answered by science.

If the universe is infinite then how is it infinite? Why is it infinite and why, if we are to remove the existence of humanity which has articulated this concept, does this infinite space exist?

Secondly, if the universe is not infinite but finite how then is the basic human concept of "something must come before somethings existence" reconciled? If the universe is finite what then exists outside that finite space?

Human beings create rationale based on logic. If we are to take into consideration these ideas then we must accept that there is a rational explanation.

How, if an explanation exists, can there be an explanation to these two questions, or, what is the explanation to prove and falsify one question over the other?

For me, as an atheist, the only rational explanation I can provide is that there is a higher force at work. If this is the case, how then can we deny the existence of god?

[freakazoid]

In a book that I am currently reading, The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, there is a chapter in it that talks about the universe. Chapter 5, The Evidence of Cosmology: Beginning With A Bang. It goes over some of the different theories of the beginning of the universe. Last I talked to comradered in chat he talked about a theory, either the Oscillating model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe or the Cyclic model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model which comradered would be able to better explain way better than I could.

[The Feral Underclass]

Neither of those things explain the fundamental nature of my point.

I was very drunk last nigh.

[Dean]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 11:44 pm
Two questions are proposed by the acceptance that the universe is a fact. Firstly, is the universe infinite? Secondly, contrary to that question, is the universe finite?

If we are to remove the existence of humanity from the history of this fact we are left with an expanse of space that proposes two questions that cannot be answered by science at this moment. Further to that, I assert that they never can be answered by science.
If we all die we cannot answer the question? Maybe you mean we cannot know infinity because it would be impossible to travel an infinite expanse, because we are finite creatures. Well, what if we were to discover beyond a doubt that our universe is constantly expanding at a stable rate? Would taht "prove" infinity? I don't think so... Infinity, much more than any other concept, can never be proven.. it is myth, in my opinion, except in how it relates to very abstract things which are not as material as they are mental.

I also agree that the concept of infinity cannot be solved by humans, ever. It is like god. God's existance cannot be disproven or proven - it is a paradigm or whatever. Such is the case with an unachievable quantity. "God is a number you cannot count to"


If the universe is infinite then how is it infinite? Why is it infinite and why, if we are to remove the existence of humanity which has articulated this concept, does this infinite space exist?
If a tree falls in the forest...


Secondly, if the universe is not infinite but finite how then is the basic human concept of "something must come before somethings existence" reconciled? If the universe is finite what then exists outside that finite space?
Something created and created and created...
Of the second question - what is outside - I used to ponder this back when I was in middle school. I was intrigued by the Oscillating model, which I believe to be the most logical answer to the question of the universe. Infinity still exists as time - but does the universe exist that way? If there is finite material and our concepts of space - so cripplingly based on knowledge only of the universe - are no more material than the concept of time, then maybe there is a truly finite existance.


Human beings create rationale based on logic. If we are to take into consideration these ideas then we must accept that there is a rational explanation.

How, if an explanation exists, can there be an explanation to these two questions, or, what is the explanation to prove and falsify one question over the other?

For me, as an atheist, the only rational explanation I can provide is that there is a higher force at work. If this is the case, how then can we deny the existence of god?
Because we rationale doesn't mean that everythign has an answer.

For me, the answer is that time is an illusion, space is an illusion, and the universe is constantly expanding, collapsing, expanding. Just the best conceptualization I can come up with, though.

What does higher force mean? Something external to this universe? Why, though? Why not accept that we don't know, but we can theorize about more rational concepts that are external - wormholes, black holes, dark matter, alternate universes - based on logic?

We can deny the existance of god by having faith that it doesn't exist. There is ALWAYS the unknwon; doesn't that mean the unknown could always be God? But why believe in something so unreasonable?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not satisfied with the answer "the universe is expanding"? How is it expanding? I don't mean the physics of it, I mean how has it come to expand? What is: "It has always been expanding" or what is: "It expanded after something else"?

How could there be something else? Then again how could they're not be?

[Dean]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 11:09 am
I'm not satisfied with the answer "the universe is expanding"? How is it expanding? I don't mean the physics of it, I mean how has it come to expand? What is: "It has always been expanding" or what is: "It expanded after something else"?

How could there be something else? Then again how could they're not be?
"Constantly expanding" is not "it has always been expanding."

It's just a theory. Makes sense, if we are to trust the big bang. You talk of creation theories as if they necessitate infinity. But there is no reason to think that the universe must be infinite. And there is no reason to think of things like time as infinite. The description, even if the dimension of time does exist, is misleading. Something must come from something else, but material infinity implies that there is something beyond that concept. However, concepts like the continuation of time, etc. are not infinity in the same sense. They are infinity as intellectual ideas, immaterial. Much like quantum physics, it can be used to understand other things but means little in and of itself.

[hajduk]

you can not find these answers becouse we live on material way.....but you should read boock by Daglas Adams "Space guide for hitchikers" maybe you will get som answers

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Dean+August 13, 2007 01:23 pm--> (Dean @ August 13, 2007 01:23 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 11:09 am
I'm not satisfied with the answer "the universe is expanding"? How is it expanding? I don't mean the physics of it, I mean how has it come to expand? What is: "It has always been expanding" or what is: "It expanded after something else"?

How could there be something else? Then again how could they're not be?
"Constantly expanding" is not "it has always been expanding."

It's just a theory. Makes sense, if we are to trust the big bang. You talk of creation theories as if they necessitate infinity. But there is no reason to think that the universe must be infinite. And there is no reason to think of things like time as infinite. The description, even if the dimension of time does exist, is misleading. Something must come from something else, but material infinity implies that there is something beyond that concept. However, concepts like the continuation of time, etc. are not infinity in the same sense. They are infinity as intellectual ideas, immaterial. Much like quantum physics, it can be used to understand other things but means little in and of itself. [/b]
That's not satisfactory at all.

If the universe has not always been expanding, what was it doing before that and before that and before that and before that.

If there is something beyond the concept that something must come before something then we are essentially living in a ketamine trip.

Is god not the logical solution? Is god not the concept beyond our understanding?

[hajduk]

go on my topic IN WHAT THE KIND OF GOD PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE? and say what do you think

[Dean]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+August 13, 2007 03:24 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ August 13, 2007 03:24 pm) That's not satisfactory at all.

If the universe has not always been expanding, what was it doing before that and before that and before that and before that.

[/b]
You seem not to understand. If the concept of infinite time is unrealistic, i.e. not the same infinity I am arguing doesn't exist, then the concept of an infinite past does not discount a potentially finite universe.


You sem to miss my point here:


If there is something beyond the concept that something must come before something then we are essentially living in a ketamine trip.

I said:

Something must come from something else, but material infinity implies that there is something beyond that concept.

This was positively stating the first half, but saying that material infinity, as an idea not necessary for the acceptance of the first statement, implies the existance of material existance beyond what the universe is or logically can be / become.


Is god not the logical solution? Is god not the concept beyond our understanding?
Perhaps, if that is how you wish to define it. I'd point out that god is considered by many religions as a wholistic "being," i.e. it is in everything, so it doesn't really confrom that well there. Obviously christian dogma makes a mythical thing out of god that is unreal in our universe yet also encompasses it. But I don't see a clear relationship which makes god a necessary or logical outcome of believing that something outside of our unierse exists. As I pointed out, parallel universes may be explanatory, though I know not how, and they are certainly external to our universe.

You seem to think god is not understanding; that is, the unknown is god. God is, contrarily, an idea made up to explain creation, or the definition of an object of worship, or a deity in general. So, god is a part of the unknown but the unknown is not necessarily a part of god, or god itself.


hajduk
go on my topic IN WHAT THE KIND OF GOD PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE? and say what do you think
Please don't spam other topics. We are all talking in all the threads we want to. TAT and I are both saying things there, too, for instance.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Dean+August 13, 2007 04:46 pm--> (Dean @ August 13, 2007 04:46 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 03:24 pm
That's not satisfactory at all.

If the universe has not always been expanding, what was it doing before that and before that and before that and before that.


You seem not to understand. If the concept of infinite time is unrealistic, i.e. not the same infinity I am arguing doesn't exist, then the concept of an infinite past does not discount a potentially finite universe.


You sem to miss my point here:


If there is something beyond the concept that something must come before something then we are essentially living in a ketamine trip.

I said:

Something must come from something else, but material infinity implies that there is something beyond that concept.

This was positively stating the first half, but saying that material infinity, as an idea not necessary for the acceptance of the first statement, implies the existance of material existance beyond what the universe is or logically can be / become.


Is god not the logical solution? Is god not the concept beyond our understanding?
Perhaps, if that is how you wish to define it. I'd point out that god is considered by many religions as a wholistic "being," i.e. it is in everything, so it doesn't really confrom that well there. Obviously christian dogma makes a mythical thing out of god that is unreal in our universe yet also encompasses it. But I don't see a clear relationship which makes god a necessary or logical outcome of believing that something outside of our unierse exists. As I pointed out, parallel universes may be explanatory, though I know not how, and they are certainly external to our universe.

You seem to think god is not understanding; that is, the unknown is god. God is, contrarily, an idea made up to explain creation, or the definition of an object of worship, or a deity in general. So, god is a part of the unknown but the unknown is not necessarily a part of god, or god itself.


hajduk
go on my topic IN WHAT THE KIND OF GOD PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE? and say what do you think
Please don't spam other topics. We are all talking in all the threads we want to. TAT and I are both saying things there, too, for instance. [/b]
then what about black holes are the infinite to or bing bang he is also infinite right?

[pusher robot]

Most of these questions are properly categorized as questions about the supernatural. Thus there can be no meaningful answers, only speculation.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Is god not the logical solution? Is god not the concept beyond our understanding?

I suspect you're just playing devils's advocate for fun, personally, but nevertheless the answer is a vehement and resounding no.

You are making the case for the "God of Gaps", i.e. Gaps in our understanding of the natural world, such as your question about the infinite/finite universe, necessitate that there there is no natural explanation available. Therefore, we ought to just give up and resort to giving the blank check answer - God, The infinite consciousness, higher beings, spirits, whatever other silly phantoms you want to pull out.

It's a very old mistake. Historical examples are plentiful. We don't know why the sun comes up every morning, so it must be Helios with his chariot of fire. We don't know where humans came from, so it must have been an intelligent designer. We don't understand why we get sick, so it must be a punishment for sins comitted in a previous life.

Total, total horseshit. And you know it. A modern case is the mystery of abiogenesis. Assuming the universe at one point had no life in it, how did it come about? By sheer random chance the odds are negligible - Does this mean we throw science and rational explanation out of the window, or does it mean we fucking investigate further, and keep going until we crack the case, just as we did with the sun, evolution and germs.

-Alex

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 13, 2007 07:03 pm
Most of these questions are properly categorized as questions about the supernatural. Thus there can be no meaningful answers, only speculation.
How is it supernatural? Most of what has been discussed is in relation to scientific theories. "god" was the only supernatural thing, so far as I can see. Though you are still right that it's all speculation.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Dean+August 13, 2007 09:16 pm--> (Dean @ August 13, 2007 09:16 pm)
pusher [email protected] 13, 2007 07:03 pm
Most of these questions are properly categorized as questions about the supernatural. Thus there can be no meaningful answers, only speculation.
How is it supernatural? Most of what has been discussed is in relation to scientific theories. "god" was the only supernatural thing, so far as I can see. Though you are still right that it's all speculation. [/b]
The "natural world" consists of that which is contained in our universe. Anything outside of that is beyond the natural world, literally supernatural.

The theories are interesting to be sure, but they are never testable and never verifiable, because they require knowledge external to our own natural world. So I wouldn't call them scientific.

I can hypothesize all kinds of answers to the question of how much wood a woodchuck would chuck, but unless I have some possibility of testing and verifying my theories, they would remain speculations.

[freakazoid]

You are making the case for the "God of Gaps",

You're making the case for the "Science of Gaps".

And where is comradered? He would be great for this topic.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:14 am

You are making the case for the "God of Gaps",

You're making the case for the "Science of Gaps".
No. We're simply arguing that there are gaps, we are not positing a divine entity to fill it - as that would violate Occam's Razor. Having a scientific positivist mindset ("We will discover what is in those gaps") is very different to holding up science as some all pervading entity.

http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/fail.jpg

[Publius]

I'm not satisfied with the answer "the universe is expanding"? How is it expanding? I don't mean the physics of it, I mean how has it come to expand? What is: "It has always been expanding" or what is: "It expanded after something else"?

How could there be something else? Then again how could they're not be?

Try to bear with me here, because my physics are a little shaky, but...

It has to with the 'curvature' of the Universe itself. The Universe could either have been 'concave', 'convex' or 'flat'. If it were concave, it would collapse upon itself eventually, if it were convex, it would expand indefinitely, if it were flat, it would stay the same. I might have mixed up concave and convex and 'flat' might not mean exactly that, but anyway, that's roughly accurate.

All of this ties into the amount of negative gravity in the universe. That is, objects can repell each other through negative gravity just as they can attract through gravity. And so it was found that the 'shape' of the universe is convex, and there exists enough negative gravity to propel the universe apart ever faster.

The expansion makes something like a bell shape.

The example I've always been given of the universe expanding is a balloon. Draw dots on a balloon to signify galaxies and blow it up, and that's analogous to how the universe grows.

Now I actually do not believe in oscillating models, and I would like to hear Comradered's explanation of them, because I believe current evidence supports the theory that the universe will simply continually expand until it reaches heat death, and that in fact it's expanding now at an ever faster rate.

The experimental findings seem to contradict that idea, though I guess it's still possible, as in maybe when the universe stretches to such a proportion is breaks apart and reforms. But that's nothing more than I guess, as I can't recall any data to back it up.

I would supply you with more details but I've loaned out my copy of the Fabric of the Cosmos (even though it's string-theory proselytizing it still provides a great basic explanation of physics).

To the best of my knowledge, that's how it is, but then I'm not the physicist here.

[Publius]

"Constantly expanding" is not "it has always been expanding."

But it actually HAS always been expanding.

It's impossible to point to a time when the Universe hasn't been expanding...



It's just a theory. Makes sense, if we are to trust the big bang. You talk of creation theories as if they necessitate infinity. But there is no reason to think that the universe must be infinite.

The universe is spatially finite, but it could in fact continue expanding to infinity, just like a limit approaches a number at infinity.


And there is no reason to think of things like time as infinite.

Well, if time is a side-effect of matter, that is, space-time, and if matter can never be created or destroyed, then it makes perfect sense to suppose that there will always be time.



The description, even if the dimension of time does exist, is misleading. Something must come from something else, but material infinity implies that there is something beyond that concept.

Not necessarily.

You're essentially talking about an uncaused cause here, but I'm not certain that's necessary.

WE don't need an uncaused cause to have an infinite set of integers.



However, concepts like the continuation of time, etc. are not infinity in the same sense. They are infinity as intellectual ideas, immaterial. Much like quantum physics, it can be used to understand other things but means little in and of itself.

I think they are concepts of infinity akin to the concept of infinity applied to numbers. They may not have this quality, but that's the quality in question.

[The Feral Underclass]

People keep talking about what the universe is doing now or could be doing or could have done. What I want to know is why all of this exists and how it could be that case.

No one is directly answer those questions with any theory but to say either "we don't know" or "we don't need to know".

Either that or I am not understanding. People need to make it simple with simple language.

[The Feral Underclass]

The universe is a ketamine trip.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 13, 2007 10:09 pm
The "natural world" consists of that which is contained in our universe. Anything outside of that is beyond the natural world, literally supernatural.

The theories are interesting to be sure, but they are never testable and never verifiable, because they require knowledge external to our own natural world. So I wouldn't call them scientific.

I can hypothesize all kinds of answers to the question of how much wood a woodchuck would chuck, but unless I have some possibility of testing and verifying my theories, they would remain speculations.
The universe is what is natural, anything else unnatural? To put it more plainly, the universe is real and everything else unreal?

Please tell me where one draws the line at deciding what should be considered real and what is unreal. If you talk of verifiability in the scientific method, I'm afraid we can hardly go out of our own star system, let alone talk of the whole universe. How do you know that the universe itself, the theories on what is in it, are more than speculation? few of those can be verified by accepted scientific methods.

True, we can test nothing outside of our universe. but we can hardly test even a neglible part of what we call our universe anyways; by that logic, we should not accept that more than a few billion lightyears of space have even a smidgen of evidence to believe in them via pictures; why should we even accept the concept of a whole universe? if we accept it, with so much less thna a percent of it verifiable at all, why should conceiving of parallel universes be any different?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 09:57 pm
What I want to know is why all of this exists and how it could be that case.

The answer on this question can give you A GOD and nobody else,becouse if we know that then we will become a god

i told you to read the book by DOUGLAS ADAMS "Space guide for hitchikers" MAYBE THERE YOU WILL FIND SOME ANSWERS

[gilhyle]

It surely helps to differentiate clearly between the 'universe' and 'existence'. The 'universe' is asubject matter of current science that may or may not be coextensive with existence - quite unlikely at this stage that it is.

When science considers the universe it considers time as time exists in this universe. Separate all that from existence and you can leave science alone and engage in very simple metaphysics untroubled by curved space time and cosmological constants, as follows:

Taking all existence as one set, could it have been created ? Our concept of creation requires a T1 when the created object did not exist and a T2 when it did exist. On this model there is NOTHING - absolutely nothing - at T1. If there is absolutely nothing at T1 how is T1 even a moment. Time doesnt exist at that moment. Thus it cant be. Existence cannot have been created and it cannot be time bound - time must be a phenomenon within existence.

(The physics theory about how the universe might have been created out of nothing doesnt contradict this. Mentioning that is confusing existence and the universe. But note also that this concept of 'existence is neutral as between an existence that includes a 'God' and one that does not.)

Now, once we accept that existence is not temporal, we can then allow that everything in it is temporal, including the universe and we can further begin (through science) to study how a lower power (not a higher power) caused it all. We can put in a God of the Gaps (nice name) in sofar as we find science unsatisfactory but it is clearly unrelated to the question of the temporality of existence.

I can see no flaw in all that - show me

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:55 pm
But it actually HAS always been expanding.

It's impossible to point to a time when the Universe hasn't been expanding...
I'm not a genius about this or whatever, but I'll assume you're correct. My point was to say that I wasn't assuming it was always expanding; not that it wasn't at some point.


The universe is spatially finite, but it could in fact continue expanding to infinity, just like a limit approaches a number at infinity.

I don't see how this is likely. Wouldn't the finite nature of space at each moment still mean that it's not infinite? Assuming what I described could happen, continual expansion, it will still have a finite space at the moment, no? I'm also assuming that matter won't increase, btw. Only the idea of it's existance and continual change is infinite. Only by applying time - a concept I think is useful but objectively not material - can infinity appear to exist here.



And there is no reason to think of things like time as infinite.

Well, if time is a side-effect of matter, that is, space-time, and if matter can never be created or destroyed, then it makes perfect sense to suppose that there will always be time.

Let me repharase the quoted text: time can be infinite, but in a different way than that concept of infinity that seems to imply that somethign may come from nothing, as mentioned above.

I understand that this is all very fluid thinking, not fully grounded in concrete logical expression, but I don't think it's wrong or unreasonable. These are the type of discussions where the words meant to express the concepts are not fully actuated in our society, so mysticism - feeling to understand reality - is expressed much more directly. I'd liek to point otu too that all ideas are basically mystic, it's just that not all these ideas can be expressed via scientific and logical expressions. I see now why you spoke the way you did in the other thread; before, I had only seen your socio-economic arguments and I found them cold at the time. But your concept of philosophy and abstract science seems to obsess over grounding them in axiomatic standards that are often not easy to apply. I hope this all makes sense.




The description, even if the dimension of time does exist, is misleading. Something must come from something else, but material infinity implies that there is something beyond that concept.

Not necessarily.

You're essentially talking about an uncaused cause here, but I'm not certain that's necessary.

WE don't need an uncaused cause to have an infinite set of integers.
I assume you mean infinity in regards to ideas, which was what I was trying to differentiate between materal infinity. Material infinity implies literally developing material fact from nothingness, as in "first there was nothing; then there was god." Infinity rooted specifically in ideas, on the other hand, can explain things but does not, or should not, allow for such material infinity; it should be understood as a different concept of the term, just like applying the term "illogical" to an idea means something different when applied to a material outcome. That is, if I say your idea is illogical, I am sayign that your mental logic has failed you... but if I say that the gras being blue is illogical, I mean that nature itself ahs become unreal. Of course, this means that me - or humans in general dependign on how wide the effect is - have faield somewhere in understandign the nature of color, but in the case of infinity - an idea that cannot e proven or disproven via our scientific methods - the distinction between descriptive uses and physical actuation of infinity has a great gap.




However, concepts like the continuation of time, etc. are not infinity in the same sense. They are infinity as intellectual ideas, immaterial. Much like quantum physics, it can be used to understand other things but means little in and of itself.

I think they are concepts of infinity akin to the concept of infinity applied to numbers. They may not have this quality, but that's the quality in question.
I agree. And numerical infinity can be applied to a concept of space; for instance, you could say that because the universe will always expand - if this is indeed the fact - that infinity exists. But my point was that for spacial infinity to occur as more than just this idea, at any single moment the universe must have an infinite vastness. This is expressed as true if we only mean that we cannot fully know all of space, but this is not true - I think - if we mean simply that the universe is at all times without any limit. That doesn't mean the limit cannot be changed via time, just that the limit exists in that moment and so in that moment space continues to be finite.

[Dean]

Originally posted by hajduk+August 15, 2007 05:23 pm--> (hajduk @ August 15, 2007 05:23 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 09:57 pm
What I want to know is why all of this exists and how it could be that case.

The answer on this question can give you A GOD and nobody else,becouse if we know that then we will become a god

i told you to read the book by DOUGLAS ADAMS "Space guide for hitchikers" MAYBE THERE YOU WILL FIND SOME ANSWERS [/b]
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Yes, it is a very good book, but it cannot explain these ideas fully, it only gives overtures to the theories surrounding them. It is, after all, fiction.

And as far as the "god" question goes... I have seen no train of logic here that means a god must exist.

If god is simply whatever we don't know, or whatever is outside of our universe, than the term means something totally different from all the uses I've seen. I don't think that Einstein was talking about go when he described alternate universes.

If you have logic towards that end, I'd like to know what it is. This goes for The Anarchist Tension as well. I don't undersand how one gets god from an absence of knowledge.

[pusher robot]

The universe is what is natural, anything else unnatural? To put it more plainly, the universe is real and everything else unreal?

No, "unnatural" means "is not natural." "Supernatural" means "beyond natural." As to what is real - well, not to sound like a character in the Matrix, but what is "real?" How can you categorize the reality of things that are not governed by our rules of space and time?

Let me put it this way: how do you define existence? Ordinarily you would ask whether it is something that we can sense - something that we can hear, touch, or see. Or, we might ask ourselves if it has any conceivable affect on things we can observe, the way a black hole, though invisible, is apparent through its interaction with other existing things. Things outside our universe have none of those properties. They are neither observable nor do they interact with anything observable. (Not even actually but conceivably observable.) Thus, I argue, things outside of our own universe do not in any meaningful way exist. So I suppose you could call them "unreal."


Please tell me where one draws the line at deciding what should be considered real and what is unreal. If you talk of verifiability in the scientific method, I'm afraid we can hardly go out of our own star system, let alone talk of the whole universe.One draws the line at whether a proposition is theoretically testable. Even though we cannot test things thousands of light years away, it is at least theoretically possible to do so. It is not even theoretically possible, however, to test things that do not, according to the universe, exist.

[Publius]

I don't see how this is likely. Wouldn't the finite nature of space at each moment still mean that it's not infinite?

Yes.

Just like when you count up, you always have a finite amount of numbers. But the entire set of numbers themselves is infinite.

So the universe at any time as finite, but is expanding to infinity, like positive integers are finite at any measurable point, but are increasing to infinity.

And when you think about it, it's impossible to measure an infinite quanity anyway.



Assuming what I described could happen, continual expansion, it will still have a finite space at the moment, no?

Yes.

I can't imagine how something finite could turn into something infinite.


I'm also assuming that matter won't increase, btw.

Probably a valid assumption.


Only the idea of it's existance and continual change is infinite. Only by applying time - a concept I think is useful but objectively not material - can infinity appear to exist here.

True in a way. But we have to realize that time is relative, according to Einstein's theory, and that time itself is dependent on the size of the universe and its expansion.

Interesting fact: it's actually possible for the universe to expand faster than the speed of light, because the speed of light only restricts the speed of objects INSIDE of the universe. So this fact alone would throw off our idea of 'time'. How can 'time' something like the expansion of the universe, when the universe has no center, has no edge, and is expanding faster than light?

Tricky problem, to be sure.



Let me repharase the quoted text: time can be infinite, but in a different way than that concept of infinity that seems to imply that somethign may come from nothing, as mentioned above.

But let's hold up a second.

If time can be infinite, and if time and matter together form what is actually space-time, then doesn't it follow that space is then 'infinite' in this sense as well?

I wish Comradred were here to correct my physics.



I understand that this is all very fluid thinking, not fully grounded in concrete logical expression, but I don't think it's wrong or unreasonable. These are the type of discussions where the words meant to express the concepts are not fully actuated in our society, so mysticism - feeling to understand reality - is expressed much more directly. I'd liek to point otu too that all ideas are basically mystic, it's just that not all these ideas can be expressed via scientific and logical expressions. I see now why you spoke the way you did in the other thread; before, I had only seen your socio-economic arguments and I found them cold at the time. But your concept of philosophy and abstract science seems to obsess over grounding them in axiomatic standards that are often not easy to apply. I hope this all makes sense.

It does. It's how I think.

I'm reductionist and rational.



I assume you mean infinity in regards to ideas, which was what I was trying to differentiate between materal infinity. Material infinity implies literally developing material fact from nothingness, as in "first there was nothing; then there was god."

Not necessarily.

As I understand it infinity applied to say, God, means that God has always existed and never not existed.



Infinity rooted specifically in ideas, on the other hand, can explain things but does not, or should not, allow for such material infinity; it should be understood as a different concept of the term, just like applying the term "illogical" to an idea means something different when applied to a material outcome. That is, if I say your idea is illogical, I am sayign that your mental logic has failed you... but if I say that the gras being blue is illogical, I mean that nature itself ahs become unreal. Of course, this means that me - or humans in general dependign on how wide the effect is - have faield somewhere in understandign the nature of color, but in the case of infinity - an idea that cannot e proven or disproven via our scientific methods - the distinction between descriptive uses and physical actuation of infinity has a great gap.

The only analysis I can give to try to bridge this gap is the infinity we apply to the existence of God, or to an eternal universe, or something like that, is akin to the infinity of the whole number line. The infinity we attach to say the universe coming into being at point x and extending forever is akin to the infinity of only the positive or negative half of the number line.



I agree. And numerical infinity can be applied to a concept of space; for instance, you could say that because the universe will always expand - if this is indeed the fact - that infinity exists. But my point was that for spacial infinity to occur as more than just this idea, at any single moment the universe must have an infinite vastness.

Do you ever reach an infinite amount of numbers when you count up? No. But then how do we know it's infinite?

Well, lucky for us I'm reading a book that contains an axiomatic proof of the arithmetic of cardinal numbers, contained here in full:

1. Zero is a number
2. The immediate successor of a number is a number
3. Zero is not the immediate successor of a number
4. No two numbers have the same immediate successor
5. Any property belonging to zero, and also to the immediate successor of every number that has that property, belongs to all numbers

So from this alone we can derive the infinity of cardinal numbers.

If 0 is a number, and 0's immediate successor is a number, and if no two numbers have the same immediate successor (the last one's important too) then it follows that the set of infinite numbers is infinite.

Now, the question becomes can we make a similar stab a proof of the universes' continual growth. And we sort of can.

We can start at the big bang, call it 'zero' in this example, we can state that the immediate successor of the state of matter one instant of the big bang is still the same matter, because it is. Even though the universe changes, it's still the same universe. And so if the universe does in fact grow larger without stopping, as it SEEMS to, then it follows that the universe is infinite, in some meaningful sense.

Let's say the universe grows faster than the speed of light. Well, if travel is restricted to the speed of light, and if information transmission is slower than light (both are somewhat risky statements, but we'll go with them for now), then in what sense ISN'T the universe infinite?

Note: the universe may not grow faster than the speed of light, but it could in theory.



This is expressed as true if we only mean that we cannot fully know all of space, but this is not true - I think - if we mean simply that the universe is at all times without any limit. That doesn't mean the limit cannot be changed via time, just that the limit exists in that moment and so in that moment space continues to be finite.


But we're biased observers. Our sense of time is by no means the real sense of time. Ours is just one based on our size, our speed, or relation to other objects, etc. And if time is just another dimension (and it is, isn't it?) then why is infinity in that dimension not valid? Let's call it the 4th dimension and say the universe is infinite in the 4th dimension. Have we now arrived at a proof of infinity?

It all comes down to exactly what we mean by infinite. Spatially infinite at a specific point, like you say? Then no. Infinite as in how counting up leads to infinity? Maybe.

But that's all speculative to a large degree.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The universe cannot be infinite for at least two reasons.

Firstly, Current observations of the universe indicate otherwise - an expanding universe must have came from a single point, and would have to expand at infinite speed in order to become infinitely large. Is there such a thing as infinite speed? I doubt it very much.

Secondly, an infinite universe would have an infinite amount of matter in it, in the form of stars and galaxies etc, and would therefore have infinite mass. An object of infinite mass would collapse into itself, which the universe clearly hasn't done nor is in the process of doing.


And when you think about it, it's impossible to measure an infinite quanity anyway.

I don't think that's actually true. Aleph numbers mean you can have different sets of infinity (I think), some larger than others, as counter-intuitive as it sounds.

Aleph Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph-null)


Interesting fact: it's actually possible for the universe to expand faster than the speed of light, because the speed of light only restricts the speed of objects INSIDE of the universe. So this fact alone would throw off our idea of 'time'. How can 'time' something like the expansion of the universe, when the universe has no center, has no edge, and is expanding faster than light?

This seems to assume that the universe has an "outside" for which we have no evidence.

[Publius]

The universe cannot be infinite for at least two reasons.

Firstly, Current observations of the universe indicate otherwise - an expanding universe must have came from a single point, and would have to expand at infinite speed in order to become infinitely large. Is there such a thing as infinite speed? I doubt it very much.

If the universe merely expanded faster than the speed of light then it would be impossible to determine its actual size, and so in a very real sense it would be infinite. You could never, ever, ever, ever, reach the end of it, not that it actually has an 'end'.

It's just a difference in terminology.

Say that I tell you that in fact the set of positive integers is NOT 'infinite', but that it merely grows 3 positive integers faster than you can tabulate. So at no point in your counting will you ever reach a limit to the numbers. It will always be out of your reach. Is this set then 'infinite'?



Secondly, an infinite universe would have an infinite amount of matter in it, in the form of stars and galaxies etc, and would therefore have infinite mass. An object of infinite mass would collapse into itself, which the universe clearly hasn't done nor is in the process of doing.

Well, according to the theory of relativity there is no definite time, and all time is relative to the observer. That means that what is 'now' is just as justifiable as the 'now' we share as any single instant in the universe's past, present, or future. If this is the case, if location relative to time is observer dependent, then there really is no past, present, or future, in a sense, that all of time just IS based on your relative perception of it. If this is the case, and if it's the case that the universe expands forever (it may or may not), then the universe would be infinite.

Does this make sense?



This seems to assume that the universe has an "outside" for which we have no evidence.

Not necessarily. The universe actually doesn't have an edge or a center, supposedly, but it can still grow. This is difficult to imagine, but is apparently true. Now there's nothing stopping it from growing at any speed, should the negative gravity and positive gravity line up right.

There doesn't have to be an 'outside' then.

[Janus]

I'm not sure why this is in Religion particularly when the question is mostly scientific in nature though couched in philosophical language. With that said, we had a thread not too long ago which discussed this very topic:
Universe-infinite or finite? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56271&hl=+universe++infinite)


If the universe is finite what then what exists outside that finite space?
Nothing, the universe has no boundary. Expansion in cosmological terms means an increase in the distance between two points. Thus, you can think of the old balloon analogy: Dots represent galaxies so that when the balloon expands, the distance between them expands.


an expanding universe must have came from a single point
Not necessarily. According to general relativity, the universe started from a singularity but not necessarily from one "single point" (though our observable universe did start from a single point). If the universe was infinite then at this point in time, it was just in a more dense state.