Jonesy

Let's have some good philosophical battle on whether "the universe is infinite or finite" (i.e. made at some point or "always there").

the arguments below are easy to follow and very difficult to argue against.

Have you seen anything in nature that's "infinite"?? Please give me ONE example. has anything been measured as being infinite? Please give ANY example.

Saying that "something" has infinite properties (such as the length of its existence) does not make any sense - because the actual concept of "length" is finite. "A piece of string is 5 metres long" or perhaps the "the length that the solar system passes while circling the center of the galaxy is..." etc.

The word "length" was invented to signify exactly what it means: a "length" between two points or moments in "passing" or "time".

From an online dictionary:

" Length: "distance or extent in space b : the length of something taken as a unit of measure, eg. <his horse led by a length> " "

The only reason the word "infinity" exists is because of WRONG laws of mathematics as currently exist on Earth. Any correct law of mathematics will never lead to an infinity in any calculation. Laws of reality that lead to infinities in calculations while these infinities themselves cannot be observed in that reality - are easily incorrect laws - how can you have a "law of reality" that predicts something not part of that reality???

Saying that infinities exist in nature is like saying that atoms have always existed. However, this does not make sense since an "atom" is a "physical" thing, much like my calculator (many atoms at once) and your computer screen (also many atoms at once).

If atoms always existed (such as would be the case in an "infinite" universe), then it should actually be impossible to "split" the atom - by doing so, we would infact be breaking the "infinitiveness" of the existence of an atom - and this would immediately mean that atoms were not always as they appear - hence not infinite. Since the universe is made of atoms and similar particles - it logically follows that it too is not infinite.

Finally, if the Universe was "always there", then it would not be expanding (as it is observed). Indeed, this expansion is the best proof of a finite universe:

Simple logical statement: " something that "expands" must have "started expanding" ".
And the fact that its "expanding" gives us a definite proof of the fact that it had "an initial state" and "initial boundary conditions" - just like a dynamic excitation of an aircraft wing.

Without an initial state - no expansion is possible. Hence, since the Universe is expanding, it therefore had an initial state. So very simple, it's not really extraordinary, when you think about it. The extraordinary part comes when you accept these facts and focus on the next questions AFTER these facts: "who" or "what" gave the universe its initial conditions, so that it started expanding from some intial positions? AND WHY?

One last thing: ANything that expands from an initial state has a REASON to expand: this REASON is encompassed by the initial conditions that propel this expansion. The initial conditions are the reasons for expansion.

But what are the reasons for the initial conditions? Intriguing question, isn't it?

phlebas

Actually, there's no reason it can't be an endlessly oscillating universe. If there's enough matter, it'll fall back on itself. What if, 20 billion years from now, astronomers on some other planet notice the universe is shrinking? What will that indicate? The universe had no beginning but definitely has an end?

The concept of eternity really plays hell with mortal perceptions. For example, how could someone truthfully say "I am never returning to the Secular Web" more than once?

Interesting stuff to ponder. We should all sit around in our new colorful test-pattern t-shirts and cogitate

Baloo

Thia,

I'm having some difficulty with this statement of yours. It seems like you are claiming a word was invented to signify what it means... can you give me examples of words which were invented to signify something other than what they mean?

Also, you say that the word "length" was invented to signify a "length" between two points or moments in time. How is this more informative than if I said: "the word 'elephant' was invented to signify an 'elephant'."?

What grade are you in?

YHWH666

Measurements of the amount of matter and dark matter in the universe have shown that there is not enough mass in the universe to cause big crunch- even when we are generous with our estimations. So it is unlikely that oscillating universe theory is true.

In all probability the universe started out as total oblivion. a kind of state of total formlessness. This state is incomprehensible in that to comprehend you must apply qualities to it, and if you apply qualities to it no longer represents the formless universe. The universe existed in this state without extent or duration. No space, no time, nothing whatsoever.

Then big bang occurs and the universe expands outward forever. Meaning that time (the fourth dimension that the universe is expanding into) is infinite.

As for “who” or what caused the big bang the infidels.org library has some intresting articles.

Particularly<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html" target="_blank">this one.</a>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I believe that there is a difference between the concepts 'infinite' and 'eternal'.

Time exists as a concept representing differing rates of change. While the forms of matter and energy change, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I believe that they are thus, eternal--but not infinite. They exist in finite quantity, with specific properties, etc.

Thus, I believe that all things are finite, but the stuff of which 'things' are made, is eternal.

Keith.

phlebas

Oh, I know. I was just tossing off another explanation in light of his "best evidence."

Shame, though. I always thought the endless oscillations idea had a certain elegance that the others (including the goddidit one) lacked.

YHWH666

Actually time exists as the fourth dimension of the physical universe. It is the dimension that keeps three-dimensional events occurring in the same place from interfering with each other. “Time is what keeps everything from happening at once”—Einstein

As we know matter cannot occupy the same space as other matter. So if you walk into a telephone pole it’s going to hurt. But, for instance lets say we look at a telephone pole from a two dimensional perspective. If some one where to hide behind the telephone pole like they do in the Looney toons it would appear that they where occupying the same space as the telephone pole, matter occupying the same space as other matter. From our two dimensional perspective this is what it looks like but in reality there is three dimensional space between the person and the telephone pole that we can’t see because of our angle. Similarly two three dimensional events can occur in the same space so long as they are separated by the fourth dimension, so someone standing in a line can move into a place someone else was standing in, provided they are no longer standing in that place.

For example if two people want to meet in a city each of them have to know when and where. Since city streets work kinda like a grid they just need grid coordinates. They’ll have to have an address, such as 4th and Main (the first two dimensions, horizontal and vertical). They’ll have two know which floor of the building, such as 6th floor (third dimension). And they need to know when to meet, such as 2:30 (time, the 4th dimension).

So if eternity exists (as the evidence seems to point to) then the fourth dimension has infinite length. If time is infinite then the universe is infinite as time is part of the universe.

gay,faggot,Dick

I always liked that one, it’s a very beautiful concept. and if we ever manage to create an artificial singularity we might actually be able to cause it to happen. It would certainly be preferable to all the stars eventually burning out and life being an impossibility because of entropy.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>

Bill

The above statement is true only in the case of classical relativity. In the more recent conception that takes at least an approximation of quantum gravity into account, it appears that the universe expands and contracts naturally, of its own accord.

Perhaps another way to look at it would be that the universe expands so long as there is any matter within the universe to push the universe to a larger size. Eventually, when the universe reaches a "heat death" state, all of the matter will have been converted back to energy and the energy will all have dissipated to an even level throughout the universe. When that state is reached, there will no longer be anything pressing the universe to get bigger (or even, to stay the same) and, at that point, the universe will just collapse again down to zero, gathering together all of the bits and specks of energy remaining in the universe and compressing them into a small ball that will, yet again, explode into another "Big Bang."

Yes, the concept of an actual infinity of time is mind boggling. But just because its mind boggling does not mean that it isn't true. (God would be even more mind boggling, for what its worth.)

Anyway, the modern bets are on some sort of oscillating universe. The sole argument is over the course of the universe to its maximum point of expansion. As things sit, it would appear that there isn't enough matter in the universe to cause an early collapse, so we will need to wait (on the order of 10 to the 100 power years) for the "heat death" to occur and the universe to collapse and begin all over again.

== Bill

Jonesy

What it simply means, is that the very existence of the word length rules out there being an "infinite" length. There cannot be an "infinite" length, because you would not have a "length" anymore: since "length" is a finite concept.

eh

Bill,

Are you sure the scenario you've described is possible with recent discoveries about the accelerating universe? In the heat death scenario, all matter will eventually decay. But, this matter will decay into primal particles which will remain. As the universe continues to expand, the space between these bare particles will be massive. But this empty space actually contains some dark energy, which is believed to be the cause of the accelerating expansion. As the empty space increases, so does the amount of vacuum energy. If this is the case, then the universe will expand faster and faster and cannot ever reverse.

But an open universe may turn out to be cyclic after all. With an infinite amount of time, quantum mechanics allows anything possible to happen. So if it's possible for a vacuum fluctuation to inflate to the size of a massive expanding fireball (like in some inflation models) it will eventually happen. The question then, what actually is possible in such a dead universe?