wordsmyth

There are no absolutes.

Is that statement absolutely true, however?

markfiend

I think the problem here is that although Newton's laws (modified by Einstein's relativity, and by quantum theory), which require "infinity" in the mathematics, provide a good description of the observable universe, Newton's laws (again, modified) are not themselves the universe. "The map is not the territory."

Also, IIRC quantum theory requires complex numbers (involving the square roots of negative numbers for the non-mathematically minded) for its predictions, yet there is no way that the square root of -1 can have anything other than an abstract meaning.

While the laws and theories may require these abstract concepts to provide an adequate mathematical description of the universe, I would argue that the universe itself does not rely on the objective reality of such concepts for its existence.

BioBeing

To me (as a materialist atheist) , the bone of contention in the OP is the phrase "how do *you* explain the seemingly unbreakable linkage between the finite and concrete, and the infinite and abstract?".

I agree with markfiend that the Newtons Laws, for example, are a humans attempt to explain the universe, but they do not form the universe. Thus, uses of such concepts as infinity allow us to make approximations about the universe. When I hear "infinity" I interject the words "tends toward". Thus - the phrase "there are an infinite number of stars in the universe" becomes more like "the number of stars in the universe is so great that it tends towards infinity".

For mathematical purposes (although I am no mathematician or physicist) I'm sure that replacing "infinity" in most equations with a number so mind-bogglingly large that it might as well be infinity would change the outcome almost imperceptibly. Thus the word infinity is merely a human concept that allows us to function in everyday life without having to count every single star. [Brings to mind the movie "pi"]

Thus, there is no unbreakable linkage. The infinite is an abstract concept that allows us to approximate the finite and the concrete. There are no absolutes.

Of course, I am assuming that the universe is bounded in some way, and thus not truly infinite. This of course brings up the question then of what is outside the universe - to which I must answer I do not know.

Normal

I guess there has to be at least one

ElectEngr

The absolute value of the integer "1" plus the absolute value of the integer "1" equals the absolute value of the integer "2"

Later,
ElectEngr

Eric H

Hello Jobar

Quote Jobar
a God which is truly infinite has no 'outside' in which to create something outside of Himself.
------------------------


Trying to fathom out in my mind if there are any boundaries to space and time is certainly a topic that has given me many sleepless nights.

If a God created the universe then he would probably be able to measure everything that he created, and if some one can measure the universe it is not infinite.

My thoughts go along the lines that just because we cannot measure the boundaries of space at present, we probably will be able to in the future.

The concept of infinite time is more troubling, supposing the only thing that existed in the universe was one single rock; and this rock never varied in shape size or weight or location, then time would have no meaning.

You could measure a minute or a million years, and this would have no meaning because there is no change at all. But how do you measure time if this rock had no beginning, and nothing made it.

Possibly the only need to measure time is when you need to measure it against a changing environment.


Peace

Eric

Normal

You presuppose the law of non-contradiction is true when you do that.

Jobar

Wordsmyth, your paradox is one of the *philosophical* examples I might use to illustrate my point. To even deny the concept of absolutes requires an absolute!

markfiend & Biobeing- I'm not trying to make like an authority here, but I do have a BS in physics, 1977, from Ga. Tech. When I took calculus I asked questions about infinity; I was told then that we could replace 'approaches infinity' with 'becomes arbitrarily large'. I thought that was just a dodge then, and still do- 'arbitrary' is also one of the never-ending concepts.

Another example- absolute zero temperature. Now, I am well aware that we cannot chill a volume to 0 K, and even if we could we could not measure it- it would be impossible for information to flow out of such a volume. Still, look at the state of the art- Bose condensates are getting bigger and bigger, and we are down to less than a billionth of a degree K (IIRC). Even though we cannot reach it, it seems not just counter-intuitive but nonsensical to say that there is no absolute zero! This is a man-made measurement, yes- but isn't it also a physical reality?

BioBeing, I stated in the OP that I am not aware of any definite, concrete absolute- but I think that denying the reality of abstract absolutes will get you in a world of trouble with mathematicians! (You may think it safe to ignore the philosophers and theologians... and hey, I admit you could be right there.)

markfiend, I myself have quoted "the map is not the territory" in many different contexts. But doesn't it seem very strange that in this case we seem to have infinite maps describing finite territories??

Let's play with some big numbers. The observable universe is, by our best estimates, 14 billion (1.4 X 10^10) years old. Its diameter- the farthest distance any light ray could travel- is 42 billion (4.2 X 10^10) light years- this is more than the 28 billion that simple addition gives because of space-time dilation, one of the weirdnesses of Einstein's theory.)

Now, this is as far as we can possibly see- but the latest results from cosmological investigations indicate that the universe doesn't end there. Yes, there are various theories which limit the volume and radius of the universe, but right now *infinite* models better fit the data, and there are strong constraints on finite alternatives. (See "Is Space Finite?" Scientific American, April 1999, and "Parallel Universes", SA May 2003.)

In other words- even though we can't see it, the universe appears infinite to our best theories! So denying absolutes appears to me to be not only bad philosophy, but bad science.

EricH, I suggest you hang on to your hat; my next post, I plan to talk about the multiverse, wherein there are possibly an infinite number of universes.

markfiend

Yes it does. I shall have to retreat to my "Basic Beliefs" and say ...

I Don't Know

Jobar

Completely fair and honest, markfiend. Hey, I don't either- but I do think about it a lot. The philosophical implications I think can be drawn from all this shows me where the theists are (or at least ought to be) coming from. If our finite reality truly springs from some infinite meta-reality, or is in some most mysterious way identical to it, then maybe there is some way we could profit from thinking of that meta-reality as "God".

(Ah, at this time I had better put in my standard disclaimer- I am quite certain that this "God" wears no human face or form, save for perhaps the faces and forms of everyone. Jehovah does not exist- I am truly an atheist and truly a pantheist, simultaneously.)