|
|
|
|
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 3:43:49 PM | With the Hadron collider set to reveal more of the atom known before, could it be that space is infinite in whatever direction you go in, including the depths of the atom ?
The scientists therefore will increase knowledge, but in the process find more and more unknowns ! | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:10:29 PM | | I don't think an infinite universe is suggestive of a universe where the laws of physics are non-existent. Because a world made from chocolate is preposterous. But who knows, right? Perhaps in an alternate universe one exists. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:18:34 PM | | Infinity does exist, if you manage to get to the very end of the physical universe, you can always travel further away from it, into a void.I think also if you found the smallest sub atomic partical and were able to study it, it would probably be composed of even smaller particles, thus an endless spiral down. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:38:57 PM | The reason its preposterous to us is that we do not live in an infinite universe.
No, it's preposterous because worlds aren't made from chocolate in this universe. Biology and physics doesn't allow it. And it would probably melt right away because the sun is so freaking hot. Does sound delicious though, I'll give you that. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:53:58 PM | Isdime makes a great point.
There are also many types of infinity. We can infinitely approach one but never reach it. The 9s after 0.99... are infinite and approach 1. If the universe is infinite in anyway its probably due to a collection of infinitely approachable limits (such as the speed of light, absolute 0...)
But a completely infinite universe does not logically exist... as far as I know. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:57:14 PM |
Name the physical law that would prevent it from forming
Oprah would eat it. It's a fact that if an entire world was made of chocolate, Oprah would eat it and it would cease to exist. Oprah couldn't eat it if it didn't exist. It can't exist because Oprah would eat it. This really needs it's own thread. I think.
Whether or not this would actually prevent it from forming depends on at what point Oprah finds out about it. I think more testing needs to be done before we can say anything really conclusive about this. | |
|
| |
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 7:03:31 PM | heck they don't even know if the little red atom is a particle or wave yet
and as finite beings, having a beginning and end, how the hell are we able to conceive of anything infinite
=) | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 7:11:56 PM |
and as finite beings, having a beginning and end, how the hell are we able to conceive of anything infinite
I agree (for an actual infinity). And our poor understanding of an actual infinity versus a potential infinity creates horrid misuses in math.
::cough:: Cantor ::cough::
That one really DOES deserve it's own thread. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 7:28:18 PM | infinity may be true, the smallest sub atomic particles must be for sure composed of smaller particles (it makes sense).
everything has a beginning, and that beginning had a beginning as well, so infinity is true in some way.
if i leave an empty beer can upon the table, it means i went to the kitchen, opened the fridge, took the can, returned to the living room, enjoyed the can, and finally left it upon the table. you see a lot of beginnings!
the first beginning of going to the kitchen is not the beginning really, for i had to buy the beer can before, etc it looks endless or infinite in some way. | |
|
| |
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 8:48:50 PM | @lsdime
Here is why infinity, in my mind, is impossible:
I wouldn't be too quick to rule out an infinite universe (multiverse?). While some of the apparent absurdities would inevitably occur in an infinite universe, their apparent absurdity is not really a good argument for a finite universe. Because we all like to think we are unique beings, the idea that there might be an infinite number of each of us seems unthinkable, but it really isn't a logical absurdity to think there could be, it only sounds like one because we don't like it.
The most interesting "absurdity" you brought up was the spontaneously forming "you." It reminded me of an article I read a few years back on "Boltzmann Brains." Quite fascinating actually... here's a link about them.:
http://stephenluttrell.blogspot.com/2007/09/boltzmann-brains.html
I should point out that an infinite universe isn't required, only a "sufficiently large" finite universe.
Do I think the universe is infinite? I keep picturing an infinite bubbling sea of "big bangs" in my mind. Of course I can't prove it, but I suspect it isn't too far from the truth. It doesn't worry me much though. I know my place in the universe, though I admit I sometimes can't find it staggering home from the bar at 2:00am.  | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 9:03:36 PM | I believe an infinite universe would still be bound by the precedences of allowances in probability. Might be more practical to picture such a universe's evolution involving both an expansion of disparate probabilities and a recursion of those probabilities.
One that eventually allows a rather unconventional contiguity to develop.
Now excuse me as I have to go play Super Mario Advance.
I am stuck trying to finish the chocolate world. Arrrrrgh.  | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/18/2009 9:12:53 PM | One might be inclined to argue infinitely small "time."
Attempts have been made to find "quanta" of time to no avail. Scientists have observed events 100 femtoseconds in duration. That amount of time in relation to a second is roughly the equivalent of the relationship of a second to 300 years. An amazingly large spread.
The inability to quantize time leads to some real challenges, especially when it comes to the first few femto (or smaller) second after the initiation of the big bang. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/19/2009 5:20:46 AM |
Here is why infinity, in my mind, is impossible: to say that the universe is infinitely large is also saying that is must be infinitely old. But we can not have an infinite past.
This doesn't necessarily follow--in my mind it's possible for the universe to grow infinitely large in a finite amount of time without violating all the known (and/or valid) laws of physics. Is there definitive proof of your assertion?
The reason is because that in an infinite world, everything that could possibly happen would eventually happen. Absolutely everything.
I disagree--this statement is almost certainly false, in my mind.
A planet made entirely of chocolate would form. A moon with a crater that looks just like jesus would exist. As long as something has a definate CHANCE of happening, no matter how remote the change, it would happen given an infinite time. If it didnt, then the chances of it happening must be less than 1/infinity, which means its not possible.
So, that means, in an infinite universe, at some time in the past a collection of atoms would have come together randomly on the surface of the moon in such a way that it would have formed an exact replica of you. An exact replica with the exact same brain chemistry as you, with all the atoms in the exact same location, thus containing all of your memories. And in turn, the YOU that exists now would also have memories of the person who formed spontaneously. Not just on the moon, but everywhere in the universe. The chances of this happening are not zero. They are so rare that they are close to being 1/infinity, but hey, in an infinite amount of time, it would happen. Do you have any of those memories? Do you remember the time you formed suddenly on the moon? I dont
We live in a finite universe. However, more realistically, the Large hadron Collider may discover extra dimensions.
The entirety of the remainder of this post is merely playing with the semantics of the word "infinity." There are different kinds of infinity, and it isn't necessarily the case that an infinitely large universe has to also encompass all the different kinds of infinity there are.
The possibility of, or the actual existence of, a chocolate planet isn't a necessary condition for the universe to be infinite, in other words. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/19/2009 5:39:51 AM |
With the Hadron collider set to reveal more of the atom known before, could it be that space is infinite in whatever direction you go in, including the depths of the atom ? You are right to say that space is infinite, including depth. That's a conclusion of Cantor's proofs dealing with the Real Number System. However, quantum physics seems to suggest that just like Absolute Zero for temperature, for this universe, there is a minimum size and a minimum distance, and even a minimum length of time.
The scientists therefore will increase knowledge, but in the process find more and more unknowns ! That's also a corollary of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which state that any system that can contain a variant of the statement "This is a lie", result in either a contradiction or something that cannot be proved. It's a fact of life, that "the more you learn, the less you know". | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/19/2009 7:22:43 AM | There is this little fluke of language being used here, that is bugging me. The statement about random atoms coming together on 'the moon' in the exact configuration of a human, in a universe with infinite time, is not talking about an infinite universe. The word 'the' implies identity, which has a definite place, and can have a finite life.
Given that the universe has an infinite age, you can say all kinds of fantastic things, and they will hold true, except when it comes to things that are time and space dependent. 'The Moon' implies that the moon you are talking about, is the same exact moon as the one we see from earth, not one exactly like it, in exact same place, sometime in the past that predates the current one. If you assume that that moon, has a finite age, then the original proposal is not guaranteed to happen. Its still possible, but not definite. When you inter mingle temporal, with non-temporal statements, they do not necessarily hold true given an infinite timeline, without assuming the age of definite age bearing objects is infinite... which is not a valid assumption.
I also could not say, for instance, that 'In a universe with infinite time, a koala bear could be shot out of a cannon in my backyard five minutes ago'. Because, I am no longer talking about an infinite universe, I am talking about a finite period of time, in a definite place. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 10:24:11 AM | I also could not say, for instance, that 'In a universe with infinite time, a koala bear could be shot out of a cannon in my backyard five minutes ago'. Because, I am no longer talking about an infinite universe, I am talking about a finite period of time, in a definite place.
Semantics. The point of the argument is understood by most here. Fine, change the sentence to the random collection of atoms forming on "a moon"....the point of the argument doesnt change.
I disagree--this statement is almost certainly false, in my mind.
okay, and your reasoning? I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, but certainly not by authoritative statements. You need to use reasoning for what you say.
| |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:05:14 AM |
Semantics. The point of the argument is understood by most here
Any good argument starts with semantics... especially on such an abstract topic.
Yeah, it was a nitpick, but it changes a little bit. It makes a whole lot of things in an infinite universe, not possible. A whole lot of those being things that you might consider ridiculous and paradoxical. Not that something seeming ridiculous has anything to do with its actual validity.
I would go a little further with this... but all of your prior posts disappeared. I have no nits left to pick. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:08:00 AM |
okay, and your reasoning? I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, but certainly not by authoritative statements. You need to use reasoning for what you say.
I don't think there is anything to debate.
The whole sentence (the universe is infinite) is very misleading. If the universe is infinite, then why does finiteness exist? Furthermore, as certain posters have pointed out, this universe seems to be rich in limits. Consider the speed of light. Theoretically its impossible for us to reach it but we can infinitely try. It begs the question, in what way does infinity affect our known universe?
As Isdime pointed out, as we perceive it, the universe can't be completely infinite. Instead the universe is a system. It is a collection of limits, constants, and infinities that seem t operate under certain mathematical laws. These laws may be related to certain infinities. But the sentence "The universe is infinite" is misleading.
In the literal sense for the universe to be infinite all constants must be infinite. There would be not speed of light. There would be no absolute 0, Planck's length or otherwise. You could then argue that time is infinite, but this claim is not tenable as we are not completely sure about the nature of time and decay.
To further elaborate, consider 0-1 on the real number line. A is a point at 0 and B is a point at 1. How many points are there between A and B?
Is not the answer infinitely many? Yet A and B create a finite line. The line itself is not infinite as there is just one line and two points that define the line. Where infinity exists is within the boundaries of the two points that create the line. If the line was truly infinite then it would extend beyond points A and B indefinitely.
If the universe was truly infinite then all possibilities would exists. There would be no causalities or big bang. We would exists everywhere at once and be doing, have done, and will do everything at once. This is somewhat true for a complete quantum state, but our localized universe says this isn't completely true. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:12:41 AM |
I wouldn't be too quick to rule out an infinite universe (multiverse?). While some of the apparent absurdities would inevitably occur in an infinite universe, their apparent absurdity is not really a good argument for a finite universe.
I forgot about that one . So then the universe would be a finite point in the ocean called the multiverse... kinda scary to think about. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:14:28 AM | | You assume that there is some form of 'complete' infinity. There is no such thing. Infinity is a dimensional concept. The universe can be infinite in some ways, and finite in others. For instance... Maybe the universe has a finite past, and an infinite future. The whole of time is still infinite, but it is a much smaller infinity (about half), than a timeline that goes on forever in both directions. This is an algebraic concept, it was taught in highschool. Natural numbers versus integers. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:28:53 AM | | after reading the last half of that post exogenist, I realize you sorta covered that base. But I still do not think the concept of absolute infinity is sound, so yeah... it really isn't an argument against that. If there is no absolute infinity, i would definitely have to say that the universe isnt absolutely infinite. | |
|
| Infinity, does it extent both inwards and outwards ?
Posted: 10/20/2009 1:47:28 PM | RE Msg: 31 by exogenist:
I don't think there is anything to debate.
The whole sentence (the universe is infinite) is very misleading. If the universe is infinite, then why does finiteness exist? Furthermore, as certain posters have pointed out, this universe seems to be rich in limits. Consider the speed of light. Theoretically its impossible for us to reach it but we can infinitely try. It begs the question, in what way does infinity affect our known universe? That's a very deep question. Take Xeno's paradox. It's still a big problem in philosophy, and yet it deals with infinite measure.
In the literal sense for the universe to be infinite all constants must be infinite. There would be not speed of light. There would be no absolute 0, Planck's length or otherwise. You could then argue that time is infinite, but this claim is not tenable as we are not completely sure about the nature of time and decay. There are plenty of models in mathematics that require an infinite universe, but with lots of fixed constants. Why, if an infinite universe required infinite constants, there would be no models in maths. Going further, the real number line is an infinite space. If there was no 0 in an infinite space, then arithmetic as we know it would be quite impossible.
To further elaborate, consider 0-1 on the real number line. A is a point at 0 and B is a point at 1. How many points are there between A and B?
Is not the answer infinitely many? Yet A and B create a finite line. The line itself is not infinite as there is just one line and two points that define the line. Where infinity exists is within the boundaries of the two points that create the line. If the line was truly infinite then it would extend beyond points A and B indefinitely. That's again not properly true. The distance between 0 and 1 on the real number line is treated as 1. However, the number of points between them is infinite. When measuring anything, it must always be measured against something else, distance against distance, or distance against points. It's the context of the type of measurement that translates your measurement to a number. So the answer is yes, there are infinitely many points. All this is covered in 1st year university Calculus.
If the universe was truly infinite then all possibilities would exists. There would be no causalities or big bang. We would exists everywhere at once and be doing, have done, and will do everything at once. This is somewhat true for a complete quantum state, but our localized universe says this isn't completely true. Again, this is due to a complete misunderstanding of mathematics. Each probability covers a range of conditions, not a unique one. Take throwing a coin that can be heads of tails. Each probability is truly only due to a single instance of heads of tails. When we refer to any generalised probability of any general throw, the probability of heads is the total of all generalised throws against the total of all generalised probabilities of heads, which in total works out to be 1/2.
I realise this is all above you. But really, it's all covered in the 1st year of a Maths degree.
Even then, we might want to say that the world isn't mathematical. But this is all Physics, and the whole of Physics is built entirely on mathematics, and in particular on these areas of mathematics. If they aren't applicable, pretty much all of Physics falls apart. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
