Thread: Does the existence of Earth disprove infinity?

A question about the theory of 'infinite' space, dimensions or parallel universes please?In such an infinite scenario there are infinite variables creating, it is said, infinite outcomes. If this is the case then in one such 'infinite' there would be something that would destroy everything else (in every place it was, across infinite lanes)Yet we exist. Does this prove that everything must be finite? Or are we simply working our way through infinite variations before we all go *poof*?

Originally Posted by Citadel

If this is the case then in one such 'infinite' there would be something that would destroy everything else...

Infinite space-time does not imply unlimited capabilities.
There is no reason to think that there must be "something that would destroy everything else".

Originally Posted by Citadel

A question about the theory of 'infinite' space, dimensions or parallel universes please?In such an infinite scenario there are infinite variables creating, it is said, infinite outcomes. If this is the case then in one such 'infinite' there would be something that would destroy everything else (in every place it was, across infinite lanes)Yet we exist. Does this prove that everything must be finite? Or are we simply working our way through infinite variations before we all go *poof*?

That's An interesting thought. It's one of the questions posed by Multiverse theory. The Universe could go 'poof' but if it is infinite then why doesn't it go poof at once since there is an infinite variation to act upon it. There is no need to 'wait' for the scenario because in an infinite Universe all scenarios exist at once.

An aside. The word 'destroy' is loaded. Energy and matter change. When a human dies, nothing has been destroyed except at the level of human perception. The properties of physics are independent of any label we put in macro objects, life, etc.

Originally Posted by Citadel

A question about the theory of 'infinite' space, dimensions or parallel universes please?In such an infinite scenario there are infinite variables creating, it is said, infinite outcomes. If this is the case then in one such 'infinite' there would be something that would destroy everything else (in every place it was, across infinite lanes)Yet we exist. Does this prove that everything must be finite? Or are we simply working our way through infinite variations before we all go *poof*?

An infinite number of possibilities does not have to include all possibilities. For example, there are an infinite number of possible prime numbers, but the set of prime numbers, though infinite in size, does not include all possible numbers.

Janus that is the case for mathematics. Mathematics is a description or language and not a physical reality. Infinity in mathematics is a conceptIn Quantum theory leading to Multiverse theory, infinity is 'reality'. It is independent of human perception. It is not measurable except at a macro level at the potentialy observable universe ( Big Bang and results of it).Quantum theory is nuts. It is tested by experiment but our brains can't get around it.Anyways, there are some well done presentations, lectures, etc. on .multiverse theory on YouTube...stay away from the fruitcakes and hone in on physicists like that presented on NOVA.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGUD-HA9jaE
Also, presentations by Michael Greene, Lawrence Krauss, etc.

Fossilborealis, what Janus says can be translated to the physical. In an infinite universe there must be an infinite number of planets. if this is so then where do all the stars fit in? you can have different sets of infinities.

but my knowledge of infinities is finite so i'll leave it there.

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

Fossilborealis, what Janus says can be translated to the physical. In an infinite universe there must be an infinite number of planets. if this is so then where do all the stars fit in? you can have different sets of infinities. but my knowledge of infinities is finite so i'll leave it there.

You are assuming that the the physical properties of one universe are the same as the next. There is no need for planets, stars, etc. in any other universe or 'bubble'. Quantum theory allows for offset realities of their own. The properties of our visible universe emerged out of whatever the 'Big Bang ' was. String theory confirms this although in a questionable convoluted way. Quantum particles, the cosmological constant, gravity (whatever it is) are not restricted by Newtonian physics.

Anyways, Multiverse theory, once the weird theory over in the corner, is now becoming the mainstream among theoretical physicists. As Greene, Krauss, etc. state, it 'has to be' unless there is something wrong with what particle experiments are showing us.

Originally Posted by Fossilborealis

You are assuming that the the physical properties of one universe are the same as the next.

And you are assuming that they aren't.

If this is the case then in one such 'infinite' there would be something that would destroy everything else (in every place it was, across infinite lanes)Yet we exist.

Using your logic, there would have to be something that survives this. Also, light only travels at a finite speed, and it would take an infinite time to get across an infinite universe, so information cannot travel infinitely far, therefore, there cannot exist such a thing.
Also, there could be something in the universe that stops this thing from destroying everything.

You are assuming that the the physical properties of one universe are the same as the next.

i was merely talking about this universe. and, if it is infinite, then you can have more than one set of infinities. i wont confuse the issue with multiverses, one unknown at a time is enough.

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

Also, light only travels at a finite speed, and it would take an infinite time to get across an infinite universe, so information cannot travel infinitely far, therefore, there cannot exist such a thing.

The same would presumably be true for whatever it is that causes the destruction of the universe.

So if the multi-verse theory is correct then it can only be correct if some unknown force prevents *poof*?

Originally Posted by Citadel

So if the multi-verse theory is correct then it can only be correct if some unknown force prevents *poof*?

What makes you think that there is a force that can make the universe go *poof*?

But earth is where infinity automobiles are produced.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Citadel

So if the multi-verse theory is correct then it can only be correct if some unknown force prevents *poof*?

What makes you think that there is a force that can make the universe go *poof*?

I hope there is not lol. It's just that if infinite universes have infinite possibilities then one must exist that eliminates them all. So, as we are still here, the question is if that fact disproves infinity?

Originally Posted by Citadel

It's just that if infinite universes have infinite possibilities then one must exist that eliminates them all.

I refer you back to Post #2 and Post #4.

Citadel I have been where you are now, I've asked the very same questions, got stuck by the very same way of thinking. If you were to ask me now if I'm any further ahead I can honestly say I do not know. The whole concept of infinity is a very strange beast, and just for the fun of it to complicate the issue even further there are differing types of infinities that allow people to examine the concept in different ways. What I came to the conclusion was that every fibre of logic and reason were telling me that infinity shouldn't exist, everything had to be finite. This was because all the things we encounter have limits of some kind or another, I just couldn't wrap my brain around the idea that anything could exist without these limits.

However the picture is now somewhat much more complicated when instead of looking at the everyday things with properties that we are familiar with and understand so well we take a step back and questions such as ok we can have a planet that is such and such size, but where are the true limits for accuracy of measurement just how far down into the world of the small can we even conceive, the point being once you get down to the very mathmatics of it you can keep going smaller and smaller ad infinitum. Instead of asking what is beyond the universe what if we ask when we go from our macroscopic world to the microscopic then smaller still on to the subatomic and quantum scale each time asking what is smaller than this. Think of a 1/2 * 1/2 and carry on, theoretically there is no limit to just how long this can go on. So at least whilst it may seem to be much harder to grasp the concept of an infinity on a larger scale, it is at least possible to understand how it may appear to exist at a smaller decreasing scale. Now that is my way of looking at it, I'm not saying it's right, it's just one way in which I've tried to rationalise a way of inifinity actually existing.

Also there is the notion of everything just popping into existence, that everything had a start point, I'm finding this much harder to rationalise and the only real alternative to this is that everything is infinite and must have always existed, no beginning and no end.

But as I started off by saying infinity seems very hard to pin down, it feels like one step forwards two steps backwoods because everytime you think you're starting to make headway something else seems to pop up that seems contradictory to the to the progress being made to get close to answer the question as whether infinity can indeed actually exist.

Confused? Well I still am!

I would like to pose a mathematical problem that is broadly related to the topic of this thread. It is related to the Burnside problem, an unsolved problem in mathematics:

Suppose one has a string of 0s and 1s such that no substring of any length repeats more than four times in a row. Is the string necessarily finite?

the second that just passed went *poof*. We are safe until the second ahead goes *poof*.