Thread: Universe: Finite or Infinite?

Hi guys, this question has been bugging my mind for years whether universe is infinite or finite?

It can be easily proven that it is infinite! But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

My view
---------
Base:
If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?
But when there is some boundary, there is something outside that boundary (guess law of universe only).
then if universe has boundary and there is something outside of universe, then isn't that also a universe!
so this proves universe is infinite!

Contradiction:
Now universe is infinite, but our universe doesn't allow any thing to be infinite inside it (guess another law of universe).
So if our universe is made of finite things or whatever, than how can it itself be infinite? anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

This is the only reason I am not a complete atheist!

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

Hi guys, this question has been bugging my mind for years whether universe is infinite or finite?

No one knows.

It can be easily proven that it is infinite!

No.

But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

No.

If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?

Wrong. Consider the surface of a sphere: it is finite but has no boundary.

anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

The set of all integers is made of finite things (integers) but is infinite.

This is the only reason I am not a complete atheist!

Because your logic is totally flawed?

But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

No.

^ Any example of infinity in real(physical) world?

If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?

Wrong. Consider the surface of a sphere: it is finite but has no boundary.

^ I'm no mathematical geek so assume my definition of boundary to be "can be encapsulated"

anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

The set of all integers is made of finite things (integers) but is infinite.

^ another theoretical example

In real, physical world there is a factor that prevents occurrence of infinity i.e. Energy. You might define infinity using sets theoretically, but in real world its nothing more than a mere concept! The only thing that gives a hope of occurrence of infinity is expansion of universe.

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

In real, physical world there is a factor that prevents occurrence of infinity i.e. Energy.

I don't see why.

You might define infinity using sets theoretically, but in real world its nothing more than a mere concept!

This is an example of the fallacy of "begging the question". You say there is nothing infinite and therefore that proves there is nothing infinite. But, of course, if the universe is infinite then there is at least one example of an infinite thing.

The only thing that gives a hope of occurrence of infinity is expansion of universe.

Expansion is irrelevant.

If the universe is finite, then it will always be finite no matter how much it expands.

If the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite (and always will be).

The way most of us interpret infinity as a number would make your question unanswerable.
Fortunately there is another way of viewing it.
There is the problem that you can't tell if anything is actually infinite until you get to the end of it all.
And yes that is a contradiction in terms, that is the point. If you can't get to the end of the universe or a line you can't be sure what it is.
You are left with it unfinished.

That is why the word "infinite" in Latin means unfinished instead of unending, perpetual, or eternal like most of us think.
(from Latin infinitus, from in- ‘not’ + finitus ‘finished)
If you can get to the finish then it is finite.
So when you ask if the universe is infinite you are asking if it is finished or not.
My answer is that the universe is obviously unfinished because we have not been to the edge to see if it is or not.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

There is the problem that you can't tell if anything is actually infinite until you get to the end of it all.

That isn't true. We know the set of all integers is infinite without having to try and count them all. Whether we will ever be able to do the same with the universe is moot.

That is why the word "infinite" in Latin means unfinished instead of unending, perpetual, or eternal like most of us think.

It doesn't matter what it might or might not have meant in Latin. We are speaking English here. That is the etymological fallacy.

My answer is that the universe is obviously unfinished because we have not been to the edge to see if it is or not.

Which says nothing about whether it is infinite or not.

So you are a Platonist?

Originally Posted by dan hunter

So you are a Platonist?

Who? (And what is a Platonist?)

Platonists believe the things they imagine in their heads are more real than the things that exist in the world.
It is from Plato and his doctrine of ideals.

It is not an insult, most mathematicians are Platonist.


Platonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern Platonism[edit]

Apart from historical Platonism originating from thinkers such as Plato himself, Numenius, Plotinus, Augustine and Proclus, we may wish to consider the theory of abstract objects in the modern sense.

Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental. Platonism in this sense is a contemporary view.^[11]

This modern Platonism (sometimes rendered "platonism," with a lower-case p, to distinguish it from the ancient schools) has been endorsed in one way or another at one time or another by numerous philosophers (most of whom taking a particular interest in the philosophy and foundations of logic and mathematics), including Bernard Bolzano, Gottlob Frege,Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, W.V. Quine, Hilary Putnam, George Bealer and Edward Zalta. Modern Platonism recognizes a range of objects, including numbers, sets, truth values, properties, types, propositions and meanings.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Platonists believe the things they imagine in their heads are more real than the things that exist in the world.

Sounds like a form of insanity to me!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Platonists believe the things they imagine in their heads are more real than the things that exist in the world.

Sounds like a form of insanity to me!

Hmmm, yeah I guess it does, but that was not quite what I meant by it.
I try to stick to reality and I take a pretty empiricist view of it.

Anyhow, would you like to continue with your comments on my answer to the OP?
Yes? No?
If yes has the OP been answered so we can continue here or would you like a new thread?

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Anyhow, would you like to continue with your comments on my answer to the OP?

Not really. It could be finite or infinite. We don't know. Arguably, we may never be able to know.

I don't know what else there is to say. Discussions of this seem to based entirely on pseudo-philosophical rambling and bogus logic to support some personal preference (see this and almost every other thread on the subject on this and other forums).

I am willing to leave it at that too.
My view of infinity is different from yours.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

The way most of us interpret infinity as a number would make your question unanswerable.
Fortunately there is another way of viewing it.
There is the problem that you can't tell if anything is actually infinite until you get to the end of it all.
And yes that is a contradiction in terms, that is the point. If you can't get to the end of the universe or a line you can't be sure what it is.
You are left with it unfinished.

That is why the word "infinite" in Latin means unfinished instead of unending, perpetual, or eternal like most of us think.
(from Latin infinitus, from in- ‘not’ + finitus ‘finished)
If you can get to the finish then it is finite.
So when you ask if the universe is infinite you are asking if it is finished or not.
My answer is that the universe is obviously unfinished because we have not been to the edge to see if it is or not.

Alright so the laws I've stated are more of my assumptions that I've seen in and around me! And I agree to Strange for some extent about my logics being faulty.

But you my friend share the same understanding of infinity as I do!
I mean how can you say something is infinite when you cant prove it! Theoretically sets but practically in real world we haven't experienced anything that is infinite.
And to prove infinity we have to reach its end, which contradicts it by saying "Hey! we have reached your end, so you are finite"/

And with no offense, I feel mathematics is like our imagination as it brought infinity into existence. Although we can prove a lot of real world using mathematics.

P.S. Researched and found out expansion has nothing to do with infiniteness or finiteness of universe! Thanks Strange!

Yeah, however infinity, in the sense Strange has of it, is a tool in modern maths which dates back to Cantor's set theory.
At least be familiar with how infinity is used in calculus, set theory and statistics because it is useful.
You can't really talk about physics much without it, which is likely why Strange felt like correcting my post.

Thanks mate! So I think the debate on Universe being infinite or finite is pointless, at least for now with our current understanding of universe.

A personal view that The Universe is finite but unbound to infinity. Knowing or accepting as the most probable of theories put forward. That all of the Universe may have been of a single event and thus at the moment of the 'Big Bang' a finite object. Yet expanding at a ever increasing rate for eternity. If this view is found as wrong please bring forward such proofs as yet not found. A probability of multi verse aside as probable yet unknown. These are questions we may never be able to answer. I can live with that.

Fun to try probing this (finite vs. infinite) while dodging assumptions. Thinking of an infinite universe not so much as unfinished but as unbounded, I found myself assuming "unbounded in space". Which got me wondering about how infinite relates to eternal, the idea of "not involving time-like sequence", or "unbounded by time". Then again, if we adjust our metric for estimating either space or time, or move at unit velocity [c], rotating space-like into time-like... the plot, she thickens

I wasn't gouing to say any more but ...

Originally Posted by nnunn

Thinking of an infinite universe not so much as unfinished but as unbounded,

Worth noting that infinite and unbounded are not necessarily related. According to relativity, the universe is unbounded. But it could still be finite or infinite.

Which got me wondering about how infinite relates to eternal

I don't think these have to be related. The universe could be spatially finite or infinite. Independently, it could be eternal or of finite lifetime. Eternal, can then be subdivided: it could be eternal with a beginning, or eternal with no beginning or end.

And, of course, the answer to all the above is ... we don't know.

Originally Posted by Strange

I wasn't gouing to say any more but ... .......


....... And, of course, the answer to all the above is ... we don't know.

Which, of course, makes it all the more interesting.
(I just wanted to see what you posted.)

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Which, of course, makes it all the more interesting.

Hmmm... I'm more interested in what we do, or can, know.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Which, of course, makes it all the more interesting.

Hmmm... I'm more interested in what we do, or can, know.

New ideas have to come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

In real, physical world there is a factor that prevents occurrence of infinity i.e. Energy.

I don't see why.

You might define infinity using sets theoretically, but in real world its nothing more than a mere concept!

This is an example of the fallacy of "begging the question". You say there is nothing infinite and therefore that proves there is nothing infinite. But, of course, if the universe is infinite then there is at least one example of an infinite thing.

The only thing that gives a hope of occurrence of infinity is expansion of universe.

Expansion is irrelevant.

If the universe is finite, then it will always be finite no matter how much it expands.

If the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite (and always will be).

Can an infinite state have finite fluctuations?

consider the universe like a balloon, it is finite but has no real boundry. if you circle it you will come back to your starting point.

I think the universe like this, finite but a loop. there is no edge, you just slowly curve back around to the state. You exit one "side" and enter another with no knowledge of doing so.

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

..., it is finite but has no real boundry. [...]. there is no edge, [...].

did you mean "no edge in the curved 2d manifold"?

In 3d, the balloon itself serves as a well-defined boundary.

Originally Posted by YangYin

Can an infinite state have finite fluctuations? [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

What does "infinite state" mean?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by YangYin

Can an infinite state have finite fluctuations? [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

What does "infinite state" mean?

An infinite state can be anything as long as it has no beginning and no end. Meaning it has always existed.

Not quite right. Infinities can be anything without a beginning or without an ending.
Consider that the set of postive integers is unending by when increasing but has a starting point.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Not quite right. Infinities can be anything without a beginning or without an ending.
Consider that the set of postive integers is unending by when increasing but has a starting point.

If it has a starting point it may exist from then on forever but it does not make it infinite. Even if you gave it negative integers heading in the opposite direction it would still be finite because direction is finite in infinity.

Originally Posted by YangYin

If it has a starting point it may exist from then on forever but it does not make it infinite.

Of course it does.

Even if you gave it negative integers heading in the opposite direction it would still be finite because direction is finite in infinity.

Don't talk bollocks.

@Yangyin:
No, just simply no.


(Bollocks, what a lovely word)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by YangYin

If it has a starting point it may exist from then on forever but it does not make it infinite.

Of course it does.

Even if you gave it negative integers heading in the opposite direction it would still be finite because direction is finite in infinity.

Don't talk bollocks.

Direction is linear and relative to the observer

Originally Posted by YangYin

Direction is linear and relative to the observer

Please stop posting.
At the very least until you know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

That is why the word "infinite" in Latin means unfinished instead of unending, perpetual, or eternal like most of us think.
(from Latin infinitus, from in- ‘not’ + finitus ‘finished)
If you can get to the finish then it is finite.
So when you ask if the universe is infinite you are asking if it is finished or not.
My answer is that the universe is obviously unfinished because we have not been to the edge to see if it is or not.

Great choice of definition. I agree except instead of only requiring us to go to the edge to see if it is complete, I would state that it is in a constant process of creation: creation of life and movement of energy. As long as this proceeds, we will never "see" the end of the universe.

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

Hi guys, this question has been bugging my mind for years whether universe is infinite or finite?

It can be easily proven that it is infinite! But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

My view
---------
Base:
If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?
But when there is some boundary, there is something outside that boundary (guess law of universe only).
then if universe has boundary and there is something outside of universe, then isn't that also a universe!
so this proves universe is infinite!

Contradiction:
Now universe is infinite, but our universe doesn't allow any thing to be infinite inside it (guess another law of universe).
So if our universe is made of finite things or whatever, than how can it itself be infinite? anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

This is the only reason I am not a complete atheist!

There are more indicators the Uni is finite than infinite: its expanding, and we know of nothing that is infinite in the universe. Basically, the definition of this depends on the factor of 'change'. Namely, anything subject to change cannot be infinite, and we know of nothing which does not change. Thus 'we don't know' cannot apply.

What are these indicators you speak of? This is a science forum, you are expected to support your assertions. The rest of your post made little or no sense to me, what are you on about?

Originally Posted by BUTSeriously

There are more indicators the Uni is finite than infinite

Citation needed.

its expanding

That says nothing about being finite or otherwise.

and we know of nothing that is infinite in the universe

There are so many things wrong with this.

1. You don't know about everything in the universe, so you can't say whether there is anything infinite or not.

2. It is irrelevant: even if everything in the universe is finite, that doesn't say anything about whether the universe is finite or not. An infinite universe could be composed of an infinite number of finite components.

3. It is the fallacy of begging the question: if the universe is infinite, then we know of at least one thing that is infinite.

Namely, anything subject to change cannot be infinite

That is an unsupported assertion. I see no reason to believe it.

and we know of nothing which does not change.

How is the limited amount you know relevant?

Thus 'we don't know' cannot apply.

And you are wrong.

Well, here's what we know for sure: The universe is at minimum more than a hundred billion light years across. We can see almost 14 billion light years. That increases by one light year per year, whereas the universe expands more than one light year per year. So if the universe has an "edge" it's so far away we'll never see it.

Originally Posted by BUTSeriously

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

Hi guys, this question has been bugging my mind for years whether universe is infinite or finite?

It can be easily proven that it is infinite! But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

My view
---------
Base:
If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?
But when there is some boundary, there is something outside that boundary (guess law of universe only).
then if universe has boundary and there is something outside of universe, then isn't that also a universe!
so this proves universe is infinite!

Contradiction:
Now universe is infinite, but our universe doesn't allow any thing to be infinite inside it (guess another law of universe).
So if our universe is made of finite things or whatever, than how can it itself be infinite? anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

This is the only reason I am not a complete atheist!

There are more indicators the Uni is finite than infinite: its expanding, and we know of nothing that is infinite in the universe. Basically, the definition of this depends on the factor of 'change'. Namely, anything subject to change cannot be infinite, and we know of nothing which does not change. Thus 'we don't know' cannot apply.

Our universe may be finite but it could be fueled by an infinite reservoir of potential energy which could create an infinite amount of universes.

Well, we don't see more energy or matter spontaneously created inside the universe, which is why have the law of conservation of mass. We won't really know the answer to that question, until we learn more about dark energy, though what we know so far, makes an unlimited reservoir of energy seem very unlikely.

I can not state with a certainty of 100% that we know all of these things to be of such absolute certainty as to be proved as facts. So the science community uses the word 'theory' wisely. It is a sound and testable theory that if the known Universe had at some time past been so small as to have been a single point, and that a great expansion began and continues.. we have a limit of content but not volume.. Finite and un-bound. Seems to answer best what we observe. That conversions of mater to energies and back seems 'Normal ' and ongoing. If a argument of this logic exists. I have not yet seen it.

Actually we can directly see 13.6 billion light years, right back to the universe becoming transparent. There isn't any question. Folks need to stop pretending it's "mysterious." It's not. We can see it.

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by BUTSeriously

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

Hi guys, this question has been bugging my mind for years whether universe is infinite or finite?

It can be easily proven that it is infinite! But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

My view
---------
Base:
If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?
But when there is some boundary, there is something outside that boundary (guess law of universe only).
then if universe has boundary and there is something outside of universe, then isn't that also a universe!
so this proves universe is infinite!

Contradiction:
Now universe is infinite, but our universe doesn't allow any thing to be infinite inside it (guess another law of universe).
So if our universe is made of finite things or whatever, than how can it itself be infinite? anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

This is the only reason I am not a complete atheist!

There are more indicators the Uni is finite than infinite: its expanding, and we know of nothing that is infinite in the universe. Basically, the definition of this depends on the factor of 'change'. Namely, anything subject to change cannot be infinite, and we know of nothing which does not change. Thus 'we don't know' cannot apply.

Our universe may be finite but it could be fueled by an infinite reservoir of potential energy which could create an infinite amount of universes.

Not so. If energy is already part of this universe, it cannot exist outside or pre-universe. This violates the finite factor. Nor can a finite realm hold an infinite entity: 2 cannot cannot 8.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What are these indicators you speak of? This is a science forum, you are expected to support your assertions. The rest of your post made little or no sense to me, what are you on about?

I listed a few. Expansion; nothing in the known universe is infinite; change. These say the Uni is finite - more so than not; we have no indicators to allow infinite.

Once, stars never existed, nor did space and energy - because we have a dateline as to a beginning [BB] which says energy [pursuant to the BB] never existed prior to the that-line of some 14 B years.
This also says that if MV or Parallel-Unis are possible, they would not contain anything from this universe - namely, no energy, space, time, light or darkness; these would violate the finite factor of this universe.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by BUTSeriously

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

Hi guys, this question has been bugging my mind for years whether universe is infinite or finite?

It can be easily proven that it is infinite! But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

My view
---------
Base:
If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?
But when there is some boundary, there is something outside that boundary (guess law of universe only).
then if universe has boundary and there is something outside of universe, then isn't that also a universe!
so this proves universe is infinite!

Contradiction:
Now universe is infinite, but our universe doesn't allow any thing to be infinite inside it (guess another law of universe).
So if our universe is made of finite things or whatever, than how can it itself be infinite? anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

This is the only reason I am not a complete atheist!

There are more indicators the Uni is finite than infinite: its expanding, and we know of nothing that is infinite in the universe. Basically, the definition of this depends on the factor of 'change'. Namely, anything subject to change cannot be infinite, and we know of nothing which does not change. Thus 'we don't know' cannot apply.

Our universe may be finite but it could be fueled by an infinite reservoir of potential energy which could create an infinite amount of universes.

Not so. If energy is already part of this universe, it cannot exist outside or pre-universe. This violates the finite factor. Nor can a finite realm hold an infinite entity: 2 cannot cannot 8.

The laws of conservation says it cannot be destroyed this does not mean it can’t find apoint of equilibrium as potential energy in an infinite state. The laws of conservation means you cannot start from zero which debunks finite.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I listed a few. Expansion; nothing in the known universe is infinite; change. These say the Uni is finite - more so than not; we have no indicators to allow infinite.

This isn't a list of indicators, it's a list of what you claim are indicators.
And they're unsupported as indicators.

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by BUTSeriously

Originally Posted by TheGoneCase

Hi guys, this question has been bugging my mind for years whether universe is infinite or finite?

It can be easily proven that it is infinite! But we say infinity is theoretical don't we?

My view
---------
Base:
If universe is finite, then it got to have some boundaries! right?
But when there is some boundary, there is something outside that boundary (guess law of universe only).
then if universe has boundary and there is something outside of universe, then isn't that also a universe!
so this proves universe is infinite!

Contradiction:
Now universe is infinite, but our universe doesn't allow any thing to be infinite inside it (guess another law of universe).
So if our universe is made of finite things or whatever, than how can it itself be infinite? anything made of finite things has to be finite in nature.

This is the only reason I am not a complete atheist!

There are more indicators the Uni is finite than infinite: its expanding, and we know of nothing that is infinite in the universe. Basically, the definition of this depends on the factor of 'change'. Namely, anything subject to change cannot be infinite, and we know of nothing which does not change. Thus 'we don't know' cannot apply.

Our universe may be finite but it could be fueled by an infinite reservoir of potential energy which could create an infinite amount of universes.

Not so. If energy is already part of this universe, it cannot exist outside or pre-universe. This violates the finite factor. Nor can a finite realm hold an infinite entity: 2 cannot cannot 8.

The laws of conservation says it cannot be destroyed this does not mean it can’t find apoint of equilibrium as potential energy in an infinite state. The laws of conservation means you cannot start from zero which debunks finite.

That is fine if you reject finite. My position is based only on finite only. Finite is not debunked merely because it acts as a foiler: there really is two possible universes and one of these is the finite possibility. We really don't need science in an infinite Uni - everything was always existing without the need of any scientific equations.

Originally Posted by YangYin

The laws of conservation means you cannot start from zero which debunks finite.

A change of state incurs a loss factor each time. conservation Law says that because it assumes a starting point made of items in its equation, and it does not work w/o an assumed starting point. Its like saying we cannot have a car without a car-maker and car parts.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I listed a few. Expansion; nothing in the known universe is infinite; change. These say the Uni is finite - more so than not; we have no indicators to allow infinite.

Gosh. Your opinion or evidence? What a difficult choice...

because we have a dateline as to a beginning [BB] which says energy [pursuant to the BB] never existed prior to the that-line of some 14 B years.

The big bang doesn't say anything of the sort. Unless you can provide a reference ?

I think the current thinking on the BB was that the universe started as a very tiny, marble of densely packed matter. You don't violate the law of conservation of mass by suddenly having energy, it would simply arise from matter changing into energy. Anybody going to bring Lawrence Krauss into the discussion?

Originally Posted by Curiosity

I think the current thinking on the BB was that the universe started as a very tiny, marble of densely packed matter. You don't violate the law of conservation of mass by suddenly having energy, it would simply arise from matter changing into energy.

The mass-energy in the universe was the leftovers from the inflaton after it underwent vacuum decay. By that time the vacuum fluctuation that would be the universe was billions of light years across. The Big Bang happened in all those billions upon billions of cubic light years. This is according to the current "Standard Model of Cosmology," known as the "lambda-CDM" or "ΛCDM" model. Most cosmologists believe it's correct.

It postulates that the universe occurred as a microscopic vacuum fluctuation that had a large negative cosmological constant or Λ. This caused it to undergo exponential expansion for a random amount of time, and our universe randomly underwent it long enough to become billions or tens of billions of light years across in 10^-43 seconds. This phase is called "inflation." After that the inflaton, which is the field that caused this expansion, underwent vacuum decay and all its mass/energy was dumped into space and caused the Big Bang. Inflatons are not stable and always do this. Whether you get a tiny burble that returns to nothing in 10^-100 seconds, or a universe like ours, is random.

Originally Posted by Curiosity

Anybody going to bring Lawrence Krauss into the discussion?

Since I've no idea who Mr. Krauss is, not me.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I listed a few. Expansion; nothing in the known universe is infinite; change. These say the Uni is finite - more so than not; we have no indicators to allow infinite.

Gosh. Your opinion or evidence? What a difficult choice...

because we have a dateline as to a beginning [BB] which says energy [pursuant to the BB] never existed prior to the that-line of some 14 B years.

The big bang doesn't say anything of the sort. Unless you can provide a reference ?

Does a car have wheels or do you need a reference to prove it? If the BB contained energy, does it need a reference to say either it already existed pre-BB or...what?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I listed a few. Expansion; nothing in the known universe is infinite; change. These say the Uni is finite - more so than not; we have no indicators to allow infinite.

This isn't a list of indicators, it's a list of what you claim are indicators.
And they're unsupported as indicators.

I did provide a reference. "CHANGE". If something is subject to change it cannot be infinite. Expansion is a change - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. So give any reference the Uni is not infinite.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I did provide a reference. "CHANGE".

No. That's not a reference. That's a claim.

If something is subject to change it cannot be infinite.

Unsupported claim.

Expansion is a change - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago.

Unsupported claim.

So give any reference the Uni is not infinite.

Unsupported claim.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I listed a few. Expansion; nothing in the known universe is infinite; change. These say the Uni is finite - more so than not; we have no indicators to allow infinite.

Gosh. Your opinion or evidence? What a difficult choice...

Its not an opinion. Sugar is sweet, fire is hot.

because we have a dateline as to a beginning [BB] which says energy [pursuant to the BB] never existed prior to the that-line of some 14 B years.

The big bang doesn't say anything of the sort. Unless you can provide a reference ?[/QUOTE]

Unless you can show energy was not prevalent prior to the BB or that it emerged at a certain point later. Its like the sun produced light - this says light pre-existed the sun, and that the sun could otherwise not produce light. Its like water cannot flow from a tap if water was not pre-existing before the tap.

Such issues are a proof what one understands by science.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I did provide a reference. "CHANGE".

No. That's not a reference. That's a claim.

If something is subject to change it cannot be infinite.

Unsupported claim.

Expansion is a change - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago.

Unsupported claim.

So give any reference the Uni is not infinite.

Unsupported claim.

Does it mean you have references the uni was not smaller 10 seconds ago?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Such issues are a proof what one understands by science.

Given the ridiculous claim on your profile - Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory - you obviously don't understand science.
Ergo your remark is somewhat misplaced.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Does it mean you have references the uni was not smaller 10 seconds ago?

What it means is that YOUR claims are unsupported.

Daffy, he doesn't get that energy is a relationship. And the direction he's going, he never will.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Such issues are a proof what one understands by science.

Given the ridiculous claim on your profile - Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory - you obviously don't understand science.
Ergo your remark is somewhat misplaced.

Monotheism is a scientific premise. 'THE FIRST CAUSE' premise' by Aristotle aligned with it. The buck stops at one. The BB is at best only some 14 B years old - it never existed once, then it suddenly occurred. Science does not support effects w/o causes.

What caused the BB - is thus the next issue science has to confront.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Monotheism is a scientific premise

Bollocks.
There's no evidence.
There's no testing.
There's no falsification.
It's not science it's an assumption.

Science does not support effects w/o causes.

So what?

What caused the BB - is thus the next issue science has to confront.

Possibly.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Daffy, he doesn't get that energy is a relationship. And the direction he's going, he never will.

Relationship to? What does not have a relationship: only that claimed as occurring by itself, namely when no internal or external components exist. For energy to be a relationship with something else, it must possess attributes of recognition, positive/negative modes. We cannot say a seed that sprouts does not have attributes, as in a program. This says the BB had a specific program and a trigger factor. This appears true even when the construct is complete, as in a completed car - it still won't drive w/o a trigger factor of an ignition key and a driver. The same must apply with the BB.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Relationship to? What does not have a relationship: only that claimed as occurring by itself, namely when no internal or external components exist. For energy to be a relationship with something else, it must possess attributes of recognition, positive/negative modes. We cannot say a seed that sprouts does not have attributes, as in a program. This says the BB had a specific program and a trigger factor. This appears true even when the construct is complete, as in a completed car - it still won't drive w/o a trigger factor of an ignition key and a driver. The same must apply with the BB.

Overload on the word salad.
(And the bullshit and ignorance).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Monotheism is a scientific premise

Bollocks.
There's no evidence.
There's no testing.
There's no falsification.
It's not science it's an assumption.

There is absolute theoretical proof based on a finite universe. The BB is derived at by theoretical reductionism the universe would have began, as far as we can determine, at one point. The same applies everywhere. Monotheism = ONE, Singular, First Cause, Beginning. Its a scientific premise.

Science does not support effects w/o causes.

So what?

The premise of energy and the attribute to expand can only be a pre-BB expansion by a directive program with a specific result scheduled. See, a pineapple will not expand and form the universe - because it does not have such a directive.

What caused the BB - is thus the next issue science has to confront.

Possibly.[/QUOTE]

Thus I asked, is energy a pre-BB factor. You asked for a reference - it is devoid of any obvious deduction because there was a release of energy. Its like asking if water from a tap pre-existed the tap.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Relationship to? What does not have a relationship: only that claimed as occurring by itself, namely when no internal or external components exist. For energy to be a relationship with something else, it must possess attributes of recognition, positive/negative modes. We cannot say a seed that sprouts does not have attributes, as in a program. This says the BB had a specific program and a trigger factor. This appears true even when the construct is complete, as in a completed car - it still won't drive w/o a trigger factor of an ignition key and a driver. The same must apply with the BB.

Overload on the word salad.
(And the bullshit and ignorance).

Consider its reverse. There was energy released in the BB expansion. The energy did not come from a pre-BB source. Instead, it came from..... ?????

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Daffy, he doesn't get that energy is a relationship. And the direction he's going, he never will.

Knock-knock. That energy is a relationship aligns with my premise and negates yours. This relationship must have an embedded program of attributes that pre-dates the energy. How else, applies?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Thus I asked, is energy a pre-BB factor. You asked for a reference

And you have still failed to give one.

The premise of energy and the attribute to expand can only be a pre-BB expansion by a directive program with a specific result scheduled. See, a pineapple will not expand and form the universe - because it does not have such a directive.

You're talking gibberish again. What "directive"?

it is devoid of any obvious deduction because there was a release of energy

What?
I don't know what your mother tongue is, but you should get help with your English.

Knock-knock. That energy is a relationship aligns with my premise and negates yours.

No.

This relationship must have an embedded program of attributes that pre-dates the energy. How else, applies?

What?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Thus I asked, is energy a pre-BB factor. You asked for a reference

And you have still failed to give one.

The premise of energy and the attribute to expand can only be a pre-BB expansion by a directive program with a specific result scheduled. See, a pineapple will not expand and form the universe - because it does not have such a directive.

You're talking gibberish again. What "directive"?

it is devoid of any obvious deduction because there was a release of energy

What?
I don't know what your mother tongue is, but you should get help with your English.

Knock-knock. That energy is a relationship aligns with my premise and negates yours.

No.

This relationship must have an embedded program of attributes that pre-dates the energy. How else, applies?

What?

A directive is similar to the program directives in your cell phone. Expansion is possible only by such an attribute embedded in a particle. Particles behave differently only because they possess variant directives.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

A directive is similar to the program directives in your cell phone. Expansion is possible only by such an attribute embedded in a particle.

Unsupported claim

Particles behave differently only because they possess variant directives.

Unsupported claim.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

A directive is similar to the program directives in your cell phone. Expansion is possible only by such an attribute embedded in a particle.

Unsupported claim

Particles behave differently only because they possess variant directives.

Unsupported claim.

The dif between iron and zinc = different attributes.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by Strange

because we have a dateline as to a beginning [BB] which says energy [pursuant to the BB] never existed prior to the that-line of some 14 B years.

The big bang doesn't say anything of the sort. Unless you can provide a reference ?

Does a car have wheels or do you need a reference to prove it? If the BB contained energy, does it need a reference to say either it already existed pre-BB or...what?

You said: the big bang says "energy never existed prior to the that-line of some 14 B years."

I am asking you to provide a credible reference that that is what the big bang model says. Because I don't believe you. (This has nothing to do with cars and wheels; it is to do with your claims about what the big bang theory is.)

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

If something is subject to change it cannot be infinite

Evidence needed. Why should anyone believe this assertion?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The BB is at best only some 14 B years old - it never existed once

Evidence needed.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Expansion is possible only by such an attribute embedded in a particle. Particles behave differently only because they possess variant directives.

So you think all chemical reactions require your god to tell every electron what to do?

IamJoseph

You clearly have some idea or other about astronomy / cosmology that isn't part of the standard scientific model. If you want to advance any such idea, don't clutter up a hard science thread with this sort of stuff.

Put up your own thread in the Personal Theories/Alternative Ideas forum and / or stay away from this thread.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Platonists believe the things they imagine in their heads are more real than the things that exist in the world.

Sounds like a form of insanity to me!

Come on dan.. Really! Platonic forms? No?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

If something is subject to change it cannot be infinite

Evidence needed. Why should anyone believe this assertion?

Don't be fooled by ancient sounding texts. It is the only definition of infinity. Nothing else works so accurately.

Originally Posted by adelady

IamJoseph

You clearly have some idea or other about astronomy / cosmology that isn't part of the standard scientific model. If you want to advance any such idea, don't clutter up a hard science thread with this sort of stuff.

Put up your own thread in the Personal Theories/Alternative Ideas forum and / or stay away from this thread.

I'm gone. I thought I was speaking from a science POV as I do with many prominent scientists.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Such issues are a proof what one understands by science.

Given the ridiculous claim on your profile - Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory - you obviously don't understand science.
Ergo your remark is somewhat misplaced.

Monotheism is a scientific premise. 'THE FIRST CAUSE' premise' by Aristotle aligned with it. The buck stops at one. The BB is at best only some 14 B years old - it never existed once, then it suddenly occurred. Science does not support effects w/o causes.

What caused the BB - is thus the next issue science has to confront.

Why "mono"theism? What use is just one of anything?

Omnitheism is a much more sensible position AND it even makes less sense! So it has to be right!

Here are some short points for discussion.

We cannot apply arguments such as "we know of no other example of infinity" to the universe itself, because we know of nothing else like the universe itself. The size of anything within the universe will be, by definition, finite. This does not necessarily apply to the size of the universe.

Infinity can expand. For an illustration as to why, you need look no further than "Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel" (look it up).

Either the contents of the universe have always existed in some form or another, or they didn't.

What is the logical difference between the existence of something finite and the existence of something infinite?

Whether the universe "came out of nothing", or has always existed in some form or another, why does the universe being infinite or finite make a difference? Is a finite something from nothing more likely than an infinite something from nothing? Or conversely, is a finite something that always existed more likely than an infinite something that always existed?

As I posted on the other thread - both available observational data as well as current scientific understanding is compatible with either a finite or an infinite universe. Neither of the two possibilities can be ruled out, based on what we know at present.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Don't be fooled by ancient sounding texts. It is the only definition of infinity. Nothing else works so accurately.

I still don't believe you. And you have provided no evidence to convince me.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I thought I was speaking from a science POV as I do with many prominent scientists.

You were clearly mistaken about that. (As with everything else, apparently.)

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Don't be fooled by ancient sounding texts. It is the only definition of infinity. Nothing else works so accurately.

It doesn't make any sense so far as space-time is concerned, because it is a static 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold. The notion of infinity here means that the separation between two points can increase without boundary, i.e. for any two given points there exists another pair of points which has a greater separation in space-time than the first pair, ad infinitum.

If space is infinite, why is it expanding? what is it expanding into? If i think an expanding universe, I think growing. That it does have boundaries that are constantly changing and growing larger.

If i was to consider an infinite universe, I would look for a solid state universe.

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

If i think an expanding universe, I think growing. That it does have boundaries that are constantly changing and growing larger.

That is a common misconception. In actual fact, metric expansion is an intrinsic change in the geometry of the space-time manifold, as opposed to an extrinsic phenomenon such as boundaries pushing outwards. Metric expansion just means that over time, the distance between any two ( far away ) points continues to get larger; this does not presuppose the existence of any boundary. Think of the balloon analogy - if you mark two arbitrary points on the balloon, and then blow it up, these points will grow further apart, even though there is no boundary to the surface of the balloon. Be careful though to recognise the limits of this analogy - the 2-dimensional balloon surface is embedded in 3-dimensional space, but the universe isn't necessarily embedded into anything. There is no "outside" to the universe.

That is difficult to understand markus. Its going to take me a while to comprehend that concept in my mind

Try to think of it in terms of the universe getting less dense, rather than getting bigger (if that helps).

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

That is difficult to understand markus. Its going to take me a while to comprehend that concept in my mind

It's hard for everyone when they first run across this concept, simply because it is far removed from our everyday world of human experiences. You'll get your head around it eventually. Another analogy that might come in handy is the raisin cake - imagine a cake baking in the oven, the dough of which is full of raisins. As the cake bakes, the dough expands in all directions, and every raisin recedes from all other raisins. This is quite independent on whether or not the cake has an outer boundary, but again, bear in mind that this analogy has limitations since the cake has a boundary, whereas the universe does not.

I like the analogy of the video game, where you fly off one side of the screen and reappear on the other side. The expansion of the Universe can be represented by having bigger game screens.

If the Universe is indeed finite then we have to find an extremely convincing explanation of how indeed it just happened to pop into existence, to this end theories that require initial conditions usually to tend to fail to explain fully the origin of these conditions, theories that don't rely on such initial conditions could be more convincing, but they then have to explain the 'something from nothing aspect', again a massive hurdle to overcome. Although the concept of an infinite universe isn't easily understandable perhaps it's fair to suggest that a 'beginning' to the universe might be even harder to truely explain.

I tend to think possibly the most convincing explanation could be that our universe is just a part of a infinite multiverse that has always, and will always, exist. That maybe one day we will go on to fully understand that our concept of the progression of time is just a mere illusion, the idea of movement & change being perceived and understood in different manner that may help us make better sense of it.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

If i think an expanding universe, I think growing. That it does have boundaries that are constantly changing and growing larger.

That is a common misconception. In actual fact, metric expansion is an intrinsic change in the geometry of the space-time manifold, as opposed to an extrinsic phenomenon such as boundaries pushing outwards. Metric expansion just means that over time, the distance between any two ( far away ) points continues to get larger; this does not presuppose the existence of any boundary. Think of the balloon analogy - if you mark two arbitrary points on the balloon, and then blow it up, these points will grow further apart, even though there is no boundary to the surface of the balloon. Be careful though to recognise the limits of this analogy - the 2-dimensional balloon surface is embedded in 3-dimensional space, but the universe isn't necessarily embedded into anything. There is no "outside" to the universe.

Is metric expansion a force?

Originally Posted by YangYin

Is metric expansion a force?

No, there are no forces involved. Metric expansion is a geometric property of space-time itself.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by YangYin

Is metric expansion a force?

No, there are no forces involved. Metric expansion is a geometric property of space-time itself.

What about dark energy? It seems like a contradiction explaining the movement of galaxies away from each other as if they were locked into space with the expansion yet wavelengths and powered objects can travel through space. Another explanation is the galaxies themselves are producing space and are part of an open system.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Don't be fooled by ancient sounding texts. It is the only definition of infinity. Nothing else works so accurately.

I still don't believe you. And you have provided no evidence to convince me.

Believe it! NEW PROOF: Science comes from Genesis. The Uni is 'FINITE' with a beginning. Its about time a thread based on a finite uni be examined scientifically as if it is a legitimate premise. What are the impacts of an absolutely finite universe is 100% incumbent.



Do new Big Bang findings support the Bible? | Latest News Videos | Fox News

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Believe it! NEW PROOF: Science comes from Genesis.

Crap.
It implies no such thing.
Where does Genesis mention microwave background or gravitational waves?

The Uni is 'FINITE' with a beginning. Its about time a thread based on a finite uni be examined scientifically as if it is a legitimate premise. What are the impacts of an absolutely finite universe is 100% incumbent.

Also unsupported.

This is what happens when a ridiculous "news" programme gets a nutcase with an agenda to pontificate on science.
Compounded by being watched and pushed by another nutcase.

Originally Posted by YangYin

What about dark energy?

It's geometric property of space-time too. Dark energy can be associated with a vacuum energy density.