What is infinity

Post Reply New Topic

Pure speculation/invention on your part.

its inductive yes perhaps I could just as easily suggest that an inanimate process outside the system launched the whole things. The nub of it is that a finite universe must have a cause which leads us back to infinite regress. A finite universe points towards infinity.

It is postulated that the universe is 13.8 Billion years old. I'm not so sure there's absolute proof. Then again, perhaps we don't really know, absolutely, what constitutes the universe.

NOT TRUE. You see, it has been assumed the Universe is finite but closes in on itself since there's not a shred of astronomical/astrophysical evidence for a boundary.




Also not true. It describes reality so well that it effectively binds physical law.

The mathematical model describes the reality WE perceive. It does so remarkably well because deconstructing the univerfse produces numerical sequence at its core. Everything we are capable of perceiving can be delineated mathematically. That is everything can be represented or described mathematically. Mathematics doesnt decode the univerfse its a representational system. But im sure thats what you meant anyway. Im just expanding.

[img][800:720]http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u660/2lucky4snuffy/05fb56ff791d39f941dfb35d0f3e0fc7_zpsa012dfc1.jpg[/img]

You link cites states ...

"We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent".

"Suggests" does not appear to be much evidence.

The bible suggests GOD exists.



So do you think the infinite decimal expansion of irrational numbers transcends the human mind, and is evidence of "infinity" in the real world ?

The finite distance of the hypotenuse in my picture would appear to be definite, yet, somehow mathematics shows us that the distance is represented by the infinite ?

An infinite universe is impossible, it would imply that the univserse has always existed, which is plain BS.

Last edited by Kurgan on 01 May 2014, 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We might be running more into parlance trouble than anything when 'universe' is meant to imply everything in existence and our perceivable universe (as we've named it) may very well be an infinitesimally small point within an infinite set as such. In other words the Big Bang might only be relevant to us in our particular bubble.

I would point too ..

1. Euclid's theorem proves by contradiction in the proof that there is an infinite number of prime numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_theorem

Wherein "infinite" means "a human can always come up with another prime number by counting higher". However, this "infinite" would still appear to be within human reasoning.

In the real world .. there are people paid to prove Euclid right ...

Bitcoins, Primecoins ... "cryptocurrency" are "mined" by computing for block strings of large prime numbers ...
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-week ... -algorithm

quoted: "Bitcoin Magazine pointed out that the Electronic Frontier Foundation "is offering $550,000 worth of prizes" to whichever groups are first to uncover a prime number more than 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, and 1 billion digits long. The first two—1 million and 10 million—have already been accounted for

How did the space, time, and physical laws these bubbles are in originate, then? The multiverse theory (or anything of resemblance) is used to fill in gaps that we have yet to solve. There's no proof or evidence to indicate that there are other universes or other sectors of the universe. Everything bound by physical laws originated at one point.

Two possibilities work here - 1) eternal multiverse, 2) emanation of God, possibly both options for a virtual third option if one plays the game of considering the whole thing endless cups within cups where each cup has sentience.

If anyone would be bold enough to say that that they're both a strong atheist (full reductive materialist) and also cleaves to the notion that this is probably the only universe that has existed but that nothing - not even quantum static - was there to generate it, they're talking crazy. To even have quantum static is to have something which means there was a before to generate the effect, even if such a timeline existed purely tangential to our own - it's an exterior and that's precisely the point.

And how did that one point come into being? And moreover, what is the causal agent of the expansion of that singularity into the Universe as it exists now?
Assuming that the Universe is finite in size and history and that Causality holds over everything that exists(within and beyond the Cosmos), then the infinite causal chain cannot be avoided. Tallyman makes the presumption that whatever created the Universe is exempt from causality, which is dubious at best.

FTR, it is impossible to confirm or deny what lies beyond the Universe(or at least the observable Universe) which makes the existence of the Multiverse(or Omniverse as I like to call it) non-falsifiable by current science. But there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the Universe actually is finite in the first place! No Cosmic boundaries have ever been observed nor has it been determined through observations that the global geometry of the Universe is a boundryless compact manifold.

That 'how the universe come into being' had been done to death. Our idea of time just fails some 13.8 billion years ago.

Then what is the origin of the singularity that the Universe came from?

Time is part of the universe. The universe exists all time, even though the past can be finite. 'Before the existence of the universe' is just meaningless/contradictory.