Universe can't be infinite.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2679
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:05 pm

devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:05 pm
Actually, I thought about it a bit more. An argument for an Eternal (outside of time) First Cause:

1. Axiom: ‘events in time are caused by events’
2. Can’t get something from (the philosopher’s) nothing
3. So something must have existed always (because we exist and from [1])
4. Time has a start *
5. So nothing can exist forever in time
6. So something must have existed forever outside of time
7. Existing outside time would mean not subject to axiom [1]
8. This would be the eternal first cause
Umph.

4. is wrong. Time does not have to have a start. In fact, it is impossible for time to have a start. If you say it started six thousand years ago, or fifteen billion years ago, then I say, what was the time six minutes to six thousand years ago? Or what was the time fifteen years to fifteen billion years ago? Time, like space can NOT be not infinite.
So 5. is wrong.

So many things wrong with this that it can be thrown away as useless.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by devans99 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:27 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:05 pm
devans99 wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:05 pm
Actually, I thought about it a bit more. An argument for an Eternal (outside of time) First Cause:

1. Axiom: ‘events in time are caused by events’
2. Can’t get something from (the philosopher’s) nothing
3. So something must have existed always (because we exist and from [1])
4. Time has a start *
5. So nothing can exist forever in time
6. So something must have existed forever outside of time
7. Existing outside time would mean not subject to axiom [1]
8. This would be the eternal first cause
Umph.

4. is wrong. Time does not have to have a start. In fact, it is impossible for time to have a start. If you say it started six thousand years ago, or fifteen billion years ago, then I say, what was the time six minutes to six thousand years ago? Or what was the time fifteen years to fifteen billion years ago? Time, like space can NOT be not infinite.
So 5. is wrong.

So many things wrong with this that it can be thrown away as useless.
With the axiom 'events cause events' I can show time had a start because, an infinite regress of events is not possible:

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)
4. There must be a first event.
5. Time must be finite

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2679
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:30 am

devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:27 am
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)
4. There must be a first event.
5. Time must be finite
HA! I've encountered this reasoning exactly 24 years ago, give or take 2 years.

The person who denied that infinite is a number was a retired philosophy professor at the University of Toronto. I forgot his name.

This denial is easy to refute.

You accept that space is infinite, and that along one line in space you can go forever, and never reach an end.

How long is this line? Infinitely long.

Now let's measure distances on this line. Two steps, approx., is one meter.

Four steps is two meters.

X steps is X/2 meters.

How many steps in the line? Infinite number of steps.

A number is defined as the count in a quantity. A quantity is made up of a count and of a unit.

How many finite units in the stretch of an infinitely long line? an infinite number of units. Another way of saying this is "infinite units".

Infinite = a number.

Going back to your claim, there is one number that is larger than any finite number. That number is infinite.

Your original axiom compares not any number that is greater than any number, but any number that is greater than any FINITE number.

Thus, your axiom one becomes
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any finite number

Why is this true, and why can't we demand, that it read this way:
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number, finite or infinite

Because if the number of events is infinite, then it is EQUAL to infinite, not greater than it.

This little difference is the crux of the false thinking. You introduced what Aristotle termed "Equivocation". It is a type of fallacy, where a word is used in two different places, the same word, but with different meanings.

When you wrote
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number

in the first occurrence you meant (left of the inequality sign) infinite, and right of the equality sign you meant finite.

Atla
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by Atla » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:09 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:05 pm
4. is wrong. Time does not have to have a start. In fact, it is impossible for time to have a start.
Yep, it's probably impossible for time to have a start.
Time, like space can NOT be not infinite.
However space and time can be finite when they are circular. So you pick a straight direction in spacetime, travel a finite distance, and end up where and when you started.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:37 am

There may be a first event within every individual universe but whether there was to the Universe itself is something else
For that to be true would mean that a state of absolute nothing would have had to exist before ANY universe was created
Quantum mechanics will allow for the existence of absolute nothing but this can only be stable for an infinitesimal period

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2679
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:05 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:09 am
... space and time can be finite when they are circular. So you pick a straight direction in spacetime, travel a finite distance, and end up where and when you started.
Have you done that?

And what if it's not circular, but rectangular? Or octogonal, or pentagonal? Sextagonal, heptidecimagonal? Triangular? You'd also arrive back to the present via the future and the past.

Or a spiral that is bent along an arc to find its way back to its other end.

Or a string with the two ends tied together, and taking up an irregular shape. I guess this is not new, it has to do with the string theory.

"Now, my dear Sir Lancelot, please explain again how the Earth is banana-shaped." -- Monty Python, "The Holy Grail".

Atla
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by Atla » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:31 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:05 am
Have you done that?
No, but you haven't traveled infinitely far either.
And what if it's not circular, but rectangular? Or octogonal, or pentagonal? Sextagonal, heptidecimagonal? Triangular? You'd also arrive back to the present via the future and the past.

Or a spiral that is bent along an arc to find its way back to its other end.

Or a string with the two ends tied together, and taking up an irregular shape. I guess this is not new, it has to do with the string theory.

"Now, my dear Sir Lancelot, please explain again how the Earth is banana-shaped." -- Monty Python, "The Holy Grail".
The exact shape isn't important here as long as it's a closed loop.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2679
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:42 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:31 am

No, but you haven't traveled infinitely far either.
True; but:

If you travel at a finite speed then your question's task is not possible to achieve.

However, since the loop is a finite amount of time or distance, it can be achieved by traversing it at a finite speed.

Atla
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by Atla » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:47 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:42 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:31 am

No, but you haven't traveled infinitely far either.
True; but:

If you travel at a finite speed then your question's task is not possible to achieve.

However, since the loop is a finite amount of time or distance, it can be achieved by traversing it at a finite speed.
Well, "travel" is more like metaphorical here, since during the travel, after a while I would probably die, my body would fall apart, all that stuff would eventually fall into black holes that would keep colliding, eventually, there would be a Big Crunch then a Big Bang, then the first 13.8 billion years of the universe would happen and then I would be born. So one couldn't even remember such a loop.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2679
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:35 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:47 am
So one couldn't even remember such a loop.
Sounds loopy to me. :-)

Pun intended. Your theory makes sense, I was just pointing out the difference.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by devans99 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:52 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:30 am
devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:27 am
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)
4. There must be a first event.
5. Time must be finite
HA! I've encountered this reasoning exactly 24 years ago, give or take 2 years.

The person who denied that infinite is a number was a retired philosophy professor at the University of Toronto. I forgot his name.

This denial is easy to refute.

You accept that space is infinite, and that along one line in space you can go forever, and never reach an end.

How long is this line? Infinitely long.

Now let's measure distances on this line. Two steps, approx., is one meter.

Four steps is two meters.

X steps is X/2 meters.

How many steps in the line? Infinite number of steps.

A number is defined as the count in a quantity. A quantity is made up of a count and of a unit.

How many finite units in the stretch of an infinitely long line? an infinite number of units. Another way of saying this is "infinite units".

Infinite = a number.

Going back to your claim, there is one number that is larger than any finite number. That number is infinite.

Your original axiom compares not any number that is greater than any number, but any number that is greater than any FINITE number.

Thus, your axiom one becomes
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any finite number

Why is this true, and why can't we demand, that it read this way:
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number, finite or infinite

Because if the number of events is infinite, then it is EQUAL to infinite, not greater than it.

This little difference is the crux of the false thinking. You introduced what Aristotle termed "Equivocation". It is a type of fallacy, where a word is used in two different places, the same word, but with different meanings.

When you wrote
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number

in the first occurrence you meant (left of the inequality sign) infinite, and right of the equality sign you meant finite.
Infinity is not a mathematical concept or a quantity - its larger than any quantity; meaning is is not by definition a quantity (can't be a quantity AND larger than any quantity).

If you add 1 to it it does not change; what sort of quantity behaves like that. In fact it does not work properly with subtraction, division or multiplication so it is definitely not a quantity. Being not a quantify, it cannot take on the value of real world qualities like time or distance.

The universe is finite in both time and space. Infinity is just magic; IE it does not belong in maths or science.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2679
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:06 pm

devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:52 pm
Infinity is not a mathematical concept or a quantity - its larger than any quantity; meaning is is not by definition a quantity (can't be a quantity AND larger than any quantity).
devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:52 pm
If you add 1 to it it does not change; what sort of quantity behaves like that.
Zero behaves similar to that. One also behaves a similar way. You imply that all quantities ought to behave the same way. Well, they don't.

Take any real number, A, and divide any other real number, B, by it. What do you get? A number C that is equal to neither A nor to B. This is universal, and all quantities ought to behave the same way. B/A = C.

But do they? No, they don't.

What if A=1? Then B/A=C will yield B always equal to C.

What if B=0? Then B/A=C will yield B always being equal to C.

So because you found a way in which infinity does not comply with apparent rules, it does not mean that it is not a number. Other numbers don't comply with apparent rules, such as zero or one, but they are numbers. Therefore I reject your objection that infinite is not a number based on the argument you presented.

------------------------

Let me ask you this:

How many yards long is an infinitely long line? Expressed in numbers. Your answer is "there are an infinite number of yards in a long line."

How many points (geometric points) are between two points, lying on a straight line? Your answer is "there are infinite number of points in there."

So infinity is definitely a cardinal number. (Another exception to the number infinite, is that it can't be an ordinal number.)

This is a second reason why I reject your objection that infinite is not a number.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by devans99 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:33 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:06 pm

Zero behaves similar to that. One also behaves a similar way. You imply that all quantities ought to behave the same way. Well, they don't.

Take any real number, A, and divide any other real number, B, by it. What do you get? A number C that is equal to neither A nor to B. This is universal, and all quantities ought to behave the same way. B/A = C.

But do they? No, they don't.

What if A=1? Then B/A=C will yield B always equal to C.

What if B=0? Then B/A=C will yield B always being equal to C.

So because you found a way in which infinity does not comply with apparent rules, it does not mean that it is not a number. Other numbers don't comply with apparent rules, such as zero or one, but they are numbers. Therefore I reject your objection that infinite is not a number based on the argument you presented.

------------------------

Let me ask you this:

How many yards long is an infinitely long line? Expressed in numbers. Your answer is "there are an infinite number of yards in a long line."

How many points (geometric points) are between two points, lying on a straight line? Your answer is "there are infinite number of points in there."

So infinity is definitely a cardinal number. (Another exception to the number infinite, is that it can't be an ordinal number.)

This is a second reason why I reject your objection that infinite is not a number.
You are defending the indefensible
∞ + 1 = ∞
But that implies:
1 = 0

No other number, zero, real, complex, vector etc... behalves like that. No quantity behalves like that.

Infinitely long lines only exist in your head, not in reality or mathematics.

The number of points on a line segment is interval length / point length. Point has length 0, interval length 1, then its 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED,

Infinity is just hocus-pocus.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2679
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:46 pm

Well, what other number behaves like x/0 = undefined?

Only zero.

So according to you, zero is not a number.

Well, what other number behaves like this:

x/1=x.

Only 1.

so according to you, one is not a number.

Infinite is a number, it is just A. not familiar to most people, because we don't have to deal with infinites, and B. it has its peculiarities.
------------------

I did not ask you how many times zero goes into a number. I asked how many points there are between two points in a strainght line. No division is necessary. Infinite number of points are between two points on a straight line. No hocus-pocus, no division.

If infinite plus one equals infinite, then it's a peculiarity special to the number infinite, much like there are special peculiarities to the number one and to the number zero.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Post by Logik » Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:47 pm

devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:33 pm
You are defending the indefensible
∞ + 1 = ∞
But that implies:
1 = 0

No other number, zero, real, complex, vector etc... behalves like that. No quantity behalves like that.
Actually, it implies that (∞ + x) is the same as (0 * x).

If you accept the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, then we must avoid the brain's tendency to interpret the sign '+' as a stand-alone thing, and force yourself to interpret it in context of the entire equation. So lets replace '+' with '#'' to prevent our brain from playing tricks on us.

Now you have ∞ # Y = ∞

∞ # 1 = ∞
∞ # 4 = ∞
∞ # 1317648176487236478234123123 = ∞

Can you think of any other mathematical function that does that?

0 # 1 = 0
0 # 4 = 0
0 # 1317648176487236478234123123 = 0

Mathematics and shenanigans.
0 * X = 0
∞ * X = ∞

So what's 0 * ∞ ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests