## Universe can't be infinite.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:58 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:45 am
There are no infinities in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

In fact, if your equation relies on infinities to work that's a great indicator that it's wrong. In some way.

Infinities are mathematical objects. They are tools that make our equations work (lucky us!). But they don't exist.

Any understanding of "infinity" is behaviouristic and only in the context of mathematics. We know how it behaves in equations and that's about it.
Thanks for an intelligent post!

The renormalization piece brought my back to my first QM class, wherein I decided that the mathematics behind QM was complete BS. After taking a different career path, I might even have figured out why. Or, I just invented a different kind of bullshit.

Greylorn
You were probably arrived with the expectations of finding "truth" only to realize physicists are die-hard pragmatists, not philosophers

The equations work. And that's all that matters. Until somebody comes up with an equation that works better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

We know that the amount of matter in the universe is finite. We also know that the universe is 3 dimensional. That gives us a universe with borders, although they seem to be expanding, but still with borders. And if it has borders all the way around it, it also must have a center.

So, if logic can be applied to the universe, it tells us that the universe is finite (but expanding), and has a center.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Atla,
Thanks for the comeback. Your comment about Beon Theory is correct, but analogous to describing an iceberg from the perspective of a boat.

Would you please save me a few mouse clicks by providing a URL to what you found?

I understand the difficulty of explaining things. I can explain B.T. in about 50 words to a physicist who is well versed in the principles of mathematics and can still recall Newton's Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but explaining to anyone requires some preliminary concepts that few are likely to comprehend. That's why I've written two books on the subject and am trying for another before I get out of here.

I have enough familiarity with Buddhism to have explained to a local mountain-top guru who's hobnobbed with "enlightened ones" in India, and who taught a weekly class to students dumb enough to make a pilgrimage from their monastery down the road, that he was completely unaware of S.G'.s fundamental "theorem." He did not believe me, so I borrowed one of his many books and found the information in it. He's not liked me much since.

I spent a couple of weeks in Bangkok way back when, a few overnights with a high government official who worked as a liaison bureaucrat between the Buddhist church and the Thai government, but learned nothing about the religion. Visited a sacred temple and came away with an illegal photo of the "Jade Buddha," but no insights. I gave up on Buddhism upon realizing that it can morph into any other religion at the drop of a nickel.

Naturally I'd be curious to see your take on the Buddha's fundamental belief.

You seem to dislike dualism. Yet you live in a universe in which events are caused by the interaction of two opposing forces.

I tried looking at Zen stuff but failed to understand the value of it. I didn't learn jack shit about repairing my motorcycle from "Zen and the Art..." and found the factory service manual more useful, though the book was more entertaining. I noticed that every component of my cycle , like every functioning mechanical or biological machine, was in an interactive force-counterforce relationship with at least one other component.

Given that you cannot pick your nose without the benefit of complex dualistic interactions between bones, tendons, muscles and nerves--- plus the mysterious "will" to stick your finger up there and the wit to make sure that nobody you care about is watching--- what is your complaint with the obvious reality of dualism?

If you care to run that question a little deeper--- do you think that you would be conscious and self-aware without the feedback from other conscious beings?

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

TimeSeeker wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:37 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:58 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:45 am
There are no infinities in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

In fact, if your equation relies on infinities to work that's a great indicator that it's wrong. In some way.

Infinities are mathematical objects. They are tools that make our equations work (lucky us!). But they don't exist.

Any understanding of "infinity" is behaviouristic and only in the context of mathematics. We know how it behaves in equations and that's about it.
Thanks for an intelligent post!

The renormalization piece brought my back to my first QM class, wherein I decided that the mathematics behind QM was complete BS. After taking a different career path, I might even have figured out why. Or, I just invented a different kind of bullshit.

Greylorn
You were probably arrived with the expectations of finding "truth" only to realize physicists are die-hard pragmatists, not philosophers

The equations work. And that's all that matters. Until somebody comes up with an equation that works better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
TimeSeeker,

I'd not known of G. Box so the reference was interesting. Thank you.

Since I started arguing with physicsts 60 years ago, and then spent 20+ years working with them, I pretty well know what to expect of them. Like other people they come in different flavors. It seems to me that you've mistakenly opined that all physicists are of the same flavor-- model makers, fond of developing complex equations that seem related to observable events, mathematical models like gas laws, fluid-flow rules, practical thermodynamics, Schroedinger's wave equation, etc. They might even prefer a slide rule with its 3-digit approximations to a calculator's irrelevant precision. These are the guys who fill out the pages in the Rubber Bible and figure out how to send probes to Pluto. Brilliant people! But what about the theorists?

Is General Relativity merely a mathematical model? Or does it describe fundamental physical principles? Don't ask a statistician like Box because he'll not be qualified to make such distinctions.

How about you? Do you make any distinction between formulas and principles?

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

QuantumT wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:53 pm
We know that the amount of matter in the universe is finite. We also know that the universe is 3 dimensional. That gives us a universe with borders, although they seem to be expanding, but still with borders. And if it has borders all the way around it, it also must have a center.

So, if logic can be applied to the universe, it tells us that the universe is finite (but expanding), and has a center.
QT,

You're looking at the universe from a purely geometrical perspective, without taking the possibility of non-constant forces into account.

You might listen to Rupert Sheldrake, then consider alternative ideas such as the notion that light must move through a medium that we've failed to detect, implying that its velocity is entirely dependent of that medium's density, and that the medium's density might diminish as function of space and time.

Greylorn

Atla
Posts: 2616
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:39 pm
Atla,
Thanks for the comeback. Your comment about Beon Theory is correct, but analogous to describing an iceberg from the perspective of a boat.

Would you please save me a few mouse clicks by providing a URL to what you found?

I understand the difficulty of explaining things. I can explain B.T. in about 50 words to a physicist who is well versed in the principles of mathematics and can still recall Newton's Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but explaining to anyone requires some preliminary concepts that few are likely to comprehend. That's why I've written two books on the subject and am trying for another before I get out of here.
Yes, I understand that it must be an iceberg. I just did a few minutes of random reading on this forum, like in this topic:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14068&start=150
I have enough familiarity with Buddhism to have explained to a local mountain-top guru who's hobnobbed with "enlightened ones" in India, and who taught a weekly class to students dumb enough to make a pilgrimage from their monastery down the road, that he was completely unaware of S.G'.s fundamental "theorem." He did not believe me, so I borrowed one of his many books and found the information in it. He's not liked me much since.

I spent a couple of weeks in Bangkok way back when, a few overnights with a high government official who worked as a liaison bureaucrat between the Buddhist church and the Thai government, but learned nothing about the religion. Visited a sacred temple and came away with an illegal photo of the "Jade Buddha," but no insights. I gave up on Buddhism upon realizing that it can morph into any other religion at the drop of a nickel.

Naturally I'd be curious to see your take on the Buddha's fundamental belief.
When I'm talking about nondualism, I'm really only talking about a single aspect common to Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism etc. I'm unconcerned with all the other teachings of these philosophies/religions, and their many schools/branches. It's largely just how they dress up the same simple view again and again.

Nondualism is a.. way of thinking, way of being, way of looking at the world. The "natural", default view, the one we had early on in life, before we fell into the dualistic illusions.
It's about realizing how things actually are, realizing what we are. Some would call it awakening, waking up etc. Some find it dreadful or boring etc.

It's infinitely simple, so it's probably (but of course not certainly) the "correct" philosophy.
You seem to dislike dualism. Yet you live in a universe in which events are caused by the interaction of two opposing forces.

I tried looking at Zen stuff but failed to understand the value of it. I didn't learn jack shit about repairing my motorcycle from "Zen and the Art..." and found the factory service manual more useful, though the book was more entertaining. I noticed that every component of my cycle , like every functioning mechanical or biological machine, was in an interactive force-counterforce relationship with at least one other component.

Given that you cannot pick your nose without the benefit of complex dualistic interactions between bones, tendons, muscles and nerves--- plus the mysterious "will" to stick your finger up there and the wit to make sure that nobody you care about is watching--- what is your complaint with the obvious reality of dualism?
But I don't live in a universe in which events are caused by the interaction of two opposing forces.
The idea of "interaction" is outdated magical thinking anyway, since there are no separate things to interact, and the entire universe is the only "event". But the main problem is: all such dualisms are made up. Upon closer inspection we find that they are illusions of the human mind, nothing more.

There are naturally occuring pairs in the "realm" of subatomic particles etc., but that has almost nothing to do with our everyday life.
If you care to run that question a little deeper--- do you think that you would be conscious and self-aware without the feedback from other conscious beings?

Greylorn
Well that depends. Most adult humans are conscious and self-aware (although I'm not sure how you use these words) in today's culture.

If we isolate humans all their lives, they may or may not spontanously reach such higher states of mind. But if they are given enough input, like for example they get to watch movies about humanity, get access to computers etc., if they are put into a proper simulated environment, even though technically they never encounter another human, they will probably develop self-awareness.

QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:30 pm
QuantumT wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:53 pm
We know that the amount of matter in the universe is finite. We also know that the universe is 3 dimensional. That gives us a universe with borders, although they seem to be expanding, but still with borders. And if it has borders all the way around it, it also must have a center.

So, if logic can be applied to the universe, it tells us that the universe is finite (but expanding), and has a center.
QT,

You're looking at the universe from a purely geometrical perspective, without taking the possibility of non-constant forces into account.

You might listen to Rupert Sheldrake, then consider alternative ideas such as the notion that light must move through a medium that we've failed to detect, implying that its velocity is entirely dependent of that medium's density, and that the medium's density might diminish as function of space and time.

Greylorn
Maybe it truly is purely geometrical?

Have a look at the most powerful and detailed computer simulation of our universe, ever:

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

QuantumT wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:53 pm
We know that the amount of matter in the universe is finite. We also know that the universe is 3 dimensional. That gives us a universe with borders, although they seem to be expanding, but still with borders. And if it has borders all the way around it, it also must have a center.

So, if logic can be applied to the universe, it tells us that the universe is finite (but expanding), and has a center.
QT,
You've disclosed your abysmal ignorance. How is it that we know anything about the finiteness of the quantity of matter?

Is the quantity of energy, which is interchangeable with matter, also finite?

Instead of getting your sorry version of reality from TV or pop-sci magazines, why not either study some physics or get your incompetent butt off this forum? ---Thereby making more space for other fools.

Greylorn

Luxin
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

November 21, 2018

Hi Greylorn,
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:40 pm
"Divine beings?" Are you a displaced fruitcake from a fundamentalist or new age forum? Why not return there and stop inflicting people with 3-digit IQ's with your religious twaddle?
Greylorn
You're right, I might as well be a "displaced fruitcake". I stand well "corrected", and as a rare philosopher-deist like Pythagoras, Plato and Christ, I look forward to contributing plenty more "religious twaddle".

Seriously, thank you -- I had a good laugh!

PS. Sorry for "inflicting" you -- that wasn't my intent at all.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Luxin wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:43 am
November 21, 2018

Hi Greylorn,
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:40 pm
"Divine beings?" Are you a displaced fruitcake from a fundamentalist or new age forum? Why not return there and stop inflicting people with 3-digit IQ's with your religious twaddle?
Greylorn
You're right, I might as well be a "displaced fruitcake". I stand well "corrected", and as a rare philosopher-deist like Pythagoras, Plato and Christ, I look forward to contributing plenty more "religious twaddle".

Seriously, thank you -- I had a good laugh!

PS. Sorry for "inflicting" you -- that wasn't my intent at all.
Pythagoras was a geomatrician/mathematic, Plato was a philosopher, and J.C. was a pragmatic religionist who never concerned himself with philosophical bullshit.

No need to apologize for instigating a conversation. Laughter is good, unless it is a way of blowing off deeper concerns or core feelings. It is okay to get pissed off. Try it!

Greylorn

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:23 pm
How about you? Do you make any distinction between formulas and principles?
I do, however my background is applied decision theory, complexity and systems engineering so both principles and formulas exist in a broader category in my mind called "tools".

Principles are heuristics necessary for plausible reasoning/real-world decision-making, otherwise all of our formulas would become computationally intractable.

And so only by the grace of Occam's razor do we get to build models which have infinities in them and overlook the fact that we have no clue what "infinity" is or recognize that we can't actually represent infinities computationally. The function predicts (within some domain and some acceptable error bound for prediction). We call it a victory and go home.

It all boils down to this distinction for me: prediction vs control.

If "understanding" was to be measured on a continuum then control (of outcome) is a much higher bar than prediction (of outcome). Physicists care about rough prediction - doctors and engineers care about control and precision-of-action. In the domain of complex systems Occam's razor doesn't always work in practice. In fact doctors are far more likely to lean on Hickam's dictum.

Control requires a higher bar for "understanding" than mere prediction because we don't have the luxury of hiding all the complexity we don't want to tackle behind mathematical symbols.

And so, while a physicist can get away with the principle of parsimony in their field of work - I cannot. Trying to brush complexity under the carpet tends to blow up in my face rather frequently. Out of sight is not out of mind.

Reality is too complex to fit into man-made models. I think most experimental (distinguished from theoretical) physicists understand that?

Luxin
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

November 21, 2018
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:57 am
... J.C. was a pragmatic religionist who never concerned himself with philosophical bullshit.
Greylorn
Hi, I'm going to have God talk to the forum on my behalf, because it may help. Of course you're part of the forum, so you can hear me.

[ God speaks to the forum: ]

Esteemed gods of the forum including god-visitors, the esteemed god Greylorn affirmed that Christ "never concerned himself with philosophical bullshit".

I am curious how the god arrived at this conclusion.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Luxin wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:11 pm
Hi, I'm going to have God talk to the forum on my behalf, because it may help. Of course you're part of the forum, so you can hear me.

[ God speaks to the forum: ]

Esteemed gods of the forum including god-visitors, the esteemed god Greylorn affirmed that Christ "never concerned himself with philosophical bullshit".

I am curious how the god arrived at this conclusion.
Because a rationalist arrives at Jesus' position eventually.

If your short&long term goals are in any way aligned to your own well-being, and EVEN if you are a selfish egomaniac who doesn't care about broader society, yet who is capable of rational thought and some statistical thinking then you will realise that (statistically) the winning strategy in this game is solidarity and cooperation. And all of its perks: economies of scale and division of labor, bakeries etc.

It follows from game theory. As an epiphenomenon I will believe in whatever God you want me to believe if it gets me your cooperation and your good faith.

You want me to use cheap parlour tricks to convince you of a 'higher power/purpose'? I can do that.
You want me to exploit your psychological weaknesses and biases towards my goal? I can do that.
You want me to invent authorities if it means keeping you accountable and in line? I can do that.

And when you figure out the game; and you discover your own free will; and you figure out how to play the game for yourself without the wool being pulled over your eyes then we can just give each other the wink&nod&secret handshake and carry on...

Humans require mind-hacking.

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

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

I agree with the OP. Time and space are both finite. I'm writing a paper on it which I've copied in below. Its really straight forward once you realise actual infinity can't exist... the rest follows...

Abstract

Eternalism is the belief that past, present and future are equally real. It contrasts to Presentism; the belief that only now exists. In this paper we demonstrate that time has a start and further demonstrate that this implies Eternalism is true.

Outline of proof

- Definitions
- Proof actual infinity does not exits
- Proof Time had a start
- Proof of Eternalism
- Related Propositions

Definitions

We will be discussing infinity, so these two definitions of Aristotle [1] will come in useful:

Potenial Infinity
Characterised by a repeating process, such as repeatedly adding to a number. These processes increases towards infinity without ever actually reaching it.

Actual Infinity
This is what most people think of when they say infinity; a non-finite number or quantity. Examples would be the actual existence of a completed infinite set or a physical property like length, mass taking on an infinite value.

Proof that Actual Infinity does not Exist

Actual Infinity does not exist

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

Further, actual infinity does not follow common sense or mathematical rules:

oo + 1 = oo implies
1 = 0

The logical absurdity implies infinity is not a mathematical quantity.

Materialistic Argument
- How exactly is Actual Infinity and the materialistic world view comparable?
- For example, can a physical quantity larger than any other possible physical quantity exist?

Geometrical Construction
- It is impossible to construct a line segment with the property that it is longer than all other line segments

Is there an Actual Infinity of points on a Line Segment?

- Consider the points on a line segment length 1.
- Does the interval contain an actual infinity of points?
- No.
- Points have length zero
- So the length of the interval 1 divided by the length of a point 0 equals UNDEFINED.

The real number line

The situation is similar when we examine the real numbers:

- Consider the Numbers on the real number line.
- For example between 0 and 1.
- Does the interval contain an actual infinity of numbers?
- No.
- Numbers have length zero
- they are just logical labels on a line
- So the length of the interval 1 divided by the length of a number 0 equals UNDEFINED.

- Time is a series of moments. Take away one moment and the following moments are undefined/cannot exist. For example, take away Monday and the rest of the week does not exist. So there must be a starting moment; an anchor point for the whole time series or none of it exists.

- Imagine Eternity, it has no starting moment, so none of it can exist

- If time did not have a start then an actual infinity of time has passed so far which is impossible

- Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start in time so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not

- Intense gravity causes the passage of time to slow so time came to an almost stop at the Big Bang (strong candidate for start of time).

- A moment cannot of occurred infinity long ago, because there is no way for the effects of that moment to get to today (-oo + 1 = -oo), so all moments happened finitely long ago

The Measure Problem
This is a paradox of eternal time from Cosmology:

- Assume time is eternal.
- If it can happen it will happen.
- An infinite number of times.
- No matter how unlikely it was in the first place!
- So all things happen an infinite number of times.
- So all things are equally likely.
- Time is not eternal

The solution to the paradox is to assume time is not infinite; it has a start

- Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?

This paradox highlights the nonsensical nature of anything eternal (in time). Such an entity has no temporal starting point so its impossible

Proof of Eternalism

Assume only now exists
So before the start of time there was nothing *
But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
So more than only now exists **

* If there is more than one time, this proof refers to the first or top level time.
** We know now exists and more than now exists. So at least one moment other than now must exist. But all moments are identical so they all must exist.

Alternative Proof

(top level) Time had a start
Can’t get something from nothing so Something has always existed *
Implies Time must have always existed
IE Eternalism

Nothing is no dimensions, mater or energy

Note that Eternalism is in agreement with the Theory of Relativity whereas Presentism is not.

Related Propositions

Time Has An End
If Eternalism and Finitism are both true, then time must have an end.

The Universe is Finite
- The universe is expanding so it cannot be infinite in space else there would be nowhere to expand to
The universe started with the Big Bang 14 Billion years ago and has been expanding since then; it must have a finite radius
Time has an end, so with the speed of light limit, the universe can only ever reach a finite size.
- The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says if the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now. But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. So time must of had a start. Or to put it another way: If time did not have a start, and infinite amount of time has past, so we must have reached the big freeze. But we have not reached the big freeze, so a finite amount of time has past since the beginning of the universe, so time had a start.

Time is Circular

There is only one place in the universe to get all the matter and energy for the Big Bang; the Big Crunch has it in precisely the right quantity. IE time is probably circular (with a single set of time co-ordinates). This leads to a very simple model of the universe:

Everything has existed always (timelessly)
Everything is finite in time and space
Start of time is the Big Bang
End of time is the big crunch
Time is probably circular

We note that the expansion rate of the universe has slowed in the past (the end of cosmic inflation) and also that the universe is still very young; so the expansion of the universe could turn into contraction at a later time.

The state of the universe at the Big Bang and Big Crunch should be identical with all matter/energy packed into a single discrete space-time cell.

We also note that energy is conserved and there is nowhere for the energy to go at the end of (time apart from back to the start of time.

If the time is not circular, it leaves a puzzle as to where all the matter and energy goes at the end of time - it should be conserved in this universe.

If time is circular and finite then it implies Eternalism.

Space and Time are Discrete

Is it reasonable to regard the position of particles as information about the volume of space containing the particles? If yes, then there seems to be a simple argument for space being discrete:

- Assume space is continuous
- Implies particles have infinite positional precision. We might not be able to measure with infinite precision; but the underlying system is continuous so possesses infinite precision
- So there is an infinite amount of information in a spacial volume of 1 cubic unit
- And there is also an infinite amount of information in a spacial volume of 10000 cubic units
- Both infinities are the same kind and have the same cardinality
- So there must be a false assumption in the argument; space must be discrete

A paradox is indicative of an underlying logic error. In all the following cases, the logic error is the assumption that Actual Infinity occurs:

- Galileo's paradox is solved: There are less squares than numbers because not all numbers are squares. Yet each number has a square so the number of numbers and squares must be the same. He is trying to compare two actually infinite sets, IE comparing two undefined things. A set definition is not complete until all its members are iterated.
- Hilbert’s infinite hotel paradox is solved; such a hotel cannot exist.
- Cantor's Paradox: ‘The set of all sets is its own power set. Therefore, the cardinal number of the set of all sets must be bigger than itself.’ The set of all sets is an ACTUAL INFINITY so not a completely described set. You cannot soundly reason with it. Leads to the paradox.
- Zeno’s paradoxes are solved. Time and space are discrete (separate proof)

The Anthropic principle
The Weak Anthropic explains the universe must be compatible with life for us to be here. It does not explain why the universe is compatible with life
The Strong Anthropic explains that the existence of multiple universes with different properties account for our existence. But other universes are statistically likely to be like this one (Life supporting) so the SAP does not explain why the multiverse is fined-tuned for life.

Quantum Fluctuations and Infinite Time

Could a Quantum Fluctuation have occurred infinity long ago?
No because there is no way for the effects of the Quantum Fluctuation to get to today (-oo + 1 = -oo)
IE There is no way to get from -oo to today, thats the definition of infinity
So all Quantum Fluctuations occurred finitely long ago.
So there must be a finite total number of Quantum Fluctuations
So ‘if it can happen, it will happen’ does not apply
So Quantum Fluctuations did not cause the Big Bang

Same argument for random particle collisions.

Summary

The universe is:

- Finite in Space and Time
- Eternal outside of time
- Probably circular in the time dimension

References

[1] Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 9, chapter 6.

QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:13 am
QT,
You've disclosed your abysmal ignorance. How is it that we know anything about the finiteness of the quantity of matter?

Is the quantity of energy, which is interchangeable with matter, also finite?

Instead of getting your sorry version of reality from TV or pop-sci magazines, why not either study some physics or get your incompetent butt off this forum? ---Thereby making more space for other fools.

Greylorn
1st: The only abysmal person here is you, sir. I must say, it's very rare to meet someone as rude and arrogant as you. It would be nice if you'd quit behaving like an anus

2nd: I didn't get my version of reality from pop science. Truth is I had a very bad nights sleep yesterday, so I let my thoughts wander a bit more in a holistic direction, than I would usually do. And truth is also that we much to often complicate things unnecessarily (violating Occam's Razor), so maybe I could be on to something we could all learn from? (Unless you're too arrogant to learn, of course.)

3rd and finally: To answer your "question"; yes, matter/energy in our universe is finite. We just don't know how much there is yet.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests