| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - IS INFINITY REAL? -> No infinities | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: No infinities |
| Posted By: ThePM Posted On: Jul 9, 2003 Views: 941 | RE: RE: No infinities If the universe expands forever, then it must be infinite. Although, at any given time we might say that it does not have an infinite volume, if we look at it as a four dimensional whole, then the time dimension is infinite, and this gives it an infinite volume in four dimensions. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 10, 2003 Views: 938 | RE: No infinities I think you are missing the point. How can the Universe possibly be infinite when it is expanding? If it was infinite it would be impossible to get any larger. BTW it is the volume that we are talking about, the three dimensions of physical space, so it is pointless to exclude it from your statement that the universe is infinite. Your remark obout the dimension of time being infinite is only an opinion. According to the Big Bang theory time began with the creation of the Universe so cannot be infinite as it must have had a beginning. Keith |
| Posted By: ThePM Posted On: Jul 17, 2003 Views: 932 | RE: No infinities I was talking about the universe in terms of its four dimensial geometry. For the sake of visualisation, we simplify the three dimensional universe we are familiar with into two dimensions, so the universe as a whole can be represented as a 2D circle. As the universe is expanding with time, this means that our circular representation of the universe is also getting bigger with time. But time is just another dimension, which in this 2D model can be represented as a vertical line perpendicular to the circle. Thus the universe in this simplified model of three rather than four dimensions consists of larger and larger circles stacked on top of each other, with each individual circle representing an instant in time. As we are assuming the universe expands forever, it's shape will be that of a funnel that gets wider and wider as you go up, and continues to do so forever. As a result of this, it's volume must be infinite. True, if you take the universe at a particular point in time (i.e in this model a single circle), you will find that it's 2D area is finite, but you are just taking a finite section of an infinite thing, so it should be no suprise that it is finite. I hope that makes sense - I am quite bad at explaining things. PS If the universe expands forever, time must be infinite. While it does have a beginning, it goes on forever, and anything that goes on forever is by definition infinite. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 17, 2003 Views: 929 | RE: No infinities I think that you are mistaken in your ideas about infinity. What you have described in your model is an expanding universe that always has a finite size. That is my point as well. You then go on to say that as it will expand forever (will it though?) it must have infinite volume. As we are only able to experience the universe at a given moment in time, now, then it is always finite. If I gave you a rubber band and said it could be stretched forever, you would not say it was infinite in length. The only thing that you are describing that is infinite is time, and that is not correct as it has a beginning - at the moment of creation of the Big Bang. It cannot go on for ever when it has an end/beginning, to be infinite a thing must have no beginning as well as no end. |
| Posted By: ThePM Posted On: Jul 23, 2003 Views: 919 | RE: No infinities I do admit that I did make a bit of an assumption in that the universe will expand forever, but based on current evidence I believe it to be quite a reasonable one (if the big crunch ends up happening, then I concede that the universe is not infinite). My point was that the universe is a four dimensional entity, and that you are not seeing the entire universe at any point in time, just a three dimensional slice of it. If it expands forever (i.e. the time dimension is infinitely long), then it will have the infinite geometry I described before. Regardless of whether or not it has a beginning, how can time not be infinite if it goes on forever? How many numbers in the set of integers >=0? |
| Posted By: WTF Posted On: Sep 17, 2003 Views: 896 | RE: RE: No infinities I am very smallllllllll. I am very largeeeeeeeeee. I am everything inbetweennnnnnnnnnnnnnn. |
| Posted By: Favre Posted On: Dec 16, 2004 Views: 815 | RE: No infinities Why is everyone talking about the human brain as being infinite? we are saying that PHYSICAL MATTER cant be infinite, thoughts are NOT a form of PHYSICAL MATTER. anyone else agree? |
| Posted By: Alice in Wonderland Posted On: Dec 17, 2004 Views: 809 | RE: No infinities Favre wrote - thoughts are NOT a form of PHYSICAL MATTER. anyone else agree? Hmm. My thoughts feel pretty real to me! What do you think? Sincerely, Alice |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 18, 2004 Views: 807 | RE: No infinities The question as to whether or not thoughts are a form of physical matter is not clear cut. The brain works, as you well know, by an exchange of signals using chemicals and electricity. Every thought we have is created by this physical process, so is the thought itself physical? I think it is. Electrodes can be attached to the head and the subject is then able to move a curser around a computer screen and other similar tricks. The thoughts then are physical, unless you argue that it is only the process that is being picked up by the electrodes, not the actual thought itself. Keith |
| Posted By: Al Nigro Posted On: Dec 18, 2004 Views: 804 | RE: No infinities "The thoughts then are physical" Yes only then the definition of thought is Physical and only when measured by the only way we know how. "Not the actual thought itself" This is were we can argue of infinities. The thought, not the measuring of electronic impulses may just be infinite. Al |
| Posted By: Al Nigro Posted On: Dec 18, 2004 Views: 803 | RE: No infinities SORRY KEITH, I MISSTAKENLY PUT YOUR NAME IN MY POST. I MENT IT TO BE TO YOU NOT FROM YOU. AL (Okay Al, no problem, fixed it. Keith) |
| Posted By: Bruno Posted On: May 23, 2007 Views: 665 | RE: No infinities Quoting Sherri: "A pretty bright guy suggested to me: "Did you know that on the scale of the smallest known particle to the size of the universe that human beings fit exactly half way if you keep doubling the leap in size?" " Sound good, except one major flaw this guy has overlooked: we simply don't know exactly how big the universe is, so no one can actually verify this statement. If the universe and whatever vacuum may be surrounding it, is infinite, then the statement is clearly wrong. (I do not believe, that particles can be divided an infinite number of times). |
| Posted By: Bruno Posted On: May 23, 2007 Views: 665 | RE: No infinities I know this is a matter of definition, but I would like to throw in this thought anyway. If we define the universe as being "all that is", then it cannot possibly be expanding, since the area it expands into, is included in "all that is", thus a part of the universe itself. Even if completely empty, a complete vacuum, an infinite void, it's part of the universe if the universe is "all that is". Even a void "is", it exists, otherwise space could possibly not expand into it. However, the space itself seems to expand, or at least the galaxies move farther and farther away from each other. But does that necessarily state that the entire universe is expanding? Could it be, that the galaxies are merely moving to another, previously unoccupied area in the universe? Does it make sense? Kind of hard to illustrate what I mean, but simply put, if the universe is "all that is", it cannot expand into anything but itself... (?) |
| Posted By: Sherri Posted On: May 23, 2007 Views: 660 | RE: No infinities Bruno, I do believe I observed that the infinite equilateral divisions of the micro and macro -cosms demonstrate the egocentricity of their perspective. All measurement in any direction proceeds from a point of observation and therefore is relative. MY point is that the *perspective* of that point considerably effects or conditions however one might derive a meaningfulness, a 'conclusion', from that point of view. A point marks a place relative to its moment, whether it be in mind, time, space, or 'matter'. We are limited only by the parameters we imagine to be real. If perspective is the *point*, each point can be realised as a spherical and potentially expanding 'universe', don't you think? Sincerely, Sherri |
| Posted By: Bruno Posted On: May 24, 2007 Views: 659 | RE: No infinities Hi Sherry. Yes, if seen from that perspective, I agree with you. As I started out with, it's a matter of definition. Anything relative depends on the reference frame from which it is being defined, so according to this, the notion may be true. Even our mind is relative, we simply just don't know what to compare it with, except for the mind of other beings on the earth of course...but that said, it's highly unlikely to include all life in the universe. So we can only define a local reference frame in this instance. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next Page -> |