Wittgenstein had a nice solution to stop bothering about these kinds of problem, basically do we ever observe infinite things? No we only observe finite things, and our concept of expansion stems from our observations of finite things that expand, so it is meaningless to apply a concept that applies to finite things to something that is not finite. — leo

Yes and you could add the fact we only ever observe finite things is strong inductive support for the proposition 'infinity does not exist'.

But even if you got cosmologists to stop talking about an infinite space that expands, that wouldn't change much in the grand scheme of things — leo

I see it as one battle in a war. I believe infinity is impossible in general. There are proofs but people don't buy the proofs. So I've settled for trying to show each instance of infinity leads to a contradiction. Infinite space is one of these instances.

I see it as one battle in a war. I believe infinity is impossible in general. There are proofs but people don't buy the proofs. So I've settled for trying to show each instance of infinity leads to a contradiction. Infinite space is one of these instances. — Devans99

What is there to gain by winning the war though?

Well for example (as I know someone who will criticise me for this) if you believe infinity and specifically an infinity of time is impossible then that leads logically to a timeless first cause (itself uncaused as it is beyond causality).

It would also be generally useful if we could rule out infinity so we could teach the kids something more useful/truthful than Cantor's infinite set theory.

Plus it would simplify science if we knew for sure that Actual Infinity is impossible. Certainly in cosmology, that would cut down the range of possible models of the universe.

Apparently, even MATTER is not made up of MATTER.

Ultimately, it is made up of energy.

Or of an infinitely regressing halving of a unit of matter...or at least that is what present-day human science is saying.

One of the HUGE problems in these kinds of discussions is the reluctance of participants to acknowledge, "I do not know."

Even when a begrudging acknowledgement is made...it is almost always followed by a "But the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is more likely A than B...

...even though that is bullshit.

Discuss the subject.,..it is a very interesting one...but stop with the "definites."

Neither infinity nor eternity are impossible...and both are every bit as likely as no-eternity and no-infinity.

The people claiming one or the other definitely IS the reality...AND the people claiming one is more likely than the other...are allowing their blind guesses to go ape!

2. It is expanding — Devans99

Or everything in it is shrinking...?

An interesting perspective but it does go against the evidence of the red shift of distant galaxies.

Is space expanding or are things expanding within space?
If space is expanding, within what is it expanding?

Distant galaxies are flying apart at a rate that greater than the speed of light so it appears it is space is expanding.

I guess it is expanding within nothingness. So the nothingness has no space or no time associated with it. Maybe time slows down as you get closer to the edge of the universe and stops on the boundary? If the boundary was expanding at the speed of light, that would make some sense.

Good argument. But you'd have to prove that infinity can't grow/expand. That is something you haven't done yet.

Infinity can grow can it not?

I hear that there are infinite infinities each larger than the other.

The dictionary definition of infinity is:

'MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)'

So if infinity grows, it was not infinity to start with (because there was a number greater than infinity).

By the same definition, it is not possible to have more than one infinity, although as you say maths goes on to contradict its own definition of infinity by introducing multiple infinities.

Cantor imagined a hierarchy of different sized infinities terminating with 'Absolute Infinity' at the top. This concept Cantor said was beyond maths and he associated it with God. Cantor believed God communicated these ideas to him directly. Cantor was a looney IMO.

Trying to clarify my last remarks:

If infinity is a number; it is a number larger than any other number. So if infinity+1 (IE it grows) is a number, then infinity is not infinity.

If infinity is a number; it is a number larger than any other number. There can be only one such 'number larger than any other number'.

OK, so infinity cannot grow, or have anything greater than it, so the universe's size/age/whatever cannot be infinite.

Fine, the universe's size/age/whatever must be some other thing which can grow and have something greater than it but which still is not a finite number. What do you want to call that thing? Pick a name and we'll all happily use it.

The universe could just be finite in time and space. That is a nice simple model that fits the facts.

I don't think it's the case that we need some 'number' other than infinity to describe the universe. The size of the universe is a number, numbers have fixed values, so the size of the universe is a finite number.

Distant galaxies are flying apart... — Devans99

I think whatever hypothesis we develop should not overlook the facts we're working with. The fact is we've noticed the galaxies moving apart in space. However, we can't say anything conclusive about that space. Whether space is expanding along with the galaxies or it is constant while the galaxies expand within it is yet to be determined.

I guess it is expanding within nothingness. — Devans99

I think space is a very difficult subject/object to define even before the inclusion of another even lesser defined abstract as nothingness. The unknown factors are too great for any conclusions.

For me, the two abstracts seem to obscure any logical connections I might want to make. Nothing is just a placeholder for an idea that expresses a relative, tentative and conditional situation and thus cannot be a 'something'.

Devans99
1.1k
↪Isaac
The universe could just be finite in time and space. That is a nice simple model that fits the facts.

I don't think it's the case that we need some 'number' other than infinity to describe the universe. The size of the universe is a number, numbers have fixed values, so the size of the universe is a finite number. — Devans99

Devans...are there any days where you are not pontificating?

"The 'size' of the universe" MAY not be a number at all. It MAY be infinity.

What we humans call "the universe" MAY itself be infinite.

We do not know.

Your pontifications are used gratuitously in order for you to arrive at "the universe is not infinite" which you need for wherever you ultimately want to go.

Can you truly not see that?

The 'size' of the universe" MAY not be a number at all. — Frank Apisa

Thats a contradictory statement - size is always a number.

Your pontifications are used gratuitously in order for you to arrive at "the universe is not infinite" which you need for wherever you ultimately want to go.

Can you truly not see that? — Frank Apisa

If we adopted your approach to philosophy and science which seems to consist of 'I don't know' and 'its unknowable' I think progress would grind to a halt.

Whether space is expanding along with the galaxies or it is constant while the galaxies expand within it is yet to be determined. — BrianW

Galaxies are flying apart at faster than the speed of light so it is space that is expanding I believe.

Devans99
1.1k

The 'size' of the universe" MAY not be a number at all. — Frank Apisa


Thats a contradictory statement - size is always a number. — Devans99

"Size" is NOT always a number.

"Large" IS NOT a number. Neither is "narrow." Both are sizes.

The UNIVERSE, Devans, MAY be infinite. Use that as a number...or a size...or whatever. But get off your nonsense that you KNOW it cannot be infinite.

Your need to get to "the universe is not infinite" is astounding...and futile.

Your pontifications are used gratuitously in order for you to arrive at "the universe is not infinite" which you need for wherever you ultimately want to go.

Can you truly not see that? — Frank Apisa


If we adopted your approach to philosophy and science which seems to consist of 'I don't know' and 'its unknowable' I think progress would grind to a halt.

That is not so at all...and we touched on this earlier.

Both disciplines can proceed with dispatch...without the nonsense of pontificating...which, by the way, was what held up science and philosophy not many centuries ago.

You are positive that the universe cannot be infinite and eternal...because you are determined that it has to be a creation...and has to have a creator.

That is not science nor philosophy. It is charletanism.

@Isaac gave the correct answer to the OP in the second post here. That @Devans99 receives any attention is evidence of poor critical skills on the part of those hereabouts. This, and the other threads in which Devans butchers mathematics, should be no more than an exercise for the moderators.

But they are not. Shame.

The physics of the situation that is wrong with an infinite universe:

1. An infinite universe should have no boundaries so cannot expand

2. There is nothing beyond an infinite universe to expand into

3. Expanding means that size(t1) > size(t0). IE we know the universe was once smaller than it is today. There is only one kind of infinity here; size is an Aleph One infinity. So size(t0) must be a finite number.

4. The universe can't have been expanding for ever; if we trace back in time far enough, we will always find a point in time when two distant points are co-located so no further expansion is possible. Hence the universe must have finite size.

1. An infinite universe should have no boundaries so cannot expand — Devans99

According to your idiosyncratic definition of infinite.

2. There is nothing beyond an infinite universe to expand into — Devans99

According to your idiosyncratic definition of infinite.

3. Expanding means that size(t1) > size(t0). IE we know the universe was once smaller than it is today. There is only one kind of infinity here; size is an Aleph One infinity. So size(t0) must be a finite number. — Devans99

According to your idiosyncratic definition of infinite.

4. The universe can't have been expanding for ever; if we trace back in time far enough, we will always find a point in time when two distant points are co-located so no further expansion is possible. Hence the universe must have finite size. — Devans99

According to your idiosyncratic definition of infinite.

On the subject of idiosyncratic definitions of infinite:

∞+1=∞

In english, this means there exists something that when you change it, it does not change. Absolute nonsense.

Yes, we all know what you think. This is not your personal blog, it's a philosophy discussion forum, so unless you have something to discuss, rather than merely declare to be the case, then I can't much see the point in you posting.

If we all held the same viewpoint there would be nothing to discuss thus no philosophy discussion forum.

You repeat the same error, despite correction. Hence your threads are about your error, not about philosophy.

In english, this means there exists something that when you change it, it does not change. Absolute nonsense. — Devans99

The universe is not one point with the other; it's not a beginning with an end, wherein the end is ever-growing from the beginning. The universe, following the infinity concept, has no end nor a beginning; so interstitial positions between matter and particles are increasing, it's growing further from each particle.

So the universe is infinite.

- There are proofs that infinity does not exist.
- There are no proofs that infinity does exist.
- What exactly can we deduce from that apart from infinity does not exist?

Modern physics seems to be leaning in the direction of spacetime having a start:

https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/01/the-significance-of-bgv-theorem.html

The BGV theorem states, as you'd expect, that an expanding universe must have a start.

- There are proofs that infinity does not exist.
- There are no proofs that infinity does exist.
- What exactly can we deduce from that apart from infinity does not exist? — Devans99

You're just doing it again.

If we all held the same viewpoint there would be nothing to discuss thus no philosophy discussion forum. — Devans99

But you're not discussing this, you're just repeatedly declaring it to be the case. You haven't addressed the arguments of those mathematicians who advance modern infinity theory, you've just declared them all to be 'wrong'.

It's fine to have axiomatic beliefs, but if you cannot find someone who shares those beliefs, then there is no one with whom you can discuss the implications thereof.

It would be like me declaring an axiomatic belief that Robert DeNiro was God and expecting to hold a discussion about what colour his tie would be.

- There are no proofs that infinity does exist. — Devans99

The circumference of the topographical position of any country, is infinite. To begin, you measure distance of the shore by kilometers, but as you zoom in, more corrugations start to appear. From meters, centimeters, millimeters, to intangible and imperceptible microscopic substances, corrugations constantly appear. That's fractalism; fractalism is argued to consist of a beginning, but not an end.

However, infinity can consist of a beginning. Suppose there was a race track shaped like the infinity symbol, it has no substantial beginning, nor an end — but it's infinite, it's constantly going on. A race-car, which is not infinite, due to it's analytical limitations, might have an end - that's not evidence to say the race track is not.

The point is, infinity is not something comprehensible to empirical sense, infinity is a concept that requires our ability to rationalize. Far greatly: Space, Time, and other abstract concepts rely on rationalization, it is a common intuition that is driven by our humanly perspective; our ability to rationalize.

↪SethRy Modern physics seems to be leaning in the direction of spacetime having a start: — Devans99

If you're going to take it from a theistic point of view, the universe does have a beginning.

Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who was also a devoted Aristotelian, argued that; God, who should be known to possess and harness infinite resources, must be able to create the universe with a stagnant beginning, but in a way that it was and will always be, infinite.

Us Humans as contingent beings, may not look upon it as a concept that is logically possible, because of our humanly intuitions. We cannot comprehend the presence of both at the same status temporally, we think they are not mutually exclusive. So I would conclude, that the universe is infinite yet inheres a beginning.

Now the reason why we don't understand that as humans, is because we know infinity (For a Godly concept, not fractalism) cannot inhere a beginning.

Just to remind, , if you would say that infinity does have a beginning, your atheistic viewpoint will collapse, or if not, weaken. If you say otherwise, your 'impossibility of infinity' viewpoint will collapse as an already precarious theory.