I don't believe infinity is a logical concept and reality is logical so again the size of the universe is not infinite. — Devans99
This thread is just about if the universe is infinite in size or not. — Devans99
I am aware that you can classify infinite sets via cardinal numbers. However calling them numbers seems to me a bit of a stretch. — CaZaNOx
Further my point was that the argument for the existence of infinity could be located precisely in the continuous growing of the value of integer numbers as done in math. I therefore don't see how the very same continuous growing would undermine asserting the concept of infinity to reality. — CaZaNOx
I reformulate this as
1) Reality is not logical
2) Conclusion: The size of the universe is not infinite
(feel free to object to my paraphrasing your position if you think I misunderstood you) — CaZaNOx
In the poetic or metaphoric sense wrt the universe, "infinite" just means large, the universe being the largest thing — tim wood
Devans99
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
This thread is just about if the universe is infinite in size or not. Whether the universe was created would be a separate thread. — Devans99
I am sure everyone will agree that it is POSSIBLE that the universe is finite...just as it is POSSIBLE that the universe is infinite — Frank Apisa
tim wood
2.1k
I am sure everyone will agree that it is POSSIBLE that the universe is finite...just as it is POSSIBLE that the universe is infinite — Frank Apisa
Can you offer any understanding - yours or anyone else's that is not itself fantastical - of just how the universe could be actually infinite?
Keeping in mind that an infinite universe necessarily has infinite yous responding to infinite mes on his thread, with other infinities of you and me in slight variations from this, and so on, & on, & on....
To reduce infinite to possibility is an abuse of "possibility." Just as it would be to assert that it's possible for you to be other than you are. Conceivable, maybe. Possible, how? — tim wood
1) Reality is logical
2) Infinity is not logical
2) Conclusion: The size of the universe is part of reality so not infinite — Devans99
- Infinity is not a number — Devans99
2. if ∞ derives a contradiction, then ∞ is illogical
and this is not the case in general; we have some examples of veridical paradoxes, which goes to show that ∞ can have counter-intuitive implications, and that's not the same as illogical; that said, there are some cases where we take a derived ∞ to indicate a problem; dealing with ∞ requires special care — jorndoe
∞ ∉ R (not among the reals, requires different treatment) — jorndoe
If you are saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be infinite (and eternal)...you are defying logic. — Frank Apisa
tim wood
2.1k
If you are saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be infinite (and eternal)...you are defying logic. — Frank Apisa
I don't think so. I think what you mean is unbounded. As the surface of a sphere is unbounded - but by no means infinite. So yes. The universe is not infinite. And that is logic, not a defiance thereof. Perhaps you're confusing logical possibility with conceivable possibility - anything is conceivable.
Stop for a moment and think bout what "infinite" means. — tim wood
↪Frank Apisa
Well it is impossible for the universe to be infinite in size:
- Size is a number
- Infinity is not a number
- So the universe is not infinite in size — Devans99
What he said was:
(if it was size X, it is now size X+1, meaning X was not infinite)
— Devans99
Which is just false. Infinity plus one is still infinity. — Banno
Devans99
A Koch snowflake always has a finite perimeter length, the process that produces them is an example of Potential Infinity. If a Koch snowflake existed in reality it would have a finite perimeter (because matter is discrete). Does not matter how far you expand the snowflake, it still has a finite perimeter. — Devans99
Whether or not matter is discrete is still in contention...and probably will be for a very long time. — Frank Apisa
Devans99
1.1k
Whether or not matter is discrete is still in contention...and probably will be for a very long time. — Frank Apisa
Are you suggesting a never-ending faberge egg style arrangement with an unending sequence of smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles?
Or are you suggesting we will discover a sub-atomic particle that is continuous (IE infinity divisible)? — Devans99
...using OP's argument that X+1>X, — curiousnewbie
What he said was:
(if it was size X, it is now size X+1, meaning X was not infinite) — Devans99
Which is just false. Infinity plus one is still infinity.
What you propose here is quite different. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.