finite or infinite?
- Thread starter ezeroast
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with this whole entire discussion is how you define things. For example, if you define time to be the moment after 'the big bang' (or whatever creation you ascribe to), then time is finite. If you also consider whatever happened prior to this, then time is of indeterminable cardinality.
Likewise, if you define the 'edge' of the universe to be wherever we cease to have additional matter (in the form of stars, black holes, or what-have-you), then the universe is currently and will almost certainly always be finite. If you consider the possibility of more 'nothingness' outside of the universe, then again, the cardinality of space becomes indeterminable.
Likewise, if you define the 'edge' of the universe to be wherever we cease to have additional matter (in the form of stars, black holes, or what-have-you), then the universe is currently and will almost certainly always be finite. If you consider the possibility of more 'nothingness' outside of the universe, then again, the cardinality of space becomes indeterminable.
slipknot4 said:
Why would adding mass make any difference to the argument? Size is measured from the beginning of something to the end of it. It doesn't matter if you have vacuum in the middle, or if you fill it with gas.YawehG said:
Depends on your definition of time. In physics, time is intrinsically tied with mass and energy as well, hence it does very weird things when you move into the realm of relativity.Tharwen said:
And since when is it so righteous to bash creationists? There is a beginning to everything, whether you call it a dimension quake (which give rise to the lump of mass that eventually exploded in a big bang), or a supreme being put it there. Personally, what most people bash is the view of some hard core modern creationist, which is quite a bit distorted from what the bible has to say. Take for example, the fact that the idea of rapture, which is so prevalent in today's portrayal of Christianity, which is actually invented in the 20th century.
If God is willing to take the long way around to do things, I don't see why he can't guide some cells together to evolve into what we are today. Do you honestly believe that a few billion atoms just happened to decide to hang out together at the right place, at the right time, then suddenly life happened? I find that to be a horribly long shot. We have been throwing a lot of organic materials together for a long time, and we can't even reproduce the simplest life without one to begin with. Why should some carbon atoms decided, hey, let's carry this oxygen molecule around so that other carbon chains can do things and evolve into multi-cell organism. The odd of that happening statistically IS literally 1 over infinity (i.e. zero).
What you're missing out on is 'transfinite'. It means that it's a value that definitely measurable, but we don't have enough space to physically or digitally record the value. The amount of atoms in the universe is a transfinite number, as is the universe's diameter.
Outside the universe, I have a common-ish theory - the multiverse. If one universe can be created, then obviously the resources (obviously something other than matter) exist to create an infinite amount of universes. I believe there are infinite or at least transfinite universes by now, if time is even a factor outside the universes.
Man, metaphysics is awesome.
Outside the universe, I have a common-ish theory - the multiverse. If one universe can be created, then obviously the resources (obviously something other than matter) exist to create an infinite amount of universes. I believe there are infinite or at least transfinite universes by now, if time is even a factor outside the universes.
Man, metaphysics is awesome.
A non flaming and somewhat intellectual conversation on a YouTube comment?!?!! 
I am impressed, I have actually had one of those once and I still believe I was the winner but I replied the same as your last post after a few rounds, he just wouldn't give up -.-.
I don't know which one to pick since my brain capacity isn't good enough for that kind of stuff, maybe if it was in my mother tongue. Or if someone would explain to me what the difference between infinite and finite (I know infinite but the word "finite" is giving me some trouble) is so that I can understand the conversation fully.
I am impressed, I have actually had one of those once and I still believe I was the winner but I replied the same as your last post after a few rounds, he just wouldn't give up -.-.
I don't know which one to pick since my brain capacity isn't good enough for that kind of stuff, maybe if it was in my mother tongue. Or if someone would explain to me what the difference between infinite and finite (I know infinite but the word "finite" is giving me some trouble) is so that I can understand the conversation fully.
I don't remember if I commented on this thread already, but infinity/finity is a measure, and measuring something requires observing said something. Without someone observing, no one can no the properties of anything.
The limitations of the observer gives something a finite size.
Example: let's say that you place a mirror in a fixed point in space, and aim a laser (that doesn't diffuse at all) towards the mirror- but the mirror is too far away to be observed in one person's lifetime. In order for that person to be able to calculate the distance between himself and the mirror, he has to be able to see the laser bouncing of the mirror.
To that one observer, the distance between the mirror and himself is infinite-because he can't see the laser beam returning on his end.
Playing with definitions: "Infinity" could be interpreted as "unobservable from a practical viewpoint"- at least in this case.
Also: his balloon example is flawed: he knows that if a balloon WILL burst if it's filled with too much... of anything.
Reading up on his example though, I think he could have saved his entire argument if he had said "At any point, it still has a finite size".
His argument makes *some* sense if you imagine that you can go to the "edge" of the universe at the time, and measure the rate of expansion at that given time, over a set amount of time, and then from there, figure where Earth is ("Triple-Zero", if you will), and relative to that, figure out the distance from that point in time/space and from that, get an observable number.
Of course, this is all rethorical mumbo-jumbo.
Bingo.insaneHoshi said:
The limitations of the observer gives something a finite size.
Example: let's say that you place a mirror in a fixed point in space, and aim a laser (that doesn't diffuse at all) towards the mirror- but the mirror is too far away to be observed in one person's lifetime. In order for that person to be able to calculate the distance between himself and the mirror, he has to be able to see the laser bouncing of the mirror.
To that one observer, the distance between the mirror and himself is infinite-because he can't see the laser beam returning on his end.
Playing with definitions: "Infinity" could be interpreted as "unobservable from a practical viewpoint"- at least in this case.
Also: his balloon example is flawed: he knows that if a balloon WILL burst if it's filled with too much... of anything.
Reading up on his example though, I think he could have saved his entire argument if he had said "At any point, it still has a finite size".
His argument makes *some* sense if you imagine that you can go to the "edge" of the universe at the time, and measure the rate of expansion at that given time, over a set amount of time, and then from there, figure where Earth is ("Triple-Zero", if you will), and relative to that, figure out the distance from that point in time/space and from that, get an observable number.
Of course, this is all rethorical mumbo-jumbo.
I'm not sure if that works from a dimensional standpoint. If we're talking about the universe (infinity) not existing, we'd be talking about the creation of everything from our current views in the three dimensions we can perceive on into the fourth, fifth, and sixth dimensions of what was, what could have been, what will, and what might be. But, far beyond that, we'd have to work around the first through sixth dimensions along other possible infinities (ex. everything connecting infinity to negative infinity, as well as any potential branches from that connection or bends within said connections) in order to prove that such a thing didn't ever exist.Disaster Button said:
In essence, no matter what our perception on time now, there's always a point somewhere else within another infinity where time not only has meaning, but has a different meaning than it does here.
Sure. Space is infinite. If you go far enough you run out of stuff and just hit empty blackness forever. You can go in a straight line forever and ever infinitely. Its just hard for human to imagine infinite because we are finite and must think in finite terms. Also, the number line is infinite. Hell, the space between 0 and 1 is infinite.
Actually, length, width, depth are explained as a way to explain a finite point in time, a particular measurement which describes a single point in what we can perceive. In reality, time covers three dimensions: The time line, branches in time, and the ability to bend said branches to meet one another. That would bring you to 6 dimensions. 7-9 are generally explained through different possibilities in that everything that we know, from beginning to end and every possible branch in time, being condensed into a single point, called infinity. Infinity can then be connected to something which, mathematically, we know exists: negative infinity, thus giving us the 7th dimension. If I remember current theories well enough, said dimension is then taken through a similar cycle that we saw in the 4th through 6th dimensions in that there would be a branch and the ability to bend said branches to meet one another, the 8th and 9th dimensions in this case, respectively.slipknot4 said:
...and THAT'S my quantum physics for the day.
Well ... our universe is like a balloon constantly blwoing up, never breaking, and there are many other universes blowing up as well, and they occasionaly clash creating a new balloon, and within each balloon is a series of near infinite balloons with different properties, so It is infinite unless maybe one day, for some reason all the balloons disapear or break, but that concept would be impossible for us to grasp.
Grammar Nazi Strike! Sorry to be a douche, but I really think that a contribution to an intelligent debate should be written properly.pope_of_larry said:
That said, your argument is a good one; the infinity of numbers is the most easily proven of infinities. However, the counter-argument is that numbers are abstract, and therefore, since they only exist in the minds of human beings, have no bearing on discussions involving physics. Put simply, the fact humans have made up an infinite but imaginary system does not mean that anything in physics needs to be infinite
Say I hold out my hands a meter apart. I can, obviously, divide that space in two, creating two areas of 50cm each. Each of them can be divided in half, and each of them, and so on and so forth, unto infinity. I can, of course, keep dividing them as much as I like, for there is no such thing as a minimum distance which cannot be divided, and of course the result after each division must have a finite length.
We are now left with an infinite number of infinity small yet finite distances, which I now put back together. However, as we well know, infinity times by any finite number is infinity, so my infinite number of infinitely small pieces is infinitely long.
Therefore, if infinity exists in the real world, 1 meter = an infinite distance. Since thats obviously untrue, it is obvious that infinity does not exist in reality.
We call that proof by contradiction
We are now left with an infinite number of infinity small yet finite distances, which I now put back together. However, as we well know, infinity times by any finite number is infinity, so my infinite number of infinitely small pieces is infinitely long.
Therefore, if infinity exists in the real world, 1 meter = an infinite distance. Since thats obviously untrue, it is obvious that infinity does not exist in reality.
We call that proof by contradiction
Define time. Time is a term created by humans. Time is in reality only the measurement of all separated events in the universe. There is no past, only our memory. There is no future, only our guesses. There is only a present, constantly changing.xXAsherahXx said:
Yep. Although I'm an atheist and I despise creationists and fundamentalists[footnote]I don't despise "normal" religious people, though![/footnote], I have to agree with him. Just because it's getting bigger, doesn't mean it doesn't have a finite size at the very moment. Said size is only changing, expanding forever. The growth is infinite[footnote]Probably, nobody knows the true nature of the universe[/footnote], the size is not.Nihilism_Is_Bliss said:
I agree with the other guy. While I'm not particularly religious in anyway, his argument just seems to make more sense to me.
On a side note, this just popped into my head:
Everyone, grab the biggest ruler you can find. WE'RE GOING TO MEASURE TIME!
On a side note, this just popped into my head:
Everyone, grab the biggest ruler you can find. WE'RE GOING TO MEASURE TIME!