Reconciling a Finite and an Infinite Universe

[Atreyu]

I believe I've found a way to reconcile an infinite and a finite Universe, and I'd like to get some opinions on it. By 'reconcile', I mean I think I can prove (philosophically) that the Universe is both finite and infinite, or at least I can show how this could be possible.

If we map the Universe in terms of Time as finite, we get a line segment of fixed and finite length. -----------------------

If we map the Universe in terms of Time as infinite, we get a ray. <----------------------->

But this difference is not just based on logic, but can also be based also on the idea of the perspective of the experiencer. The line segment is a perspective of how the Universe would look (in terms of time) if it was being observed from the outside, not that this is possible. Nevertheless, we usually regard such a view as the most objective. We cannot be objective about a system if we're in it. So most people would agree that this is the most 'objective' view, and actually precisely because it gives us a perspective we could never get by direct perception. The line segment allows us to map the Time of the Universe as if we could be outside of it (objectively - outside the perspective of the perceiver), as if we were 'looking in' on it, even though we could never really experience it that way (subjectively). So it is the more objective figure, and if we want to say the Universe is Eternal (that time is infinite) we would have to denote it's length as infinite (actually, a line really is an infinite length of points).

The ray, which represents an Infinite/Eternal Universe (in terms of time), is a perspective of how the Universe appears to be from the POV of the experience of everything in it, i.e. all sentient beings existing in it. Experiencing beings cannot experience (directly perceive) the Universe as if they were outside of it. They're in it, and they have no choice but to experience it (perceive it) from the POV of being inside it. Therefore, the beginning and ending points of a line segment could never been seen, and whether or not the line is a ray or a segment, the internal participants will never know, because as far as they can see the line goes infinitely in both directions (past & future). They can, however, do calculations and reason out that, while the line may appear to be going forever in both directions, actually there is a beginning and ending point, i.e. the ray is really a line segment. And they might be able to even calculate the distance to the beginning (13.7 billion ya) or to the ending.

However, as I noted above, we can easily also make the line segment represent an infinite Universe, by merely saying it is of an infinite length, which it actually is if measured in terms of the number of points which constitute it. Every line segment, regardless of length, is composed of an infinite number of points. Therefore, as our unit of measure approaches a value of 0, the total length of the line segment increases, reaching an infinite length once our unit of measure becomes zero. The length of the line is taken in terms of the number of units of its measure, so a line of 10 km is 10 1-km line segments joined together. But the line is also 10,000 meters, 1 million millimeters, and so on. The smaller the line segment which defines the unit of measure the greater the numeric total length of the line. A point has no length, and so the line segment can indeed be infinite. It's an infinite number of points side by side.

Now, if we take a moment of time to be our unit of measure, and represent it by a point, we can say that our line segment represents an eternal Universe, because even though it appears finite when looked at from the outside, and is finite with any unit of measure greater than the point, it in fact represents an infinite number of moments of time. This means that although we could imagine going backward or forward on the timeline, actually we'd never move from our current placement on it. We'd travel on and on either into the past or the future, and yet somehow we'd never be getting any closer to either. This would be represented by the rate of speed of the point representing where we are in time slowing down the closer we get to either the beginning or ending point, or perhaps not moving at all even though we think it should.

This means that time changes the farther you move from the present point. The farther into the future or past you go, the more time is represented by the same unit of measure in the present. We have to think of time as kind of like 'stuff' existing in space (space-time) in order to understand this view (like we do with the timeline). So in this view, the amount of time (thinking of it in terms of space) within, say, 1 minute, becomes greater and greater the farther you move from the present. This means that if we say, by our calculations (our time), that it took 10 seconds after the big bang for the first matter as we know it to begin forming, this in no way means that it is comparable to something that takes 10 seconds in 'our' time (as it's measured here and now). The clock moves slower the farther you get from the present. So in terms of work, the first 10 seconds of the Universe might be comparable to something that takes a million years or so in our time. This also implies that if our current psyches could go to the primordial big bang, those first 10 seconds would seem to us like millions of years. But, of course, this is not possible since a psyche with our time-sense could not exist back then. Nevertheless, if it could, that is how those 10 seconds would be experienced --- like a very very long time.

This can easily be seen (keeping in mind that thinking of time as space is a useful cognitive construct), when we compare this idea to our idea of space. If I measure something to be 10 inches, but then look at it from a distance away, and then measure the image as I see it, it will appear to shrink. The farther away I see the object, the smaller it appears, and the smaller the actual length if we actually measured the image as we saw it (like holding up a ruler in front of our face, with the object 20 feet away). Eventually, it's length as seen will become less than an inch, and eventuallly it will shrink to a point and become invisible --- the length as perceived and measured from that perspective will eventually become absolute zero. We see the same thing with the Moon. It appears in the sky about 5 inches in diameter, but we know this is only because of how far away it is. Nevertheless, the image we see, if measured with highly accurate digital calipers held up in the sky, will actually measure 5 inches. We correct this error by noting that it would be much greater if actually measured at the source, and that we are really only measuring the image of the Moon as we perceive it. So it's a 'false measurement'. And we actually calculate the diameter of the Moon by using other known relative measure and distances, since we cannot measure it directly (it's too big for any direct measuring tool).

If we apply this idea to time, like we do with any other modern scientific idea based on the idea of space-time, i.e. based on the idea that it is useful to represent time as space, we will see the same thing! The farther away the event is from the present, i.e. the farther we are removed from it (remember, think of time as space), the more skewered our measurements are going to be. The actual measure will be correct, just like our actual measurement of the Moon with our dial calipers were correct, but it must be corrected to account for the distance away from the object we are measuring. The 5-inch diameter is a measurement of the image of the Moon as we perceive it. It is certainly not an actual measurement of the Moon itself, and we easily and clearly see that and correct it. But we have not yet learned to do that with time!

The same thing must be done with time. We must account for the distance away from the event we are, and realize that we are not measuring the event directly. We're measuring it from afar, as if 10 seconds here is the same as 10 seconds there, as if they both represent the same amount of time. This would be like thinking that the 5 inches which we measured our Moon as we see it in the sky represents the same amount of space (length) as would the 5 inches as measured on the Moon. Utter nonsense. We cannot project our 5 inches across such a vast space without vastly skewering the amount of length/space which is represented by the same 5 inches. Similarly, we cannot project our year across such a vast amount of time and expect it to be measuring the exact same amount of time. The actual calculations are correct, it is just that we don't realize that the values do not represent the same amount of time, and in proportion to the distance (length of time) the event is from the present.

So those 10 seconds probably represent what an experiencer there would experience. But if we were there, with our perception/cognition of time as it is now, we would probably experience it as a very very long time. The closer we get to the event, the more time is 'packed into' the same 10 seconds, just as the closer we get to the Moon, the more length is 'packed in' to the same 5 inches. In both cases the measurements are being done here, now, while the events/things in question are actually over there. And in both cases we are not really measuring the thing/event in and of itself, but are rather measuring an image of the thing/event, the thing/event as we see it, as if we were there. And so, in both cases, we must also realize that our units of measure do not represent the same things from each perspective, and correct it by doing calculations if possible.

So, I would argue that the best way to represent the Universe in terms of Time is to draw a line segment, noting that it's length is infinite, i.e. it's composed of points. It corroborates with all of the above reasoning, and also represents the Universe as we would see it from an outside (more objective) perspective. We can see the whole line. The ray is the more subjective view, because it represents the Time of the Universe as we directly experience it, it's the perspective from within the Universe, and as such gives us a line we can't really see, and we have to compensate by drawing arrows to denote both directions go on forever. It is the more subjective view, the view from within. The 'infinite line segment' is the more objective, we see the whole figure and it's a view from without.

However, of course, the more objective line segment could also represent a finite Universe too. In this post, I am not arguing for or against a finite or Eternal Universe. I'm merely trying to show how it could be Eternal and yet it could, and would, still be measured as a finite quantity of time by our science (13.7 billion years). And this gives us a strange Universe which is Eternal and Infinite, and yet also finite, with a Beginning and Ending as well. The Beginning and Ending actually exist, but strangely enough, they both are removed from us by an infinite amount of time, as if the Beginning happened forever ago, and the Ending indeed will come, but only after forever is reached....

P.S. this kind of Universe is modeled in ordinary science by the 'Flat Universe' --- a Universe that will stop expanding, but only after an infinite amount of time, i.e. it slows down forever, and this was the established model until revisions were made in the rate of expansion.

[The Beast]

The dotted line is an inspiration. From the rational perspective it is y < mx + b or y> mx + b. If we have a world view then it is about the slope and the constant values. There is no equality in a dotted line. If we want to be rational then y > 0. And when y< 1, then super infinites rules apply.(the line that is less than 1 will be contain in the line of natural numbers). Where is the dotted line? Is it possible to walk on the dotted line?
So there is a tool to help us walk the dotted line: the ray. If there was a perpendicular line then it could represent the arrowed cross of expansion in all directions. Being that is only one line ( it could be solid) is one of opposites expansions and since they are opposites they create rotations. I like to think (since it is a ray) one direction is towards the dark and another towards the light. If we slow the ray in the rotation we will see dark and light. The pieces of the pie get smaller and smaller and soon it will be all dark or all light depending on the perspective of the dotted line. All I see is light and I do not see the dark, my eyes have a larger pie sensitivity. But, I know the darkness is there. So if I walk in a dotted line that is really, really big I be walking all my life on solid ground. But the dotted expansion ray you supplied does not help me at all.

[Alec Smart]

my eyes have a larger pie sensitivity.

My last boss was the same, he couldn't look at a pie without drooling. He must have weighed at least 25 stone (350 pounds).

[The Beast]

I am unable to see the darkness therefore, I only see a glimpse of the kindness that prompts the thought: Is it a mirage? The word supervisor is needed to poke holes in my solid line. What to us is a solid line to a super sighted is a dotted line as well. I see no piece of pie just plain reality.
So there is you Alex with you favoured “I feeling” called the Experiencer. Approx. 96 million cells. The skin cells last about 30 days; the blood cells 180 days; the liver cells 18 months. You get the idea of the replication. If one cell is the same as another then there is only two types of cells: Eukaryotes and Prokaryotic. The oldest fossil known is of Prokaryotic and the age is a billion years. Something has not change: transcription-translation… transcription-translation… It is the same as it was. Did the content change? Just imagine a lifeless organization of unrelated mud… and there it is the solid ray coming from the sun releasing its energy into the mud….eh? Are you wondering the “I feeling” of the mud called “the experience”.

[Alec Smart]

I am unable to see the darkness therefore, I only see a glimpse of the kindness that prompts the thought: Is it a mirage? The word supervisor is needed to poke holes in my solid line. What to us is a solid line to a super sighted is a dotted line as well. I see no piece of pie just plain reality.
So there is you Alex with you favoured “I feeling” called the Experiencer. Approx. 96 million cells. The skin cells last about 30 days; the blood cells 180 days; the liver cells 18 months. You get the idea of the replication. If one cell is the same as another then there is only two types of cells: Eukaryotes and Prokaryotic. The oldest fossil known is of Prokaryotic and the age is a billion years. Something has not change: transcription-translation… transcription-translation… It is the same as it was. Did the content change? Just imagine a lifeless organization of unrelated mud… and there it is the solid ray coming from the sun releasing its energy into the mud….eh? Are you wondering the “I feeling” of the mud called “the experience”.

I don't suppose you could translate this into Human, could you?

[Steve3007]

To make sense of it, imagine it spoken by a wild-eyed man in a white coat whom you've just met in a pub, possibly in a well known university town, who is clearly somewhat the worse for drink, but might just be onto something. In a moment he will probably grasp you by the shoulders, look around to ensure nobody is listening, and hiss, in a conspiratorial whisper, something astonishing about elks.

[Mark1955]

To make sense of it, imagine it spoken by a wild-eyed man in a white coat whom you've just met in a pub, possibly in a well known university town, who is clearly somewhat the worse for drink, but might just be onto something. In a moment he will probably grasp you by the shoulders, look around to ensure nobody is listening, and hiss, in a conspiratorial whisper, something astonishing about elks.

I lived for several years in a very well know university town and it never happened to me. Firstly I suspect because the really nutty ones never left the lab/library.

[Alec Smart]

To make sense of it, imagine it spoken by a wild-eyed man .

That's what I was doing.

[The Beast]

It is the right idea. I do not do a scientific paper. It is grammar school stuff. We gather around to drink the wit and be happy. Allan Poe had his best at the Pub. He saw black ravens and other birds as inspiration to do the best toast.

[Alec Smart]

He saw black ravens and other birds as inspiration to do the best toast.

I find sliced bread works best.

[The Beast]

Your Russian friends will agree.

[Alec Smart]

Your Russian friends will agree.

I think most people will agree.

[The Beast]

And it is the explanation. Sliced bread is a Jewish custom to share among friends. We gather to share. Sliced bread is the knife as it cuts the gut. Light and darkness. Which one?

[Alec Smart]

Sliced bread is a Jewish custom to share among friends.

Actually, sliced bread is very popular for making bacon sandwiches and I'm reasonably sure that's not a Jewish custom.

Sliced bread is the knife as it cuts the gut.

No. Sliced bread is cut by the knife, that's how it ends up sliced. With a little care it is usually possible to avoid cutting the gut.

Light and darkness. Which one?

I prefer white for toast but I don't mind wholemeal, now and again.

[The Beast]

The Grey area is always safe. Too bad for a vote.