The Eternal, Infinite Universe
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
The Eternal, Infinite Universe
Rationally the universe is eternal and infinite. Infinite in the sense that it has no edge but everything belongs to it. What is the level of this thought? We can say even that it is a logical fact, but only tautologies are logical facts. So, it is rationally sound thinking anyway. The astronomer's cosmology says nowadays that the universe is different, it has a beginning and expansion.
Can we go with that as philosophers? Is there any way to oppose this? I think we can say for example that the space of the universe has 4 space- dimensions and then the expansion is not needed. The 4. dimension is the fact that everything belongs to the space of the universe, there is no outside. Mathematically the 4. space- dimension is exactly that. So, in the reality there is a 4. dimension because the universe is like that. This is different as the old static models, so this is not yet evalued, abandoned and studied as them.
Other things are the concepts of the cosmology: what are the metagalaxy, the space of the galaxies, the world, the universe, the whole universe, other universes, all the universes together, and so on. What is expanding and where? What the expansion is? Is it possible? Is there 3. dimensions and the time as an 4. dimension, a space- time or something else?
Still more: the foundations of the theories as always in the philosophy. Which are the presuppositions of the GR and BBT? Which axioms rule out the eternity and infinity, if any?
I post a new tread because this matter has not been discussed this way. Do we need philosophy still in cosmology? And what can we do there? Can we make a better model than there is now in cosmology? Can we hold on in the eternal and infinite universe, as is rationally sound? Does this need any empirical proof, or is it a logical fact where the evidence must fit?
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
Ive seen no rational, logical common sense for macro or micro-infinite occupied space Universe. Not sure what leads you to that conclusion.Sandis36 wrote: Can we hold on in the eternal and infinite universe, as is rationally sound? Does this need any empirical proof, or is it a logical fact where the evidence must fit?
We have macro-micro infinite space, but only some of that is occupied space.
Also your 4th D makes no sense to me. We have and observe XYZ aka abc.
Micho Kaku shows how higher dimensions begin with z as the diagonal between abc aka XYZ as associated with one corner/vertex of a cube.
Integrity = finite
Non-integral = infinite
Structural and systemic stability = finite.
r6
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
My thought is very simple. We have in GR- and BB-theories a 3+1 dimensional universe. 3 space- dimensions and one time- dimension. The fact that in the space of the whole universe there is no outside and everything belongs to it, can be put as a 4. space- dimension in the model. This has not been very much studied in the cosmology, but it can be considered mainstream cosmology, one possibility. There is KK- model (Kaluza-Klein) and some others.
Also we can think of 3+1+1 universe, where the other 1 dimension is the limitlessness as explained here before. They are actually not dimensions, they are a little different, but they can be put as dimensions in the model.
Dimensions are vectors in the vector algebra, coordinates in the analytical geometry. The third dimension has meaning only in the long distances. There is a radius for that space and no outside.
This explains many things in the cosmology. For example we can have the going away of the galaxies without the expansion of the space.
And integrity, and stability?
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
What is must be determined by empirical evidence not by rational thought. Kant’s antinomies give a rational demonstration of the limits of pure reason. Some have been content to argue about what must be, but time and again we see that how things are does not accord with speculation about how they must be. It is foolish to assume that the universe must conform to our ability to conceive it.Rationally the universe is eternal and infinite.
Can we hold on in the eternal and infinite universe, as is rationally sound? Does this need any empirical proof, or is it a logical fact where the evidence must fit?
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
We can’t. That is the point. We can neither affirm nor deny that that the universe is eternal and/or infinite. Such claims are merely speculative. This cuts against the distinction between science and philosophy since there are examples in both that are speculative as well as an insistence of the evidential or empirical.If empirically we cannot detect the limits of the universe, how can we say 'What is' based on this.
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
4+1 model fits with evidence (it is not studied enough to state otherwise) and fits with the rational view of the eternal and limitless universe, and we don't need any beginning and expansion of the universe, which itself is a strong evidence for it. Of cause the mainstream does not agree, but in fact the 4+1 model is a part of the mainstream thought and not a specially alternative theory. It has been proposed but seen not good, without real evidence and solid proof.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
Philosophy must be logical. Opposing empirical evidence based off of what appears rational (to you) is illogical. This is the reason for empirical evidence to render bias irrelevant.The astronomer's cosmology says nowadays that the universe is different, it has a beginning and expansion.
Can we go with that as philosophers? Is there any way to oppose this?
You have hit the nail on the point (instead of the head). Evidence does not fit fact, fact fits evidence.Does this need any empirical proof, or is it a logical fact where the evidence must fit?
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
3D = XYZ an dXYZ is also known as abc in Micho Kaku's book Hyper-space, however, I mispoke with the small z as the diametric diagonal at 45 degrees betweenn XYZ/abc when the symbol he uses for the 4th spatial dimensions is small d, not z ergo abc and d are the four spatial dimensions.Sandis36"---Well, I don't know what the aka abc is.
If by GR you mean XYZ { 3 dimensions } and BB is time{ ergo 3 + 1, then that is pretty much standard view. Nothing new there. I read your original and it didnt make sense.My thought is very simple. We have in GR- and BB-theories a 3+1 dimensional universe.
Yeah standard/classical view.3 space- dimensions and one time- dimension.
This is where you loose any sense of rational, logical common sense and I stated so previously and you have not yet addressed with any clarity. ..."Ive seen no rational, logical common sense for macro or micro-infinite occupied space Universe. Not sure what leads you to that conclusion."......The fact that in the space of the whole universe there is no outside and everything belongs to it, can be put as a 4. space- dimension in the model.
For there to be no outside infers/implys that our finite, occupied space Universe is infinite. You may have even stated such. So I ask you again, offer some rational, logical common sense--- not to mention evidence ---for infinite, occupied space Universe ---. You have not.
Irrelevant tto your claims of a macro-micro-infinite occupied space Universe. You have yet to address this with rational, logical common sense or evidence.This has not been very much studied in the cosmology, but it can be considered mainstream cosmology, one possibility. There is KK- model (Kaluza-Klein) and some others.
Now you introducing a new term "limitless" and I suppose were left to infer you mean once again and infinite/limitelss occupied space Universe, with no rational, logical common sense, evidence what exactly this extra 1 D is where it comes into play.Also we can think of 3+1+1 universe, where the other 1 dimension is the limitlessness as explained here before. They are actually not dimensions, they are a little different, but they can be put as dimensions in the model.
All you really offer us is a macro-micro-infinite occupied space Universe that has XYZ{ 3D } and time{ 1D }. There is no extra 1D in that scenario. Your not offering rational, logical common sense for explanation of this extra 1D.
This makes no sense.XYZ is valid irrespective of distance and is directly related to volume and In our observed reality a finite volume of occupied space Universe, not your infinite/limitless occupied space Universe.Dimensions are vectors in the vector algebra, coordinates in the analytical geometry. The third dimension has meaning only in the long distances. There is a radius for that space and no outside.
What exists outside our finite, occupied space Universe, can only have only one rational, logical common sense conclusion and that is macro-infinite non-occupied space.
No it does not i.e you have explained little to nothing beyond XYZ and time.This explains many things in the cosmology. For example we can have the going away of the galaxies without the expansion of the space.
Structural and systemic integrity can only pertain to the finite. Your thread claims and infers and infinite occupied space Universe, without any rational, logical common sense or evidence for such claims.And integrity, and stability?
You have nothing yet valid to offer us beyond XYZ and time. Already known.
r6
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
4+1 instead of 3+1, abcd- universe, xyzo- universe instead of abc- universe, why it is so difficult to understand? One space- dimension more, and this thing is also in the reality: the fact that the universe has no outside but there is everything (the limitlessness, the infinity, and same time the finite universe, the definite size of the infinite space, however to put the thing in a verbal form). The thinkers do not yet understand that this dimension is in the reality, and it must be taken with other things to the models. This is my invention here (that however we think, this thing is a reality, and the simplest way to handle it is to put it as a dimension to the models), maybe an important one? You can say that. Now I only see that you don't fully understand this.
Maybe it is not exactly a dimension as xyz, but it exists anyway in the reality; reality of the infinite space is something like that. But so it is with the time too, the time is not really a dimension. In practice we can put them as dimensions in the calculations, even when this is not the totally right and exact way to handle them. So the model can be said to be 3+1+1 model too.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
I'm the one that brought the 4th spacial dimension, "d" into this discussion, not you, via Micho Kakus hyper-space book.Sandis36---(I said somewhere the third dimension and did mean the fourth dimension.)
4+1 instead of 3+1, abcd- universe, xyzo- universe instead of abc- universe, why it is so difficult to understand?
Your not clear or correct.
One space- dimension more, and this thing is also in the reality:
Yeah I forget what you have previously claimed your 4th dimensions war but do not recall your originally say it was spacial, and in fact I think you stated something else other than spatial, that too me was just plain irrational, illogical and lacks common sense.
If we live in a finite occupied space Universe, then there is only one rational, logical common sense conclusion that you and most others refuse to acknowledge, and that is there does exist and outside of macro-infinite non-occupied space.the fact that the universe has no outside but there is everything (the limitlessness, the infinity, and same time the finite universe, the definite size of the infinite space, however to put the thing in a verbal form).
Finite = structural and systemic integrity. You appear to have no idea what that means.
infinite = non-structural or systemic integrity i.e. a lack of structural or systemic integrity and you appear to have no idea what that means
r6
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
It is infinite in the sense that it has no border, limit, edge, anything like that. But it is finite in the sense that everything is inside it, there is no outside.
This is common view. From it follows that it has a definite radius. This is not a common view, but it follows, and it is against any expanding.
It follows also that there is a 4. dimension, because mathematically this can be understood as a 4. dimension. It has no meaning for us around us, but when we go very far away we cannot go outside it, but only to the longest possible distance, and the places of galaxies around us are changing all the time so that we always are as in the middle as just now. It has also meaning for the movements of the galaxies, because we must look their movements in a 4- dimensional space and not in a 3- dimensional space.
You can say that it is not a space- dimension and that is true, it is a wholeness- dimension. But so it is with the time too, it is not a space- dimension, it is a time- dimension. 3+1, 4+1 or 3+1+1 dimensions. How you want to think, and what will be fruitful.
We speak of different things.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
It is waste of my time to continue along these lines of meaningless phrases from you. You have nothing valid to say.
r6
Sandis36 wrote:Of cause there is many non- occupied, imaginative and so on universes. Infinitely. But the physical universe with its real entities, including the psychological and social aspects of it, even maybe the theological ones, everything real, is mainly its space and all the matter and energy that there is. When I speak of finite and infinite here I speak only of the space of the whole universe. The space has no outside and everything belongs to it. This is common view of all the philosophers and the astronomers.
It is infinite in the sense that it has no border, limit, edge, anything like that. But it is finite in the sense that everything is inside it, there is no outside.
This is common view. From it follows that it has a definite radius. This is not a common view, but it follows, and it is against any expanding.
It follows also that there is a 4. dimension, because mathematically this can be understood as a 4. dimension. It has no meaning for us around us, but when we go very far away we cannot go outside it, but only to the longest possible distance, and the places of galaxies around us are changing all the time so that we always are as in the middle as just now. It has also meaning for the movements of the galaxies, because we must look their movements in a 4- dimensional space and not in a 3- dimensional space.
You can say that it is not a space- dimension and that is true, it is a wholeness- dimension. But so it is with the time too, it is not a space- dimension, it is a time- dimension. 3+1, 4+1 or 3+1+1 dimensions. How you want to think, and what will be fruitful.
We speak of different things.
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023