The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » January 1st, 2016, 10:10 am

Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe - the question might be asked as to where this
happened? Since supposedly the Universe begins with the Big Bang and all time and space also would so begin, where is the
place where it happened? - But if there was no time or space there also wan no place - no place where such an event could
occur. The conclusion one might reach is that the Big Bang could not have occurred unless there was a place for it to occur.
Hence, the Big Bang could not represent the beginning of the Universe. Therefor the next conclusion to be drawn is the
Universe could not have had a beginning since there was no place for the beginning to occur - Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Atreyu » January 6th, 2016, 11:14 pm

Interesting questions, Universal. I'll take a stab at them.
UniversalAlien wrote:Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe - the question might be asked as to where this
happened? Since supposedly the Universe begins with the Big Bang and all time and space also would so begin, where is the
place where it happened? - But if there was no time or space there also wan no place - no place where such an event could
occur. The conclusion one might reach is that the Big Bang could not have occurred unless there was a place for it to occur.
Hence, the Big Bang could not represent the beginning of the Universe. Therefor the next conclusion to be drawn is the
Universe could not have had a beginning since there was no place for the beginning to occur - Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.
Well, I would certainly agree with your final conclusion, but not with your reasoning. I base my model of a timeless Universe on other considerations.

Your argument is based on a false problem. And TBH, it's not really that good of philosophy.

There is no need to posit place when considering any "beginning", or the "big bang" in the big bang model. Place begins simultaneously with anything beginning. Once something exists, place exists. If nothing exists, no place exists. Once something exists, it can be said to be "here" or "over there". Until something exists we have no reference points, no "here and there", no space, no place. So we don't need to establish any place for the Universe to have begun before considering the mechanism behind it. We can just proceed straightaway to pondering the general idea of "beginning".

There is also another good way to consider this idea. Since "here and there" are subjective constructs, any good philosopher will come to the cosmological view that really, everything is "here". And I use "here" in quotations to denote the fact that we actually cannot say where "here" is, we can only use it as a very general reference point, in the sense of "here" is "where the Universe is", the "Universe" meaning Everything that exists. So "here" from the point of view of the entire Universe, which is what we are considering when we imagine how it began, is wherever Everything began (which we like to imagine as a geometric point, from which everything expanded outward, when in reality it is a "point" which encompasses Everything that has ever existed, a strange "point" indeed). So the good philosopher knows that "here and there" exists only from the POV of an subjective entity existing within the Universe, and that the true objective reality (i.e. the Universe outside the boundaries of human perception) is that all points of space are "really here". From the POV of Everything all points occupy the exact same position - Here. There is no "there" from the POV of it All, i.e. objectively speaking.

Therefore, at least within the parameters of your argument, the Universe indeed could have had a beginning, because actually there was a place for it to have occurred. And that "Place" is "Here", "There", "Everywhere", and "Nowhere", all of which actually signify the exact same thing when we are dealing with a Primordial Singularity, as we do in big bang theory.

Strange, isn't it? :)

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » January 6th, 2016, 11:59 pm

Atreyu wrote:Interesting questions, Universal. I'll take a stab at them.

...........There is also another good way to consider this idea. Since "here and there" are subjective constructs, any good philosopher will come to the cosmological view that really, everything is "here". And I use "here" in quotations to denote the fact that we actually cannot say where "here" is, we can only use it as a very general reference point, in the sense of "here" is "where the Universe is", the "Universe" meaning Everything that exists. So "here" from the point of view of the entire Universe, which is what we are considering when we imagine how it began, is wherever Everything began (which we like to imagine as a geometric point, from which everything expanded outward, when in reality it is a "point" which encompasses Everything that has ever existed, a strange "point" indeed). So the good philosopher knows that "here and there" exists only from the POV of an subjective entity existing within the Universe, and that the true objective reality (i.e. the Universe outside the boundaries of human perception) is that all points of space are "really here". From the POV of Everything all points occupy the exact same position - Here. There is no "there" from the POV of it All, i.e. objectively speaking.

Therefore, at least within the parameters of your argument, the Universe indeed could have had a beginning, because actually there was a place for it to have occurred. And that "Place" is "Here", "There", "Everywhere", and "Nowhere", all of which actually signify the exact same thing when we are dealing with a Primordial Singularity, as we do in big bang theory.

Strange, isn't it? :)
Too strange - too simple. If I'm going to accept the validity of that cosmological view I might as well go back to the
Zen Buddhists who see all of reality and existence as a dream - and that too may be. But I'm stuck in a here and now supposedly in a real world of matter, energy, time and space. To say it all came into existence form a point of reference that
precedes it and is part of it means nothing. Another words the way you are describing here, there and everywhere has no more meaning then the Buddhist concept 'All things return to the One' - OK, so what?

See what I'm always trying to understand is my own belief - Nothing comes from nothing - Therefor there must have been
a pre-existent state for an event like the Big Band to occur - It did not happen by magic - And if there was a pre-existent
state it may have a location. Currently the best I can come up with is a theory, considered by many physicists and backed by some very limited evidence, of the existence of a Multiverse - An infinite series of universes that exists and has existed
forever - I understand forever is a term Humans often don't understand - same for infinity and an infinite state of existence.

And yes it is strange in any case!

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Atreyu » January 7th, 2016, 3:21 am

UniversalAlien wrote: Too strange - too simple.
It's strange, but it's hardly "simple". In fact, it's a very difficult idea to grasp, as is evidenced by the fact that apparently you yourself have not grasped it yet.
If I'm going to accept the validity of that cosmological view I might as well go back to the
Zen Buddhists who see all of reality and existence as a dream - and that too may be. But I'm stuck in a here and now supposedly in a real world of matter, energy, time and space. To say it all came into existence form a point of reference that
precedes it and is part of it means nothing. Another words the way you are describing here, there and everywhere has no more meaning then the Buddhist concept 'All things return to the One' - OK, so what?
You just didn't get it. What I was basically trying to express is that reality is really a thought (not our thought, but something else's thought), i.e. that it has more of a "psychological reality" to it than a "physical reality" to it, and that your question can only be sufficiently answered by first taking this into account.

What I mean by this is that we like to think that there is an objective reality behind our subjective experience of it, hence our division into the "subjective" and "objective". But actually this "underlying reality" is merely how we experience the subjective experience of a Greater Something of which we all are a small part, i.e. that this objective reality which allegedly exists is really not as "objective" or as "real" as we like to think it is. And this is where we make our greatest error --- we try to find something concrete where currently all we find is abstractions, when in reality it is our "concrete reality", our acute subjective experiences, such as feeling the cold water hitting our bodies, which are really abstractions which we experience concretely for convenience (and even survival).

And this is precisely why you are having trouble imagining how the Universe could have began before any place was established yet. You are trying to find something concrete (specific place) in the midst of a great unknown abstraction (the "beginning"), when in reality you should consider thinking of the concrete (where did the Universe begin?) more abstractly (the place of the beginning was Everywhere/Nowhere/Here/There, or perhaps taking the view that even attempting to describe place is a basic error). I'm trying to show you how to resolve this dilemma. It cannot be done as neatly and tidily (concretely) as your mind demands. You simply have to be able to "think outside the box" on this one (i.e. more abstractly, as you do with any of these big philosophical dilemmas).
See what I'm always trying to understand is my own belief - Nothing comes from nothing - Therefor there must have been
a pre-existent state for an event like the Big Band to occur - It did not happen by magic -
I agree with this, but you said we should assume big bang theory in answering the question. I agree that any big bang could not have been any actual beginning, and that something must have pre-existed it. But your original question was merely if we assume a beginning, where could it have occurred if there was no place yet. And I've been trying to explain that the question is not appropriate because it's based on a false premise --- namely, that a pre-existing place existed, or even must have existed, before anything else did. Not only is place not a necessary prerequisite for any beginning, it's not even a possible one. Place cannot exist without any corresponding placeholders (reference points), and before anything existed there could be none.
And if there was a pre-existent state it may have a location.


Not if it was a singularity, and in big bang theory we assume that. A Primordial Singularity is all there is/was, so the term "location" has no meaning here. Without any "here and there" (reference points, space) you cannot speak about any particular location. At that time, Everything was in the exact same place (a point of space) so Everything was One and any "location" would be the same as any other. And if we went back in time, tracing back, to find out where this original location was, in relation to our three-dimensional space as it exists now, strangely enough as we went back in time the entire Universe would start collapsing on Itself, and the relationship of that original Place (original point of space) to all of the current points of our space, would be that they were one and the same, i.e. that that original point in space expanded and became every point in our current space. So every single point in our entire three-dimensional Universe would ultimately "trace back" to that same Original Place where it all began, i.e. the Universe began Everywhere, Here, There, Nowhere?, well... take your pick.
Currently the best I can come up with is a theory, considered by many physicists and backed by some very limited evidence, of the existence of a Multiverse - An infinite series of universes that exists and has existed
forever - I understand forever is a term Humans often don't understand - same for infinity and an infinite state of existence.
And yes it is strange in any case!
Well, the multiverse view I certainly endorse, but this really does not resolve our problem in the least. Unfortunately, this is a straw man. Ultimately, your question still applies regardless of whether or not we imagine "many universes" (like our own) or just one. In the multiverse model (and taking big bang theory into account as well), we still have plural "universes" arising from a geometric point, and perhaps even from the exact same point, hence no change in our conundrum. We still can consider place, and must, regardless of one universe or many, and the resolution will be the same. We would now merely say that all of the "universes" began Everywhere, Nowhere, Here, and There, i.e. that the question of any place for any beginning is still just a basic error, a distraction, a question based on a demand to make the Universe conform to our simple cognition of space of time....

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » January 7th, 2016, 8:58 am

I can't disagree with you viewpoint Atreyu as it is logical and makes sense.

In any state of existence which is eternal and/or infinite locations, times and places are relative and 'if' there was
a beginning to any of the events there would be no way to establish what it was relative to - and if nothing yet existed there
is nothing for it to be relative too. There is no beginning to eternal or infinite paradigms and of course no particular
location for the event.

But if it turns out that multiverse theory is true and proven - It might be possible to establish a 'relative place' in the
multiverse where this universe began - there would be pre-existent time and place.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Atreyu » January 7th, 2016, 10:58 pm

UniversalAlien wrote:I can't disagree with you viewpoint Atreyu as it is logical and makes sense.
Thanks, man.
In any state of existence which is eternal and/or infinite locations, times and places are relative and 'if' there was
a beginning to any of the events there would be no way to establish what it was relative to - and if nothing yet existed there
is nothing for it to be relative too. There is no beginning to eternal or infinite paradigms and of course no particular
location for the event.
Yep...
But if it turns out that multiverse theory is true and proven - It might be possible to establish a 'relative place' in the
multiverse where this universe began - there would be pre-existent time and place.
Well, it will never be proven. Man doesn't have the tools to do so. But the theory holds up, "mathematically speaking".

As far as establishing a relative place in the Multiverse for "this" Universe to have "began", I have yet to hear any ideas on that. Perhaps you yourself could come up with something. But no doubt the Multiverse model fits into our paradigm of a timeless Universe...

User avatar
Misty
Contributor
Posts: 5933
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Misty » January 8th, 2016, 8:46 am

I would say the "big bang" occurred from the mind/consciousness of the CREATOR. Ever read the history? A really eye opening account the beginning of this universe.

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/creation.htm
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Atreyu » January 10th, 2016, 12:12 am

Misty wrote:I would say the "big bang" occurred from the mind/consciousness of the CREATOR. Ever read the history? A really eye opening account the beginning of this universe.

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/creation.htm
You have brought up an interesting point.

Where would the "Creator" say It began? I mean if you could talk to the Primordial Mind that originally and singularly existed (there is nothing else yet), and you asked it "Hey! I see you are a Mind. You have Awareness. You can think. Where did you (this Mind) come from? " (or we could even just imagine this Mind asking Itself the question)

What might the Creator say? How would the Creator think about it?

User avatar
ThamiorTheThinker
Posts: 281
Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Yoda

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by ThamiorTheThinker » January 10th, 2016, 3:13 am

UniversalAlien wrote:Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe - the question might be asked as to where this
happened? Since supposedly the Universe begins with the Big Bang and all time and space also would so begin, where is the
place where it happened? - But if there was no time or space there also wan no place - no place where such an event could
occur. The conclusion one might reach is that the Big Bang could not have occurred unless there was a place for it to occur.
Hence, the Big Bang could not represent the beginning of the Universe. Therefor the next conclusion to be drawn is the
Universe could not have had a beginning since there was no place for the beginning to occur - Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.
I'm well aware that this response has already been given, but I'll repeat it anyway: Logically speaking, the Big Bang did not occur "anywhere", and yet it occurred "everywhere".

The Big Bang was the beginning of 4D Spacetime, therefore it WAS the where. 3D space/ 4D Spacetime did not exist until
the Big Bang. That's not to say that nothing "existed", to some degree, but space-wise objects did not exist, nor did spacetime intervals themselves exist until then.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5011
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Spiral Out » January 10th, 2016, 1:31 pm

This is to basically ask to locate a universal reference point. Such a thing is not possible in any way imaginable.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Atreyu » January 11th, 2016, 9:25 pm

Spiral Out wrote:This is to basically ask to locate a universal reference point. Such a thing is not possible in any way imaginable.
Of course not. Because every single point of our current space did not exist back then. Not to mention that in bb theory, that singular original reference point expanded to become all the current points of our 3-D space. Which is the also the same thing as saying that that original reference point does not exist (today).

Obviously no reference point can be located if it is now Everywhere, and yet also Nowhere (only really existed about 13.7 billion years ago)...

Logicus
Posts: 865
Joined: September 20th, 2012, 10:22 pm

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Logicus » January 12th, 2016, 12:17 am

I think what the OP is getting at is that if we can run the movie backwards from the present to the Big Bang, where does all that backwards running expansion (seen as contraction in our movie) end up? And where is that compared to where we are now? Phrased this way it does seem illogical: Without the universe as we know it, there are no reference points. Still, it seems like it should be possible to retrace the expansion toward a singular point in the past. Or at least toward a physical area in the space we now occupy. In other words, where does all the expansion, traced into the past, seem to lead? If it can't be specified in those terms, then isn't the Big Bang somewhat questionable? If a point of origin cannot be determined , then maybe there isn't any such point.

User avatar
Misty
Contributor
Posts: 5933
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Misty » January 12th, 2016, 6:56 am

Atreyu wrote:
Misty wrote:I would say the "big bang" occurred from the mind/consciousness of the CREATOR. Ever read the history? A really eye opening account the beginning of this universe.

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/creation.htm
You have brought up an interesting point.

Where would the "Creator" say It began? I mean if you could talk to the Primordial Mind that originally and singularly existed (there is nothing else yet), and you asked it "Hey! I see you are a Mind. You have Awareness. You can think. Where did you (this Mind) come from? " (or we could even just imagine this Mind asking Itself the question)

What might the Creator say? How would the Creator think about it?
God is the only God/creator of this universe. That does not mean God is a singular entity. Humans, being created in the image of God, are creative and can create/discover

from using intellect and matter in the universe. God created matter so it is not eternal. Your question assumes that God has not revealed where creation began. Eternal

intelligence/God has revealed that matter/universe was created by God/eternal intelligence called the WORD. Infinite intelligence brought forth finite intelligence.
Last edited by Misty on January 12th, 2016, 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1171
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by UniversalAlien » January 12th, 2016, 8:25 am

Logicus wrote:I think what the OP is getting at is that if we can run the movie backwards from the present to the Big Bang, where does all that backwards running expansion (seen as contraction in our movie) end up? And where is that compared to where we are now? Phrased this way it does seem illogical: Without the universe as we know it, there are no reference points. Still, it seems like it should be possible to retrace the expansion toward a singular point in the past. Or at least toward a physical area in the space we now occupy. In other words, where does all the expansion, traced into the past, seem to lead? If it can't be specified in those terms, then isn't the Big Bang somewhat questionable? If a point of origin cannot be determined , then maybe there isn't any such point.
" If a point of origin cannot be determined , then maybe there isn't any such point."

YES, I like that - maybe it wasn't so dumb for me to ask this question after all.

And then when you think about a super powerful explosion leading to a logically functioning universe leaves a lot of empty
space {pun intended} - A well ordered calculable universe coming from a random explosion in nowhere land :!:
Actually is sounds funny when you think about it :lol:

The simple explanation as a few of us have already concluded is existence and the universe {or multiverse} always
existed - no need to postulate a beginning - it never began and always was.

“I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”
- ― Ptolemy, Ptolemy's Almagest

“We can speak and think only of what exists. And what exists is uncreated and imperishable for it is whole and unchanging and complete. It was not or nor shall be different since it is now, all at once, one and continuous.”
- ― Parmenides

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

Post by Atreyu » January 12th, 2016, 4:42 pm

Logicus wrote:I think what the OP is getting at is that if we can run the movie backwards from the present to the Big Bang, where does all that backwards running expansion (seen as contraction in our movie) end up? And where is that compared to where we are now? Phrased this way it does seem illogical: Without the universe as we know it, there are no reference points. Still, it seems like it should be possible to retrace the expansion toward a singular point in the past. Or at least toward a physical area in the space we now occupy. In other words, where does all the expansion, traced into the past, seem to lead? If it can't be specified in those terms, then isn't the Big Bang somewhat questionable? If a point of origin cannot be determined , then maybe there isn't any such point.
What is in red is a contradiction. Yes, of course it seems possible to retrace the expansion to a singular point in the past. But that implies that it could not be related to any specific point in the space which we now occupy. By becoming all the points of our current space, the original point is untraceable to any specific point of our 3-D space.

So the point should not be regarded as not existing, nor should the idea even be entertained. The point should merely be regarded as something inaccessible within the boundaries of our current space and time.
Misty wrote:God is the only God/creator of this universe. That does not mean God is a singular entity. Humans, being created in the image of God, are creative and can create/discover from using intellect and matter in the universe. God created matter so it is not eternal. Your question assumes that God has not revealed where creation began. Eternal intelligence/God has revealed that matter/universe was created by God/eternal intelligence called the WORD. Infinite intelligence brought forth finite intelligence.
I was just hoping you'd try to put yourself in his shoes and consider how he'd go about ascertaining where he came from (as a Mind, rather than a Thing).

And my point was that He would probably convert "where" (space) into "when" (time). In answering "where" would not any Mind go about answering the question by trying to remember the moment when It first began? "Where" would not make sense, since for the Primordial Consciousness everything is "here". If It had to answer "where" it would always say something like "Well, right here, of course, since everything is here, and as far as I can tell it always will be here. Where else could I have began other than here?"

However, if God's questioner insisted on "Where", I'd argue that for any Primordial Mind it could only understand it by trying to remember that first moment when it came into existence, and then it would point inside Itself and say "There!". "Right there is where I began". The "There" would be the Mind's internal reference point (a particular memory, existing "alongside" other memories) of the earliest memory it had. True?

Now, I'm supposing if it is a clever and open-minded God, or if it just analyzed its first memory and realized that it could not have been the beginning, then it would say something like this: "Well, I can't say when/where I began. My memory only goes back so far, but I'm convinced, or at least I suspect, that that first memory was not my beginning. For when I remember that earliest memory I have evidence, from things already present, that I actually existed before that. But I cannot remember." And, of course, this is no different for any other lessor mind. All of us know quite well that we existed before our first memories, which usually go back to the age of around 3, but we also know that it is impossible for us to be able to remember when we were conceived (the real beginning) in our mother's wombs.

My thesis here is that what applies to a lessor Mind also applies to the Highest Mind, the Primordial Mind. Non-absolute memory might be simply a universal property of all Minds, great and small. After all, how can a growing Mind have memory from its very beginning? Memory is not a property of any Mind until it crosses a certain threshold in its development. So God Himself could not say when or even how He began, simply because His memory is limited. Not even He Himself could know. But He could certainly be able to cognize that He must have indeed began, in spite of the fact that he can't remember it, for the same reasons that we do ourselves --- it's logical! Surely God would be smart enough to draw the same conclusions as we do. He would know he must have begun somehow, but He also knows that at the time of His beginning He was not "there" yet, i.e. he was not awake yet, i.e. he hadn't become aware yet, i.e. awareness (Himself, as a Mind) was not yet a property of the Universe.

And perhaps God, if pressed to name this "Beginning Place", might call it "the Void", or "the Nothing", which would appear to be very good terms, for they denote a place which could not be known, a place where awareness cannot be, a place no One will ever see or be present in, and, of course, it's the same "Place" the Universe will arrive at when it Ends, for when it Ends there also could be no awareness present, so the "Beginning Place" is the same as the "Ending Place" --- No-Where (meaning No awareness can be there).

This gives us a very strange Universe. A Universe with a Beginning and an Ending, a Universe that really did Begin and End, and yet a Universe in which neither can be accessed through time (as we know it). This means that if you travel back in time, you would go on and on and on, and never reach the Beginning (even though it actually exists), and similarly, you could go on and on and on into the future, and yet you'll never reach the End (even though it also actually exists). And this is so because, while both actually exist, there is an infinite amount of time in between the two !

Diagramming this idea in terms of time shows us how difficult it is to grasp, for we will have to draw a very strange line indeed. It will be a line segment, with the left endpoint labeled "The Beginning" and the right endpoint labeled "The End", but above the line we have to note that its length is infinity. Ordinarily, we would draw an infinite line as a line with two arrows at each end, denoting that the line goes on and on forever in both directions. But in this case, we have to draw a line segment, and just note that the distance between any two points drawn on the line will always be infinite, no matter the apparent fixed length we see between them....

-- Updated January 12th, 2016, 5:02 pm to add the following --

I just wanted to add the following, to help people grasp my "infinite/finite line":

Remember, any line of apparent fixed length, such as a line of 5 feet, can also be measured to be infinite length, if we change the scale of measurement to a point. All lines, regardless of length, contain an infinite number of points. So the larger our scale of measurement, the smaller the quantity we have --- 1 meter long, 100 centimeters long, 1000 millimeters long, 1 billion nanometers long, an infinite number of points long.

So really all lines are both finite and infinite, just like my "Line of the Time of the Universe", depending on the scale of measurement....

Post Reply