Proof Infinity is Impossible

[Atla]

That's very unscientific (as we know).

Is that the ROYAL "WE"?
LOL
Science says it. Eat it up!

In science, the current mainstream view is that we can't see past the Big Bang singularity. Maybe the universe started back then, maybe not.

Science says we can see the exact limit of the BB. And that the Universe is expanding in all directions from all points. That is definitively NOT infinite. If the universe were infinite then it could not exapand.

In science, the current mainstream view is that we can't see what's beyond the observable universe. Maybe our universe goes on forever, maybe not.
We also can't see "across" a multiverse, if case there is a multiverse. Maybe the world extends infinitely across a multiverse, maybe not.

No.
Mainstream science has plotted the magnitude of the universe and that is a known quantity.
There is no multiverse. But if there was that would also refute your claim of infinity.

Eat what up? Science doesn't claim the things you claim. You have no idea what you are talking about as usual.

No, we can't see the exact limit of the BB, that is well-known. As we approach the initial moment, the equations fall apart.

It's also unknown whether or not the entire universe comes from the BB or not.

There is also the cyclic universe possibility.

It's also possible that in some places it expands or apparenly expands, in other places it contracts or apparently contracts.

And don't say that the infinite can't expand, because if that's illogical, then a beginning is also illogical.

And I'm saying these as someone who also thinks that our universe is finite.

But your claim

Mainstream science has plotted the magnitude of the universe and that is a known quantity.

is probably the dumbest thing I've read from you in a while. The magnitude of the universe is unknown.

Also, the multiverse hypothesis was not refuted, no idea where you got that one. Actually it's becoming more and more mainstream.

And I never claimed that I think our universe is infinite.

[Sculptor1]

Is that the ROYAL "WE"?
LOL
Science says it. Eat it up!

Science says we can see the exact limit of the BB. And that the Universe is expanding in all directions from all points. That is definitively NOT infinite. If the universe were infinite then it could not exapand.

No.
Mainstream science has plotted the magnitude of the universe and that is a known quantity.
There is no multiverse. But if there was that would also refute your claim of infinity.

Eat what up? Science doesn't claim the things you claim. You have no idea what you are talking about as usual.

No, we can't see the exact limit of the BB, that is well-known. As we approach the initial moment, the equations fall apart.

It's also unknown whether or not the entire universe comes from the BB or not.

There is also the cyclic universe possibility.

It's also possible that in some places it expands or apparenly expands, in other places it contracts or apparently contracts.

And don't say that the infinite can't expand, because if that's illogical, then a beginning is also illogical.

And I'm saying these as someone who also thinks that our universe is finite.

But your claim

Mainstream science has plotted the magnitude of the universe and that is a known quantity.

is probably the dumbest thing I've read from you in a while. The magnitude of the universe is unknown.

Also, the multiverse hypothesis was not refuted, no idea where you got that one. Actually it's becoming more and more mainstream.

And I never claimed that I think our universe is infinite.

You are a time waster

[Atla]

Eat what up? Science doesn't claim the things you claim. You have no idea what you are talking about as usual.

No, we can't see the exact limit of the BB, that is well-known. As we approach the initial moment, the equations fall apart.

It's also unknown whether or not the entire universe comes from the BB or not.

There is also the cyclic universe possibility.

It's also possible that in some places it expands or apparenly expands, in other places it contracts or apparently contracts.

And don't say that the infinite can't expand, because if that's illogical, then a beginning is also illogical.

And I'm saying these as someone who also thinks that our universe is finite.

But your claim
is probably the dumbest thing I've read from you in a while. The magnitude of the universe is unknown.

Also, the multiverse hypothesis was not refuted, no idea where you got that one. Actually it's becoming more and more mainstream.

And I never claimed that I think our universe is infinite.

You are a time waster

Excellent comeback

[Sculptor1]

You are a time waster

Excellent comeback

Yes, accurate, and succinct.

[devans99]

Do you have a theory as to why patterns of colour, light and dark pass across your retina? What theories have people had about that in the past? What theories do people have now? What criteria might you use to decide which theory most accurately describes what actually happens?

If for nothing else, it's interesting to see how thinking on the subject has developed. From something coming out of the eye ("emission theory" - Empedocles, Plato et al) to something going into the eye. On something going into the eye: From "corpuscular" theories of light, to wave theories, and on to more modern theories. Do we think that there's been a progression in terms of more accurately describing what actually happens since the days of emission theories and corpuscular theories? I do.

Interesting. I did not know the history.

Some things are brighter than others; lamps, the sun, fires. If light was something coming out of the eye, then you'd expect everything to be roughly the same level of brightness/intensity, so photons arriving at the eye make sense.

My QM is not great, but I have a picture in my mind of a photon as a spread out wave of energy. When something interacts with the photon (measures it), it collapses, not to a point particle - there is no such thing - but perhaps to a very small wave of energy. But this picture is not one of the standard interpretations of QM.

I think we are certainly making progress towards a deeper understanding.

[Steve3007]

Some things are brighter than others; lamps, the sun, fires. If light was something coming out of the eye, then you'd expect everything to be roughly the same level of brightness/intensity

The original proponents of the emission theory of vision (ancient Greeks like Empedocles) had naturally thought of this, and the obvious related problem that the emission theory doesn't explain why we can't see in the dark! So they created an awkward kludge involving some kind of interaction between the stuff coming from our eyes and the stuff coming from fires, and the sun and so on.

Throughout history, when people have tried to fit reality to their pre-decided notions of how it works, awkward kludges have ensued, until it is realized that in the battle between what we want to be the case (perhaps because we think it's elegant, beautiful or simple) and what we observe to actually be the case, the latter will always win!

This notion that you don't have to look at the world in order to decide how it works is traditionally blamed on those Ancient Greeks. Another famous example in physics is that of Johannes Kepler who, inspired by some ancient Greek thinking, tried desperately to make the planets orbit in perfect circles, despite what the observational evidence, donated to him by Tycho Brahe, said.

[Steve3007]

My QM is not great, but I have a picture in my mind of a photon as a spread out wave of energy. When something interacts with the photon (measures it), it collapses, not to a point particle - there is no such thing - but perhaps to a very small wave of energy. But this picture is not one of the standard interpretations of QM.

QM is a whole other subject and there have been numerous topics in the science section of this site about various aspects of it. I think it's best not to try to summarize it in a couple of sentences because that usually just leads to misunderstandings.

[Steve3007]

Anyway, the reason I asked "Do you have a theory as to why patterns of colour, light and dark pass across your retina?" was because of your futile argument with Terrapin Station as to whether energy can exist in the absence of matter.

[devans99]

Anyway, the reason I asked "Do you have a theory as to why patterns of colour, light and dark pass across your retina?" was because of your futile argument with Terrapin Station as to whether energy can exist in the absence of matter.

I do not have a theory. I'm not sure I experience this personally. The reason I ended up in that discussion with Terrapin was because I said space was something (substantivalism):

1) Space is expanding and ‘nothing’ cannot expand, so space must be something rather than nothing (relationism).
2) The laws of the universe are time and space-aware - the speed of light speed limit is obeyed by everything and speed = distance / time. This implies that space and time are something physical (substantivalism) - what else could they possibly be but something physical? For example: time cannot be purely a human invention because the laws of the universe are time-aware.
3) The quantum fields associated with empty space have energy - supporting the argument that space is ‘something’.
4) Astronomers also tell us empty space seems associated with dark energy - further bolstering the argument for substantivalism.

Because space is something, it must be finite.

[Steve3007]

1) Space is expanding and ‘nothing’ cannot expand, so space must be something rather than nothing (relationism).

OK. So if somebody were to interpret the proposition "space is expanding" as meaning "the objects in space are getting further apart" would you see a problem with that?

[devans99]

1) Space is expanding and ‘nothing’ cannot expand, so space must be something rather than nothing (relationism).

OK. So if somebody were to interpret the proposition "space is expanding" as meaning "the objects in space are getting further apart" would you see a problem with that?

The problem is that astronomers tell us that distance galaxies are receding from us at faster than light speed. The only way that's possible is if space itself is somehow expanding.

[RJG]

P1. If space were not infinite, finite objects would have no 'where' to exist.
P2. Finite objects exist.
C1. Therefore, space is infinite.

A 'finite' brick is proof of 'infinity'.

[Steve3007]

Welcome back RJG.

[Terrapin Station]

P1. If space were not infinite, finite objects would have no 'where' to exist.
P2. Finite objects exist.
C1. Therefore, space is infinite.

A 'finite' brick is proof of 'infinity'.

So, supposing space to be a container, let's say we have a universe with just one finite object--let's stick with our one-meter sphere from another recent thread. Why couldn't the "container of space" in that universe simply be, say a five-meter cube? The sphere has a "where" to exist in that example, but space is finite.

[RJG]

Welcome back RJG.

Thanks Steve, it is good to be back.

P1. If space were not infinite, finite objects would have no 'where' to exist.
P2. Finite objects exist.
C1. Therefore, space is infinite.

So, supposing space to be a container, let's say we have a universe with just one finite object--let's stick with our one-meter sphere from another recent thread. Why couldn't the "container of space" in that universe simply be, say a five-meter cube? The sphere has a "where" to exist in that example, but space is finite.

But "where" does this five-meter cube exist?

If there is no-"where" for this five-meter cube to exist, then it does not exist. And if this five-meter cube does not exist, then there is no-"where'" for the one-meter sphere to exist. And if there is no-"where" for the one-meter sphere to exist, then it does not exist.

So again, 'finite' objects are proof of an 'infinite' universe (space).