Proof Infinity is Impossible
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
Teehee.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 1:47 pmYeah, you've said that . . . which is so obviously wrong. But it's like trying to talk to a brick wall.
Yeah all those brick walls and so little time in a limited universe.
Puzzled that a pair of finite shoes can actually exist in a finite shoe box - this must be a paradox.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
Hello RJG! You could, quite simply, have a finite universe existing in a sea of nothingness. IE the universe = something, does not require a container to exist in - if your think about it, your argument is recursive: each container would require another container to exist in - an infinite sequence of containers! Nonsense!RJG wrote: ↑July 9th, 2020, 1:42 pmRJG wrote:Because it is the "where" (not a "what", or a 'thing') where finite objects ('things') exist.A finite universe is 'finite'. It is a "what"; a 'thing. -- And yes, a "what" can be the space (the "where") for other "whats". For example, a (finite) big cardboard box (a "what"), can be the place where smaller boxes (other "whats") exist. But then, where does this big box itself exist? (i.e. where does this "what"; or in your case, the"finite universe") exist? ...does it exist "no-where"?Atla wrote:And the same way: a finite universe with circular dimensions is the "where" (not a "what") where finite objects exist. See?
One finite object can be the place for other finite objects. But no finite object could ever be the place for ALL finite objects.
Without an infinite universe, there could be no finite objects.
So I prefer this picture: finite universe expanding into pure nothingness. Nothing cannot be said to be infinite because nothing does not exist.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
Hello Devans, good to talk with you again. Yes, I agree an infinite sequence of containers is nonsense. But when we are talking about a 'finite' universe, we are talking about a finite 'container' (something with finite borders) that is the very last (outer) container of all finite objects. But if this outer container doesn't exist somewhere, then it exists nowhere. And if it exists nowhere, then it doesn't exist. Which means that all the contents within this last finite object also has nowhere to exist and therefore do not exist.devans99 wrote:Hello RJG! You could, quite simply, have a finite universe existing in a sea of nothingness. IE the universe = something, does not require a container to exist in - if your think about it, your argument is recursive: each container would require another container to exist in - an infinite sequence of containers! Nonsense!
The solution is simple. The universe (space) is 'infinite', which contains ALL finite objects. Claiming that a singular 'finite' object contains ALL finite objects is just kicking the can down the road, always leaving a one finite object unaccounted for (with nowhere to exist).
How large is "pure nothingness"? How can something as massive as all the objects in this universe fit into something that has no dimensions and is infinitely smaller than a speck of dust?devans99 wrote:So I prefer this picture: finite universe expanding into pure nothingness.
If there is no place to 'expand', then where is this expansion occurring?
If "nothing" does not exist, then neither does "pure nothingness".devans99 wrote:Nothing cannot be said to be infinite because nothing does not exist.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
Since were there something there, then it would be in the way.
Unless you beleive in simulataneous co-location.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
"Nothing" has no spatial dimensions for anything to fit/exist in. Its spatial dimensions = 0; and is therefore awfully (infinitely) small. How do you cram such a massive universe into such a tiny (nil) space?Sculptor1 wrote:The universe no matter how big or small it is, has to exist in nothing.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
No.RJG wrote: ↑July 20th, 2020, 10:23 am"Nothing" has no spatial dimensions for anything to fit/exist in. Its spatial dimensions = 0; and is therefore awfully (infinitely) small. How do you cram such a massive universe into such a tiny (nil) space?Sculptor1 wrote:The universe no matter how big or small it is, has to exist in nothing.
Dimension are only given by matter, and the distance between them. Nothing is thus required for this to occur. In fact nothing is necessary.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
...or could it be the other way around? ...that the existence of matter ('3D' objects) is given by dimensions? ...for a zero dimensioned object is a non-object.Sculptor1 wrote:Dimension are only given by matter...
Self-existence also requires (is given by) spatial dimensions.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
The container we call spacetime has existence, but I do not think it requires anywhere to 'exist in' or any position in a 'larger infinite universe' - if you says the 2nd applies then the same argument can be made for the 'larger infinite universe' - to exist, that too would require a position within an even larger universe... and it all goes recursive again.RJG wrote: ↑July 20th, 2020, 9:19 am Hello Devans, good to talk with you again. Yes, I agree an infinite sequence of containers is nonsense. But when we are talking about a 'finite' universe, we are talking about a finite 'container' (something with finite borders) that is the very last (outer) container of all finite objects. But if this outer container doesn't exist somewhere, then it exists nowhere. And if it exists nowhere, then it doesn't exist. Which means that all the contents within this last finite object also has nowhere to exist and therefore do not exist.
The solution is simple. The universe (space) is 'infinite', which contains ALL finite objects. Claiming that a singular 'finite' object contains ALL finite objects is just kicking the can down the road, always leaving a one finite object unaccounted for (with nowhere to exist).
How large is "pure nothingness"? How can something as massive as all the objects in this universe fit into something that has no dimensions and is infinitely smaller than a speck of dust?devans99 wrote:So I prefer this picture: finite universe expanding into pure nothingness.
If there is no place to 'expand', then where is this expansion occurring?
If "nothing" does not exist, then neither does "pure nothingness".devans99 wrote:Nothing cannot be said to be infinite because nothing does not exist.
I think that spacetime probably exists in a sea of nothingness. 'Nothing' cannot be said to be infinite, because 'nothing' does not exist.
So the picture is of a finite spacetime 'surrounded' by and expanding into nothing. So space-time just expands and that's it - it does not need anything to expand into - it simply replaces 'nothing' when it expands.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
No.RJG wrote: ↑July 21st, 2020, 7:59 am...or could it be the other way around? ...that the existence of matter ('3D' objects) is given by dimensions? ...for a zero dimensioned object is a non-object.Sculptor1 wrote:Dimension are only given by matter...
Self-existence also requires (is given by) spatial dimensions.
You are treating space as if it were substance; it is not.
I think this is a common fault throughout history. Our species is used to life in the atmopshere, and never really got the hang of it - that a vacuum is pure absence. Even where we were able to create a vacuum or near vacuum, it was still contained in a bell jar, which defined the space.
Space is nothing more than the potential for matter to exist.
Space is only measured by the distance between objects.
Think of this. When you get to the edge of the universe and you kick a ball into the void - what happens. I'll tell you. You just make the universe bigger.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
No, space is not expanding as you think.
Matter is being thrust into nothingness. The forces of energy and matter are creating their own space to exist, pushing into nothingness.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
You seem comfortable with the notion that something of substance; i.e. something 'finite' can actually exist 'nowhere'. I cannot seem to fathom this concept. Something existing nowhere, means to me, that this something does not exist.devans99 wrote:The container we call spacetime has existence, but I do not think it requires anywhere to 'exist in' or any position in a 'larger infinite universe'.
No, not with an 'infinite' universe. An infinite universe has no finite borders that need to exist anywhere. An infinite universe has no borders.devans99 wrote:If you says the 2nd applies then the same argument can be made for the 'larger infinite universe' - to exist, that too would require a position within an even larger universe... and it all goes recursive again.
This too is beyond comprehension. How can something "expand" if there is nowhere to expand?devans99 wrote:So space-time just expands and that's it - it does not need anything to expand into - it simply replaces 'nothing' when it expands.
So "space", that many of us believe is 4 dimensional spacetime is really just pure nothingness in which matter moves about?Sculptor1 wrote: You are treating space as if it were substance; it is not.
So then, is this "nothingness" infinite?
Interesting concept. Dimensions are not real except as useful measurements of objects and distances between objects?Sculptor1 wrote:Think of this. When you get to the edge of the universe and you kick a ball into the void - what happens. I'll tell you. You just make the universe bigger.
I suppose you believe the same with 'time' (the 4th dimension)? In other words, 'time' is just a useful measurement of change/motion in matter?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Proof Infinity is Impossible
Time is qualitivaely different from space.RJG wrote: ↑July 21st, 2020, 3:54 pmYou seem comfortable with the notion that something of substance; i.e. something 'finite' can actually exist 'nowhere'. I cannot seem to fathom this concept. Something existing nowhere, means to me, that this something does not exist.devans99 wrote:The container we call spacetime has existence, but I do not think it requires anywhere to 'exist in' or any position in a 'larger infinite universe'.
No, not with an 'infinite' universe. An infinite universe has no finite borders that need to exist anywhere. An infinite universe has no borders.devans99 wrote:If you says the 2nd applies then the same argument can be made for the 'larger infinite universe' - to exist, that too would require a position within an even larger universe... and it all goes recursive again.
This too is beyond comprehension. How can something "expand" if there is nowhere to expand?devans99 wrote:So space-time just expands and that's it - it does not need anything to expand into - it simply replaces 'nothing' when it expands.
So "space", that many of us believe is 4 dimensional spacetime is really just pure nothingness in which matter moves about?Sculptor1 wrote: You are treating space as if it were substance; it is not.
So then, is this "nothingness" infinite?
Interesting concept. Dimensions are not real except as useful measurements of objects and distances between objects?Sculptor1 wrote:Think of this. When you get to the edge of the universe and you kick a ball into the void - what happens. I'll tell you. You just make the universe bigger.
I suppose you believe the same with 'time' (the 4th dimension)? In other words, 'time' is just a useful measurement of change/motion in matter?
H.G. Wells proposed it as a 4th dimension so he could write "The TIme Machine". Calling time the fourth dimension is misleading.
In fact that numbering space as 3 is also just an artifact of maths. There can be no first, or second dimension.
Another sci-fi mythology that has infected our viewpoint is that travel into different dimensions is possible. This is also absurd.
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