Proving the universe is infinite

Asktheshadow

Let`s imagine a library from one cylindrical chamber and suppose it`s a finite universe; every book must contain a part from the existing information and images so that all the data is contained; also the information and the images of them – of their covers, of their files and of the ensemble cover-pages/ exterior- interior- must be contained. From here we distinguish two possible cases: the data about the books can be divided and shared between them or we have another book which contains the data and the images about the others. In any of the cases, there still remains data not included: case 1.the image of the book containing solely the information about others and 2.the images of the ``new books``, the old books containing now more information, which asserts a new form and more space.

If we try to incorporate them in: a bigger book, there still remains free data about that book or in the same volumes, adding files, we still have this second generation of containers to be added to The Library.

So, whatever we do, we always have the newest forms/containers not contained. The essence: if we try to have all the information we need a place to put it and for the information about that place we need another space and so on, ad infinitum.

As an universe needs to contain everything, it needs to contain his actual form and, as he can`t do this as a limited universe or as a ``possibly infinite`` universe (because in order to contain himself it needs to update so the ``newest`` form is never contained even if grows progressively and becomes a ``possibly infinite`` universe*) we can have only an ``actually infinite`` universe.

Finally, I can`t make suppositions in the domain of physics but I can say only that it will never prove the universe if limited: it will prove only that a part of our universe is limited. And, why not, if the universe is infinite, then there can`t be more universes or multiverses, because they would juxtapose. There can be only places outside the ``bubble`` of matter we live in/ places that don`t respect the laws of physics, if the ``bubble`` of matter is actually infinite.

Note: here are the definitions of the universe: ``the universe: all of space and everything in it`` Merriam Webster; ``The Universe is all of time and space and its contents`` Wikipedia;
`` The sum of everything that exists in the cosmos, including time and space itself`` Wiktionary.

*The assumption that no finite universe ever reaches infinity doesn`t assume it`s still finite, because it grows continuously and progressively and can`t be measured.

puppet

I think he idea of infinity/eternity is simply impossible, it cannot exist. It can be demonstrated, as far as we know, and as far as computers can calculate, with mathematics, but that doesn't say anything about the possibility of infinity in the real world.

"The only constant is change."

Science makes a pretty good case that the universe we inhabit is finite, so one could speculate that there has to be something outside of our universe, something different. But it is impossible, so far, for science to see what that might be, or the extent of it, so currently the topic is moot.

Wosret

Space is a prerequisite for the possibility of locationality. "Outside of the universe" is north of north of the north pole, I believe.

Asktheshadow

↪puppet

What are speaking about with the impossibility of the infinity is called ``possible infinite`` like the pi number. I wanted to prove that, in fact, the using of universe as a word for what we live in it`s actually incorrect, and no, science did only launched theories about ``the space we live in`` limits and have not yet provided strong proofs for this theories. Even if the space we live in is limited, it can`t be a universe according to our definitions of universe imposed by logic. Here I implied logic, rational thinking, and this rational thinking in what I wrote proves that what we call universe can`t be associated with limits. Please respond my argument with an counterargument using LOGIC, because we are speaking of metaphysics here.

puppet

What we are talking about defies logic. The idea of an infinite universe is not logical or valid. Also, definitions for the word "universe" found in dictionaries are grossly dated.

EDIT: I buy the Big Bang theory. That is only a theory, but it makes more sense to me than the theory that the universe has no beginning or end, that it was always here and will always remain as it is for all eternity.

Asktheshadow

↪puppet

Why is the idea of an infinite universe not logical? In fact, I wanted to show solely that the idea of a limited universe containing everything is not logical, because as he tries to contain himself there still is a new him not contained and if he doesn`t contain himself he doesn`t include everything and defies his own definition. And I delivered details that this definition of an universe as something that includes everything is properly used( ``the universe : all of space and everything in it`` etc.). And there are contradictions with the fact that universe would be limited in physics and logics: when you discover it`s limits, you should discover itself in it, as it contains everything and discover that the universe that contains himself within himself still doesn`t contains his ``newest form``, that double him.
You just didn`t understand what I have said there and my point: to prove this model of universe including everything within can`t be limited.

puppet

Why is the idea of an infinite universe not logical? In fact, I wanted to show solely that the idea of a limited universe containing everything is not logical, — Asktheshadow

Then can we have a limited universe containing everything we know of? The known universe, meaning everything we can see.

because as he tries to contain himself there still is a new him not contained and if he doesn`t contain himself he doesn`t include everything and defies his own definition. — Asktheshadow

I'm really trying hard to follow you here. In order to contain everything, there has to be something that does the containing, and that something falsifies the definition of everything?

And I delivered details that this definition of an universe as something that includes everything is properly used( ``the universe : all of space and everything in it`` etc.) — Asktheshadow

The definitions should say "everything in the known universe. Everything we can see."

And there are contradictions with the fact that universe would be limited in physics and logics: when you discover it`s limits, you should discover itself in it, as it contains everything and discover that the universe that contains himself within himself still doesn`t contains his ``newest form``, that double him. — Asktheshadow

Again you are personifying something, God, all of creation? That is a different argument. And I don't follow the "newest form" If all of creation stepped outside itself to contain itself, there would be another him?

You just didn`t understand what I have said there and my point: to prove this model of universe including everything within can`t be limited. — Asktheshadow

But there is a limit to the known universe. Everything, as you say, also includes what might or might not be outside of the known universe, beyond the limit. There is no way we can know what is there. Science ignores it altogether. There is no way to prove that Everything that exists is without limit.

Nils Loc

Sounds like you've read J.L. Borges the Library in Babel

His library is finite but the number of books (all possible combinations of letters) would exceed the number of estimated atoms in our universe by a tremendous magnitude. You could travel among recognizable copies of Moby Dick for your lifetime.

One of the imaginary librarians speculates that all is needed to reproduce this finite library is a single volume, since all books are limited to 26 letters and whatever the repeating format is.

I wonder what silly number the permuted arrangement of periodic elements would give us, given the amount of atoms there are in the universe.

Infinity has no meaning if we are finite creatures. Infinity also has no meaning if we are infinite creatures, because it's all relative to the scope of what we experience, whether we agree upon finity or infinity as a qualitative description.

In an infinite world maybe contradictions are permitted. The meaningless is meaningful. Infinity is finity, et cetera.

Asktheshadow

I'm really trying hard to follow you here. In order to contain everything, there has to be something that does the containing, and that something falsifies the definition of everything? — puppet

Yes, it does falsifies the definition of universe, not of everything, because that something that does the containing in order to contain everything needs to contain even itself, and from here, if it`s limited, it can grow, but after this process we have a universe x containing himself, so by summing it and viewing it as an ensemble, we have 2x which isn`t contained. It`s like you have a circle containing a half-smaller circle, but this whole isn`t contained. If you try to contain it, you have another bigger container that isn`t contained and so on.

And I don't follow the "newest form" If all of creation stepped outside itself to contain itself, there would be another him? — puppet

After this process of stepping outside there would be a bigger creation, containing the old itself because it had to grow to contain itself, nothing of X dimensions can`t contain another thing of X dimensions, quantities/ itself, it has to be bigger and that bigger one, that ``new form`` is still not contained by himself, which would generate a bigger him and so on, ad infinitum.

Asktheshadow

↪Nils Loc

Infinity also has no meaning if we are infinite creatures, because it's all relative to the scope of what we experience — Nils Loc

Now think at Laplace`s point: if we would live everything in universe at a point in time and if the universe is infinite, and we are infinite, then we should have lived all the possibilities, all the scenes of the movie without scrolling them. Here is the first contradiction in what you say: how can a infinite consciousness experience infinity from a relative point, if it experiences all the points?

In an infinite world maybe contradictions are permitted. The meaningless is meaningful. Infinity is finity, et cetera. — Nils Loc

Maybe, but in one part of it. Nobody says things have to repeat in an actually infinite world. In a limited world that begins a process of growing to infinity by repeating, maybe this rule of canceling would repeat in more parts of the universe, but this still doesn`t means this permitted contradictions would overlap other rules. Thinking at this, if ``Infinity is finity`` maybe finity could be infinity, and we only changed the positions( finity becomes infinity, infinity becomes finity and nothing changed).

Asktheshadow

↪Nils Loc

Sounds like you've read J.L. Borges the Library in Babel

His library is finite but the number of books (all possible combinations of letters) would exceed the number of estimated atoms in our universe by a tremendous magnitude. You could travel among recognizable copies of Moby Dick for your lifetime.

One of the imaginary librarians speculates that all is needed to reproduce this finite library is a single volume, since all books are limited to 26 letters and whatever the repeating format is. — Nils Loc

Yes, I`ve read his stories and others and I loved them!

Nils Loc

...how can a infinite consciousness experience infinity from a relative point, if it experiences all the points? — Asktheshadow

Depending upon which unit we use to measure the coastline of England, the kilometer, meter, the centimeter, the femtometer with respect for accuracy and precision, the end values change. At some point it is impractical and useless to choose a unit that isn't useful. No one could ever measure the coastline by planck length, but it it were possible the length coastline of England would contradict its practical length.

I struggle to make this coherent but maybe when dealing with infinity, things need not be coherent (maybe infinity's semantic neighborhood includes words like contradiction, incoherence, impossibility, unlimitedness, endlessness, et cetera).

I borrow this idea from Borges story. Most of the information library is incoherent relative to the finity (limit, end, terminus) that is the reader. In the absence of a reader, or being, there is nothing (infinity or noumenon). Even if we are to concede that the universe exists without observers, so what, it is only meaningful relative to the what imposes or receives meaning upon it.

In Lak'ech

Hi Asktheshadow. What you demonstrate is the referential function of symbols being used in a trivial context. If meta-book A contains data about book B, then the words/images/symbols in A have extensions in and at B. This process of creating meta-books goes on forever only because, as you are building your meta-book, you are introducing materials from somewhere (the book's cover, the ink used, etc.). This new matter is not "data about himself" as you put it. It is a set of artifacts that no book of yet has information about and which now have need to be described. If you could somehow make your meta-book without using describable things, then your infinity would neatly end. So then, I would suggest you explore where the other things (that allow you to create these new books) are coming from. When that source runs out, your infinity would likewise meet its end. Cantor made several missteps alongs these same lines. In Lak'ech.

Nils Loc

Borges poetic illustration of this thought experiment is endlessly fascinating and enigmatic.

The library has all possible configurations of letters which code information but it's all relative to ciphers or interpretive agents.

When presented with a book or cipher you would always say that it is finite relative to your function or its function but that goes without saying. Actual infinity is just as incomprehensible as super humongous giant universal size sets of whatever.

There is too much to count some in some finite set but there is always more to count in another finite set, and there is always more to count in another finite set, et cetera.. ad finitum.

Who is counting? Who is measuring? Surely these agents are infinite? .....

:s

Punshhh

@Asktheshadow

It is folly to entertain the notion that ideas can prove something about existence*. For at least two reasons, firstly ideas are abstract constructs entertained by something in existence. Something the existence of which is not understood. Secondly that which entertains the ideas is demonstrably limited in all facets of its action and its existence.

There are problems in attempting to circumscribe, nail down, existence.

*by existence I am refering to the very existence of existence itself and any processes involved.

Irina

Our Universe cannot be conceived as finite. But neither as infinite. Mind is simply overpassed

ζTo question upon the concept of limit, that is the original question – this is the way Heidegger would formulate our idea. It speaks about an essence. It might be the very essentiality of our existence in this world.

δBut what would it be possible that limit mean firstly? No doubt you think the same: this is our attitude, our way of defining our human condition, guided by wonder and question ...

α... We try, for instance, to understand time: did it begin with the universe? How could mind comprehend that the speed of light is invariably in the case in which an object moves towards the beam of light with a certain speed (Einstein)? Finitude limit I would call the first questioning, limit simply undone, in the other case.

~In the first case we might have the classical thinking boundaries in thinking the infinitude. Alright, but before the Big Bang, if Universe did not yet exist, what exist there? So, time-born with the universe- was not? How do you think this thing - if time defines thinking?

John Kernan

Our universe may be part of a multiverse and even the multiverse may be part of a larger existence that contains an infinite quantity and variety of items. I believe existence contains all logical possibilities. This seems to me to be the default ontological state. Now some logical possibilities may not be physically instantiated but subsist in a non-physical state. I should add that I believe in eternalism and the timelessness of existence.

hunterkf5732

↪John Kernan

Now some logical possibilities may not be physically instantiated but subsist in a non-physical state — John Kernan

I concur with what you say before the above quote,but this sentence I find hard to digest.

When you say that they "subsist in a non-physical state'',in what sense do they ''subsist''?And of what nature is the realm of their subsistence?

Barry Etheridge

I believe existence contains all logical possibilities. This seems to me to be the default ontological state.

How can such an existence contain the logical possibility that there is no existence or that the instantiation of one logical possibility excludes the instantiation of all other logical possibilities? The semantic sophistry of 'subsist in a non-physical state' does not get you off the hook here. The word "contain" is meaningless if it does not require instantiation, at least in the context of "existence". All you are saying is that all logical possibilities exist as logical possibilities a trivial truth of no ontological significance whatever.

Barry Etheridge

↪Asktheshadow

The infinite universe may be theorised endlessly but it simply falls apart in science. If the Universe is infinite then there is no entropy. Barring a complete overturning of every basic concept of astrophysics there is entropy in our Universe and so it must be finite. Incomprehensibly vast but finite.

jkop

An expanding universe is finite, or else it would not be expanding.

andrewk

↪jkop

That's correct the way lay people think of 'expanding', meaning that the total size of the thing is getting bigger. To get bigger it must be finite.

Now when a physicist talks about expanding space they don't mean that the universe is getting bigger. They just mean that galaxies are getting farther apart. That can happen in either a finite or an infinite universe.

There is currently no conclusive evidence as to whether the universe is finite or infinite.

jkop

↪andrewk

The physicist is then not talking about the universe but galaxies in it. The distance between galaxies may expand or shrink regardless of whether the universe is finite or infinite. But an expanding (or shrinking) universe can only be finite, for physicists and lay people alike.

andrewk

↪jkop

No they are not talking about the galaxies but about the equations of the spacetime metric. Referring to galaxies is just a way to give a vague sense of it to those that don't want to grapple with the rquations, as is saying that space is expanding.
Neither statement captures the full, precise meaning of the equations. If it did, there would be no need for the equations.

jkop

↪andrewk

You said they were talking about galaxies moving farther apart. Now it's equations? Nevertheless, neither talk about equations nor the relation between galaxies is talk about the nature of the universe, whether it is finite or infinite. It's not physics but philosoohy.

Terrapin Station

↪Asktheshadow

Let`s imagine a library from one cylindrical chamber and suppose it`s a finite universe; every book must contain a part from the existing information and images so that all the data is contained; also the information and the images of them – of their covers, of their files and of the ensemble cover-pages/ exterior- interior- must be contained. From here we distinguish two possible cases: the data about the books can be divided and shared between them or we have another book which contains the data and the images about the others. In any of the cases, there still remains data not included: case 1.the image of the book containing solely the information about others and 2.the images of the ``new books``, the old books containing now more information, which asserts a new form and more space.

Say that you have a library that consists of one book, with a cover that's simply a picture of an elephant, and it has one page containing the letter "E," then a back cover.

Every book in that library contains part of the existing information and images so that all the data in that library is contained. Namely, all the data is the cover with the picture of the elephant, and the letter "E" on that one page.

There's no need for anything more than that. There's no other information and no other images in that library.

Likewise, for every book we add in the library, the information and images are exhausted by those being the books in that library.

Now, maybe you're not stating your idea that clearly, and what you're wanting to get at is something like, "All possible information and images," but (a) you'd be assuming that "all possible information and images" is an infinite set, which would make your argument question-begging, and (b) you'd be assuming that information and images exist, including information like meta information about the books in the library, without anyone thinking as much (or codifying a representation of that thinking in a book, say), which you'd then need to argue for; we can't just assume that this is so, because some of us disagree that it is.

Of course, you might have something different in mind, too. Maybe this is pertinent to some problem in computer science or something. I don't know. But as expressed, I don't see why the books in the library wouldn't do the job simply by being the books in the library in question.

andrewk

You said they were talking about galaxies moving farther apart. Now it's equations? — jkop

There's no incongruity. When they are doing physics, they are working with equations. When they are talking to lay people to try to give them an approximate sense of what the equations are about, they may talk in terms of galaxies, as in the balloon analogy (example here).

Nevertheless, neither talk about equations nor the relation between galaxies is talk about the nature of the universe, whether it is finite or infinite.

The equations are capable of making definitive statements about whether the universe is finite or infinite, based on observations. Observations have not been made to date that can determine which it is, but it is possible that there may be in the future, in which case the finitude or otherwise of the universe will become definitively and scientifically settled one way or the other.

I should add that the equations only relate to this spacetime. Proving that this spacetime is finite would not rule out the possibility of additional, possibly inaccessible spacetimes, of which there could be infinitely many. In that case we need to be more precise about whether by 'universe' we mean 'this spacetime' or 'everything that exists'.

Hoo

↪andrewk

In that case we need to be more precise about whether by 'universe' we mean 'this spacetime' or 'everything that exists'. — andrewk

Exactly. The "stream of experience" or the "totality" or "everything" simply includes the scientific image and is itself much richer. Talk about the image is often treated as talk about the larger reality in which the image is dependently embedded.

Punshhh

I don't see how logic can be of any use here. There are numerous loose ends which can't be reconciled.

I have given this a lot of thought over the years and the only logically consistent answer I could come up with is that it is the finite which doesn't exist and everything is infinite. But that we are in a state of delusion in which we experience a kind of finite existence.

Unfortunately in this thought experiment there are new loose ends, for example infinity and existence are inconceivable from our deluded perspective.

tom

But an expanding (or shrinking) universe can only be finite, for physicists and lay people alike. — jkop

Seems you might think that Hilbert's Hotel can't take any more guests?

jkop

↪tom

A finite hotel which expands can be fully booked at time t1 and take more guests at time t2. In Hilbert's Hotell of infinite rooms, however, it seems that all rooms are booked at any time.

Proving the universe is infinite

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions