What is infinity
If the universe is finite the argument is that something outside of time must have set a process in motion that brought it into existence. Even spontaneous generation still raises the question of what created the vacuum within which that occurred. The solution is to posit a mind outside of the system. This first cause has to be posited to avoid the inevitable infinite regress of causes for the universe. Its a paradox of sorts. A finite universe must have been brought into being by something which in turn... ad infinitum.
You have invented a concept of a "mind outside the system" from nowhere. What caused the mind and what caused the thing that caused the mind. Your argument is equally useless as the one it posits to dismiss.
The systemless mind seems to be a necessary postulation unless we wish to concede infinite causal regress. The very system of causality is a feature of the system we live within however. An intelligence outside that system would be exempt from its effect
Pure speculation/invention on your part.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
its inductive yes perhaps I could just as easily suggest that an inanimate process outside the system launched the whole things. The nub of it is that a finite universe must have a cause which leads us back to infinite regress. A finite universe points towards infinity.
_________________
http://superstringbean.wordpress.com/ My Repository Of the Arcane the Esoteric and the Sublime
http://sybourgian.wordpress.com/ Neuroprotection, Neurogenesis Strategies for Long Term Cognitive Enhancement
NOT TRUE. You see, it has been assumed the Universe is finite but closes in on itself since there's not a shred of astronomical/astrophysical evidence for a boundary.
Also not true. It describes reality so well that it effectively binds physical law.
The mathematical model describes the reality WE perceive. It does so remarkably well because deconstructing the univerfse produces numerical sequence at its core. Everything we are capable of perceiving can be delineated mathematically. That is everything can be represented or described mathematically. Mathematics doesnt decode the univerfse its a representational system. But im sure thats what you meant anyway. Im just expanding.
_________________
http://superstringbean.wordpress.com/ My Repository Of the Arcane the Esoteric and the Sublime
http://sybourgian.wordpress.com/ Neuroprotection, Neurogenesis Strategies for Long Term Cognitive Enhancement
You link cites states ...
"We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent".
"Suggests" does not appear to be much evidence.
The bible suggests GOD exists.
So do you think the infinite decimal expansion of irrational numbers transcends the human mind, and is evidence of "infinity" in the real world ?
The finite distance of the hypotenuse in my picture would appear to be definite, yet, somehow mathematics shows us that the distance is represented by the infinite ?
_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.
An infinite universe is impossible, it would imply that the univserse has always existed, which is plain BS.
_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”
Last edited by Kurgan on 01 May 2014, 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,195
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
We might be running more into parlance trouble than anything when 'universe' is meant to imply everything in existence and our perceivable universe (as we've named it) may very well be an infinitesimally small point within an infinite set as such. In other words the Big Bang might only be relevant to us in our particular bubble.
I would point too ..
1. Euclid's theorem proves by contradiction in the proof that there is an infinite number of prime numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_theorem
Wherein "infinite" means "a human can always come up with another prime number by counting higher". However, this "infinite" would still appear to be within human reasoning.
In the real world .. there are people paid to prove Euclid right ...
Bitcoins, Primecoins ... "cryptocurrency" are "mined" by computing for block strings of large prime numbers ...
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-week ... -algorithm
quoted: "Bitcoin Magazine pointed out that the Electronic Frontier Foundation "is offering $550,000 worth of prizes" to whichever groups are first to uncover a prime number more than 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, and 1 billion digits long. The first two—1 million and 10 million—have already been accounted for
_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.
We might be running more into parlance trouble than anything when 'universe' is meant to imply everything in existence and our perceivable universe (as we've named it) may very well be an infinitesimally small point within an infinite set as such. In other words the Big Bang might only be relevant to us in our particular bubble.
How did the space, time, and physical laws these bubbles are in originate, then? The multiverse theory (or anything of resemblance) is used to fill in gaps that we have yet to solve. There's no proof or evidence to indicate that there are other universes or other sectors of the universe. Everything bound by physical laws originated at one point.
_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,195
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Two possibilities work here - 1) eternal multiverse, 2) emanation of God, possibly both options for a virtual third option if one plays the game of considering the whole thing endless cups within cups where each cup has sentience.
If anyone would be bold enough to say that that they're both a strong atheist (full reductive materialist) and also cleaves to the notion that this is probably the only universe that has existed but that nothing - not even quantum static - was there to generate it, they're talking crazy. To even have quantum static is to have something which means there was a before to generate the effect, even if such a timeline existed purely tangential to our own - it's an exterior and that's precisely the point.
We might be running more into parlance trouble than anything when 'universe' is meant to imply everything in existence and our perceivable universe (as we've named it) may very well be an infinitesimally small point within an infinite set as such. In other words the Big Bang might only be relevant to us in our particular bubble.
How did the space, time, and physical laws these bubbles are in originate, then? The multiverse theory (or anything of resemblance) is used to fill in gaps that we have yet to solve. There's no proof or evidence to indicate that there are other universes or other sectors of the universe. Everything bound by physical laws originated at one point.
And how did that one point come into being? And moreover, what is the causal agent of the expansion of that singularity into the Universe as it exists now?
Assuming that the Universe is finite in size and history and that Causality holds over everything that exists(within and beyond the Cosmos), then the infinite causal chain cannot be avoided. Tallyman makes the presumption that whatever created the Universe is exempt from causality, which is dubious at best.
FTR, it is impossible to confirm or deny what lies beyond the Universe(or at least the observable Universe) which makes the existence of the Multiverse(or Omniverse as I like to call it) non-falsifiable by current science. But there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the Universe actually is finite in the first place! No Cosmic boundaries have ever been observed nor has it been determined through observations that the global geometry of the Universe is a boundryless compact manifold.