What are the implications of an infinite large universe?

[Occams Barber]

We need the concept of time .. otherwise nothing makes sense. Our brains need the concept of time, in order for us to function as we do.

The idea that time is a 'thing' which floats around someplace which we then grab and attach it to our models of the universe ... is a pure belief that our minds bring into existence.

With this, the concept of time only happens because of us.
It wouldn't happen without us.

The problem you have is in defining 'us'.

If 'us' are humans then you are saying that time is a construct of the human mind. The problem is that events would continue to happen without regard to human existence, Trees would grow, rocks would erode and asteroids would do what asteroids do.

To rid yourself of this problem you would need to define 'us' as 'everything there is' to remove the possibility of an event occurring.

OB

 

[Mark Quayle]

We need the concept of time .. otherwise nothing makes sense. Our brains need the concept of time, in order for us to function as we do.

The idea that time is a 'thing' which floats around someplace which we then grab and attach it to our models of the universe ... is a pure belief that our minds bring into existence.

With this, the concept of time only happens because of us.
It wouldn't happen without us.

Aha! There you are! I was kinda hoping you'd jump in. Thanks!

Yeah, I like that. But math governs, does it not? Not our symbols and assessments, but the actuality. If there is something called gravity, and something real called matter, and something real called force, and light, etc. isn't there also something real called time? The math says there is, I think.

"Time behaves thus (admittedly as a result of gravity, motion, etc.)" "Time speeds up" "Time is not applicable except locally" etc, are all things we say, but they describe (or fail to describe) something real, do they not?

 

[SelfSim]

The problem you have is in defining 'us'.

If 'us' are humans then you are saying that time is a construct of the human mind. The problem is that events would continue to happen without regard to human existence, Trees would grow, rocks would erode and asteroids would do what asteroids do.

Who is it saying all of that? You? ... You are one of us!
'Problem' solved!

To rid yourself of this problem you would need to define 'us' as 'everything there is' to remove the possibility of an event occurring.

'The possibility of events occurring', is totally meaningless without anybody around .. 'Problem' solved!

Sometimes I wonder whether people ever stop to consider who creates the meanings of what they, themselves, write(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Aha! There you are! I was kinda hoping you'd jump in. Thanks!

Hopefully just a fly-by .. Don't count me in fully, (just yet).

Yeah, I like that. But math governs, does it not? Not our symbols and assessments, but the actuality. If there is something called gravity, and something real called matter, and something real called force, and light, etc. isn't there also something real called time? The math says there is, I think.

.. and I noticed that you used your own mind to do that thinking behind those concepts you're trying to convey to readers of what you wrote there.

"Time behaves thus (admittedly as a result of gravity, motion, etc.)" "Time speeds up" "Time is not applicable except locally" etc, are all things we say, but they describe (or fail to describe) something real, do they not?

Those words convey models, designed by you, to convey your own understandings/concepts to readers there.

That's all I see happening there.

 

[SelfSim]

The point is that these concepts like 'time', infinite', 'universe', 'math models', 'events', etc are concepts brought into existence, courtesy of some human mind.
Those concepts are completely meaningless without someone around proposing them, or someone there listening to them.
Trying to imagine that they exist with no-one around, whilst proposing that there's no-one around, is completely bizarre, when its obvious that its you, (whomever that is), who's proposing them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hopefully just a fly-by .. Don't count me in fully, (just yet).
.. and I noticed that you used your own mind to do that thinking behind those concepts you're trying to convey to readers of what you wrote there.
Those words convey models, designed by you, to convey your own understandings/concepts to readers there.

That's all I see happening there.

Lol, ok, I think I see your point, but you escaped having to answer the question I failed to make. Oh well.

 

[Bradskii]

The point is that these concepts like 'time', infinite', 'universe', 'math models', 'events', etc are concepts brought into existence, courtesy of some human mind.
Those concepts are completely meaningless without someone around proposing them, or someone there listening to them.
Trying to imagine that they exist with no-one around, whilst proposing that there's no-one around, is completely bizarre, when its obvious that its you, (whomever that is), who's proposing them.

So how about this...

If no-one existed then Pythagorus' Theorum wouldn't exist. But...the square of the hypotenuse would still equal the sum of the square of the other two sides.

If no-one existed then time as a measurement wouldn't exist. So no hours, years etc. But time as a measure of change still would (it would take twice as long to get there and back as opposed to just getting there).

 

[dlamberth]

I'm not sure I understand. To say that the universe is infinite, is not the same as to say the universe is infinitely large.

That's kind of what I was wondering. Infinitely deep, meaning more than being matter only is what I was thinking.

 

[SelfSim]

Aha! There you are! I was kinda hoping you'd jump in. Thanks!

Yeah, I like that. But math governs, does it not? Not our symbols and assessments, but the actuality. If there is something called gravity, and something real called matter, and something real called force, and light, etc. isn't there also something real called time? The math says there is, I think.

"Time behaves thus (admittedly as a result of gravity, motion, etc.)" "Time speeds up" "Time is not applicable except locally" etc, are all things we say, but they describe (or fail to describe) something real, do they not?

Lol, ok, I think I see your point, but you escaped having to answer the question I failed to make. Oh well.

Ok then .. we're making progress.

Physicists create models and then they test them. They invent the dimensions we need, in order to understand those models .. and then include those dimensions along with those models. One of those models is the model of the universe. That model includes 'time', 'distances' (x,y,z), matter, light and gravity. They write down, in math descriptors, the relationships we perceive amongst those parameters in that model. They then test those relationships by making observations.

Now here's the point: they only ever test those models against observations .. and never 'the things themselves'! When those tests return consistencies, physicists can then agree that those models define 'reality' and 'what exists'.

 

[SelfSim]

So how about this...

If no-one existed then Pythagorus' Theorum wouldn't exist. But...the square of the hypotenuse would still equal the sum of the square of the other two sides.

So who would there be to recognise 'hypotenuse', 'equal', 'sum of the square' and 'two sides'?
(Answer is: you! Because it was you who just proposed that entire hypothetical!)

If no-one existed then time as a measurement wouldn't exist. So no hours, years etc. But time as a measure of change still would (it would take twice as long to get there and back as opposed to just getting there).

So the concepts of 'measure of change' and 'getting there and back', came from who, precisely?
(Answer is: you! Because it was you who just invoked those concepts into existence!)

 

[SelfSim]

That's kind of what I was wondering. Infinitely deep, meaning more than being matter only is what I was thinking.

.. and I notice 'twas you who did that 'thinking' there.

Its therefore your model which conveys what your own (personal) meaning of 'infinite universe'. (I'm quite certain you have that as your meaning of 'real' too, I might add).

 

[Bradskii]

So who would there be to recognise 'hypotenuse', 'equal', 'sum of the square' and 'two sides'?
(Answer is: you! Because it was you who just proposed that entire hypothetical!)
So the concepts of 'measure of change' and 'getting there and back', came from who, precisely?
(Answer is: you! Because it was you who just invoked those concepts into existence!)

The earth goes completely around the sun pretty much exactly in the same time each year. And that time period exists irrespective of us being here to see it or not. The only difference is that we give it a name. Just like the ratio of a circle's diameter to it's circumference will always be exactly the same. It will always exist. We just happen to have given it a name.

The concepts are ours. But the physical reality exists without those concepts being brought into existence.

 

[SelfSim]

The earth goes completely around the sun pretty much exactly in the same time each year. And that time period exists irrespective of us being here to see it or not.

.. only by your proclamation of that, (so it appears).
Science, however, tests its models before making such proclamations ..

The only difference is that we give it a name. Just like the ratio of a circle's diameter to it's circumference will always be exactly the same. It will always exist. We just happen to have given it a name.

There's more to it than just a name .. there's meaning associated with that name.
How we arrive at that meaning is all important and yet apparently, always forgotten/overlooked/blind-spotted for some obscure reason ..

The concepts are ours. But the physical reality exists without those concepts being brought into existence.

.. (again) .. only by your proclamation of that, (so it appears).
Science, however, tests its models before making such proclamations ..

 

[dlamberth]

.. and I notice 'twas you who did that 'thinking' there.

Its therefore your model which conveys what your own (personal) meaning of 'infinite universe'. (I'm quite certain you have that as your meaning of 'real' too, I might add).

I'm just asking what an "infinite universe" looks like. Is it's size only? A statement from the OP: "If the universe is infinite then anything possible is actual." Which leaves a lot of possibilities. So we have the question about infinite size that's come up and I'm wondering also about depth. That, for instance, might be the possibility of a infinite varieties of life forms and related consciousness. I think we live in a universe that isn't only one dimension and that's the lens through which I was looking through with the questions posed in the OP.

 

[SelfSim]

Infinity is a conceptual model .. invented by humans.
(See the emboldened underlines below which demonstrate that simple fact):

Infinity represents something that is boundless or endless, or else something that is larger than any real or natural number. It is often denoted by the infinity symbol shown here.

I am yet to see how 'represents', 'real or natural number' and 'symbol' mean anything without a human mind in that meaning-making/meaning-conveying loop?

 

[SelfSim]

I'm just asking what an "infinite universe" looks like. Is it's size only? A statement from the OP: "If the universe is infinite then anything possible is actual." Which leaves a lot of possibilities. So we have the question about infinite size that's come up and I'm wondering also about depth. That, for instance, might be the possibility of a infinite varieties of life forms and related consciousness. I think we live in a universe that isn't only one dimension and that's the lens through which I was looking through with the questions posed in the OP.

So, I'd suggest you get in contact with those other 'varieties of life forms' to check out your ideas there.

Good luck with doing that, and then trying to get their meanings back into your mind and then ours, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

The Infinite Universe conversation, is all about testing logical consequences, but the logical consequences there, themselves, can reveal nothing of value about objective reality. All they'll ever do, at best, is to track back to the truth value of the original 'going-in' posit .. a posit which was only assumed as being 'true' by the individual who started the conversation (and who, presumably, wanted to be 'right' .. usually at the expense of others who must be 'wrong' by the same amount).

 

[Bradskii]

... a posit which was only assumed as being 'true' by the individual who started the conversation (and who, presumably, wanted to be 'right' .. usually at the expense of others who must be 'wrong' by the same amount).

Hang on. As far as this goes...

1. That must be right.
2. That cannot be right.

Pick a number.

...I don't even know the answer myself. It's possible to have a discussion without it turning into a contest.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's possible to have a discussion without it turning into a contest.

But you have to invoke infinity to do it.

 

[SelfSim]

Here's Alex Filippenko's 4.5 minute take on the question of the Infinite Universe.
(Not bad!):