What are the implications of an infinite large universe?

[SelfSim]

These aren't models. They are physical facts.

.. and how did they get to be that way (ie: 'physical facts')? Magic?

Let's say the sun goes super nova. So it undergoes change. So we can see it happening in time. Time therefore exists. Then the exploding sun destroys the earth.

According to you, time then does not exist.

Our minds are capable of storing successive events ... (its a mystery, why that is so). Once you have a mind which does that, time instantly zaps into existence!
Oh .. yeah .. and so does the logic you cling to. Wonderful isn't it? Gotta love mysteries, eh?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

God is infinitely so He alone can create an infinitely large universe. Seems pretty simple to me. I once saw a NASA official drawing that showed the outward expansion of the universe and a clearly defined "edge of creation"

 

[klutedavid]

If the universe is infinite then anything possible is actual. I have two comments:

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

Pick a number...

Mankind uses the word, 'infinite', but mankind cannot comprehend the word itself, infinite.

Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

Your question belongs in the fiction category.

 

[SelfSim]

Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

I think that question was answered quite nicely by Alex Filippenko in the video in post #60.
He actually defined 'infinity' (in the spatial dimension) operationally as 'beyond our ability to see things' (due to the accelerated expansion vs light speed difference).
That's basically how one can argue a universe starting out with a very small shell topology at the BB, and then proceeding to evolve to an infinite spatial dimension (which is kind of counterintuitive).

Your question belongs in the fiction category.

I agree its more productive to constrain it objectively .. otherwise there is no real possibility of agreeing on anything, when attempting to discuss it(?)

 

[SelfSim]

God is infinitely so He alone can create an infinitely large universe. Seems pretty simple to me. I once saw a NASA official drawing that showed the outward expansion of the universe and a clearly defined "edge of creation"

No edge .. just a cosmological horizon .. beyond which light hasn't had (nor ever will) have a chance of reaching us.

 

[Bradskii]

Our minds are capable of storing successive events ... (its a mystery, why that is so). Once you have a mind which does that, time instantly zaps into existence!

So if the planet is destroyed, you believe time won't exist?

 

[SelfSim]

So if the planet is destroyed, you believe time won't exist?

If the planet is destroyed and there are no human minds remaining, then there will be no-one left to believe anything will there?
Same goes for the meaning of the concept of 'exist', of course.

 

[Bradskii]

Mankind uses the word, 'infinite', but mankind cannot comprehend the word itself, infinite.

Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

Your question belongs in the fiction category.

I think you're wrong about calculations and infinity. It's often used in physics and maths. Notwithstanding that the definition of the term in cosmology and maths is different.

 

[Bradskii]

If the planet is destroyed and there are no human minds remaining, then there will be no-one left to believe anything will there?
Same goes for the meaning of the concept of 'exist', of course.

OK, I'll rephrase it....here's a statement:

If the planet is destroyed time will continue.

Do you agree with that statement or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if the planet is destroyed, you believe time won't exist?

Speaking of time.

What time do you scientists say it is now?

 

[Bradskii]

Speaking of time.

What time do you scientists say it is now?

Let's just say that now that 'very stable genius' no longer has his tiny hands anywhere near the nuclear football, I feel like I could have a lie in and not worry about the time.

 

[klutedavid]

I think you're wrong about calculations and infinity. It's often used in physics and maths. Notwithstanding that the definition of the term in cosmology and maths is different.

If something is infinite then it is not bounded. I am afraid that in mathematics the word, 'infinite', carries much the same definition.

Mathematics is constrained within the realm of finite numbers.

You have probably been taught that between any two integers on a number line. There exists an infinite number of real numbers. Well let me tell you, that would generate a paradox.

Since the real numbers between those two integers on the number line. Would represent the bounds for the set of those real numbers. A bounded set is not infinite by definition.

 

[SelfSim]

OK, I'll rephrase it....here's a statement:

If the planet is destroyed time will continue.

Do you agree with that statement or not.

There is a model I have in mind (right now) which predicts that time will continue. The definition of time in that model, is measurable. Whether that prediction 'tests out' after everyone is destroyed, is a matter of pure belief, conceived in the present. I choose not to believe in that model or its predictions.

The point I'm making here, is that HOW we go about concluding 'what exists', is of direct relevance to what we have to say about any outcomes inferred from the notion of 'infinite universes'.

 

[SelfSim]

Since the real numbers between those two integers on the number line. Would represent the bounds for the set of those real numbers. A bounded set is not infinite by definition.

.. so just change the context of your definition of 'infinity' there, to match what's going on then, eh?
After all, every definition in science is provisional and contingent on new observations .. (such as the infinite behaviors of the the reals between integers)?
Its infinite .. just a different context and thus a different .. cough .. cough, um: 'kind' of infinite?

 

[klutedavid]

.. so just change the context of your definition of 'infinity' there, to match what's going on then, eh?
After all, every definition in science is provisional and contingent on new observations .. (such as the infinite behaviors of the the reals between integers)?
Its infinite .. just a different context and thus a different .. cough .. cough, um: 'kind' of infinite?

Impossible, real numbers are finite numbers. No matter how hard you push a finite number, it will never be a an infinite number. Simply because an infinite number cannot exist.

Observe all you want, you cannot observe the infinite. Science is constrained by space-time.

 

[SelfSim]

Hmm .. on 'constraints':

Interestingly, biological Evolution is bounded by its constraints of natural selection, and its niches. Yet Evolution's possible estimated 'products', is potentially bigger than the estimated numbers of star systems in the universe. The thing here is that biological evolution achieves 'constraint closure' .. which basically means that its also an active player in establishing the constraint boundaries in an ever expanding way.

This points to the need for an expansion to the laws of thermodynamics to account for the behaviour of biological evolution.

 

[SelfSim]

Impossible, real numbers are finite numbers.

The set of reals is regarded as 'uncountably infinite', whereas the set of naturals, is regarded as 'countably infinite', (in the math/axiomatic context), I think(?)

No matter how hard you push a finite number, it will never be a an infinite number. Simply because an infinite number cannot exist.

Redefine what you mean by 'exist' there then .. and the problem is solved, no(?)

Observe all you want, you cannot observe the infinite.

Sounds like a workable operational definition there, then, eh?

Science is constrained by space-time.

.. which is equivalent to saying science is constrained by the human minds practising it, no?

 

[sjastro]

Mankind uses the word, 'infinite', but mankind cannot comprehend the word itself, infinite.

Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

Your question belongs in the fiction category.

Not this again.
I’m always intrigued how a stranger can pontificate what I or anyone else does not understand about infinity.

I understand the calculation of an area under the curve y = f(x) using integral calculus is the limit of summing an infinite number of infinitesimally small rectangles.

I know understand why;

or why the sum of this infinite series converges;

while this sum of this infinite series diverges to infinity.

I understand why the set of real numbers R is an uncountable infinite set while the set of integers Z is a countable infinite set.

More appropriate to this thread is measuring the curvature of spacetime using the CMB.
If the curvature is zero or flat then the evidence is very strong the universe is infinitely large.

The only thing holding us back in declaring the universe is infinitely large is the question of inflation which was an exponential increase in the rate of expansion in the very early history of the universe.
A more detailed account of this subject can be found in this link.

 

[sjastro]

If something is infinite then it is not bounded. I am afraid that in mathematics the word, 'infinite', carries much the same definition.

Mathematics is constrained within the realm of finite numbers.

You have probably been taught that between any two integers on a number line. There exists an infinite number of real numbers. Well let me tell you, that would generate a paradox.

Since the real numbers between those two integers on the number line. Would represent the bounds for the set of those real numbers. A bounded set is not infinite by definition.

You clearly do not understand what a real number is.
The closed interval [0,1] is bounded and contains an infinite number of real numbers.
Here is a hint there is no paradox since real numbers can be expressed to an unlimited number of decimal places.

 

[klutedavid]

The set of reals is regarded as 'uncountably infinite', whereas the set of naturals, is regarded as 'countably infinite', (in the math/axiomatic context), I think(?)

You are confused.

You offered a paradox in your reply. You stated, 'countably infinite'?

If numbers are infinite then they cannot be counted. How can you count infinitely?

Here is a definition of finite numbers.

Finite number may refer to:

• A countable number less than infinity, being the cardinality of a finite set – i.e., some natural number, possibly 0
• A real number, such as may result from a measurement (of time, length, area, etc.)
• In mathematical parlance, a value other than infinite or infinitesimal values and distinct from the value 0
• (Wikipedia.finitenumber)

Real numbers are finite numbers and logically can never be infinite, given the definition above.

The definition in wikipedia needs some attention also. Infinity is not a number, therefore the phrase, 'less than infinity', is meaningless.

Redefine what you mean by 'exist' there then .. and the problem is solved, no(?)
Sounds like a workable operational definition there, then, eh?
.. which is equivalent to saying science is constrained by the human minds practising it, no?

Science is based on an ancient idea. I think the idea itself was first noted in India. Of course, it started as a philosophy. That one can understand the universe through observation.