|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do We Live in an Infinite Universe? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
In discussing the finite/infinite qualities of the universe it should be noted that we speak only of what we know and not what likely exists. The physical universe we experience is finite and is bound by the limit of our experience. It will always remain so. In that sense it is finite.
Considering that our existence as a species on this planet will likely come to pass this will also place a finite limit to our understanding of what exists. Our experience has shown us though, that the harder we look, the more there is to see. Every time we look to place something in a box we find the box does not fit. knowing this I am inclined to think that what we know is bound by the limits we set. From there I think we know nothing but our limits. Science does not work well without limits. Science would never accept an infinite universe even if it is the case. I have a problem when time is put on the same level as force or energy.Time is a concept. I can apply a force. One cannot apply time.We have simply placed the pre concieved box called time around our notion of what we experience. The idea of the "fabric" of space/time has never worked for me. Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
tice_baked_taters writes: Science does not work well without limits. Science would never accept an infinite universe even if it is the case. There is no conclusive evidence either way for an infinite universe, but more cosmologists than not believe it is infinite.
The idea of the "fabric" of space/time has never worked for me. Not a problem, unless you're trying to actually solve problems in cosmology or that are related to relativity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
taters writes: Considering that our existence as a species on this planet will likely come to pass this will also place a finite limit to our understanding of what exists. Our experience has shown us though, that the harder we look, the more there is to see. I asked earlier in the thread if infinity was something that was strictly mathematical or if it represented reality. It strikes me that if I understand what Penrose and cavediver are suggesting, (very good chance I don't), then everything that exists depends on consciousness. If there is no consciousness to perceive something does it exist? If a huge comet hit the earth and all conscious life was destroyed would the universe cease to exist even though mathematically we might come to the conclusion that the universe is infinite? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It seems to me that if one simply thought that although Homo *may* pass on Earth humanity would continue to follow IN SPACE where he went around the Globe in ever larger circuits thhis permits one to grapple with %infinity% of math beyond that current Solar System used truth.
I think that Infinity is real and not just in ones' mind. Granted one would have to answer Frege who questioned if a mound of sand was supposed to be of one cardinality rather than another. Cantor had the suspicion that the cardinality of great music and a good painting might be cardinally equivalent but ordinally different. I feel that the limit that logic can go it descripting various natural forms of creatures binds (infinte)e-numbers to self-similar dimensional defintions but I can show this as it is yet but an emotion. The problem to be handled requires one to think humanity is "smarter" than I. Kant and I can't quite say this even though sometimes I grasp or I think I do this fleeting novelty. I am confident that within the confines of higher US secular educational environments that mathematical infinities supply what is symbolic missing to biological theorizing but I am not able to marshell the relevant translations to assert the ring that connects the various the "geodescics" which would be coincident with some trajectory of human life exploring and surviving (if) beyond the Earth-Moon "system."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
There is no conclusive evidence either way for an infinite universe, but more cosmologists than not believe it is infinite. Yes, That is my point. It would be similar to proving a creator exists.Since all we will ever know is finite we can never prove an infinite universe. We can only guess or believe. It will never be scientifically provable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
2ice_baked_taters writes: There is no conclusive evidence either way for an infinite universe... Yes, That is my point...Since all we will ever know is finite we can never prove an infinite universe. We can only guess or believe. It will never be scientifically provable. Science can never prove anything. I think what you're trying to say is that we'll never find strong evidence for an infinite universe. Perhaps you're right. But even if that's what you meant to say, I still think it's important to point out that I was responding to what you actually said:
2ice_baked_taters in Message 31 writes: Science does not work well without limits. Science would never accept an infinite universe even if it is the case. I was only pointing out that science seems to have no problem accepting the possibility of an infinite universe. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RebelSnake Inactive Member |
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/cosmology_faq.html#RB
"We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved." It would seem they have no problem at all with an infinite universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
"We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved." It would seem they have no problem at all with an infinite universe. This snippet simply illustrates my point. We know so little and always will. If the nature of the universe is infinite it can never be proven and certainly not tested. It is permanently beyond our abilities. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
2ice_baked_taters writes: This snippet simply illustrates my point. We know so little and always will. If the nature of the universe is infinite it can never be proven and certainly not tested. It is permanently beyond our abilities. Just as I did earlier in this thread, RebelSnake responded to what you said in Message 31, not what you later explained you meant. What you said in Message 31 was:
Science does not work well without limits. Science would never accept an infinite universe even if it is the case. Of course, this isn't at all true. Science has no problem accepting the possibility of an infinite universe. You then went on to explain that what you actually meant was that science can never prove an infinite universe. Let me explain at greater length this time why using the word "prove" is not the correct way to express your thoughts. Because of its tentative nature, nothing is ever really proven in science. When scientists say they can prove something or have proven something, what they really mean is that they can gather or present strong supporting evidence. So when you say that science will never prove an infinite universe, what you really mean is that science will never gather sufficient supporting evidence. And perhaps you're right. But your rationale, that there is no way to completely test something infinite, is incorrect. That's because science is inductive and never requires complete testing. Science believes that all water molecules made up of the same isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen have the same properties, but arriving at this conclusion does not require testing every molecule in the universe. In the same way, evidence for an infinite universe, if it is indeed infinite, can be gathered from the portion of the universe we can observe. There may, for example, be properties unique to an infinite universe that could be apparent and measurable locally. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
In the same way, evidence for an infinite universe, if it is indeed infinite, can be gathered from the portion of the universe we can observe. There may, for example, be properties unique to an infinite universe that could be apparent and measurable locally. Yes. So based upon a limited knowledge one can form an assumption that can never be proven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters
So based upon a limited knowledge one can form an assumption that can never be proven. That is not the whole story though. We can test the consequences of the outcome of a given phenomena that the assumption provides for us. But as knowledge progresses the noose draws tighter on the relative certainty of the model even though certainty itself cannot really be achieved. The best that can be accomplished is a model that best describes the observations made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nipok Inactive Member |
First things first. Our nine (or ten) planets revolve around our sun. Our sun is a star and our star is far from unique and is one of a trillion+ similar stars. Our solar system is far from unique and is one of a trillion+ similar solar systems.
Everything we know about our outer significant universe (that which scientific precision has allowed us to perceive looking outwards) is nothing more than a tiny little insignificant speck of nothingness in the true infinity of space and time. Everything we know about our inner significant universe (that which scientific precision has allowed us to perceive looking inwards) is nothing more than a tiny little insignificant speck of nothingness in the true infinity of space and time. Every speck, no matter how small or how large is as significantly insignificant as our planet, our solar system, our galaxy or any atom or any molecule, or any lepton or anything one trillion times smaller than a lepton. There is no other logical conclusion and we will soon realize that anything that does not put our “big bang” within an earlier and larger pocket of space and time is absurd. Everything we know about our outer significant universe (our big bang) must be recognized as relevant to us and the possibility or probability of this occurrence being unique to our solar system is far beyond remote. What is more likely? That we have in a very short time frame been able to reach a maximum amount of scientific precision that can ever possibly be obtained or more logically that all we know is just a drop in the bucket. (truth is that that the next level of understanding both inwards and outwards is so much smaller or so much larger that we may never obtain the precision to break the current self imposed barriers. Our “big bang” was one of an infinite number of such events that have always occurred and will always occur at an infinite number of different levels. All we know is nothing more than all our current scientific precision can reveal. Evolution can take us to the next stage if we permit our species to coexist and our planet to continue to host a habitable environment. I find it incomprehensible that there exists so much animosity and belligerence in the world so late in the game. The game will end soon if we don’t start making a team effort world wide to win as a species for the betterment of all species on this planet. We must stop thinking about states, cities, providences, and countries and start thinking about species and how we can do everything in our power to improve the quality of life for every species on our planet and in our outer significant universe or our tiny little insignificant pocket of space and time. First things first. Our nine (or ten) planets revolve around our sun. Our sun is a star and our star is far from unique and is one of a trillion+ similar stars. Our solar system is far from unique and is one of a trillion+ similar solar systems. Everything we know about our outer significant universe (that which scientific precision has allowed us to perceive looking outwards) is nothing more than a tiny little insignificant speck of nothingness in the true infinity of space and time. Everything we know about our inner significant universe (that which scientific precision has allowed us to perceive looking inwards) is nothing more than a tiny little insignificant speck of nothingness in the true infinity of space and time. Every speck, no matter how small or how large is as significantly insignificant as our planet, our solar system, our galaxy or any atom or any molecule, or any lepton or anything one trillion times smaller than a lepton. There is no other logical conclusion and we will soon realize that anything that does not put our “big bang” within an earlier and larger pocket of space and time is absurd. Everything we know about our outer significant universe (our big bang) must be recognized as relevant to us and the possibilty or probablity of this occurence being unique to our solar system is far beyond remote. What is more likely? That we have in a very short time frame been able to reach a maximum amount of scientific precision that can ever possibly be obtained or more logically that all we know is just a drop in the bucket. (truth is that that the next level of understanding both inwards and outwards is so much smaller or so much larger that we may never obtain the precision to break the current self imposed barriers. Our “big bang” was one of an infinite number of such events that have always occurred and will always occur at an infinite number of different levels. All we know is nothing more than all our current scientific precision can reveal. Evolution can take us to the next stage if we permit our species to coexist and our planet to continue to host a habitable environment. I find it incomprehensible that there exists so much animosity and belligerence in the world so late in the game. The game will end soon if we don’t start making a team effort world wide to win as a species for the betterment of all species on this planet. We must stop thinking about states, cities, providences, and countries and start thinking about species and how we can do everything in our power to improve the quality of life for every species on our planet and in our outer significant universe or our tiny little insignificant pocket of space and time will fail to evovle to the next level as a whole and end up in the pile with all the other discarded failed attempts that other habitbal plantes have maed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
2ice_baked_taters writes: Yes. So based upon a limited knowledge one can form an assumption that can never be proven. I agree with Sidelined's response, so I'll focus on your use of the words "assumption" and "proven". An assumption is something that is assumed without evidence, so a tentative model supported by evidence cannot be labeled an assumption. Depending upon the detail and quality of the evidence, you can call it an hypothesis or a theory or a tentative proposal, but you can't call it an assumption. If you are using the word "proven" in the same sense as a mathematical proof, then you are using the word incorrectly. Nothing is ever proven in science. All that can be done is to provide supporting evidence of interpretive models. But if you are using "proven" in the sense of "possessing strong supporting evidence," then you have no way of knowing whether we'll ever gather strong supporting evidence for an infinite universe. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong. You don't know what evidence we'll find in the future. The problem you're running into is that you're trying to predict the limits of our knowledge. Such efforts have an extremely poor track record. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Cavediver => Sidelined
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
But if you are using "proven" in the sense of "possessing strong supporting evidence," then you have no way of knowing whether we'll ever gather strong supporting evidence for an infinite universe. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong. You don't know what evidence we'll find in the future. Evidence that we will not is stronger that evidence that we will.We will never detect all there is. This is especially true in light of how species come and go on this planet. Based on fossil history it is more likely that we shall pass from this earth as a species never coming anywhere close to understanding our selves or our corner of the universe. One can never know infinity. It is an idea. It may be true but we will never know. We are finite as a species. My evidence is quite strong and is a far more likely scenario than banking on humanities ego. Legends in our own mind. lol
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
2ice_baked_taters writes: Evidence that we will not is stronger that evidence that we will. You have evidence that allows you to predict how much evidence we'll find in the future? I don't think so. As I said before, the history of predicting the limits of human knowledge has a very poor track record. No one a hundred years ago could have predicted that one day we would be able to gather evidence showing we live in an expanding and accelerating universe. In the same way, no one today can predict the extent of our cosmological knowledge a hundred years from now.
We will never detect all there is...One can never know infinity. It is an idea. As explained earlier, science is inductive and does not require that we "detect all there is". There may be properties unique to an infinite universe that can be detected locally and then generalized. Just as science assumes from the measurements we've made locally on the common isotope of hydrogen that it has the same properties throughout the universe as it does here, science will conclude that the measurements we make of the observable universe extend to those parts of the universe beyond our reach. Just as science does not require that we observe all hydrogen atoms to verify their properties, neither does it require that we observe the entire universe to understand its properties.
My evidence is quite strong and is a far more likely scenario than banking on humanity's ego. Legends in our own mind. lol You have no evidence, just an opinion which you've supported through invalidated arguments involving, among other things, proofs (which science doesn't do) and assumptions (which theories based upon evidence are not). And ego isn't an issue. The history of science is one of progress, and there seems to be no evidence that that progress is at an end. The assumption that we'll know more tomorrow than today is just a reflection of the scientific experience from the past few hundred years, not an expression of arrogance. In that vein, there's a recent book that might interest you, The End of Science by John Horgan, in which he argues that we *are* reaching the limits of knowledge. As I've already said, such predictions have a very poor track record, and Horgan is just the latest of the breed. Over a hundred years ago many scientists believed the same thing. The famous physicist Michelson expressed a common sentiment of the day in a speech in 1894 when he said, in effect, that science had already discovered all the significant knowledge and that future physicists would be spending their time just extending the number of decimal places of accuracy. Sure, there were a few problems, like black body radiation for one, but those would likely all be tidied up within a few years. In 1894 they could have no idea that they actually sat on the doorstep of a scientific revolution whose seeds were already planted and that would explode onto the scene in 1905 with Einstein's famous papers. In other words, while history cannot be relied upon to always repeat itself, the evidence of history is that Horgan, and you, are likely wrong. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024