Infinity and our Existence

[aperson]

This thread took a turn for the asinine when everyone started asking whether the universe was infinite in size. I've got a more interesting place for you to look,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_halting_problem

The halting problem entirely breaks down our struggle with infinity, and it's been demonstrated to be unsolvable.

Adamaj kind of blindsided this thread with a bunch of silly discussions about the size of the universe as we know it, but asking about whether the universe is infinite or finite is completely irrelevant to a much more interesting infinity that's lurking right in front of us.

As sentient beings that have the ability to create meaning, we have infinity lurking in front of us inside even trivially small spaces. Even though the base, the universe we live in, might be finite, there are infinite construals of it which provide maps of meaning onto how we see the world. We'll never see the base as it truly is, but instead we'll interpret it through a spring of mappings from the base which we impute.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by devonin

Something that small that generates enough gravity to pull light directly into it is not (Correct me if I'm wrong, science people) that anything manmade could possibly survive.

Due to the nature of blackholes, objects are stretched, which means if a human were to cross over the event horizon, they would be torn apart by the gravity. Even, if they were in some kind of enclosure, the stretching would still occur as the person pass over the event horizon.

[chunky_cheese]

Originally Posted by Hollus

Can infinite entities and finite entities even exist in the same universe? Does infinity even exist at all?

God is simply there. There was no time he was created, and no time he has been around for. Always been, always is nothing. God has been around for 0 hours x infinity. Basically, don't try to think of infinity as going on and on and on, but simply as something that is stopped, and does not move.

Using Hollus's logic I can disprove time, infinity is forever, so there is no point in counting or using time, thus it is stopped forever. If our time does not exist to Infinity, and infinity does not exist to us, then what is time itself?

Us humans use revolutions of solar bodies as a form of measuring time.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

I don't believe any claims of any God without hardcore evidence. As for time, I get where people are coming from now. Time is indeed a manmade creation, but no one would really know that it would be false as a concept for ever just because humans made it and it never seems to stop. To me, as far as humans are concerned, the only reason time is made is to make limits on how much time a human consumes doing what ever in their own life time (probably no bearing on what time really means if it were for infinity [this also means stopped for infinity]). I don't think that anyone ever intended for time to go so deep into the idea of infinity, but here it is waiting to be debated.

Edit: If time really is frozen, that doesn't disprove the idea of time's existance. After all, 0 seconds itself is considered time. Time being frozen would still be a measurement of nothing happening.

[Aa_Doodaa]

God is completely illogical, I think we can all agree on that. There has been no evidence supporting God that is strong enough to be brought up against that which supports evolution.

I have only read so far on this thread, and this is what i have to say on what was brought up a page or two ago:

Originally Posted by Adamaja456

agreed.
The fact that Space is infinite bring up another interesting question. Do people really think we were the only intelligent planet in an infinite space?

Originally Posted by Hollus

To summarize:
• Compared to infinity, rational numbers are equal to zero.
• Compared to infinity, finite amounts of time are equal to zero.

Considering these two quotes went hand-in-hand, and that the assumption of an infinite, never ending universe is true:

Earth, the only planet known to be capable of supporting living organisms (in present time), is unquestionably finite. To stretch the quote from Hollus a bit, I will consider that he agrees to the fact that compared to infinity, finite beings are equal to zero.

Seeing as such is true, Earth, compared to the assumed infinite universe, is equal to zero. This would mean that, taking into account the infinite universe, the probably of there being another planet capable of supporting life is 1 (100%).

Then considering that Earth and this second planet capable of supporting life, when compared to the infinite universe, are still equal to zero, leaving again a probably of 1 that there is yet another planet capable of support life. This pattern would continue on forever, leaving the conclusion that there is an infinite amount of other planets capable of supporting life.

[Aa_Doodaa]

Originally Posted by Reach

Incorrect. At least with respect to our universe. All WMAP observations confirm with great detail the big bang, and that the universe is still expanding. Since the universe is still observably expanding, by definition it is not infinite as it is bound by the finite rate of expansion.

The observations are based on the fact that other galaxies are effected by redshift, thus meaning moving away from us. This doesn't mean that the universe is expanding, only that other galaxies are moving farther out into the infinity of the universe.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Aa Doodaa

Then considering that Earth and this second planet capable of supporting life, when compared to the infinite universe, are still equal to zero, leaving again a probably of 1 that there is yet another planet capable of support life. This pattern would continue on forever, leaving the conclusion that there is an infinite amount of other planets capable of supporting life.

As it was put quite succinctly and excellently by Douglas Adams: There are an infinite number of worlds because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in.

And so no matter how staggeringly small the chance is that a planet supports life, because there are an infinite number of worlds, an infinite (though smaller infinity) number of them will meet those odds.

[seltivo]

I have an idea. What if the universe wasn't infinite and that it was a four (or five or six...) dimensional object that, when starting from any point, going in any direction, you would not be heading towards the exterior. It could be similar to a Kline's bottle, except more complicated and with more dimensions. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, please don't try to disprove me.

As for black holes, aren't they just huge mases of mater that exercises such a large gravitational force that even something going as fast as light can't escape it. (say yes) If so, there can't be another side, and they probably can't emit enough, if any, radiation to kill someone.

[Aa_Doodaa]

Originally Posted by seltivo

I have an idea. What if the universe wasn't infinite and that it was a four (or five or six...) dimensional object that, when starting from any point, going in any direction, you would not be heading towards the exterior. It could be similar to a Kline's bottle, except more complicated and with more dimensions. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, please don't try to disprove me.

As for black holes, aren't they just huge mases of mater that exercises such a large gravitational force that even something going as fast as light can't escape it. (say yes) If so, there can't be another side, and they probably can't emit enough, if any, radiation to kill someone.

I have no idea what a 'Kline's bottle' is, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not argue. I just ask, would that be the sort of thing where you mysteriously end up back where you started if you traveled for as long as it took in a straight line?

From as much as i know about black holes, they ARE just pieces of matter with massive gravitational pull, so massive that light cannot escape it. I've always asked why it was called a 'hole,' and where the theory of going 'into and out of' a black hole came from. Since i'm not keen about them, i'll leave it for people who are more educated on the subject.

[seltivo]

A Kline's bottle is like a four dimensional version of a mobius strip. (really it's a two dimensional object that can only exist in four dimensional space but...) it's a shape that only has one side. A mobius strip is a ring that has only one side and one edge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobius_strip

and as for infinity times 0, you can basically conclude that it is equal to every number. the 10x0,1 and 100x0,01 can be done with 2, 3, -9 and even imaginary numbers(or so I'm told) like the square root of negative one.
so basically, zero times infinity gives an infinite amount of answers.(kinda cool when you think about it...)

[devonin]

You don't need to know about a Kilne's bottle to "try and disprove" an unsupported statement about the possibility of "some number" of other dimensions that we are actually just unable to percieve.

[seltivo]

I know, but it helps stop people from instantly dismissing my theories. You'd be surprised how many people try to disprove my theories(not that i have that many) even though they have no idea what I am talking about. (I really hope I don't get flamed for that...)

Anyway, I figured out that my theory can be applied to three dimensional space, it's just kinda impossible for most people to picture.

[Falco_L]

Originally Posted by seltivo

I have an idea. What if the universe wasn't infinite and that it was a four (or five or six...) dimensional object that, when starting from any point, going in any direction, you would not be heading towards the exterior. It could be similar to a Kline's bottle, except more complicated and with more dimensions. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, please don't try to disprove me.

I'm pretty sure that this is a completely valid view of our universe. When people envision the universe as simply a sphere expanding into nothingness, it is not really as simple as that. This is a dimensionally reduced model in which a two dimensional universe (the surface of the sphere) is expanding into three dimensions. In reality, our universe is a three dimensional space expanding into four dimensions.

Originally Posted by seltivo

As for black holes, aren't they just huge mases of mater that exercises such a large gravitational force that even something going as fast as light can't escape it. (say yes) If so, there can't be another side, and they probably can't emit enough, if any, radiation to kill someone.

This is not completely true. The radiation emitted by black holes is not coming from within the hole's event horizon (unless you consider Hawking Radiation, which is a whole different phenomenon). It is x-rays emitted by matter just before it crosses the hole's event horizon as it becomes energized by the forces acting upon it. Coming from outside the event horizon, it can escape the gravitational pull of the hole, with sufficient gravitational redshift. As for the concept of "another side", there is no proof that this actually exists in our universe. Wormholes are conceptually possible, but they would be highly unstable in reality and collapse quickly if one did arise. Considering this, any matter (including humans) being pulled into a black hole would simply be torn apart by gravitational forces and condensed into nothingness at the hole's singularity.

[Falco_L]

And I'd just like to say...

I like to think that I have a relatively good grasp of basic astrophysics, but if anyone sees anything conceptually wrong or incomplete with any of my arguments, please point them out.

[shatteredgravity]

i say infinity isnt. of course we exist, but to some it appears not. everyone has those days where they feel invisible to everything and everyone. infinity = forever, and forever is a long time. its honestly all of time. if someone says 'oh i love you forever' they might as well lie to you flat out, cause its not possible. the God who created us is the only one who has infinity and knows it for sure. the only way infinity is possible is with Him - even though its so incredibly unfathomable. infinity and forever isnt possible on earth. its just impossible beyond everything ever.

[Hollus]

Originally Posted by shatteredgravity

i say infinity isnt. of course we exist, but to some it appears not. everyone has those days where they feel invisible to everything and everyone. infinity = forever, and forever is a long time. its honestly all of time. if someone says 'oh i love you forever' they might as well lie to you flat out, cause its not possible. the God who created us is the only one who has infinity and knows it for sure. the only way infinity is possible is with Him - even though its so incredibly unfathomable. infinity and forever isnt possible on earth. its just impossible beyond everything ever.

How do you know that God is infinite? A finite God could have created us.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Hollus

How do you know that God is infinite? A finite God could have created us.

The God described in the Bible is Infinite, even if you don't interpret the passages that directly imply this literally. The reason for this is that for a being to be all knowing and all powerful, it would have to have power and knowledge beyond all physical and epistemic boundaries. Of course, if you analyze this you discover contradictions and therefore another refutation of the existence of God (assuming human beings are not just dramatically mistaken about the soundness of reason).

[Hollus]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The God described in the Bible is Infinite, even if you don't interpret the passages that directly imply this literally. The reason for this is that for a being to be all knowing and all powerful, it would have to have power and knowledge beyond all physical and epistemic boundaries. Of course, if you analyze this you discover contradictions and therefore another refutation of the existence of God (assuming human beings are not just dramatically mistaken about the soundness of reason).

If we assume God exists, there are two possibilities that I see.

1. God has finite power.
2. His power is beyond our comprehension, not in power but in nature. (Can God create a rock that he can't lift, etc.)

Even if God has infinite power and that aspect of Him created contradictions, it doesn't necessarily deny His existence, because our perception of a contradiction doesn't actually constitute a contradiction on God's part. Having infinite anything screws everything up anyways.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Hollus

If we assume God exists, there are two possibilities that I see.

1. God has finite power.
2. His power is beyond our comprehension, not in power but in nature. (Can God create a rock that he can't lift, etc.)

Even if God has infinite power and that aspect of Him created contradictions, it doesn't necessarily deny His existence, because our perception of a contradiction doesn't actually constitute a contradiction on God's part. Having infinite anything screws everything up anyways.

If God has all powers, by necessity God has all conceivable powers. Therefore, it is possible for God to have infinite power without screwing things up. It is possible for God to control human beings without violating "free will". It is possible for God to do anything, iff God exists and is omnipotent.

So either:

1. God is not omnipotent
2. God is omnipotent, human logic and reason is simply flawed or not up to the task
3. Human logic and reason is not flawed and God does not exist

Now, as far as questions like "Can God create a rock that he can't lift", these can be shown to demonstrate that there is no way that both Logic could be correct and God could exist. The question given is actually not a very powerful argument, however a similar and much more powerful argument has been made with the help of Game theory, specifically in the form of a Modified Newcomb Paradox.

[devonin]

To me, the one thing that such a question -does- prove is that Omnipotence is a concept which is internally contradictory. In order to disprove that something can be -all- powerful, you need only propose one single instance in which they cannot be. There's a very fine distinction between "Omnipotent" and "Something so incredibly powerful that to our meagre limited understanding, appears to be omnipotent" but it is a fairly important one when thinking about things like this.