0 members (),
113
guests, and
1
robot. 
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod



Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
I got your point. You are arguing that since the universe is finite, it should exist for a finite time. Is it? That is, you are saying that a finite thing cannot exist for an infinite time; or, the concept of 'finite/infinite' should be applied to both time and space in the same manner.
My counter argument is that time and space are not exactly similar. So the concept of finiteness/infinity cannot be applied in the same way to both. Whether it is a 'physical something' or 'physical nothing', both can exist, because both are real. They are not interchangeable; ie, 'physical something' cannot change into 'physical nothing', and viceverse. So both should exist for an infinite time and both have no origin.
So in my opinion, the cosmos as well as the finite universes exist for ever. The cosmos without any change, and each universe undergoing a cycle of changes. The period of the cycle (time required) is finite and is the same for all universes.
Thus, in a way the time factor of the universe is quantised and finite. That is, the changes inside the universe does not proceed in any direction for an infinite time. After a finite time the changes reverse and the universe oscillates between two states. This oscillation or pulsation repeats infinitely.
Last edited by finiter; 11/24/11 08:29 AM.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
This oscillation or pulsation repeats infinitely. No time for a proper reply at the moment, but I have to note the "infinite series", always trouble!
There never was nothing.




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar

Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
My counter argument is that time and space are not exactly similar. So the concept of finiteness/infinity cannot be applied in the same way to both. This does not necessarily follow logically. Matter and energy are not “exactly similar”, but the concept of finiteness/infinity is applied in the same way to both. Would I be right in thinking that in your theory each universe is finite, but is eternal?
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
This does not necessarily follow logically. Matter and energy are not “exactly similar”, but the concept of finiteness/infinity is applied in the same way to both.
Would I be right in thinking that in your theory each universe is finite, but is eternal? I agree. But, consider that infinite cosmos is physically 'some thing', then our universe can be infinite or there will be infinite universes. Thus in our argument we reach were we started. We will have to conclude that there can be an infinite number of apples. However, we think it is not possible to have an infinite number of apples. So I think considering a 'physical something' to be eternal is logical (in the sense that the argument sounds logical though we cannot prove it). (In my theory, energy is not a separate entity, it is just a quality of matter, like mass and volume.) In my theory, each universe is finite but eternal. Suppose the infinite cosmos contains only say 100 universes; these should always be there. The infinity of the cosmos is physically 'nothing'; it is just space and time. So these universes cannot come from that infinity or disappear into that infinity; so these are eternal. The infinity has no effect on them and so these are not 'parts' of infinity. The infinite nothing just provides the environment (space and time) required for the universes to remain. Anything inside the universe is part of the universe. The universe has an influence over them. Universe being finite, everything inside it has a relative beginning and a relative end. The number of events possible in it is finite; and no event inside it will proceed to infinity. So within a finite period of time everything 'that should have happened' would have happened. After that it will be repetition. So every object inside the universe is reborn infinitely.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
So within a finite period of time everything 'that should have happened' would have happened. After that it will be repetition. So every object inside the universe is reborn infinitely. By "repetition" do you mean that each time a universe is reborn it goes through the same sequence of events; or are events different each time?
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
In my theory, each universe is finite but eternal. An eternal series is just an infinite series with a slightly different name. In eternity, everything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times. If each succession of universes is eternal; at any given point it has already existed for an infinite time, so everything that can happen will already have happened, an infinite number of times. I know we have been at this point before, but I’m still not clear as to how you resolve this.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
The universe goes through the same sequence of events if we take an overall view (for example, for every human being the sequence is the same; born, lives for some time, and then dies; however what he does during life may be different). Similarly, in the details, the the things may be different, however the direction in which things happen will be the same.
Yes, everything that can happen would already have happened an 'infinite number of times' at any point in time. It is impossible to resolve this. However, strictly speaking, the term 'infinite number of times' is not correct. We have to say that the 'number of times' has no limit if we go backwards or forwards in time. As the physical something cannot disappear, this is the only possibility.
That is, we can remove the spatial infinity, by taking the 'physical something' to be always finite. But the infinity in time cannot be removed completely; but can be restricted by assuming the cycle of events to be finite in time. The cycle of events is always there as a 'physical action' of the 'physical something'.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
From your first paragraph, I assume that each cycle of an individual universe contains different people, doing different things, from those in preceding and following cycles.
We seem to agree that "the term 'infinite number of times' is not correct", but for different reasons.
If my understanding is correct, you regard the past and future of eternity as limitless. You seem to have done your own bit of "renormalisation" here, effectively getting rid of the inevitable infinity and replacing it with two limitless periods of time.
I would maintain that the term 'infinite number of times' is not correct because it implies that infinity/eternity can be measured in terms of time.
You say "the infinity in time cannot be removed completely", as though the addition of the word "completely" means that you have removed enough of it to be able to discount it. (more renormalisation) I would maintain that the infinity must either be in your calculations, or not. You can't do away with part of it and ignore the rest.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
From your first paragraph, I assume that each cycle of an individual universe contains different people, doing different things, from those in preceding and following cycles. Exactly; a 'Bill S' and a 'finiter' discussing infinity would never have happend before, and will never again happen, though humans 'will be' present in all cycles. I would maintain that the term 'infinite number of times' is not correct because it implies that infinity/eternity can be measured in terms of time.
You say "the infinity in time cannot be removed completely", as though the addition of the word "completely" means that you have removed enough of it to be able to discount it. (more renormalisation) I would maintain that the infinity must either be in your calculations, or not. You can't do away with part of it and ignore the rest. My reasoning is also the same I think. Eternity cannot be measured in quanta of time. The 'finite time required for a single cycle of events' is not exactly a constituent of eternity. The time is continuous, not quantized, and always moves forward. The infinity never comes in the calculations because all calculations are restricted to the finite universe. The 'infinite' part remains in the assumed part of the picture for which there is no logical (mathematical) proof. Science or physics can only explain the 'finite' part, and for this there should always be a logical (mathematical) proof. In short, in my opinion, our picture of the cosmos will always consist of two parts: the 'assumed' part and the 'logically assumed' part. The former has no explanations regarding why it is so, we can say 'it is so' because 'it is so'. For the latter, we will have an answer for all questions regarding why it is so. The latter part comes under science. However, it cannot exist without the former, which is the foundation. The former part, though assumed and unexplainable, should be in agreement with the latter, and should be as minimum as possible. Then only will our picture of the cosmos be logical.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
So these universes cannot come from that infinity However, it [the finite universe] cannot exist without the former [the infinite cosmos], which is the foundation. Rev says that having your cake, and eating it, seems like a good idea. This looks like what you are trying to do here. I’m not sure it works in the world of science.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
The 'finite time required for a single cycle of events' is not exactly a constituent of eternity. The time is continuous, not quantized, and always moves forward. Is the second sentence intended to explain the first? I don’t see how time being continuous, quantised or even being just a convenient means of measuring change would prevent it from being a constituent of eternity, if your theory is correct.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
Rev says that having your cake, and eating it, seems like a good idea. This looks like what you are trying to do here. I’m not sure it works in the world of science. I am sorry that my explanation lacked clarity. It should be read as: However it (the logical assumption) cannot exist without the former (simple assumption), which is the foundation. I was referring to 'the two types of explanations'. However, the finite universe cannot exist without the infinite cosmos; the cosmos serves as 'the arena' and 'not the foundation'.
Last edited by finiter; 11/29/11 10:20 AM.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
The 'finite time required for a single cycle of events' is not exactly a constituent of eternity. The time is continuous, not quantized, and always moves forward. Is the second sentence intended to explain the first? I don’t see how time being continuous, quantised or even being just a convenient means of measuring change would prevent it from being a constituent of eternity, if your theory is correct. Yes. By the term 'constituent', I meant 'the part' with which the whole is created. If time was qunatized, then each quantum would be a constituent of time, and time itself would have been finite. As time is continuous, it is infinite or eternal.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
If time was qunatized, then each quantum would be a constituent of time, and time itself would have been finite. As time is continuous, it is infinite or eternal. You seem to be saying that if time were quantised, it would have to be finite; yet your cosmos is composed of finite universes, but is infinite. You might reason that your cosmos is not composed of universes, it simply contains them, but I have the impression that your cosmos would be "nothing" if it did not contain universes.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
Yes. The cosmos, if it does not contain any universes, would be physically nothing; it would represent the reality 'nothingness' (a physical zero); it would be simply 'space and time' without anything in it, and 'space and time' alone cannot create any thing physical out of it; or, any 'physical thing' is composed of matter.
That is, the cosmos is simply inert and helpless to interfere with any physical thing that may be present in it. Anything that happens to the physical thing is due to its action; or it is an actionreaction syndrome. Physically, action is energy and reaction is force; quantitatively both are equal.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
This seems to make sense, but there is still the problem of the infinite series. Being a bit short of time for checking back through past posts, I shall have to ask you to correct me if I am wrong, but did we not agree that one could not have a physically infinite number of finite objects?
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
Yes, we agreed that there cannot be an infinite number of finite objects. The only point where we disagree is about the infinite number of 'finite events'.
I think we have come to the end of discussion. The discussion was 'very useful as far as I am concerned'. Though my theory remains the same, my insight into it has increased. I have not considered one important point: that I have used different standards for avoiding infinity in respect of space and time. Is there any justification for that? (one is threedimensional and the other is onedimensional; the former can be closed and the latter will always be open; I will start thinking in that direction).
If you think that we can close this thread, then we can close it. If you think there are still other points, we will continue. A closely related subject (to infinity) is the question, 'Where should the line between metaphysics and physics be drawn?'. If you are interested, we can start a new discussion on that.
Last edited by finiter; 12/01/11 01:30 PM.




Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar

OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 
Why should you be able to have an infinite number of finite events, if you cannot have an infinite number of finite objects? This sounds a little like semantics.
There never was nothing.




Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Senior Member

Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211 
As far as my theory is concerned, it is like that. I came to be aware of it only when you brought up that point for discussion (that was what I said in the last post).
Now I have to search for any possible reasons. A 'thing' fundamentally occupies space. An event, on the other hand, 'occupies' time. Space is threedimensional and so can be closed. Time being one dimensional can never be closed. From this, can we come to the conclusion that the number of things will be closed or finite, whereas the number of events will be open or infinite (or the same event can go on happening infinitely)?




