The Universe is Infinite: Discuss

I can see your point, but as I see it, there is no problem existing within infinity, just that time doesn't end. If you have the numbers, going back, from infinity you can't do it unless you use algebra. You can always get to a number, but it will not have any specific value. Or something to that effect.

You don't see my point, then. Or at least you don't fully understand it. Let me see if some references can help:

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig

[...]the problem with this argument is that it just assumes our mathematical modeling of time and space as sets of points is descriptive of reality, which has never been proven. Moreover, the model assumes that an interval, whether spatial or temporal, is composed of points rather than points’ being constructed out of an interval.

Originally Posted by Craig

There is a second kalam argument for the beginning of the universe based on the impossibility of forming an actually infinite collection of things by adding one member after another:

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually * infinite.

Nothing can happen if time is not passing. If time were paused, nothing would happen. So if there was, at some point, no time, then the coming-into-existence of time could not happen, so if there had ever been no time, there still would not be any time, because the time leading up to the beginning of time would not have passed, as time did not exist at all.

I either don't understand you, or you're forgetting spacetime. I think I understand you, and I think you're reiterating part of my own point. If you think what you said supports your theory, I'd say you've forgotten relativity.

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel says that if a hotel has an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests come to stay the rooms would be filled.

Right, the Hotel would work mathematically, but could not work physically. Thus, an actual infinite cannot occur.

Just that the process will never actually end.

You keep giving me the right answer. Just connect the dots. The process has never ended (the end being this present point) given an infinite regression of time into the past.

Originally Posted by brokenjoker

"I believe the universe is infinite, becasue the God who created it is infinite. You cannot contain God, so therefore you cannot contain the universe."

God does not equal the universe; your theory does not stand as is.

Originally Posted by Bobsnox

You don't see my point, then. Or at least you don't fully understand it. Let me see if some references can help:

Still not seeing a problem, I'm afraid. I still think I understand you, and still don't think you are right.

Right, the Hotel would work mathematically, but could not work physically.

Only because there is no such thing as an infinite hotel. The idea is a mathematical one anyway, and yet it is counterintuitive in that sense, as you yourself have effectively just said.

Thus, an actual infinite cannot occur.You keep giving me the right answer. Just connect the dots. The process has never ended (the end being this present point) given an infinite regression of time into the past.God does not equal the universe; your theory does not stand as is.

The end is not now. This is part way through, but a part that has no given value. An actual infinite can occur.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Only because there is no such thing as an infinite hotel. The idea is a mathematical one anyway, and yet it is counterintuitive in that sense, as you yourself have effectively just said.

There is no such thing as an infinite ____ within the universe. The hotel is merely an analogy.

The end is not now. This is part way through, but a part that has no given value. An actual infinite can occur.

But you cannot experience that or given any evidence toward it. You have no experience of a "future", only the present can be known. If we are on an eternal, infinite timeline, you and I are at a single point--we are no dispersed across a line. And what's worse, we can only view the line as a left-pointing ray. The right is unknown from experience or evidence.

Originally Posted by Bobsnox

There is no such thing as an infinite ____ within the universe. The hotel is merely an analogy.

A flawed one.

But you cannot experience that or given any evidence toward it. You have no experience of a "future", only the present can be known. If we are on an eternal, infinite timeline, you and I are at a single point--we are no dispersed across a line. And what's worse, we can only view the line as a left-pointing ray. The right is unknown from experience or evidence.

OK, I can't know there will be a future. But, looking back, when I made my post about now not being the end - whaddya know? I was right, because we are still here. And now is not the end either. I know this, because I typed now, and by the time I hit "submt" that split second will have long passed.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

A flawed one.

Which you have not shown yet. Let's convert it to what you've supposed to be true: spacetime is the hotel and each moment in time--each present moment we can experience and all the moments past--is a room. Fill the room.

OK, I can't know there will be a future. But, looking back, when I made my post about now not being the end - whaddya know? I was right, because we are still here. And now is not the end either. I know this, because I typed now, and by the time I hit "submt" that split second will have long passed.

You missed the idea. Not end as in there will be no future. End as in the conclusion of time to that moment. And now that moment. And now that moment. And now that moment. Etc. Every moment, if you believe spacetime to consist of discrete moments (since we obviously do not exist in all moments simultaneously), is the last moment of the ray up to itself. Then the next moment becomes the end of the arrow pointed to the right. Then the next.

I just drew a .gif showing the motion of galaxies in a cross-section of the observable universe, can you explain how this is possible according to your theory? So:
Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy.
Rate of motion is proportional to distance.



Obviously the red dots represent galaxies, the white space represents...space.

Originally Posted by Bobsnox

Which you have not shown yet. Let's convert it to what you've supposed to be true: spacetime is the hotel and each moment in time--each present moment we can experience and all the moments past--is a room. Fill the room.

I believe I refuted it a while ago. The room can be filled. Then the next one can. Then the next one. But customers will keep pouringinto the hotel and mindlessly filling rooms for all eternity. Each room will become filled, just not the hotel itself. I.e. to apply it to our actual debate, time will keep passing, but never reach a point where there is no more time.

You missed the idea. Not end as in there will be no future. End as in the conclusion of time to that moment. And now that moment. And now that moment. And now that moment. Etc. Every moment, if you believe spacetime to consist of discrete moments (since we obviously do not exist in all moments simultaneously), is the last moment of the ray up to itself. Then the next moment becomes the end of the arrow pointed to the right. Then the next.

Okay, I assumed you were talking about the end, when you used the term "end". Silly of me, I'm sure. But then, that leaves your post saying nothing more than "now is now" which is somewhat obvious, to most people. Basically it means that if we live in the present, which we do, I'm sure you'll agree, then we live in the present. Okay...

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

I just drew a .gif showing the motion of galaxies in a cross-section of the observable universe, can you explain how this is possible according to your theory? So:
Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy.
Rate of motion is proportional to distance.



Obviously the red dots represent galaxies, the white space represents...space.

That's a nice diagram, much less crude than I would expect (or than I would be able to make), nice job. According to my theory, the galaxies are moving away from each other because of momentum, and their distance from each other, and the singularity from whence they all came, affects their velocities.

I believe I refuted it a while ago.

Not even close.

to apply it to our actual debate, time will keep passing, but never reach a point where there is no more time.

That's why I said you don't understand my point. That's not my intimation. I never said there would be a point of no more time; merely that this present moment is the end of the timeline as we know it. The next moment (which, as Craig suggested, is at best an abstract concept) will likewise be the end of time to that point. Imagine a ray (a line extending in only one direction) point toward the left. That is the image of infinite time in the past. The ray ends at our present moment. That is all you have to work with: as you said, you do not know the future, know in the experiential manner. All your theory has is a ray infinitely regressing to the left, ending at whatever moment you read these words. Now you must prove, or provide any evidence in support of, the possibility that your theory works given this ray.

Okay, I assumed you were talking about the end, when you used the term "end". Silly of me, I'm sure. But then, that leaves your post saying nothing more than "now is now" which is somewhat obvious, to most people. Basically it means that if we live in the present, which we do, I'm sure you'll agree, then we live in the present. Okay...

You don't read what I write, do you?

Originally Posted by Bobsnox

Not even close.

Look back.

That's why I said you don't understand my point. That's not my intimation. I never said there would be a point of no more time; merely that this present moment is the end of the timeline as we know it.

I realise that now, I wasn't saying that's what you said, merely that what you said was wrong, and that the only thing that would not happen is a true end, where it doesn't happen again.

The next moment (which, as Craig suggested, is at best an abstract concept) will likewise be the end of time to that point. Imagine a ray (a line extending in only one direction) point toward the left. That is the image of infinite time in the past. The ray ends at our present moment. That is all you have to work with: as you said, you do not know the future, know in the experiential manner. All your theory has is a ray infinitely regressing to the left, ending at whatever moment you read these words. Now you must prove, or provide any evidence in support of, the possibility that your theory works given this ray.

The ray shows what you can see, you say? Then that doesn't mean there is no infinite future, merely that it is a future we cannot see.

You don't read what I write, do you?

I do, I never respond to people without reading their posts. Thing is, sometimes, even I make basic human errors, and sometimes I don't understand what I've read, and sometimes what I post in reply is misunderstood by those to whom I am replying, thus they think I didn't read their post. I assure you, I did.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Look back.

Refutation usually means you've proven something wrong. You did not.

The ray shows what you can see, you say? Then that doesn't mean there is no infinite future, merely that it is a future we cannot see.

Let's do so more thinking and apply what I said to its context. The question is not "What of the future?" but "How did we traverse that infinite regression to exist at its end?"

I do, I never respond to people without reading their posts.

Okay, I assumed you were talking about the end, when you used the term "end". Silly of me, I'm sure. But then, that leaves your post saying nothing more than "now is now" which is somewhat obvious, to most people. Basically it means that if we live in the present, which we do, I'm sure you'll agree, then we live in the present. Okay...

Do you see how that take was wrong then? End as in the point on a ray. The termination of a ray--not the end of time forever. Now is now, but let's also consider how we got to now. We, according to your theory, traversed an infinite amount of time. That is still impossible. This is not a long time starting at a given point. This is an amount of time with no beginning.

[QUOTE=Bobsnox;1863513]Refutation usually means you've proven something wrong.

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel says that if a hotel has an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests come to stay the rooms would be filled. That, as I see it, is deeply, and self-evidently, counterintuitive, much like the Big Bang theory.Because if an infinite number of guests arrive, the rooms will never be filled, because more guests will be going up the infinite stairs and along the infinite corridors for all eternity. If the number of patrons arriving is truly infinite they will never finish entering. BUT, there will be a point when three have arrived, checked in, and gone to their rooms. There will be a point when two million have done so. There will be a point when googol will have done so. Just that the process will never actually end.

You did not.Let's do so more thinking and apply what I said to its context. The question is not "What of the future?" but "How did we traverse that infinite regression to exist at its end?"

Because the end is wherever we happen to be. It never started, but has been going forever, yet there is always points, just no start or finish. It is difficult to explain, but I am trying to answer you.

Do you see how that take was wrong then? End as in the point on a ray. The termination of a ray--not the end of time forever. Now is now, but let's also consider how we got to now. We, according to your theory, traversed an infinite amount of time. That is still impossible. This is not a long time starting at a given point. This is an amount of time with no beginning.

I see that I misinterpreted "end" yeah. But what I said about "now is now," I still don't see as being wrong, no.

EDIT:
Got to go out, be back to continue this soon.

Because the end is wherever we happen to be. It never started, but has been going forever, yet there is always points, just no start or finish. It is difficult to explain, but I am trying to answer you.

The difficulty you're finding in the explanation is that your explanation does not suffice. If it never started, it has been going on forever. Every time you would think we got one more nanosecond closer to this moment in time, you have to add another nanosecond on to the past. Thus, we would never progress enough to get to this point. The end is not "wherever we happento be" but the end of the total amount of time passed at this point. According to you, however, there is no such thing as a totality because time is infinite. Your argument is incongruous; it makes sense that you have trouble explaining your defense.

And when you say "There is no start or finish" the most you can account for is the start. The finish is now. Then the next moment. Then the next, for the rest of our travels into the future. That's why I used the concept of a ray to describe your reality.

And lastly, as Craig said, the idea that time's abstraction on a timeline corresponding to mathematical points have never been proven. You'd have to prove that for your theory to hold water.

Well, still, I disagree with you. I'm exhausted by the day's exertions though, so I'm going to go to bed. I'll continue debating tomorrow perhaps.

Just a quick comment. Guy, the galaxies aren't moving away due to momentum. If that was the case they'd be slowing down as gravity pulled on them. Instead, they're speeding up.

Also: The distance between galaxies is larger than it could be, even if they were moving at c. They aren't moving anywhere close to c. Evidently something's going on there, the simplest explanation being that space itself is expanding.

I'm about to go, but I saw this and wanted to say - what gravity would be acting upon them? Only a tiny ammount, which would surely be lessenning as they grow apart? And I thought an object would keep moving at a steadily increasing speed if it did not hit anything in its travels through space?

Due to momentum an object will continue moving at exactly the same speed, unless acted upon by an outside force.

Gravity is such a force, and though it's influence is small, it's still there. Even though it's growing weaker the further away things get, nothing will ever be able to go so far away that gravity has no effect. Because of that, it will always be pulling on matter, "trying" to compact it all in one clump. Given enough time it will eventually remove all the momentum and cause the matter in the universe to "reverse course", as it were.

Or rather, it should do that, but it isn't. Instead these things are accelerating, not slowing down, which means that some other force is accelerating them, which is very odd.

Really consider it. Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy, and they're not spreading out from a single point. It's not possible for linear motion to account for that.

I'd add some more but it's late, and I need to get to college early tomorrow to prepare for A-Levels! Fun.

EDIT: Off-topic, but GDwarf, do you have any idea why my avatar might not be showing up? Whatever I do to change it, it just stays blank...

OT reply: No idea, but I'll get someone to look into it.

Anyways, back to Guy: Earlier you said that I hadn't previously mentioned debate over the infinity of the universe. At first I'll confess I didn't, but I seem to recall doing so eventually, after I did some more research into the topic.

I will, however, admit that I was being waaaaaaay too stubborn at first.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Well, still, I disagree with you. I'm exhausted by the day's exertions though, so I'm going to go to bed. I'll continue debating tomorrow perhaps.

I don't find your arguments in any way convincing, so maybe you can support them if you really think they represent reality. Feel free to contact me via AIM or MSN.

An infinite number of days has no end.
Today is the end day of history (history being a collection of all days).
Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today.

Then again, you just broke the Second Law of Thermodynamics.