x

## Unlock these great extras with your FREE membership

• Customise TSR to suit how you want to use it
 You are Here: Home

# could the universe be finite in size but still infinite

Announcements Posted on
Rate your uni — help us build a league table based on real student views 19-08-2015
1. (Original post by Bobifier)
Oh. By making my deductions, I had hoped to show you what your statement really meant and how ridiculous it was. Apparently you have already led your statement to its conclusion and are perfectly comfortable with it. Do you seriously feel that this is the case, should I explain precisely how senseless your ideas are?
I am not comfortable with any conclusion I have ever made.

And perhaps, to go around the circle again, one could say finite and infinite are infact the exact same thing except for the duality that they suggest

also, it seems senseless to ask that question.
2. I was under the impression that that the Universe was finite, but just a size that we are just unable to comprehend e.g Graham's number
3. (Original post by _saleri_)
I am not comfortable with any conclusion I have ever made.

And perhaps, to go around the circle again, one could say finite and infinite are infact the exact same thing except for the duality that they suggest

also, it seems senseless to ask that question.
First of all, one could not say that finite and infinite are the same unless you have gone round in several circles extremely quickly. They are distinct. You could say that about as much as you could say an elephant is the same as an aeroplane.

Regardless of this issue, I will address your half full glass question. Consider a glass that is half full (or, if you will, half empty). Compare this glass to a glass that is completely full. By your logic, the empty portion of the full glass is infinitely large, but it has 0 size so you are claiming that 0 is equal to infinity. If you are not claiming this then you are claiming that the top half of the glass is infinitely large when it is empty but finitely large when it is full, and as I said above, you can't say that finite values are equal to infinite values unless you want to be wrong. Finally, have you ever even seen a glass? Did the top half look infinitely large to you? If it did, you should see an optician.
4. (Original post by Bobifier)
First of all, one could not say that finite and infinite are the same unless you have gone round in several circles extremely quickly. They are distinct. You could say that about as much as you could say an elephant is the same as an aeroplane.

Regardless of this issue, I will address your half full glass question. Consider a glass that is half full (or, if you will, half empty). Compare this glass to a glass that is completely full. By your logic, the empty portion of the full glass is infinitely large, but it has 0 size so you are claiming that 0 is equal to infinity. If you are not claiming this then you are claiming that the top half of the glass is infinitely large when it is empty but finitely large when it is full, and as I said above, you can't say that finite values are equal to infinite values unless you want to be wrong. Finally, have you ever even seen a glass? Did the top half look infinitely large to you? If it did, you should see an optician.
My optician says Im 20/20 but perhaps this has nothing to do with our eyes. The concept of finite and infinite are not equal values when you can distinguish empty from full...that is, when you can find the boundary where the water stops and the empty begins. This is the principal that make finite and infinite 'work', as it were.

If you were to zoom in on a atomic level you would see the atoms that make h20 and then you would see the oxygen/nitrogen, whatever else the air is made of, atoms. I once heard from a physicist friend that there is vast space between atoms and even within atoms the space between electrons and protons is also incredibly vast, different kinds of atoms are closer than other kinds but nonetheless the space is cast.

In what space do these atoms exist? Does the atoms that make h2o not exist in the same space as the atoms that make co2? They might be at a distance but nonetheless they exist in the same space. Now you could talk about super-string theory and whatever other theories are out there but this is simply a further deduction of the exact same situation.

We can continue to deduce till infinite and that is the point. Each deduction involves the individual to create a concept, a concept involves an act of distinguishment, this is X because the other is not X. In other words, I am saying that solidity, the finite object is merely an illusion in an infinitely deducible universe.

Concepts are valid only in the mind, they are as real as the dream, the dream being the concept that the scene being played out during sleep is not actually physically real but a sort of illusion created by the brain.

I think recognising this possibility of 'infinite deduction' opens our mind as to what energy is and to the possibility that it is actually infinite...or not even existent.
5. Deep Space is the very definition of nothingness. No particles, no matter, no forces, nothing.
6. (Original post by _saleri_)
My optician says Im 20/20 but perhaps this has nothing to do with our eyes. The concept of finite and infinite are not equal values when you can distinguish empty from full...that is, when you can find the boundary where the water stops and the empty begins. This is the principal that make finite and infinite 'work', as it were.

If you were to zoom in on a atomic level you would see the atoms that make h20 and then you would see the oxygen/nitrogen, whatever else the air is made of, atoms. I once heard from a physicist friend that there is vast space between atoms and even within atoms the space between electrons and protons is also incredibly vast, different kinds of atoms are closer than other kinds but nonetheless the space is cast.

In what space do these atoms exist? Does the atoms that make h2o not exist in the same space as the atoms that make co2? They might be at a distance but nonetheless they exist in the same space. Now you could talk about super-string theory and whatever other theories are out there but this is simply a further deduction of the exact same situation.

We can continue to deduce till infinite and that is the point. Each deduction involves the individual to create a concept, a concept involves an act of distinguishment, this is X because the other is not X. In other words, I am saying that solidity, the finite object is merely an illusion in an infinitely deducible universe.

Concepts are valid only in the mind, they are as real as the dream, the dream being the concept that the scene being played out during sleep is not actually physically real but a sort of illusion created by the brain.

I think recognising this possibility of 'infinite deduction' opens our mind as to what energy is and to the possibility that it is actually infinite...or not even existent.
Sweet Jesus, I think that reading this post actually made me stupider. Allow me to explain some of the things you wrote that are not wrong so much as that they just make no sense.

First of all, finite and infinite quantities are never equal. It doesn't matter what you're thinking at the time, they simply are not. You can tell me I'm wrong some more if you like, but I am not. If you have a set of finite size and a set of infinite size you cannot uniquely assign to each member of the finite set an element of the infinite set and cover the entire infinite set. The infinite set contains more elements. If you apply a similar technique to a half full glass you can begin by breaking down each half into areas of volume 1ml. To each of these units you can uniquely assign a unit in the other half and cover the other half thusly. The two halves contain the same quantity, and it is not an infinite quantity.

On an atomic scale the distance between particles is many orders of magnitude greater than the radius of particles. I fail to see how this confers any degree of infinity on a finite space. Since you seem so fond of talking about deduction (though I am certain that you do not actually know what deduction means) I would like to know how you deduce from the statement "Space between particles is relatively large" the statement "Some observable spaces are infinite in size". This deduction is far from obvious and requires justification on your part. I will help you out though! Don't waste your time - this deduction is wrong and has no justification.

What on Earth do you mean by an infinitely deducible universe? You cannot deduce everything that is true about this universe so I am honestly not sure what concept you refer to here.

After this point you start claiming that spaces can be infinite because they are only in our mind anyway. If you can't understand why we are reaching the realms of ridiculousness at this stage then you are beyond help. Equally you say that your poor theory of 'infinite deduction' can lead to fundamental understandings about energy when I am not even convinced that you know what the idea you refer to actually is.

All in all what I'm saying is that you can't just take two statements that sound mystical and exciting and stick them together as if one ought to imply the other. The ideas you have stated are ridiculous and I have offered trivial counterexamples to some of them. It's good to think outside the box, but you have to do so with at least some form of formal reasoning or you get something like the load of **** you just spewed out.
7. (Original post by Zaki)
they ALL arise from the species of Mind - of Which God is the First and Highest.
Can you justify this?
8. (Original post by Bobifier)
First of all, finite and infinite quantities are never equal. It doesn't matter what you're thinking at the time, they simply are not. You can tell me I'm wrong some more if you like, but I am not. If you have a set of finite size and a set of infinite size you cannot uniquely assign to each member of the finite set an element of the infinite set and cover the entire infinite set. The infinite set contains more elements. If you apply a similar technique to a half full glass you can begin by breaking down each half into areas of volume 1ml. To each of these units you can uniquely assign a unit in the other half and cover the other half thusly. The two halves contain the same quantity, and it is not an infinite quantity.
You are right in defining the meaning of the concepts of finite and infinite. But I am not talking about what the definitions of finite and infinite are. I am investigating the concepts literally , i.e. where is finite and infinite in reality beyond the mere concept or idea of them? The line between water and air is drawn by humans, the boundary does not exist in reality. The boundary did not exist before the concept was created.

If you put a cup on a desk, where does the cup stop and the desk begin? You can't find it. What humans have been able to do is create the illusion of a boundary and be able to communicate this illusion with other humans...but that boundary is nothing more than an illusion neither the cup nor the desk exist, or they are both infinite. You know this for yourself because you can't find the boundary, the boundary identified can be different with each person.

On an atomic scale the distance between particles is many orders of magnitude greater than the radius of particles. I fail to see how this confers any degree of infinity on a finite space. Since you seem so fond of talking about deduction (though I am certain that you do not actually know what deduction means) I would like to know how you deduce from the statement "Space between particles is relatively large" the statement "Some observable spaces are infinite in size". This deduction is far from obvious and requires justification on your part. I will help you out though! Don't waste your time - this deduction is wrong and has no justification.
To me, it appears the manner in which you talk about space is defined by objects. Get two objects, put them at a distance from each other. The distance between them is not measurable nothingness, it is simply a relation between the two objects. That space that seems to appear "in" the distance between the objects was there before the objects were put in their positions. i.e. the distance between the objects did not create the space that filled that distance. That space was already there other wise the objects would not exist in the first place.

What is not-object? Everything is object concept, even 'not-object' or 'not-concept' are concepts in themselves but what we realise when we try to define an object "in" space we immediately suggest not-object. To be able to distinguish is to be able to suggest the existence of not-object or not that object, that is what I am calling space as space suggests a place of no object.

We have identified the existence of an object, which immediately means to identify something against something else. We know a spoon is a spoon because everything else is not a spoon. What is that everything else? If there was only just the spoon and everything else is non-existent, then there would actually be no spoon because there is nothing to distinguish it against, there is no not-spoon because everything is spoon but if everything is spoon then we cannot identify spoon.

I'm saying the same thing in different ways.

After this point you start claiming that spaces can be infinite because they are only in our mind anyway. If you can't understand why we are reaching the realms of ridiculousness at this stage then you are beyond help. Equally you say that your poor theory of 'infinite deduction' can lead to fundamental understandings about energy when I am not even convinced that you know what the idea you refer to actually is.
In light of all I said above. There is nothing but space. Everything is space. Everything is made out of space and is in space at the same time. Space, nothingness, emptiness call what you will. It is what is not...which in turn means everything is not if one attempts to be as absolute as possible. This is where language fails.

You can come to a conclusion but you cannot deduce something to come to an absolute conclusion. An attempt at an absolute truth is not possible only infinite deduction.
9. (Original post by crocker710)
no.

finite /=/ infinite
/=/, =/=, =/=
10. (Original post by Implication)
Can you justify this?
Yes EASILY!

But, first, you have to be clear what Mind is in order to be able to understand me. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines Mind as follows:

Definition of MIND

1: recollection, memory

2a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.......etc.

So, Mind is the capacity to INITIATE action - as well as the BASIS of ALL perception!

Therefore ALL that has a beginning is the PRODUCT of Mind. And ALL that is experienced is merely what is apprehended by the Mind.

Hope that helps.
11. (Original post by Zaki)
Yes EASILY!

But, first, you have to be clear what Mind is in order to be able to understand me. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines Mind as follows:

Definition of MIND

1: recollection, memory

2a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.......etc.

So, Mind is the capacity to INITIATE action - as well as the BASIS of ALL perception!

Therefore ALL that has a beginning is the PRODUCT of Mind. And ALL that is experienced is merely what is apprehended by the Mind.

Hope that helps.
The sentence that I have underlined does not appear to follow from the rest of what you said All perception requires a mind (for one cannot be aware without a mind), yes, but I completely fail to see how you conclude from this that everything that has a beginning is a product of mind... unless you are somehow denying that reality is objective, which I don't think you are. My perception of everything is the product of my mind, but the things I perceive in themselves are not necessarily products of my mind. Things do, I believe, exist independent of my mind (and that of others). So, while my experiences of things do not exist independently of my mind, the things that I actually experience do.

Was your conclusion that God is the "First and Highest" of "the species of Mind" a conclusion, or did you mean that you were defining God as the first and highest of the species of mind? If the former, then you've still got a large amount of justification to give: it doesn't appear to follow from what you've said, either.

## Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

Updated: March 3, 2012
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Today on TSR

### Win a mini-fridge

Don't miss our Freshers competition!

Poll
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Study resources
x