Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
I am having trouble finding this proof. Please explain.Green Man said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the universe infinite or finite?
- Thread starter Green Man
- Start date
Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
As a good scientist you should regard the physical world around you as data. All of physics is based on quantitative analysis. We measure things and put the numbers we measure into formulas and equations.
Matter has many different properties that we can measure, such as mass, charge, momentum, time and position. However, the values we assign these properties have no meaning except compared to the value we assign the properties of some other object. Numbers are necessarily relational. We can say something has a mass of 7, 115, or 1449. It really doesn't matter what we pick as long as it has the proper relationship to the number we assign to other masses. For example, if we say it is half the mass of something that with a mass of 14, then we ought to describe it as having a mass of 7. Our metric system is based on this principle. One gram is described as the mass of a centimeter cube of water. So we assign numbers to the mass of objects based on how the mass compares to the mass of this cube of water.
Position is the same thing. We measure distance using numeric values. But distance only carries a meaning when comparing multiple relational objects. With a singularity, any value we assign to position is meaningless unless we have another data point to compare it to.
Ok, so you may be saying that this is all fine and good, but we can sense the space around us as something very real. We are not just observing some abstract property in objects called "position".
We receive information about the physical world through our senses. There is an incredible amount of data from the outside world assimulated in our minds. One of the functions of our mind is to allow us to efficiently interpret our environment. This is the purpose of our spacial awareness. The differences in position between objects is rendered in our minds as space. This can be thought of in the same way as to how our mind renders ideas from another person's voice we hear. When someone nearby says "elephant" the concept of an elephant pops into our head, even though there is not really any elephant around. Our spacial awareness creates space as a method for us to understand the property of position in physical objects.
One way to think about this is from the movie the Matrix. People in the matrix could perceive space even though their "space" was entirely contained in a computer somewhere. A computer fed data into their brain, and their mind took this data and constructed a spacial awareness so that the person could navigate through the matrix. (It doesn't make sense to ask what is beyond the edge of all objects contained in the matrix.)
Another way to think about it is to try and conceive a world with 6-dimensions of space. What would it be like to fly around in such a world, where you could not only change your pitch, yaw and roll, but you had three other axis of rotation as well? Obviously we cannot picture such a world, even though it is certainly possible from a mathematical perspective. This is because the spacial awareness in our minds is designed specifically for three dimensions of space, not six.
Space is a construct in our mind used to allow us to efficiently perceive the position of objects relative to each other. It is not something which is an external entity unto itself.
Matter has many different properties that we can measure, such as mass, charge, momentum, time and position. However, the values we assign these properties have no meaning except compared to the value we assign the properties of some other object. Numbers are necessarily relational. We can say something has a mass of 7, 115, or 1449. It really doesn't matter what we pick as long as it has the proper relationship to the number we assign to other masses. For example, if we say it is half the mass of something that with a mass of 14, then we ought to describe it as having a mass of 7. Our metric system is based on this principle. One gram is described as the mass of a centimeter cube of water. So we assign numbers to the mass of objects based on how the mass compares to the mass of this cube of water.
Position is the same thing. We measure distance using numeric values. But distance only carries a meaning when comparing multiple relational objects. With a singularity, any value we assign to position is meaningless unless we have another data point to compare it to.
Ok, so you may be saying that this is all fine and good, but we can sense the space around us as something very real. We are not just observing some abstract property in objects called "position".
We receive information about the physical world through our senses. There is an incredible amount of data from the outside world assimulated in our minds. One of the functions of our mind is to allow us to efficiently interpret our environment. This is the purpose of our spacial awareness. The differences in position between objects is rendered in our minds as space. This can be thought of in the same way as to how our mind renders ideas from another person's voice we hear. When someone nearby says "elephant" the concept of an elephant pops into our head, even though there is not really any elephant around. Our spacial awareness creates space as a method for us to understand the property of position in physical objects.
One way to think about this is from the movie the Matrix. People in the matrix could perceive space even though their "space" was entirely contained in a computer somewhere. A computer fed data into their brain, and their mind took this data and constructed a spacial awareness so that the person could navigate through the matrix. (It doesn't make sense to ask what is beyond the edge of all objects contained in the matrix.)
Another way to think about it is to try and conceive a world with 6-dimensions of space. What would it be like to fly around in such a world, where you could not only change your pitch, yaw and roll, but you had three other axis of rotation as well? Obviously we cannot picture such a world, even though it is certainly possible from a mathematical perspective. This is because the spacial awareness in our minds is designed specifically for three dimensions of space, not six.
Space is a construct in our mind used to allow us to efficiently perceive the position of objects relative to each other. It is not something which is an external entity unto itself.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Space is a construct in our mind used to allow us to efficiently perceive the position of objects relative to each other. It is not something which is an external entity unto itself.
I think you should clarify that Andy.
Are you speaking of mathematical models or are you speaking or "reality"?
The thread No*s mentioned about Spinks stating space is boundless is the misconceptions thread we first met in.
I don`t think he gave reference.
I think you should clarify that Andy.
Are you speaking of mathematical models or are you speaking or "reality"?
The thread No*s mentioned about Spinks stating space is boundless is the misconceptions thread we first met in.
I don`t think he gave reference.
Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
linwood said:
Hi Linwood! Our favorite topic ...
I am talking about our awareness of space, which is associated with, or perhaps the inspiration for, the mathematical model of space that we have in physics. I am not talking about the "reality" of space, as I do not believe space has any ontological basis.
If we perceive the physical world as "data", then there is no data associated with space that cannot be derived from the properties of the objects in it.
Ah, ok.linwood said:
t3gah
Well-Known Member
I say it's infinite because humans can't see far enough to say there can be a finite end to it. Also man has discovered that the Universe is still expanding as you also have stated and since no one on earth will ever live long enough to the finish of the "big bang", or "creation" if that is their viewpoint, it will be one of those "mysteries of the universe" for each individual until the day they die. Unless of course they care not where or when or why, etc. But thanks for the thought.Green Man said:
Green Man
Member
linwood said:
I don't know how to post links,but I did write it down.www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=4250This should answer your questions as to the nature of space as it is currently understood.
Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
After futher consideration, I would like to argue with myself... :areyoucra
There is an ontological basis for space and time, but it is representative of the dynamics or relationship of matter. Space and time are real in the same sense that the laws of physics are real. They all have to do with the interactions and mechanics of matter. We should not consider space to be a massive volume as our mind represents it, but rather as a mechanism for moving matter.atofel said: