Is the universe infinite or finite?

[`mud]

In a Smokey mood through the vapors and to the edge of nothingness to find nothing but more nothingness.

All we got is what Earth provides, and nothing more, no matter what fashioning we add.

We came as Stuff and we will go as Stuff....and go again and again....

The stars are there to be enjoyed , not explore...we will never own them, will we ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you think there is an infinity (of what!?) to fill?


It's perfectly self-consistent and consistent with what we know of space-time. You claim to know more than science, yet you don't seem to have got past nineteenth century physics....

^ Infinite space, if there weren't, there would have to be an edge to the universe with nothing on the other side, and we both understand that nothing does not exist.

So what is the shape of a universe without edges, show me a diagram.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In a Smokey mood through the vapors and to the edge of nothingness to find nothing but more nothingness.

All we got is what Earth provides, and nothing more, no matter what fashioning we add.

We came as Stuff and we will go as Stuff....and go again and again....

The stars are there to be enjoyed , not explore...we will never own them, will we ?

No, but you may be them, think big! No, my bad, don't think, just be.

 

[`mud]

Hey Ben...
You know that there can't be any `container`, can there ? No edges, you say

 

[ratiocinator]

Because nothing does not exist, the universe fills infinity.

Oh no, not the universe without edges, please God give me a break.

Quite apart from the total lack of reasoning and evidence, this is partly why I find religion so unbelievable. They claim to be so profound and yet they are so simplistic, small in scope, and unimaginative compared to what science has uncovered.

^ Infinite space, if there weren't there would have to be an edge to the universe with nothing on the other side, and we both understand that nothing does not exist.

But if you'd got to the edge of space, there would be no room for nothing on the other side, so it still couldn't exist. Nothing can't exist anywhere or at any time because space and time are something.

Okay, so nobody seriously thinks there's an edge.

So what is the shape of a universe without edges, show me a diagram.

The only diagram we could draw would be a sort visual aid, rather than anything to take too literally. Science and mathematics can take us beyond what it is possible to visualise (rather making my first point above). There is nothing that prevents space from having the topology of the surface of a 3-sphere without needing the sphere itself to exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hey Ben...
You know that there can't be any `container`, can there ? No edges, you say

Right, but you can count on some fancy mathematical models that try to show it's possible.

 

[`mud]

Maybe one could say that the Cosmos is formless....just like `God`.....

Or a little `god` !

No form or shape...boundless

 

[`mud]

There's a lot of chalk-dust out there...even with digital...

Mathematics don't make it spin, do it ??

Made up symbols meaning nothing more than pie !

Maybe I'll have some pie...wher'd that dust come from ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Quite apart from the total lack of reasoning and evidence, this is partly why I find religion so unbelievable. They claim to be so profound and yet they are so simplistic, small in scope, and unimaginative compared to what science has uncovered.

But if you'd got to the edge of space, there would be no room for nothing on the other side, so it still couldn't exist. Nothing can't exist anywhere or at any time because space and time are something.

Okay, so nobody seriously thinks there's an edge.

The only diagram we could draw would be a sort visual aid, rather than anything to take too literally. Science and mathematics can take us beyond what it is possible to visualise (rather making my first point above). There is nothing that prevents space from having the topology of the surface of a 3-sphere without needing the sphere itself to exist.

I forgive you for your disparaging remarks on religion vis a vis science.

Do I detect a sense of humor...

Ok, I try, but honestly I can't visualize space having the topology of the surface of a 3-sphere without needing the sphere itself to exist.

'mud please help me out, draw me a diagram of space having the topology of the surface of a 3-sphere without needing the sphere itself to exist?

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, I try, but honestly I can't visualize space having the topology of the surface of a 3-sphere without needing the sphere itself to exist.

Good luck with even visualising a 3-sphere. You can sort of get it by thinking of a 2-sphere (just a sphere in everyday language), which we are all familiar with, but you need the mathematics to really get it. However, this is kind of the point I was making. Why do you think reality should conform to your intuitions and be limited by what you can visualise?

The same mathematics we use to make the GPS system work, leads us to the possibility I outlined. Quantum mechanics is even less intuitive than general relativity, yet it's the basis on which all your electronic devices work.

I can think of no reason why the intuitions we evolved to survive on earth would serve us well when we try to understand the universe on a larger or deeper level. This, for me, makes the counter-intuitive discoveries of science so much more credible than the banality of most religions.

 

[`mud]

I'm surprised that we can fly !######
Oh crap !!! we can't !!

 

[`mud]

There's never been a `sphere` in free space, just intercepts, and radians of sorts...all sorts ..and...

even sqrts !

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The infinite universe is God!

You're a panentheist?

 

[`mud]

I've seen him slip, now and then ! Like two doors on one's doors and a atrium and such,

but he believvves in the `god` within him, and he believes in himself,

and I don't see anything wrong with that, we're all going the same ways anyways.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good luck with even visualising a 3-sphere. You can sort of get it by thinking of a 2-sphere (just a sphere in everyday language), which we are all familiar with, but you need the mathematics to really get it. However, this is kind of the point I was making. Why do you think reality should conform to your intuitions and be limited by what you can visualise?

The same mathematics we use to make the GPS system work, leads us to the possibility I outlined. Quantum mechanics is even less intuitive than general relativity, yet it's the basis on which all your electronic devices work.

I can think of no reason why the intuitions we evolved to survive on earth would serve us well when we try to understand the universe on a larger or deeper level. This, for me, makes the counter-intuitive discoveries of science so much more credible than the banality of most religions.

Because it is my goal to actually realize reality, not to just believe in one that is supposed to exist but can only be represented by human concepts.. All the mathematics, symbols, words, concepts that are meant to describe reality are not actual reality itself. So what I've realized is that the universe is infinite and eternal, there is no container in time, nor is there a container in space.

It's a done deal, I am satisfied with my understanding that there is only one ultimate container of everything that exists. and that is the universe.

I am pleased that mankind survives and prospers, and the science and learning, GPS and electronic devices, that have come with the evolution of mankind, but forgive me if my main interest over time has evolved to include the bigger picture, the source and underlying oneness of all that exists, which for want of a better word I call God, but Universe is ok with me too, a rose by any other name....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're a panentheist?

I don't consider myself anything in particular, I am all things. I'm inclined to teachings of Buddhism, particularly Dhyan/Chan/Zen. Also Sanatan Dharma, oh and Christianity and Islam.

But I do understand your connecting it to panetheism, for it too considers the universe as God, but then so do the Hindus, Brahman's manifestation is the universe, so they technically are panetheists. And btw, I likewise consider the universe to be much more than its physical manifestation, the 5%, but the rest is where religion comes in. Brahman/God is the 100%.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't consider myself anything in particular, I am all things. I'm inclined to teachings of Buddhism, particularly Dhyan/Chan/Zen. Also Sanatan Dharma, oh and Christianity and Islam.

But I do understand your connecting it to panetheism, for it too considers the universe as God, but then so do the Hindus, Brahman's manifestation is the universe, so they technically are panetheists. And btw, I likewise consider the universe to be much more than its physical manifestation, the 5%, but the rest is where religion comes in. Brahman/God is the 100%.

I've got no dramas with syncretic religious beliefs in and of themselves. As an umbrella statement, I have sometimes seen that as a way to gloss over the very clear differences and contradictions between specific religions, but that is entirely dependant on which Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or Dharmic teachings you're subscribing to.

What it does mean is that either we invest a LOT of time in me trying to understanding your specific beliefs, or it's a little hard for me to quite get your 'worldview in a nutshell' so to speak. Hence my throwaway comment about panentheism.
It would be an interesting conversation (for me at least!!) but I think I understand enough about your beliefs to get why you'd say infinite. And given that my more honest answer would be something like 'I have a lot of conceptual issues picturing both a finite end to the universe and an infinite universe. If forced to guess I would say finite only because I can at least vaguely comprehend that, but really, my answer is 'Dunno' we probably don't have too much more to discuss in this thread.

Or, at least, I don't think I can add much to your thoughts on this topic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ Thank you Lewis. Only thing I might add concerns the finite and infinite, the 5%, the manifested universal forms, all that structure which human science studies is the finite, all forms in the universe have beginnings and they all have endings, but the eternal universe itself is untouched by these beginnings and endings.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because it is my goal to actually realize reality, not to just believe in one that is supposed to exist but can only be represented by human concepts.. All the mathematics, symbols, words, concepts that are meant to describe reality are not actual reality itself.

But, they can be objectively tested against reality so that we can know that they are an accurate representation.

So what I've realized is that the universe is infinite and eternal, there is no container in time, nor is there a container in space.

No, since you have no evidence, what you have is a belief, not a realisation.

It's a done deal, I am satisfied with my understanding that there is only one ultimate container of everything that exists. and that is the universe.

Who was ever arguing for a container? Regardless, I guess if you're satisfied with your beliefs (not understanding), then fine, but I would find that so small, limited, and simplistic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But, they can be objectively tested against reality so that we can know that they are an accurate representation.

Aye, that they can, and if some application can made of it to benefit humanity, great. But my goal is a religious one, realization.

No, since you have no evidence, what you have is a belief, not a realisation.

You can't possibly know what realization I've had or not had because it is subjective, and in any event, a realization obviously can't be conveyed to another. I understand what a belief is, that's why I'm always saying reality is on the other side. You need to understand that religion is not science, the goal of science is the 5%, the goal of the other is the 95% so I understand a lot of what I am saying does not apply to science, realization for example. but it is relevant to my religious goal. But both have goals, a lot of science is theoretical, religion, at least mine has to be real, not theoretical.

Who was ever arguing for a container? Regardless, I guess if you're satisfied with your beliefs (not understanding), then fine, but I would find that so small, limited, and simplistic.

C'mon, how is space that has the topology of the surface of a 3-Sphere without needing the sphere itself to exist going to explain a finite universe without a container? And you claim I am into beliefs, give me a break.