# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Is infinity a misconception?  (Read 58697 times)

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #125 on: 12/10/2014 11:05:43 »
On the infinite universe. 13.7 billion years ago light headed towards us. Also at that point light headed exactly away from us. Where did it go? That happened in all directions so it has had 13.7 billion intervening years to continue moving away. At some point that light will also cross the Hubble sphere. What speed does that light travel at? The space we say is expanding the mass apart. Light has to cross this space. Light has a set speed as far as we are concerned. Is it heading out to infinity and ultimately reaching an infinite speed? How can it reach an infinite speed? What exactly does an infinite velocity look like in an infinite universe? Why isn't everything already traveling at infinite velocity. If the universe is infinite then this must follow and must be true.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #126 on: 14/10/2014 15:41:20 »
Pete, I’ve found a question of yours that I have not answered.  It starts with your saying:

“By definition, a quantity is defined as infinite when it increases without bound. It's said not to have a limit. That's what it means to be infinite.”

In reply to which I said:

“I would not argue with this as being acceptable in maths, but I think that if you apply this definition to reality it leads to the sort of blinkered thinking that results in the repetition of mathematical rationale as though it were a definitive answer to something it does not address.”

You said:

“I'm sorry Bill but you lost me. I have no idea what that means.”

Let’s break it down:

I would not argue with this as being acceptable in maths,”    Hopefully that’s straightforward.

“but I think that if you apply this definition to reality…”  Infinity is a valuable and versatile concept in maths, but if, outside of maths, you produce answers that include infinity, or if you are talking, as we are, about the concept of a possibly infinite universe, the situation may be different.

“…..it leads to the sort of blinkered thinking that results in the repetition of mathematical rationale as though it were a definitive answer to something it does not address.”  When talking about a physical entity, such as the Universe, one has to think about the physical constraints imposed by finiteness and infinity, not just the mathematical perspectives; thus, simply repeating mathematical definitions does not constitute giving an answer.

As an example I would argue that if the Universe was ever finite, it could continue to expand without limit, it would be boundless, but it could never become infinite.  If the Universe, or anything, is finite at t=1, it must still be finite at t=10, or any other time.  Mathematically, it might be argued  that at t=∞ it would be infinite, but obviously that is meaningless.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #127 on: 14/10/2014 16:08:00 »
Jeffrey, have you seen the "calculator" here?

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/TabCosmo7.html

I've been trying to get my head round it with limited success, but have still found it useful.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #128 on: 14/10/2014 22:35:59 »
Jeffrey, have you seen the "calculator" here?

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/TabCosmo7.html

I've been trying to get my head round it with limited success, but have still found it useful.

Thanks Bill I will look at it properly when I get some free time. Ha Ha! I am in the middle of a project with a strict deadline so it may be a while.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #129 on: 16/10/2014 23:27:18 »
Pete, I've also found a question of mine that you have not answered.  May I prompt you?

"Does the cosmological principle apply to anything that did not originate in the Big Bang?"

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #130 on: 17/10/2014 06:39:45 »
Pete, I've also found a question of mine that you have not answered.  May I prompt you?

"Does the cosmological principle apply to anything that did not originate in the Big Bang?"
I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "anything that did not originate in the Big Bang". The cosmological principle applies to the uniform distribution of matter in this universe and nothing else.

By the way. I've stopped posting in this forum because I've said all there is to say about the subject and my replies stand as they are. I find all counter arguments to be flawed but have already stated why. I don't wish to argue forever so I'm not posting anymore in this thread. At least I won't try to make an argument again. I still hold that given the cosmological principle and a flat universe the amount of mass in the universe is not finite, i.e. it can not be assigned a fixed number. It can be shown, as I already have, that the amount of mass in the universe is in fact infinite under those circumstances according to the definition of "infinite."

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #131 on: 17/10/2014 20:14:56 »

Quote from: Pete
I'm not posting anymore in this thread

I respect that, Pete.

I think that what I have to do now is go back over the thread and see what makes sense to me, perhaps post some sort of summary and assess where that leaves me with regard to the original question.

On second thoughts, I may post a "thought scenario" first.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #132 on: 18/10/2014 00:51:02 »
There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.

Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be placed are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".

One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".

However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?

Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.

We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.

Wait!  This can’t be right.  If they were infinitely far away, they were at the end of the road, which is not possible if the road has no end.  Enter the mathematician who points out that there are different sizes of infinity.  Could it be that the PIF are infinitely far from the bridge, but their infinity is smaller than that of the road, or of this segment of the road?  Am I alone in thinking that this is rubbish?

Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that, but what does that mean?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #133 on: 18/10/2014 01:33:31 »
Speculating about infinities; if we had an infinite amount of time, we could rationalize an infinite amount of scenarios theoretically disproving infinity. Seriously though, thinking about infinity. It occurs to me that for anything to exist, it must lie within a space. And if space is flat, we're talking about infinity.

If on the other hand, our space is finite it is also possible that M-theory might be correct and our universe lies within an infinite Bulk filled with an infinite number of other universes. In either case, we're still talking about infinity.

If one declares that our universe is closed, one must ask: What is outside? If we say; "nothing", one must ask: What is nothing if not more space?

I believe in infinity!

« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 04:29:32 by Ethos_ »

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1441
• Thanked: 9 times
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #134 on: 18/10/2014 12:27:17 »
I think we already covered all this is another thread, but...

There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.
By that logic, anywhere on the road is the middle, which makes 'middle' meaningless in this context.

Quote
One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".
Half of infinity is still infinity. You have two infinite roads.

Quote
However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?
Yes. An infinite extent can have a beginning.

Quote
Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.
Clearly, if the road was finite in extent, the PIF couldn't be infinitely far along it.

Quote
Wait!  This can’t be right.  If they were infinitely far away, they were at the end of the road, which is not possible if the road has no end.
Infinity is not a number. Infinitely far away is not a particular place. Any specific point you place your PIF along the road is not infinitely far away from the start (or any other specific point on the roadway). You might choose to simply specify that they are infinitely far away on the road, so they would now be infinitely far from the start, and still have an infinite extent of road in the other direction. That's how infinity works, and why your road must remain a thought experiment. You may say that the start is a specific point on the road, and the PIF, infinitely far away, are also at a specific point on the road, but these two points cannot be related by measurement; they are infinitely far apart.

Quote
Could it be that the PIF are infinitely far from the bridge, but their infinity is smaller than that of the road, or of this segment of the road?  Am I alone in thinking that this is rubbish?
No, both infinities in this thought experiment are the same size. If you want to know about different 'sizes' or orders of infinity, check out Georg Cantor's Transfinite Numbers.

Quote
Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that, but what does that mean?
I don't know what you mean by it, but there are different orders of infinity. For example, there are an infinite number of natural numbers, but a larger infinity of real numbers.

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #135 on: 18/10/2014 13:29:29 »
If one declares that our universe is closed, one must ask: What is outside? If we say; "nothing", one must ask: What is nothing if not more space?
Nothing. Space isn't nothing. It sustains waves and fields. I can conceive of space having an edge, rather like a water droplet has an edge. A ripple in the droplet would reach the edge and then undergo total internal reflection. I can imagine light waves doing the same when they reach the edge of space. Beyond which there is no more space.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #136 on: 18/10/2014 15:15:14 »
If one declares that our universe is closed, one must ask: What is outside? If we say; "nothing", one must ask: What is nothing if not more space?
Nothing. Space isn't nothing. It sustains waves and fields. I can conceive of space having an edge, rather like a water droplet has an edge. A ripple in the droplet would reach the edge and then undergo total internal reflection. I can imagine light waves doing the same when they reach the edge of space. Beyond which there is no more space.
I understand this argument John, but to that argument I will ask you this question:

If our universe occurred within this nothingness, producing waves and fields restrained within our present physical "water droplet", it's logical to assume that this same process can repeat itself again somewhere else in your defined nothingness. Or is our present location the only place where a universe can form? And why would we assume to limit this event to a single location?

As you may have already figured out, I tend to believe in either flat space or the Multiverse concept. In either case, space would be infinite. Given that this may be an accurate view of physical reality, can you see where this view of things would involve an infinite arena or place where present reality exists? If not, why only one finite universe?

Murphy's Law; If it can happen it will.

And if it happened once, it will happen again, and again, and again..........
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 15:53:30 by Ethos_ »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #137 on: 18/10/2014 16:08:31 »
Good ideas all of you. We're here to use our minds.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #138 on: 18/10/2014 16:11:09 »
Then again. A vacuum reduced is nothing, and if you like 'infinite', as it has no bounds intrinsically. Assuming one want to bound it, one need to introduce some property more that the idea of a 'nothing'. Do you see?

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1441
• Thanked: 9 times
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #139 on: 19/10/2014 11:44:50 »
Then again. A vacuum reduced is nothing, and if you like 'infinite', as it has no bounds intrinsically. Assuming one want to bound it, one need to introduce some property more that the idea of a 'nothing'. Do you see?
A vacuum is space with no matter, not nothing. You'll have to explain what you mean by a 'vacuum reduced'. Nothing doesn't exist by definition, so neither infinity nor bounds are applicable. If by 'reduced' you mean everything removed, i.e. the absence of anything & everything, then it's trivially true, but so what?

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #140 on: 19/10/2014 13:36:22 »
I understand this argument John, but to that argument I will ask you this question:

If our universe occurred within this nothingness, producing waves and fields restrained within our present physical "water droplet", it's logical to assume that this same process can repeat itself again somewhere else in your defined nothingness.
No it isn't. This nothingness is not space. It isn't some void. There is no place for light to go beyond the edge of space.

Or is our present location the only place where a universe can form? And why would we assume to limit this event to a single location?
Maybe now's a good time to remind you that the word universe comes from "uni" as in one and "verse" as in vice versa. It means turned into one. It means everything. What you're asking about, is more than one everything. Does the universe, this everything, go on forever? If the answer is no, it doesn't make sense to say there's an infinity of other everythings beyond it.

As you may have already figured out, I tend to believe in either flat space or the Multiverse concept.
WMAP found that space looks flat, so we have evidence to support the idea that space is flat. But we have no evidence to support the idea of a  multiverse. None whatsoever.

In either case, space would be infinite.
Not so. It's a non-sequitur to say space is flat and therefore infinite. It's like the old flat-Earth belief, only back to front. In ancient times people (allegedly) believed the world was flat, and therefore had an edge. In modern times people believe the universe is flat, but they cannot believe it has an edge.

Given that this may be an accurate view of physical reality, can you see where this view of things would involve an infinite arena or place where present reality exists? If not, why only one finite universe?
If can't see how the universe can be infinite, because an infinite universe can't expand. And I can't see how you can have more than one everything.

Murphy's Law; If it can happen it will. And if it happened once, it will happen again, and again, and again..........
It's no substitute for scientific evidence. And we have scientific evidence that the universe is flat, and is expanding. I think that's also scientific evidence for a finite universe.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #141 on: 19/10/2014 17:59:49 »
It's no substitute for scientific evidence. And we have scientific evidence that the universe is flat, and is expanding. I think that's also scientific evidence for a finite universe.
No..............better minds than anyone of us conclude that flat space defines an infinite universe. Either way, you seem to have missed my points JD. I think I'll have to agree with Pete about things here. When ever I hear someone use the term: "it seems to me", that usually means they are not bright enough to understand or they simply refuse to consider the facts. Which ever case is true concerning this debate is something we will all have to decide at the personal level.

Whether material space is infinite or whether nothingness is infinite, the fact is, that infinity is inescapable. I suggest that if our material universe is finite, then your supposed nothingness beyond our present bubble is infinite.

If you can't "seem to get this" we have nothing left to discuss.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 04:17:30 by Ethos_ »

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #142 on: 19/10/2014 18:09:08 »
Hi Dlorde, you are right, we have been here before.  We have seen these questions, and these answers, before.  The trouble is, as I said to Pete earlier in this thread, answers tend to take the form: “this is the answer, whatever the question was”.

Quote
By that logic, anywhere on the road is the middle, which makes 'middle' meaningless in this context.

Great!

It is unclear if you are saying that you consider “middle” to be meaningless, or just that the logic I applied would make it meaningless.  However, I would contend that middle, beginning or end; or indeed any position, in infinity is meaningless, but that’s probably a step further than we would be ready to go until we can progress beyond constantly returning to mathematical “infinities”.

Quote
Half of infinity is still infinity. You have two infinite roads.

You have two unbounded roads, but I argue that unbounded and infinite are not necessarily synonymous.

“Unbounded” can be quite different from “infinite”, because, although infinity can rightly be said to be boundless, all that is boundless is not necessarily infinite.  For example, in an infinity of nothingness there could, in theory, exist a universe.  The surrounding nothingness would place no limit on the amount of matter or energy that could be added to that universe, nor would there be any limit to the extent to which the universe could expand.  Nevertheless, however much was added to the universe, or however great was its expansion, it would always be finite.

Its potential might be said to be infinite, as it has an infinity of nothingness into which it can expand, but even this is not strictly correct.  It can never reach infinity; therefore it does not have the potential to become infinite.  Nothing finite can become infinite.

Quote
Yes. An infinite extent can have a beginning.

Beginning and end are directional concepts.  Turn round and your beginning becomes an end which, by definition, infinity cannot have.

Quote
You may say that the start is a specific point on the road, and the PIF, infinitely far away, are also at a specific point on the road, but these two points cannot be related by measurement;

Does it seem strange that something that constantly returns to mathematical definitions cannot be related by measurement?  I am not disagreeing with you here; I too believe that points in infinity cannot be related by measurement; but take that logic a step further and it becomes: Two points in infinity cannot be distinguished from each other.

Quote
No, both infinities in this thought experiment are the same size. If you want to know about different 'sizes' or orders of infinity, check out Georg Cantor's Transfinite Numbers.

This is a recurring problem when trying to discuss infinity.  Cantor’s infinities are valuable as mathematical tools, but let’s not forget that even Cantor had problems dealing with “absolute infinity”.

Quote
I don't know what you mean by it, but there are different orders of infinity. For example, there are an infinite number of natural numbers, but a larger infinity of real numbers.

This is another of those things that always comes up, but is never resolved.  This, I think, is a shame, because Cantor’s work on infinities is a masterpiece, but it should not be expected to apply beyond the sphere of maths.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #143 on: 19/10/2014 22:29:09 »
Quote from: JD
Maybe now's a good time to remind you that the word universe comes from "uni" as in one and "verse" as in vice versa. It means turned into one. It means everything. What you're asking about, is more than one everything. Does the universe, this everything, go on forever? If the answer is no, it doesn't make sense to say there's an infinity of other everythings beyond it.

Quote from:  Ethos
......better minds than anyone of us conclude that flat space defines an infinite universe.

I think we are running into semantic troubles here.  John, correct as your etymology of “universe” is; you have to allow language to evolve.  I hesitate to keep on about John Gribbin’s usage, but it does tend to militate against confusion. Possibly you and Ethos are understanding different things when using the word “universe”.

As far as what “better minds than anyone of us conclude”, let’s not forget that most of the best minds in geology thought that Wegener was wrong.

Quote from: Ethos
I think I'll have to agree with Pete about things here. When ever I hear someone use the term: "it seems to me", that usually means they are not bright enough to understand or they simply refuse to consider the facts.

That has to be one of Pete’s more elitist comments.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1826
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #144 on: 19/10/2014 22:52:20 »
It seems I may not be “the voice of one crying in the wilderness”.  Unbounded does not necessarily equal infinite!  Even Stephen Hawking agrees with that.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Quote
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #145 on: 19/10/2014 23:26:33 »
Possibly you and Ethos are understanding different things when using the word “universe”.
I agree Bill,......That's the reason I said; "you seem to have missed my points JD". In any event, discussing a concept like infinity is a big challenge. I think it all boils down to whether the individual has the intuition to wrap their minds around this mental abstraction. Those that do will side with infinity and those that don't will contend against it.

So, who's right? It could be that neither one of us is depending on how we define the word. Until we get on the same page with our definitions, this discussion will fail to render any positive results.

#### dlorde

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1441
• Thanked: 9 times
• ex human-biologist & software developer
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #146 on: 20/10/2014 00:05:11 »
It is unclear if you are saying that you consider “middle” to be meaningless, or just that the logic I applied would make it meaningless.  However, I would contend that middle, beginning or end; or indeed any position, in infinity is meaningless, but that’s probably a step further than we would be ready to go until we can progress beyond constantly returning to mathematical “infinities”.
The 'middle' means equidistant from specified extremes. Infinite extremes are not measurable so equal distance can't be known. On the other hand, if you decide the infinities either side are effectively equal in size, then any point qualifies, which means all points are the middle; which, I submit, makes it meaningless.

Quote
You have two unbounded roads, but I argue that unbounded and infinite are not necessarily synonymous.
I agree - where 'unbounded' means 'having no boundaries' -  a sphere is finite but unbounded.

Quote
Beginning and end are directional concepts.  Turn round and your beginning becomes an end which, by definition, infinity cannot have.
That's just semantics. I can equally say that depending which way you turn, you either have an infinite extent ahead of you or behind you.

Quote
I too believe that points in infinity cannot be related by measurement; but take that logic a step further and it becomes: Two points in infinity cannot be distinguished from each other.
Only two points infinitely distant from each other will be problematic. It's an interesting point (they're interesting points! ) - can you detail the logical step that takes them from not being related by measurement to them being indistinguishable?

Quote
Cantor’s infinities are valuable as mathematical tools, but let’s not forget that even Cantor had problems dealing with “absolute infinity”.
I don't see how Cantor's ideas of 'absolute infinity' (God) are relevant.

Quote
... Cantor’s work on infinities is a masterpiece, but it should not be expected to apply beyond the sphere of maths.
As far as I know, the only framework for dealing with the concept of infinity is mathematical. It's a mathematical abstraction. What else can we use when considering thought experiments about physical infinities?

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #147 on: 20/10/2014 01:57:34 »
Quote from: Bill S
That has to be one of Pete’s more elitist comments.

You're wrongly accusing me of having made elitist comments. Please show me these elitist comments that I've made to people they didn't actually and accurately apply to.

I may have said that someone wasn't that bright but only in extreme cases and even then only with nutcases like JD but never simply because someone used the phrase "it seems to me".
« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 02:01:47 by PmbPhy »

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #148 on: 20/10/2014 12:41:01 »
No..............better minds than anyone of us conclude that flat space defines an infinite universe.
I reject that. Who concludes that flat space means the universe is infinite? And do they also conclude that the universe was always infinite.

Either way, you seem to have missed my points JD. I think I'll have to agree with Pete about things here. When ever I hear someone use the term: "it seems to me", that usually means they are not bright enough to understand or they simply refuse to consider the facts. Which ever case is true concerning this debate is something we will all have to decide at the personal level.
Ask around about how the universe got to be infinite in a finite time, or was always infinite. You won't get a satisfactory answer.

Whether material space is infinite or whether nothingness is infinite, the fact is, that infinity is inescapable. I suggest that if our material universe is finite, then your supposed nothingness beyond our present bubble is infinite.
You're still not getting the "no space" concept. Space isn't nothing, it's something. See the shear stress in the stress-energy tensor? Note the energy-pressure diagonal? Space is kind of like some ghostly gin-clear elastic that can be deformed or pressurized or curved. If you reached the edge of space, there is no beyond it. Nothing isn't space.

If you can't "seem to get this" we have nothing left to discuss.
Noted.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 12:51:25 by JohnDuffield »

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #149 on: 20/10/2014 12:47:16 »
I think we are running into semantic troubles here. John, correct as your etymology of “universe” is; you have to allow language to evolve.
I don't there's much of an issue with the word universe. If we do find there's some confusion, we could soon clear it up.

I hesitate to keep on about John Gribbin’s usage, but it does tend to militate against confusion. Possibly you and Ethos are understanding different things when using the word “universe”.
I don't think so. We seem to have an irreconcileable difference regarding a universe that's infinite.

As far as what “better minds than anyone of us conclude”, let’s not forget that most of the best minds in geology thought that Wegener was wrong.
Well said. I refuse to be told to just accept something because "better minds than us" say it's right.

That has to be one of Pete’s more elitist comments.
He thinks of himself as the expert, and reacts badly to any challenge or correction.

It seems I may not be “the voice of one crying in the wilderness”.  Unbounded does not necessarily equal infinite!  Even Stephen Hawking agrees with that.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Quote
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation.
There's no actual evidence to support Hawking's no-boundary hypotheses. Or his imaginary time. Or an infinite universe. But there is evidence to support the idea that space is flat, that it doesn't curve back round on itself, and that it's expanding. IMHO people say the universe is infinite because they just can't conceive of some kind of boundary to it. And then they forget that it can't be infinite unless it was always infinite, which I think is most unsatisfactory.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 13:03:42 by JohnDuffield »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Is infinity a misconception?
« Reply #149 on: 20/10/2014 12:47:16 »