[andreasva (OP)]

    I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.


Looks like a contradiction to me.

No contradiction there.  I'm using the value to describe a potential state of the whole universe.

If you want to hack up grammar, I'm sure you can find a lot more things that appear contradictory.  I think you're smart enough to understand the gist of what I'm saying.   

Only in theory. Nothing has ever been observed for an infinite period of time to confirm it.

Of course that is physically impossible.  We can certainly infer with reason.  Which is why human logic offers the only possible solution.  We are not bound to finite solution, like our digital counterparts. 

The Big Bang is physically impossible to prove as well, but given its wide acceptance, no one seems to have much of a problem believing in it. 

You say finite, I say infinite.  I like my reasoning better.   

[Kryptid]

No contradiction there.  I'm using the value to describe a potential state of the whole universe.

So is the value of the potential state of the whole universe |1|, <|1| or infinity?

If you want to hack up grammar, I'm sure you can find a lot more things that appear contradictory.  I think you're smart enough to understand the gist of what I'm saying.

Grammar has nothing to do with it. You can't say in one place that Universe's value is |1|, in another place that it is <|1| and in yet another place that it is infinite.

We can certainly infer with reason.

Until that reason is tested by experiment, then it isn't science.

Which is why human logic offers the only possible solution.

Then you are admitting that there is no way to experimentally verify your claims and that what you have produced is simply philosophy?

We are not bound to finite solution, like our digital counterparts.

What makes you say that? You think there are equations that humans can calculate that a computer cannot be programmed to calculate as well?

The Big Bang is physically impossible to prove as well, but given its wide acceptance, no one seems to have much of a problem believing in it. 

Science isn't about proving things, so that's not a problem.

You say finite, I say infinite.  I like my reasoning better.   

I don't say it's finite, I say we don't know if it's finite or infinite.

[andreasva (OP)]

The universe is infinite.  There was no Big Bang. 

So is the value of the potential state of the whole universe |1|, <|1| or infinity?

The potential state of the universe is both 0 and |1|, not a singular value.  Both states are theoretically impossible, so the resulting potential is infinite.  1/0 is undefinable.

 

Science isn't about proving things, so that's not a problem.

Beliefs have no place in science, so I would argue it's potentially a big problem.  Beliefs are irrational.  I think the evidence is pretty clear.  When the answer becomes more illusive, beliefs rise, and opinions diverge.  I bet you could stack current theories to the moon and back, and that number seems to rise daily.  No one is on the same page in science.  The most likely cause is a fundamental flaw in our reasoning or methodology.       

I stick by what I say.  The universe is infinite, not finite. 

[andreasva (OP)]

I'll walk through this one more time, and see if I can't reason this out with you.  Not holding my breath mind you.

Nothing, or 0, is exactly what it implies, absolutely nothing.  It is the absence of everything, including physical dimension.  It is also theoretically impossible, according to science.  I agree fully.  So much so in my view, that I consider it more towards the certainty column, than I do an actual theory.  0 is also a finite value, and naturally absolute.  Meaning it has no equal other than itself, and can never be any other value.  It is a permanent finite condition.  Its presence, or lack of presence, would be finite in all manner, and nothing would exist.  Most importantly, a universe wouldn't exist. 0=0.  It is also a lessor value than infinity.  Although 0 cannot exist, its potential does remain, and that potential is infinite, because it is a physically impossible state.   

Our universe is, >0

I can't see anyone disputing this simple fact.  Nothing means nothing.  Clearly, we aren't nothing.

The next absolute value in series is 1.  And seeing as we have a lessor value than infinity, it stands to reason that we would have a greater value than infinity.  That value is, Ι1Ι.  This is the something state to nothing.  The exact opposite of nothing.  It is the inverse of nothing.  It is exponentially different.  It would also be a purely homogeneous state, with its dimension being defined as absolute.  You could look at it as infinite dimension, but it's exactly the same everywhere, so it's finite.  It is smooth and flat.  Its a continuous state void of all energy as we understand it.  There is no positive or negative.  It's value is defined at |1|.  Like 0, |1| is a theoretically impossible state. Its potential remains though, and that potential is also infinite, like 0.  I consider this more towards the certainty column as well.   

The universe is <|1|

We are the infinite potential that lies between 0 and |1|.  Our existence is variable, or infinitely variable, making us analog. 

0=0
|1|=|1|
∞=∞

The universe only makes sense with ∞.

You can claim I need proof, but I really don't. I am satisfied with the reasoning, although I imagine it's going to take a very very long time for science to come to this simple realization.  Personally, x=x is all the proof I need mathematically.

As you said, science isn't out to prove anything.  They only accept testable results.  They want physical evidence.  They want experimentation, that is repeatable.  And that's just to move it to a theory.  You can't have direct evidence for the big bang, and you most certainly can't prove infinity with physical evidence.  And the universe isn't a repeatable experiment.  It's one and done, and one of a kind.  It has no equal other than itself.     

My only indirect physical evidence is expansion and acceleration.  Someone put a label on those already, and I hardly think they'll part with it.  They won't find Dark Energy though.  I wonder how many years it's going to take for them to give up?  20? 50? 100?  We'll all be dead, so I suppose it won't matter at that point.   

It's only a quandary for science, not me.  In order for science to move forward, they're going to have to do something they can't do by design.  Use their brains.  I don't mean that in a derogatory manner, I mean that literally.  They're all going to have to put down their pens, push away their keyboards, turn off their calculators, and make an educated guess based on human reasoning.  The real answers are beyond reach of physical detection.  Oddly enough, science knows this simple fact.  Still, they demand proof.  It's futile.   

Keeps the money flowing I suppose.  Always experiments to perform.  In science, even the absence of a result is a result that requires more investigation.                 

[Kryptid]

And seeing as we have a lessor value than infinity, it stands to reason that we would have a greater value than infinity.  That value is, Ι1Ι.

If you think that |1| is bigger than infinity then you should probably go back to math class...

[andreasva (OP)]

If you think that |1| is bigger than infinity then you should probably go back to math class...

I have to call like I see it Krytid, and follow the logic.  Technically, |1| and 0 aren't present in the universe, from my view.  I see the universe as actively moving in opposite directions towards both values. In and out. Infinity isn't clearly defined, and not really understood in the context of the universe.  Most consider it a concept, and not really something to toil in.  I'm calling it a state, which is already a major violation to most peoples view towards it.  We tend to think of the vastness as infinite.  I'm defining it as infinitely variable, or analog, which is a state wedged between two potential finite values.  The universe wants to be both finite values, but it is neither.  They aren't really numbers as much as they are magnitudes between each other.   

Yes, I'll stick with: <|1|

     

[Kryptid]

and follow the logic.

There's nothing logical about saying |1| > infinity.

[andreasva (OP)]

There's nothing logical about saying |1| > infinity.

Sure there is.  And I take your input very seriously.  You made me pause that time. 

I am using |1| as a label that signifies the magnitude between |nothing| and |something|.  It's not a typical base 10 number like 3 or 5, or -7.  It is describing an absolute state of the whole of the universe sans energy.  It is the inverse of nothing, and the greatest possible magnitude of the universe, which is beyond infinity.  It's value would be finite, because like 0, its properties are absolute.  It's akin to a perfect solid dimensionaly speaking.  No movement.  No variability.  No energy.  Perfectly smooth and seamless.  Not a wiggle.  Nothing can exceed these absolutes in either direction, when applying them to the whole of the universe.  It is the exact inverse of |nothing|.       

You may not like it, but the logic stands. 

∞<|1| 

Infinity is not an absolute, it's a natural variable that can contain any base 10 value.

No variability, no infinity. 

I think this proves my point more than anything else.  Finite values are not infinite, obviously.  If the universe possessed a finite value, we wouldn't be here.  It would be stuck on that value.   

[Kryptid]

I am using |1| as a label that signifies the magnitude between |nothing| and |something|.  It's not a typical base 10 number like 3 or 5, or -7.  It is describing an absolute state of the whole of the universe sans energy.  It is the inverse of nothing, and the greatest possible magnitude of the universe, which is beyond infinity.  It's value would be finite, because like 0, its properties are absolute.  It's akin to a perfect solid dimensionaly speaking.  No movement.  No variability.  No energy.  Perfectly smooth and seamless.  Not a wiggle.  Nothing can exceed these absolutes in either direction, when applying them to the whole of the universe.  It is the exact inverse of |nothing|.       

Oh, so you are taking a concept with a well-known, existing definition and replacing it with your own definition in order support your non-conventional ideas. You can "prove" anything you want to when you do something like that.

[andreasva (OP)]

Oh, so you are taking a concept with a well-known, existing definition and replacing it with your own definition in order support your non-conventional ideas. You can "prove" anything you want to when you do something like that.

I can assure you, I have no idea what you're talking about here.  I close my eyes and imagine an empty void, and that's about it.  I see all this.  I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here.  These thoughts and ideas are mine and mine alone. 

To what are you referring?

[Kryptid]

To what are you referring?

I'm talking about how you define |1|. Those vertical bars mean "absolute value", so in terms of normal mathematical definitions, |1| means "the absolute value of 1", which is simply the common, familiar number of 1. In conventional mathematics, 1 is not larger than infinity. You have redefined |1| to refer to some imaginary number that is larger than infinity, so that means you have taken a concept with an existing definition and replaced it with your own.

[andreasva (OP)]

I'm talking about how you define |1|. Those vertical bars mean "absolute value", so in terms of normal mathematical definitions, |1| means "the absolute value of 1", which is simply the common, familiar number of 1. In conventional mathematics, 1 is not larger than infinity. You have redefined |1| to refer to some imaginary number that is larger than infinity, so that means you have taken a concept with an existing definition and replaced it with your own.

Numbers have many meanings depending on how they're applied.  I'm describing |1| as a distance, or magnitude of distance.  It is the greatest possible distance beyond infinity, which comes to a finite end.  There can be no more distance.  Infinity is an ongoing value.  I stopped it at |1|, where there is no more physical distance.  I also said it is a physically impossible state, like 0.  Both are finite values.  0 and |1| are potential states, and the potential between them is infinite.

It is exactly what I have been saying all along.   

So in reality, you are agreeing with me.  The universe cannot be finite. 

I don't see a problem in that.   

You don't see a problem in 0<∞, which is a potential finite state.

I don't see a problem in ∞<|1|, which is also a potential finite state.

[Bored chemist]

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

[Bogie_smiles]

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe", is a catchy title for a thread. My response is that you can argue for or against it just as effectively, because you cannot prove it beyond simple logic. You can argue the universe is infinite because it seems to be a better answer than the alternative, which is that it is finite and there is "nothingness" beyond. Then you have to define "nothingness", so some suggest nothing is no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy. If that definition is acceptable to describe nothingness, then you can posit a finite universe beyond which is nothingness.

However, to my way of thinking, you don't need an argument for or against. You are not likely to convince anyone that your argument is any better than an argument for a finite universe.

I suggest you just make it a "given" from your personal perspective of the universe, and go ahead and describe the mechanics that are taking place out there that support your premise. For example, you are probably familiar with the concept of entropy on a universal scale. It is the cosmologists enemy, lol. How does an infinite universe defeat entropy?

[opportunity]

An argument for what we can argue


What's stopping us?


Is there a rule book against that?

[opportunity]

It doesn't look good if someone has to at least say the rule book is in doubt.

[mad aetherist]

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

Yes for sure the dark sky is an (Olber) argument against an infinite universe.
However Ranzan's explanation of redshift leads to the solution.
Old light is gradually redshifted out of existence, or at least into lower energy. 

[opportunity]

So, the idea of not knowing the universe is weak, right?

[opportunity]

To explain the universe one needs to eliminate a lot of crap as much as  the universe doesn't tolerate crap.....otherwise why would it be a universe? The universe is either tired or moving more slowly than your expectations.

[opportunity]

Think about it, Jesus is the best answer for people, what about reality though?

Reality perhaps wants to keep people inthe loop.