An Idea of Infinity

I'm sure this theory has been presented in one form or another. Do not disdain me for thinking this novel. Have you considered infinity?

This is not my accepted theory, only a thought that there is no origin to the universe. The universe has and always will exist through infinity.

Just as line, on a graph, may seem as though an origin exists (at the edge of your graph, view, or window of time if you will). Yet this line has existed and will continue to exist, however slow or fast.

Therefore, we would be infinitely small in relation to the infinitely large universe. This may be hard to grasp for some, people who need a definition for everything, but hey, I'm always questioning my understanding of this world.

Post 1

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 3:28am

Yes we are small and insignifigant in the Universe. Only a basic understanding of astronomy is needed to know this.

Post 2

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:43am

By what standard, Dustin?

Post 3

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 9:28am

The point that we are small and insignificant was not the reason for the idea. This idea is a possible explanation, that I do not yet accept, since there is no technical evidence, of the "origin" of the universe.

Post 4

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 10:06am

Infinity is a concept whereby we can keep adding intergers indefinitely. It may play a useful role in mathematics but infinity itself does not exist in nature anymore than the number 3 exists in nature. There is no such thing as threeness, but for example there is such a thing as three apples. Otherwise we would be ascribing to "philosophical realism" which means a defining characteristic of an object(s) are separate entities from the object itself. Which isn't true. Unless you can show me in nature the number 3? Three or any other number is a defining characteristic to a set of objects that are similar enough to be put in the same classification to warrant counting them and attaching a value to them, i.e. we are conceptualizing quantity here.

So the question I guess would be more accurately, can we count to infinity? Which would beg the question what is it that we are counting? And is it thusly possible to verify infinite amount of what we're counting? No, because it's inherently unverifiable, we do not live for any infinite amount of time, and neither are we omniscient. We could never know if the next day of counting it would not be the final interger we count to a set of objects we are observing, it's not possible to ever know this.

So no, infinity does not exist in nature. But it exists as a mathematical concept.

Post 5

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:42pm

So, you're saying time is definite? Can you explain to me how time will end? Granted that time is a concept devised by humans, yet, we will never see the end it. There is no scientific way to create matter of nothing, although electrons do have a mass, they are made of other smaller particles. These particle are themselves made of smaller particles and particles and particles and particles. Thus perpetual infinity.

I doubt we will ever discover the origin of time, since it may not even have one, and we may therefore not discover its end, only our conception of it.

Post 6

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 1:27pm

Alexander said:

So, you're saying time is definite? Can you explain to me how time will end? Granted that time is a concept devised by humans, yet, we will never see the end it.

We won't? How do you know? The point is it's epistemologically impossible to prove. How do you prove something is infinite? How long do we wait around before we can finally say something is infinite such as time? We can't. Because you never know if the next day will be the end. After all we're not omniscient.

There is no scientific way to create matter of nothing, although electrons do have a mass, they are made of other smaller particles. These particle are themselves made of smaller particles and particles and particles and particles. Thus perpetual infinity.

No particles cannot become smaller and smaller in a perpetual infinite scale. At least that's not how I understand matter to be. I believe the smallest you can get are sub-atomic particles. But I'm pretty sure it's not an infinite amount. Otherwise how would you know? Have you ever tried splitting particles indefinitely? I'd like to see that :)

Post 7

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 1:41pm

Dustin:

Yes we are small and insignifigant in the Universe.

I don't want to dump on you right away without giving you a chance to reconsider the above statement but it is a standard evocation by the denigrators of human nobility. Yes, it is an objective fact that we are tiny in relation to the size of the universe or galaxies but the insinuation in the statement is that because we are small we are insignificant. (Anyway, why would anyone want to compare the size of humans to the size of the universe?) As Robert Malcolm says, by what standard are we insignificant? Are we insignificant compared to a rock circling the sun? Apart from any other intelligent beings there may be in the universe we are the only entities who can control their environment and destiny to the extent we can.

The purpose of the detractors is to make us humble and cripple our spirit.

Sam

Post 8

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 1:57pm

Sam that was well said.

Post 9

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 3:10pm

Stephen Hawking suggests that asking, "What happened before the Big Bang?" might be like asking, "What is north of the North Pole?" He suggests -- as did Einstein -- that we can't think of time as a straight line, since it time is relative to velocity and mass and we don't know what this means at the singularity in a black hole or at the "beginning" of our universe.

As to we humans begin insignificant, size is not the standard of significance. Luke is right to ask, "By what standard?" I understand that our lives as man qua man is the standard or value and thus a measure of significance.

As a serious amateur astronomer (I originally majored in the subject) I feel anything but insignificant when I gaze at the stars or study the latest discoveries about the structure of the cosmos. I'm filed with an excitement of being about to understand the universe, or aspects of it, and appreciates its beauty.

Post 10

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 3:36pm

Thank you, Sam - was wondering if anyone was going to catch that......

Post 11

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 3:33pm

Like I've previously stated, the point of my question did not revolve around how small we are. I did not intend that to be a point of actual discussion. Yes, I know that's how old world leaders and dictators suppressed their people.

Think of this idea of infinity as, oh, a funnel, or conic like shape. The point of which extends into infinity and the mouth of which opens into infinity. No matter where you are in this cone, you are, in relation to your particular spot, the same size as someone further up or down, left or right in the same cone.

Something I've thought about a lot was the idea of a perfect circle. Although this is a practical impossibility, one might create a perfect circle through the use of infinitely smaller pieces. We, as humans, might just lack the ability to see in such clarity.

Remember, this is not my core thought, only a question to further understanding, like playing devil's advocate.

Post 12

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 4:04pm

Perfect circles exist - but in context.

Post 13

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:21pm

Sam,

I'll try to explain how I think more in depth. Since we're just a tiny rock orbiting one sun in an amazingly vast universe, I would say that we are insignifigant in regards to the happenings in the universe outside of our own personal world and lives. If two civilations are having a galactic war millions of light years away, it would have no impact on us, or us on them. Science fiction aside, it is easy to see how something monumental to someone infinitely far away is not going to influence us. Other planets, objects, or organisms are equally as insignifigant as us, because space is so vast it can be infinite. How can you be signifigant to something if your and infinite distance away? Feel free to correct me, also!

(Edited by Dustin
on 8/14, 5:26pm)

Post 14

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 6:15pm

Dustin:

The problem is if people regard themselves as insignificant in their daily lives. This can be insidious and undermine their self-esteem.

Leaving that aside, I disagree with your contention that local events don't affect distant objects. I have tried to make this point elsewhere on this forum but I can't seem to retrieve my arguments. Most people understand the "butterfly effect" with respect to chaos theory but I want to take it to another level. It is thought that an event must be on a sort of event "cusp" to have any magnifying effect and, if not, any effect simply dies out. This is where I disagree. The tiniest event, for instance the impinging of a photon on a leaf will cause the plant to change its rate of growth to some degree. That in turn can (i.e. will) cause a subsequent event (or multiple events) to be modified to some degree. Thus the phenomenon propagates. The propagation is not limited to our planet or even our solar system, as light will be ultimately be reflected from the earth in a different manner than it would have otherwise.

That's why I believe that we are certainly not insignificant because our most trivial actions ultimately affect everything.

Sam

Post 15

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 6:37pm

Sorry, Sam, but that's an overly simplistic deterministic notion - which is negated by quantum electrodynamics... the complexity of the universe is as such that, on a macro level, whatever 'significance' there'd be would be rendered as such insignificant to the universal whole.....

Post 16

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:11pm

Robert,

In connection to the original topic, if we are insignificant in an infinite universe, then insignificance is balanced by our overwhelming significance to the tiniest of atoms or cells.

Additionally, if we are insignificant, and those cells and atoms are insignificant, then anything larger than us is insignificant to something larger than it. Therefore, everything would be insignificant and significant at the same time. E.I; if everyone is beautiful, then everyone, in relation to each other, is regular.

Post 17

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:36pm

OK Robert, I'm not qualified to argue at the sub-atomic level but my argument doesn't depend on that. If a drop of rain falls on a dirt road it will displace some grains of sand. Subsequent water flow will be diverted somewhat differently than if the first drop had not fallen, and different channels would develop. From there, given enough time, the configuration would change considerably, affecting everything in the immediate environment from plant growth to insect and animal habitat. You can't unring a bell.

Yes, I'm talking about a deterministic system as far as inanimate matter is concerned but free will enters as soon as sentient beings are involved.

Sam

Post 18

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:30pm

John Armaos, Ed Hudgins, others,

I�ve always had trouble with the Aristotelian/Randian argument that the universe is certainly finite. The basic argument�and John covered it, I believe�, is that everything we have ever experienced is finite. No one has ever discovered an example of anything existing in infinite quantity, therefore so must the universe be. However, as John explained�we COULD NEVER make such a discovery, by its nature. But is that good reason to conclude that certainly it can�t be?

I see a fallacy and would genuinely like to be educated as to what I am missing. The fallacy I see is analogous to one I think we agree about: Just because every event is caused by the action of some entity, and just because this axiom applies to all events and all entities�this does not imply that the same applies to the universe as a whole. So, we needn�t look for a cause of the universes� existence. The universe itself can be causeless despite that nothing happening within can be.

Likewise, just because we cannot, by the nature of the quest, discover that the universe goes on forever�this should not be reason to conclude that it can�t go on forever.

Post 19

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 1:05pm