Is the universe infinite or finite?

[`mud]

I don't know much, but:
Everything I read here, points to a different sample of `space`...

Is `space` the entire Cosmos ?

Is the Cosmos moving ?

In reference to what ?

If what @ben d said, then we could look back in `time`,
and see our replacement, in `time `,
couldn't we ?

What moved into the place that we were in, since we're all moving,

Sooo...everything is plain old 'memory in our minds ',
a point in ` space `; a point in ` time `

Is everything moving as the Cosmos expands ?

In reference to what ?

Ahhh...the reference........Religiously.... that would be `God`, wouldn't it ?

Just snipping around

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have misunderstood @ratiocinator.

I am quite sure ratiocinator means "pure energy" doesn't exist.

He wasn't talking about nothingness, he is talking about pure energy.

I understood, it was meant to be a joke, that is why I then began my actual reply with "But seriously...".

 

[`mud]

It's describing the orbs of the `gods`, compared to *none*

 

[gnostic]

I understood, it was meant to be a joke, that is why I then began my actual reply with "But seriously...".

Ok.

There are some people who actually believe in energy can exist, all on their own. Some people actually think lights are “pure energy”; lights are not energy: they are EM fields and particles (photons), and energy is a property of such fields and particles.

Energy don’t exist on their own. Energy can only exist if there are some sorts of substances, whether that substances are MATTERS, PARTICLES (with or without mass) or FIELDS.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You seemed to be forgetting, that the evidence support Special Relativity in regards to time dilation, and the evidence also support General Relativity, where speed and gravitational forces have effect upon the clock, measuring time.

Evidence is all about observations, that include measuring the phenomena.

Lastly, I didn't bring up universe and the "universe's continuation". My only concern what evidence can be observed here, and not the rest of the universe.

I think it is pointless to talk of the whole universe, when our technology to observe the universe as a whole, is very limited.

"..in regards to time dilation, and the evidence also support General Relativity, where speed and gravitational forces have effect upon the clock, measuring time."

Precisely, I am not disputing this, but the universal now (the continuation of universal existence) in which the clock has its existence remains at the same rate as always, it is only the slower time reading of the clock. To an observer, the spaceship in which the clock exists. continues to exist as everything else in the universe exists, all present in the universal now. Universal now means just that, at all times, all that exists is present. It can't be any other way. Relativity is not happening to the universal now, it is beyond measurement, it is only happening when one is relying on limited human technology and proxy measurements that stand for 'time' (the continuing universal now).

"I think it is pointless to talk of the whole universe, when our technology to observe the universe as a whole, is very limited."

Correct on the technology point, but ironically you seem to interpret reality based on this limited technology, one needs to 'see' the universe from the universal now pov, One doesn't need to wait for the technology to exist that can apprehend all the universe at once, the human mind, suitably freed from its limitations that are due to belief in limited understanding of others, is capable of seeing the whole with the mind's eye.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, a lot of what some people belief is simply wrong. As far as the understanding given us by science goes, I'm sure it will go on getting better and maybe some of the conclusions we've talked about will be replaced by something better. However, I'm happy to wait for evidence and not try to make something up for myself, or just accept what others have made up.


It's not a question of my belief, the best tested theory we have that deals with the nature of space and time is general relativity. There are other (untested) hypotheses and conjectures, but that's where we are today.

If I may, the answer I gave to gnostic in the post above pretty much addresses my pov on the issues you have raised. I agree, contemporary science is a work in progress, if you want to fast track it, it will need to include a view of the universe as a whole in which all the aspects fit together in a way that is consistent with the oneness. All the distinctions the human mind creates about the reality of the universe are conceptual, they represent a reality but the concept is never the real. The mind is the key to transcending the limitations of limited conceptualization, and thus a more realistic apprehension of the whole.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok.

There are some people who actually believe in energy can exist, all on their own. Some people actually think lights are “pure energy”; lights are not energy: they are EM fields and particles (photons), and energy is a property of such fields and particles.

Energy don’t exist on their own. Energy can only exist if there are some sorts of substances, whether that substances are MATTERS, PARTICLES (with or without mass) or FIELDS.

To my understanding, the energy associated with a space ship at C speed would be its mass times the speed of light squared. E=MC^2.

 

[ratiocinator]

Precisely, I am not disputing this, but the universal now (the continuation of universal existence) in which the clock has its existence remains at the same rate as always, it is only the slower time reading of the clock. To an observer, the spaceship in which the clock exists. continues to exist as everything else in the universe exists, all present in the universal now. Universal now means just that, at all times, all that exists is present. It can't be any other way. Relativity is not happening to the universal now, it is beyond measurement, it is only happening when one is relying on limited human technology and proxy measurements that stand for 'time' (the continuing universal now).

Looks like a statement of blind faith that totally ignores real world evidence.

I agree, contemporary science is a work in progress, if you want to fast track it...

You have to take the time to properly study what is already known, the theories we currently have and why they are accepted, take that understanding to the level at which you can do original research, publish papers, and produce new hypotheses that can be tested.

There are no shortcuts.

To my understanding, the energy associated with a space ship at C speed would be its mass times the speed of light squared. E=MC^2.

Once again, your understanding is flawed. The famous equation is not to do with things travelling at light speed. In fact, it's somewhat ambiguous as it stands. If you regard the 'M' as rest mass, then it only applies in the rest frame of the object under consideration, if you regard it as the (somewhat outdated notion of) relativistic mass, then the mass will approach infinity as the velocity approaches light, because there is a factor of 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), where v is the velocity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Looks like a statement of blind faith that totally ignores real world evidence.

You have to take the time to properly study what is already known, the theories we currently have and why they are accepted, take that understanding to the level at which you can do original research, publish papers, and produce new hypotheses that can be tested

There are no shortcuts.

Once again, your understanding is flawed. The famous equation is not to do with things travelling at light speed. In fact, it's somewhat ambiguous as it stands. If you regard the 'M' as rest mass, then it only applies in the rest frame of the object under consideration, if you regard it as the (somewhat outdated notion of) relativistic mass, then the mass will approach infinity as the velocity approaches light, because there is a factor of 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), where v is the velocity.

Ok, I accept you're qualified to speak with authority on science, however I am not arguing about the relativity measurement evidence, it is that I don't agree with the conclusions because time as commonly understood does not exist, science is measuring a proxy for something that does not exist.

So here...the universe exists....and keeps on existing. Please tell me how you personally would go about measuring the universe continuing to exist, ie., the passing 'time' of existence of the universe?

 

[ratiocinator]

...however I am not arguing about the relativity measurement evidence, it is that I don't agree with the conclusions because time as commonly understood does not exist, science is measuring a proxy for something that does not exist.

I don't see how you can have any basis for that conclusion, if you ignore the evidence. It's taking things back to front. Rationally, we look at the evidence we have a try to understand what it's telling us. That's how we got to relativity.

So here...the universe exists....and keeps on existing. Please tell me how you personally would go about measuring the universe continuing to exist, ie., the passing 'time' of existence of the universe?

You find something that changes in a regular way as it continues to exist, i.e., some sort of 'clock'.

What reason do you actually have to think that there is some 'universal now'? Where did the idea come from and why do you think it is true?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't see how you can have any basis for that conclusion, if you ignore the evidence. It's taking things back to front. Rationally, we look at the evidence we have a try to understand what it's telling us. That's how we got to relativity.

You find something that changes in a regular way as it continues to exist, i.e., some sort of 'clock'.

What reason do you actually have to think that there is some 'universal now'? Where did the idea come from and why do you think it is true?

But if you have to find a proxy, that is an admission that the continuation of universal existence can't be measured directly, yes?

So once you have a human created clock that changes in a regular way, how does that measure the universe continuing to exist?

I repeat, the universe exists, it never stops existing, it never exists slower or faster, it has no finite periods or durations, all these concepts do not apply to the continuation of universal existence. The universal now is continuous, do you understand?

 

[ratiocinator]

But if you have to find a proxy, that is an admission that the continuation of universal existence can't be measured directly, yes?

The "continuation of universal existence" appears to be just a phrase you've just made up. If you can't observe and measure it, how do you know that there is such a thing?

So once you have a human created clock that changes in a regular way, how does that measure the universe continuing to exist?

As I already pointed out, it doesn't have to be anything human made. We can observe time dilation in the half-life of muons created in the upper atmosphere. As far as we've been able to test, every physical process is subject to relativistic effects. That and the other tests of general relativity are why we conclude that it is a good model of space-time. There is no reason to think that there is some separate absolute now or "continuation of universal existence" as anything separate from space-time.

I repeat, the universe exists, it never stops existing, it never exists slower or faster, it has no finite periods or durations, all these concepts do not apply to the continuation of universal existence. The universal now is continuous, do you understand?

I understand that you want to believe this. Why you want to believe this, in the face of the opposing evidence, is quite beyond me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The universal now is c

The "continuation of universal existence" appears to be just a phrase you've just made up. If you can't observe and measure it, how do you know that there is such a thing?

Simple, if there was not an ongoing continuation of universal existence, nothing would exist.

As I already pointed out, it doesn't have to be anything human made. We can observe time dilation in the half-life of muons created in the upper atmosphere. As far as we've been able to test, every physical process is subject to relativistic effects. That and the other tests of general relativity are why we conclude that it is a good model of space-time. There is no reason to think that there is some separate absolute now or "continuation of universal existence" as anything separate from space-time.

The concept of space-time is not the reality represented by the concept of universal existence, it is a mathematical model of reality whereas universal existence is reality.

I understand that you want to believe this. Why you want to believe this, in the face of the opposing evidence, is quite beyond me.

That does not refute what I said, it merely is an attempt to denigrate. The universal now is continuous, it is indivisible and can't be divided into time periods except as human mental constructs. Reality is always on the other side of concepts.

 

[ratiocinator]

Simple, if there was not an ongoing continuation of universal existence, nothing would exist.

But you seem to what to identify it with your own concept of how it should work. In fact, we have good evidence (again from tests of relativity) that the universe is a four-dimensional object and time, or what we see as its "continued existence", is just a (observer dependant) direction through it.

The concept of space-time is not the reality represented by the concept of universal existence, it is a mathematical model of reality whereas universal existence is reality.

Of course it's a model, but why do you question its accuracy as a representation of the reality space-time, when it has passed every test we've been able to subject it to and made numerous accurate predictions?

That does not refute what I said, it merely is an attempt to denigrate.

I was pointing out the (apparent) lack of any basis for your claim, not attempting to refute it (that would be trivial; that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence). You can either defend your beliefs with reasoning and/or evidence, or you can't. So far it appears that you can't.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But you seem to what to identify it with your own concept of how it should work. In fact, we have good evidence (again from tests of relativity) that the universe is a four-dimensional object and time, or what we see as its "continued existence", is just a (observer dependant) direction through it.

But you seem to want to identify with the contemporary scientific view of time-space, or what I would call a mathematical model. Reality is on the other side of all human conceptualizations of reality.

Of course it's a model, but why do you question its accuracy as a representation of the reality space-time, when it has passed every test we've been able to subject it to and made numerous accurate predictions?

Because reality is realizable directly through meditation, not through conceptual models of reality, science is an industry, not about absolute reality.

I was pointing out the (apparent) lack of any basis for your claim, not attempting to refute it (that would be trivial; that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence). You can either defend your beliefs with reasoning and/or evidence, or you can't. So far it appears that you can't.

Truth does not need defending, that which is not true but is the best available science always need defending because it is not the whole story. I am not against the human concept and application of time as it is applied to benefit human civilization, but when the materialists want it to displace reality, I draw the line!

 

[ratiocinator]

But you seem to want to identify with the contemporary scientific view of time-space, or what I would call a mathematical model.

Which is all we have that is based on objective evidence.

Because reality is realizable directly through meditation...

How do you know? Where is the objective reason to believe this?

Truth does not need defending...

If it can't be defended, then you have no basis on which to call it 'truth'.

 

[Laika]

This question comes out of curiosity to find the arguments of those who make both sides of the word "or". If this is a false dichotomy I would like to hear the other options to this as well.

A few atheists have been making a similar argument to "the universe is infinite" in this very forum when discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is the reason for this thought experiment if I may put it that way. Now before anyone derails the thread saying "this is a strawman" let me make it clear that this is not an atheists position in general, but a few do make this positive claim, thus what are the philosophical or/and scientific reasonings for this?

Voted "infinite", because it fits better with my existing beliefs. That being said, I don't know if it is actually true and I'm aware it conflicts with mainstream scientific views on the subject, such as the big bang and the expanding universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

That being said, I don't know if it is actually true and I'm aware it conflicts with mainstream scientific views on the subject, such as the big bang and the expanding universe.

No, it's perfectly compatible with the BB and expanding universe, in fact the 'flatness' of space suggests that it might be infinite. Whether the universe is finite or infinite is an open question.

 

[`mud]

Can photons recreate ?

Can photons be non-energized...dark ? invisible ?

Can photons move, or just exchange `energies`, one to all and on and and on and....and go `dark` ?

Is the Cosmos full of photons expanding ?

and no container !

Crazy is crazy

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which is all we have that is based on objective evidence.

But people have the God given right to their own perceptions of reality, science deals with reality with a dualistic pov, others may deal with reality directly, science and religion are different ways of to apprehend reality.

How do you know? Where is the objective reason to believe this?

Belief is the objective scientific method the other is direct realization, it is indeed subjective, couldn't be any other way.

If it can't be defended, then you have no basis on which to call it 'truth'.

There is nothing to defend, you are free to disbelieve.