But you still start some place. It has a starting point. If it has a starting point is it really infinity then? Still has a starting. The universe if finite. Lets see it had a starting point. It will also have an ending... the big crunch yes?
Yes. The numbers progress to infinity. 1. Category mistake. The universe isn't a math equation although mathematics are often used to describe aspects of it. If infinity were translated metaphorically across to the universe, then the universe would be a multiverse where everything that could happen, does happen. Parallel dimensions and such. But, remember, infinity is a mathematical context. To use it otherwise is only a metaphor. 2. The Big Crunch is only a theory, and at present is deemed unlikely. The present data indicates the universe will suffer a heat death as it expands forever. Siempre. With this in mind, we can use the infinitely expanding number line as a metaphor to the universe. Both in space and time. But, it's only a metaphor. And, also to note is that space and time are intimately connected. Once matter becomes rarified to a certain extent, time may cease to operate as it does now. And let's not even go into the quantum foam....
Or, if we viewed 0 as the 'starting point', then it can be seen that we can get as close to 0 as we like and never actually reach it. And who says that we have to 'start' at 0? Why not 'start' at 485,485,485? Then we can see that the number line stretches infinitely far in both directions. Without even having to dip into the negative numbers.
ill take a crack at infinity, if you have 1 and thne you have 0 ( "0" is the placeholder in math) and so prove to me that you can only put so many "0's" in fornt of the "1" you cant thats what invert means by n+1=? also this is what invert means by 1 11 111 1111 11111 111111 1111111 11111111 111111111 1111111111 ETC..... Invert if i took your meaning and changed it, let me know so i can apoloigize, but thats hwta i got form what you said.
who's to say there's a starting point? most definately not physics. law of conservation shows that energy cannot be destroyed or created [from nothing] so there must have always been energy here. and it just makes sense. there never was a beginning--there will never be an end. existence of anything is merely change from one form of energy to another. one form existed before our universe, and another will come after it. how could it be any other way? how could something come from nothing?
your taking liberties with the definition of universe by using it such. universe means everything there is. if that is true, then the universe did not begin with the big bang. only our local universe began with it. this is because there had to have been energy before the big bang to cause it in the first place.
Hmmmm I dont know what you think infinity is a metaphor for in 'physics', but the modern consensus is that the universe is physically infinate.
Physics may yet allow for a starting point. Conservation laws come from symmetries in nature. However, many conservation laws in physics (particularly in high energy particle physics) can be violated because of a break in the symmetry that we observe. Perhaps there exists some special conditions that break the symmetry that allows for conservation of energy and allows for energy to come from essentially nothing. The idea seems rather crazy but our reasoning here can only decide what is likely and there is no reason natural law needs to conform to our expectations of it.
1. Physics is a formal system in which the world around us is translated into mathematical terms. 2. I don't think there is a consensus on the nature of the universe. What do you mean, exactly? Infinite in size? In time? In matter? In insects? In audacity? Remember that when dealing with size and time we're dealing with numbers, i.e. measurements. These are readily equated to the number line and mathematics. Now, when smearing the concept to such things as an 'infinite god' it takes on whole new levels of meaning that are simply not present in the mathematical sense. We also see this new level of meaning when applying infinity to the universe, but are distracted by the aptness for the numerical aspects.
Ah, the old "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around...." paradox! You don't really believe that do you?
you would have to discover some (at this point) theoretical possibility that an invariable, unchanging universal existence could (or would invariably) lead to the division and expansion of said existence. but... there is part of me that wants to admit to a both neverending/constantly beginning universe. in this, rather than infinity, there is constant beginning. for a beginning to occur, there must be a period of no change. a period of no change, however, has no duration. so then this period of no change would be unobservable to anything that is afterwards changing. a period of no duration could be said to occur between any two points in time (if time has points, like on a graph). so maybe this eternal period of no change happens between every moment of change. or perhaps the only way to have a period of no change, is for it to occur between two points of change. so that the big bang was the point right after no change, and the hypothetical previous big crunch was the point right before. kind of like saying the point of equilibrium on a spring is the point of no change--at that moment there is no negative or positive pressure on the spring.
There are many consensuses to the nature ofthe universe. What do you mean, exactly? Although admittedly the universe being infinate is boarderline. Infinite in respect to; having no end. Yes of course! So? Again agreed and again thats not what im arguing. Im merely opposing that 'infinity only has a metaphorical meaning in the physical world'. Can you elaborate? Im not quite seeing if that is disputing or agreeing with my poitn.
infinite in possibility. remember that infinite does not mean everything possible exists at once. infinite means that anything possible could happen but that it doesn't have to. keep in mind that infinity would include all the possibilities of something not happening as well as it happening.
Imaplanck, Just what I said. That there are hotly debated issues in physics as to the nature of the universe. The question of its 'infinity' is one of them. Will there be a Big Crunch is the classic example, and as I've said, is answered in the negative at present, but could easily change, in fact, likely will change. Dark matter/dark energy is a rather ad hoc mechanism. I'm sure that there will be massive changes in this area of knowledge. And the other end of the universe is also in doubt. I forget the exact number, but the present physics can only take us so close to the beginnings of the universe (the modeled universe, remember that word, model, always) but no farther. Of course, that, in it's own way, is more evidence of infinity as we can get as close to the start of the universe as we like (read: as our physics allows) but never quite reach it. Asymptote. Anyway. Consensus is a bit much, I'd say, at least for the 'infinite' nature of the universe. Something about physics to keep in mind is the need to be precise. Infinite is being ill-used in most of these discussions as it is being smeared about quite strenuously. Remember, physics doesn't actually deal with the physical world. It deals with a model of the real world. It's a formal system. A construct. The universe cannot be adequately modeled by any system of less complexity than itself. Always, there must be consequences of simplified models. Bear that in mind. Anyway. Let's examine one aspect of infinity that I've already mentioned. 0.1 0.01 0.001 etc... Now. You can carry that sequence on for an infinite amount of time. Getting ever and ever closer to 0 without ever reaching it, yes? The definition of the limit? The asymptote? But, does reality conform to this? You should know better than this just because of your namesake. The planck length. The planck time. We reach a point in our measurement where space and time seem to stop and become granular. Is it a limitation of our measuring apparatus or a property of space and time itself? Unknown. I have a copy of The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose open in front of me: "If we continue to divide up the physical distance between two points, we would eventually reach scales so small that the very concept of distance, in the ordinary sense, would cease to have meaning. It is anticipated that at the 'quantum gravity' scale of 10[sup]20[/sup]th of the size of a subatomic particle, this would indeed be the case." I'm unsure how this 10[sup]20[/sup]th of a subatomic particle compares to the planck length, but regardless, there is definitely a point where we can no longer split the number. Achilles catches the tortoise. Penrose goes on to speak of the other end of the picture. "The familiar concept of real-number distance seems to hold also out to the most distant quasar and beyond, giving an overall range of at least 10[sup]41[/sup], and perhaps 10[sup]60[/sup] or more. Why is there so much confidence in these numbers for the accurate description of physics, when our initial experience of the relevance of such numbers lies in a comparably limited range? This confidence -- perhaps misplaced -- must rest (although this fact is not often recognized) on the logical elegance, consistency, and mathematical power of the real number system, together with a belief in the profound mathematical harmony of Nature." The point being that we have no way of determining the outward bounds of the meaning of distance and/or time or any other measure. We have only a limited sample size. The universe is real. It's not a model. The real number system may or may not be 'real'. Moving on from maths, we see that when applying infinite to something like 'god' then we end up dealing with things that have nothing to do with the number system which spawned the concept. We start thinking about things like god containing everything. Good. Evil. Bad. You. Me. Some alien from Alpha Centauri. Bunny rabbits. Insects. A fondness for masturbation. Etc... This leads to quite a few theistic dilemmas as an infinite god would be practically meaningless because it would have no specific direction or moral or guidance. Everything would be part of this god and thus everything is cool. It's fairly obvious that the god of the bible and koran aren't infinite. They're quite finite. Very much so. More than most people, in fact. Anyway. This also creeps into the picture when applying the term to the universe. We start to think of infinite in a linguistic sense rather than mathematical. All-encompassing. We start to think of the universe containing every that that is. Or, as Roy has said, infinite possibility. Basically, the term becomes practically meaningless because it means nothing. Rather, it means everything. Caution and precision is therefore necessary in any treatment of such. Lest we be caught up in ambiguous ramblings which lead precisely nowhere. Roy, As I've said, you're using a quite different concept of infinity than the mathematical one. The only saving possibility would be one where we can deal with probability rather than possibility. Probability is math, possibility is nothing. However. Probability becomes precisely one the instant it happens. Thus, the universe devours infinity and shits out a single integer. 1.
I never said otherwise. Yes it is indeed debated, but the frigging modern consensus is towards it being infinte,what are you retarded aswell as not being able to admit when youre wrong? Yes indeed, but the consensors is that dark matter exists. Dont you understand that something can be of a consensus even though its debatable? Fuck off!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anything that is of tHe majority is a consensus(reada dictionary). Kiss fuck! It does indeed deal with measurement of the physial world i.e. red shifted gamma rays aswell as extrapolating from what is measurable, to create models. Well durrrr!!!!! Where the fuck in tHe words "the modern consensus is that the universe is infinate" is that implied? Fuck your mother! Suck dick What like your ramblings about infinity being merely a metaphor for something else? Look at yourself for imprecision, I have said nothing imprecise.
