That even for as much of the macroscopic universe we have observed there is still infinitely more unobserved in reality. Therefore it stands to reason for all that we have observed microscopic there is still infinitely more unobserved, hidden beneath the aesthetics of our conscious existence.
With leading cosmologists now suggesting that the universe is indeed flat, that may very well be true. If you mean to suggest infinite divisibility, I'm pretty sure that there are no respectable scientific theories that take such an idea seriously.
Doesn't stand to reason at all. It might be true, it might not. But your line of reasoning is fallacious. What might be infinitely large in one direction does not need be infinitely small in the other... after all, the series of whole positive numbers is infinitely large in one direction, but doesn't go below 1.
When considering what circumstances might be like below the Planck scale, some quantum physicists think that time and space themselves would become discrete or fragmented into quanta. According to Carl Rovelli, an endless number of fundamental entities (as waves) can occupy a dimensionless point, with whatever system of law-based or internally coordinating relationships between them engendering the spatiotemporal appearance of a macroscopic world. Strangely, it's vaguely reminiscent of Immanuel Kant's elimination of space and time regarding things in themselves. At any rate, once such dimensions have been reduced to discrete components with no degrees of freedom available other than to interpenetrate each other, that would seem to be the end of the supposed "infinite division" of extended things. Since the fundamental entities would no longer be extended (apparently Rovelli must have had some non-geometrical, non-temporal version of "waves" in mind!)
Yes, it is possible - It's ludicrous. Here I sit in my little room, I, Brigge, 28 years of age and known to no one. I sit here and am nothing. Nevertheless, this nothing, five flights up on a grey Paris afternoon, begins to think and it has these thoughts: Is it possible, it thinks, that one still hasn't seen or recognised or said anything that's real and important? Is it possible that there have been thousands of years in which to look, to reflect, and to record, and that these thousands of years have been allowed to go by like a school break when one eats a sandwich and an apple? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that despite inventions and advances, despite culture, religion and worldly wisdom one has remained on the surface of life? Is it possible that even this surface, which at any rate might, after all, have been something, has been covered over with unbelievably boring material so that it has the look of drawing-room furniture in the summer holidays? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that the whole of world history has been misunderstood? Is it possible that the past is false because it's always its masses that have been spoken about as if one were talking of a convergence of many persons instead of talking about the one person they were gathered round because he was a stranger and was dying? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that one believed one had to catch up on what had occurred before one was born? Is it possible that each and every person had to remember that he had been produced by all that had gone before and therefore knew it and would not let himself be persuaded by others who knew otherwise? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that all these people have a totally accurate knowledge of what has never been? Is it possible that realities are as nothing to them; that their life is draining away, connected with nothing, like a clock in an empty room? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that one can know nothing of the young girls who are nevertheless living? Is it possible that one says 'women', 'children', 'boys' and not suspect for one moment (irrespective of their education) that for a long time these words had no plural but only countless singulars? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that there are people who say 'God' and think it's something they have in common with everyone?--And take a couple of schoolboys: one of them buys a knife and the other buys an identical one on the same day. And after a week they compare the two knives and it turns out that they look only vaguely similar--so different have they become in different hands. (There you are, says the mother of one of them, if you will go and wear everything out straightaway .) --Ah then: is it possible to believe that one could have a God and not use him? Yes, it's possible. But if all this is possible and if even there's only a glimmer of possibility , then, for pity's sake, surely something needs to be done. The first person to come forward who has had these disquieting thoughts must begin to do what has always been missed; he could be just anyone and it doesn't matter in the least if he's not the most suitable person: there's simply no one else to do it. This young, insignificant foreigner, will have to sit himself down, five flights up and write day and night: yes, he will have to write; that's what it amounts to. From The Notebooks Of Malte Laurids Brigge by Rainer Maria Rilke
I think that's pretty obviously true. Our species has looked at most of the land surface of one particular planet. But about 70% of that planet's surface is covered by water-oceans, and what lies beneath them is still kind of mysterious. The interior of the planet remains unseen. This space-time universe seems to be composed of billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. Planets seem to be kind of ubiquitous, as far as we can tell at the moment. So the powers of ten start to increase rapidly. There's LOTS going on out there, and we don't know about 99.999...% of it. Then there's all the micro-cosmic stuff. The fact that physical reality seems to behave very differently on the smallest scales than we are used to in our experience of middle-sized objects. Non-locality and entanglement and all that stuff. We don't really understand things like the ontological reality of logic and mathematics. We can't really give a full account of what possibility is. And there's the time factor, the past and the future. The future might turn out to be stranger than we imagine, composed of superimposed quantum-style probability states or something, with us surfing on the wave-crest of an expanding temporal wave-function collapse or something. Or there may be some truth to the modal-realist many-worlds alternate-realities idea. And obviously we don't know that this space-time universe is all there is. Maybe there are other spaces and times that aren't geometrically continuous with our own, that we could never possibly reach by following a continuous space-time path from here to there. And even more fundamentally, we don't actually know that a space-time-matter universe like our own is the only kind of being that there is, the only kind of reality that can possibly be. Maybe there are all kinds of realities "out" there, modes of being that we can't even form concepts of with our limited human consciousness, even in principle. The way I see it, the brightly illuminated realm of human knowledge just kind of fades away into the fog of the unknown. And simply by its nature, the unknown is an open unbounded set. We don't have a clue what its boundaries are or what it might ultimately contain.
.1 .01 .001 .0001 .00001 .000001 .0000001 .etc.etc.etc.etc .smaller.smaller.smaller and not ever quite gone.
Aye - but note I specifically referred to the series of whole positive numbers as an example of something that is infinite in one direction but not the other - thereby calling into question the logic/reasoning that infinite in one direction implies infinite in another. I am not discounting that it might... just that the reasoning used does not follow... there is no implication... merely the possibility.
We have not observed that there is infinitely more ubobserved in reality. That's a leap of faith, not a reason. In many models of reality, the smallest divisible unit of anything in reality would be planck length.
And we say the universe began at one planck legnth. What stops that infinitely small point from looking on the inside like it appears now to us? Full of structure despite the immense heat.
It is possible - but to say it is more than a possibility, to say that it IS, requires a leap of faith and not reason.
Saying the universe stops or reaches an indivisible unit requires a great leap of faith considering how small the early universe was and how little we know about it.
the universe cant stop.. if so whats outside the edge of the universe? to big to even think about i tried but i literally get a headach trying to comprehend that
So it wouldn't be all that farfetched to say we know a statistically insignificant amount about our universe?
