Thread: Space cannot be infinite

Originally Posted by Xei

How do you define what something is other than by describing its properties?

By finding out what causes those properties?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

By finding out what causes those properties?

That cause is still a property. What distinguishes a fundamental property from a superficial property?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Who said space was infinite? Space is very finite, it started from a finite singularity, and expanded at a set rate, it's not infinite. That said, space expanded many many times faster than light, so you can never reach the edge because matter can't go faster than light.

This is a classic misunderstanding and is completely incorrect.

The expansion of space is not like the expansion of the space inside a balloon where the boundary encompasses more and more volume; the expansion is of space itself, at all points in the universe. It is much more like the stretching of a rubber sheet. You don't know the overall shape of the sheet (it could even be infinite), but locally, all points near to you are drifting away.

The Big Bang did not happen at what is now a single point which we could visit like a tourist destination, and the universe did not expand outwards from it: the Big Bang essentially occurred at every point in the modern day universe.

The observable universe is bounded by the light that can have reached us in the universe's finite lifespan, but it is a major unsolved question in astrophysics as to whether or not the universe, seen and unseen, is infinite or not. Certainly there's no reason for thinking it just stops at the boundary of the observable universe.

Originally Posted by Xei

That cause is still a property.

Maybe, but of what? Another cause? Are you suggesting an infinite regress? I couldn't argue with that.

Originally Posted by Xei

What distinguishes a fundamental property from a superficial property?

It depends on how you isolate and define an entity with said properties, essentially how far you've connected it with the rest of experience. The superficial properties are what define this entity, but they are also the edge of mystery to the question 'why these properties?'. The fundamental cause is some connection this entity has to the whole that we don't understand yet, which could make the entity obsolete in the unification, depending on how you choose to look at it. The unification of space, time, and gravity for example, can we in our most honest view of nature even talk about space as an true entity in itself? You defined it as the equation for space-time, so what if space-time unifies further into the rest of nature- electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, matter/energy, quantum patterns- could we then honestly put descriptive boundaries around the entity space-time without violating it's relation to something else? If dark matter doesn't exist, that equation isn't even right.

Wayfaerer,

Xei is questioning how one could "define" an object without expressing its essential properties - properties of which an object could not be said to exist without them. Describing a particular object by its relation to other objects, outside its means of existence, would be describing its superficial properties - non-essentials in relation to that particular object. Thus, how could an object be defined by superficial properties not being apart of the object itself?

Originally Posted by Somii

Wayfaerer,

Xei is questioning how one could "define" an object without expressing its essential properties - properties of which an object could not be said to exist without them.

Yes, properties of which are mysteries. Thus, an object of which we have no idea about essentially.

Originally Posted by Somii

Describing a particular object by its relation to other objects, outside its means of existence, would be describing its superficial properties - non-essentials in relation to that particular object. Thus, how could an object be defined by superficial properties not being apart of the object itself?

This makes no sense, objects only have properties because they are in relation to others. Also, Nature is a unity, nothing is outside a superficially isolated objects means of existence. When human knowledge finds a way to express this object's relation to the rest of nature as a more essential object, it doesn't make sense as an object anymore.