Thread: Space cannot be infinite

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

Well you are wrong and right. No one can explain the universe so have fun. But ig I had to come from a science view, I'd say this: Every possibility in every single life and every single decision must be played out. So with one life, theres a decision. Both are played out and you have two branches on that line. Then decisions are made for those lifves, four more branches. Then decisions on those lives and so on, and thats just for one person, but its not limited to people, thats just the example. That of course is only a Hypothesis. I don't think the universe can ever be explained by science or anything because we can't get out there to look at stuff and we weren't around at the beginning of it. These are just my views and I welcome yours.

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

It is infinite, though. When an arrow is shot, before it reaches its target, it has to go to a point from the middle of the point you shoot to the target you hit, and before that, a middle point from the actual middle point, and so on.

Originally Posted by TheBuddha

It is infinite, though. When an arrow is shot, before it reaches its target, it has to go to a point from the middle of the point you shoot to the target you hit, and before that, a middle point from the actual middle point, and so on.

Planck length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Marvo

Planck length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that you can meaningfully think of space as some kind of discrete grid isn't really accepted. It would make more sense to refer to

Calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or even just

Series (mathematics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

Everything you've ever done or thought has already occurred and will repeat itself countless times in countless places.

Space can't be infinite because eventually you'd run out of places to put it.

Explain to me what space is.

Black stuff

This is how it's said to "bend" in the presence of matter and energy, but that just makes it's open mystery even more apparent. Especially with it's expansion, quantum fluctuations, and whatnot.

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

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.

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?

Black non-stuff*

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Black non-stuff*

No.

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.

Originally Posted by Somii

No.

Yeah huh!

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

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



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.

You have failed to understand.

Hold on, aren't you from that Inner Sanctum crowd? Whachu doin in here, boy?

Originally Posted by Somii

You have failed to understand.

Hold on, aren't you from that Inner Sanctum crowd? Whachu doin in here, boy?

Good point, I completely understand now. I'm not from any crowd, if I am I've seldom met any of the members.

Originally Posted by Somii

You have failed to understand.

Hold on, aren't you from that Inner Sanctum crowd? Whachu doin in here, boy?

This is a massive pussful of fail. You not only dismiss someone's argument rather than apply critical thinking to actually discover why you think they're wrong, but the way you dismiss them is by implying they're not good enough at critical thinking to take you on.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This is a massive pussful of fail. You not only dismiss someone's argument rather than apply critical thinking to actually discover why you think they're wrong, but the way you dismiss them is by implying they're not good enough at critical thinking to take you on.

Correct. Except the fail and me not criticizing his rebuttal parts. I did the latter in mah head.


Omnis, non-stuff cannot have an attribute, for an attribute must be contained in or in relation to stuff. Black is a property of color, which is an attribute of stuff. Therefore, non-stuff cannot be black. :. your idea of space cannot exist

I could just as easily stomp on his idea, albeit less inane than your light-heart one, but I've given the liberty for someone else to do so. Would you like to do it?


Join the Dark side Omnis, or should I say, Omnii. o.0