If infinite, would the Universe be too hot?

[vandivx]

always feels good that one has made some difference, it (infinity) needed ventilating as did time concept<br /><br />its not like I see red when people use these terms wrong way, rather I see it as unproductive - wrong usage never leads to anything constructive as it in fact cannot, personally I am not here on forum just to get some entertainment or that I find science interesting or put people down in arguments, I am trying my hand at solving some puzzles in physics and forum like this one serves as a testing ground for one's ideas and also as a place to find out what people out there think and what pet theories they have of their own <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> (like bonzelite has the 'gravitation as matter expansion' theory, not sure if he has it written up someplace, mostly people seem to have just isolated ideas that they never tried to seriously develop and write down)<br /><br />I found over years that some concepts which are absolutely essential when you ponder physical theories are also foggy and badly used and that there is no source you could read up on how it really is, you got to figure it out yourself and that's what I did with time, infinity, imaginary number, inertia/mass... because you have to have clear and correct idea what those terms mean in order that you might come up with something new even if its just correcting past mistakes (science is littered with those) <br /><br />it is fine to have wrong notion of time, infinity and what not else if all one wants is to discuss things without ambition of ever coming up oneself with some new theories in physics/astronomy or if one doesn't mind that those theories or ideas he will come up with won't be correct and will never make it into official science history <br /><br />I wonder sometimes how many here have tried their hand at working on new theories or reworking the old ones and carry it far enough to write it down for publishing on web as opposed to having a single idea that people people sometim <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"IN fact, in mathematics, 'infinity' is an allowed concept. Such expressions litter quantum mechanics and create real problems in solving the equations."<br />------------<br />I hope I don't come accross as being against infinity in mathematics, as to those problems in QM I see the only way out is to understand exactly what infinity is about, that is the only hope in this case of resolving some issues with infinities<br /><br />-----------------------------------<br />"Pi and other irrational numbers like the Sq. root of 2, for example, have no final digit. For all intents and purposes the 'last digit of pi" or the sq. root of 2, for example, have an infinite extent, mathematically.<br /><br />the same is true of the depths of the Mandelbrot fractal. There is no final digit, no final level of investigation. Mathematically, it's infinite in extent."<br />----------------------<br /><br />keyword is 'Mathematically' with which I aggree<br /><br />'infinite extent' is I believe synonymous (not sure that's the right word, perhaps equivalent is better) with 'open ended' - it is just looking at the series at hand from a different perspective - and I prefer and would advise people to use the later terminology because it is not loaded with bad misuse that the infinite is or at least think of it as open ended for themselves when they ponder it or when they want to think more clearly, it is not easy to think with infinities even if one knows what it is about, period<br /><br />what you said there about Pi or sq rt of 2 and fractals is true also of number series which is also infinite in extent but 'open ended' seems to describe its nature better, there is no limit to numbers and one can't talk about last digit (which is why you put that into quote marks) <br /><br />physical reality is never open ended or infinite in extent like these various mathematical series are, when we apply them to describe (enumerate) reality we always apply some finite subset of these series and the infinity comes <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

infinity itself is a man-created idea, ie, there is no ojective infinity that exists anywhere --no such state of existence may even exist. infinity exists largely as an abstraction, quickly expressed symbolically through math; it is in this regard that the cosmos may be far beyond the infinite in scope, entirely off-the-map if you will. it is my view that nothing we have presently is able to contain or engender what "is." the dark abyss of space is indeterminant despite claims otherwise. <br /><br />what state of "actual" existence the cosmos assumes is currently beyond grasp of comprehension. finite and infinite are more than likely untrue models for the cosmos. the physical veneer of the cosmos that our human senses experience is not necessarily the "true" existence. our finite and infinite are precepts derived from only what we are able to experience through our physical being, akin to being tuned into but one radio broadcast when, "really" or "actually," tens of thousands of simultaneous broadcasts are happening. indeed, there may be only "one" universe, but we are merely experiencing the froth on the waves of this existence, scarcely aware of what is really happening.

 

[oscar1]

"So calling any real event 'infinite' is simply meaningless. Calling it "unbounded without known limit", or effectively 'unlimitted', is far more within the observational facts."<br /><br />Although I have no problem with that statement, I can't really see the difference in meaning between 'infinite' and 'unlimited'. Evenso, when the universe is so large that we humans cannot [possibly ever] detect any boundary, we should perhaps rather use the word 'googal'. That aside, the trouble is that if we accept that we will be unable to establish a boundary, we cannot use a boundary to prove that the Big Bang theory is yee or nee correct. <br />

 

[bonzelite]

this is well put:<br /><br />"Too many times we try to see what's going on in our universe and we end up looking at ourselves, our desires, our beliefs, rather an independent universe of events. We find what we want to find. We are not holding up a glass lens to examine the universe, but a simple, self reflecting mirror, which shows us ourselves. "<br /><br />and this is exactly what comprises our empiricism. our cosmology ulitmately reflects our own limits.

 

[bonzelite]

"To state that empirical methods of the sciences do not escape these limits, is likely mistaken. To say that we have limits is a truism, but those limits do not necessarily mean that what we observe and prove is going on, is necessarily ONLY a measure of our limits. "<br /><br />the empirical methods are humanly-derived and permanently trapped in a humanistic limitation of perception. even if a supercomputer is developed that can "see" beyond ourselves, it, too, is designed within a sentient-man point of reference; it's data derived and analysed under current belief systems. <br /><br />the "external universe" to ourselves is what our senses and technologies measure that is from a primary human understanding. what lies externally beyond that cannot be perceived. this is why finite and infinite are not necessarily ever describing the cosmos in terms of it's state of existence. it's "true" or "external to man" nature cannot ever be known as long as we are couched in our humanity. it can only provide to us a mirror of ourselves. empiricism is limited by biased experience of human observation, and observation is limited to human perception, belief, devices derived by humans, and data collected and interpreted under human bias. <br /><br />

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"infinity itself is a man-created idea, ie, there is no ?? ojective infinity that exists anywhere --no such state of existence may ?? even exist. infinity exists largely ?? as an abstraction, quickly ?? expressed symbolically through math; it is in this regard that the cosmos may be far beyond the infinite in scope, entirely off-the-map if you will. it is my view that nothing we have presently is able to contain or engender what "is." the dark abyss of space is indeterminant despite claims otherwise."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />------------<br />first it is 'no', then it is 'may' and it ends in 'largely' and 'quickly' ... witness the gradual softening by which bonzelite is paving the way to finale leading us to the that mystical land of his making - to "far beyond the infinite in scope, entirely off-the-map" realm<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"indeed, there may be only "one" universe, but we are merely experiencing the froth on the waves of this existence, scarcely aware of what is really happening."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />-----<br />fortunately we have bonzelite who KNOWS and who will tell us because he has knowledge or rather intuition of that uknowable existence which exists beyond this knowable existence, i.e., of the Kantian nomenal realm <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Let's take a look at the concept of 'infinite'. If a point were stated to be infinitely small, how would one ever find it? No conceivable measuring instrument could confirm it. No one or lab could. If an event were stated to be infinitely far away, how would one ever discover that? No one could. Because even if one went 100 giga light years further, one might possibly find an end. And so forth. It's simply not confirmable.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />employing 'non confirmability' to argue that infinitesimal/infinite do not exist as objective reality is potentially very much misleading because it is a negative argument/proof and so allows for existence of infinity in physical reality and resulting scepticism that we can ever know reality (see bonzelite's posts)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The same impossibilty is also true for the concept of 'perfection'. If one were to state that a circle were perfectly round, one could measure it to the limits of accuracy of one's instruments, but could not state that the circle was perfectly round, either. Measurement at a higher degree of precision might show a deviation from perfection.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />'perfect' is contextual, i.e., not absolutistic concept, you can have total perfection existing in a given context which alone determines what passes for perfect, for example in the context of clay pottery hand making on leg powered potters wheel it is possible to make perfectly round pot while its roundness woudn't be enough if you talked about precission engineered ball bearing casing the perfection of which beats the pot's by miles, but that's simply because we talk about quite different context in each case, pottery never need be so exact and we judge its perfection in its own context<br /><br />using concepts in such absolutistic ways is bound to slip into scepticism before long, one way or another<br /><br /><blockquote></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I can't really see the difference in meaning between 'infinite' and 'unlimited'.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />those terms are just taking different perspective views on the same phenomenon, i.e., the number series is infinite which means that it is endless, open ended which means it is not limited, i.e., it is unlimited<br /><br />physical reality is always definite, finite, close ended, bounded, delimited (that means limited - except that term has conotation that can be wrongly interpreted, better is to use the term delimited which means the same thing)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I don't find it too difficult to understand that mortals such as us cannot ever comprehend infinity, mathematically or otherwise."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />vanDivX: "but you do realize that us mortals are the only ones who can ever comprehend anything..." <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No I don't, because I don't know if we are the only ones. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />ANY intelligent mortals whatsover "cannot ever comprehend infinity", nobody ever could - Terestrials or Extra Terestrials, that is in a physical sense, infinity can be perfectly understood and comprehended as long as it is understood that it is a tool of the method of mathematics, everthing else is pure mysticism<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[witgenestone]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> vanDivX: "but you do realize that us mortals are the only ones who can ever comprehend anything..." <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />How can you know?

 

[alokmohan]

I remember Immanuel Kants philosophy,what do we know in knowing?

 

[weeman]

Us mortals might have some limits to the things we can comprehend. However, the human brain in a way can be infinite. The human imagination doesn't really have any boundries whatsoever, so can we conclude that it's infinite?<br /><br />As for comprehending such things, like inifinity, it is hard for us to grasp the thought. We can talk about infinity, and understand what it represents, but for us to try and comprehend a neverending thing often gives us a headache! I believe that the Universe is so vast, and the laws of science can be so extreme, maybe humans aren't necessarily supposed to grasp the concepts. Not to say that it is impossible for us to learn more mysteries of the Universe, but its the Universe's size and very existence that eludes our comprehension in so many ways. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[witgenestone]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Us mortals might have some limits to the things we can comprehend. However, the human brain in a way can be infinite. The human imagination doesn't really have any boundries whatsoever, so can we conclude that it's infinite? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />May well be, but then do you also think a mind born in nothingness would imagine?<br /><br />Sometimes I would think that this view isnt necessarily optimistic. Even if the mind was unlimited, it would be tragic, since the universe - in its reality or unconceivable reality - would never correspond to our unlimited minds. At least if we follow the logic of other posters in this thread. <br /><br />Wordsworth's words: <br /><br />"my voice proclaims <br />How exquisitely the individual Mind <br />(And the progressive powers perhaps no less <br />Of the whole species) to the external World <br />Is fitted:--and how exquisitely, too, <br />Theme this but little heard of among Men, <br />The external World is fitted to the Mind . . "

 

[vandivx]

" In reply to:<br /><br /> vanDivX: "but you do realize that us mortals are the only ones who can ever comprehend anything..."<br /><br /><br /><br />How can you know?"<br />---------------------------------------<br /><br />I can see how radical that sounds and now I also see how it can be misinterpreted to mean 'us human mortals living here on Earth' <br /><br />I meant it quite generally that 'mortals' could be Martians or Aldebarans as well as Earthlings and that intelligence/comprehension implies mortality as does anything living, I don't believe in immortal intelligence/life<br /><br />I also don't believe that some other (mortal) intelligence out there somewhere could ever understand infinity existing in physical realm as an actual atribute of things (entities, universe etc.)<br /><br />however seeing your other post here about "mind born in nothingness" I think you should go back reading your sci-fi <br />I feel helpless arguing or explaining anything to you, not meant to be offending, just statement of fact, I thought this forum was about science, not fiction<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, the human brain in a way can be infinite. The human imagination doesn't really have any boundries whatsoever, so can we conclude that it's infinite?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />interesting suggestion but you'd be surprised if you realized how mind is limited to reality, totally and inescapably and per necessity despite the fact that we can apparently leave reality (and rationality) behind us when fantasizing ('apparently' because we can't ever leave it behind)<br /><br />those who think themselves free thinkers and open minds cannot ever escape this reality we were born into and of which we are physically as well as spiritually part<br /><br />even the wildest science fiction you have ever read or the wildest imagination you have ever had is 100% based on reality one way or another - no matter how we try to depart from it or try to negate it, even the negation is negation of this reality we live in, we have no way of getting beyond reality in our thinking at all and our minds are fully limited that way<br /><br />BTW I have nothing against science fiction, I read it (some of it) too but I like to keep that separate from science which in its way is even more exciting and surprising than sci-fi can ever be, in fact most sci-fi writers are terribly conventional with hardly much in the way of fresh ideas, they just repeat several basic premises that were already beat to death long ago, it is very hard to come up with something new<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

Van: <br />first it is 'no', then it is 'may' and it ends in 'largely' and 'quickly' ... witness the gradual softening by which bonzelite is paving the way to finale leading us to the that mystical land of his making - to "far beyond the infinite in scope, entirely off-the-map" realm <br /><br />bonz: the mystical land of which you speak is the cosmos, and that is far beyond ability of humanity to contain. methodology to contain the universe within a model is, to make a pun, literally shooting in the dark. the physical veneer of what we comprehend is mirrored back through a human filter of perception and belief. and it is a primary myopic folly of mankind to presume that the ultimate age, structure, size, dimension, physiology, scope of the universe is "pretty much nailed down."<br /><br />Van: fortunately we have bonzelite who KNOWS and who will tell us because he has knowledge or rather intuition of that uknowable existence which exists beyond this knowable existence, i.e., of the Kantian nomenal realm <br /><br />bonz: evidently you are making a backhanded compliment? regardless, i'm flattered. at best, cosmology is a soft-science deeply couched in conjecture and fallacy. many pillars of what is considered to be known make no sense whatsoever upon closer scrutiny.

 

[bonzelite]

Van: infinity can be perfectly understood and comprehended as long as it is understood that it is a tool of the method of mathematics, everthing else is pure mysticism <br /><br />bonz: i agree with this ^^^<br /><br />this is why i maintain that the cosmos is beyond the infinite. it is beyond what our models depict. finite and infinite do not apply to our universe. these ideas cannot contain the unknown.

 

[weeman]

Reality can certainly govern all of our imagination. However, even if the components of reality are involved, the imagination can still go crazy. If you calculated every different thought of imagination, from every single human who has existed on Earth, it may very well be a much larger number than there are stars in the known Universe. However, it wouldn't be close to the thoughts of imagination that would still be created in the minds of generations to come.<br /><br />Do you follow what I am saying?<br /><br />So if this pattern were to continue, and humans were to exist for a very very long time from now, imagination would still have room to expand. So, even if our imagination is governed by the reality around us, it could still, in a sense, be infinite. At least this is the way I see it. <br /><br />If you took every single thing that could be classified as reality (a real thing), wrote it down on a piece of paper, then threw it into a hat, the number of combinations would be ASTRONOMICAL! It would be a number bigger than anything else in the Universe. The number would most likely be larger than the number that represents the total number of atoms in the observable universe! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yes, i see what you are saying. <br /><br />the closest non-mathematical premise for an infinite entity is the mind or consciousness. it is apparently endless and occupies no physical dimension. this realm can be argued to be larger than the physical cosmos. <br /><br />purely mathematcial infinities exist. one could argue, then, that an infinity does exist, as it can be represented by a mathematical model. the question is then: is the model alone the infinity? or is there an entity of an infinity beyond only a model? as in the mind? <br /><br />

 

[oscar1]

I don't think infinity exists in a common mathematical sense, for whatever I do with infinity mathematically, the answer would always have to be 'infinity'. However, if I devide 0 by 2, I end up with two times 0; this can be, because I can indeed have two times nothing, at least for argument's sake. Yet, if I devide infinity by two, I'd end up with two times infinity, although I can't get this parallel. I can somehow imagine that, because I know no better than that there was infinity before I was born, and shall there be infinity again after I die. This could indicate that there is indeed infinity, but does this go hand and hand with intervals. If that is so, than mathematics can deal with infinity, or rather, with the lumps of it 'around' us. That would land us in the world of QM on a macro scale, in that infinity would be both finite and infinite.

 

[tdamskov]

Too bad this thread is running a bit askew.. I was looking forward to some qualified debate around Olbers Paradox. Although Cantor dust is a theoretical solution, current observations seem to confirm a finite universe and evolving universe.<br /><br />No steady state proponents wishing to argue against Olbers Paradox?

 

[oscar1]

You are right that we deviated from the original question, and got stuck into only the phenomenon 'infinity'.<br /><br />From my point of view, since we more or less believe that there are [many] Black Holes, we already could have an answer as to why we don't receive the light from all the stars. In addition, there could be many universes, which themselves could behave like Black Holes, in that light might not be able to escape a single universe.

 

[tdamskov]

Black holes won't be the solution to Olbers Paradox.<br /><br />In an infinite universe, each black hole would keep receiving light and cosmic particles for an infinite time amount of time, which means they would keep growing in size/weight.<br /><br />Black holes cause lensing which should be detectable if they were obscuring light. Unless one assumes that the universe only contains large amounts of black holes at extreme distances (a backdrop). Oops. There goes the basic scientific assumption of an isotropic universe <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />It is true that there could be other universes - but wouldn't they be subject to the same thermodynamic laws which prevent our own from being infinite in time and energy?<br />

 

[oscar1]

Who is to tell us that light doesn't become part of the background noise after having travelled in its own right for some 13,5 bio. years? <br /><br />And I would regard an infinite number (can I use 'number' when I mention 'infinity'?) of universes as the 'all-inclusive universe' being infinite. One could even stretch that further, and argue that there could be clusters of universes, and clusters of clusters, infinitely.