if the universe is infinite and we are a part of it, are we (humans) infinite as well. Can you ever carve out a piece that isn't infinite?

This is another question I have pondered.  If the universe is indeed infinite, then it's infinite in every direction.  Wouldn't there be as much infinite space within my body as the rest of the universe?  

Views: 405

Replies to This Discussion

Your definitions are a bit off.  The universe is not infinite.  There is a finite amount of matter in the universe, and the universe currently has boundaries ... but those boundaries are expanding as the universe expands.

I think what you might mean is that the universe is unbounded, as far as we know.  The amount of matter might be permanently set.  I don't know enough about it to answer that definitively.  The space doesn't have an upper limit, based upon my understanding, but there's a given amount of space at any given time.

Well, if by universe you mean the one known one, then yes, it is finite, but growing, but some people use the word universe to mean everything that exists in the materiel realm, and there is likely far more out there beyond what we can see (due to the speed of light, and/or other factors). Other universes, multiverse, or whatever you want to call it/them, just like larger galaxies. While we have no way yet to prove this either way, it is a far cry from being outside the realm of possibility, and the idea is gaining ground.

Mind you, this still does not alter the answer to the question, being 'no', as the comparative premise is faulty, but the amount of 'space' out there is far from a settled thing. We can only see so far back in time, at least with our current understanding/tech. Since 'nothing is faster than light', we will need some kind of crazy advance to ever learn otherwise.

Personally I find the idea of space being finite and our universe being the only thing out there as being about as improbable as a deity. After all, if there is an end to one thing, there must be a beginning of something else. On the other hand, I would never try to pass that off as a fact either, not without some proof, and odds are, we as a species will never learn otherwise.

Shy of anything like the 'Snowglobe' idea, I just can't see space just ending... The amount of matter 'is' a set thing, but that does not mean that we are aware of all of the matter that is out there. We are still discovering 'new' (to us) matter all around us. We also 'recently' discovered it is possible to use the distortion of various astral bodies to 'magnify' our perception of things, so who knows, if we survive long enough, anything is possible.

Heh, great, now all this talk of space is making me want to place Spore again, who knows how long before I can pull my nose out of it this time... ;)
Take care.

Ease up on the drugs, by the way. ^.^ I know this stuff sounds deep and meaningful, after you've had a few tokes, but it really isn't. The whole ponderable collapses under a bad category error.

haha, I certainly have benefited from the ingestion of certain things and also think it probably helped our evolution along a bit, but I like to look at things from a different perspective once in a while to escape the everyday goings on and become more aware.  We have this incredible gift (consciousness) to increase our level of awareness if we can remove the white noise once in a while (wake up, eat, work, eat, sleep, wake up, eat, work, sleep..........)

Have you forgotten that the human body needs to "wake up, eat, work, eat, and sleep", even as it needs a time of quiet contemplation and a time of recreation, whatever that means? 

Thank you for the response. I don't think there is much difference between infinitely large and small for some reason and may be describing the Big Bang in a sense. It's hard to imagine the whole universe starting the size of a pea.

Way, way smaller than the size of a pea.  The Planck Distance is a tiny fraction of the size of a proton.

The universe might be digital, when you get down to that size, though.  There might not be such a thing as infinitesimal.  I don't know enough of the math.

Yes, it is hard to imagine a whole universe starting with the size of a pea, if that large. Who knows? The wonder of looking, hearing, thinking, questioning, and doubting existing dogma, leads us to some very interesting reality. In my parent's day, there was no such think as plate tectonics, in my day as a student, there were fewer elements than students of today see on an elements table. Pluto was a planet in my day, now it is an ice ball among many ice balls of equal or larger sizes.

Although the microscope has a long history starting in the 1st century C.E. there were primitive glass microscopes and it wasn't until the 13th century that the real development of microscopes began. With modern electron microscopes we can see deeper into the small things that exist.

The telescope has a similar history of very early development that evolved into the modern telescopes that can see 13.798±0.037 billion years according to Lambda-CDM concordance model and by agreement of scientific research projects such as Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. 

As to your statement, "difference between infinitely large and small", the difference is relative to the ability of the equipment to "see" infinitely large and small. In both cases, photographs make the "seeing" possible. Homo sapiens is limited by the technology available. 

Please let me know if my thinking is incorrect!

It's hard to imagine the whole universe starting the size of a pea.

So much smaller than a pea that it's hard to imagine the universe's mass fitting into so small a volume.

During my 12 years in Catholic schools, a few nuns said it's hard to imagine the Trinity. They said it requires faith.

I'm one of many in the sciences who find Big Bang cosmology hard to imagine. I don't want to rely on faith

For a more rational (= less fantastical) take on it all, google <plasma universe>.

Did you ask the Catholic nuns whether they had considered Occam's Razor. Considered that the scientific explanation is so much simpler and has some support in data and fact. Why drag metaphysical things that cannot even be explained into a discussion of the nature of reality.

Hm-mm, an interesting point; it's reminding me of some stuff.

I was in 6th grade when a kid sister joined the family and in 8th grade when a kid brother joined. I sometimes babysat them and when they reached three I heard their streams of questions. They expertly stripped away non-essential info.

In fourth grade, after three years of daily religion classes, I had trouble stripping away non-essential info in math problems. In those religion classes I'd heard so much non-essential info that it overwhelmed the ability I'd once had.

I was in the Navy off North Korea during the Korean War (a real-world kind of place) before I studied college math or science and again learned to strip away non-essential info.

James, your question helped me see that filling kids' minds with non-essential info might account for the success of religious education.

It pumps non-essential info into kids' minds and, to keep it there, seals the openings with layers of guilt and shame. Very effective.





Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service