You said “You seem to have it stuck in your head that infinity is an actual thing. It isn’t.” So I said “For the sake of argument, I will try your approach and say there is no actually infinite thing.” It may not be what you meant. But it is what you said.
Right, so let’s discuss this point then. So you said:
I take this as you meaning that the entire universe is infinite. If it’s infinite in scope, then it’s infinite. It cannot be infinite in scope and yet not infinite at the same time. So:
Is the universe such that it had no beginning and has no end on any level, degree or dimension? (by this I mean it truly has no bounds/limits in any aspect or dimension. For example, a room that has a finite length and height, but is endless in terms of width in both directions, is still limited in length and height, thus it is not truly unlimited)
If you don’t think the universe is this way, then how do you account for the paradox of something coming from nothing? If you do think the universe is this way, can you give me one other thing that also has no beginning and no end on any level, degree, or dimension?
Right. And if X is not surrounded by anything, then X is Infinite is it not? Consider the following:
X is Infinite, therefore, there is nothing beyond it or outside of it or surrounding it or encompassing it because nothing can encompass actual Infinity.
Y is finite, therefore, there is something beyond it or outside of it or surrounding it or encompassing it because something can encompass finite things. Infinity is one such thing, as are all bigger finite things and semi-infinite things.
You are still not understanding what I actually said. You conflate “infinity” with “infinite”. Those are two different concepts. The former doesn’t exist as a valid concept. It is a “square-circle” - “the end point of endlessness”. The latter is merely another word for “endless”.
As stated I don’t think that is true. The universe has limits on certain issues - only 3-dimensions, speed of light, many more.
I think it is a simple matter of definition that something cannot come from nothing. If something came from t, it wasn’t nothing. Nothing = that which has no affect.
Being only 3 dimensional does not make a thing limited when there is nothing beyond 3-dimensionality. Also, how does the speed of light being limited = the universe being limited?
Your imagination had a beginning. Thus it is limited in this aspect is it not?
Which is limited in some way and which is not limited in any way: That which has no beginning and no end, or, that which has a beginning but no end?
Or are they both equally unlimited/infinite?
Ok, I will not call that which is actually infinite ‘infinity’ in our discussion anymore.
If I said to a child you can have an unlimited number of cookies so long as it’s not more than 3, then I am of course being silly and contradictory. If I say to you “Being only 3 dimensional does not make a thing limited” when there is something beyond 3-dimensionality, then again, I am being silly and contradictory. But if there is nothing beyond 3-dimensionality and I express this, then I would not describe me as saying something silly.
You cannot meaningfully describe that which is Omnipresent as being limited, when you cannot meaningfully conceive of how it can be less limited can you? Can you conceive of 4-dimensionality? Does “Being only 3 dimensional does not make a thing limited when there is nothing beyond 3-dimensionality.” still seem silly to you?
The universe also can’t produce a round square or a gsjiofgj, yet I would not call the universe as being limited because of this. To show something is limited, you have to meaningfully show this. You cannot present absurdities (faster than light travel) or unknowns (more than 4-dimensionality) as meaningful objections or responses to an argument. If you think it paradoxical for something to be faster than the speed of light, then you do not describe the inability to produce something like this as being a limit on the thing that is unable to produce it.
x is meaningfully doable. y can’t do x. y is therefore limited.
z is hypothetically impossible and therefore meaningless. y can’t do z. It doesn’t matter because z is meaningless.
Suppose you reach the very end of X, the border of X. Nothing is in front of you. Can you go into this nothingness? Or is there some wall that prohibits this? A wall that separates the existing universe from its inner side, and the existing non-existence/nothingness from its outside?
Suppose that the room I currently sit in is the entire universe meaning there’s nothing outside of it. What does that mean? Does it mean there’s “existing non-existence” outside of the room? I wouldn’t say so. I would say it merely means that no matter how hard I tried, I would never succeed in leaving the room and observing what’s outside of it. Indeed, regardless of who was in the room, and regardless of what they tried, they would never manage to step outside of it.
Not at all. I don’t see how you could think it makes sense that the universe has only 3 of something yet has no limit on that thing. It is like you are defining “no limit” or “infinite” as “whatever the universe has” on any concern or measurement. It just seems ridiculous.
Political liberals do that but we all accept that they are a bit brainless hypocrites.
I don’t think you’ve focused on the point I’m trying to make. This is a yes or no question:
For you to be able to conceive of something as being limited, you must be able to conceive of a less limited version of it, do you not?
With that being said, have you conceived of a 4-dimensional universe?
I don’t think you can speak for all people. You are not omniscient.
I am using the label ‘universe’ to find common ground with regards to that semantic that I call ‘Existence’ and you call ‘universe’. I want it to be clear and not lost in discussion that the universe that originated from the Big Bang (the one that our scientists describe), cannot be that semantic we are discussing. Hence why I choose to say Existence/Universe (with a capital U) is at least 3D infinite. I cannot conceive of it being more than 3D. But I also do not conceive that it is absurd for it to be more than 3D in the same way that I conceive it to be absurd for something to be both round and square at the same time. Hence why I say, at least.
In any case, you didn’t answer my question:
For you to be able to conceive of something as being limited, you must be able to conceive of a less limited version of it, do you not?
The answer is relevant to the point I’m trying to prove with regards to distinguishing between that which is truly infinite (completely unbound or unlimited), and that which is partially unbound or unlimited.
So you think that there is something beyond infinitely far away? How can you get past infinite without just finding more infinite? Infinite has no end to get past.
I guess you missed my post… it was quite elaborate, where I said that Space and the Universe are not one and the same, but that the Universe is simply occupying a part of Space. If the Universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old, then that scenario makes sense, rather than saying there was nothing before… which is an impossibility, so that just leaves the question… how did Space come to be?
This: “Ultimately, this means that we could only reach the edge of the observable universe if we develop a method of transport that allows us to either 1) Travel faster than the speed of light (something which most physicists think is impossible) 2) Transcend spacetime (by using wormholes or warp drive, which most physicists also think is impossible).”
Is hilarious…
I think most people accept that “the universe” includes all space along with everything in it. But okay, you want to separate what we can see, the matter, and what we can’t see, the relatively void space between.
And as to how the universe came to be - I have been utterly convinced that the universe has always been and will always be. Along with that is what I believe to be fact that there is no space that is not filled completely with some form of radiant energy or light - “no matter where you are in space, light comes into your eyes” so obviously light is there and everywhere else as well. No matter how far beyond a supposed confined universe you traveled you would be able to look back and see it. So again obviously you are still immersed in light.
And I imagine that if anyone could get to the proposed “edge” of the observable universe they would see almost the exact same thing as before they ventured there - there is no edge - only a limit to how far you can see. The supposed edge would merely move just as far away as it was before you started.
Yes I saw that too. I forgave it because it said “observable universe”. And I believe that both 1 and 2 are impossible.
