My main approach to the question of the finitude vs infinitude of the universe is simply that the word “the” in the phrase “the universe” makes the implicit demand that it be finite. “A” universe might be infinite. Perhaps. But not “the” universe. And this makes sense, seeing as how “a” is an in(de)finite article, while “the” is (de)finite.
So all we must do, pace Kant, is to inspect the very form of our thinking – via its linguistic incarnation – in order to decipher this most vexing of cosmical quandries.
It makes as little sense to speak of the infinite louse or dog or tree as it makes to speak of the infinite planet or galaxy… or universe.
Infinite things simply do not “fit” into our human languages, especially in their “directly pointing,” definitive forms.
I always figured that if the universe is finite, there must be something outside of it. That could perhaps the another universe. But that would directly contradict your point about the articles!
Perhaps finite is just an identified part of infinite, and at heart infinite as well.
You may be right. I would also think it would depend upon what is meant by “the universe”. If what is meant by “the universe” is “everything”, then it may include “everything”, including other dimensions, void, empty space, or whatever it is that the expanding universe can expand into or whatever is “outside” of it. Of course, that could be finite too, who knows? It really does push the limits of human language and understanding to think about such things.
The line drawing fallacy is the dualism (false dichotomy) fallacy because it insists something be either one or the other when the other it cannot be absolutely because the other is just the absence of the one.
Nothing contradicts self=other, which maintains distinctions or there could be no one/whole.
The whole is infinite like a tessellating fractal.
That’s great but it doesn’t answer the question. Or are you siding with Kant that we simply lack the cognitive, reasoning ability to answer a question like that in the first place?
There is nothing outside the whole to limit it, so the definite whole is limitless. It is internally limited to its great making qualities, and anything which diverges merely points back to it. Whether or not we can wrap our minds around it is…immaterial.
If all goes smoothly I intend to post a comprehensive essay concerning this subject in the near future. It can already be found on my profile website link.
A thing is not infinite. The thing is limited to the thing. The pineapple is the pineapple but not the avocado. However both the pineapple and the avocado are things, both are parts of existence.
Existence, being all things, is infinite as existence is not limited to any particular.
That’s like saying a collection of any number of things is infinite because that collection itself isn’t limited to any particular. That’s silly. You could have a collection of 2 things, or 20, or 200, or 200000000000 things, or you could have a collection of all things that happen to exist at any given moment. Form a group out of all of those things and call it something, like “existence”. That doesn’t magically somehow mean that group of things which you named “existence” is now infinite.
Kant was on a good track, but we need to look at definitions. How do you define finite vs infinite? Start by trying to conceptually perfect your definitions of both of those words. Then, armed with a perfected concept, you can attempt to see if anything successfully fits inside it or not, and you’ll be able to see how and why.
And in order to do that for “existence” you’re also going to need a perfected conceptual definition of what existence means. Precisely what exists, what are the many things that we are considering to be the parts of existence? Where are they, how are they, why are they, when are they? The hardest part of defining existence is that you cannot trace its edges clearly, and Kant already knew that. Yet if we cannot have a clear definition of what something is, how can we apply our perfected conceptual definitions of finite and infinite to it? It’s impossible to get a clear result, just some fuzzy stuff. Hence the problem isn’t with the notions of finite or infinite, the problem is with our inability to form a clear conceptual understanding of existence or rather “everything without exception”. When attempting to logically contrast a clear concept with an unclear concept your result is also going to be unclear.
Every group or grouping is also an individual group or individual grouping. This is basic logic, and set theory. Even existence itself as a set has a limited range.
I can call a bird a bird, even though it’s so infinitely complex and different from everything else.
The eternal form realm allows us to abstract category. That doesn’t mean it’s finite. It’s just a feature of our universe that allows us to abstract, and by abstract, it allows us to be sentient in an infinite universe in order to be.
But not necessarily an individual. Existence is not just a thing. Existence is not just a typical object like a pineapple which is a grouping of atoms within an environment. Existence is not contained within an environment as existence is all environments. The pineapple example illustrates the futility of comparing existence to one fruit by means of a single set.
As conveyed in the essay existence is both part and whole, not simply a static collection.
Your statement must be qualified, “existence… as a set”, to emphasize restriction to a mathematical object in order to claim limitation.
Existence is not merely “a set”. Existence does include the concept.
However such a concept concerns models constructed by conscious beings. Models which are projected onto existence. Existence just is. It is not inherently mapped or modeled in such a way. It does not conform to consciously-contrived constructs.
Set theory defines a “set” as an object, a thing. Existence is not just an object, existence is not just a thing. Existence cannot be confined within the mere concept of “a set”.
Existence includes mathematics, it is not confined by it. Claiming existence as a set serves to confine existence to mathematics. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited to mathematics or even logic.
The argument restricts existence to a single mathematical object. Existence transcends mathematical objects.
Although conscious beings may utilize mathematical and logical models within existence such does not exclude aspects of being beyond those models.
That collection would be limited to that particular collection. That is why categorizing existence as “a set” and “a set” alone is restrictive.
Additionally each of those examples employs a numerable or finite number of things, the other restricted to some given moment. Each concerns limitation.
Existence is not only infinite in the sense of no restriction to any particular but also in the sense of innumerable things as conveyed in the essay.
The set theory premise refutes itself. A set, although infinite, may reside among other sets. The amount of sets having no particular limit.
Existence would not be limited to a single set or any specific number of sets. There would be limitless cascades of sets lacking any ultimate, definitive boundary. The defined range would indefinitely increase supporting the assertion that existence is infinite.
Existence is not limited to part nor limited to whole. Existence is both part and whole, existence is all. Imposing any defined range is inherently problematic and itself limitation of existence.
The premise you present attempts to limit infinitude by restricting it to countable items within a mathematical construct which itself is utilized to reveal infinitude without defined range.
As easily you claim I am expanding the finite I could claim you are restricting the infinite.