Does infinity exist in our universe? Really is my question.
I mean if you look at any object or objects in our universe they all seem to be limited in number not infinate.
Planets galaxies stars etc… all seem to exist in a definate number.
Even time by our own perception seems to be definate yet not infinate.
Now i understand that the universe is truly massive but is it truly infinate? Do we have any examples of infinaty in our own universe other than our own perception of its size?
well, i have to agree with this guy, and i remember this:
Isaiah 40:26 “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
this verse seems to indicate a definate number.
The a priori concept of space that we carry around in our heads goes off to infinity in every direction, but I wouldn’t venture to say that the universe does too.
You won’t find answers to these questions in the bible or the koran 
of course. infinity is our universe. our universe is infinity.
as well you and everything that exist in the universe is also infinite.
i dont think that the universe is infinite, space might be but that raises some very strange questions…
What i do know is that humans tend to give the atribute of “infinit” to almost all the things they cannot comprehend, it is indeed strange.
The one place i know infinit exists is mathematics, thats a correct use of the term infinite, and a quit demonstration would be this:
No matter what largest number you can think of i can always add +1 and get a larger one because otherwise the principles of mathematics would be flawed.
And because mathematics is not invented, nor given to humans but is discovered, we can conclude that it was always here and was always like this.
Moreover since mathematics is a constant we can say that if you remove everything that exists mathematical principles will still apply because they are “fix”, they cannot be changed in either way.
So this hipothesis if prooven correct might give us some grounds to dissmiss various statements such as: God is ALLPOWERFUL. In which case we could dissmiss this statement by concludion that god is not allpowerful because he cannot make it so that 11+3=78. So god might be a super-being, but he cannot be allpowerful because of this constancy of mathematics.
I remember some scientist calling mathematics “the science of god” not in the sense that he was disscovering god though it, but that if god really existed he would have to use mathematics.
Also, mathematics is not only an abstract science, which works outside our normal space aswell but also is outside of time itself, because the statement 1+3=4 is correct at any given “time” and does not requier for time to pass for it to happen, it just simply IS.
This would be a case of what i was saying, because humans cannot comprehend infinity they tend to give this atribute to everything else which they cant comprehend. The number of stars cannot be infinite, nor can the number of galaxies be infinite, however they are in such large numbers that people quicly gave them the atribute of “infinite”.
I have not heard cosmologists use the term “infinite” for the univers in a long while, might it be that they are reconsidering ?
Early cosmologists gave the atribute of “infinite” to our own galaxy, and where shattered when they discovered that there are billions of other galaxies.
I had a beer in the pub last nigh that I simply could not finish. Does that constitute an ideal if infinity? It certainly did for me.
yes it does for you, cause your stomach is finite 
it cant take in more beer than its supposed to. and just because that is “infinity” to you, it doesnt mean it is infinity to an elephant which can drink alot more beer then you can.
Check out this thread.
IMO, our understanding of maths is rooted in our a priori concept of space. So whilst its true that we discover its rules, we do so from a subjective rather than objective ground, so we can’t say it was “always there”. By analogy, we could say that chess and all the possible moves and games therein were always there, when in fact they all immediately sprang-up as possibilities the moment the rules were invented.
i think infinity can just exist in our minds
you cant compare math and chess on that level… chess was invented, could it have been invented any other way ? yes… could math had been “invented” any other way ? NO.
i have a hunch you’ve directed me to that post only cause your proud of your replys there which are indeed quite interesting, but how the perceptionless minds’ discovery of math affects this topic is beyond me.
still i though of this little question:
(i’ve been debating weather or not a human being born without any senses, with the complete lack of sensorial perseption could develop conciousness with my friends who are also interested in philosophy, here in my home town, and we’ve reached the conclusion that such a human would never develop conciousness; if you’d like me to i could get into that in another post)
Is it possible that 2 perceptionless minds, who never met eachother, could come up with different forms of math ? (and we should focus on the simple forms (because we know that for more complex math there are usualy more than 1 ways of reaching the correct answer)
So could 1 person find that 8:2=4 and another that 8:2=126 ? i dont see that likely.
Then the question arises, If something abstract can only exist in 1 form, does it have a begining ?, Does 1+3=4 have a begining ? Could “god” have invented mathematics so that 1+3=541 ? i think not.
So i’m sorry but your analogy doesnt make sense.
Again, my reasoning is that even though there was suposedly NEVER someone to discover mathematics prior to the human being, does mathmetics start to exist only when it is thought of, or has it always been there, dictating the way the atoms are put together ?
Moreover, if you were to “invent” something which could have not been invented by anyone any other way is that not a discovery ? i think it is, a discovery of a FACT, which everyone will discover precisely the same.
Why not? show me proof of the a priori existence of distinct singular entities…
i cant, but why should that affect the way mathematics is ?
Mathematics is said to be the expression for understanding all that is measurable in the universe.
If mathematics has a representation of infiniteness, then it follows that there is equal representation in the universe. Whether we are aware of that representation or not, is more the question at hand.
If you can’t even show me an a priori basis for the number 1 (the most basic unit of mathematics) then your argument that it couldn’t have been invented in any other way (that the one which assumes distinct singular entities) doesn’t stand up…
It would be interesting to preform an experiment involving music on someone who has not been exposed to numbers at all. I don’t know who such a person would be, or where to find one…
But basically, since most proper music is based on mathematics, the experiment could appeal to the question of a priori number concepts in the sense that if an actual song sounds more ‘right’ than the off rythme, random noise song it might give us an indication as to whether our conception of math is based on some pre-existing notion.
Err wait… actually I don’t know.
Random thought.
Carpathian
Haha 
- to blow my own trumpet, yes, I am happy with my posts in that thread, and I do think that that thread was relevant here, as I believe that our notion of infinity has the same origin as does our math(s).
Re chess and maths: on the contrary, I think the comparison is very apt. The moment you create a set of cartesian axes, Pythagora’s Theorem (for example) becomes a truth thereupon. It is a consequent of its ground, as is all other maths, from algebraic manipulations to vector calculus. Likewise, as soon as modern chess was devised, fool’s mate (for example) became a property of the system. The fact that the rules of chess can be tweaked is besides the point - the crux of the matter is the idea of a ground and its consequents.
I agree with you that it’s impossible for A + B to equal C or D, but I’d add that the reason A + B only has one form for every person is because they all share the same a priori concept of space.
The issue of whether or not maths exists in other places apart from animal-brains is something I’ve been thinking about recently. I’m not ready to comment yet…
Finally, regarding the person with no perceptions, I think Kant answered this one with this famous quote: “Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.” In short, this hypothetical person would know sweet FA.
Mastriani
I’m not happy with that description of mathematics…
SIATD
Sensible replies.
Old_Gobbo
I recommend “On the Metaphysics of Music” from Volume 2 of The World as Will and Representation.
Given the way that our intellect appears to be doing business, it stands to reason that talking about infinity in matters of unmediated experience is just chasing one’s tail (which he doesn’t even possess, for that matter) in a never ending fox-hunt. False premises lead to false conclusions, even when these are contradictory and apparently one’s (in)validity excludes the other’s.
Talking about the world as object of a possible experience, one talks about objects in space and time, given as experience and judged only in terms of one’s internal representation. Or, wondering about the width of the world in space and time, it is quite impossible to determine (using our arsenal of concepts) whether the world is finit or otherwise. This is because none of these answers can be integrated by our experience, being that we are unable to feel an infinit space and a stream of time that flows forever, or the limitation of the world through an entity void of spatial or temporal determinations.
Coming next to a town near you, proof for a prioric entities making math possible even for a two-year old.
Is the amount of idiocy in the universe limited by any known factor? I would say no
.: infinity
Sonata, consider Hubble’s discovery of the red shift of the galaxies.
If you took physics in high school you probably know of the Dopper effect, and it’s impact on sound waves. Take a race car for example, when it is moving towards you it gets louder and louder…because the sound waves are being pushed up against each other creating a higher frequency…thus the sound intensifies…when it travels away from you, the sound waves are no longer being pushed against each other, but drawn out…thus producing a lower frequency identified by a quieting of the sound.
This same effect applies to light waves. Hubble found that when using a spectrograph(?) I believe it was called, galaxies gave off a red shifting color…which is produced when the light waves are being drawn out much like the race car when its getting quieter. On the other hand, when an object is moving closer to us, the waves are pushed up against each other producing a blue color.
This discovery was huge and informed physicists and astronomers that the universe is actually expanding.
So take a picture at any given second and the universe is finite…if u want to talk about the limits as to how long it could continue to grow, I don’t know.