Knowledge of finite and infinite

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

anew1:
Since no one has even come anywhere close to refuting ‘the claim’ that the Universe is infinite, and eternal this Fact remains unchallenged.

So, number 1 of the unambiguous already irrefutably proven Facts is:

When the ‘Universe’ word is defined as, Everything; All there is; Totality, then the Universe is infinite and eternal.

K: these statements lead me to a point I have meaning to
work out…

If you want ‘‘real’’ facts, how about this… that human beings are
finite being, that they are finite in everything about them…
including their knowledge… so, how does finite mind, limited
in it’s abilities and capacities, how does this finite mind
come to any conclusion about an infinite universe? we are limited,
finite in senses, intellect, knowledge, so how do we know that the
universe is eternal and infinite? What allows a limited being to know
if something is infinite and eternal? So, how does a universe like ours
in which has nothing within it being infinite and eternal… in other words,
what in our universe is, without a doubt, is infinite and eternal?
Are human beings infinite and eternal? nope, how about the very
planet we stand on? If something can come into being, then that
means it can also go out of being…and earth is clearly finite,
as it was made roughly 4 billion years ago… and I do note
that where this sun, our sun, is sitting on the same place that
an earlier sun and planets stood, a system that had a supernova
and eventually created us from that supernova… but Kropotkin,
how do we know this?.. science works best within a finite field…
science has a real problem with anything that is infinite and eternal
because how does one measure the infinite/eternal? and to create
matter, one needs matter… as other solar systems are created by
the exact same means, with dust collected by gravity which
after many years, millions of years, eventually coalesce into a sun
and planets… that is our understanding of the creation of other
solar systems… and why should we be any different in our own
creation? and this is not anything that is infinite or eternal…
which means our finite senses and limited knowledge, can figure
this out… so, how does the finite gain knowledge of the infinite?

Kropotkin

2

The law of identity forbids actual infinites. The universe is the collection of all existing things. There can’t be an infinite number of things. There is the number, and not more or less. Even if we can’t count them all, we know there is a definite number. No fact can overturn the law of identity.

The universe is finite yet eternal, with no beginning or end in time.

3

By means of reason. We don’t need absolute certainty. We need and can have contextual certainty. Omniscience is an invalid standard of knowledge.

4

could you fill in the missing steps here? The Law of Identity (A = A) requires every existing thing to be identical to itself. If there are infinite things, and every single one of those things is exactly what it is, the Law of Identity is perfectly satisfied. Infinity doesn’t mean ‘identityless’; it just means unbounded. But perhaps you had some other argument in mind.

The you have an infinity of moments or events and this should also cause problems with the law of identity - not that it does, but if it does in spatial infinity with its phenomena it should also cause problems with all those phenomena in time.

5

No. Time is not an entity. It’s a sequential change. This meshes with physics, which says that time began with the expansion of the universe. Time has a beginning within existence and is necessarily finite. The Big Bang does not mark the beginning of existence. It marks a transition from one state of existence to another; from quantum to classical. Before the universe expanded, time was a potential that became actual when things began to change. Think of the universe before the Big Bang as a runner at the starting blocks, in a state of static readiness. As soon as the gun goes off, the stopwatch begins. However long the race lasts, it’s not infinite. Without the runner, there’s nothing to measure.

6

You are smuggling in a false premise. You are treating time as if it were an independently existing entity. It’s not. It’s a measurement. Measurements are quantitative. Quantities have identity. They can’t be infinite.

7

I haven’t said it was.

You said it was eternal.

Eternal is infinite time.

8

I haven’t said time is an entity. I see nothing in your responses showing how the law of identity precludes an infinite universe.

9

I said existence is eternal.

10

You may not have said it, but you are treating it as a primary. Time is derivative. There has to be some change or relative motion to measure and both presuppose the thing that changes or moves. Therefore, time presupposes existence.

11

OK, but the word ‘eternal’ refers to infinite time. So, if existence is eternal, it is temporally infinite.

12

I don’t think I am taking a stand on the issue here. I am pointing out that you have an infinity here. And still nothing about the law of identity precluding an infinite universe.

13

I’ve said all I have to say. If you disagree, that’s fine.

14

So, nothing about how the law of identity precludes an infinite universe?

15

The law of identity is the recognition that everything that exists is something specific. Everything has a specific nature or identity. Infinity is not a quantity. It is no specific quantity, larger than any quantity. Therefore, it has no identity. Therefore, it can’t exist in reality.

16

That sounds a lot líke Ayn Rand/Leonard Peikoff.

Anyway Infinity is a way of talking about the specific qualities of the universe, in this case. It’s not a thing. The universe would be boundless, but specific. It’s not something else because it is infinite. It is still, the universe and not something else. All thing things in the infinite universe would be identical to themselves. The universe would be identical to itself. The objects in it would be identity to themselves.

To me the main problem here is infinity is a descriptive term. It’s not a thing beyond that. The term exists and the universe exists. The term is identical with itself. The universe is identical with itself and it is infinite. A yellow bird is identical to itself, even though it’s yellowness is not a quantity. The yellow feathers exist and are identical with themselves. The infinitely huge universe is identical with itself.

Let me rephrase for clarity: You’re treating “infinite” as if it’s a physical object trying to exist on its own, rather than a descriptive adjective. Infinity isn’t a thing; it’s a way of describing the boundless nature of the universe. The Law of Identity states that a thing is identical to itself (A = A). The universe is the universe, and it is identical to itself. Every single object inside it is identical to itself. The universe doesn’t magically lose its identity or become “something else” just because it doesn’t have an outer border.

There is nothing in the law of identity that says what the qualities of a thing, what A, must be. It just has to be exactly itself. By your logic, if a trait must be a specific countable quantity to have an identity, then the bird’s color couldn’t exist either. The infinitely huge universe is identical to itself in the exact same way. You are confusing the label “infinite” with the actual physical reality it describes.–

and just to be clear none of this is remotely meant as a proof that the universe is infinite. I am just saying that the law of identity does not preclude certain traits, nor says measurements must be finite. It is just, well, what it says. A thing must be itself.

Further, there is a major category error here. The Law of Identity comes from logic, not ontology. It is a methodological rule, not a physical law. It simply means that when we think about and discuss an issue, things must be identical with themselves so that our language remains coherent. If you want to claim this law can dictate the actual nature of the universe—moving it from a rule of logic into the realm of physical laws—then that claim needs to be supported and justified in ways it never has been.

People do try to swing it over into ontology and that leads to controversies especially since QM’s results were confirmed over and over. That gets into a really complicated set of arguments, but for the curious: Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

17

OK. The law of identity does not come from logic. Logic comes from the law of identity, also known as the axiom of identity.