Ways to argue that the universe is finite

[yppop]

Hello Hec,

We have some unresolved issues that I have been to busy to get to during this holiday season, but I just read some of the discussion you’ve been having with JD and I wonder if you could identify the following quote?

“I have never proceeded from any *Genus supremum *of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no *Genus supremum *of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God.”

And tell mean what you think it means?

Merry Christmas,

YPPOP

 

[hecd2]

Hello Hec,

We have some unresolved issues that I have been to busy to get to during this holiday season, but I just read some of the discussion you’ve been having with JD and I wonder if you could identify the following quote?

“I have never proceeded from any *Genus supremum *of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no *Genus supremum *of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God.”

And tell mean what you think it means?

Merry Christmas,

YPPOP

Is this some sort of Christmas quiz or Trivial Pursuit game
with a prize?

The quote is by Georg Cantor and he is saying this: “His starting point was not the idea of a highest genus or most general category of the actual infinite but that he showed that such a general categorisation does not exist (of course he did, since the very point of his work is to formalise the idea that there are different modes of infinity). He then makes a theological rather than a mathematical statement - that lying beyond all these modes of the actually infinite there is a single overarching unity which includes everything absolutely, ie which includes God.”

Note that he is not saying that there is a single and all-encompassing category of actual infinities, but that the opposite is the case: that there are many modes of infinity, each of which is defined differently and each of which obeys different arithmetical rules.

In the same quote, he goes on to say this:
"I am so in favor of the actual infinite that instead of admitting that Nature abhors it, as is commonly said, I hold that Nature makes frequent use of it everywhere, in order to show more effectively the perfections of its Author. Thus I believe that there is no part of matter which is not — I do not say divisible — but actually divisible; and consequently the least particle ought to be considered as a world full of an infinity of different creatures. ".

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Laughing_Crow]

To the OP’s question. Arguing that the universe is infinite or finite is like arguing about religion, no side is going to give way and both parties will leave thinking the other is an idiot for believing what they believe.

My take on it is this, the universe IS finite, but it is so large in scope that to us humans, on our little rock, it may as well be infinite because our minds cant grasp the enormity of it. Think how big our solar system is, then multiply that by perhaps a million or perhaps a billion and you get our galaxy, now multiply that by another million or billion and you get the universe. Now add the fact that humans have only set foot on the moon, and our life span is only 100 years at best, and that many solar systems may as well be infinite.

 

[Windfish]

To the OP’s question. Arguing that the universe is infinite or finite is like arguing about religion, no side is going to give way and both parties will leave thinking the other is an idiot for believing what they believe.

Really? One would think this would not be that contentious an issue. I think the reasonable arguments settle this, and doesn’t Big Bang cosmology show that the universe is finite?

 

[Laughing_Crow]

Really? One would think this would not be that contentious an issue. I think the reasonable arguments settle this, and doesn’t Big Bang cosmology show that the universe is finite?

Forgive me, I didnt mean ALL discussions will end that way. I have had great discussions on religion and other matters and left educated, not believing the other party was idiots.

As for the Big Bang argument, true, but then it can bring into question the ‘multi-verse’ idea. Like religion, its not something we will know for sure until we are dead (if your in heaven im sure you’ll find out the answer) I think this is simply another matter that both parties will have to agree to disagree.

 

[hecd2]

I think the reasonable arguments settle this, and doesn’t Big Bang cosmology show that the universe is finite?

No.

 

[yppop]

Really? One would think this would not be that contentious an issue. I think the reasonable arguments settle this, and doesn’t Big Bang cosmology show that the universe is finite?

Yes

 

[hecd2]

Yes

You’re still wrong about this - perhaps one day you’ll read and respond to the detailed explanation I’ve given you, but the fact is that Big Bang cosmology does not rule out a universe that is infinite in spatial extent, and your objections to that seem to be based on quite elementary misunderstanding of the science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[yppop]

You’re still wrong about this - perhaps one day you’ll read and respond to the detailed explanation I’ve given you, but the fact is that Big Bang cosmology does not rule out a universe that is infinite in spatial extent, and your objections to that seem to be based on quite elementary misunderstanding of the science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I interpret your position as: if space is flat it MUST be infinite. Aren’t you are basing that on the mathematics of the situation? Shouldn’t the more appropriate proposition be: if space is infinite, it must be flat.

Now I ask you a direct question: can the space that defines the dimension of the universe be flat and finite? If your answer is no, then why you don’t give me the “physical” details of how the FINITE singularity becomes instantaneously infinite after the Planck era? Is there some kind of cosmic tunneling effect at play or perhaps you are envisioning some kind of Banach-Tarski transition, in which you disassemble the singularity and reassemble it as the infinite universe?

What happened to inflation? Since you believe that I am suffering from an elementary misunderstanding of science, perhaps in your superior knowledge you can enlighten me.
And while you are judging my knowledge in this regard may I ask you in what field you are formally educated? you can read my bio for my data.

I am through for the rest of the weekend; you might also notice the size of my family in bio and I will be lucky enough to see every one of them this weekend. So have a Merry Christmas Alec.

YPPOP

 

[Sonny69]

I don’t have sufficient faith to be an atheist. I mean, to be absolutely certain that God does not exist, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. What great faith!

As to the OP, what is clearly finite is the expansion of the Atheistic concept of possibility. If God is not possible, then infinity fails to exist. They erect the artifice of finiteness around creation, while themselves being unable to explain either existence or non-existence by their own means.

To be an atheist is a lie; you either believe God’s authority who, in Romans 1 & 2, said He put a moral law into the heart of every many and His invisable attributes are clearly seen in His creation; or you believe one who denies his own conscience; God left no option for one to be an atheist - that is a man made invention akin to the osterich with the head in the sand. Why? So they can enjoy their sin and believe they will not have any accountability; like most professing Christians… only I woulld rather be the atheist who doesn’t look at facts and buries his head, than to associate myself with Jesus and know enough to have greater condemnation only to perish in a worse state than the self-proclaimed atheist who has little to know knowledge of what the Bible actually says.

2nd law of thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect are two of many scientific knowns that point directly to the universe as having a beginning. People like Einstein divided by zero, now known as the “fudge factor” in order to advoid what he knew that he did not want to know, that something intelligent and eternal had to create everything known out of nothing. The so colled atheist just buries their head in the sand and pretends like it isn’t there. Why they are lazy concerning the facts; they deny what God has already put on their conscience. they know there is a God who created, they just don’t want to recognize it in the hope they won’t have to be accountable. Now there is scientific evidence that light is and has been slowing down.

It takes great faith or ignorance; not sure which to be an atheist because they have no basis for anything they preport to believe and science keeps pointing to the universe having a beginning and from an external and intelligent source. If the universe is the effect, then it had to have a cause outside of itself and it did!! Science lives on that law and without it there is no science and all honest scientist would tell you so,

 

[Sonny69]

Here is the Church’s position:

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

For Catholics, at least, the Church tells us that God has given us real knowledge.

Peace,
Ed

God infallibly told us exactly how He created and left no room for debate on to six literal days & rested on the seventh…think maybe God established TIME and a calendar for us? Sounds like your church doesn’t want to affirm the clear account of Genesis and I cannot imagine why - makes no sense if what you said is true, which I do believe you are representing the Catholic position correctly.

 

[Sonny69]

thanks for the answers but how would you word it in a way to present to an atheist who may believe it isn’t finite, not a catholic who just doesn’t know.

Go to “Answers in Gensis” or other reliable creationist sites and they will give you all the scientific arguments you want. Do the research; it is not hard to find good information that is based in Science.

Listen to this: It will help you get started with sound arguments.
Evidence for God (this is one smart man blessed of God)

Hope you are blessed and find the answers you are looking for and I do highly recommend the book for references and hope a revised edition will be coming along soon.

God bless you catholictiger. S69

 

[hecd2]

I interpret your position as: if space is flat it MUST be infinite.

No it can be flat and finite in some topologies such as a 3-torus.

Aren’t you are basing that on the mathematics of the situation? Shouldn’t the more appropriate proposition be: if space is infinite, it must be flat.

No, it if it is infinite it can be flat or have negative curvature.

Now I ask you a direct question: can the space that defines the dimension of the universe be flat and finite?

Yes. See my post #28 in this thread.

If your answer is no, then why you don’t give me the “physical” details of how the FINITE singularity becomes instantaneously infinite after the Planck era? Is there some kind of cosmic tunneling effect at play or perhaps you are envisioning some kind of Banach-Tarski transition, in which you disassemble the singularity and reassemble it as the infinite universe?

You can’t think of the singularity as finite. The scale factor is zero at the singularity and before Planck time, and all physics breaks down so at that stage the physical extent of the universe is undefined. As soon as a scale can be defined, in this scenario, the universe is spatially infinite but with a very small scale factor. The transition you suggest is not required. (I believe that Banach-Tarski transitions only apply to transitions between finite entities).

What happened to inflation?

Inflation is useful as a solution to the horizon problem, and there are signatures of inflation in the CMB. Nothing happened to it.

I’m not saying the universe *is *spatially infinite, and it might well not be - but a spatially infinite universe is not ruled out by BB cosmology.

BTW, the misunderstandings that I saw in your arguments included the claims that the CMB can’t have a black body spectrum in an infinite universe, that they “bounce off” the boundary, that the CMB temperature depends on photon density, that photons can escape from the universe and that a good way to think of the Big Bang is an expansion into a pre-existing space. None of these are correct and are quite basic errors - sorry if that seems a bit harsh but I am addressing the ideas.

So have a Merry Christmas Alec.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hazcompat]

big-bang-theory.com/

might help

peace

 

[LogisticsBranch]

A snippet from the July 5, 2010 article, Planck unveils the Universe –
now and then, from the European Space Agency’s Planck mission
that I thought was great and wanted to share. You need to view the animation
online but here is some of the text:

This is the ‘cosmic microwave background radiation’ (CMBR) . It is the oldest
light in the Universe, the remains of the fireball out of which our Universe sprang
into existence 13.7 billion years ago.

While the Milky Way shows us what the local Universe looks like now, those
microwaves show us what the Universe looked like close to its time of creation,
before there were stars or galaxies. Here we come to the heart of Planck’s
mission to decode what happened in that primordial Universe from the pattern
of the mottled backdrop.

The microwave pattern is the cosmic blueprint from which today’s clusters and
superclusters of galaxies were built. The different colours represent minute
differences in the temperature and density of matter across the sky. Somehow
these small irregularities evolved into denser regions that became the galaxies
of today.

The CMBR covers the entire sky but most of it is hidden in this image by the
Milky Way’s emission, which must be digitally removed from the final data in
order to see the microwave background in its entirety.

When this work is completed, Planck will show us the most precise picture of
the microwave background ever obtained. The big question will be whether the
data will reveal the cosmic signature of the primordial period called inflation.
This era is postulated to have taken place just after the Big Bang and resulted
in the Universe expanding enormously in size over an extremely short period.

Planck continues to map the Universe. By the end of its mission in 2011, it will
have completed four all-sky scans. The first full data release of the CMBR is
planned for 2012. Before then, the catalogue containing individual objects in
our Galaxy and whole distant galaxies will be released in January 2011.
esa.int/esaCP/SEMF2FRZ5BG_Expanding_0.html

The microwave sky as seen by Planck with previous releases:
http://www.esa.int/images/PLANCK_FSM_03_Black_PreviousReleases_02.jpg
esa.int/esaCP/SEMF2FRZ5BG_Expanding_1.html#subhead4