Why can't there be an infinite number of universes?

[buffalo]

Bear with me on this, as my brain doesn’t always work quickly. I am not sure of the logic that an infinite number of “something”, whether it is universes or anything else, means the same as “all possibilities”, and why it should also lead to the assumption of a “fake” something. IF there were an infinite quantity of atomic particles, would that necessarily mean that some are “fake”? I guess I don’t follow that assumption or reasoning. I may be mis-understanding this or may not be defining some terms, like “infinite”, the same as you.

Also, please keep in mind that I did not say that there must be infinite universes or that our universe must be infinite. I just left open that possibility. Closing off possibilities because we cannot conceive of them with our current state of knowledge or abilities, or because they do not fit what we want to believe, seems to me counter productive to advancing our scientific knowledge and philosophical conjectures.

The multi-verse theory states that all possible universes must exist. That is the answer to fine tuning. We just happen to be in a universe where all the parameters are tuned for our existence.

 

[chaunceygardner]

The multi-verse theory states that all possible universes must exist. That is the answer to fine tuning. We just happen to be in a universe where all the parameters are tuned for our existence.

Thanks; I am not familiar with all aspects of the multi-verse theory. I was not thinking of an infinite number of universes in that way. Does this theory state that each possible universe must be different from every other universe? If there are many of something, that does not mean that each cannot be like the other. Every atom of an element is made up of the same types of atomic particles, correct? For each element, there are different numbers and arrangements of sub-atomic particles. So perhaps our multi universes are composed of the same basic “material”, but in different amounts, patterns and arrangements. Like snowflakes, no two are exactly alike. But their basic composition is the same.

 

[Pieman333272]

If an actual infinity is impossible, where does that leave God? Is he not infinite?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

This unnecessary story assumes that personal self-consciousness can arise in machines.

If you knew what a reductio ad absurdum is, instead of reflectively reacting to every post you think doesn’t support theism, you’d know this “unnecessary story” actually shows the absurd consequences that follow from the many-universes theory.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

If an actual infinity is impossible, where does that leave God? Is he not infinite?

If someone says an actual infinity is impossible they are refering to the idea that an actual infinite ***number ***of objects is impossible (I don’t know if it’s actually true, but that’s the thinking). When theology refers to God’s attributes as infinite, it is not talking about an infinite number of anything, but that God is “without limits” i.e. omnipotence means ***unlimited ***power

 

[buffalo]

If someone says an actual infinity is impossible they are refering to the idea that an actual infinite ***number ***of objects is impossible (I don’t know if it’s actually true, but that’s the thinking). When theology refers to God’s attributes as infinite, it is not talking about an infinite number of anything, but that God is “without limits” i.e. omnipotence means ***unlimited ***power

Almost - Catholics know God as Almighty, that is He accomplishes what He sets out to do.

Here are a few things He cannot do:

Deceive
be deceived
be untrue to His own nature

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t know if it’s actually true, but that’s the thinking).

That is like saying you are not sure if you exist, or arguing that maybe its possible for there to be a “square-triangle” in existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you knew what a reductio ad absurdum is, instead of reflectively reacting to every post you think doesn’t support theism, you’d know this “unnecessary story” actually shows the absurd consequences that follow from the many-universes theory.

The absurdity arises from an unprovable assumption that is not evidently logical and appears irrational; that is in reference to “thinking machines”. If it was evidently possible for there to be self conscious personal thinking machines or virtual people, then his argument would hold weight. But as it is, it is nothing more than a tautology, and thus cannot be classed as a relevant rebuttal.

Sorry.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

The absurdity arises from an unprovable assumption that is not evidently logical and appears irrational; that is in reference to “thinking machines”. If it was evidently possible for there to be self conscious personal thinking machines or virtual people, then his argument would hold weight. But as it is, it is nothing more than a tautology, and thus cannot be classed as a relevant rebuttal.

Sorry.

a tautology huh?

in the words of Inigo Moytoya “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

That is like saying you are not sure if you exist, or arguing that maybe its possible for there to be a “square-triangle” in existence.

The possiblity of whether an infinity of things can exist is the same as arguing that a square-triangle exist?

That’s not even worth refuting, it’s just ridiculous statement, one is a statement that intelligent people can debate, the other is obvious to a 5 year old as logical impossible

 

[Crumpy]

The hallmark of our understanding of science is demonstrability.

Suppose there are at least several universes, why don’t we see them coming at us? By now they surely could have penetrated our event horizon and would be sending galaxies at us.

Instead of the classic red shift, we should see a blue shift as these galaxies race towards us.

That supposes that our own “big bang” didn’t just blow them away from us, at the same time.

We might notice that the background glow of our own big bang would be interrupted by the sound of these other universes.

Same sort of general paradox about alien life. Why do we have to go out looking for it? Why isn’t it looking for us?

With all the scenarious for extinction of life on earth by purely natural means, like giant asteroid collisions being the most likely, we don’t have much time left for all this star trek speculation, do we?

 

[Pieman333272]

OK, it’s obvious to me that there can’t be an infinite amount of Universes. But why can’t there be a very, very large amount of Universes? Enough to completely shatter the fine-tuned Universe?

 

[buffalo]

OK, it’s obvious to me that there can’t be an infinite amount of Universes. But why can’t there be a very, very large amount of Universes? Enough to completely shatter the fine-tuned Universe?

When the odds are calculated to have all the finely tuned parameters that we find in our universe the odds do approach infinity (small) therefore necessitating an infinite amount of universes.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The possiblity of whether an infinity of things can exist is the same as arguing that a square-triangle exist?

That’s not even worth refuting, it’s just ridiculous statement, one is a statement that intelligent people can debate, the other is obvious to a 5 year old as logical impossible

Its easy to see why a square cannot be a triangle because it doesn’t require much thinking to know what a square is and what a triangle is and what their relations to each other are; and this is to say that it is easy to see their essential difference. The problem of infinity is not obvious to you because you fail to understand what is meant by a “definite definable actual quantity” and its essential difference to the word “actual infinity”. It is evident to me because I have bothered to carefully analyse the meaning and nature of the two concepts and I happen to have the ability to comprehend why there cannot be an actual infinite amount of numbers.

Ontological Numbers or objective numerical quantities (1 apple, 2 apples 3 apples, etc…), by there very nature, are countable; they always have a definite definable quantity that can, logically speaking, be achieved by addition; and that is only because its parts are finite. A chain of finite points is a countable construct and thus follows the law of addition, and this is because its essential reality as a chain is an expression of its finite parts which have been added together. You cannot logically complete ontological numbers or transcend them by addition, since you can always add one more number, one more part. It is always and forever a potential infinite, and by that rule it is always a finite chain. There is no “highest number”, and all numbers are always a finite number away from each-other. An actual infinity is not a finite number away from a quantity of “100”. There is no reachable or achievable point at which we can stop and say that this is an infinite chain according to its quantity, since this would suggest that numbers can be completed, which we no they can’t. Thus a well developed intellect, as opposed to a child, can understand that an infinity cannot be defined by a real ontological quantities. Given that a quantity is always finite no-matter how much you add to it, it is therefore the case that an “actual infinity” by definition necessarily transcends all logically possible ontological quantities and thus numbers themselves; and is therefore by nature not a actual number or quantity. Thus, like a square is not a triangle, a quantity is never an “actual infinity”.

There is no possibility of an actually infinite number of universes. There is only one ontological infinite, and that is God. God is not a physical quantity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The possiblity of whether an infinity of things can exist is the same as arguing that a square-triangle exist?

That’s not even worth refuting, it’s just ridiculous statement, one is a statement that intelligent people can debate, the other is obvious to a 5 year old as logical impossible

Not so ridiculous. He’s pointing out that “infinite number” is a contradiction in terms; a logical impossibility, just as is a “square triangle”. And he’s right in saying it. One can say “infinite” and the word has meaning notwithstanding that we are incapable of truly comprehending “infinite” or we would be infinite ourselves, which we manifestly aren’t. But one cannot, without making the phrase contradictory, add “number” to the word “infinite”.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Its easy to see why a square cannot be a triangle because it doesn’t require much thinking to know what a square is and what a triangle is and what their relations to each other are; and this is to say that it is easy to see their essential difference. The problem of infinity is not obvious to you because you fail to understand what is meant by a “definite definable actual quantity” and its essential difference to the word “actual infinity”. It is evident to me because I have bothered to carefully analyse the meaning and nature of the two concepts and I happen to have the ability to comprehend why there cannot be an actual infinite amount of numbers.

Ontological Numbers or objective numerical quantities (1 apple, 2 apples 3 apples, etc…), by there very nature, are countable; they always have a definite definable quantity that can, logically speaking, be achieved by addition; and that is only because its parts are finite. A chain of finite points is a countable construct and thus follows the law of addition, and this is because its essential reality as a chain is an expression of its finite parts which have been added together. You cannot logically complete ontological numbers or transcend them by addition, since you can always add one more number, one more part. It is always and forever a potential infinite, and by that rule it is always a finite chain. There is no “highest number”, and all numbers are always a finite number away from each-other. An actual infinity is not a finite number away from a quantity of “100”. There is no reachable or achievable point at which we can stop and say that this is an infinite chain according to its quantity, since this would suggest that numbers can be completed, which we no they can’t. Thus a well developed intellect, as opposed to a child, can understand that an infinity cannot be defined by a real ontological quantities. Given that a quantity is always finite no-matter how much you add to it, it is therefore the case that an “actual infinity” by definition necessarily transcends all logically possible ontological quantities and thus numbers themselves; and is therefore by nature not a actual number or quantity. Thus, like a square is not a triangle, a quantity is never an “actual infinity”.

There is no possibility of an actually infinite number of universes. There is only one ontological infinite, and that is God. God is not a physical quantity.

First, I have no idea whether an “actual infinity” is possible, but I do know that anyone who says “It is evident to me because I have bothered to carefully analyse the meaning and nature of the two concepts and I happen to have the ability to comprehend why there cannot be an actual infinite amount of numbers” is displaying the very definition of arrogance. Philosopher have debated the possibility of an actual infinity for all of human history, as a matter of fact over a hundred years ago the great mathematician Georg Cantor showed is his breakthrough work in Set Theory that actual infinities do exist. Again, comparing the idea of actual infinity to a four-sided triangle is juvenile, as well as arrogant.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Not so ridiculous. He’s pointing out that “infinite number” is a contradiction in terms; a logical impossibility, just as is a “square triangle”. And he’s right in saying it. One can say “infinite” and the word has meaning notwithstanding that we are incapable of truly comprehending “infinite” or we would be infinite ourselves, which we manifestly aren’t. But one cannot, without making the phrase contradictory, add “number” to the word “infinite”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First, I have no idea whether an “actual infinity” is possible, but I do know that anyone who says “It is evident to me because I have bothered to carefully analyse the meaning and nature of the two concepts and I happen to have the ability to comprehend why there cannot be an actual infinite amount of numbers” is displaying the very definition of arrogance. Philosopher have debated the possibility of an actual infinity for all of human history, as a matter of fact over a hundred years ago the great mathematician Georg Cantor showed is his breakthrough work in Set Theory that actual infinities do exist. Again, comparing the idea of actual infinity to a four-sided triangle is juvenile, as well as arrogant.

All I see here is that I have provided you with an excuse to dodge the argument. It is juvenile and arrogance to ignore my argument, and pretend as if you know what you are talking about. All you have demonstrated is that you have no idea what you talking about; otherwise you would have taken on my argument instead finding some excuse and then making a weak argument from authority. Cantor has never demonstrated that ontological numbers, objective entities, can add up to infinity or that such things can exist in physical reality. Neither can you in your wildest dreams demonstrate that he did. His mathematical constructs are not objective physical entities, but rather they are tautological abstractions.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First, I have no idea whether an “actual infinity” is possible,

You are contradicting yourself and your attitude stinks. This is a philosophy forum where people have debates. If you don’t want to rise to the challenge directly, then what’s the point in posting?

See below and you will see what I mean.

Georg Cantor showed is his breakthrough work in Set Theory that actual infinities do exist. Again, comparing the idea of actual infinity to a four-sided triangle is juvenile, as well as arrogant.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

All I see here is that I have provided you with an excuse to dodge the argument. It is juvenile and arrogance to ignore my argument, and pretend as if you know what you are talking about. All you have demonstrated is that you have no idea what you talking about; otherwise you would have taken on my argument instead finding some excuse and then making a weak argument from authority. Cantor has never demonstrated that ontological numbers, objective entities, can add up to infinity or that such things can exist in physical reality. Neither can you in your wildest dreams demonstrate that he did. His mathematical constructs are not objective physical entities, but rather they are tautological abstractions.

Actually, I knew about Cantor’s work (you don’t seem to have) and know that it is very influential and significant. I have no idea whether actual infinities are possible, it’s one of those questions in which great minds have disagreed over the ages. Unlike the existence of a logical contradiction like a 4 sided triangle, which no one has argued is possible.

You know, Humility is a Christian virtue, you should work on it sometime. Just a thought