Infinity, and an infinite Universe?

[iclaudius]

Quote by: shunyadragon The present mathimatics and cosmology of the nature of existence recognizes actual infinites which work well in the present models for the nature of our universe and the non-universe that surrounds it. Yes, infinity cannot be divided, but in the present models for cosmologies of existence they are not trying to divide actual infinities in time and space. There are basically variations of two models cosmologists use for our universe. The first is that the universe is finite in both time and space and began in a singularity that expanded to our present state and will end either by contraction to another singularity or it will disapate into a the non-universe I will call the Infinite Matrix (IM). The second model involves a cyclic universe that expands and contracts in a cyclic manner and is infinite in time, yes, present mathmatics and cosmology allows for infinite time. Both of these models fit within various multiverse models that in turn exist within the IM. The IM is basically an infinite matrix in time and space with infinite matter and energy. Universes form, exist and end within this IM according to the laws of the IM

The so-called Infinite Matrix you speak of is actually the universe. The universe is a term that refers to an all-encompassing singular statement, from which everything and everything possible are defined. There aren't multiple universes; that contradicts the definition of the word. Wherever the galaxies, systems, stars, planets, etc. we see around us today come from, we know absolutely that none of them could have existed unless all of them, and all variations of them are existent in some way. I never said that the universe is spatially infinite, only that all possibilities are physically existent. They must be.

Quote by: Yasa Although I feel the same based on intuition, that time is constantly advancing, I still disagree. Time doesn't exist without motion.

Ah, but time does not describe motion. In fact, you have no way of knowing if time is even constant; everything could be slowing down or speeding up, and you wouldn't even know. It is true that time could be stopped if all things are stopped (say, for instance, everything stopped because time stopped), but because all things stop does not mean, necessarily, that time has stopped. Thus, time could in theory exist without motion, even if you couldn't measure or perceive it.

For the record, the series of measurements we use to differentiate each moment from the last and actual time are different. The former is your perception of time; the latter is the actual concept.

[Yasa]

Actually, good points about time, I think I agree that it could be considered continuous, or eternally existing, if you will. However, that's just my humanly perspective... one never knows...

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: iclaudius The so-called Infinite Matrix you speak of is actually the universe. The universe is a term that refers to an all-encompassing singular statement, from which everything and everything possible are defined. There aren't multiple universes; that contradicts the definition of the word. Wherever the galaxies, systems, stars, planets, etc. we see around us today come from, we know absolutely that none of them could have existed unless all of them, and all variations of them are existent in some way. I never said that the universe is spatially infinite, only that all possibilities are physically existent. They must be.

That would be the old definition for the universe, but with recent dicoveries that our universe is a distinct entity that is expanding from a singularity. Outside this entity that we experience as a universe is the Matrix that contained the singularity. It would be absurd to view existence that there was absolutely nothing beyond the singularity when it existed prior to expanding. The Contemporary science of Cosmology recognizes the possibility of a multiverse system within the Infinite Matrix. This may or may not be true, but mathamatical models and the physics we know of our present univese supports the existence of the Infinite Matrix and the potential of Multiverses within that Matrix. The universe we know is likely finite with a beginning and probably an end, and and recent mathamatical models potentially can define the shape and eventually the extent of this universe.

You could still possibly consider the Infinite Matrix as the Infinite Universe, and our local universe originating as a singularity within the greater Universe.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: shunyadragon That would be the old definition for the universe, but with recent dicoveries that our universe is a distinct entity that is expanding from a singularity. Outside this entity that we experience as a universe is the Matrix that contained the singularity. It would be absurd to view existence that there was absolutely nothing beyond the singularity when it existed prior to expanding. The Contemporary science of Cosmology recognizes the possibility of a multiverse system within the Infinite Matrix. This may or may not be true, but mathamatical models and the physics we know of our present univese supports the existence of the Infinite Matrix and the potential of Multiverses within that Matrix. The universe we know is likely finite with a beginning and probably an end, and and recent mathamatical models potentially can define the shape and eventually the extent of this universe. You could still possibly consider the Infinite Matrix as the Infinite Universe, and our local universe originating as a singularity within the greater Universe.

There is a big difference between a universe (what you call the IM) and a macrocosm (what you call the universe). There can be only one universe because it is a singular term referring to the totality of everything. I don't really have time to go in-depth here, but I felt the need to make that distinction.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Nathan Struth THe universe can't be infinite, nor can time... Here's why it 's a very simple proof. Definition:1. Time is used to represent change. 2. Infinity divided by anything = infinity. Axioms:1. Infinity cannot be divided by infinity in this scenario. If the universe is infinite, then you cannot divide it! Or else by def. 2 you would get an infinite quoetient. But don't try to say infinity / infinity because of Axiom 1. Try to refute this proof I made it myself. I got help from Spinozas Ethics pt. 1 and 2.

It isn't necessary to write a lengthy dissertation on the universe/infinity.. and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.. read Murphy's Law.. Murphy eloquently.. and with humor.. gives a quick and condensed explanation of it all..:)

The "limits" of the universe.. often defined as "infinite" - are and are not infinite.. In order to define.. anything.. you need a "relative" definition.. in the case of the "universe" it means the "event" horizon.. so... "beyond" that "event" would be.. nothing.. no matter.. no energy.. (positive or negative) so no chance of a quantum flux occurring.. But.. there may be a googolplex of light centuries of "emptiness" - then.. more "events" (universes) lol..

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: iclaudius There is a big difference between a universe (what you call the IM) and a macrocosm (what you call the universe). There can be only one universe because it is a singular term referring to the totality of everything. I don't really have time to go in-depth here, but I felt the need to make that distinction.

Please go into it, your answer is not very clear at all.

[iclaudius]

Essentially what I'm saying is, whether or not the macrocosm we inhabit is the result of the explosion of a gravitational singularity, the universe in some way must make phyically real all possibilities, or else none of them could exist. There are not multiple universes with definite boundaries with more universes beyond those -- there is only a huge, expansive, infinite universe with macrocosms. An IM is not non-universe, because a universe is not made up of only matter. There is no definable line between what is universe and is not universe, therefore, everything is universe. And if it is infinite, there is only one. Our macrocosm may indeed have come from a gravitational singularity, but that concept is misleading... we have no evidence to indicate that it was an absolute singularity, and we don't know why it formed. All we know is that it formed. Furthermore, we do not have evidence that time began at singularity, or at the explosion of such... I don't really know how to address your statements more directly, since they are littered with contradictions, so I'll just leave it at that. Perhaps a better way would be for you to bring up concerns with my posts?