Philosophy Discussion Forums

Spiral Out wrote:Regardless of the nonsense (literally), the universe cannot be both finite and infinite.

Emotions are not an explanation of how something can possess mutually exclusive characteristics. One cannot be at once both experiencing fear and not experiencing fear.

The claim that the universe is both finite and infinite is logically untenable.

For the human who lives a finite life, the universe seems infinite, as they experience their loved ones die and know they too will die. All things observed by humans in the universe seems to have a finite existence, so it would be logical that the universe itself is finite as well. As a theist I think it is God who is infinite, not his creations, unless he wills it so.

Who started the Big Bang? It is one way a creation could have been brought about by God.

So the argument now is that the universe is a book, finitude is the pages of the book, and infinitude is what can possibly written on the pages?

Even still, what you're offering is a dualism. So maybe instead of "universe", it should be reinterpreted as "multiverse".

If the universe is both finite and infinite (at the same time and location???), then it must be a multiverse, not a universe.

-- Updated August 31st, 2014, 6:36 pm to add the following --

Misty wrote:For the human who lives a finite life, the universe seems infinite, as they experience their loved ones die and know they too will die. All things observed by humans in the universe seems to have a finite existence, so it would be logical that the universe itself is finite as well. As a theist I think it is God who is infinite, not his creations, unless he wills it so.

Who started the Big Bang? It is one way a creation could have been brought about by God.

You're presuming, perhaps falsely, that since life has an "end" at death, that it must be finite. But what then is the beginning of life?

Does life begin at...conception? Birth? Your seventh birthday? When does life begin, for every lifeform???

If there is no consensus on the beginning of life, then how could there be one on the existence of the universe?

Wizard wrote:So the argument now is that the universe is a book, finitude is the pages of the book, and infinitude is what can possibly written on the pages?

Even still, what you're offering is a dualism. So maybe instead of "universe", it should be reinterpreted as "multiverse".

If the universe is both finite and infinite (at the same time and location???), then it must be a multiverse, not a universe.

The idea of uni-verse, is that it's everything and one. There's no need to change the name.

The Universe is not finite and infinite in the same prospect, but rather a duality of principles - the principles do not necessarily correspond with the projected/projector, but rather compliments it as a relation point within a relation point produced by the zero point (the infinite eye).

So let's use examples to explain the Universe. The infinite eye is human ignorance, or all the infinite ways we can see the world from observance. The finite is what we can do with what we see or do not see.

To me, considering what caused the big bang is a bigger problem than just thinking of it as being cyclical --- no beginning or end, always existed and always will. Because thinking of a first cause always leaves us with something coming from absolutely nothing, and that to me is harder to swallow than a cyclical and eternally existing Universe.

What helps me to swallow an eternal Universe is to understand that eternity is simply a property of time, which is a property of the Universe. If time exists as a property of the Universe, and it does, then that implies that it could have no beginning or end, simply because that is the nature of time. We like to imagine visualizing time as a line, either of finite or infinite length, but in reality it is more like a circle, again either of finite or infinite diameter (although we cannot imagine either an infinite line or circle). This means that no matter how far back you go in time, nor matter how far you go forward, you'll never reach any beginning point or ending point, not because you are on a line without end but because you're really travelling on a circle, although it is so big a circle that you cannot visualize it in your mind. This is the reason why it's hard to imagine a Universe with no beginning or end -- it's hard for us to cognize time the way it really is (circular and not linear). Once we learn to think of time as more like a circle than a line, no beginning or end will not be such a problem for us.

One interesting thing I thought about recently, and which helped me to see time as inherently circular, is to consider time before and after the Universe allegedly begins or ends. It does not exist. There was never a time when the Universe did not exist, and there never will be a time when it will not exist, because if the Universe doesn't exist, then time does not exist either. So how could the Universe have ever not really existed at all, or how could it someday not really exist at all, if there cannot be a time when it didn't or won't exist?

Another way of looking at it is to understand that every cause must have a effect (result), and that every effect (result) must have a cause. Or, every phenomenon must have a cause, be the result of something, and also must have an effect, must result in some kind of change, otherwise no phenomenon would be under consideration in the first place. So it makes no sense to say the Universe "began", because "beginning" implies some kind of cause, but there can be no cause before anything exists, and yet nothing can begin without a cause. Similarly, it makes no sense to say that the Universe will "end", because "ending" implies some kind of result, and absolute nothingness cannot really be a "result". A result implies something that actually exists, and "nothing" only exists conceptually. So if the Universe is really going to end, we must conclude that the end result of it all was nothing, i.e. there was no result. But there has to be some kind of real result because every cause must have an effect, i.e. a "result".

If you can wrap your head around either or those philosophical constructs, which basically show that the Universe cannot begin or end because time cannot begin or end (and time is an inherent part of the Universe), an eternal Universe will not be so abstract a concept....

This site seems to enjoy double-dipping.

Atreyu wrote:
If you can wrap your head around either or those philosophical constructs, which basically show that the Universe cannot begin or end because time cannot begin or end (and time is an inherent part of the Universe), an eternal Universe will not be so abstract a concept....

Or we could use my vacuum/projection ideology to express things that do not involve ill-constructs such as "time", which answer questions with more questions.

Subatomic God wrote:Or we could use my vacuum/projection ideology to express things that do not involve ill-constructs such as "time", which answer questions with more questions.

But the whole point of cognitive constructs and models is to make things more clear, not less; to resolve questions not turn them into more questions.

I agree that time is an "ill-construct" in the sense that we don't cognize it the way it really is, but that was exactly the point of my post and I provided some proposed solutions. My solution was to take our already existing cognition of time and to improve upon it, rather than just throwing it out the window.

When I said that "time" was an inherent property of the Universe, I didn't mean that there is anything absolutely real or correct in how we perceive/cognize time, I just meant that the true cause and nature of that which is responsible for our perception/cognition of time is an inherent part of the Universe, whatever it may be.

My point was that you cannot say that there is first or last moment of time any more than you can say that there is a first or last point on a circle.

Atreyu wrote:
But the whole point of cognitive constructs and models is to make things more clear, not less; to resolve questions not turn them into more questions.

I agree that time is an "ill-construct" in the sense that we don't cognize it the way it really is, but that was exactly the point of my post and I provided some proposed solutions. My solution was to take our already existing cognition of time and to improve upon it, rather than just throwing it out the window.

When I said that "time" was an inherent property of the Universe, I didn't mean that there is anything absolutely real or correct in how we perceive/cognize time, I just meant that the true cause and nature of that which is responsible for our perception/cognition of time is an inherent part of the Universe, whatever it may be.

My point was that you cannot say that there is first or last moment of time any more than you can say that there is a first or last point on a circle.

If you want it to be "clear", it would not be wise to use something like "time" as the foundation of an ideology.

The vacuum and the vacuum's projections make more sense than "time". Just look at how experience works in humans. You make a choice, you imprison yourself; you don't make a choice, you can be anything.

Subatomic God wrote:If you want it to be "clear", it would not be wise to use something like "time" as the foundation of an ideology. The vacuum and the vacuum's projections make more sense than "time". Just look at how experience works in humans. You make a choice, you imprison yourself; you don't make a choice, you can be anything.

Unfortunately that is not possible, because the OP cannot even be understood without considering time. The idea of time is inherent in the OP, for Phil is basically asking "What started the Universe?". And the answer is nothing. Nothing started the Universe because it never did start. It always was. There is simply no way for me to resolve the issue without building on the OP'S idea of time -- molding it, shaping it, augmenting it. For me to throw out the idea of time in my resolution would be to answer a different question.

The key to resolving poor cognitive constructs is to fix them, improve them, not throw them away. We have to use the cognitive tools that nature gave us --- time, space, matter, energy, force, etc --- and build from them, not replace them with completely "artificial" ones. Attaining "uncommon sense" or "higher sense" comes from developing and going "beyond" common sense, not from throwing it away and building on a foundation of no sense.

Atreyu wrote:
Unfortunately that is not possible, because the OP cannot even be understood without considering time. The idea of time is inherent in the OP, for Phil is basically asking "What started the Universe?". And the answer is nothing. Nothing started the Universe because it never did start. It always was. There is simply no way for me to resolve the issue without building on the OP'S idea of time -- molding it, shaping it, augmenting it. For me to throw out the idea of time in my resolution would be to answer a different question.

The key to resolving poor cognitive constructs is to fix them, improve them, not throw them away. We have to use the cognitive tools that nature gave us --- time, space, matter, energy, force, etc --- and build from them, not replace them with completely "artificial" ones. Attaining "uncommon sense" or "higher sense" comes from developing and going "beyond" common sense, not from throwing it away and building on a foundation of no sense.

It's not "time"; it's "relation". My vacuum/projection concept is expanding on the original thesis.

I am not throwing them away; I am expanding it further. It's not "time"; it's "relation", please understand the difference between "distance" and "distinction".

Now, can we please work with "relation", instead of "time", since "time" is distance, not distinction - the Universe could only exist based on distinction, not distance, hence dimensional points.

There's a hole in the bucket...

Vijaydevani wrote:There's a hole in the bucket...

Expound.

The Divine Fart which caused Inflation...maybe, since according to Newton every action has an equal and opposite reaction what you're looking at is the reaction. But I could be wrong!

Subatomic God wrote:

Vijaydevani wrote:There's a hole in the bucket...

Expound.

If you have heard the song, it starts as it ends, with "there's a hole in the bucket..." Well, that's exactly what this topic is.

Wizard wrote:

Misty wrote:For the human who lives a finite life, the universe seems infinite, as they experience their loved ones die and know they too will die. All things observed by humans in the universe seems to have a finite existence, so it would be logical that the universe itself is finite as well. As a theist I think it is God who is infinite, not his creations, unless he wills it so.

Who started the Big Bang? It is one way a creation could have been brought about by God.

You're presuming, perhaps falsely, that since life has an "end" at death, that it must be finite. But what then is the beginning of life?

Does life begin at...conception? Birth? Your seventh birthday? When does life begin, for every lifeform???

If there is no consensus on the beginning of life, then how could there be one on the existence of the universe?

My personal life began when a sperm reached an egg and united - conception - otherwise if a different sperm reached the egg it would be someone else's life. As you well know all the sperms that do not reach the egg, die. No second chances for the unused sperm, nor any egg not fertilized, they die. So it is not hard to define when life begins for humans, ,animals, and plant life - however the process is different. Human lives are finite because there is a definite beginning and end. We also know stars are formed and live then explode apart. It is not a stretch to assume the whole of the universe begins and ends at some point, the big bang being the starting point after a process comes together that would have caused the big bang just like the sperm and egg causes conception.

I also think that God speaking creation into existence does not necessarily mean that things appeared instantly, but rather appeared by the same process they appear today, by a process. So God could have started the big bang.