Ship of Fools: I understand that the universe is big

Thread: I understand that the universe is big Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027754

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

So until a few months ago my understanding of what science said was that the universe was very big but with a finite size - about 13 billion light years across with billions of galaxies all made up of billions of stars; and that the big bang meant it had to have a finite size and a finite existence in time. I pictured God as sitting outside of this and kicking it all off.

Then on a slow day at work when I allowed myself to get distracted by a number of Wikipedia articles on cosmology I caught up and realised that this is just the "observable universe" (which turns out not to be 13 billion light years across but a bit bigger) and there are good although slightly speculative reasons to believe that the "whole universe" is massively larger than "observable universe" and might well be infinite in size.

I've always had something going on where I have awestruck wonder at the same time as doubts about God stirred up when I contemplate the scale of the universe. Awestruck wonder at the scale; the doubts come because the incarnation seems to make us so much more important to God than the scale of humans and the earth warrants. I don't know even what to do with the possibility that the universe might even be infinite?

So what do others think when they contemplate this. Does what you believe about God make you more or less likely to think that the universe is literally infinite?

If scientists were able to demonstrate that the universe probably was infinite would it affect how you viewed God?

Can you reconcile the incarnation of God's only Son with our absolutely infinitesimal size relative to the cosmos?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Green Mario:
So what do others think when they contemplate this. Does what you believe about God make you more or less likely to think that the universe is literally infinite?

Neither

quote:
originally posted by Green Mario:
If scientists were able to demonstrate that the universe probably was infinite would it affect how you viewed God?

quote:
originally posted by Green Mario:
Can you reconcile the incarnation of God's only Son with our absolutely infinitesimal size relative to the cosmos?

What is there to reconcile? Christians already presuppose a God that is ultimately knowable only through revelation. Why God would desire a relationship with humans is already answered in scripture and tradition. The size of the universe has nothing to do with it.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The size of the universe informs me that our view and ability to form a view is finite, and that everything is grander that we imagine and can imagine.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

The possibility of an infinite universe doesn't affect how I view God. If it were to though, then I'd probably, though simplistically, say that the bigger the cosmos, the more extravagant God's love for us appears to be!

As to the Incarnation, well God himself has 'infinite' attributes, e.g. goodness & mercy, so the size of Creation is almost irrelevant.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing is, the universe is effectively infinite - we could never experience anything outside it, in the physical world. So I am not sure that knowing it is more than that could impact my faith in God.

I suspect the universe is, as far as we can understand it, infinite. I have a suspicion that the edge of the universe that we postulate exists may be just a single point - that is, whatever direction we look, we are reaching the same single location. While that sounds strange, it is not unreasonable, given our current knowledge.

What this would mean is that the universe is infinite but bounded. That is critical from a perspective of understanding. It means that from our perspective, whatever direction we go in, we would continue forever - that is, we would interpret the universe as infinite. However, it is conceivable for there then to be somewhere "outside" the universe, not bound by our dimensions. It is then possible to conceive of something "external" to the universe, which can reflect where God may operate.

I always think that the multi-dimensional understanding of the universe that is emerging could give a place for the divine to occupy that is both outside our known universe, while being intimately involved in it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: I always think that the multi-dimensional understanding of the universe that is emerging could give a place for the divine to occupy that is both outside our known universe, while being intimately involved in it.

Hmm, I don't think I like this very much. "God is in dimension 7" is much too physical to me, I prefer to keep a bit of a Mystery to it.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Arthur C. Clarke dealt with this topic almost 50 years ago in "The Star"

FWIW

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Horseman Bree: Arthur C. Clarke dealt with this topic almost 50 years ago in "The Star"

I am familiar with this story. It's a good one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: I always think that the multi-dimensional understanding of the universe that is emerging could give a place for the divine to occupy that is both outside our known universe, while being intimately involved in it.
Hmm, I don't think I like this very much. "God is in dimension 7" is much too physical to me, I prefer to keep a bit of a Mystery to it.

Yes, I am puzzled how something supernatural can occupy space. I suppose s/he could, if desired, but why would s/he?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I suppose all I really meant was it could offer a mechanism whereby something outside our universe could also be engaged with it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Just because it needs quoting ...

quote:
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

There is a theological danger to a universe that is vast but finite. A step towards that (IMO) dangerous position is

quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
I pictured God as sitting outside of this and kicking it all off.

The theologically dodgy ground is the God who "lit the blue touchpaper and retired", who sits outside space-time and observes passively, basically forms of Deism.

As we gain greater understanding of the true vastness of the universe, the possibility of a multiverse, that "you may think space is big, but that's just peanuts to the universe", then we are forced away from that sort of image of God. Of course, atheism would be one option. Or, a reacquisition of theism, the God who is not just transcendent outside the universe but immanent at each point in the universe sustaining it with his all powerful word.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: I suppose all I really meant was it could offer a mechanism whereby something outside our universe could also be engaged with it.

As a way of providing a metaphor? I could live with that.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yet again I prove myself a dinosaur. I don't make the connection between "our physical size is like, really, really tiny" and "therefore we are unimportant" (or important, whichever, take your pick). Physical size has nothing to do with value. There's a logical disconnect here.

There's also a disconnect between us being important and God choosing the human race as a setting for the Incarnation. He could have chosen us for a zillion other reasons--we might be the only creatures daft enough to fall into sin and need a Savior at all, for example; or maybe there's some strategic (in the military sense) value to starting out with us. Doesn't mean we're important. Doesn't mean we're unimportant. You just can't get to that conclusion from those premises.

The weird thing is, I think (please correct me) that previous ages didn't fall into this particular logic trap. They knew perfectly well that the universe was huge and we infinitesimally tiny, but though it awed them, they don't seem to have concluded anything about God or the likelihood of the Incarnation. Nor did they make the mistake of considering the human race the center of universal attention (over others, I mean). Lewis summed up the Dantean worldview this way: "Man was a surburban creature."

There's probably something wrong with me.

[Frown]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I agree with the comment about "effectively infinite."

I remember that a science fiction author suggested that Christ might visit each world inhabited by intelligent beings once. C.S.Lewis seemed to take "made in God's image' literally, so one visit, as a human being, was enough. (This seems like species jingoism to me.)

A way to get around some of this is that if only our planet, out of all the universe, has life or at any rate has intelligent life, then this is the only planet which needs Christ's attention. Few people like this notion.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Or that our understanding is limited.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I agree with the comment about "effectively infinite."

I remember that a science fiction author suggested that Christ might visit each world inhabited by intelligent beings once. C.S.Lewis seemed to take "made in God's image' literally, so one visit, as a human being, was enough. (This seems like species jingoism to me.)

I remember the bit you're refererencing, but Lewis didn't mean the image was literal (his space novels should disprove this if nothing else). Rather he meant that God could (and in his speculation did) choose a single species to do a once-for-everything-and-everybody action--in this case, the Incarnation--and that that single instance covered the whole of creation by God's choice. There was no species jingoism behind it--if anything, Lewis' reasoning behind a single Incarnation was that God is too great an artist to repeat himself. The fact that the Incarnation happened among us (humanity) is at best an accident (probably not) and at worse a note in our disfavor, highlighting our sin as it does. It is certainly not a compliment to our species!

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

Imagine someone who took his first 6 years of
religion in a Catholic School (Until 6th grade).
Then he goes to a secular school. Not much later he watches the original Cosmos series by Carl Sagan and he also reads the book.
The traditional Genesis story paled by comparison.
He was aware that you did not necessarily have to take Genesis literally but still, what we knew even in the 1980's about the Universe made the Bible stories look quaint and clearly man made.
That person was me. Fast-forward to the present.
Of course there is a lot that we still don't know.
But what we know about the Universe on the large scale. (Very probably infinite)
And on a sub atomic scale. (Quantum weirdness etc.) Has only increased that first impression,
I find the creation Myths of a lot of other cultures a lot more creative and interesting than the ones in the Bible.

Of course more sophisticated theology than that taught in grammar school would have probably
withstood the test a bit better. But this did not destroy my faith at that time. (That honor goes to the problem of Evil.) But it did weaken my faith quite a bit.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: I always think that the multi-dimensional understanding of the universe that is emerging could give a place for the divine to occupy that is both outside our known universe, while being intimately involved in it.
Hmm, I don't think I like this very much. "God is in dimension 7" is much too physical to me, I prefer to keep a bit of a Mystery to it.
Yes, I am puzzled how something supernatural can occupy space. I suppose s/he could, if desired, but why would s/he?

Well, he did, of course, in the incarnation. So I would suppose for very similar reasons-- in order to interact and engage and be present with a finite and embodied creation.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am puzzled how something supernatural can occupy space. I suppose s/he could, if desired, but why would s/he?
Well, he did, of course, in the incarnation. So I would suppose for very similar reasons-- in order to interact and engage and be present with a finite and embodied creation.

Humans and other material objects and beings occupy space in an exclusive sense - the space I am occupying you cannot simultaneously occupy, you have to move me out of it first. Spiritual beings can occupy space non-exclusively. That's my answer to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - all of them.

As to the size of space, when I was a kid I don't remember how big it was, but some finite measurement. I asked what is beyond that, if space is X miles long what is at X+1 miles. There is no such thing as X+1 miles, was the answer. I couldn't wrap my head around that, and gave up trying, now I just enjoy the pictures. I like the idea on infinite space - endless beauty to explore!

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's also a disconnect between us being important and God choosing the human race as a setting for the Incarnation. He could have chosen us for a zillion other reasons--we might be the only creatures daft enough to fall into sin and need a Savior at all, for example; or maybe there's some strategic (in the military sense) value to starting out with us. Doesn't mean we're important. Doesn't mean we're unimportant. You just can't get to that conclusion from those premises.

Yes, exactly. The Incarnation wasn't to bestow honor on us, it was to save us: he chose us because we needed it.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Yes as a metaphor if you are happier with that. And a way of avoiding Alans Deism complaint, that God is outside and uninvolved. I want to understand how he can be outside, and yet involved.

I am NOT saying that this is How It Works. I am merely trying to find a way that does not require an abuse of Physics that could offer an explanation. For me, that sort of idea is helpful. If it isn't for you then ignore it, but don't then posit theories that are far more fanciful (not that you have, but some do. To say "We cannot explain how God works" and then explain exactly what he does to help you makes no sense)

So I see it as a way of grappling with God an the universe. Accepting an infinite but bounded universe I have no problems with. Then working out Gods place and role in it I need to think harder about.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: I always think that the multi-dimensional understanding of the universe that is emerging could give a place for the divine to occupy that is both outside our known universe, while being intimately involved in it.
Hmm, I don't think I like this very much. "God is in dimension 7" is much too physical to me, I prefer to keep a bit of a Mystery to it.
Yes, I am puzzled how something supernatural can occupy space. I suppose s/he could, if desired, but why would s/he?
Well, he did, of course, in the incarnation. So I would suppose for very similar reasons-- in order to interact and engage and be present with a finite and embodied creation.

You mean God might hang out in Alpha Centauri, so that he's available in an emergency? Hmm, I guess my image of God is rather different from that, but then they are all guesses, I suppose.

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

Excuse me while I try to be logical.

Reason/logic is a function of the human mind not a property of the creation - following Chomsky.
What descriptions scientists develop about the cosmos are descriptions of the creation.
God the creator/sustainer is separate from what s/he has created.

So nothing has really changed, God is no more or no less mysterious than 2000 years ago.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So I see it as a way of grappling with God an the universe. Accepting an infinite but bounded universe I have no problems with. Then working out Gods place and role in it I need to think harder about.

I wouldn't say God has a place in the universe. I'd say the universe has a place in God.

quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
Reason/logic is a function of the human mind not a property of the creation - following Chomsky.

Following Kant.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Philip Charles: Reason/logic is a function of the human mind not a property of the creation - following Chomsky.
What descriptions scientists develop about the cosmos are descriptions of the creation.
God the creator/sustainer is separate from what s/he has created.

I agree with the thrust of your reasoning, but I differ on some details.

Yes, logic is a function of the mind. It's our way to try to make sense of the Universe. But the Universe is such that at least in a functional sense it can be understood by logic / mathematics. That's by no means a given.

I'm something of a panentheist, so I don't believe that God is separate from creation. But your basic argument that there is a Mystery about God that lies without the realm of logic still holds.

[ 09. September 2014, 13:38: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Can you reconcile the incarnation of God's only Son with our absolutely infinitesimal size relative to the cosmos?

God is Himself so huge that He is able to contemplate the detailed lives of all 7+ billion people on the planet at once. He is so far beyond the abilities of human beings that it is almost impossible to wrap your head around. For example, God is able to keep track of the minutiae of your life and the things that worry you on a minute-by-minute basis, while simultaneously contemplating the major disasters that are happening round the world and their impact on millions of people. A normal person cannot do that, hence the question I've heard several times "Why do you expect God to listen to your prayers when there is so much trouble in the world."

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

Does 'once and for all' imply for the whole universe, or just for our little bit of it? Do we actually know that God has not incarnated on another world. Maybe in this infinite universe there is a world where he still walks with the people in the cool of the evening?

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Rather he meant that God could (and in his speculation did) choose a single species to do a once-for-everything-and-everybody action--in this case, the Incarnation--and that that single instance covered the whole of creation by God's choice.

Interestingly the same view is held by the Zqb of planet Sqxg in the Andromeda and by a billion other life forms in our Observable Universe (OU). And unsurprisingly by an infinite number of others throughout the infinite universe (IU). An infinite number of them assumes they are the species, and an infinite number assume they are not. A further infinite number assume ... and so on (infinitely maybe - depends on your sort of infinity).

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The fact that the Incarnation happened among us (humanity) is at best an accident (probably not) and at worse a note in our disfavor, highlighting our sin as it does. It is certainly not a compliment to our species!

Given an infinite universe, doesn't a sort of reverse Argument from Design become rather tempting? Even if we are the only life in the OU then surely it is reasonable to suppose there are infinitely many life forms in the IU. At infinitely many points in the IU one can define an OU around it disjunct from all others. The alternative is to believe God created a universe with only an infinitesimal pin point of it ever discernible by his creation.

Thus if we assume we are uniquely sinful we are not so just within a finite number of species but within an infinite number. What the chance that, of an infinite number of species, we just happen to be the most sinful? And here we are talking about it? It far more unlikely than that the OU just happened to have conditions for the emergence of life.

If we were chosen as a mark of disfavour, we were set up!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
sais-je: At infinitely many points in the IU one can define an OU around it disjunct from all others.

The OU's don't need to be disjunct. They can overlap.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Does this mean that there an infinite number of deities? Thus in a very large number of worlds (maybe an infinite number), Zeus himself is worshiped as the instance of the divine.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The OU's don't need to be disjunct. They can overlap.

True.

quetzalcoatl: No, see Thomas Aquinas or Ingob. The Christian/Jewish/Islamic God is the God of Gods - your individual ones are demiurges. Though that does raise other questions.

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

quote:
Does 'once and for all' imply for the whole universe, or just for our little bit of it? Do we actually know that God has not incarnated on another world. Maybe in this infinite universe there is a world where he still walks with the people in the cool of the evening?

The New Testament says that Jesus is God's only Son and part of the significance of the ascension is that Jesus remains human.

If these two statements are true God can't have incarnated on another planet in a similar way to on Earth.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The OU's don't need to be disjunct. They can overlap.
True.

quetzalcoatl: No, see Thomas Aquinas or Ingob. The Christian/Jewish/Islamic God is the God of Gods - your individual ones are demiurges. Though that does raise other questions.

But I was assured that quetzalcoatl is the refinement of divine chocolate, garnished with peacocks' tongues, since he stole the chocolate tree from the heavens. Are you seriously telling me you have another, and superior, deity in mind?

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So I see it as a way of grappling with God an the universe. Accepting an infinite but bounded universe I have no problems with. Then working out Gods place and role in it I need to think harder about.
I wouldn't say God has a place in the universe. I'd say the universe has a place in God.
...

The universe is physical; God is not. So God does not have, nor need, a place (in the physical sense) anywhere in the universe, but through the incarnation of His Son, and then only for a time.

The universe exists because God willed it into existence. Whether it is finite or infinite is irrelevant. I cannot possibly understand how any physical thing could be infinite, but since most of the known universe is nothing, the existence of a limit to it is really just a point, or a line, or a plane, beyond which nothing (no matter) exists. With that I have no problem.

Since the planets, stars, etc. are physical, in some sense they are countable, and therefore the number of them is less than infinity. Therefore, it must follow that they are contained in some space which is also less than infinite in size.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

This is all very fine, but it's hard enough imagining 100 miles, let alone a light year or billions of light years. Similarly with God - it's easy to say the word, but I don't think many people have really accessed an even vaguely close sense of what that really means. We are like ants in a small patch of grass on a vast mountain overlooking a vast and varied landscape lying on a planet inside a stellar nursery. We see grass and maybe a few centimeters where the grass is thinner, and all the rest is so big that it's invisible.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God cannot think anything outside Himself.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Since the planets, stars, etc. are physical, in some sense they are countable,

Why? How does that follow? If there is infinite matter, this would be no problem.

quote:
and therefore the number of them is less than infinity.

You do realize that "countable" is one way of saying "the size of the smallest infinite set"? The positive whole numbers, to take one example, are countable, by definition -- you use them to count, and you can keep counting for as long as you please. Give me any number, and I can give you the next one. There is no last one. There is an infinite number of them.

quote:
Therefore, it must follow that they are contained in some space which is also less than infinite in size.

Even granting a finite number of stars (which I haven't agreed to), this doesn't follow. Why can't you have a finite number of stars in an infinite space? Just with lots and lots and lots of blank room around the edges.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I was going to post, but stopped
For 'twas summed up well by Lamb Chopped.

... though I think that I shall take a pause
To quote C.S. Lewis, just because.

quote:
'You see, the real objection goes far deeper. The whole picture of the universe which science has given us makes it such rot to believe that the Power at the back of it all could be interested in us tiny little creatures crawling about on an unimportant planet! It was all so obviously invented by people who believed in a flat earth with the stars only a mile or two away.'

'When did people believe that?'

'Why, all those old Christian chaps you're always telling me about did. I mean Boethius and Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and Dante.'

'Sorry,' said I, 'but this is one of the few subjects I do know something about.'

I reached out my had to a bookshelf. ‘You see this book’, I said, ‘Ptolemy’s Almagest. You know what it is?’

'Yes,' said he. 'It's the standard astronomical handbook used all through the Middle Ages.'

'Well, just read that,' I said, pointing to Book I, chapter 5.

'The earth,' read out my friend, hesitating a bit as he translated the latin, 'the earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point!'

There was a moment’s silence.

'Did they really know that THEN?' said my friend.

--"Religion and Science," C.S. Lewis

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you seriously telling me you have another, and superior, deity in mind?

If there isn't one, from whom did you steal the chocolate tree?

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
The New Testament says that Jesus is God's only Son and part of the significance of the ascension is that Jesus remains human.

Is it conceivable that, when God inspired that verse, the interpreter was unaware of the possibility of multiverses and infinite universes outside the observable one? Or maybe God thought that a complete course in modern physics would be a bit confusing and provided only as much as was necessary for understanding?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
but through the incarnation of His Son, and then only for a time.

Only starting at one time; He's still got His resurrected body, as I understand it.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Originally posted by Green Mario:
The New Testament says that Jesus is God's only Son and part of the significance of the ascension is that Jesus remains human

Not really. What it means that our humanity has been taken up and become part of the life of God. God assumed our human nature in Christ.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Since the planets, stars, etc. are physical, in some sense they are countable, and therefore the number of them is less than infinity. Therefore, it must follow that they are contained in some space which is also less than infinite in size.

this is fundamentally wrong. The argument I had above provides for an infinite but bounded universe, that is, however far you go in any direction, you will never find an end - but it is possible to have something "outside" the universe.

The number of "things" in the universe is not necessarily countable. In particular, because we can only engage with a certain portion of the extant universe at one time, we cannot possibly "count" everything in the universe, so they are not countable.

It is a little bit like counting sheet who are in a large field - counting them is difficult, because they keep moving, changing. All we can say is a few things about the part of the universe we can observe, and extrapolate the rest.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... The argument I had above provides for an infinite but bounded universe, that is, however far you go in any direction, you will never find an end - but it is possible to have something "outside" the universe.

I don't buy that. If it is infinite, there can be no boundary. My argument is that, if there is a boundary, we cannot call it infinite - very large, certainly.

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The number of "things" in the universe is not necessarily countable. In particular, because we can only engage with a certain portion of the extant universe at one time, we cannot possibly "count" everything in the universe, so they are not countable.

...

We cannot count the grains of sand on the beach. That doesn't mean there are an infinite number of them.

Large numbers of objects can be counted - at least if we have the time and ability to do so. This is fundamentally different than saying that the set of whole numbers is infinite and therefore cannot be counted. The reason the set of numbers is infinite is because, first, they are not physical, but a construct. They are only infinite because we simply define the next one, there is no need to create it. Matter is not the same - once we get to the last one, there is no next one.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God cannot think anything outside Himself.

There is no such place or thing which you can call outside of God. Since God is not physical, the concept makes no sense.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... If there is infinite matter, this would be no problem.

...

That is the question. How could there possibly be infinite matter?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The number of "things" in the universe is not necessarily countable. In particular, because we can only engage with a certain portion of the extant universe at one time, we cannot possibly "count" everything in the universe, so they are not countable.

You are equivocating on "countable." Yes it can mean, "countable by us in practical terms." I do not think that's what it means in this context. Mathematically speaking, "countable" means roughly "having the same cardinality as the integers." Of which there is no end.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If it is infinite, there can be no boundary.

You err because you do not understand mathematics.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... If there is infinite matter, this would be no problem....
That is the question. How could there possibly be infinite matter?

You say this as if it is intuitively obvious that matter must be finite. Do you have some reason in mind for why matter must be finite? I do not see that we have any reason to come down on either side of the question, before scientific investigation and theorizing. Whence does your intuition that matter is finite come from?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I think if there was infinite matter in the singularity before the big bang, and it all came out, then intuitively, that would have resulted in an infinite CBMR

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God cannot think anything outside Himself.
There is no such place or thing which you can call outside of God. Since God is not physical, the concept makes no sense.

That's interesting. As an atheist, I wonder how do you imagine God to be?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't buy that. If it is infinite, there can be no boundary. My argument is that, if there is a boundary, we cannot call it infinite - very large, certainly.

No - that is a mistake. That is one of the crucial findings of cosmology and other stuff, that the universe can be infinite but bounded. That is quite possible, as I described above. Yes, hard to get ones head around, but not physically impossible.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
We cannot count the grains of sand on the beach. That doesn't mean there are an infinite number of them.

But I could put together a way of counting them. I am not saying it would be easy, but it would be conceivable. It would involve gathering all of the sand into a counting machine, and letting it do its job. We would probably then have to add the new sand that has been created since this started.

The problem with the universe is that we cannot engage with even the other side of our galaxy at the current time. There are parts of the universe that are inaccessible to us, so we cannot count the objects in them. We can (in theory) count how many object exist at some point (either in the distant past or distant future), but not relate that to how many objects there are now.

In essence, it is the problem of the sand being created all of the time. If we are counting by hand, the number is irrelevant, because more sand has been created, and some sand might have been taken away in the time it takes us to count it. It doesn't mean there is an infinite amount of sand - it means it is uncountable by those methods. We cannot get access to all of the sand and count it at one point.

Similarly, but to a much more significant scale, we cannot get access to everything in the universe at one point to count it. There are, potentially, objects that are fundamentally outside our knowledge. So they are not countable - which doesn't mean they are infinite, of course.

Except in an infinite universe, they could be. I think. My mind starts to go peculiar at this point. But the constant re-creation means that at every point we stand there could be a different set of items. The number of objects is infinite because there are always new ones arriving and old ones vanishing. Our perception of the universe if finite and limited, but in an infinite universe, there can always be more.

If the universe is infinite in the time direction - as I suspect it is - then there is always time for more objects to be created.

The problem is, we cannot

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Although I agree with some of his arguments, I'm not exactly sure which definition of 'countable' Schroedinger's cat is using here. I'm familiar with the concept of countable sets and the related notion of 'countably infinite' but he seems to be talking about something else here.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Countability means that you can assign a single ordinal number to each object. I am arguing that this cannot be done, because the time it would take is significant, and at cosmological scales, time is crucial.

There are parts of the universe that we cannot reach. Or rather objects that we cannot count, because they are outside our time cone. In this case, I would consider them uncountable.

And this is not a rigorous scientific argument, but a way of understanding the universe which explains how the number of objects can be uncountable.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: Countability means that you can assign a single ordinal number to each object. I am arguing that this cannot be done, because the time it would take is significant, and at cosmological scales, time is crucial.

I guess this confirms my suspicion that this is different from the usual mathematical definition of a countable set. Thank you for the clarification.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: Countability means that you can assign a single ordinal number to each object. I am arguing that this cannot be done, because the time it would take is significant, and at cosmological scales, time is crucial.
I guess this confirms my suspicion that this is different from the usual mathematical definition of a countable set. Thank you for the clarification.

I am not sure it does. I thought my definition fits with the wikipedia definition you linked to.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: I am not sure it does. I thought my definition fits with the wikipedia definition you linked to.

Not really. Countable sets are a mathematical concept, whether we are prohibited from counting things by physical constraints (for example because of time constraints, things are moving, or things being created or because of the speed of light) doesn't really enter. If you look at the Wikipedia page, there's nothing in it about time, movement, change, light cones or stuff like that.

Once again, if you want to use a definition of 'countable' that's somewhat different from the standard mathematical one, that's fine by me. I was just looking for clarification.

[ 11. September 2014, 21:31: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If it is infinite, there can be no boundary.
You err because you do not understand mathematics.

...

Interesting how quickly some resort to personal attacks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Interesting what some people interpret as personal attacks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: Countability means that you can assign a single ordinal number to each object. I am arguing that this cannot be done, because the time it would take is significant, and at cosmological scales, time is crucial.
I guess this confirms my suspicion that this is different from the usual mathematical definition of a countable set. Thank you for the clarification.
I am not sure it does. I thought my definition fits with the wikipedia definition you linked to.

Countability means exactly that you can assign a single integer (ordinal or cardinal doesn't matter on this side of infinity) to each element of a set. But it doesn't mean that you can do this yourself, personally. It means you can in theory.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... The argument I had above provides for an infinite but bounded universe, that is, however far you go in any direction, you will never find an end - but it is possible to have something "outside" the universe.
I don't buy that. If it is infinite, there can be no boundary. My argument is that, if there is a boundary, we cannot call it infinite - very large, certainly.

Well, in mathematics, there are plenty of infinite series with boundaries.

Not that that's an exact analogue of a physical world. It just struck me that the words 'infinite' and 'boundary' can be quite readily used together and make sense - at least in a mathematical context.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not that that's an exact analogue of a physical world. It just struck me that the words 'infinite' and 'boundary' can be quite readily used together and make sense - at least in a mathematical context.

I think the world is a whole lot more mathematical than most people realize.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, in mathematics, there are plenty of infinite series with boundaries.

Not that that's an exact analogue of a physical world. It just struck me that the words 'infinite' and 'boundary' can be quite readily used together and make sense - at least in a mathematical context.
I think the world is a whole lot more mathematical than most people realize.

An example of an infinite boundary is the equation for heat or water entering a point source - the boundary is effectively infinite for as long as the "signal" of the input takes to reach whatever real boundary there is, and for the reflection from the boundary to make a "substantial" difference for an observer. The maths can't be formulated unless the boundary at infinity has some property - just some unknown something at infinity means that what goes in inside is undefined once the boundary's presence starts to have an effect. You can assume some random property at infinity, but at some point in time if that assumption is incorrect, it will affect the "maths" and the maths will not represent the processes very well. Infinity has a habit of affecting non-infinity surprisingly quickly. Boundary conditions are the bread and butter of any attempt to model real processes using maths. And they are often the hardest thing to define.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: Countability means that you can assign a single ordinal number to each object. I am arguing that this cannot be done, because the time it would take is significant, and at cosmological scales, time is crucial.
I guess this confirms my suspicion that this is different from the usual mathematical definition of a countable set. Thank you for the clarification.
I am not sure it does. I thought my definition fits with the wikipedia definition you linked to.
Countability means exactly that you can assign a single integer (ordinal or cardinal doesn't matter on this side of infinity) to each element of a set. But it doesn't mean that you can do this yourself, personally. It means you can in theory.

And my point is, it cannot be done in theory, because there is no point in the universe to distribute all of the series of numbers from that would capture every object.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

There was an interesting paper posted on a different talk board a few years ago - unfortunately I lost the link, and have not been able to re-discover the paper. It was an analysis of the universe using information theory. If you consider the moment-by moment manifestation of the material world as a computer program, then you have active registers (memory), you have registers being used to prepare the next event, and you have registers being used to dispose of the processing and data remaining from the last event. The proportions of these three, when calculated, gave relative memory required as being almost the same proportions as ordinary matter (now), dark matter (past) and dark energy (future).

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And my point is, it cannot be done in theory, because there is no point in the universe to distribute all of the series of numbers from that would capture every object.

I wish I knew (though not very much) what this meant. Is it a statement about mathematical physics or mathematics?

In mathematics there are infinite sets which are countable but bounded. To take the simplest example, all the fractional points between 0 and 1 but excluding 0 and 1 ( sometimes written ]0,1[, sometimes (0,1) ). All the points are distinct, their positions (or values) are bounded: all are < 1 and > 0.

In mathematical physics we'd have to take into account the Uncertainty Principle, spontaneous creation/disappearance of photons, black holes where, even in theory, we can't look inside the event horizon and so on. Conceivably that could make a difference.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And my point is, it cannot be done in theory, because there is no point in the universe to distribute all of the series of numbers from that would capture every object.
I wish I knew (though not very much) what this meant. Is it a statement about mathematical physics or mathematics?

....

What I was trying to say previously - you can't count using zero resources over zero time - your counting process inevitably takes up a finite proportion of the universe, and takes a finite length of time. There is a flow of information. So given that fact, it is possible to look at the universe as exactly that - a flow of information.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
In mathematical physics we'd have to take into account the Uncertainty Principle, spontaneous creation/disappearance of photons, black holes where, even in theory, we can't look inside the event horizon and so on. Conceivably that could make a difference.

That is what I am getting at. There are more issues than just black holes and uncertainty. These problems are inherent in the universe.

The time cone means that even outside event horizons, there are many places that we cannot have any information about.

As itsarumdo is saying, I think, there are parts of the universe that we cannot have information about from where we are. Irrespective of where we are, there will be places that we can have no information about. Therefore we cannot count the objects in them.

In most systems represented by mathematical models (the models of number theory for example) these factors are irrelevant. It is only when you start to work in cosmological scales that these are issues. Mathematical models do also work for these, but they are more complex models, taking into account factors like uncertainty and event horizons.

These places where we cannot receive information from are important, meaning that the number of objects in the universe is uncountable. That does not necessarily mean infinite, but I suspect it does in reality.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
What I was trying to say previously - you can't count using zero resources over zero time - your counting process inevitably takes up a finite proportion of the universe, and takes a finite length of time. There is a flow of information. So given that fact, it is possible to look at the universe as exactly that - a flow of information.

I agree but describing something as 'countable' in the mathematical usage doesn't involve actually counting or using any resources. It is only necessary to create a thought experiment or do a proof. To take a trivial example, the set of words formed from the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet is countable. Imagine all possible words written order as a numbered list so that first we have all one letter words

1. a
2. b
...
26. z
then all two letter words (in alphabetical order),
27. ...
28. ...
....
then three letter then four and so on. Clearly each and every word appears at just one point in the list and at every point (in our infinitely long list) corresponds to a possible word. Thus the set of all possible words is countable in the mathematical sense. Very little information required or consumed.

I think information as a conserved quantity is an interesting idea but it determines whether stuff can be counted within certain resource constraints - mathematics (like God) is not so constrained.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And my point is, it cannot be done in theory, because there is no point in the universe to distribute all of the series of numbers from that would capture every object.
I wish I knew (though not very much) what this meant. Is it a statement about mathematical physics or mathematics?

....
What I was trying to say previously - you can't count using zero resources over zero time - your counting process inevitably takes up a finite proportion of the universe, and takes a finite length of time. There is a flow of information. So given that fact, it is possible to look at the universe as exactly that - a flow of information.

The point is not physically counting them. "Countable" doesn't mean "someone could count them." This is constructionist nonsense.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And my point is, it cannot be done in theory, because there is no point in the universe to distribute all of the series of numbers from that would capture every object.
I wish I knew (though not very much) what this meant. Is it a statement about mathematical physics or mathematics?

....
What I was trying to say previously - you can't count using zero resources over zero time - your counting process inevitably takes up a finite proportion of the universe, and takes a finite length of time. There is a flow of information. So given that fact, it is possible to look at the universe as exactly that - a flow of information.
The point is not physically counting them. "Countable" doesn't mean "someone could count them." This is constructionist nonsense.

I think that if you wish to deal with a real universe ...

instead of Counting (without actually counting) imaginary items in a hypothetical series in a mathematically constructed universe, you will necessarily have to descend to the less elegant and rather mundane effort of physically counting real objects.

If this is not the case, I guess you will be able to count the sheets of paper remaining in my printer without having to open the drawer. At least you know it's less than 501 and probably more than zero.

Even the alphabetical example you gave does't work, because e.g. there are no words spelt Wxcrtta, Wxcrttb, Wxcrttc, Wxcrttd, ... etc, and there are no clear rules for knowing exactly which words are real and which not in any specific language except by physically counting them

[ 17. September 2014, 21:43: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

At this point I have no idea what your point is. I didn't say ANYTHING about words. And the question is whether the number of stars is countable, which is a precisely mathematically defined adjective and has nothing to do with physically counting. Nor your printer. I can confidently state that you have fewer than an infinite number of sheets in your printer, so it's not really comparable.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Quote by mousethief:
At this point * have no idea *hat your point is. * didn't say ANYTHING about *ords. And the question is *hether the number of stars is countable, *hich is a precisely mathematically defined adjective and has nothing to do *ith physically counting. Nor your printer. * can confidently state that you have fe*er than an infinite number of sheets in your printer, so it's not really comparable.

Apologies about the *ords - the edit time on these boards seems to be only several microseconds.

* had a look at countable sets, and it doesn't appear to apply to real items. If you try to count (e.g) electrons - they are theoretically countable, but it impossible to label them, so then it becomes necessary to compartmentalise their physical location - counted, not counted. *hich is implicit in a theoretical enumerated set, but has to be e*plicit *ith real objects. One basket contains counted oranges, each *ith a neat label displaying a unique integer, and over there *e have a basket of oranges *ith no label. So - ho* does one compartmentalise the universe of electrons to make sure that its constituents are not double-counted or that *e have not missed any? This is the basis for information theory, *hich requires that the countable information is substantially less than (maybe 10%) the total space available. *e are so far also ignoring state and relationship, *hich increase counting comple*ity. Similarly, the time that may be taken to count "may be infinite" - so that comes across practical objections in a universe that apparently has a finite lifespan. *hat may be theoretically enumerable is not the same as *hat is effectively enumerable, and if it takes longer than the life of the universe to enumerate its contents, it is effectively VERY BIG (to use the appropriate jargon).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0