Jump to content

Infinity vs Finite or the perception of Space - Time - Energy - Matter - Information


1x0

Recommended Posts

Here is a question: 


Can I say that the Universe is infinite if I know that there is an exact moment when space with basic information (time) started to evolve? We have a current moment of now throughout the universe (meaning everywhere happening something even the perception of time and space can be relative based on the physical environment.) This is meaning that time has an exact moment countable and space has to have an exact size. That indicates that there is an exact amount of energy, matter, and information in a common space-time realm (which we can observe precisely, measure, count, recognize, manipulate). Note that we are not yet able to sense the whole system as it is, because we are relatively primitive and that our limited capability to sense reality does not mean that it is not there, or that would be absolute infinite. We can very precisely recognize reality in our environment.

If infinite would be possible than in every moment every possible variant of existence should happen from every aspect of every point in space(time). Infinite weight with infinite energy with absolute infinite information in infinite space(time). We do not have the signs of that.

We have one common reality where both of my ears exist in the same moment in different places in space.


So the only infinite is the forward pointing potential for evolution of space and time can be with an exact moment of existence.

- False

- Can be true

- True

Note! The idea, that gravitational constant can exist meaning that gravity, and by that the amount of matter countable in the Universe has to rise if we can observe that in expanding space (if it would not raise we would experience that the gravitational constant decreases). I would suggest that the two has a correlation

Space(time) - Matter

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/01/2018 at 7:50 PM, 1x0 said:

Can I say that the Universe is infinite if I know that there is an exact moment when space with basic information (time) started to evolve?

No.The universe could be finite or infinite. We have no way of telling which (and I suspect never can).

On 30/01/2018 at 7:50 PM, 1x0 said:

We have a current moment of now throughout the universe

No we don't. The meaning of "now" is dependent on the observer; different observers may disagree about when things happen relative to other things.

On 30/01/2018 at 7:50 PM, 1x0 said:

That indicates that there is an exact amount of energy, matter, and information in a common space-time realm (which we can observe precisely, measure, count, recognize, manipulate).

Energy (and possibly information) is also observer dependent. So it depends who measures these things and how.

On 30/01/2018 at 7:50 PM, 1x0 said:

Note that we are not yet able to sense the whole system as it is, because we are relatively primitive and that our limited capability to sense reality does not mean that it is not there, or that would be absolute infinite.

We can never observe anything outside the observable universe by definition (not because we are "primitive").

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. No.The universe could be finite or infinite. We have no way of telling which (and I suspect never can).

2. No we don't. The meaning of "now" is dependent on the observer; different observers may disagree about when things happen relative to other things.

3. Energy (and possibly information) is also observer dependent. So it depends who measures these things and how.

4. We can never observe anything outside the observable universe by definition (not because we are "primitive").

 

1

 

1. How and why would be infinite? You can observe its beginning with a good approximation. How can it be infinite if it has a beginning? The observable evolution is guided by physical laws applied since the beginning. The only thing can happen you(we) are not aware (looking from inside of the box) its functions. It is there. Observable reality. 

2. The observers does not change the fundamental laws of physics with their observation. They can impact physical reality by their existence but the fundamental laws of Nature won't change by the perception of the different observers in different physical conditions. 

3. Exactly. You sense what you have or not. That is why I call it relative primitivity. 

4. So it has a limit? 

The primitivity I meant on our capabilities to recognize reality. See extraterrestrial life. I guess that is due to our relative primitivity rather than the universe would be intelligence free. As I do not chat much with butterflies about the functions of the internet because it is missing the physically required organs to include that information, so I guess the higher intelligence would have some problems to communicate with us based on the same reasons. Our relative primitivity you can recognize, as we cannot yet determine clear our scientific grounds. 1/0, infinite or not etc... The result obviously our the observer's responsibility, depending on the capabilities, which can vary a lot. This variation and the individual perception does not change reality.  

Edited by 1x0
Reviewing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

1. How and why would be infinite?

Why not. We don't know how large the universe is. It could be finite or infinite. 

But you started off by saying that the universe was infinite. Now you are saying it can't be?

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

You can observe its beginning with a good approximation.

No you can't. All we can observe is that it was hot and dense at some time in the past. We don't know what happened before that.

And this has absolutely no connection with whether it is infinite or not. If the universe was created (something for which there is zero evidence) then it could have been created infinite in size, just as easily as it could have been created finite in size (neither seem to be very realistic possibilities).

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

2. The observers does not change the fundamental laws of physics with their observation.

No. But those laws say that space and time are measured differently by different observers. Those laws tell us there is no "universal now".

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

3. Exactly. You sense what you have or not. That is why I call it relative primitivity. 

I was talking about physics: the energy (or mass, or speed) of an object depends on the observer. It is not a fixed or absolute quantity. This has nothing to do with being "primitive".

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

4. So it has a limit? 

Yes. The observable universe is a finite volume defined by the time that light takes to reach us (and the expansion of the universe).

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

See extraterrestrial life.

We haven't yet seen any extra-terrestrial life, so I don't know what the relevance of this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2018. 02. 01. at 11:57 AM, Strange said:

No.The universe could be finite or infinite. We have no way of telling which (and I suspect never can).

On 2018. 01. 30. at 7:50 PM, 1x0 said:

Does the fact, that we have no way of telling does the Universe is finite or infinite change the original fact that the universe is finite (or infinite)? Our own view must be relative too...

Does the Universe contain all information to absolute clear physical reality recognition?

I have studied in my whole life but there are so many things I do not know yet.... I would be happy about a good limited advanced AI... 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

If you're going to start speculating and making things up, this thread will be moved from the mainstream section it's in.

 

 

I am relatively primitive in comparison to Einstein(i own less intelligence than he had). I am not an absolute simple being I am more intelligent than ants. So my intelligence is relative.

If I can suspect based on the size of the space-time realm we exist in that significantly higher intelligence than myself is possible to find in this reality, than I think I can call myself and the species I am part of which still have problems with calculus (1/0) relatively primitive. I do not understand why you sense that my expression is speculative? 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

 

I am relatively primitive in comparison to Einstein(i own less intelligence than he had). I am not an absolute simple being I am more intelligent than ants. So my intelligence is relative.

If I can suspect based on the size of the space-time realm we exist in that significantly higher intelligence than myself is possible to find in the realm, I think I can call myself and the species I am part of which still have problems with calculus (1/0) relatively primitive. I do not understand why you sense that my expression is speculative? 

Did you just say that we as a species have a problem with the issue of dividing by zero? This is the relativity section of physics on a science forum, you must be joking right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

I do not understand why you sense that my expression is speculative? 

!

Moderator Note

You're trying to mix this primitivity concept you have with relativity. If you want to continue, I'm happy to move this to Speculations, but your concept isn't mainstream, and this is a mainstream section. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this. 

I can leave this here if you want to continue asking questions. I can move it to Speculations if you want to continue making up your own terms. Or we can put you back on the Mod queue, and you can post whatever you want and we'll decide if it's reasonable. I'd prefer you let me know your choice (please don't explain) either by PM, or by responding with a relevant post (not a response to the modnote).

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Did you just say that we as a species have a problem with the issue of dividing by zero? This is the relativity section of physics on a science forum, you must be joking right?

Could you than just express with reasoning It is finite or infinite and why? Does the lack of our understanding of this information changes the fact that the Universe is finite (or infinite)... So then does not our understanding is relative to our capability to perceive reality at the end of the day... 

Anyway if it so easy why isn't it determined yet? As far as I understood the previous suggestions, the result pointed towards infinity... so felt fitting to the topic started.

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2018 at 5:50 AM, 1x0 said:

Here is a question: 


Can I say that the Universe is infinite if I know that there is an exact moment when space with basic information (time) started to evolve? We have a current moment of now throughout the universe (meaning everywhere happening something even the perception of time and space can be relative based on the physical environment.) This is meaning that time has an exact moment countable and space has to have an exact size.

The data and evidence tells us that the observable universe/space/time [ as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state, the size of an atomic nucleus that we call a singularity. Physicists today do not accept the physical singularity, and simply see it as the region where current theories break down or are not applicable. the highlighted parts are what matters....firstly all we are able to determine is that it is the observable universe that evolved from that hot dense state, and that whatever was before was simply space and time, as we don't know them. So yes an infinite state is possible although as yet we cannot be sure.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

You're trying to mix this primitivity concept you have with relativity. If you want to continue, I'm happy to move this to Speculations, but your concept isn't mainstream, and this is a mainstream section. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this. 

I can leave this here if you want to continue asking questions. I can move it to Speculations if you want to continue making up your own terms. Or we can put you back on the Mod queue, and you can post whatever you want and we'll decide if it's reasonable. I'd prefer you let me know your choice (please don't explain) either by PM, or by responding with a relevant post (not a response to the modnote).

 

I would be happy if the question would stay as I am curious about what professionals think and thanks for the guidelines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

I would be happy if the question would stay as I am curious about what professionals think and thanks for the guidelines.  

As a professional I’ll tell you that if you wont stop commenting on the mod notes you will get banned. You might also brush up on the very basics of physics before you jump into the most complex issues that physics deals with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, koti said:

As a professional I’ll tell you that if you wont stop commenting on the mod notes you will get banned. You might also brush up on the very basics of physics before you jump into the most complex issues that physics deals with.

I will do my best. Thanks for the advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Could you than just express with reasoning It is finite or infinite and why? Does the lack of our understanding of this information changes the fact that the Universe is finite (or infinite)... So then does not our understanding is relative to our capability to perceive reality at the end of the day... 

Anyway if it so easy why isn't it determined yet? As far as I understood the previous suggestions, the result pointed towards infinity... so felt fitting to the topic started.

I believe its reasonable to say that  the latest data, primarilly from an experiment called WMAP, tells us that the universe is topologically flat [meaning that if two rays of light are emiited into the void parallel, they remain parallel. This seems to denote a universe that is infinite, although we cannot rule out some topologies such as a "torus" which while still flat is finite.

I'm no professional though, so any corrections welcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

Does the lack of our understanding of this information

What is “this information “?

And what does it have to do with dividing by zero?

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

I believe its reasonable to say that  the latest data, primarilly from an experiment called WMAP, tells us that the universe is topologically flat [meaning that if two rays of light are emiited into the void parallel, they remain parallel. This seems to denote a universe that is infinite, although we cannot rule out some topologies such as a "torus" which while still flat is finite.

It also can’t rule out finite but very, very large. 

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

I believe its reasonable to say that  the latest data, primarilly from an experiment called WMAP, tells us that the universe is topologically flat [meaning that if two rays of light are emiited into the void parallel, they remain parallel. This seems to denote a universe that is infinite, although we cannot rule out some topologies such as a "torus" which while still flat is finite.

It also can’t rule out finite but very, very large. 

Or that the observable universe is flat but overall the universe is not. 

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is “this information “?

And what does it have to do with dividing by zero?

It also can’t rule out finite but very, very large. 

It also can’t rule out finite but very, very large. 

Or that the observable universe is flat but overall the universe is not. 

Bingo! :)

 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

 I think I can call myself and the species I am part of which still have problems with calculus (1/0) relatively primitive. 

!

Moderator Note

Your previous discussion of 1/0 and 1x0 were locked. Any further mention gets the thread locked.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018. 02. 09. at 10:33 PM, Strange said:

What is “this information “?

 

That it is finite or infinite.

There is a significant difference between the two states. If it is infinite then how can it be just applied to one physical entity space(time) and not to energy and matter? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

That it is finite or infinite.

There is a significant difference between the two states. If it is infinite then how can it be just applied to one physical entity space(time) and not to energy and matter? 

Yes, if the universe is infinite then it must contain infinite matter and energy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Yes, if the universe is infinite then it must contain infinite matter and energy. 

There are no signs of infinite matter and energy which could be a paradox if we can recognize patterns of infinity in numbers. On the other hand, maybe we just not yet found the physical limitation of number recognition and that is why we assume it approaches infinity.

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

There are no signs of infinite matter and energy which could be a paradox if we can recognize patterns of infinity in numbers.

Well, the apparent flatness of the universe could be such a sign. 

I don’t know how the existence of mathematical infinity is paradoxical or even relevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, the apparent flatness of the universe could be such a sign. 

 

This still can not explain the lack of infinite energy and matter in the observable universe. Everywhere should be everything. Everything should be a supermassive black hole....

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

This still can not explain the lack of infinite energy and matter in the observable universe. Everywhere should be everything. Everything should be a supermassive black hole....

Huh? What are you talking about? The observable universe is FINITE. You could, in principle, count the stars or even atoms it contains.

(There is another thread where a forum member regularly updates his estimate of the total mass of the observable universe.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Huh? What are you talking about? The observable universe is FINITE. You could, in principle, count the stars or even atoms it contains.

 

Exactly. It seems to be finite. So if it has the physical appearance of a finite structure it cannot be infinite. I tried to give an example what infinity could mean...  

If the Universe is finite it has to have a starting point and what else can be that start be than the lowest possible physical state?

 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.