Debate How big do you think is the Universe?

[Tsuyoiko]

Cultural and social stereotypes do limit our mind, but not always. And if it happens for humans to find out that there is another life-form in the universe some of them (wouldn`t say for the whole humanity) will be able to step over bounaries of mind, reason and upbrinning.

But in an infinite universe there might be lifeforms that are so different from us that our limited experience does not allow us to recognise them as life, no matter how open-minded we are. There have been Sci Fi stories based on that idea.

 

[Void]

Sci-fi stories of various kinds, yeah. There also can be arguement that we are uncapble of understanding our human cultures, what to think then about outer world? If another lifeform will be willing to make contact sooner or later we`ll breach some differences (maybe, some already did) I am not speking about whole population of Earth.
Besides, since we share same universe, probably the differense wan`t be too deep

 

[Void]

heh, funny "Ozymandias" by Sheckley (sp?) poped up in my mind =)))))))))))

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Besides, since we share same universe, probably the differense wan`t be too deep

Good point, as we will share the same laws of physics, same chemical elements etc.

heh, funny "Ozymandias" by Sheckley (sp?) poped up in my mind =)))))))))))

That's one of my favourite poems: "boundless and bare the lone and level sands stretch far away". I just loooove that alliteration!

 

[Void]

no-no, i am not about poem by Percy, but sci-fi story by Robert Sheckley (i think that was his story), let me search
-------------

sorry, maybe i`m mixing smth up.Can`t find any. It`s short story about deserted planed whose previous inhabitants made a great storage place of different valuable staff of various civilizations. They put a robot to guard it and prevent from logical (intelligent) beings get staff away. Asking questions robot distinguished whether the being was logical and intelligent or not...

--------
let`s see if i`ll find the author and the name of the story

 

[Pachipro]

With our very limited human brain capacity who is to say what is infinite and what is finite? Think of the phrase I was taught in Catholic school, "God always was and always will be." Try to comprehend that in your mind. It's impossible. It'll make you crazy much the same way when someone says that the universise is infinite. You cannot comprehend it.

Take a carp in a glass pond next to the Pacific ocean (his space) for example. He lives in a small two dimensional world and he knows his boundries. Take him from his pond and throw him in the Pacific ocean (space). Now, considering he could live, he would think he was thrown into 'space' and it would be infinite as, in his lifetime, he would never reach the 'end.' He could swim forever. After a couple of years, take him out of the ocean and put him back in his pond and he would tell his fellow carp that space was infinite as he never saw the end.

We humans, on the other hand, know that the ocean is limited, but with our advanced lifetimes and technology over carp they would never know the truth unless they advanced to our level.

The same holds true for space and the universe. With our limited lifetimes and technology, who is to know whether there is an end to the universe or not? Who is to say that advanced beings, only 10,000 years ahead of us for example, do not know the boundaries of the universe with their faster than light travel or their ability to bend space and time?

I voted for infinite as that is what I presently believe based on our limited existance and technology. But for all I know the universe could be as finite as the universe of a carp in a pond.

 

[Rich303]

Mind you, I don't agree with that, because I don't believe that evolution is necessarily progressive.

That's an interesting point. I often assume (or hope) that humans will progress a lot further, but maybe we won't

Also,I suppose there is the question of whether the evolution of life on Earth(or anywhere else)could progress far enough before it is wiped out (by itself,a natural disaster or cosmic event),and 'reset'. E.g the dinosaurs.
Who knows what life on Earth would be like if dinosaurs had been able to keep evolving.
I think eventually the human race will have to leave this planet,if we survive long enough to develop the technology to do it.

P.S sorry for my worm/amoeba mix-up - I'm a bit out of my depth here, sorry to get off topic...

 

[Tsuyoiko]

no-no, i am not about poem by Percy, but sci-fi story by Robert Sheckley (i think that was his story), let me search

Sorry Void, I thought you just got Shelley's name mixed up. I have never heard of Sheckley.

P.S sorry for my worm/amoeba mix-up - I'm a bit out of my depth here, sorry to get off topic...

I only know about it because I am a nerd and evolution is one of my favourite subjects - so you don't have to apologise! I like Stephen Jay Gould's theories of evolution. One of his arguments is the 'wall theory'. He suggests that the only reason creatures have become more complex is because in the beginning that is the only way evolution could go - from a wall of maximum simplicity outwards into complexity. Now that life is complex it could evolve either way. Natural selection may favour simplicity in some cases - like the simplified internal organs in the Martians from War of the Worlds. (Great book!)

 

[Rich303]

:bluush:

I only know about it because I am a nerd and evolution is one of my favourite subjects - so you don't have to apologise! I like Stephen Jay Gould's theories of evolution. One of his arguments is the 'wall theory'. He suggests that the only reason creatures have become more complex is because in the beginning that is the only way evolution could go - from a wall of maximum simplicity outwards into complexity. Now that life is complex it could evolve either way. Natural selection may favour simplicity in some cases - like the simplified internal organs in the Martians from War of the Worlds. (Great book!)

Your husband is a lucky man!
Not many ladies I know are interested in this sort of thing.

I hope to one day day meet a girl who appreciates my total lack of interest in Football!

 

[Tsuyoiko]

:blush: Wow! I hate football too!

 

[hakui]

Infinite?

Infinite is an interesting concept. Is there anyone who can understand it ?
:souka:

 

[lexico]

Infinite is an interesting concept. Is there anyone who can understand it ?
:souka:

Hmm. Interesting question Hakui.
I have heard many interesting legends about 'infinity.' First let me begin with the etymology of in-fin-it-y from M-W.

infinity (14c) n. < infinite (14c) adj. ME infinit < MF infinit < L infinitus: in+finitus 'finite'

finite (15c) adj. < ME finit < L finitus: pp of L finire 'to finish'

1a. having definite or definable limits <~ no. of possibiities>
1b. having a limited nature of existence <~ beings>
2. completely determinable in theory in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought <the ~ velocity of light>
3a. less than an arbitrary positive integer and greater than the negative of that integer
3b. having a finite number of elements <a ~ set>
4. of, relating to, or being a verb or verb form that can function as a predicate or as the initial element of one and that is limited (as in tense, person, and number)

According to above definitions and the usage in mathematical/scientific contexts, there appears to be two defnitely distinquishable senses in which the notion of 'infinity' can be used.

1. counting: "There are an infinite number of natural numbers." Mathematically speaking, for whatever big natural number n one can propose, another can always beat that number by counter offering n + 1. So the statement would be identical to "There is no greatest number in natural numbers." or "That there are a finite number of natural numbers is false."

2. measurement: "The maximum value in a set of all possible natural numbers is infinite." Mathematically the argument would follow a similar pattern; but this time counting is not an issue. For any given big natural number, its magnitude can always be exceeded by the magnitude of another natural number."

A notable case where a confusion of the two have caused an interesting paradox in logic is Zeno's Paradox in which Hercules and the tortoise have a racing match of say 5 stadia, or 1,000 m; the tortoise being hard working but naturally slow, say 1/10 as fast as Hercules, is given a head start of 900 m. Let us say we take measurments every time Hercules catches up to the previous position of the tortoise.

Hercules: 0.....900..990..999....on & on
Tortoise: 900..990..999..999.9..on & on

Zeno's Paradox says, "No matter how hard Hercules runs, he can never outrun the tortoise. As can be seen in the illustration, Hercules will always be a little behind the tortoise."

What is wrong with Zeno's argument ? What can be said about infinity from this example ?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

There is not 'Hercules' race' and 'Tortoise's race', but 'Hercules v Tortoise'. Look at it this way and it will be a tie (given your numbers). In infinity there is no such thing as 'remaining distance', and half of infinity is infinity.

The interesting paradox I see about infinity is that even though we know we can never reach it we still try to get closer. There is such a thing as 'biggest useful number' - Graham's number. It is so big that even if all the material in the universe were converted into pen and ink it still could not be written down in usual notation - they had to make up a new notation for it. My favourite lecturer at university said that he got phone calls every time someone found a new prime number. This seemed significant to the (non-mathematician) caller, but not to Dr Bedford, who knows that there are an infinite number of primes.

 

[den4]

In the end, people believe what they want to believe in.
I believe that you all know more than I do. I also believe that topics like these are best left for people with the time to think about these topics...
I think there are infinite universes outside our own, and each of them is wondering what size their own universe is, except for universe #9,839,049 because they are content with their knowledge that their universe is only the size of an 18 hole golf course, so they don't worry about other trivialities that concern the other folks elsewhere, even if the grass tends to be greener in universe #101.
I also think Lexico-sama thinks too highly about my opinion...and there lies the flaw in Lexico-sama's thinking....

 

[lexico]

I must again bow my head in reverence, den4-sama, for your sophisticated criticism that not only contirubutes to original thinking, but also tickles my primal armpit of humour to the point of cerebral seizure, esp. grateful for pointing out my flaws here, here, and here.

As for my intention of beginning the thread, I realize that I have made you wonder what a retarded mind could have asked the possibly unanswerable question, 'is the universe (in)finite.' To this initial response of perplexity, nausea, and repulsion, I am sincerely pleased to see you overcome the negative emotions, perhaps stemming from your jealousy of me having so much time on my hands to enjoy 24 hr foruming, do correct me if I am wrong, and to post one of the most wonderful posts the thread has gotten since its birth.

As Mars Man aptly pointed out in "The age of conventional farming and conventional religion," there is a wild mental illness that has struck many since, to my understanding, the dropping of fat man 60 yrs and 6 days, 6 hours ago: SCIENTISM. It claims to be scientific, but it's not. It is unscientific in that it's primary force comes not from sound reasoning that is a good set of examining, questioning, analysing, and recursively interpretating natural phenomena, but in that it is primarily based on the fear and worshiping of the destructive force of the a-bomb. Without ever thinking about what classical and modern relativity and quantum effect truly means in the scientific and linguistic senses of the words, great overpowering fear and worshiping of the a-bomb and its progenitating cousins the scientific professionals...(dangling, later)

It could be said that this thread is to address this problem: the epidemic of the a-bomb worshipping madness. And I am glad to announce that you, den4-sama, are completely free of the mad mental illness !

 

[den4]

And here I was wondering all along if the flying spag monster was consuming the other universes all this time....it was all just a matter of Scientism to blame for the whole mess...somebody needs to get the Almight Fork to him, I guess....and skewer the irrational to make sure that any remotely controlled flying spag monsters are eliminated...
:?

 

[cicatriz esp]

The universe is usually defined as "anything that is matter or affects matter". Thus, the "nothing" outside of the (expanding) universe is not the universe, as it is neither of those things.

I've found that people usually have a harder time wrapping their heads around the concept of nothing than the concept of infinity. It is tough to grasp.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

In set theory you can have different degrees of infinity. For example, there is an infinite number of prime numbers, but they are only a subset of the infinite set of integers, which itself is a subset of the real numbers. So sometimes there is an infinite number that's 'smaller' than some other infinite number (sort of). :souka:

 

[den4]

There could also be an infinite numbers of Tsuyoikos in the infinite number of universes explaining an infinite number of things an infinite number of times to a single know-it-nothing den4 in those infinite number of universes, all exasperated at the end by what little a den4 knows...

 

[Tsuyoiko]

But think of it this way den4 - if there are an infinite number of me in an infinite number of universes and only one of you, you must really be an infinite being to spread yourself over all those universes. Wow. Cosmic. :souka: