Maciamo said:
Now I think the problem is your definition of infinte. What you are describing is the same as the infinite to me. There are many kinds of infinite, among others:
- open infinite (3D infinite extending in all directions)
- circular infinite (if a 2D line goes in circle, it is infinite because you can count an infinite number of 360 degree turns, although the shape is finite)
What you are describing is an 3D circular infinite. My conception of the universe is more of an open infinite.
It would help to limit our discussion to definite measures of ininity. "Closed infinity" as you describe it is not infinite. If you are talking about an infinite number of points, then a circle of 1 cm diameter would also have an infinite number of points. But the quantity in length is only pie cms and no more. Likewise the surface of a 2 dimensional closed space (e.g. a globe) has a limited surface area, and is hence finite. A closed 3-dimensional space would have a definite volume which is also finite. So my conception of the universe is finite, not infinite as you would put it.
Maciamo said:
That's why I said if there is such thing as "pure emptiness" anyway
Then you agree that there is no proof of this boundless emptiness beyond what we can observe ?
Maciamo said:
Certainly not. Of all the main Western philosophers, and I can tell you that those with whom I the most at odds are the Platonians, Neo-Platonians and Idealists (eg. Hegel). My conception of the universe is too materialist for that.
Actually Plato and Pythagoras did not believe in infinity. Pythagoras believed that everything could be described by a finite arrangement of the natural numbers. Aristotle was the first to recognize the importance of infinity yet remained at the simple division of potential unfinity (infinite divisibility; similar to your closed infinity; number of points on a line segment) and actual infinity (such as flow of time). Pre-Augustine Christians believed that God and the Universe was nebulously infinite. Augustine adapting the Platonic philosophy to Christianity belived that God and his thoughts were infinite. Thomas Aquinas argued (in a cirlce) that it would have been impossible for God to create anything infinite. And at the end of this rather long history of philosophy I find a parallel between your logic and Thomas Aquinas'.
Maciamo said:
Funnily enough, that's what I was thinking to tell you, as you are the one to mix science and philosophy. Science is nothing without observations and experiments. Philosophy is based on logics and reasoning (taking what we know of sciences into account, of course). In other words, science is only the practical and experimentable branch of philosophy. With our primitive knowledge of the universe, how could we give so much credit to science ? There was a time when people thought that the Eart was the centre of the universe, then the sun, the sun our galaxy... Until a few years ago, most people still believed in the theory of the Big Bang.
I am surprised that you claim yourself to be a materialist but not a believer in science. How can that be ? You too must be aware that philosophy without a sense of reality can lose validity quite easily.
In the mean time I do not mix science and philosophy. And science is not only observations and experiments. Theres is a lot else that is going on. If you look at the history of science, there is a large-scale process that emerges, called "asymptotic knowlege." The scientific process involves much theorizing and cross examination to ever increase numerical accuracy, logical simplicity, and coherence. I believe that science is but a servant to philosophy, being devoid of a unfying world view. Still a powerful servant, so that it is important to critically see what the scientists are doing and saying.
Not being a scientist, I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory bacame outdated. What solid evidence caused its demise, are you aware ?
Maciamo said:
No. In a metaphysic level (god, the universe...), this is reserved to religion and philosophy. The difference is that religion makes up nice stories just based on imagination and spiritual belief, while philosophy mostly uses reason and logics (altough the Idealistic current of philosophy is more pantheistic- like, and thus more religious).
As much as you consider religious explanations mythological and groundless, I find certain logical arguments employed by philosophers and mathematicians purely subjective and primitive, not fit for argument of a universal nature. Excatly which philosophy do you propose ?
Maciamo said:
What ? I don't believe in anything that cannot be demonstrated by logics. As explained just above, I am not religious but philosophical. Using science (which requires experiment) to explain metaphyical problems is futile.
Any philosophical theory regarding ontological or epistemological matters must regard physical phenomena to avoid misjudgement, and therefore science must be referred to, not necessarily as primary evidence, but to avoid misconceptions which abounds in philosophies disregarding physical and historical reality, observation, and the learning process.
Maciamo said:
The difference between you and me is that you attach too much importance of science and not enough to logics. But our scientifical knowledge evolves much faster than logics and must be updated all the time (eg.
reading the news today we now suppose that the first bipeds or "humans" were not 3.2m years old but 4m years old thanks to a new discovery - where will we be in 10 or 100 years from now ?). It still cannot answer questions related to the unknown and unobserved such as emptiness or infinity (which can only be grasped by logics with the help of mathematics).
I don't deny that there are many holes in our historical knowledge and understanding. I agree with you in that what is not observed does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not significant. But even philosophy or mathematics are not perfect. They evolve with other knowledges, which includes the science of the physical world.