Infinite vs Finite Logic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2017, 03:38 AM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(12-06-2017 03:36 AM)AB517 Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 03:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Everything is expanding away from everything else, and has apparently been doing so for almost 14 billion years. Two objects moving in opposite directions from each other at close to the speed of light, would be almost 2 light years apart after one year.

not everything. Look up great attractor.

the question is the rip. nobody knows that yet.

Again, in English please. Blink

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2017, 03:38 AM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(11-06-2017 09:56 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 08:58 AM)VKTD Wrote:  The consensus is that the universe as we currently know it is 13.8 billion years old. The distance to the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light years. Any speculation between the 46 billion light year mark and infinity, is not science.

Wouldn't the edge of the observable universe have to be less than 13.8 billion light years?

that's how far we can see. 14 light billion years around us. Like being in the center of a basket ball.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2017, 03:42 AM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(12-06-2017 03:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 03:36 AM)AB517 Wrote:  not everything. Look up great attractor.

the question is the rip. nobody knows that yet.

Again, in English please. Blink

my bad. you spoke like you understood astronomy so I just kept it short. You said everything is spreading apart, that is not true. The end game of "the big rip" is one of a few possibilities for the fate of our universe. but it is unknown for certain.

check out cosmic web, voids, and the great attractor. Its really cool stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2017, 03:48 AM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(12-06-2017 03:38 AM)AB517 Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 09:56 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Wouldn't the edge of the observable universe have to be less than 13.8 billion light years?

that's how far we can see. 14 light billion years around us. Like being in the center of a basket ball.


Not accurate.


The word observable used in this sense does not depend on whether modern technology actually permits detection of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth. In practice, we can see light only from as far back as the time of photon decoupling in the recombination epoch. That is when particles were first able to emit photons that were not quickly re-absorbed by other particles. Before then, the Universe was filled with a plasma that was opaque to photons. The detection of gravitational waves indicates there is now a possibility of detecting non-light signals from before the recombination epoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe


The farthest galaxies yet detected by the Hubble space telescope are 13.2 billion light years away.

https://www.space.com/17755-farthest-uni...scope.html

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2017, 04:08 AM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(12-06-2017 03:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 03:38 AM)AB517 Wrote:  that's how far we can see. 14 light billion years around us. Like being in the center of a basket ball.


Not accurate.


The word observable used in this sense does not depend on whether modern technology actually permits detection of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth. In practice, we can see light only from as far back as the time of photon decoupling in the recombination epoch. That is when particles were first able to emit photons that were not quickly re-absorbed by other particles. Before then, the Universe was filled with a plasma that was opaque to photons. The detection of gravitational waves indicates there is now a possibility of detecting non-light signals from before the recombination epoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe


The farthest galaxies yet detected by the Hubble space telescope are 13.2 billion light years away.

https://www.space.com/17755-farthest-uni...scope.html

what you are posting here is true. But what i am saying is we can only see 14 billion light years away. That's with us at the center. That does not mean we are only 14 billion light years big.

It also does not mean that the universe is as only as big as we see.

both supported by you quote.

thanks for the quote. good stuff to be sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2017 08:44 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
(01-05-2017 04:26 PM)Saucy Jack Wrote:  I need someone smarter than me to tell me if I'm wrong about something that seems completely obvious.

Neil degrasse Tyson said on star talk that because we don't know how big the universe is, he says it is infinite. I think this is wrong. The answer is surely that we don't know.

Today I got into a debate in Facebook about this, where someone disagreed with me and stated that because we don't know that the universe is finite, it follows that it must be infinite. This has to be nonsense. The universe is finite or infinite whether we are able to find out or not.

I believe the answer is precisely what Neil Degrasse Tyson said it was; infinite.

You see, from our current perspective and the state of our knowledge, since we cannot detect the universe as being finite, then by default we can reasonably claim it to be infinite.

Could we be wrong? Absolutely.

However, there are only two choices, and "I don't know" is not a choice that is based upon evidence or lack thereof. In fact, it's not a choice at all.

The universe is either finite or infinite, those are the only two choices. And since there is no evidence of it being finite, and the observable evidence currently indicates that it is not finite, then the logic persuades us to currently accept the greater probability that it is infinite.

You see, to accept the positive claim that it is finite means that you have the burden of proof. Since that burden cannot be met, and may never be met, then by default the universe is infinite until proven otherwise.

In contrast, if the universe is infinite, it can never be proven because there could never be any actual evidence to demonstrate it. It is not unlike asking someone to prove that by counting numbers (ie; 1,2, 3, 4 ...) that they could count them forever. We know that we could count the numbers forever, but we can never prove it.

Hence, "finite" is provable, but "infinite" is not. Infinite is merely accepted without evidence.

That's life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 12:21 AM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
There are only two answers to the proposition, but a particular person need not commit to believing one or the other. It's perfectly reasonable for them to withhold judgement until the person feels confident to state a case and to then provide evidence for that case. Forcing someone to pick isn't productive.

The universe being infinite is also a claim, and I don't agree that it's the default position of belief, or even truth.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
14-06-2017, 02:08 AM
RE: Infinite vs Finite Logic
To clarify, the default position is usually that things are how we have established them to be, and that claims that go against that or add more detail need to evidenced. However, I don't think that reality being infinite has in any way been established (correct me if I'm wrong). And I don't see the point in holding onto that position while asking people to try and prove it's finite, because you might simply be wrong all that time. It appears to be an argument from ignorance.

That's my take on it, anyway. For all our practical purposes reality may as well be infinite though, I expect.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: