the universe doesnt have to be infinite

[chikoka]

..for there to be nothing else.

Space-time could be infinite and there still could be more.

Maybe i'm confused but i think the reasons given for why the totality has to be infinite are not all that convincing.

[Pincho Paxton]

..for there to be nothing else.

Space-time could be infinite and there still could be more.

Maybe i'm confused but i think the reasons given for why the totality has to be infinite are not all that convincing.

You mean that infinity + 1 is still infinity, and you can still add one more.

I think that the universe is infinite, and you cannot add one more to it.

[chikoka]

I think that the universe is infinite, and you cannot add one more to it.

Very good, now prove it :)

[Pincho Paxton]

I think that the universe is infinite, and you cannot add one more to it.

Very good, now prove it :)

I can prove it, but the proof is very hard to understand. This is the proof...

1 + -1 = 0

Which is just a simple sum. But most humans do not know why we use maths. Most people don't know how maths relates to particles. The Universe does not use maths, but when the Universe uses particles they must obey certain rules. The main rule is 1 + -1 = 0.

This rule says that zero is made from the parts of the universe that meet together, and flatten. So zero is a collision. To add 1 more to infinity would mean that you need a different sum...

0 = 0

or

A = A

If you read it properly it means that nothing is nothing, or everything equals itself, and is not made from any parts. Then you have no Universe at all. There is no collision between two objects, there is nothing.

You can add one more only to a position that has nothing in it. If nothing exists in that place then 0 = 0. The Universe doesn't exist.

We can see the Universe, so we know that it exists. So the correct formula for the Universe is 1 + -1 = 0. And that means that all positions are taken up, and zero is a collision between two objects. So infinity is completely full (even full is the wrong word, the Universe is everything.)

[chikoka]

I think that the universe is infinite, and you cannot add one more to it.

Very good, now prove it :)

I can prove it, but the proof is very hard to understand. This is the proof...

1 + -1 = 0

Which is just a simple sum. But most humans do not know why we use maths. Most people don't know how maths relates to particles. The Universe does not use maths, but when the Universe uses particles they must obey certain rules. The main rule is 1 + -1 = 0.

This rule says that zero is made from the parts of the universe that meet together, and flatten. So zero is a collision. To add 1 more to infinity would mean that you need a different sum...

0 = 0

or

A = A

If you read it properly it means that nothing is nothing, or everything equals itself, and is not made from any parts. Then you have no Universe at all. There is no collision between two objects, there is nothing.

You can add one more only to a position that has nothing in it. If nothing exists in that place then 0 = 0. The Universe doesn't exist.

We can see the Universe, so we know that it exists. So the correct formula for the Universe is 1 + -1 = 0. And that means that all positions are taken up, and zero is a collision between two objects. So infinity is completely full (even full is the wrong word, the Universe is everything.)

I didnt mean to ask if you can add anything to the universe. You cant and thats obvious. If the universe is the set of all things where would the thing we want to add have come from? This is true even if the universe is finite.
Prove its infinite.

[oxytocinNA]

I suspect this might not satisfy you, but I will use the logic side:

If the word "universe" is used to describe all existence/existants - then it is without limit ...infinite. If you want to say that something exists outside of the universe you run into the "set inside a set inside a set etc. etc. etc." problem (infinite sets - again - infinite), and in that context a logical fallacy.

If that is a little vague - maybe someone else will elaborate.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If the universe is the set of all things where would the thing we want to add have come from? This is true even if the universe is finite.

From the set of "all other things not in the first set". :-)

The infinite sets cannot "exist" like the infinite amount of members it would contain. But that doesn't mean it cannot appear in a conversation, in a calculation or in any self-imposed limited context. Or that it cannot function in any self-imposed limited simulation. One needs to get clear on what it means for something to exist beyond making appearances.

[chikoka]

If the word "universe" is used to describe all existence/existants - then it is without limit ...infinite

The universe is not a description but a set. It could be there all there is (all that exists) is 3 things.

From the set of "all other things not in the first set". :-)

i

If the universe is all that exists then anything not in it does not exist by definition.

[Wesson]

Aha/

But, CausatioN that is the infinite part.

E

[Wesson]

"E" is proportional to anything empty. The Masses of particles= the square root of nothing,! So, Pincho Paxton is Right!'

[Wesson]

Clever indeed.

But, The Dinosoars were ere first...

So....

Me/-

In the Non-Existent Fopp.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If the universe is all that exists then anything not in it does not exist by definition.

That's right, the term "anything not in it" becomes really just a contradiction in terms. But anything in it does not exist either since the universe is already "all that exists". So we have "all that exists" always appearing to us as "everything" being "always the case". That's the only mode of existence which is self-affirmative and as such infinite! Any other appearance is only derived from this and therefore secondary and illusionary. Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time. As perceived image of the infinite it exists but in any other way it depends on too many other things and with too much uncertainty, ambivalence and relative boundaries to speak of it in the way one can do of the universe as totality.

[chikoka]

If the universe is all that exists then anything not in it does not exist by definition.

That's right, the term "anything not in it" becomes really just a contradiction in terms. But anything in it does not exist either since the universe is already "all that exists". So we have "all that exists" always appearing to us as "everything" being "always the case". That's the only mode of existence which is self-affirmative and as such infinite! Any other appearance is only derived from this and therefore secondary and illusionary. Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time. As perceived image of the infinite it exists but in any other way it depends on too many other things and with too much uncertainty, ambivalence and relative boundaries to speak of it in the way one can do of the universe as totality.

All that exists doesn't have to be equivalent to everything.
A flying blue elephant is a thing , so it is included in the term everything.but it is not a part of all that exists.There are also some things in the totality that werent "made" to appear to us.

Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time

i think Koans are a cop out. That's my opinion anyway:)

[Pincho Paxton]

If the universe is all that exists then anything not in it does not exist by definition.

That's right, the term "anything not in it" becomes really just a contradiction in terms. But anything in it does not exist either since the universe is already "all that exists". So we have "all that exists" always appearing to us as "everything" being "always the case". That's the only mode of existence which is self-affirmative and as such infinite! Any other appearance is only derived from this and therefore secondary and illusionary. Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time. As perceived image of the infinite it exists but in any other way it depends on too many other things and with too much uncertainty, ambivalence and relative boundaries to speak of it in the way one can do of the universe as totality.

All that exists doesn't have to be equivalent to everything.
A flying blue elephant is a thing , so it is included in the term everything.but it is not a part of all that exists.There are also some things in the totality that werent "made" to appear to us.

Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time

i think Koans are a cop out. That's my opinion anyway:)

A flying Blue Elephant is a string of words. If we call a Blue Tit an elephant, then we already have a flying Blue Elephant. But reality is a string of physics. Any string of physics can happen so long as the physics are part of a Universal fractal. The Universe repeats its physics. You can make an elephant blue, you then have to decide if the elephant can exist in a low gravity environment, and then you decide if the fractal of physics allows this to fly. Infinity is restricted to real physics.

[chikoka]

If the universe is all that exists then anything not in it does not exist by definition.

That's right, the term "anything not in it" becomes really just a contradiction in terms. But anything in it does not exist either since the universe is already "all that exists". So we have "all that exists" always appearing to us as "everything" being "always the case". That's the only mode of existence which is self-affirmative and as such infinite! Any other appearance is only derived from this and therefore secondary and illusionary. Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time. As perceived image of the infinite it exists but in any other way it depends on too many other things and with too much uncertainty, ambivalence and relative boundaries to speak of it in the way one can do of the universe as totality.

All that exists doesn't have to be equivalent to everything.
A flying blue elephant is a thing , so it is included in the term everything.but it is not a part of all that exists.There are also some things in the totality that werent "made" to appear to us.

Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time

i think Koans are a cop out. That's my opinion anyway:)

A flying Blue Elephant is a string of words. If we call a Blue Tit an elephant, then we already have a flying Blue Elephant. But reality is a string of physics. Any string of physics can happen so long as the physics are part of a Universal fractal. The Universe repeats its physics. You can make an elephant blue, you then have to decide if the elephant can exist in a low gravity environment, and then you decide if the fractal of physics allows this to fly. Infinity is restricted to real physics.

"a flying blue elephant" is a pointer or concept that is defined. you can change definitions of things but all that does is cause confusion.

Any string of physics can happen so long as the physics are part of a Universal fractal.

Why dont you want to prove anything?

[chikoka]

"E" is proportional to anything empty. The Masses of particles= the square root of nothing,! So, Pincho Paxton is Right!'

but if the complex augmentation of the eigenvectors of E are themselves partitioned in a discreet vector space then obviously the square root becomes imaginary along t=a1 ...az or rather the age of the universe.
So , no , pincho is wrong!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A flying blue elephant is a thing , so it is included in the term everything.

Yes, but the "thing" is more in detail here a concept you just positioned here and now. That's the thing. Like a stalking orange cat although you can argue the latter is a more familiar experience.

Some would say it's existent and non-existent at the same time

i think Koans are a cop out. That's my opinion anyway:)

It's not a Koan since I think it's meant as some sort of precise description, like the description of something behaving like a particle and a wave at the same time. It points to the fluency of things which is appearing when they are further examined.

I like that Koan though: "Koans are a cop out".

[Pincho Paxton]

Why dont you want to prove anything?

The fractal of repeating physics is shown in Newtons Kissing Problem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_number_problem

That 12 particles can surround 1 particle of the same size. Which gives you all of natures shapes. We are the hexagon of 6 particles around 1. We have a missing tail. You can work out all of nature from Newton's kissing problem.

[chikoka]

Hi D

Is your veiw that there are an infinite amount of permutations of differentiating things or forming divisions in the totality?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Is your view that there are an infinite amount of permutations of differentiating things or forming divisions in the totality?

Not infinite in the sense of discrete, isolated events. Or that would be more like unknown -- who knows if there is some weird upper limit somewhere in the strict theoretical sense? For the human ability to conceptualize this doesn't matter one bit. The infinite points for me to seamlessness or the relative aspect of all differentiation and division. If the ocean is really bottomless or not doesn't matter for the ones sinking. So this is an existential issue, not a scientific one. And I see people mixing up scientific dilemma's with the question of "being" all the time. While they don't exclude each other, or shouldn't at least, it's utterly pointless (and rather pathological in my opinion) to try to solve hard cosmological questions, the "mechanics of reality" with philosophical arguments. It's like putting the horse behind the carriage in these cases: the principle leads, the principle verifies itself experimentally and existentially. Reason just flows from there.

[chikoka]

The infinite points for me to seamlessness or the relative aspect of all differentiation and division

Would a quantized space_time do anything to this?

[Dan Rowden]

All that exists doesn't have to be equivalent to everything. A flying blue elephant is a thing , so it is included in the term everything.but it is not a part of all that exists.

Are you saying concepts don't exist?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The infinite points for me to seamlessness or the relative aspect of all differentiation and division

Would a quantized space_time do anything to this?

Folks just shouldn't mix any scientific model or scale with the problem of ones own perception. It would be like having a zoo with one area where African elephants are walking around and another empty area with a sign saying "blue flying elephants". It's mixing conceptual, tentative "things" with the whole canvas of existence which is already right there and nobody but yourself can ever understand.

[Dan Rowden]

Perhaps we need address the question: what does it mean for a thing to be finite?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

If infinite possibilities are all occurring over eternity now (no time) , that is clearly infinite.