To infinity and beyond. Does "beyond" exist ?

[Vod]

There is no particular proof of the universe being infinite. Theories, AFAIK, are mostly pointing to the opposite.

Makes you wonder, if the universe in finite, what lies beyond?  My mind just can't fathom it.  :/

[1713539329]

1713539329

[1713539329]

1713539329

[1713539329]

1713539329

[o_e_l_e_o]

Makes you wonder, if the universe in finite, what lies beyond?  My mind just can't fathom it.  :/

"It's no use, Mr. Vod — it's turtles all the way down!"

Surely though, the universe includes everything that exists. If something did lie beyond it, that something would have to exist, and therefore would be part of the universe.

[paxmao]

There is no particular proof of the universe being infinite. Theories, AFAIK, are mostly pointing to the opposite.

Makes you wonder, if the universe in finite, what lies beyond?  My mind just can't fathom it.  :/

Indeed, nor mine. I cannot conceive nothingness... at most void which in itself occupies a volume even if empty. I just try to be humble and believe that there are things that are true even if I can´t think of them.

Surely though, the universe includes everything that exists. If something did lie beyond it, that something would have to exist, and therefore would be part of the universe.

At the risk of going full speed into philosophical nonsense, as things are today our universe is limited to what we can perceive, and that is very, very limited.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

There is no particular proof of the universe being infinite. Theories, AFAIK, are mostly pointing to the opposite.

Infinity is something which doesn't have any boundaries on either side and extending to some non-explainable distances or something which has a greater value than a normal natural number. The size of the universe cannot be theoretically measured as radiations sent from earth reached back and there is still more space to explore beyond the distances. Thus it can be said that universe has an infinite size nor it can never be measured with current technological instruments. Even the size of the observable universe/cosmic web is unfathomably large. So it's better to stay on the point that whole universe can never be measured and can be considered as an infinite area of black space, galaxies, super clusters all held together by gravity.

Even if we create a module or a space probe which can travel at the speed of light (better than a Millennium Falcon  ), it would take you 45 billion light years to reach the end of cosmic web. Considering the Big Bang happened before 14 billion years, the light emitted from galaxies created 14 billion years ago took 14 billion years to reach the earth and also they are expanding at a rapid phase which might have doubled putting the radius to 46 billion.  Isn't this number beyond a natural number? I assume that if scientists find a way to travel through the black hole, it may take us to the other end of the universe or something beyond the infinity. Also they believe that the whole universe is 10²³ times larger than the current observable universe.   These numbers would just bring us nightmares if we think of what is exactly the size of the whole universe?

The earth is round. So endless.

Endless?   What do you mean exactly by the term endless? We start at a point and end at the same point, this isn't endless! Endless is which doesn't have a end point and you never able to reach the end point.

[o_e_l_e_o]

At the risk of going full speed into philosophical nonsense, as things are today our universe is limited to what we can perceive, and that is very, very limited.

I don't think that's true. Until recently we couldn't perceive or measure the Higgs boson, only theorize its existence. That didn't mean it was any less part of the universe.

[paxmao]

At the risk of going full speed into philosophical nonsense, as things are today our universe is limited to what we can perceive, and that is very, very limited.

I don't think that's true. Until recently we couldn't perceive or measure the Higgs boson, only theorize its existence. That didn't mean it was any less part of the universe.

It may be part of someones universe, but not of yours until you can "see it" (or demonstrate it, or perceive it). Universe is not objective. (Full speed now into phi... I never learn)/

There is no particular proof of the universe being infinite. Theories, AFAIK, are mostly pointing to the opposite.

Infinity is something which doesn't have any boundaries on either side and extending to some non-explainable distances or something which has a greater value than a normal natural number. The size of the universe cannot be theoretically measured as radiations sent from earth reached back and there is still more space to explore beyond the distances. Thus it can be said that universe has an infinite size nor it can never be measured with current technological instruments.

Nope, even you can't "see" the limit, you can calculate a limit by inferring it from the age of the universe and the speed of its expansion, so it can be (and it has already been) theoretically measured.

Your assertion refers only to the Observable Universe AKA Hubble Volume

[jvanname]

You are all very terrible at mathematics. Everyone here should stop this discussion immediately. Please save yourself from embarrassment. This thread is very cringy. Please stop it and please pick up a book and read it.

[JetAid]

If infinity is circular, there must be something outside the circle.

[jvanname]

To get a good grasp of infinity and the different levels of infinity, please pick up a basic book on set theory and read it (to make it accessible, you should know propositional logic, predicate logic, and). You will need to grasp concepts such as the ZFC axioms, the proof of Zorn's Lemma from AC, cardinals (you should be able to immediately tell the cardinality of objects (with a proof) such as a the complex number plane, the set of all ultrafilters on N, any compact second countable space without isolated points, the set of all strings over a finite or countable alphabet etc.), well-ordered sets, ordinals (including transfinite induction), ordinal arithmetic, basic cardinal arithmetic, inaccessible cardinals (you could go further and read up on all large cardinals), surreal numbers, and non-standard analysis. Until you understand these objects, there is no point of rambling all sorts of nonsense about infinity.

[bitmover]

A quote I once heard (I don't remember from where): "There are infinite real numbers between 1 and 2. None of them are 3."

I immediately thought about positive amd negative infinities.

Like a Cartesian plane. You can have lines that tend to infinity in different directions.

[jackg]

There is no particular proof of the universe being infinite. Theories, AFAIK, are mostly pointing to the opposite.

Makes you wonder, if the universe in finite, what lies beyond?  My mind just can't fathom it.  :/

The universe is flat, just like the earth .



Onto this, I’ve been taught set theory for the third time and in it they were proving that the length of the set of natural numbers is less than the length of the set of irrational numbers. The length of the natural numbers is given a certain name to mean infinity, the set of irrational numbers is 2 to the power of the number of natural numbers that exit (making a very huge number).

So there is something beyond infinity as it is just a variable intentially undefined (or at least badly defined).

[sirazimuth]

There is no particular proof of the universe being infinite. Theories, AFAIK, are mostly pointing to the opposite.

Makes you wonder, if the universe in finite, what lies beyond?  My mind just can't fathom it.  :/

That's where the omnipotent the sky fairy god of the gaps hangs out.
Fuck knows what he was doing for the infinite amount of time that passed before he decided to
zap the earth into being, like about 6000 years ago....

But seriously...
Think of the 2d surface of a sphere.... its finite but unbounded.
The universe is kinda like that, but in 3D, (well 4D if you include time ,then its space time, but that's another topic) finite but unbounded.
Yeah...my mind cannot fathom it either, I like this topic though.

[Pan Troglodytes]

All that talk about multiple inifinities in mathematical sense is a talk about cardinal numbers. They are used to talk about the size of sets and to compare sizes of infinite sets in particular. You cannot actually go into a size of set, and you cannot go "beyond" that either. So they are of little use in that particular sense.

I would rather think about "crossing infinity" differently and here is how:

What I immediately thought about when I read the thread title was something like moving "through"  assymptotic lines. Imagine you have a two dimensional chart like that one:



Now, imagine you are moving up - moving across Y. Passing through point y=a means you pass "through" an asymptote and you immediately find yourself beyond infinity in the second dimension, i.e. in X.

This is the same as passing through the black hole "event horizon". It takes infinitely long etc. so it is not easy to do - but when done, voila: you are beyond infinity. Congratulations!

[paxmao]

...
This is the same as passing through the black hole "event horizon". It takes infinitely long etc. so it is not easy to do - but when done, voila: you are beyond infinity. Congratulations!

Black holes and the event horizon are unrelated to mathematical infinite or any other concept of infinite.

To get a good grasp of infinity and the different levels of infinity, please pick up a basic book on set theory and read it (to make it accessible, you should know propositional logic, predicate logic, and). You will need to grasp concepts such as the ZFC axioms, the proof of Zorn's Lemma from AC, cardinals (you should be able to immediately tell the cardinality of objects (with a proof) such as a the complex number plane, the set of all ultrafilters on N, any compact second countable space without isolated points, the set of all strings over a finite or countable alphabet etc.), well-ordered sets, ordinals (including transfinite induction), ordinal arithmetic, basic cardinal arithmetic, inaccessible cardinals (you could go further and read up on all large cardinals), surreal numbers, and non-standard analysis. Until you understand these objects, there is no point of rambling all sorts of nonsense about infinity.

Your conception of infinite is quite limited to maths. Have you considered that this thread is NOT about math?

You are all very terrible at mathematics. Everyone here should stop this discussion immediately. Please save yourself from embarrassment. This thread is very cringy. Please stop it and please pick up a book and read it.

Thank the gods of Olympus that you are here to tell us    I just hope that you know a bit more about math than about physics....

The universe is entirely reversible, so it is possible for time to run backwards. The idea that time would ever go backwards is not too far-fetched. For example, in the reversible cellular automata critters, for fairly simple configurations, there comes a time when the cellular automata reverses itself and time in a sense goes from the forward direction to the backwards direction. https://dmishin.github.io/js-revca/index.html

[jvanname]

Paxmao.

I hate to break it to you, but without exceedingly difficult modern mathematics, one cannot get beyond a childish understanding of the infinite. But this understanding of the infinite requires something called WORK that comes at a very high price. And your childish nature is showing through your nonsensical ad-hominem attacks. Grow up. Please do not talk to me until you multiply the ordinals (w+1)*(w*2+3)*(w*7+16). If you are unable to multiply the ordinals, then you should not talk about infinity at all. I am better than you.

P.S. As for the other thread, I was not trying to imply that my scenario was in any way likely. I was simply trying to ask a philosophical question since time reversal is a phenomenon that occurs in the universe critters. And yes, critters does exhibit the second law of thermodynamics and time reversals.

[paxmao]

Sufficient to say that you are able to accuse me of personally attacking you while your are personally attacking me in the same sentence, all after having attacked personally everyone that participated on this thread, and then consider yourself better on your own selection of a test and what is funnier "more mature" (that, at my age, is something to avoid). That reveals everything that needs to be known about you.

Please, consider me bored already.

since time reversal is a phenomenon that occurs in the universe critters.

Have you got a credible source stating that as a proven fact or you consider yourself of such a grandeur that proof´s not needed if you say something?

Paxmao.
... I am better than you.

Speaking of childish. Please, consider yourself better at multiplying ordinals than me. I can live with that - I accepted long ago that math requires much more time and produces much less results than other disciplines. Enjoy.

P.S. care to correctly insert the symbol for omega or mention that you are using a "w" instead, someone that does not know what you are talking about would not understand your question.

P.S.S. I am going to use that question it in my next Weekly Merit contest in the Spanish section to see what people answer. I am intrigued to know what you consider difficult.

[jvanname]

Paxmao. Please demonstrate that you have intelligence by multiplying the ordinals (w+1)*(w*2+3)*(w*7+16). I usually do not communicate with people who cannot demonstrate their intelligence. Your hatred of mathematics is a sign of your mental deficiency. I am still better than you. You are a troll.

[paxmao]

Paxmao. Please demonstrate that you have intelligence by multiplying the ordinals (w+1)*(w*2+3)*(w*7+16). I usually do not communicate with people who cannot demonstrate their intelligence. Your hatred of mathematics is a sign of your mental deficiency. I am still better than you. You are a troll.

I am still waiting for your source reference regarding the "symmetry of the universe", mature one. Unless you consider that trolling (thin skin for a such a quarrelsome individual, reminds me of Sheldon Cooper) - in your language "Using the classification of an individual into an undesirable group to refute its argument does not diminish the truth in it".

I don´t know the answer to that question. The reason for that is that I am not interested in knowing it, since it would imply using my time learning something that is irrelevant for me.

I am going to use the last 5 minutes  that I can waste with you for this month just to inform you of some misconceptions you have about life:

Your conception: Being smarted is knowing more maths.
Reality check: Being smart is choosing carefully how to use your time. Hint: Maths that you don´t need are most likely the wrong answer.
 
Your conception: Being "smart" is the most important thing.
Reality check: Being emotional intelligent will take you further.

Your conception: If I challenge paxmao on a forum and he does not answer I have proven my point (being "better"?).
Reality check: paxmao´s ego does not depend on answering your question nor I feel threatened for you own opinion about yourself.

I encourage everyone, including you to participate in my next Weekly Merit contest. It is in Spanish for the moment, but I may make a English edition.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Paxmao. Please demonstrate that you have intelligence by multiplying the ordinals (w+1)*(w*2+3)*(w*7+16). I usually do not communicate with people who cannot demonstrate their intelligence. Your hatred of mathematics is a sign of your mental deficiency. I am still better than you. You are a troll.

I bet you are fun at parties.

[jvanname]

Pax Meow. You still did not multiply the ordinals (w+1)*(w*2+3)*(w*7+16). The ordinal multiplication problem is a type of problem known as a proof-of-work problem which I use to decide whether I should have an intelligent conversation with you or to conclude that I am better than you.