Matter Can Only Be Something In A Finite Universe.

[Dodo]

This is a simple mathematical proof.

Suppose that The Universe is infinite.

If there is a thing in the Universe,  for example a body entity that is real, that means it assumes a value - 1. I am 1 body, a thing! There are 7billion other bodies, things! (this is valid for all matter strictures)

Lets look at the whole picture now. In an infinite universe,  how much does 1 equal to compared to the whole?

1/infinity = 0 (nothing)

7 billion / infinity = 0 (nothing)

Therefore the only possibility is that either the universe is finite, which common sense can debunk easily or there are not things. 

I know maths doesn't fly with many ego's,  but I see much value in this universal language. 

Note: This assumes a universe "out there", in which you live. This is the paradigm of matter. This proof is specifically looking at the case of the matter paradigm with resulting proof that it is bullshit.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dodo

[LaucherJunge]

This very much depends on what level you look at this. who says that a "thing" is 1 and what thing is it that you mean? Atoms? Quarks ? Even further? If this goes on splitting up infinitely there is no 1 you could use for this equation in the first place.

[Dodo]

7 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

This very much depends on what level you look at this. who says that a "thing" is 1 and what thing is it that you mean? Atoms? Quarks ? Even further? If this goes on splitting up infinitely there is no 1 you could use for this equation in the first place.

Yeah that is also true, however I was attempting a top down approach here. The same thing can be proven in many different ways.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dodo

[Erlend K]

Three possible solutions to the paradox:

1 The universe is not infinite (common sense is irrelevant. Most of modern physics contraticts common sense. The mental faculty we call common sense evolved to help our ansesstors derive conclutions that helped them survive or reproduce. It didn't evolve as a tool for deriving the ultimate thruths of nature.

2 There are an infinite amount of things distrbuted over an infinite space.  

3 Only a spesific,  finite area of an infinite universe contains things. This would mean these things are distributed within a finite space. 

[hundreth]

Interesting idea but your math is misleading. Infinity is not a number, it's a concept. One could define infinity as ever growing and unbounded, in which case 1 / infinity is not zero, it's approaching zero. 

[Dodo]

2 hours ago, Erlend K said:

 

Sorry I couldn't remove the quote ( problem I've always had while using phone)

@hundreth @Erlend K

Yeah scrap this proof its shit. I also contemplated a bit and im actually dividing number of objects over space,  which makes no sense. Because in a matter universe,  matter would be finite / ever increasing but still finite while the space is infinite obvs. But I cant divide 2 diff things obvs.

Also your points.

However @Erlend K I dont agree with number 1.

The proof is impossible to be false. You can always go a bit further. If something is stopping you, "climb" it and continue / go through with some special cutter. There's always more (emptiness)

 

 

 

[Dodo]

3 hours ago, hundreth said:

Interesting idea but your math is misleading. Infinity is not a number, it's a concept. One could define infinity as ever growing and unbounded, in which case 1 / infinity is not zero, it's approaching zero. 

The thing here is is that for matter to tend to infinity, it requires time. In a snapshot, when we stop time, I can say with certainty that there are finite number of objects in the universe, because nothing is changing - hence no new things are being created. If you take a still snapshot. Then when you resume, of course it will resume it's creation out of nothing process, but in the snapshot, it's finite.

While emptiness cannot not be infinite, for it is something without bounds and it's not something that needs to be created - it already is the case always. Emptiness is the absence of stuff, but even when there are "stuff" on top of it, it is still there. This can be also shown translated with the equation n=0+n (any thing is nothing + that thing).

So even in the still snapshot, if there could be a snapshot of emptiness (actually in a sense it's always in a snapshot, it is beyond time, it's not changing) it would be an infinite snapshot, emptiness is not expanding, it is already infinite. It can't be expanding, because it is not something that is created. It's God.

That's why when I spoke of emptiness once I said that emptiness is smaller than a point and bigger than the universe (of objects).  

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dodo

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Dodo said:

but I see much value in this universal language. 

Ain't nothing "universal" about math.

Not only it is not universal, it's not even global. Most of the creatures on this planet don't do math or care about it.

[ajasatya]

the perfect world of mathematics is mental. math is built upon axioms, which are simply convenient beliefs.

[RichardY]

I have heard that the essence of music is mathematical and it is not universal. I think mathematics is expressed via inductive reasoning similar to divination(or an Unconscious process) or Plato's theory of recollection. 

The laws of Physics in contrast are intended to be universal and are deductive in their application.

 

[Dodo]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Ain't nothing "universal" about math.

Not only it is not universal, it's not even global. Most of the creatures on this planet don't do math or care about it.

Well they are primitive, obviously. They don't use language. Language implies some level of intelligence needed. By Universal I don't mean every living being is using it, I mean that it is the same for everyone and it's not based on belief - Aliens would have the same math - with different symbols of course. It is one of the few if not the only true science. At least for this dimension. 

Also I've heard someone on this forum that in his psychedelic trips communication happens through sacred geometry (or he said something of this sort). Geometry is Math and there are strong hints it's a very foundational part of what This here now is. Hinting again at its universality. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dodo

[Nahm]

@Dodo You are creating the whole thing, now. There is no person/thing/event, that is other-than You. It is productive to look though. It's not that this is unrealistic, it's just that it is very hard to accept, until we're honestly done looking for the other thing. 

[Dodo]

52 minutes ago, RichardY said:

 

 

 

Of course space doesn't exist, that's why I'm saying Emptiness/Nothingness/Space is the absence of things. It is eternal. Always there, yet nothing. Yes it doesn't EXIST (stand out) from the point of view of the Mind and the senses. Aristotle and this guy are rationalizing. Just because you can't see it, it doesn't mean it is not there. You know emptiness IS the moment you realize you are that.

These guys are Egos obsessed with objects tbh

 

I mean even look at the philosophy they are operating under: "To be IS to be something in particular, so infinity is out" That's where the mistake comes. To be is To be - The something is secondary. In fact only nothing is, everything else is an illusory trip. But hey, they're the scientists, they should know the truth

PS: Check out this story I just found: 
 

Quote

Today, in Astronomy, being an entry level science class, the professor goes over basic concepts of science. Such as that we seek to falsify, because it is much easier than verifying. In fact, verifying is impossible because we cannot have an infinite amount of tests and data. Of course, all of that is 100% correct as far as I know, but then he said: "..except in Mathematics. We can verify things in Mathematics, Mathematics is the only pure science."

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mathematics-being-the-only-pure-science.524439/

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dodo

[RichardY]

@Dodo If you say so, I thought it was an interesting video. "To be or not to be" I guess.

[Dodo]

Please someone tell me why the following thought experiment is not proof of infinite universe:

You shoot an object in some direction. Now there are 2 possibilities: either it goes on forever, which prooves infinite universe or it hits something. If it hits something, what is beyond that thing? We shoot again from there and again there are two possibilities: either it goes on forever proving an infinite universe or it hits something. This process can go on forever proving an infinite universe. 

The thing is how you define the universe.  If you only care about objects in the Universe sure it's probably finite or ever growing,  but if you include the empty space surrounding the "matter universe" it is infinite. The thought particle we launched can never stop. Infinity.

This proof does not require observations nor first hand experience. The only thing it requires is to view all possibilities and its so super duper simple that I dont know how it is not presented as the evidence for infinite universe. There must be something wrong, right? Please someone share, because I really don't get why this is not the proof. Thanks

 

 

Even in the observable universe there is more than 99.9999% empty space

Matter is proven to be more than 99% empty space too but that's another story.

I just don't see how someone can blatantly disregard something so obvious like space. 

Ofcourse space is not an object lol, it's what allows "objects" to be. So if the universe is finite, there is nothing outside it, meaning it is infinite, because nothing is what allows for the expansion in the first place. Exactly because it is eternal and infinite.

Rant over. I can't really see fault with this thought proof. Please share where I'm wrong 

This reminds me of something Eckhart Tolle said before:

"Water? What do you mean by that? I don't understand it." This is what a fish would say if it had a human mind.~Eckhart Tolle

Edited August 31, 2017 by Dodo

[Dodo]

Nothingness, emptiness,  space. Never born, will never die, dimensionless yet all form appear in it. How is it possible? (Perhaps form is also 100% empty space and this separation is just a projection of mind)

Nothingness, emptiness, space is at no distance from you. 

 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Dodo said:

Well they are primitive, obviously.

Or so your ego believes. How convenient to place yourself at the top of the hierarchy of life which you yourself invented.

Quote

By Universal I don't mean every living being is using it, I mean that it is the same for everyone and it's not based on belief - Aliens would have the same math - with different symbols of course. It is one of the few if not the only true science. At least for this dimension. 

Not at all. Aliens would not have mathematics.

Math is based on very many beliefs. It's a human invention.

Math is just one of an infinite number of ways of symbolizing reality.

Quote

Also I've heard someone on this forum that in his psychedelic trips communication happens through sacred geometry (or he said something of this sort). Geometry is Math and there are strong hints it's a very foundational part of what This here now is. Hinting again at its universality. 

That's just people projecting their humanness onto the Absolute, which is not really mathematical at all. Mathematics is a projection.

[RichardY]

"Water? What do you mean by that? I don't understand it." This is what a fish would say if it had a human mind.~Eckhart Tolle

The quote is a reference to being in sync with the moment (an actuality/being), "The Power of Now" and not to draw out towards infinity, a potentiality. The book mostly is about the accumulation of psychological junk(time/past history - "his story") and making more conscious neurotic emotions, to let go of what is not healthy.

 

[Dodo]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Or so your ego believes. How convenient to place yourself at the top of the hierarchy of life which you yourself invented.

Not at all. Aliens would not have mathematics.

Math is based on very many beliefs. It's a human invention.

Math is just one of an infinite number of ways of symbolizing reality.

That's just people projecting their humanness onto the Absolute, which is not really mathematical at all. Mathematics is a projection.

Mathematics based on beliefs? Human invention?  I don't see that. Mathematics is discovered, not invented.

If aliens discover mathematics, they would have it, if they don't, they wont. 

I'm not saying primitive in negative sense, but this is just the reality of the story of evolution. Humans are more intelligent than other species on Earth - fact (based on our definitions - without definitions we would not be able to communicate this so let's respect them a bit).

If intelligence is a bad quality, then we are at the bottom of the hierarchy - I dont kniw whether it's good or bad or both or neither. I don't care to be at the top or bottom. Put me anywhere.

On this forum I've posted that this is the planet of the bees one time anyway, so I don't consider humans at the top anyway. But still a human would beat a bee in a spelling bee. A bee would beat a human at pollinating flowers.

If crows or any other animals grow up to be more aware of their own existence, mathematics will soon be discovered. It's a simple counting that starts it all off. It's based on observations. I guarantee, 1+1 will always be 2. Place one rock next to the other.

How many rocks do you have? What did you invent for this to be the case? It would be so even if you didn't understand the symbols.

Maths is definitely a discovery. The symbols are invented, what they point to are discoveries.

Nonduality symbols too are invented, what they point to is discovery. 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Dodo

[Erlend K]

11 hours ago, Dodo said:

Please someone tell me why the following thought experiment is not proof of infinite universe:

You shoot an object in some direction. Now there are 2 possibilities: either it goes on forever, which prooves infinite universe or it hits something. If it hits something, what is beyond that thing? We shoot again from there and again there are two possibilities: either it goes on forever proving an infinite universe or it hits something. This process can go on forever proving an infinite universe. 

The thing is how you define the universe.  If you only care about objects in the Universe sure it's probably finite or ever growing,  but if you include the empty space surrounding the "matter universe" it is infinite. The thought particle we launched can never stop. Infinity.

This might be true for a static universe, but the spacetime contiuum of this universe is expanding. According to Hubble Law, a point sufficiently far away from the person shooting the arrow will be moving away from him faster than the speed of light. Even if the arrow travles at the speed of light it will never reach this point.

The question "what is outside the our universe?"  is an absurd question. The word "outside" describes a point in space, and as far as we know, space only exists as part of the spacetime contiuum of the universe.

It's just like the question "what was before the big bang?". The word "before" also means a point in the timespace contiuum. Time, like space,  is a part of the physical fabric of this universe, and came into existance with the Big Bang. At the moment of the Big Bang there was no sutch thing as time, and therefor there was nothing "before" the Big Bang. There might have been something else in the world. Just like the world might still contain something else than the universe. Something fundamentally different from "before" or "outside". Something the human mind is not evolved to be able to intuit.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Erlend K