Infinity May Hold The Key To Everything

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

What do you think lies at the edge of universe?

Perhaps you think there is more… universe? Then let me rephrase my question. What do you think is at the edge of everything that exists?

Ah, now we’re talking.

You may answer “nothing.” But that doesn’t sound quite right… What then happens if one were to reach the edge of everything? They would hit an invisible wall? Or keep “advancing” at the same spot as if they walked straight into Zeno’s Dichotomy Paradox. Perhaps they would just seamlessly loop around to the other end of everything? But again, that doesn’t sound quite right.

But maybe you find this question misplaced to begin with. After all, “everything” doesn’t have an end, you may argue. And that would be precisely my position. How do I know that? You ask? Well I don’t. But here is why I believe it:

Think of two points in space. A and B. But separated by… nothing. That’s right, in this setup, imagine there is nothing between them. Wouldn’t that imply that there is also no space? Then aren’t they touching?

Again, think of two points in time. Point A and point B. Imagine there is nothing between those two points. Wouldn’t that mean that there is no time between them, and that thus… they are touching?

In fact, there is an infinity of nothings between any and all points in space and time, even at the so called “edge” of the universe. If truly there is nothing there, surely it is touching something, and thus must continue, necessarily into infinity. This may not be true, but makes the strongest intuitive sense to me when attempting to conceptualize of nothing.

But if the universe is infinite… if everything is infinite… even time… then my brain is so screwed lmao :joy:
I will be honest with you, it breaks my brain. But I believe it doesn’t only break my brain. It would also breaks… reality itself. Let me explain.

First, consider this:

P1: Any event with a probability of occurrence different from 0 will eventually happen if given infinite time (let’s refer to such an event as a possible event).
P2: Time is infinite into the future.
C1: All possible events in the universe will happen infinitely.

Now flip it:

P1: Any event with a probability of occurrence different from 0 will eventually happen if given infinite time (let’s refer to such an event as a possible event).
P2: Time is infinite into the the past.
C1: All possible events in the universe have happened infinitely.

Now bring it together:

P1: Any event with a probability of occurrence different from 0 will eventually happen if given infinite time (let’s refer to such an event as a possible event).
P2: Time is infinite into the the past and the future.
C1: All possible events in the universe have happened infinitely and will happen infinitely.

Of course, only if time is actually infinite. But if we approach it as per my intuitive reasoning above, then it may be. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that time is in fact infinite on both ends (I would argue that so is space as well, it’d have to be but that’s not the point).

Next, picture an infinite flat line. Where is the center? That’s right. there is no center. From any given point on this line, the distance to the edge of the line is undefined, since the edge doesn’t exist. This means that no single point has an objective position on this line. Again, at best, we can locate a given point in relation to another. But that’s about it.

If this line corresponds to time, and a point on this line corresponds to a possible event, how could we differentiate between that event an another? Well, easy. We could compare their relative position on the timeline. If we looked at the entire timeline though, none of them would ever come first, since it is infinite. So we would compare them by taking a chunk of the timeline where there is a start and an end.

Now let’s say we wanted to differentiate between the same event (event A), but two different occurrences of it. If we simply looked at the events, there would be no way to tell the difference, since they are the exact same. Thus, we need some context, which will roughly look like sampling one or more points / events (event B) around the happening of the events we would like to differentiate.
For example, if let’s say our event of interest is a hyper specific version of me who is emo, eating ice cream at a very specific spot on top of mount Fuji (That’s event A. I know… wtf…). Well that event may happen exactly that way earlier on the timeline and later on the timeline, without those two chunks of the time line being identical. Perhaps in one of those occurrences a planet at the other end of the galaxy has one less rock than in the other (variation of event B). Those two events together (event A and B.1 / B.2) can allow us to differentiate between two identical event As on the timeline. That is our context.

But here is the kicker guys… The combination of event A and B.1 being a possible event, also repeats infinitely on the timeline. If we wanted to differentiate between two occurrences of event A+B.1, we would need to sample more context through variations of an event C.

I am sure you see the pattern… This new context including variations of event C also happens infinitely on the timeline. Essentially, it never ends.

What does this mean?

It means that if time were to be infinite, no two occurrences of a possible events would be virtually differentiable from one another. In other words, whether something happened in the past, the present, or the future is virtually the same… ready? AS IF TIME WASN’T A THING Any given event just is at the scale of this whole infinite timeline. It would thus seem that infinite time takes on the property of no time… A perfectly static universe where all possible events are just sitting there ever happening.

ISN’T IT MIND BLOWING!? :sob:

To clarify, time as we understand it would still exist in any non-infinite chunk of the timeline. It is precisely the existence of time that seems to entail its non existence. The above conclusion only works when looking at infinity or the whole timeline.

DISCLAIMER: Even though it is my current philosophical position, this post serves the purpose of fueling thoughts and engaging with interesting ideas. I just love philosophy and thinking. I am not trying to prove anything and my conclusion could very well be wrong. But I am excited to hear you guys’ thoughts.

1 Like
2

Say with the two points, space and time, you argued that they simply do touch due to the reasoning that there is “nothing” set between them. Can we also say that nothingness is a concept of absence of everything, but wouldn’t that point towards it being apart of everything? Meaning can it be everything? Back to point A to point B, what if we implement this concept? Would A and B be touching if “nothing”, a thing is between them? And if this thing of nothingness is between the two, could that mean everything is touching the two? Like a dog, a doll, or back to your writing, the concept of time or space? Because concepts can be considered a thing right?

I don’t really know what I’m saying all together, I just thought this is interesting and wanted to ramble. Interesting idea for sure!

1 Like
3

Could you define and explain what time and infinity means?

4

Ah yesss magnificent insight haha! It is tricky isn’t it? Hmmm well, if I can talk about nothing, then surely it means something. I would argue the key here is that I can conceptualize of nothing. So the concept of nothing exists. But does nothing itself exist? If it is an illogical or incoherent concept, then despite the concept being a real thing, the actual thing doesn’t exist I would argue (a bit like a thought in a mind).

THAT BEING SAID, AND IT GETS EXTREMELY INTERESTING LOL, Maybe logic can be broken in the face of infinity as my post was suggesting. The reasoning I laid out for time works for space as well. In a way, everything could be happening everywhere at all times, which in itself defies the very concept of reality (as an actualized event or object, or state of things). There wouldn’t be anything more actualized than other things if everything is equally happening right? So actualization would lose its meaning… But if reality doesn’t exist in the face of infinity, then nothing must exist… And that being a paradox, would prove logic to ultimately fail, again, only in the face of infinity. So it would be like nothing is happening nowhere at no point in time lol.

This is way too intuitive to mean something right now though haha. It is really at the stage of crazy idea. But super interesting nonetheless how we can potentially prove logic wrong using logic, which suggests that logic is right and wrong at the same time lmao. I like to think the ultimate truth about reality is something this wack :laughing:

1 Like
5

I would say time is the capacity of an object to go through motion (or change). So without time, everything would basically be a still picture. And infinity refers to the concept of never ending. So saying that time is infinite suggests that nothing subject to time ever loses its ability to go through motion (or change).

6

So, why is it the case that images in a still photograph doesn’t go through motion even with time passing? Why does a rock stays the same shape and same location even when time is passing?

Another question - if I want to go to New York from London, will time take me to the destination via motion (change), without me taking on a plane or ship?

How do you know something will never end, without waiting and confirming for its end?

7

My definition highlights capacity or ability to change. Something being static isn’t timeless as long as it can change. But realistically, those things are changing in the atomic world. You just don’t see it because those changes are too tiny and may only show up overtime.

That is not the type of motion I am talking about. Perhaps forget about the word motion if it’s confusing to you. Change works just fine.

I don’t know, as I believe I have indicated in my post. But I believe it is a necessary conclusion, so to answer your question I would reason myself to it since I can’t observe it. Even if I was immortal, it is definitionally not observable because there would be no end to the observation.

The point of this post isn’t to argue that though. I am saying if we suppose time is infinite, then here are some interesting implications. That’s it.

8

Do you mean a rock has time in it so it can change? Do you mean time is a part of a rock?

What do you mean by the atomic world? Does the rock exist in the atomic world?

My question was not about difference between motion and change. My questions was does time change or move you when you don’t change or move yourself? That was the question. You seem to have missed my point of question.

For that, I think we need to find out what time is, and discuss if there is reasonable possibility time could be infinite.

9

I came up with with the theory a while back, I think correlates with this, is we only think something is endless or infinite is due to us human being incapable of imagining an end or finish line. For example, the universe. Lots of vast space. We created the concept that the universe is an endless entity, space, or whatever it is. And we only say that the universe is endless or infinite is due to us having the incapability of seeing this end. This is because our mortality doesn’t allow it. Off topic, but maybe our mortality is where our end of the universe actually comes? Therefore the universe has an end? Since we are alive we can not see it, so we assume infinity upon it. This also applies to the concept of time, space, or anything with vastly large concepts. Numbers aswell, many options.

10

Sometimes folk here try to talk about physics without doing the maths.

But here, folk are trying to talk about the continuum without doing the maths. This thread is the maths you do when you do maths without the mathematics.

1 Like
11

Neither. The way I defined it would mean it’s an ability, so you might say the rock has the attribute of time. But that sounds weird.

One could say it is a phenomenon. The phenomenon of change. I think it fits better actually.

Like the microscopic world. Yeah, the rock is made of tiny rock molecules so to speak.

Whether the full rock exists in the atomic world or not is irrelevant. Any piece of the rock (no matter how tiny) is subject to time if it can change. And if part of the rock can change, then the rock can change.

Time isn’t a thing that moves you so the question is misplaced. Under my 1st proposed definition it is an attribute. But now I think it fits better to see it as a phenomenon so it would refer to the phenomenon of you moving.

And I would argue it is not possible to undergo 0 change or not change at all even in the micro world. If you are able to identify something that truly doesn’t change at all let me know.

I believe true staticness can only happen in infinity as my post suggests, but that’s just a theory.

Well, first off I am free to philosophize for the sake of having fun. So as long as I don’t make false claims no problem. Here I am sharing a perspective, not making a claim.

But I’d be happy to talk about what time is and if it could be infinite. It’s just no fun if you have an idea behind your mind and you simply want to prove me wrong.

If you approach it with a curious mindset, please go ahead and share your ideas :slight_smile:

Otherwise I might pass.

12

Maybe. But if it is true that we can never grasp it, then it is unverifiable. Like an untestable claim, I would personally discard that and attempt to learn more while assume I can grasp it.

Furthermore, to me this notion that something can be truly beyond any human’s comprehension has little to no ground. One reason I do not think that way is the following: logic.

Logic is an objective tool to assess reality. If something is contradictory, it is not contratictory on the basis of my comprehension, but rather on the basis of logic. If I use logic, I am effectively outsourcing my thinking to a more trustworthy approach. It is no longer my flawed self who is doing the thinking, but a virtual perfect thinker (as long as the logic I use is valid of course).

So something being too grand to be understood would have to be grander than logic itself… so the law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply to it. It could be both true and false, and trying to make any sense of it would be utterly meaningless.

Ironically, I believe reality as a whole is that thing haha, as my post suggests. But to get to where logic break, one needs logic. In other words, to get to the point where we cannot understand the beyond, we need to understand it up to the beyond.

Sure, to me there just are logical issues with time having an end. But it is an interesting thought. Similarly to the idea that one cannot experience post-death and so in a multiverse, it would always seem as though you are alive from the viewpoint of all the versions of yourself. Funny idea haha

13

I am no mathematician, forgive me :sob:

14

The point being that your post is a part of a wider context that has a considerable literature addressing and clarifying many of the confusions in your thinking. It would be worth your doing some reading on the topic.

15

I see what you mean with the power of logic. I’m theorizing, but I hold a low capacity for logical claims lol

1 Like
16

The idea that infinity is “too grand to be understood” is puzzling, given the large body of mathematics that sets out the why’s and wherefores of infinity.

It’s fun stuff, and far from incomprehensible. Indeed, it is the comprehension of such things as Hilbert’s Hotel and Cantor’s Diagonal that make it so “mind-blowing”; The more it be understood, the more it be extraordinary.

But wander around on your own and you will wander up the garden path. Google it. Find out what others have found out. Find your way around before you go off exploring.

2 Likes
17

I am just enoying thinking honestly…

And I am not sure where to start looking into it but I’d like to. Where should I begin?

I checked out your link for stater I guess, but seriously, I am not sure what to even look into or what to expect really.

That being said, I’d be surprised if the math proves what I am saying wrong or extremely unlikely. I haven’t heard of the notion being any closed to disproved. And infinity in math isn’t always as relevant to this particular context (I have mostly heard of infinite sets, but these sets are conceptual imo, so it doesn’t speak to infinity in reality necessarily).

None of what I am saying is based on science or math. Just raw philosophy. I am clarifying because “confusion” seems to imply that you know I am off the mark for a fact :thinking:

Edit: I guess I’ll figure out where to start. Google exists I suppose lol

2 Likes
18

I don’t think we can assume that location is not also determined and present within substances like matter and energy. If space-time is a byproduct of matter and energy it makes it even more unlikely.

If point A an B has material substance and nothing is in between, then because of A an B nothingness becomes something because A and B reveals it and they interact with nothingness.

Therefore it’s in correct to say there is infinite nothingness or space, because then there would have to be an equal amount of matter and energy from which space-time can emmerge for infinite matter. Infinity on the other hand for nothigness becomes moot, as infinity in itself is something, but there may be exceptions if something is present within nothingness without taking up space of whatever kind.

Nothingness can never exist for as long as there is something to measure it against, unless we’re dealing with super states of existance.

Nothingness in itself may be a dimension or state or super state. It will exist to itself but not to other things, due to certain laws of causality.

19

I paraphrase …

You have infinite coins, {1, 2, 3,…}

You take away 3 coins. You’re left with infinite coins

You take away the odd coins. You’re left with infinite coins

I suppose infinity, despite Cantor’s groundbreaking work, is poorly understood. I speak as someone whose math education didn’t require deep involvement with infinity. Mathematicians, like Kroenecker (?), were dead against the idea. If memory serves Greeks preferred arbitrarily large numbers.

To study the academic literature on the topic is a fantastic suggestion. Word on the vine is that there’s significant progress, info on which has yet to reach the ears of lay folk. Hopefully it’ll trickle down to us at some point. Will we be able to grasp it?

20

I am not sure what you even mean by that honestly. I can change location in space, while staying the same substance more or less. Even if I am changing in subtle ways, that is in no way shown to be tied to me changing place, if let’s say I moved ten steps forward.

But my point isn’t based on “assuming that location is not also determined and present within substances like matter and energy.” It is a thought exercise to understand the concept of nothingness.

You seem to be under the impression that I claimed nothingness exists, but no, by definition it does not. I never claimed it does. The very concept is based on lack of existence.

Side note: As far as I understand things, matter is energy. Everything is energy, because energy is defined as the ability to do work.

You say: “…it’s in correct to say there is infinite nothingness or space.” Why do you add “or space”? You are making the mistake of equating space with nothingness. They are not the same. There is nothing that prevents infinite space as far as we know. So do not conclude that space cannot be infinite.

But here, I am not even talking about space. Maybe that is where the confusion comes from.

Nothingness is like 0 in math. An infinity of 0s together whether added or multiplied is still 0. Space is something. Saying “an infinity of nothingness” is a figure of speech. Nothingness doesn’t actually exist… it is precisely nothing, so an infinity of it doesn’t take up any space, you see? If it doesn’t take up any space, then for two points to have nothing between them means there is not even space between them (so they are touching), even if there are “an infinity of nothingness.” It’s a figure of speech. Nothingness does not take up space and nothing can interact with it.

That’s the visualization I proposed to understand nothingness. It’s not an argument or anything.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. This seems to be out of scope to me.

Yeah uh nothingness is nothing so I don’t know about that.