Matter and Volume

[alexd]

The philosophical conundrum that I'm facing at the moment has to do with spatial volume and *physical* matter. I am not experientially familiar with the internal worlds of the astral and higher planes but I would assume that physical matter would have the same spatial laws as higher dimensions (ie. astral, mental ect.). It would put my concern to rest if the problem only pertains to the physical plane of the 3 spatial dimensions and physical matter.

However the problem I have lies in the relatable argument of whether the universe is finite or not in terms of space. Imagine you have an unlimited amount of measuring tape. Could it be placed at the start of the universe and be stretched to the end of the universe to measure the diameter (assuming the universe is spherical)? I'm sure this could be verified in the astral and would appreciate others opinions on this.

The argument for this case asserts that in *the beginning*, or dawn of time, the universe was condensed down to an infinitesimal portion of matter the size of a pea. Shortly after the big bang the universe theoretically expanded and has continued to expand to the present day.

The case against this declares that the universe has no spatial limits and is infinite in every sense of the word. This theory at once seems more appealing and comforting to some because it means that the universe will not eventually contract back into nothingness. Although for some it would be quite ridiculous to conceive that all matter was condensed down to such a minute mass in the first place.

The problem with the spatially limited universe theory is the notion of implausible spatial confines.
Let's say that the universe is spatially limited. In due course the question comes to mind: "what is beyond the universe"? Or "what is the universe expanding into?" Next we can say that it is expanding into another universe. But then, someone will surely ask: "where is that other universe expanding into?" And so the questions become redundant as the result materializes as theoretically infinite exponentially expanding universes.

The problem with the spatially unlimited universe theory lies in Zeno's paradox. If we state that the spatial volume of the universe is infinitely large, therefore it must be infinitely small too. However a philosophical problem arises with this notion. Zeno's paradox states that from observational reality the notion of matter being infinitely small is unsustainable. Quoting from the site, a runner for example who must run a 100m race must face 1x100m. Or we can express this mathematically as 2x50m, or 4x25m ect. However if matter is infinitely small then we can continue making the number of meters that we are multiplying smaller. If this pattern continues it is evident that the runner will never reach his destination.

If there is an absolute smallest particle (such as an atom) that is no further reducible then obviously there are an increasing number of *atoms* in the universe as it expands. This is true in my opinion because as the universe is expanding now but matter is not being "stretched" as such, rather new matter is materializing. This would explicate the problem of all existing matter being condensed down to the size of a pea as the additional matter would simply no longer exist. This theory is quite lose as its straight off the top of my head but I'm sure its got some potential for investigation into the nature of the spatial expansion of matter within the universe.
Ultimately I don't find it feasible that the universe is self-sustaining and will one day collapse into nothingness. That would go both against philosophical principles and spiritual laws.


Please comment
Alex

[You]

Since, as you've said, the universe is expanding, any measurement you make at any point in time would be grossly wrong the next second. You might be able to come up with a formula for it, assuming the universe is a perfect sphere, which I doubt.

[beavis]

Quoting from the site, a runner for example who must run a 100m race must face 1x100m. Or we can express this mathematically as 2x50m, or 4x25m ect. However if matter is infinitely small then we can continue making the number of meters that we are multiplying smaller. If this pattern continues it is evident that the runner will never reach his destination.

It is evident he WILL reach his destination. Iinfinite or not, everything in the smaller universe is still PROPORTIONALLY equal to a bigger universe. Events would occur exactly the same, given the same starting positions etc. It doesnt matter how you divide 100m. Its still 100m.

[alexd]

If you divide 100m ten times you get 10x10m, so the runner would have to reach 10 points before he completed the 100m. If the number is divided indefinitely the runner would have to reach infinite number of points before completing the 100m, which would be impossible since the points are divisible indefinitely.


Alex

[You]

Meh, I hate that dumb theory, because it's proved wrong by the simple fact that they do get there.

[Nostic]

The philosophical conundrum that I'm facing at the moment has to do with spatial volume and *physical* matter. I am not experientially familiar with the internal worlds of the astral and higher planes but I would assume that physical matter would have the same spatial laws as higher dimensions (ie. astral, mental ect.). It would put my concern to rest if the problem only pertains to the physical plane of the 3 spatial dimensions and physical matter.

However the problem I have lies in the relatable argument of whether the universe is finite or not in terms of space. Imagine you have an unlimited amount of measuring tape. Could it be placed at the start of the universe and be stretched to the end of the universe to measure the diameter (assuming the universe is spherical)? I'm sure this could be verified in the astral and would appreciate others opinions on this.

The argument for this case asserts that in *the beginning*, or dawn of time, the universe was condensed down to an infinitesimal portion of matter the size of a pea. Shortly after the big bang the universe theoretically expanded and has continued to expand to the present day.

The case against this declares that the universe has no spatial limits and is infinite in every sense of the word. This theory at once seems more appealing and comforting to some because it means that the universe will not eventually contract back into nothingness. Although for some it would be quite ridiculous to conceive that all matter was condensed down to such a minute mass in the first place.

The problem with the spatially limited universe theory is the notion of implausible spatial confines.
Let's say that the universe is spatially limited. In due course the question comes to mind: "what is beyond the universe"? Or "what is the universe expanding into?" Next we can say that it is expanding into another universe. But then, someone will surely ask: "where is that other universe expanding into?" And so the questions become redundant as the result materializes as theoretically infinite exponentially expanding universes.

The problem with the spatially unlimited universe theory lies in Zeno's paradox. If we state that the spatial volume of the universe is infinitely large, therefore it must be infinitely small too. However a philosophical problem arises with this notion. Zeno's paradox states that from observational reality the notion of matter being infinitely small is unsustainable. Quoting from the site, a runner for example who must run a 100m race must face 1x100m. Or we can express this mathematically as 2x50m, or 4x25m ect. However if matter is infinitely small then we can continue making the number of meters that we are multiplying smaller. If this pattern continues it is evident that the runner will never reach his destination.

If there is an absolute smallest particle (such as an atom) that is no further reducible then obviously there are an increasing number of *atoms* in the universe as it expands. This is true in my opinion because as the universe is expanding now but matter is not being "stretched" as such, rather new matter is materializing. This would explicate the problem of all existing matter being condensed down to the size of a pea as the additional matter would simply no longer exist. This theory is quite lose as its straight off the top of my head but I'm sure its got some potential for investigation into the nature of the spatial expansion of matter within the universe.
Ultimately I don't find it feasible that the universe is self-sustaining and will one day collapse into nothingness. That would go both against philosophical principles and spiritual laws.


Please comment
Alex

Hi Alex

Well, when you say "universe" you could be talking about 2 things. Are you just talking about the physical universe? In that case, you're separating it from the rest of the, what you might call "multiverse". If you're just talking about the physical universe, I believe it must be finite. That's just the nature of physical reality. However, the physical universe extends beyond the physical- and we know that because of the dual particle/wave nature of the atom. So really, cutting the physical universe off from the rest of the multverse is just a product of your (our) limited perceptions.

But see, both things (finite and infinite) must be true because without one, the other loses its meaning. Ultimate reality is infinite because it goes beyond space and time. Ultimate reality, however "needs" material reality to even be defined. The indefinable "needs" things that can be defined. Or think of it this way: unlimited possibilities (the infinite) NEEDS possibilities (the finite) in order to be realized, in order to be relevant.

Now, space and time are inseparable, and the physical universe is bound by them both. So, if you were go back far enough in time, there would be a "time" when there was no time, and therefore no space.. This is just the nature of a physical creation- 1st it exists as potential, then it is born, lives, and then dies. Ultimate reality, however is not bound by these limitations. It is beyond life and death, and is therefore eternal. Any physical universe, because it is born, must die. How are we to even know how many universes have come and gone, and what "number" universe we are in now? I think people have a tendency to think that this is universe #1, but for all we know, it could be the billionth. Or to put it even better, it could be our billionth experience of a universe.

Before all physical creation, there was, what you might call, pure potentiality. But potential needs realization. That realization is the physical universe... started with the big bang. Or maybe we should say, started with a big bang.

When you ask about weather the universe is finite or infinite, that is the inquiry of a dualistic mind. Because the dualistic mind thinks it must be one or the other. Thinking that they are both goes beyond the nature of the mind. But that's the thing... ultimate reality goes beyond the mind. Since the human mind is bound by the limitations of physical reality, man can never know,  perceive, or understand ultimate reality... not until he has transcended the physical.

[Telos]

If the universe has limits or boundaries, then the definition of infinity means all-encompassing within the boundaries. If the universe has no limits or boundaries, then the definition of infinity means all-encompassing without the boundaries.

Either way, infinity still means all-encompassing.

The limits, whether they are micro or macro, won't really be limits. They will be the containers of everything, including imagination. They create the infinite inbetween. Don't worry, they won't get in the way.

[RenaissanceMan]

The problem with the spatially limited universe theory is the notion of implausible spatial confines.
Let's say that the universe is spatially limited. In due course the question comes to mind: "what is beyond the universe"? Or "what is the universe expanding into?" Next we can say that it is expanding into another universe. But then, someone will surely ask: "where is that other universe expanding into?" And so the questions become redundant as the result materializes as theoretically infinite exponentially expanding universes.

There is, literally, nothing beyond the universe.  It doesn't expand "into" anything.

The problem with the spatially unlimited universe theory lies in Zeno's paradox. If we state that the spatial volume of the universe is infinitely large, therefore it must be infinitely small too. However a philosophical problem arises with this notion. Zeno's paradox states that from observational reality the notion of matter being infinitely small is unsustainable. Quoting from the site, a runner for example who must run a 100m race must face 1x100m. Or we can express this mathematically as 2x50m, or 4x25m ect. However if matter is infinitely small then we can continue making the number of meters that we are multiplying smaller. If this pattern continues it is evident that the runner will never reach his destination.

You've left time out of the equation.  If you say it in terms of the runner facing 100m and he takes 10 seconds to run it, then facing 10x10m will be split up into 10 one second time intervals.  Cutting it up into an infinite number of intervals means the runner runs no distance in no time, which is so obvious it is a pointless statement.

If there is an absolute smallest particle (such as an atom) that is no further reducible then obviously there are an increasing number of *atoms* in the universe as it expands. This is true in my opinion because as the universe is expanding now but matter is not being "stretched" as such, rather new matter is materializing. This would explicate the problem of all existing matter being condensed down to the size of a pea as the additional matter would simply no longer exist.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the number of atoms expands if the universe is expanding.  The distance between atoms, or clumps of atoms could simply be increasing.
As it happens, many scientists do theorize that new matter is materializing or at least new energy - or at least something that is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion.

[beavis]

If the universe has limits or boundaries, then the definition of infinity means all-encompassing within the boundaries. If the universe has no limits or boundaries, then the definition of infinity means all-encompassing without the boundaries.

Infinity isnt defined by what really exists. It is defined as a value bigger than all normal numbers. If the universe has a finite size, then obviously it cant be infinite size.