What if the universe is infinite in every direction, macro and micro?

[toobfreak]

I'm not a nihilist. Nihilism says meaning doesn't exist. I believe meaning is self-generated rather than cosmically assigned.

You sound like a relativist. Meaning though is the basis of existence, problem is that finding that meaning comes from within and most impersonalists and relativists find it hard to find absolute meaning from within, so arbitrarily assign it from without, if they assign any meaning at all. Saying everything is meaningless is the ultimate escape from philosophical responsibility as no one needs to explain meaninglessness.

 

[Slade3200]

Depends on which theory you agree with.

How about we just use logic and you can use whichever theory you want to find points to agree or provide a counterpoint.

 

[Anomalism]

If there is an infinite universe, that means we have a society exactly like ours, except I'm wearing a green-striped shirt instead of a blue-striped shirt right now. And another in which I'm wearing a yellow-striped shirt, and infinite more societies in which I'm wearing all the shirts possible to infinity, and then we go to the next tiny detail. Societies exactly the same in every way except my water cup is a half-inch to the right, and one where it's a quarter inch to the left, to infinity. Or another universe identical in every way except on girl in Xianping, China is named Mei instead of Ting. Every variable of every infinite scenario MUST be present by definition if the universe is infinite. It's exhausting to think about.

But maybe not. For example Did Jesus rise from the dead on an infinite number of other similar planets? Or did He rise from the dead on ours alone? Jesus said "My Father's House has many rooms". Maybe an infinite number?

Maybe, but infinite universes doesn't require infinite copies. That conclusion only holds if physical laws are identical everywhere, which is itself an assumption. If the constants vary across regions or scales, the configuration space expands without bound and repetition isn't guaranteed. You could have infinite universes that never repeat because the rules themselves keep changing.

But even granting your premise, the copies would be drowned out. In a truly infinite multiverse, the universes containing versions of us would be infinitely outnumbered by configurations so alien we don't have language for them. We'd be an infinitely repeated footnote inside something so vast the repetition becomes meaningless. Infinity doesn't make us central. It makes us vanishingly peripheral.

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly, if it’s expanding then there is room beyond its “border” therefore there is no border

That's the part that trips most people up. Whether the universe is expanding or not, whatever defines our "universe" implies its separateness from something greater otherwise, it could not be defined as a "thing," the part people get lost on is that there can be a boundary, an end to our universe for us yet there not be more "room" beyond it!

When our universe expands, our space itself expands rather than the universe merely expanding farther out into other space.

The universe is not like a balloon floating in a room where the physical laws and dimensions are contiguous throughout within a common framework of space time--- where the universe "ends," our space ends, physical laws as we know them end, our time ends, so there can be a "boundary" to us just not a physical one like a wall where you can just walk up to and pass through beyond to another side, because there are no similar phyical laws beyond for there to even be another side.

 

[westwall]

How about we just use logic and you can use whichever theory you want to find points to agree or provide a counterpoint.

I am using logic. If the Universe is expanding it MUST have a defined border, UNIVERSE/NON-UNIVERSE.

If it is infinite, then there is no defined border and the galaxies are just moving about with no defined origin point.

 

[Anomalism]

You sound like a relativist. Meaning though is the basis of existence, problem is that finding that meaning comes from within and most impersonalists and relativists find it hard to find absolute meaning from within, so arbitrarily assign it from without, if they assign any meaning at all. Saying everything is meaningless is the ultimate escape from philosophical responsibility as no one needs to explain meaninglessness.

I don't think meaning is absent or arbitrary. I think it's self-generated. Those are completely different positions.

If anything, other frameworks are the easier ones philosophically. Grounding meaning in an external absolute offloads the work. You inherit a system, you operate within it, and the hard questions are already answered for you. Saying meaning comes from within and then actually building it, owning it, and defending it with no cosmic safety net is more philosophical work.

I'm answering the question without borrowing someone else's answer.

 

[toobfreak]

I see. Interesting.
But maybe it's an infinite number as well. They're up to a sextillion number of planets now, but nobody can see the edge if there is one.

No, you can never see the edge of the universe. No matter where you go, the edge is still in all directions infinitely far away. Beyond a certain point, the universe just appears dark to us.

There is an edge to the Earth too, but try as you might, you can never see beyond the horizon much less see all the way around the Earth to see the back of your head, that is why for thousands of years, all man knew of the Earth was a flat pie plate instead of a ball.

 

[Anomalism]

No, you can never see the edge of the universe. No matter where you go, the edge is still in all directions infinitely far away. Beyond a certain point, the universe just appears dark to us.

There is an edge to the Earth too, but try as you might, you can never see beyond the horizon much less see all the way around the Earth to see the back of your head, that is why for thousands of years, all man knew of the Earth was a flat pie plate instead of a ball.

Do we have any flat Earthers on this forum? Lol

 

[westwall]

Do we have any flat Earthers on this forum? Lol

Probably

 

[toobfreak]

I don't think meaning is absent or arbitrary. I think it's self-generated. Those are completely different positions.

If meaning is self-generated, then it becomes arbitrary because it becomes defined by the individual.

Philosophers like Plato and Socrates assigned meaning, but the meaning they saw was not real, it existed only within their own theories which they then set forth as a template for the world based on how well it fit observation.

 

[Anomalism]

If meaning is self-generated, then it becomes arbitrary because it becomes defined by the individual.

Philosophers like Plato and Socrates assigned meaning, but the meaning they saw was not real, it existed only within their own theories which they then set forth as a template for the world based on how well it fit observation.

We might be arguing on two different axes. You're making a claim about whether meaning has universal ontological status. I'm making a claim about how meaning is constructed. Those are different questions.

I never claimed my meaning has objective cosmic value. I'm saying it's real and functional for the person living it, me. For example, a parent's love for their child doesn't require universal ratification to be the most consequential thing in their life. The universe not signing off on it doesn't reduce its actual weight.

And your framework faces the same challenge. The objective grounding you're describing ultimately rests on a framework someone constructed and others agreed with. Consensus and revelation are still human processes. The objectivity might be more constructed than it appears from the inside.

 

[Slade3200]

That's the part that trips most people up. Whether the universe is expanding or not, whatever defines our "universe" implies its separateness from something greater otherwise, it could not be defined as a "thing," the part people get lost on is that there can be a boundary, an end to our universe for us yet there not be more "room" beyond it!

When our universe expands, our space itself expands rather than the universe merely expanding farther out into other space.

The universe is not like a balloon floating in a room where the physical laws and dimensions are contiguous throughout within a common framework of space time--- where the universe "ends," our space ends, physical laws as we know them end, our time ends, so there can be a "boundary" to us just not a physical one like a wall where you can just walk up to and pass through beyond to another side, because there are no similar phyical laws beyond for there to even be another side.

We are limited in our understanding of space and time because we only have our perspective of it and anything that expands beyond that doesn’t make sense. That’s why we don’t understand infinity or the fact that there was no beginning because the question of what happened before will always be a valid point. Just as what’s beyond the edge of the universe will always be valid. Especially if it’s believed to be expanding and contracting.

 

[Slade3200]

I am using logic. If the Universe is expanding it MUST have a defined border, UNIVERSE/NON-UNIVERSE.

If it is infinite, then there is no defined border and the galaxies are just moving about with no defined origin point.

If you believe it to be expanding and contracting then it means there is a border but if contracting then what of the space it occupied before contracting. It doesn’t make sense to say there is nothing beyond if there once was something. What if there are multiple universes or our concept of a universe is part of a larger system. That would make more sense to the expansion/contraction theory. Right?

 

[toobfreak]

We might be arguing on two different axes. You're making a claim about whether meaning has universal ontological status. I'm making a claim about how meaning is constructed. Those are different questions.

I never claimed my meaning has objective cosmic value. I'm saying it's real and functional for the person living it, me. For example, a parent's love for their child doesn't require universal ratification to be the most consequential thing in their life. The universe not signing off on it doesn't reduce its actual weight.

And your framework faces the same challenge. The objective grounding you're describing ultimately rests on a framework someone constructed and others agreed with. Consensus and revelation are still human processes. The objectivity might be more constructed than it appears from the inside.

Actually, I get just what you're saying. My point is that there is an absolute meaning to the universe while you are arguing that the meaning you see and is important to you is self-generated BY you FOR yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Planck length and the speed of light are limits imposed by our current models, not necessarily limits imposed by reality itself.

But these are the same thing, as far as we are concerned.

What you are doing is saying "anything can be true beyond the limits of our ability to observe and interact with it".

Pink unicorns, leprechauns, anything. Okay, true, but not useful.

 

[Anomalism]

But these are the same thing, as far as we are concerned.

What you are doing is saying "anything can be true beyond the limits of our ability to observe and interact with it".

Pink unicorns, leprechauns, anything. Okay, true, but not useful.

If you think pink unicorns are in the same category as what I am suggesting, I'm not really interested in arguing the point.

My point is that physics constantly has theoretical limits until we gain new information that proves that our insight was incomplete.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you think pink unicorns are in the same category as what I am suggesting, I'm not really interested in arguing the point.

I am not saying that, what I am pointing out is the relevant commonality.

Might there be reality behind what we can observe and what can ever affect us?

Sure. Or no. It doesn't matter much.

Is there an elephant behind you right now? How do you know it didn't disappear, when you turned around? You don't.

So you would turn to an objective measuring device. But when your devices are useless, where does that leave you?

Was the elephant there? Correct answer: Doesn't matter in the least. Yes and no are actually the same answer, as far as we are concerned.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I can just imagine aliens appearing out of whatever dimension and blowing our minds over all this......~S~

But your mind won't let you conceive SPIRIT BEINGS who exist outside our dimension/universe

 

[westwall]

If you believe it to be expanding and contracting then it means there is a border but if contracting then what of the space it occupied before contracting. It doesn’t make sense to say there is nothing beyond if there once was something. What if there are multiple universes or our concept of a universe is part of a larger system. That would make more sense to the expansion/contraction theory. Right?

Not expanding AND contracting, just expanding. Based on current theory there's not enough matter to have enough gravity to bring it all back together.

 

[talanum1]

The Universe can't be infinite in the micro direction: there is the Planck length and time.