Hi to All,
Just a quick note on the science of the subject.
Kurt Gödel provided a mathematical solution to the Einstein field equations showing that the Universe could be cyclical. If I recall correctly, it required the Universe to rotate.
Gödel and Einstein were friends at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Even though the model was logically consistent, I don’t think that it was ever taken seriously.
Thanks Ed
Hi Ed
The universe would be rotating with respect to what?
An rotating object can be discerned by comparing any element within it’s structure.
But the universe is not an object.
It namely has no edge nor a center.
We cant look at it from outside and we cant know where we are in it with respect to its limits, as it has no discrete limits, as there cant be anything outside of it.
Hi Fixed Cross,
A great question. I am not sure of the answer.
I would guess that a spinning Universe would have a higher Energy content than a stationary Universe, which in turn means that the spatial metric would change. Since time is part of the spatial metric it is possible, if it were setup properly, that the time variable could be sinusoidal.
Anyway, I am not an expert in this matter, I only know enough to be dangerous.
Thanks Ed
P.S.
After getting my feet wet with regard to Peirce, your conjectures appear to be true.
The universe contains many galaxies. We can observe the positions of those galaxies and determine if it they form a circular rotational motion. Thus, if the universe is truly rotating, we can also find the center of the universe, the point of no angular velocity, and if that point cannot be found, we can deduce it by comparing relative velocities to deduce an implied centerpoint.
Either the universe is spinning, or it is not, and this should be able to be determined by astronomers.
Yes there is. You are a thing. Your post is a thing. A word in your post is a thing. And so on.
You are speaking of things we cannot speak of.
What exactly is the point of that?
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
– Ludwig Wittgenstein
There is indeed such a thing as finite number of things. For example, your post is one finite thing (because it is bounded by white or light blue space.) Your post + that white (or light blue) space that surrounds it are two finite things. And so on.
What exactly are you asking me?
I said it before: you’re asking if there is such a thing as infinite boundary.
In other words, you are not speaking of finitude.
If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number? Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 things around it. Now let’s suppose there is an equal number of things on each side of the central thing: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 above it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 below it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in front of it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 behind it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 on the left of it and 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th thing on the right of the central thing?
finite number + infinity =/= finite number
That’s your entire point.
You’re saying that an infinite boundary isn’t finite.
Not sure you’ve understood me. Let me put it slightly differently.
If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number? Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 7. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 6 things around it: 1 above it, 1 below it, 1 in front of it, 1 behind it, 1 on the left of it and 1 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the thing on the right of the central thing?
You lost me and I am totally confused.
But I do know this, consciousness can only percieve the infinite in the sense of an immortal consciousness, it cannot percieve the infinite in any given moment, only in the sense that there are an infinite amount of moments.
Still don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m guessing your talking about how many things can we focus on in any given moment, well the answer is a finite amount of things.
Note that I never said that the universe is finite.
Universe is a meaningless concept. Unless it refers to something specific (e.g. what was observed to have happened in the past.)
The meaningless version of the concept of universe says that the universe is the sum of everything that happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future.
It goes beyond one’s experience.
It is thus not finite.
We do not arrive at a finite number because you did not specify what this “everything else” is.
As it is, it is an unbounded concept.
It has no limits.
It is infinite.
And as I said, finite number plus infinity does not equal finite number.
[Note: accidentally hit the submit button]
No look. Suppose all of existence, nature, the universe, whatever you wish to call it, consists of a single thing. What is there around that thing?
If it consisted of seven things, and I were to ask what is there around the central thing, the answer would be: other things. But what would there be next to those other things, counting outward from the center?
If there is nothing, or nothingness, then we cannot conceive of the outer things, since we would have to conceive of them as being bounded by nothing(ness) on at least one side. Nothing(ness) however is inconceivable (for us).
And if all things are bounded by other things, there must be an infinity of things, which is equally inconceivable.
“Right” and “left” are higher level concepts. At the lowest level of abstraction, there is a sequence of events, which means, instead of “left” and “right” we have “precedent” and “antecedent”. I cannot say what bounds the peripheral objects (that bound the central object) because your specification does not specify these objects. That’s all there is to it.
No-thing, which is a mental entity defining the bounds of thingness and vacuum.
Are you asking, how precise we can measure the space between the space?
Not making sense to me.
True.
That logically does not follow.
I like your thinking here, Magnus. Yes, the infinity/nothingness problem forces us into phenomenology.
“[Husserl had realized more profoundly than anybody else that] all philosophic understanding must start from our common understanding of the world, from our understanding of the world as sensibly perceived prior to all theorizing. Heidegger went much further than Husserl in the same direction: the primary theme is not the object of perception but the full thing as experienced as part of the individual human context, the individual world to which it belongs.” (Strauss, “Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy”.)
If we keep going further in the same direction, what is there beyond Heidegger?
Your thinking is future-oriented.
It should be past-oriented.
What is real is in the past.
Future is just a figment of our imagination.
Future is infinite.
Past is finite.
Or rather, our past experience, and only that which we have memory of, is finite.
The concept of past can be just as problematic as the concept of future.
If you step outside of the boundaries of your personal experience then everything becomes possible.
You can no longer think.
There is no longer anything that can guide your thought.
I agree that information (or sensation if you will) is precedent but I do not have a positive view of phenomenology. I think it is redundant and perhaps even confused itself.
So a physical entity would be enclosed by a mental entity?
No. Empty space, literal vacuum, would be nothing(ness). Outer space is not empty, it’s filled with plasma, (and) probability waves.
Suppose the letters in my post are existence, and the space around them and between them is nothingness. How can you conceive of letters without space around them and between them?
I think it does, if you think it through. Existence cannot be logically enclosed by itself. Existence as we know it could enclose itself in a higher dimension, but then in that dimension it would have to be bounded by 1) nothingness, 2) a finite number of other higher-dimensional things (the outermost of which would then have to be bounded by nothingness), or 3) an infinity of things. The only alternative would be that existence were enclosed by itself in an infinity of dimensions…