## Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

### Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Finite objects are self-evident proof of an infinite universe.

For a finite object to exist, it must exist somewhere (some place in space). It can't exist nowhere. Existing nowhere means that it does not exist.

For example, we can say that my finite shoes exist within the finite space within a finite shoebox. But, if this shoebox exists nowhere, then the shoebox does not exist, which means neither do my finite shoes.

And we can take this further and say "My finite shoebox exists within the finite space of my finite closet which exists within the finite space within my finite house". But again, if this house exists nowhere, then the house does not exist, which means neither does the closet, the shoebox, nor my finite shoes.

And we can take this a bit further and say "My finite house exists within the finite space within our finite universe. And but again, if our universe exists nowhere, then the universe does not exist, which means neither does the house, closet, shoebox, nor my finite shoes.

A finite object requires a space to exist in. If it exists nowhere, then it doesn't exist. If our universe is finite, then it exists somewhere, not nowhere. And if it exists somewhere, then this somewhere is outside the universe which thus defeats the definition of universe.

If the universe (space) were not infinite, then there would be no space for finite objects to exist. -- My finite shoes exist, therefore infinite space exists.
Last edited by CanMan on July 13th, 2020, 10:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

I suspect the Matrioshka dolls model can be carried too far here.

Amusing semantic trick, which depends on a particular interpretation of the word "somewhere. "

YMMV

TheVat
Forum Administrator

Posts: 7631
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

TheVat wrote:I suspect the Matrioshka dolls model can be carried too far here.

If the last outer doll has nowhere to exist, then it, and the inner dolls have nowhere to exist. If they exist nowhere, then they do not exist.

TheVat wrote:Amusing semantic trick, which depends on a particular interpretation of the word "somewhere."

There is no "semantic" trick here.

If the universe (space) were not infinite, then there would be no space for finite objects to exist. -- My finite shoes exist, therefore the universe is infinite (i.e. infinite space exists).

A single finite object cannot contain all finite objects. It cannot contain itself.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Oh, I don't know :-)

This is like the magician's trick where there's a lot of patter and misdirection whose sole purpose is to cover the fact that he just slipped the vanishing object in his pocket when nobody was looking!

Even if the universe was finite there'd still be room for finite objects to exist in it.

Question: if the universe was completely empty would it still be a universe?
charon
Resident Member

Posts: 2156
Joined: 02 Mar 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

This is a classic composition fallacy — to say that because everything in the universe exists somewhere, then the universe must exist somewhere. It is just as fallacious as the claim that because everything in the universe began to exist, then the universe it self began to exist. The fallacy of your chain of reasoning is right here:

If our universe is finite, then it exists somewhere

The universe does not exist somewhere. It is the totality of all that exists. That totality can be either finite or infinite.

Empirically, there is evidence that the universe is infinite, but it’s not absolutely conclusive. It is perfectly well known that the universe can be finite (positively or negatively curved) but unbounded. This has been mooted for decades and I first read about this as a kid in books by George Gamow, and was endlessly fascinated by it. I suggest you brush up on your Gamow, or even writers much more recent.
davidm
Member

Posts: 760
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Charon wrote:This is like the magician's trick where there's a lot of patter and misdirection whose sole purpose is to cover the fact that he just slipped the vanishing object in his pocket when nobody was looking!

It only seems like a "magician's trick" because we have been tricked into believing a falsehood in the first place, making the real truth now seem like an illusion.

Charon wrote:Even if the universe was finite there'd still be room for finite objects to exist in it.

Yes, but then where would this finite universe exist? If it exists nowhere, then it, and all its contents don't exist.

Charon wrote:Question: if the universe was completely empty would it still be a universe?

If a finite shoebox was completely empty, would the shoebox still be a shoebox? -- Yes. A finite universe implies finite borders/boundaries.

But the question is, where do these finite borders/boundaries exist?

If all the "wheres" (space) is contained within these borders/boundaries, then there is no "wheres" left for a finite universe to exist. And if a finite universe does not exist, then neither do all its contents.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

The universe does not exist "somewhere." See my prior post. Your argument is nonsensical.
davidm
Member

Posts: 760
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

CanMan » July 13th, 2020, 11:18 am wrote:It only seems like a "magician's trick" because we have been tricked

By whom?
into believing a falsehood in the first place, making the real truth now seem like an illusion.

Which 'falsehood' and how do you know it's false? What is your method of verification?
Which 'truth', and how do you know it's true?

[Charon; Question: if the universe was completely empty would it still be a universe?]
If a finite shoebox was completely empty, would the shoebox still be a shoebox? -- Yes.

On what do you base the conviction that a shoebox shares all the essential characteristics of the universe? Suppose the universe has dimensions, properties and capabilities that a shoebox doesn't.
How do you know you have the ultimate, correct, only valid definition for the words 'infinite' and 'universe' and 'where'?
Serpent
Resident Member

Posts: 4087
Joined: 24 Dec 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

davidm wrote:This is a classic composition fallacy — to say that because everything in the universe exists somewhere, then the universe must exist somewhere.

There is no problem with an "infinite" universe containing everything (all finite objects).

The problem is in claiming that a "finite" universe contains everything. A finite universe implies finite borders/boundaries that exist outside of the internal contained space. It implies a space outside of space for which to exist.

A finite box cannot contain all finite objects. It cannot contain itself. An infinite box has no borders/boundaries/shape/limitations etc. and therefore can contain everything (all finite objects).

CanMan wrote:It only seems like a "magician's trick" because we have been tricked...

Serpent wrote:By whom?

By whomever told us that the universe was finite.

Charon wrote:...if the universe was completely empty would it still be a universe?

CanMan wrote:If a finite shoebox was completely empty, would the shoebox still be a shoebox? -- Yes.

Serpent wrote:On what do you base the conviction that a shoebox shares all the essential characteristics of the universe?

All finite objects have finite borders/boundaries. They exist somewhere, or they exist nowhere. If they exist nowhere, they don't exist.
Last edited by CanMan on July 13th, 2020, 1:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Our basic forum rule here is that, if a fallacy is exposed, the promoter of said fallacy needs to concede the point. Refusal to respond can be symptomatic of refusal to learn. That's not what we're about.

Also, please look up the meaning of "unbounded." (in the context of cosmology) A universe can be finite, yet unbounded. This is key to understanding David's point.

TheVat
Forum Administrator

Posts: 7631
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

CanMan » July 13th, 2020, 10:52 am wrote:The problem is in claiming that a "finite" universe contains everything. A finite universe implies finite borders/boundaries that exist outside of the internal contained space. It implies a space outside of space for which to exist.

No it does NOT imply that. You are thoroughly confused. Please learn some basic science.

Please learn what a "finite but unbounded universe" means. Try Google.
davidm
Member

Posts: 760
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Cross post with vat. :-)
davidm
Member

Posts: 760
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Ha! Cross-posted. -- thanks, D.

TheVat
Forum Administrator

Posts: 7631
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

davidm wrote:Please learn what a "finite but unbounded universe" means.

David, I understand this meaning. But my question still holds. In other words, just because a finite object is unbounded does not mean that it does not exist somewhere!

e.g. A sphere is finite, but travel around it is "unbounded". This does not mean that the finite sphere (finite spherical shape/boundary/border) does not exist somewhere.

Either it exists somewhere, or it exists nowhere.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

And you again committing the composition fallacy. A sphere exists in the universe, but the universe can be finite but unbounded without existing in anything at all. If you really understand what finite but unbounded means, you would understand this. “Somewhere” does not apply to the universe. The universe is the totality of all objects/events that exist somewhere and somewhen. Your argument is wrong.
davidm
Member

Posts: 760
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

CanMan -

we have been tricked into believing a falsehood

Who is this we?!!

where would this finite universe exist? If it exists nowhere, then it, and all its contents don't exist

Who said it's finite?

If a finite shoebox was completely empty, would the shoebox still be a shoebox?

Of course it would, because it's a shoebox not a universe.

'The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

just because a finite object is unbounded does not mean that it does not exist somewhere!

Something which is infinite exists where it is.
charon
Resident Member

Posts: 2156
Joined: 02 Mar 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

davidm wrote:And you again committing the composition fallacy.

There is no composition fallacy here. I think we are just using the word "boundary" in different contexts.

davidm wrote:A sphere exists in the universe, but the universe can be finite but unbounded without existing in anything at all.

For example, if the universe was a spherically shaped object, wouldn't it still be "finite but unbounded", but yet still be "bounded" in the sense of its physical shape?

If the universe was a dodecahedron shaped object, wouldn't it still be "finite but unbounded", but yet still be "bounded" in the sense of its physical shape?

All finite objects have finite boundaries/borders. That which gives an object its finite-ness is its boundary. Without a boundary, an object is infinite, not finite.

davidm wrote:“Somewhere” does not apply to the universe.

Somewhere applies to "whats" (things; finite objects), not to "wheres". If the universe is a "what", then it exists some-"where".

davidm wrote:The universe is the totality of all objects/events that exist somewhere and somewhen.

Agreed. But this is only possible if the universe is infinite. A finite object cannot contain the space in which it exists. An infinite universe (space) can contain all finite objects.

Charon wrote:Who is this we?!!

Those who believe the universe is finite.

Charon wrote:Who said it's finite?

Many people. (e.g. davidm)

Charon wrote:'The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

So, then you agree with me that the universe is infinite?

Charon wrote:Something which is infinite exists where it is.

Or, infinite space is the "where", where all finite objects exist.
Last edited by CanMan on July 13th, 2020, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

I did not bloody hell say that the universe was finite, you twit. I said pretty much the opposite. I said that empirical evidence suggests that it is infinite. Please learn to read.

What I ACTUALLY said was that your attempted botch of a logical argument hoping to show that the universe MUST be infinite does not go through because of this.
davidm
Member

Posts: 760
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Can Man - - we have been tricked

Who is this we?!!
Can Man -- Those who believe the universe is finite.

By whom were they tricked?
Can Man -- By whomever told us that the universe was finite.

Who said it's finite?
Can Man -- Many people. (e.g. davidm)

You seem generally vague about your sources. I have no way of fact-checking your 'many', but the bit in parentheses is blatantly false. What davidm wrote was:
Empirically, there is evidence that the universe is infinite, but it’s not absolutely conclusive. It is perfectly well known that the universe can be finite (positively or negatively curved) but unbounded.

In fact, the only argument you have presented is your own inference from shoes and spheres, and that you refuse to consider the possibility of "where" being an inherent property of the universe. Wherever the universe is everywhere and all wheres are of the universe; of course nothing exists outside of it, because there is no outside of an unbounded universe.
I can't tell you whether it's finite or infinite, but I can assure you it would take the same eternity to explore one as the other.
Serpent
Resident Member

Posts: 4087
Joined: 24 Dec 2011

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

Davidm, my apologies. I misinterpreted your arguing that the universe was "finite but unbounded" as meaning you believed the universe was finite, instead of your intent to make a different point. Again, my apologies.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

What does a “Finite but Unbounded Universe” Really Mean?

A “finite but unbounded universe”. This phrase is often invoked as an explanation to how our universe can possibly be “all-encompassing while still maintaining a 'finite' status”, which on its surface appears self-contradictory. And although it appears contradictory, it may in fact have a profound non-contradictory intended meaning. So then, what does a “finite but unbounded universe” really mean?

SELF-CONTRADICTION
At first glance, this phrase appears to be an obvious logical impossibility; a self-contradiction; an oxymoron. A technique to help expose logical contradictions is to simply replace the terms of the phrase with their synonyms, thereby exposing the X and the ~X contradiction.

A “finite” object is a “bounded” object. So, if we replace “finite” with its synonym “bounded” we get a “bounded but unbounded universe”. An X and a ~X.

And an “unbounded” object is an “infinite” object. So, if we replace “unbounded” with its synonym “infinite” we get a “finite but infinite universe”. Again, an X and a ~X.

A “bounded but unbounded universe” and a “finite but infinite universe” and a “finite but unbounded universe” are all obvious self-contradictory impossibilities.

INTENDED MEANING
Okay, but maybe there is another meaning other than its literal self-contradictory meaning? Before we rush to judgement and throw out this seemingly bogus explanation of our universe, we need to first try to understand the context and meaning as intended by the users of this phrase. Maybe there is an intended meaning here that is not self-contradictory?

So, after a bit of research, the common theme and intended understanding of a “finite but unbounded universe” (as per general relativity) is of a universe that is finite (has definable borders and shape) but travel through this universe is unbounded, meaning that no matter which direction you travel in the finite universe, you will eventually end up back where you started. This can be imagined by taking a 2D cross sectional view of a 3D solid, and imagining a 2D person traveling in a straight line (from his perspective!) around this cut-away view such that if he travels far enough ahead, he will eventually arrive back at his starting point.

So then, it is specifically the ‘travel’ (within the finite universe) that is “unbounded”, and not the ‘universe’ itself as insinuated and implied in the phrase “finite but unbounded universe”. The 'bounded' universe is NOT “unbounded”. It is the “travel” (within the universe) that is “unbounded”. Travel is an action; verb, and the universe (in its intended meaning) is an object; noun. In other words, the travel around a "closed" universe does not make the universe any more special (or more or less finite) than any other finite object.

CONCLUSION
So, then this intended meaning is less profound than is intimated by its phrase. The universe is no less or no more finite than a common rock found on the ground, which makes the argument for a finite “all-encompassing” universe disappear. A finite object cannot logically be “all-encompassing”. Finite objects cannot encompass their own finite boundaries, nor can they encompass the space upon where these boundaries lie. This means that if an all-encompassing universe exists, then it can only exist non-finitely, or simply 'infinitely'. No other possibilities exist.

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

The moment we realize...
***FOREGROUNDS are not possible without BACKGROUNDS***

Will be the moment we realize…
***FINITE objects are not possible without INFINITE space***

CanMan
Banned User

Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jun 2019

### Re: Finite Objects are Proof of an Infinite Universe

davidm » July 13th, 2020, 9:07 am wrote:This is a classic composition fallacy — to say that because everything in the universe exists somewhere, then the universe must exist somewhere. It is just as fallacious as the claim that because everything in the universe began to exist, then the universe it self began to exist. The fallacy of your chain of reasoning is right here:

If our universe is finite, then it exists somewhere

The universe does not exist somewhere. It is the totality of all that exists. That totality can be either finite or infinite.

Empirically, there is evidence that the universe is infinite, but it’s not absolutely conclusive. It is perfectly well known that the universe can be finite (positively or negatively curved) but unbounded. This has been mooted for decades and I first read about this as a kid in books by George Gamow, and was endlessly fascinated by it. I suggest you brush up on your Gamow, or even writers much more recent.

This thread is closed. I have made a couple warnings about threads that are nonresponsive to points of logic and evidence, and which keep circling back on the same argument.

TheVat
Forum Administrator

Posts: 7631
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests