The Universe Is Not "Logical"

The universe cannot be fully described through logic. At some point, there lies a root that must be technically viewed as "impossible" by our current views of what is logical. I am posting this because I see many people arguing that the universe is completely logical and can be completely explained through human logic.

What this really comes down to is, the universe was either here forever, or was created at some point, right? Well, neither of those descriptions are technically "logical". They are a contradiction. In logic, nothing can be "infinite". That is, nothing could have existed forever. And yet, if nothing existed forever, then it must have "started" somewhere. But then, how is it logical for something to have appeared out of nothing? Because assuming nothing is infinite, if you went far enough back, there would eventually be a point where there was nothing.

By this standing, the universe's roots are something that are beyond human comprehension. We are incapable of understanding how the universe came to be with the tools we have. The human mind is not meant for such a complex event, we are stuck inside of logic, and we are unable to comprehend what lies outside of what we consider possible.

 

The universe cannot be fully described through logic. At some point, there lies a root that must be technically viewed as "impossible" by our current views of what is logical. I am posting this because I see many people arguing that the universe is completely logical and can be completely explained through human logic.

What this really comes down to is, the universe was either here forever, or was created at some point, right? Well, neither of those descriptions are technically "logical". They are a contradiction. In logic, nothing can be "infinite". That is, nothing could have existed forever. And yet, if nothing existed forever, then it must have "started" somewhere. But then, how is it logical for something to have appeared out of nothing? Because assuming nothing is infinite, if you went far enough back, there would eventually be a point where there was nothing.

Fallacy: False Dilemma:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

By this standing, the universe's roots are something that are beyond human comprehension. We are incapable of understanding how the universe came to be with the tools we have. The human mind is not meant for such a complex event, we are stuck inside of logic, and we are unable to comprehend what lies outside of what we consider possible.

Fallacy: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Fallacy: Appeal to complexity http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity

Logic is not pulled from the aether. It is a set of rules discovered about reality. Thus one is not 'stuck inside' logic, but rather discovers that the universe conforms to a set of rules, and uses those rules to his own advantage.

We call these physical laws, the laws of logic, and the laws of mathematics.

 

[Benwise]

Wow, You just got owned in under an hour. :O but still, this confused the hell out of me, But sythe. Bam, give him 5 mins and your done for. Honestly, i havent seen one thing he couldnt pull of the smartest answer on.

 

I have more to add to this actually.

Thinking, as you are, of the universe in the absolute single reference sense is probably wrong. We know that time is relative to a frame of reference. Someone observing the earth from space will observe clocks on earth running more slowly than his wrist watch.

But time is also a particular measurement of change, and not something of a tangible reality. Time is an abstraction. Thus measures-of-change are relative both to a frame of reference and to the subject of measurement (it might be radioisotopes, or a clock, or a star, or whatever).

There seems little reason not to assume that the universe has always existed. This is not illogical, because time presupposes some measurable change, and a measurable change presupposes matter in which said measurable change can occur.

Thus time is dependent on the existence of matter. No matter = no time. The universe works logically if matter is indestructible, or if there is always some matter somewhere.

 

[Benwise]

Wait, Sythe. Does that mean, if I were to go into space and somehow lived moving away from the earth at lightspeed, for like, 40 years?-Here ill rephrase.

If I was moving away from earth at the speed of light, And I continued moving for like 40 years, and re-arrived at earth 40 years after leaving The earth would be like millions of years older than me?

Sorry if that made me sound stupid, but its a cool concept.

 

Wait, Sythe. Does that mean, if I were to go into space and somehow lived moving away from the earth at lightspeed, for like, 40 years?-Here ill rephrase.

If I was moving away from earth at the speed of light, And I continued moving for like 40 years, and re-arrived at earth 40 years after leaving The earth would be like millions of years older than me?

Sorry if that made me sound stupid, but its a cool concept.

Time moves more slowly in areas of high space-time distortion, so yes. Theoretically you will have aged only slightly compared to the earth.

 

[The_Phoenix_HalfBreed]

I don't understand.

 

[i love drugs]

In logic, nothing can be "infinite".

That is completely wrong. Everything is infinite, both energy and matter.

 

That is completely wrong. Everything is infinite, both energy and matter.

No, everything is finite.

This can be reasonably shown:
Every 'thing' that has been discovered to date has been measurable.
For anything to be immeasurable, we would either not notice its existence due to its lack of definition (metrics constitute definition), or be unable to measure it, and hence unable to verify that it is indeed infinite.

 

[i love drugs]

But the universe cannot simply "end" at a certain point. SOMETHING must continue, and if we consider the universe to be everything than there is nothing that exists that is not part of the universe.

 

[i love drugs]

Every 'thing' that has been discovered to date has been measurable.

We CAN'T measure everything in the universe. It's impossible to know what lies beyond what we can reach and how far matter and energy extends. In this way there is an infinite amount of it because SOMETHING must lie beyond what we can mesure and EVERYTHING is made up from matter and energy.

 

But the universe cannot simply "end" at a certain point. SOMETHING must continue, and if we consider the universe to be everything than there is nothing that exists that is not part of the universe.

Why can't it?

The solar system ends. The galaxy ends. Just because we can't see the end of the universe doesn't mean it isn't finite. Have we any reason to assume it's infinite? It can still be everything and be finite. Just the full set of all matter in existence.

 

[i love drugs]

Even if there was NOTHINGNESS, it would be SOMETHING. Because the nothingness would be IN the universe. Unlike a galaxy or solar system, the universe is a boundless entity that is meant to contain anything, even voids of nothingness, whereas galaxies and solar systems are things that are supposed to end at a point, and can be measured. It's as if you are comparing the infinity symbol to a number 6.

 

Even if there was NOTHINGNESS, it would be SOMETHING. Because the nothingness would be IN the universe. Unlike a galaxy or solar system, the universe is a boundless entity that is meant to contain anything, even voids of nothingness, whereas galaxies and solar systems are things that are supposed to end at a point, and can be measured. It's as if you are comparing the infinity symbol to a number 6.

Fallacy: Circular reasoning.
To call the universe 'a boundless entity' is to assert that the universe is infinite. Thus making your argument: The universe is infinite, because the universe is infinite.

An adequate definition of the universe is 'everything that exists everywhere' or 'everything in existence'.

As yet you have not provided any rational argument as to why the universe can/should/must be infinite. Given that all tangible 'things' so far discovered in reality have been finite, at minimum you must provide some rational basis as to why the universe might be different.

 

[i love drugs]

Fallacy: Circular reasoning.
To call the universe 'a boundless entity' is to assert that the universe is infinite. Thus making your argument: The universe is infinite, because the universe is infinite.

An adequate definition of the universe is 'everything that exists everywhere' or 'everything in existence'.

As yet you have not provided any rational argument as to why the universe can/should/must be infinite. Given that all tangible 'things' so far discovered in reality have been finite, at minimum you must provide some rational basis as to why the universe might be different.

Are you saying that there is something out there that is NOT part of the universe? What, exactly, would that be?

 

Are you saying that there is something out there that is NOT part of the universe? What, exactly, would that be?

No. My definition was everything in existence.

 

[i love drugs]

Why can't it?

The solar system ends. The galaxy ends. Just because we can't see the end of the universe doesn't mean it isn't finite. Have we any reason to assume it's infinite? It can still be everything and be finite. Just the full set of all matter in existence.

All right, what is the difference between this and infinity...? Why does it have to be finite? If it really does end, what do you think is going to lie beyond it? ANTI-universe? And because this thing that is not the universe exists, wouldn't that make it part of the universe? Because according to you, the universe is all in existence.

 

[australiantrainer]

Sythe, you say that time is measured different 40 light years towards space, i disagree, time is always the same maybe just the material that causes aging is of a different nature. As for the universe being measurable or not i have to agree with i love drugs, is there any evidence to support we know were the ends of the universe is ?? No body is wrong because the way i see it your both stating your theories and theories arn't wrong because they are just that a theory....

I think the universe is ever expanding (following the big band theory) and this is why it is supposed to be "infinite" but for it to be ever expanding it must be propelled by energy and energy sources will yes run out at some point in time, in saying that we must take into the equation what will happen once we stop "expanding" will we stop and that's it? will we come back into the great energy source... another question is if we are expanding what are we expanding into? i mean u can create something (more universe) out of nothing. therefore we must be expanding into what the universe was before the big bang..... which is?

 

All right, what is the difference between this and infinity...?

Well the difference between something being finite and infinite is that a finite thing can be measured, and an infinite thing cannot. The latter being the case, even if something infinite were to exist, it would be impossible to prove conclusively that it was infinite due to its immeasurably.

Why does it have to be finite? If it really does end, what do you think is going to lie beyond it? ANTI-universe? And because this thing that is not the universe exists, wouldn't that make it part of the universe? Because according to you, the universe is all in existence.

You are really missing the point here. It doesn't necessarily have to be finite, but there is no reason to assume that it isn't finite (or at least you haven't provided a reason). All empirical evidence about the universe suggests that it is finite, so why would one assume that it is not?

I find it interesting that everyone has such a hard time contemplating that, in all likelihood the universe is finite. Everything you've ever experienced or learned in reality has been finite. Why would it be so surprising, or unintuitive, that the universe is also finite?

What I am saying is that there isn't any reason to assume there is an infinite amount of matter. Why wouldn't it be finite, like everything else? 'The universe' can still encompass everything in existence when 'everything' is a finite set.

It is sort of understandable that you think in terms of three dimensional Cartesian coordinates. When you say 'what is beyond it' you are typically thinking about looking out to the horizon and wondering about the land beyond. Can there just be nothing? Sure? why not? Or maybe the dimensions bend back around and the universe meets itself inside out? Remember that all frames of reference are relative. As far as we know there is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference. The universe and your surroundings appear different depending on your frame of reference.

Sythe, you say that time is measured different 40 light years towards space, i disagree, time is always the same maybe just the material that causes aging is of a different nature.

Well general relativity has been more or less proven by its practical application (compensation for) in the Global Positioning System. So there is empirical evidence that atomic clocks subject to greater space-time distortion tick more slowly.

As for the universe being measurable or not i have to agree with i love drugs, is there any evidence to support we know were the ends of the universe is ?? No body is wrong because the way i see it your both stating your theories and theories arn't wrong because they are just that a theory....

Well, no. The burden of proof is on the claimant. To claim that the universe is infinite requires proof. To claim that the universe is not infinite (or more exactly put: to assume that it is finite) is to remain consistent with all empirical evidence to date about the finiteness of nature, reality, matter, energy and all things. One would say that the assumption of measurability (finiteness) is reasonable because there is no evidence to suggest something which is immeasurable can actually exist in reality.

I think the universe is ever expanding (following the big band theory) and this is why it is supposed to be "infinite" but for it to be ever expanding it must be propelled by energy and energy sources will yes run out at some point in time, in saying that we must take into the equation what will happen once we stop "expanding" will we stop and that's it? will we come back into the great energy source...

Well to begin with I think the big bang theory is a stupid theory. And I wouldn't support it any more than I would support the theory of dark matter.

Secondly, why would you insist that there is infinite matter in the universe then also insist, in the same sentence, that there is finite energy. Especially considering the commonly held belief that matter is energy (although I personally reject that on basic metaphysical grounds).

And thirdly, being as there is no drag force in open space (or wherever your big-bang is supposed to have occured) there is no reason to expect objects in motion to change their course (slow down). Newton's first law: [FONT=helvetica,geneva,arial]Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. [/FONT]

another question is if we are expanding what are we expanding into? i mean u can create something (more universe) out of nothing. therefore we must be expanding into what the universe was before the big bang..... which is?

Well its not my stupid theory. You guys are the proponents of it, so presumably you should be answering that.

 

[australiantrainer]

I am not saying the universe is infinate as such i am saying it is expanding which has been proven i am pretty sure, so it can be measure, and measure again showing it is growing, which means it is expanding which in theory it had to have a begining e.g a big bang,

The mere fact that we are ever expanding i think is evidence enough to show the universe is infinite because u cant expand into nothing.

I am the smartest physicist infact i am 17 years old so i am not going to claim i know much about physics but i do have my ideas and i am just putting them out there, i respect sythe as i have seen many of his posts on universe, earth, life and he seems to be a very in depth person but in saying that he can't be right at everything.