Is the universe finite or infinite? The short answer; it is infinite. It cannot be anything else. If this is not clear to you, you will want to read the following trail of thought. Just to clarify, in this investigation the only parameter I will be looking for is coherence within the description which will be carved by the only tool I have at my disposal, reason. If you are already convinced about infinity for other reasons, don't bother. If you have other thoughts on the subject, please write them in the comments section and I will respond.
That which we call the universe refers to everything. The universe is everything. Now, if the universe was to have an edge in space or a beginning in time, it would be confined by these. They would mark the borders to something else, and for it not to be simply something more and thus more universe, then it has to be the border to nothing. The universe would then be a thing in the nothing. Here we must pause, and observe carefully what we are saying. If there is a thing in the nothing, then the nothing would contain something and thus be a thing itself. In other words. If the universe, being something, is defined by its edges separating it from the nothing, then the nothing is defined be these same edges and would thus be a something. Can we get around this?
Suppose that the universe, being something, was contained by the nothing. It should be noted that this would be a contradiction in terms. We could suppose that this nothing was infinite - an infinite nothing with plenty of room for containing a something. Already this sounds incoherent. That's because it is, it would be a fallacy. When we say "infinite" it means without ends, without edges, without beginnings, without definition really. And this nothing wouldn't be infinite if there somewhere in it was something else. We seem to get stuck here. Can we not imagine a finite universe? Well, yes. We could imagine our universe as an enormous sphere seen from an enormous distance floating in ... Space? Vacuum? Nothing? Is there a problem with this idea? As long as we don't see it as a problem being able to imagine something which is suppose to be nothing, then no, not really. There is no problem. We will accept this version of nothing for the sake of argument. But we would have to polish some facets.
The sphere floating in the nothing, would be very big since it would contain all of this we have come to know as galaxies - there are a few. Now the nothing would have to be infinite - although having something floating in it, which isn't nothing, but something. Why does the nothing have be infinite? Because if it wasn't we would have to account for what there would be around it - and then we surely are of track - another nothing? Although I personally think we would delude ourselves if we were to go down that path, since this is an investigation and not an argument for an opinion, we should consider this also. But first, lets continue our current trail of thought and see where it leads.
So, stretching out from the sphere is the infinite nothing. This leaves our sphere in a weird situation. Because of the infinity surrounding it, its size would be infinitely small. We being inside the sphere would also be infinitely small. At first glance, this is no problem. But as we know our universe is quite big seen from our perspective. Seen from an ants perspective, its even bigger. And when we return to the perspective of infinitely its infinitely small. What if we were to imagine our point of view being just on the other side of the border to nothing - on the nothings side that is. The sphere would look very big. Now, if we then imagine that we are as small as ants, it would be even bigger. Now, since we supposed that this nothing was infinite, there is no problem in imagining ourselves being infinitely small. From this point of view the sphere would be infinitely large. This seems to get us nowhere - maybe it actually gets us to nowhere.
Bringing back into view, the idea of another nothing outside the nothing, I thinks it's safe to say, that it wouldn't bring us any closer to somewhere. In theory we could go on for ever adding layer upon layer of nothings onto our little sphere - by then I think we would regret our choice of method. There seems arise problems when trying to apply the idea of nothing in reasonable thinking. Also, there still remains an issue regarding the sphere. Is it the only sphere? If so, we would be the center of the infinite nothing. And if this were to be our conclusion, I would like to point out the fact that every time we humans have agreed on being the center of something, we've later found it not to be so. The only solution from here, would have to be that there are a number spheres in the infinite nothing and - an infinite number or a definite number regardless - to insist on calling it nothing, would just be silly. I think this idea has been exhausted by now.
The universe cannot be finite without having to apply a nothing or nothingness. But when accepting the possibility of a nothing we have to separate it from the something, and in doing so we make it a something. The thought is - in every case, as in this case of nothing - finite. It is made of distinctions between it and that which it is not. Nothing is defined by begin none of that which we call something. And since in thought everything is something, nothing becomes a thing, which is a violation of its nature - no-thing - as it is ... not. It cannot even be written without perverting its nature. Nothing is impossible inside, outside or without of something, and since there is such a thing as that which we call something, nothing is impossible. Now, we ask, if nothing is impossible, then nothing is possible, is it not? You may think I am kidding, but no, I will actually consider this in a moment.
Because now, we may be closing in on where the problem arises. Maybe its not so much the nature of the thought nothing, but the nature of thought itself. Maybe the problem lies in the idea of separation between. Not the terms of the separation. Is separation itself even possible? Lets look into this. Have we in the natural sciences found a separation? I think not. If there were a separation, what would it consist of? Although it is clear from the above that a nothing is impossible within something, I will ask, can it be a tiny slice of nothing? If there were tiny slices of nothing between things, there would be a separation between the slice of nothing itself and the something. But it is the very existence of separation which we want to account for, we cannot do this by means of the separation itself. So, it cannot be a slice of nothing. Again the impossibility of nothing is confirmed.
The only possible answer would be that the separation is infinitely small. Can we have an infinitely small separation? As we have seen, infinite things tend to have no size - they are infinitely big and infinitely small. What is it then? Is it even there? Can it be there and not be there at the same time? Are we stuck again? Or is the answer simply that there cannot be separation? I think it is so. If we accept an infinite version of the universe, there is no problem, because separation becomes impossible - infinity cannot be separated.
We are left with an abysmal paradox. If our universe in fact is infinite, then we must accept that it is infinitely small and infinitely large - it is without definition and thus also completely incomprehensible. A thing is only something in force of its conceptually defined edges, that separates it from something else, which again is defined in the same way. But since there is no separation and the thing which we call the universe is infinite, is it then really a thing? Or is it nothing? No-thing. Suddenly it makes sense to state that if nothing is impossible, nothing is possible. It is no-thing because it is one inseparable infinity of non-definition, non-description.
All of this is of course mere reason. And reason is a tool within our minds. The comprehensible parts are the words, the description - which is finite. The incomprehensible is that which we try to describe, it is our perception, the way the world feels to our senses. That feeling cannot be conveyed to anyone else in the form of words. If reason can recognize its own limits, but fails to find limits to our perception of the world, is it not then impossible to speak the truth? No, the description does simply not reach that which it seeks to describe, and thus it is not true to us. But it is true to its own word, it is a description - and that is another thing from that which is describes. We will be mistaken then, if we postulate what things are. We should not do this, but rather indicate what they are not. And that means the best way to describe this mysterious and wonderful place is by indicating when one will stop talking...
“True knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.”
~ K'ung-Fu-Tzu [Confucius]
No comments:
Post a Comment