Is the universe infinite?

Do you enjoy deep philosophical discussions? If so read on

Socrates said "true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing"

If you wish to contribute please bear that in mind, it is a philosophical discussion topic after all

Please do not troll, but if you do, thank you for the bump in advance

Do we exist in a universe that is infinite?

(infinite?) Macrocosm - Galaxies - Us - Atoms - Microcosm (infinite?)

Is there an infinite level of substructure to both the macrocosmic universe and the microcosmic universe?

We view the universe from our perspective and see that galaxies are large and atoms are small

Suppose we were able to view the universe from the perspective of the galaxy, how would it look?
Would we be able to see atoms if we looked down a microscope?
What would we see if we looked through a telescope?

Suppose we were able to view the universe from the perspective of the atom, how would it look?
Would we be able to see galaxies through a telescope?
What would we see if we looked through a microscope?

If we were to go on a journey deep into the microcosm, passing level after level of substructure, until we arrived say, 1000 levels below the atomic, what would the universe look like?

This is what I believe

The universe is infinite
There is no empty space, there is only that which we cannot see
Nothing in the universe is ever created or destroyed, everything simply changes form.
If something appears to have been created it has not, it simply came about from energy too small for us to see, likewise if something appears to have been destroyed it has not, it simply changed to an energy form too small for us to see
If you were to look down a microscope with a theoretical unlimited zoom, you would uncover layer after layer of microcosm substructure, this would go on for infinity. The same is true for macrocosm.
Because there is no empty space in the universe, we do not "move" as we think we do, we change form and become the area we moved into

Think of this

If you stand in a forest and look at all the trees surrounding you, you see trees, maybe some animals, bugs, the sky etc. The air between the trees and yourself you cannot see, but we know that it exists.
If you then went down on a journey to the molecular level and viewed the same area of the universe, it would look very different. The trees would no longer exist, neither would the sky, animals or yourself. But the air WOULD exist.
What would this universe look like? Would it look similar to how we view the universe on our level of existence?
What if you went much further down the rabbit hole, many layers of substructure deeper, what would exist at this level?
What if went on a journey in the opposite direction, into the macrocosm?
How would earth and humans and animals look through this microscope?

I have a pac-man style analogy of my own

Think of a ball swamp. Each ball is representative of some form of energy within the universe.
Take a cross section of the universe, say our galaxy.
Imagine the milky way is represented by one ball.
Upon closer inspection we see that this one ball is actually an infinite number of balls, each ball being a different size.
One of the smaller balls represents our sun and another represents our planet earth, but we see upon closer inspection that these single balls are in fact, made up of an infinite amount of balls, each ball being a different size
One of these smaller balls is an atom, but upon closer inspection we see that actually this one atom, is made up of an infinite number of smaller balls and so on

What happens when we walk across a room? We move through empty space, disrupting various atoms as we go? Maybe
But what if that is not what happens.
Think of the infinite ball swamp, that has no empty space. How would something move through empty space if there is no empty space?

Imagine a human, represented by a large ball at point A.
At point B there is no large ball, only the infinite number of smaller balls of various sizes
When the human ball moves from point A to point B, is does not actually move, but instead the large ball is converted to an infinite number of smaller balls each of various sizes and the infinite number of balls at point B is converted into the large human ball.

Think of electrons around an atom and apply the same example. Think of everything in the entire universe and apply the same example.

What is absolute zero? Why do molecules vibrate and "move" around? Are they really moving?

I think it is an infinite ball swamp, that is in a constant state of change.

The Mindship Preferential Equation: reality = infinitely unimaginable + unimaginably infinite.

How much space is inside a hypersphere?

How long is a mobius strip?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
it is a philosophical discussion topic after all

it isn't really though, is it?

a good number of your questions have empirical answers that don't really support your baseless conclusions...

though, PHILOSOPHY! so I suppose evidence is less important 😉

1 planck length = 1.616199 × 10-35 meters

You can't go smaller. That means there is no 1/2 planck length. I always imagined that if you could "see" a planck length, you would see galaxies.

I don't mean this personally at all, but isn't there some profound hubris to thinking that, were our senses capable of "visualizing" [sic: smaller than a photon, how would we see it?] the smallest things of the universe, it would be recognizable as something we have an understanding of?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't mean this personally at all, but isn't there some profound hubris to thinking that, were our senses capable of "visualizing" [sic: smaller than a photon, how would we see it?] the smallest things of the universe, it would be recognizable as something we have an understanding of?

How would you mean that personally? You are simply pointing out a fact. Measuring things smaller then a proton is like measuring a Volkswagen with a freight train. Very hard to do without moving the Volkswagen.

I just meant I wasn't trying to personally call you arrogant, just that I think there is some arrogance in the way this macro/micro thing works. Its like the entire universe is the continuing path in both directions that seems intimately centered on our perception and current scientific understanding.

In almost all fields of science, we have learned things are the opposite. The more we learn, the more we find the universe could care less about us, and that such a "micro/macro" relationship that would be, literally, based on human perception is almost clearly nonsense.

Originally posted by inimalist
I just meant I wasn't trying to personally call you arrogant, just that I think there is some arrogance in the way this macro/micro thing works. Its like the entire universe is the continuing path in both directions that seems intimately centered on our perception and [b]current scientific understanding.

In almost all fields of science, we have learned things are the opposite. The more we learn, the more we find the universe could care less about us, and that such a "micro/macro" relationship that would be, literally, based on human perception is almost clearly nonsense. [/B]

I'm not an advocate of this "micro/macro" point made buy the thread maker.

It appears that we are at the center of scale, just like it appears that the Earth is the center of the universe. We are not at the center of anything.

then why would you see galaxies at the plank level?

maybe I misunderstood your point, because we totally agree on that

Originally posted by inimalist
then why would you see galaxies at the plank level?

maybe I misunderstood your point, because we totally agree on that

You often do misunderstand my point (nothing personal). I used the word "imagine", and I do imagine that. That doesn't mean it is real. I could imagine unicorns jumping cannons, and even paint a painting of it.

The person who wrote the thread is imagining a lot of things. Imagining is fun, but imagining can lead to flat Earth thinking.

Did you think I was talking to you, on my first post? I was talking to the thread starter.

I'm sorry, inimalist

My post above was too pointed. I didn't mean to jump on you. Please forgive me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You often do misunderstand my point (nothing personal). I used the word "imagine", and I do imagine that. That doesn't mean it is real. I could imagine unicorns jumping cannons, and even paint a painting of it.

The person who wrote the thread is imagining a lot of things. Imagining is fun, but imagining can lead to flat Earth thinking.

Did you think I was talking to you, on my first post? I was talking to the thread starter.

ok, I totally just misread that as a statement of fact rather than a conception

similarly, I tend to think of that scale as a 3- or 4-D grid where each "space" in the grid is filled with a 1 or 0 (or whatever).

I'm sure that isn't accurate, but ya, I understand, this type of thing makes it possible to even think about the concept of Plank length.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, inimalist

My post above was too pointed. I didn't mean to jump on you. Please forgive me.

haha, not at all

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I totally just misread that as a statement of fact rather than a conception

similarly, I tend to think of that scale as a 3- or 4-D grid where each "space" in the grid is filled with a 1 or 0 (or whatever).

I'm sure that isn't accurate, but ya, I understand, this type of thing makes it possible to even think about the concept of Plank length...

The thing that gets me is the idea that an analog world would, at it's smallest extreme, be more digital like then analog like.

35% of people born now are not born with wisdom teeth

100% of people born are born.

Originally posted by alltoomany
35% of people born now are not born with wisdom teeth

Really? Why?

I think I've explained this before. The vastness of space depends on its geometry, which in turn correlates with the density parameter, Ω.

If Ω > 1, then our universe is closed, like the surface of a balloon, consequently finite.

If Ω = 1, then the universe is plane, consequently infinite.

If &#937; < 1, then the universe is hyperbolic -- saddle-shaped, consequently infinite.

The latest measurement we were given during the lecture a few years ago was &#937; = 1.003 ± 0.010, meaning that none of the geometries are out of the picture.

Astner, are you still doing some ridiculously hard major?

Originally posted by Astner
I think I've explained this before. The vastness of space depends on its geometry, which in turn correlates with the density parameter, &#937;.

If &#937; > 1, then our universe is closed, like the surface of a balloon, consequently finite.

If &#937; = 1, then the universe is plane, consequently infinite.

If &#937; < 1, then the universe is hyperbolic -- saddle-shaped, consequently infinite.

The latest measurement we were given during the lecture a few years ago was &#937; = 1.003 ± 0.010, meaning that none of the geometries are out of the picture.

Well put.