Creation Ex Nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
ANS: This is going to cause you a problem but it shouldn't. There would seem to be no known limiting factor to the number of uniKverses other than it cannot be infinite. So on the one hand it appears we cannot set a number limit and you would like to say that means infinite. But it doesn't since infinite also means the number has to exceed the actual quantity that exist.

This issue actually comes down to a concept that is flawed hence cannot be applied to reality. The fact that such a limit is not known or can be asserted does not mean that such a limit is non-existant. It is just that the definition of the term infinite is not aplicable to physical things.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I can agree that something being actual infinite as a real physcial entity is quite contradictionary, yet I would ask myself if intuition in this matters is the right guideline. We already know that infinity is full of contradictions, the question is just wether that is a valid argument to exclude the possibility.

And why would a counter intuitive event as something coming from nothing in your opinion not be excludable, it defeats intuition in a likewise or even more absurd manner? (although that is probably an issue of taste)

If it is known that by definition something can not have a boundary, this means that it includes the possibility of being infinite.
Not having a boundary and being finite is a possibility too (like earth surface is unbounded but finite).

Now in our daily awareness and intuition, we are of course right to say that, even when we don't know any boundary for a given phenomena (for instance: what would be a boundary to the number of weather patterns on earth, if that sort of thing is at all susceptible of being counted?) we assume that - although it can be in fact very large - is not infinite.
The infinite is therefore never part of our actual awareness about the world. But the real question is: what in the world could place a boundary on the cosmos itself?
Since I do not know or can think of any boundary, or better stated since I am convinced that such a boundary in fact does not exist, this leads me to accept the fact that there is no possible boundary, and thus should be considered infinite.
If our logic and intuition will ever graps that, that is of course a totally different story. We are a limited form of being, we have a limited form of consciousness, so there is no real way to get to know infinity. But the cosmos is not build on standards of human thought, in no way the cosmos would have to exist in a way comprehensible for human beings.

And once more about infinity. That what differentiates finite numbers from infinites is that finite numbers are within a boundary (a countable boundary). If we can proof that any value can not be within any boundary, that is, if it can be proven that the value is bigger then any finite value, then that value must be called infinite.
So to proof that a number is finite, we must proof that it is smaller then a certain finite number. If such a proof can not be give, then there is no way of excluding the possibility of it being infinite. This is the only proper way to distinguish finite numbers from infite ones.
I don't see it, apart from such a determination, as a hard fact of physical reality, and especially not on the cosmologial scale, or reasonable to exclude in advance the possibility of the infinite for physical reality.

mac,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But in my view it cannot be declared as an infinite number since that requires the the number of finite UniKverses be greater than the actual number itself. Something cannot become greater than it is which is what to become infinite requires.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Excellent. Since you cannot declare an unambiguous number M, the cardinality of your set of unikverses, shows that we must assume that it has cardinality Aleph-0; that is, your set of unikverses can be brought into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Indeed, you are right, infinity is never reached: it is a limit.

It pleases me to see that we are very near to a general consensus on the likelyhood that your unikverses are in fact unbounded in number.

The success of this message board is getting apparant. Or am I too optimistic? []

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>And why would a counter intuitive event as something coming from nothing in your opinion not be excludable, it defeats intuition in a likewise or even more absurd manner? (although that is probably an issue of taste)</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I for one find N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) far less counter intuitive than "Infinity" as applied (or attempted to appy) to physical realities.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>If it is known that by definition something can not have a boundary, this means that it includes the possibility of being infinite.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I am not aware of any crediable origin of such knowledge. It is more by proclamation than anythingelse.

We actually seem to be making some progress here.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Jsn,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Excellent. Since you cannot declare an unambiguous number M, the cardinality of your set of unikverses, shows that we must assume that it has cardinality Aleph-0; that is, your set of unikverses can be brought into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Indeed, you are right, infinity is never reached: it is a limit.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I think we agree. I am not that up on cardinality and such but your verage regarding not reaching (being) infinite seems acceptable.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>It pleases me to see that we are very near to a general consensus on the likelyhood that your unikverses are in fact unbounded in number.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Here you attempt to slip back in through the back door. []

I would not accept the word unbounded, it infers infinite.

Potentially ever increasing and unknowable I would accept.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The success of this message board is getting apparant. Or am I too optimistic? </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: The success would seem to be at the hands of Larry B for having forced a comparison of definitions. For my opinion has not been altered here but we do seem much closer to agreement on sveral terms.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
Mac,

ANS: I for one find N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) far less counter intuitive than "Infinity" as applied (or attempted to appy) to physical realities.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The reasons why I doubt that this expression can lead logically up to the statement that we can consider all energy and matter to have been formed from nothing at all, or at least that such intuition does not exist for me, is for two reasons:

1. The formation of all somethings (all matter and energy) from nothing, contains within itself a point of view, in which Being and Nothing are regarded as seperate, independend entities.
This approach however is considered wrong, as we should consider Being and Nothing as unseperated and connected entities, as a unity of opposites, which have Becoming as as their collective truth.
There is not something that is not an intermediate stage between nothing and being.

Read for example Hegel in Science of Logic.Book One. Doctrine of Being.
Book One: The Doctrine of Being
Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ANS: I am not aware of any crediable origin of such knowledge. It is more by proclamation than anythingelse.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It follows from the determination of the distinction between finite numbers and infinite ones.
The finite numbers are a countable set which starts with a definite number, and contains all the numbers that are a successor of that definite number. I.e. if X is a countable number, so is X+1. Infinite numbers can't be counted.
To determine if a number is finite means that it is known to be smaller then a finite number. If we know that T &lt; 1000 we know that T is a finite number. If the opposite can be proven, that T &gt; N for any finite number N, then we can say that T is infinite. If none can be proven, then it is unknown wether the number is finite or infinite.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
We actually seem to be making some progress here.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think so.