My argument against materialism

CurtC said:
I've just been popping into and out of this thread occasionally, but I'm wondering whether the word you want, instead of "infinity," is the "transcendent." That seems more in line with what you're trying to say.




"Finite but bounded" means that it is limited in size, but has no edge. Our brains can't properly imagine curved 3D space, but the equivalent idea reduced down to two dimensions is the surface of a sphere.

The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional object, but you can wander all over it and never come to an edge. The idea is that space is like that but three dimensions instead of two.
Click to expand...

I most certainly don't mean 'transcendent" in this line of reasoning, this is strictly relating to physical matter.

I appreciate your reasoning about curved 3D space, however it should still have theoretical boundary of some description if it is finite, or it would be infinite.
 
Mashuna said:
This is very true. However, the people who claim that the drivel is the elixir of youth still get old and die.
Click to expand...

This draws my mind to an alternative way of seeing the issue of "finite but unbounded".

If the universe is finite (and there is only one universe) then surely eventually it will "die" ceace to exist.
If this were to happen we would be left with "nothing"

Only an infinite universe does not have an end.

All finite universes must end resulting in nothing.

This begs the question;

how did a finite universe pop into existence when there was nothing?
 
Robin said:
And supplementary question - why do you think there could be nothing beyond an infinite universe?
Click to expand...

This is a difficult question,

Firstly I don't think I stated this, I am happy with;

"there is no beyond an infinite universe"

However, I would not rule it out, it probably best not to go down this line of reasoning right now.
 
Robin said:
Please show the reasoning that you claim you are applying.

It could be just one finite universe and nothing beyond that.

Give me one reason why anybody has to account for that possibility (if it is a possibilty).

You seem to want to apply a sort of reverse Occam.
Click to expand...

Fo this line of reasoning I am applying a sort of reverse Occam.
 
punshhh said:
I most certainly don't mean 'transcendent" in this line of reasoning, this is strictly relating to physical matter.

I appreciate your reasoning about curved 3D space, however it should still have theoretical boundary of some description if it is finite, or it would be infinite.
Click to expand...
Or it could be finite but unbounded.
 
punshhh said:
This draws my mind to an alternative way of seeing the issue of "finite but unbounded".

If the universe is finite (and there is only one universe) then surely eventually it will "die" ceace to exist.
Click to expand...
No. A Universe that is finite now can extending indefinitely into the future.
 
punshhh said:
Yes I didn't address this at the time, I am finding it difficult to interpret the meaning of "finite but unbounded".
Click to expand...

Easy. Imagine that the Earth is the only thing in the universe. You can walk about it endlessly: there is no boundary. But there is nothing beyond it. No space. No time. Nothing. And "nothing" is not an empty space, either.

I am not stumped. I am quite happy with an infinite universe*.
Click to expand...

But apparently you have a big problem with a finite one.
 
punshhh said:
At the beginning of this discussion I looked up the definition of infinite, which was;

unboundedness
Click to expand...
Unbounded: having no boundaries.

So you say you understand about the geometry of the Universe and that space can be finite but have no boundaries?

So if you understand how something can be finite and have no boundaries then you understand finite and unbounded.

Now can you please answer the question and give your reasoning as to why you think that if the Universe is finite then there must be something beyond it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom