Existence and Infinity (Warning: major rambling)

[Gambit]

It's OK, I've got beers I was saving for Doctor Who. I'll inebriate myself into a blissful sleep; where I will most likely dream of falling through an infinity of explanations for the universe being here, then promptly forget it as soon as I wake up in the morning.

[Napoléon]

I will most likely dream of falling through an infinity of explanations for the universe being here, then promptly forget it as soon as I wake up in the morning.

Generally what I do most nights, except I remembered this particular scenario today

[Gambit]

I will most likely dream of falling through an infinity of explanations for the universe being here, then promptly forget it as soon as I wake up in the morning.

Generally what I do most nights, except I remembered this particular scenario today

Stop trying to give me subliminal lucid dream signals! You're one of those alumninati lizard people, aren't you?

[Categories+Sheaves]

If I hash out an explanation of Cantor's diagonalization argument in that thread jonb made, and then start walking through the classic paradoxes of naive set theory (about infinite stuff: Russell's, Cantor's) would you give it a serious read?

[cratehorus]

What I was thinking about was existence. More to the point, is it infinite? If you believe the universe is expanding, I'm talking about the seeming nothingness we are expanding into. How much smaller can matter get? Can existence get? From sub atomic particles, to multiverses, we don't seem to be any closer to finding a definitive 'end point'. If we find an end point. What made the boundaries? Does there need to be a reason for the boundaries? But what if there isn't an end point? Existence just goes on for infinity say. It's either infinite (goes on forever/has infinite scale), or it's not (it has a finite scale/doesn't go on forever).

Fixed

Instead of asking whether time is infinite ask whether you can step outside of time. You're not taking into account the existence of multiple dimensions. I don't remeber who invented this, but there's a theory that, basically states that inside every atom is for lack of better word "multiple universes". I also beleive the word "Universe" comes from religion particularily monotheistic faiths. So chances are the multi-verse theory is more closer to reality than the idea of a singular universe. Some say there's no such thing as a "universe" that it's just a mental construct created by religion in a simple attempt to explain reality

[ib.me.ub]

....by asking them "Try thinking of nothing." They would come up with a number of scenarios; however, each one would inevitably describe something.

Can you think of nothing?

It is a place where you only feel, hear and see.

In terms of existence, it is to early for us to understand the concept and test the theories involved. If we ever make to that point is another question, one which we are trying to answer at the present point in time.

[Gambit]

If I hash out an explanation of Cantor's diagonalization argument in that thread jonb made, and then start walking through the classic paradoxes of naive set theory (about infinite stuff: Russell's, Cantor's) would you give it a serious read?

I'll give it a read.

[Napoléon]

If I hash out an explanation of Cantor's diagonalization argument in that thread jonb made, and then start walking through the classic paradoxes of naive set theory (about infinite stuff: Russell's, Cantor's) would you give it a serious read?

If it will address some of the questions I raised in the OP then certainly I don't tend to make too many forays into the philosophy section of this forum, so apologies if anything I've said has already been talked about elsewhere (no doubt it has, feel free to link me if you think it relevant).

---

Instead of asking whether time is infinite ask whether you can step outside of time. You're not taking into account the existence of multiple dimensions.

Actually I am, I tried to get across that point. If multiple dimensions exist, then they would come under the definition of existence I have been talking about.

I don't remeber who invented this, but there's a theory that, basically states that inside every atom is for lack of better word "multiple universes".

And there's a theory that states we live in a universe full of multiverses. This is my question, regardless of how far the scale regresses, whether you think we are a universe inside another universe, whatever, it doesn't really matter about the specifics, the question I'm pondering is whether that existence goes on forever, or is there a point where there are no other universes, there's a seeming end to existence.

I also beleive the word "Universe" comes from religion particularily monotheistic faiths. So chances are the multi-verse theory is more closer to reality than the idea of a singular universe. Some say there's no such thing as a "universe" that it's just a mental construct created by religion in a simple attempt to explain reality

Yeah I agree in that it seems far more likely to me that there are multiverses instead of just this one universe we live in. But it doesn't really get you any closer to answering the question of whether existence is infinite or not. Or does it?

Coming back to your mention of dimensions, how do you differentiate between one dimension and the next. To me, if they exist then they exist. If there are an infinite amount of dimensions then existence is infinite.

[idunno]

Forgive me for this, but my bit of knowledge on the issue originates from studying the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'm not trying to present here).

You might first ask, has time always existed or not?

If so, then starting from this point in time, time goes back an infinite amount. That is, as I understand it, problematic though. A thought experiment starring Aqua Man

Imagine one of those swimming competitions where the swimmers swim to the opposite wall and back. Let the opposite wall represent the infinite past and the starting wall the present moment.

Ready. Set. Go!
AquaMan jumps in and swims as fast as he can to the opposite wall and back (far out-swimming all his competitors by the way).

The question is how long does it take him to finish the race? How long does it take to arrive at the present moment? It seems that he wouldn't. In fact, he never even reaches the opposite wall despite his powers. This is because if the past stretches back to infinity, there is no wall. That's problematic, though if one holds that time has always existed (even if a multiverse if one want to go there) since we've clearly arrived at the present moment.

If time hasn't always existed, we're left with a timeless cause.

[genkaus]

Forgive me for this, but my bit of knowledge on the issue originates from studying the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'm not trying to present here).

You might first ask, has time always existed or not?

If so, then starting from this point in time, time goes back an infinite amount. That is, as I understand it, problematic though. A thought experiment starring Aqua Man

Imagine one of those swimming competitions where the swimmers swim to the opposite wall and back. Let the opposite wall represent the infinite past and the starting wall the present moment.

Ready. Set. Go!
AquaMan jumps in and swims as fast as he can to the opposite wall and back (far out-swimming all his competitors by the way).

The question is how long does it take him to finish the race? How long does it take to arrive at the present moment? It seems that he wouldn't. In fact, he never even reaches the opposite wall despite his powers. This is because if the past stretches back to infinity, there is no wall. That's problematic, though if one holds that time has always existed (even if a multiverse if one want to go there) since we've clearly arrived at the present moment.

If time hasn't always existed, we're left with a timeless cause.

First of all, your question is incorrect. "Always existed" means "existed for all time". So you are basically asking "has time existed for all time"? The answer is always yes. The statement is tautologically true. It says nothing about its existence being finite or infinite. For example, I might ask, for the entire period of existence of earth, has earth always existed? The answer is yes, but that doesn't mean that any aspect of that existence is infinite.

Secondly, even of it were infinite, your swimming analogy is incomplete. Since the past stretches back to infinity, then Aquaman would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present wall. And he does have the infinite amount of time since he is starting infinitely in the past.