Eternal Inflation and it's Philospohical implications

  • Thread starter Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inflation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of Eternal Inflation as an alternative to pre-Big Bang theories, suggesting that inflation can reproduce itself indefinitely without a definitive beginning. This model posits that each "bubble universe" emerges from a pre-existing space-time, leading to a potentially eternal universe. However, the expansion of pre-existing space raises questions about the universe's finite size and the implications of an infinite volume of space, which some find philosophically unsettling. The conversation also touches on the similarities between Eternal Inflation and the steady state universe, as well as the challenges posed by concepts of infinity in cosmology and philosophy. The debate highlights the paradoxes associated with infinity, its implications for understanding the universe, and the difficulties in reconciling these ideas with established scientific theories. The discussion concludes with reflections on the nature of infinity, its contradictions, and the philosophical implications of an eternal universe versus a finite one.
  • #61
Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

I am not certain of the topic of wether or not infinity is a number or not, is important, I hold it is a matter of definition.

If we define 'number' to be a distinguisable number on the number line (which reach out in both directions to infinity) it can be stated that there is no such number ( a distinct point on the number line) that corresponds to infinity.

The proof of this is that infinity refers to the fact that such a number would be larger (farther away from an arbitrary point on the number line, which we call 0) then any other number (point on the number line). All points on the number line however share the same property that to the left and to the right, there are infinitely many points.

But that is just the contradiction we come across, that is part of the concept of infinity.

I think however that for linguistic reasons, it is perfectly ok to call infinity a number, although from the way infinity is defined, it has special characteristics that distinguish it from any other number (point on the number line).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I am not certain of the topic of wether or not infinity is a number or not, is important, I hold it is a matter of definition.

It most certainly is not part of the definition of infinity, just look it up. This is not a trivial distinction either. Declaring infinity to be a bona fide number is to give it a validity is simply does not possesses in academic circles, no matter how convoluted your personal reasoning might be.

Speaking of which, you have not bothered to intervene in this dispute and clarify the matter until it threatened to stop this thread altogether. Likewise, when it did threaten to end this thread, I noticed you spammed the bulletin board with countless verbose cut and paste articles related to the philosophy of infinity.

Again, put up or shut up. I don't want to hear your personal views on the issue. Provide proof or acknowledge that it does not exist.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number.

Please provide the quote where I have done this "repeatedly". My only point is that just because you can make a semantic statement like "infinity is not a number" doesn't mean that you can totally throw away the usefulness of the infinity concept in a cosmology discussion such as this one. If you go back and re-read, I think it may be clear this is all I was doing. If something I've said is misleading, then I apologize. But please provide the quote where I did this so I can analyze my use of words and possibly improve.

If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults?
Anything that I have done that can be interpreted as an insult can clearly be linked to being insulted first. Like being called a liar when I have said over and over that I don't have an opinion on the very topic you were trying to call me a liar about.

If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?
I cannot speak for him. I actually understand your point about infinity not being a number. I just diagree that it is important enough to derail the usefulness of the word in a discussion about cosmology theories.

I want to finish in PM, Wuli. Please check yours.
 
  • #64
I cannot speak for him. I actually understand your point about infinity not being a number. I just diagree that it is important enough to derail the usefulness of the word in a discussion about cosmology theories.

As I have asserted all along, my intention is to make sure this bulletin board remains on a scholarly philosophical level instead of degrading into meaningless mumbo jumbo and mystical nonsense parading as scientific fact. Physics forums already has both a religion and mysticism bulletin board not to mention a general discussion one. This one is for scholarly discussion of philosophy.

Expressions of mysticism and what not are great, I'm a mystic myself. But falsely asserting things are established scientific fact, especially about subjects as slippery as infinity, are definite no-nos. In the case of infinity this is especially critical because so many religious beliefs revolve around the issue and it is therefore often contentious.

Because my own interest lies in paradox, the absurd, and the irrational some people take umbrage at what I claim is irrational. Some have even argued with me that nothing is paradoxical, absurd, or irrational (which I both agree with and disagree with of course.) Absurdity is absurd, that is, all over the map.

One does the best they can. :0)
 
  • #65
Back to the topic of an infinite universe that expands. As I've said before, expansion is a local phenomena. As flat space between galaxies expands, the overall size of the universe does not increase. That comes from the very nature of infinity, where every region of space is infinitely small compared to the rest. Even if that region expands, it STILL remains an infinitesimal point in space. So an expanding universe does not get bigger in this situation.

heusdens brought up Olber's paradox. That the night sky is dark disproves the notion of an infinite universe that has existed forever. Actually, the notion of an infinite universe under the physics of 150 years ago was disproven. Modern cosmology has one weapon the scientists back then didn't - the expanding universe. While the fact the universe is only 15 billion years old alone would be enough to handle part of the paradox, the expanding universe does more so.

In the case of a chaotic inflation universe, the same should apply. The finite speed of light and the fact the universe is expanding means light will never be able to reach some regions of the universe. Hence, most of an inflationary universe would be a cold, dark place.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by wuliheron
It most certainly is not part of the definition of infinity, just look it up.


The issue of definition is about the concept of "number" not that of "infinity".

As a matter of speak, using the term "infinite number" means that the concept of number includes infinite numbers too.
 
  • #67
As a matter of speak, using the term "infinite number" means that the concept of number includes infinite numbers too.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way and no amount of fudging semantics will ever make infinity a number. Saying that a number is infinite is not the same thing as saying infinity is a number. Otherwise I could say that cow is black, therefore all cows are black, which is udder nonsense.
 
  • #68
Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, it doesn't work that way and no amount of fudging semantics will ever make infinity a number. Saying that a number is infinite is not the same thing as saying infinity is a number. Otherwise I could say that cow is black, therefore all cows are black, which is udder nonsense.

Just hold it. You are mixing things up. I never claimed infinity to be a number.

I said the issue if wether or not the number concept allows for infinite numbers too, and I stated that that is the case.

When we are talking about infinity, don't mix it up with numbers, cause clearly the concept of "infinity" is not the same as the concept of "number".

The concept of number declares it to be having a certain value, and potentially an infinite value.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Eh
Back to the topic of an infinite universe that expands. As I've said before, expansion is a local phenomena. As flat space between galaxies expands, the overall size of the universe does not increase. That comes from the very nature of infinity, where every region of space is infinitely small compared to the rest. Even if that region expands, it STILL remains an infinitesimal point in space. So an expanding universe does not get bigger in this situation.

heusdens brought up Olber's paradox. That the night sky is dark disproves the notion of an infinite universe that has existed forever. Actually, the notion of an infinite universe under the physics of 150 years ago was disproven. Modern cosmology has one weapon the scientists back then didn't - the expanding universe. While the fact the universe is only 15 billion years old alone would be enough to handle part of the paradox, the expanding universe does more so.

In the case of a chaotic inflation universe, the same should apply. The finite speed of light and the fact the universe is expanding means light will never be able to reach some regions of the universe. Hence, most of an inflationary universe would be a cold, dark place.

Yes, thanks for this addition. As I said, the universe is or can be infinite (must be infinite, in my mind), but is not infinite in a trivial way. The space expansion removes the triviality, and the acompanying paradoxes that result from a trivial infinite universe.
 
  • #70
Just hold it. You are mixing things up. I never claimed infinity to be a number.

Apparently we have another brazen liar in our midst, either that or you have no clue what you have said and don't mind inserting foot into mouth. This is what you wrote:

Infinity is not a finite number, but infinity is a number, but which has peculiar properties, that distinguish it from any finite number.
 
  • #71
Originally posted by wuliheron
Apparently we have another brazen liar in our midst, either that or you have no clue what you have said and don't mind inserting foot into mouth. This is what you wrote:

Well then excuse me!

I hold it my previous post explained it clearly, it must have been a slip of the typewriter to say that infinity is a number.

All cleared up now?
 
  • #72
Well then excuse me!

I hold it my previous post explained it clearly, it must have been a slip of the typewriter to say that infinity is a number.

All cleared up now?

There now, that wasn't difficult, was it.

For just a slip of the typewritter you sure dragged your feet on that one which is just basic mathematical theory.

Ancient Chinese saying,

Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.
 
  • #73
Originally posted by wuliheron
There now, that wasn't difficult, was it.

For just a slip of the typewritter you sure dragged your feet on that one which is just basic mathematical theory.

Ok. Now, can we go back to the topic?
 
  • #74
Ok. Now, can we go back to the topic?

You've always had the power to go back to Kansas Dorathy. Just click your heals together three times and say, "I want to go home..."
 
  • #75
Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

Do not whine about personal remarks. You started them. You kept using your - now-famous - sarcasm and insults, which destroy any rational conversation. It is human nature that we "bite back" a little.

Fliption is right - put discussions of the rational/irrational nature of infinity in threads devoted to that type of discussion.
 
  • #76
Originally posted by wuliheron
You've always had the power to go back to Kansas Dorathy. Just click your heals together three times and say, "I want to go home..."

... said the tornado that carries all topics off to the land of "wuliheronish" unreasonability. No offense, but it was you who side-tracked the topic.
 
  • #77
... said the tornado that carries all topics off to the land of "wuliheronish" unreasonability. No offense, but it was you who side-tracked the topic.

Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."
 
  • #78
Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Eternal inflation and it's philosophical implications is the topic, and infinity is just a sub-topic.
 
  • #79
Do not whine about personal remarks. You started them. You kept using your - now-famous - sarcasm and insults, which destroy any rational conversation. It is human nature that we "bite back" a little.

Fliption is right - put discussions of the rational/irrational nature of infinity in threads devoted to that type of discussion.

Ya'll have dogged my own posts about paradox forever and now you want special treatment in return. You want to be free to discuss infinity as if it were an established scientific fact and present whatever misleading interpretations of the subject you want as accepted philosophical dogma, read my lips:

Fat Chance!
 
  • #80
Eternal inflation and it's philosophical implications is the topic, and infinity is just a sub-topic.

That's true, better get your facts straight from the ground up and tell other people to please stop talking for you if you want to get back to topic faster. Just click those little heals together Dorathy... that or go back to Oz.
 
  • #82
A lecture of Andrei Linde (Stanford University) on http://pauli.physics.lsa.umich.edu/w/arch/som/sto2001/Linde/real/n001.htm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Infinity is unavoidable, unless one wants to introduce some "outside" cause to the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this, read this thread.

All that says to me is that paradox is unavoidable according to our current view of the universe. Duh! People have known that since prehistoric times and Zeno of Elias pointed that out using logic 2,500 years ago without being so verbose and obtuse.
 
  • #84
Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Challenge people to prove that infinity is not a number, on another thread. This one is about the philosophical implications of eternal inflation.
 
  • #85
Originally posted by heusdens
Infinity is unavoidable, unless one wants to introduce some "outside" cause to the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this, read https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958"

But hey, the no boundary proposal avoids infinity completely. Both time and space are finite. Quantum gravity pending, the other kind of infinity associated with space and time may be avoided, so long as they are both discrete. Such a model is compatible with inflation models.

On a similar topic, here is a link that you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344

From the URL: "...an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
Challenge people to prove that infinity is not a number, on another thread. This one is about the philosophical implications of eternal inflation.

Duh!

I will challange such nonsense in the name of mathematics any time I please. As I already said Dorathy, if you want to stay in OZ that is your affair. This is a physics philosophy bulletin board, not the land of Oz where anything is possible. One of the philosophical implications of an eternal inflationary universe is that it is paradoxical and infinity not being a number is one of the reasons why.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Eh
But hey, the no boundary proposal avoids infinity completely. Both time and space are finite. Quantum gravity pending, the other kind of infinity associated with space and time may be avoided, so long as they are both discrete. Such a model is compatible with inflation models.

Space perhaps, not time.
The finiteness of space has not been proven however.


On a similar topic, here is a link that you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344

From the URL: "...an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother."

Oh, well. It might explain why I have a constant feeling of deja-vu.
 
  • #88
With the no boundary proposal, time acts literally like another spatial dimension. Hence past present and future exist as one 4 dimensional unchanging universe.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this could ever be tested, and the best we can hope for is proof about the size of space, not time.
 
  • #89
Originally posted by Eh
With the no boundary proposal, time acts literally like another spatial dimension. Hence past present and future exist as one 4 dimensional unchanging universe.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this could ever be tested, and the best we can hope for is proof about the size of space, not time.

I know this is a propoasal (like the no-boundary proposal) from Stephen Hawking, which also introduces the imaginary time concept.
It was a way of solving the singuality at the big bang.

But not everyone is agreeing on this proposal.
I think the theory of eternal inflation, which makes verifyable predictions of the observable universe and which fixes some of the problems in current Big bang theory, had more merits to go for.
Also it does not require the universe to have a beginning.
 
  • #90
It's only a proposal, but indeed avoids the problems of infinity. While inflation may make some predictions, it is not incompatible with the no boundary proposal. They both work.

But I'm not sure eternal inflation makes many predictions to stand out against the countless other inflation models. But I guess one prediction for an eternal inflationary universe is that space must be infinite. If WMAP finds conclusive evidence the universe is finite, that model will be dead. So in that sense, an infinitely old universe could be falsified within the year. Time will tell.
 

Similar threads

I Did cosmic inflation happen everywhere in the Universe?
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
11K
I Some questions about Cosmic Inflation
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
I ....Alternatives to Inflation in Primordial Power Spectrum
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Is Inflation Eternal Into the Past?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Question about "the big bang happened everywhere at once"
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
What is the Rationale Behind Eternal Inflation?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Timing of the big bounce in eternal inflation
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Cosmic inflation and singularity
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Can Inflation Avoid Selfreproduction?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Inflation and Monopoles: Exploring the Mysteries of Cosmic Expansion
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K