This Amazing Never Ending Universe
August 23rd 2010 14:48
When I was a youth studying philosophy in high school in Portugal I had an intellectual clash with one course colleague. I defended that the universe must be infinite in extension and nature; he opposed and defended that the universe had to be finite. We met in a room at the local public library for the debate and a common friend of us mediated while others witnessed.
I started by saying that it was a necessity that the universe be infinite in extension and every other quality to be considered. He insisted that it ought to be finite. Then I asked him a question: when you get to the edge of your finite universe, what do you see on the other side and what is it? He didn’t hesitate, to my surprise, and answered straight away: another universe.
Then the mediator, puzzled, asked him: and when you reach the border of your second finite universe, what do you find on the other side? He answered calmly: another finite universe. I tried to give him good reasons to think that the universe can only be infinite, but he was stubborn and kept his idea.
What happens here is a classical dilemma: an infinite universe, infinite in extension and in everything in it, is something that eludes our intellect and is hard to think about. What can you do? To me it looks necessary to explain life as we know it, but to him it must have looked impossible to picture it clearly, so he went for something he could compare with things he was used to deal with: a finite universe.
As a matter of fact, our intellect works on the principle of duality: positive and negative, yes and no, black and white, solids and liquids, yin and yang and so on. Each of these concepts has in our mind an opposite value and we operate on them to think about anything. Now, when you come up with an idea that incorporates everything you know and can think about, that is going to unsettle you and your assumptions. My debate opponent resolved that anguish by picturing the universe as he pictures most things: he saw it as limited.
It just happens then that the question – and what is beyond your finite universe? – could then be asked forever, which honestly does not make the point and does not solve the problem. A finite universe must be joining an infinite succession of finite universes so, in the end we are still dealing with the concept of infinite, which my intellectual opponent tried to negate.
Thinking of our universe as infinite is uncomfortable. We can’t picture it; it is beyond our understanding and experience and it’s hard to explain it to others. But if you think about it, you might end up needing to see it as infinite. You might not be able to picture it, but you might feel the need to see it that way, as a premise leads to a conclusion.
A finite universe must be knowable in its full extent. You should be able to make a map of it and draw a border around it, somewhere, and make an inventory of everything that is in it. Because it can be delimited, it can be know in its totality. The problem is only that, if you jump into a space ship and travel to its borders, as in the debate above, what are you going to see there? You might find and see another universe, and then if you travel across it, another and another universe.
What if that original finite universe was the only one standing, not a succession of finite universes, but only one? What would you see on the other side of the border? I suppose it would be nothing. But then you can ask the question: what is nothing? Because our universe is full of empty spaces, areas where there is nothing, and as the reader might agree, these nothings are a part of our universe as much as every other celestial body in it.
So, if over the border of a finite universe you see nothing -- that is something. And, logically, if that is something, then what is it? What is truly there beyond the border? This is the anguish of thinking about the universe: you often come across infinite type concepts. You might realise that the border of the universe, if infinite, must be permanently pushed forward, or it would not be infinite, but you are agog to conceive it, it’s more than you can think of.
If a finite universe must be knowable in its entirety, what would be the situation for an infinite one? Can it be also knowable to its full extent? I don’t honestly think so, because if it could then it would have to have borders. Being borderless and infinite it must be, cannot be anything else, but unknowable. This meaning that we can never know its full extent.
The question that this comes up in my mind is this: is the infinite universe something already there in its entirety, or is it something in constant creation? Because, you see, if you travel across the universe in a space ship, you are going to discover it forever. Is it just like Africa in the nineteen century, already there in its fullness and just waiting for the European explorers to discover it, or is it something in permanent creation, be it mutation or increase?
If it has borders, those borders must be being pushed forward all the time, otherwise you could cross them and prove it non-infinite. If it is of a settled extension, then that should be knowable and would prove it to be finite. If the universe is a settled affair, then that should be measurable, quantifiable, but that then would reveal it as finite.
Why do I say all this? I think it’s because a static, finished universe looks to me like a finished job, something done and completed. If then the universe is a finished job, it should also be a finite reality. To be infinite it must be in constant change and creation, a totally unfinished job, a job that goes on forever to match the idea that the universe must be unlimited, infinite.
In fact, if you jump straight into a space ship and travel in straight line you must be going to meet with the borders of that universe. But if it is infinite those borders, as you approach them, must be moving forward fast, as fast as you move onto them so that, in the end, you never meet such borders because an infinite universe is borderless.
This brings up the idea that an infinite universe is in constant creation, in constant expansion, in constant mutation and all that surpasses you and your little intelligence. In fact, travelling across the universe, you always come across things you have never seen. It’s not the Titanic on the bottom of the sea; it’s more like the infinite universe is being created right in front of you just as you set yourself to discover it. Moreover, you would be then discovering it forever.
This could lead me to the amazing conclusion that, as we discover the infinite universe, we cause it to be created. Consider a man in darkness but with an electric torch in his hand. He can’t see anything, but the torch, when aimed around, reveals bodies, things, whatever. It’s as if they are being created by the fact of being illuminated.
This is the position of the space traveller: things get created in front of his eyes as he challenges the extremes of the infinite universe. So, in the end, the observer is causing the observed to be created, a bizarre but necessary conclusion. It’s also like saying that, every time we look around in the infinite universe, God makes a miracle for us.
Fernando Monteiro
Monday, 18 January 2010
I started by saying that it was a necessity that the universe be infinite in extension and every other quality to be considered. He insisted that it ought to be finite. Then I asked him a question: when you get to the edge of your finite universe, what do you see on the other side and what is it? He didn’t hesitate, to my surprise, and answered straight away: another universe.
Then the mediator, puzzled, asked him: and when you reach the border of your second finite universe, what do you find on the other side? He answered calmly: another finite universe. I tried to give him good reasons to think that the universe can only be infinite, but he was stubborn and kept his idea.
What happens here is a classical dilemma: an infinite universe, infinite in extension and in everything in it, is something that eludes our intellect and is hard to think about. What can you do? To me it looks necessary to explain life as we know it, but to him it must have looked impossible to picture it clearly, so he went for something he could compare with things he was used to deal with: a finite universe.
As a matter of fact, our intellect works on the principle of duality: positive and negative, yes and no, black and white, solids and liquids, yin and yang and so on. Each of these concepts has in our mind an opposite value and we operate on them to think about anything. Now, when you come up with an idea that incorporates everything you know and can think about, that is going to unsettle you and your assumptions. My debate opponent resolved that anguish by picturing the universe as he pictures most things: he saw it as limited.
It just happens then that the question – and what is beyond your finite universe? – could then be asked forever, which honestly does not make the point and does not solve the problem. A finite universe must be joining an infinite succession of finite universes so, in the end we are still dealing with the concept of infinite, which my intellectual opponent tried to negate.
Thinking of our universe as infinite is uncomfortable. We can’t picture it; it is beyond our understanding and experience and it’s hard to explain it to others. But if you think about it, you might end up needing to see it as infinite. You might not be able to picture it, but you might feel the need to see it that way, as a premise leads to a conclusion.
A finite universe must be knowable in its full extent. You should be able to make a map of it and draw a border around it, somewhere, and make an inventory of everything that is in it. Because it can be delimited, it can be know in its totality. The problem is only that, if you jump into a space ship and travel to its borders, as in the debate above, what are you going to see there? You might find and see another universe, and then if you travel across it, another and another universe.
What if that original finite universe was the only one standing, not a succession of finite universes, but only one? What would you see on the other side of the border? I suppose it would be nothing. But then you can ask the question: what is nothing? Because our universe is full of empty spaces, areas where there is nothing, and as the reader might agree, these nothings are a part of our universe as much as every other celestial body in it.
So, if over the border of a finite universe you see nothing -- that is something. And, logically, if that is something, then what is it? What is truly there beyond the border? This is the anguish of thinking about the universe: you often come across infinite type concepts. You might realise that the border of the universe, if infinite, must be permanently pushed forward, or it would not be infinite, but you are agog to conceive it, it’s more than you can think of.
If a finite universe must be knowable in its entirety, what would be the situation for an infinite one? Can it be also knowable to its full extent? I don’t honestly think so, because if it could then it would have to have borders. Being borderless and infinite it must be, cannot be anything else, but unknowable. This meaning that we can never know its full extent.
The question that this comes up in my mind is this: is the infinite universe something already there in its entirety, or is it something in constant creation? Because, you see, if you travel across the universe in a space ship, you are going to discover it forever. Is it just like Africa in the nineteen century, already there in its fullness and just waiting for the European explorers to discover it, or is it something in permanent creation, be it mutation or increase?
If it has borders, those borders must be being pushed forward all the time, otherwise you could cross them and prove it non-infinite. If it is of a settled extension, then that should be knowable and would prove it to be finite. If the universe is a settled affair, then that should be measurable, quantifiable, but that then would reveal it as finite.
Why do I say all this? I think it’s because a static, finished universe looks to me like a finished job, something done and completed. If then the universe is a finished job, it should also be a finite reality. To be infinite it must be in constant change and creation, a totally unfinished job, a job that goes on forever to match the idea that the universe must be unlimited, infinite.
In fact, if you jump straight into a space ship and travel in straight line you must be going to meet with the borders of that universe. But if it is infinite those borders, as you approach them, must be moving forward fast, as fast as you move onto them so that, in the end, you never meet such borders because an infinite universe is borderless.
This brings up the idea that an infinite universe is in constant creation, in constant expansion, in constant mutation and all that surpasses you and your little intelligence. In fact, travelling across the universe, you always come across things you have never seen. It’s not the Titanic on the bottom of the sea; it’s more like the infinite universe is being created right in front of you just as you set yourself to discover it. Moreover, you would be then discovering it forever.
This could lead me to the amazing conclusion that, as we discover the infinite universe, we cause it to be created. Consider a man in darkness but with an electric torch in his hand. He can’t see anything, but the torch, when aimed around, reveals bodies, things, whatever. It’s as if they are being created by the fact of being illuminated.
This is the position of the space traveller: things get created in front of his eyes as he challenges the extremes of the infinite universe. So, in the end, the observer is causing the observed to be created, a bizarre but necessary conclusion. It’s also like saying that, every time we look around in the infinite universe, God makes a miracle for us.
Fernando Monteiro
Monday, 18 January 2010
| 77 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
