The Infinity Principle
Everything in the universe is infinite.
If either the age, size, energy or complexity of the universe are infinite, so are the others: if the universe is infinite in age, it must be infinite in size because a finite universe would keep expanding, ergo in energy, because it would otherwise be of infinitely low density due to this expansion, ergo in complexity because this energy would be distributed amongst the universe rather than remaining infinitely accumulated.
If the universe is infinite in size, it must be infinite in age because if it had a starting point it would originate from a singularity rather than popping into existence in infinite dimensions, and infinite in energy and complexity because it would otherwise be of infinitely low density as formerly said.
If the universe is infinite in energy, it must be infinite in age because in order to become of finite density it’d otherwise have to expand with infinite speed (this is the most plausible other possibility, as the absolute speed of light might not be absolute), infinite in size for the same reason, and infinite in complexity because of its infinite size.
Infinite complexity basically equals infinite size because size is relative. If the universe is infinite up or down, it makes little difference. Suppose the universe was contained inside a giant atom (which would have an infinitely complex substructure, so that this would be possible!), we’d still say the universe is tens of billions of light years in diameter instead of one and a half femtometer. Relative to an infinitely small world (at an infinitely complex level), everything is infinitely large. As we’ve said, infinite size and finite density means infinite energy. However, if the universe is infinite in complexity this does not necessarily mean that it is infinite in age.
Thus, we conclude that either:
- the age, size, energy and complexity of the universe are all infinite,
- neither the age, size, energy or complexity of the universe are infinite
- the size, energy and complexity, but not the age, of the universe are infinite, and the Theory of Relativity is incomplete.
You can scratch the latter two possibilities, however, if you can accept the following argument. Existence cannot have had an actual cause, because that cause would itself have to be part of existence, otherwise it could not have existed because it would then not be part of existence. Why would there be a beginning? Where did it come from? What caused it? Now, I’m talking about the whole of existence, not just our own reality, but any reality at all, including hypothetical realities in which our own universe was created. Unless there already existed “something” which had caused the universe to arise, ie there was already something in *existence* (in other words, in the universe), such cause would necessarily have been a causal, and for something to be science it must obey causality. Causality, then, is its own only exception. Everything has a cause, but the chain of causes and consequences itself hasn’t.
Following this line of reasoning we conclude that the universe is infinite in age, size, energy and complexity.
Liked it
4 Responses to “The Infinity Principle”
On June 14, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Your comment that [Primal] “Existence cannot have had an actual cause, because that cause would itself have to be part of existence, otherwise it could not have existed…” is, I believe, a true statement. But to assume that all other subsequent and caused existences must also be infinite is, I would suggest, a false assumption. You are assuming that all existence is singular and cohesive and you are trying to conclude that it is therefore infinite. But there is no reason to believe that this assumption is true. Is it not logically possible (and I would dare say even probable) that the universe was caused by a very separate Primal Existence that is infinite and that the universe is something less than infinite?
On April 20, 2009 at 3:31 am
I agree with you rwc; there is too much reliance altogether on the absolute and the linear; if cause and causal can be debated on almost philosophical rather than scientific grounds, then cannot all terms? For instance, the nature of existence, and the precise clarification of the term itself?
Why do people say ‘in existence’? Could it be a misunderstood prase? Is existence itself a state beyond which we currently understand it to be? The clarity science demands and the inderterminate language we use to discuss it create possibilities, not exactitudes. And established, understood logic makes less sense once expressed to another than to you, inside your head where every nuance is entirely clear to yourself.
On February 1, 2010 at 10:49 pm
In consent with what has been stated, there is logic that blatantly contradicts if the universe is eternal. Logic says that if the universe had an infinite amount of moments before today, then today would have never come. This is because eternity cannot be transcened and one can never reach the end of infinity. However, if the universe has a finite amount of moments, then the moments can be transcened and today can be reached, and indeed today has been reached.
On February 2, 2010 at 8:09 pm
I agree with CGH2 in the sense that the universe being eternal disallows for the ability to reach any moment in time. If there was no beginning, there would be infinite moments until this moment, and therefore this day would not be able to have been transcended. The infinity principle is therefore inaccurate.
Post Comment