Infinities and Other Worlds

Anon asks:

Could an actual infinity exist in other logically possible worlds, or different dimensions? Or if we say an actual infinity cannot exist, does that mean anywhere, including different dimensions, and worlds? 

With a trillion observable galaxies, each with about 100 billion stars, there are certainly a lot of “worlds.” They are not just “possible” or “logical,” but real—great evidence that the universe is infinite. Dimensions? We don’t need no stinking 4 dimensions. The universe is 3-dimensional: x, y, and z. Period. At PSI, we assume that an “actual infinity” exists, both microcosmically and macrocosmically. Indeterminists who assume finity, its opposite, invariably must believe in perfectly empty space. That they enshroud this belief with more than three dimensions is their problem, not ours.

Galaxies were first thought to be “island universes,” an oxymoron similar to today’s “parallel universes” and “multiverses.” Since the discovery of galaxies, we have discovered galaxy clusters and clusters of clusters. In UCT, we proposed a “local mega vortex” as the next step up in the universal hierarchy. Nevertheless, we would never consider this yet another oxymoronic universe.  

Infinity is the recipe for the universe. Without infinity, there is no place from which the constituents of the universe can come from. Hawking and Krauss must remain forever flummoxed. The fact is that the question-begging never ends. Matter always contains other matter. The religionists who claim that god created it all are eternally faced with the logical question: Then who created god? Even they can have no answer without infinity. The correct answer is that the material world goes on and on, without end. To posit finity is to join the flat-earthers in their imagined jump into the abyss.

1 comment:

Rick Doogie said...

Dr. Glenn,

This post reminds of your assertion (can't find where you said it): "One either denies aether and infinity, or one does not. There is nothing in between."

I say amen to that. That was my line of thinking since I was in 5th grade, staring out the window trying to grasp an infinite universe that goes on and on and on without end (while the nun babbled on and on and on at the front of the classroom). That exercise in mind-stretching led me to grasp the fact that there can be no "nearly infinite" anything. (And yes, the Catholic grade-school science books back in the early 60's were teaching that the physical universe is infinite.)

I never really grasped the idea of microcosms as infinite until the day I visited Kennedy Space Center about 30 years ago. My wife and I were standing in line for some demonstration, and I was quietly explaining something to my wife about what difficulties the astronauts have to deal with. I said something about "the vacuum of space" and a stranger standing next to us uttered indignantly, "there is no vacuum". I immediately realized my mistake, and said, "yes, you're right, but I meant relative to our atmosphere". That guy's assertion stayed with me, and I played it over and over in my head, realizing that there has to be ever-smaller particles that we can't detect, even in a so-called "vacuum chamber" or in the "space" between the stars. To say "relative vacuum" is almost as bad as saying "nearly infinite". It wasn't until "The Scientific Worldview" that I finally cohesively grasped the idea of the infinite macrocosm and infinite microcosms as a continuum.

If the cosmos is infinite as we look outward, and if every microcosm is infinite as we look inward, that implies infinite layers of aether. (It also implies that our "local mega-vortex" is a speck of aether relative to a mind-bogglingly vast microcosm "out there".)

I thank the nuns for being boring. I thank that guy standing in line for being outspoken. And I thank Borchardt and Puetz for bringing it all together.