PSI Blog
20170705 Boundaries and existence in the Infinite Universe
In
response to George Coyne, who wrote: 'In order for anything to exist it has to
have boundaries,' henk wrote:
“Does
a cloud have a boundary and if yes, how to describe that? I can see a boundary
from the ground but not flying in the clouds.”
[GB:
Boundaries exist because of what we describe in the Ninth Assumption of
Science, relativism (All things have characteristics
that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make
them dissimilar to all other things). Microcosmic
boundaries consist of submicrocosms, each of which
contains subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum. The macrocosm that surrounds each
microcosm also consists of “submicrocosms, each of which contains
subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum.” As you point out in your cloud example,
boundaries are not absolute even though indeterminists often like to think that
they are. A cloud, of course, has a boundary whether you are able to see it or
not. There is a gradual to somewhat gradual transition between the cloud (a
microcosm) and its environment (its macrocosm).
You
asked how to describe boundaries. I will give examples from earth science.
Geologists confront the vagueness in boundaries anytime they deal with nature
directly. However, engineers, working at their drawings in the office,
sometimes consider boundaries to be absolute. This can be a problem in the
assessment of earthquake fault hazard. I once saw a fault map drawn by an
engineer. It was a series of straight lines instead of having the curves, en
echelon segments, slight changes in strike, and other vagaries that nature
provides.
Another
example:
The
evolution of soils results in layers useful for determining their ages.
However, soil layers are notorious for sometimes having vague boundaries that
torment beginning students. This is how we describe boundary thickness in soil
science:
henk:
So, if the universe exists as a thing it must have boundaries? Why?
[GB:
Of course, your very astute question involves the two opposing fundamental
assumptions one can make about the universe: 1) that it is finite or 2) that it
is infinite.
If
the universe was finite, then like all things, it would have xyz dimensions and
would have a beginning and an ending, as assumed in the Big Bang Theory.
If
the universe was infinite, it would have different rules:
1. It
would have no dimensions.
2. It
would have no boundaries.
3. It
would have neither beginning nor end.
A
finite object has a necessary boundary because it is a microcosm, an xyz
portion of the Infinite Universe surrounded by its macrocosm (the rest of the
universe). The boundary is formed by the interactions between the submicrocosms
within and without as in your cloud example. A clearer example would be a
helium balloon, which has a more definite boundary. It holds its shape as long
as the pressure inside is similar to the pressure outside.
A
microcosmic boundary is determined by deterrence—collisions with
supermicrocosms in the macrocosm. It is what happens when Newton’s First Law of
Motion operates in the Infinite Universe. All microcosms traveling under their
own inertia eventually collide with one or more microcosms—such is the
boundary. As an aside, we often speak of “determinism,” which speaks of the
things that lead to deterrence, not necessarily of whether we can actually
“determine” anything. In other words, henk, we have boundaries because the
universe is infinite. In the Infinite Universe there is no place that a microcosm
could go without running into another microcosm, which temporarily slows its
further motion, constituting a boundary. The Infinite Universe “itself” has no
such boundaries because it is endless, continuing on forever. The perfectly
empty space of the idealist cannot exist and thus nonexistence is impossible.]