CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Infinity is the mathematical concept of growth, not the largest number. The universe is expanding, therefore it has an infinite state.
-
Further, the term finite in liguistics means limited, or to be in a still state. infinite, despite the pronunciation difference, is the direct inverse of the above, being as in is being used as a negative prefix.
Infinite is not a stagnant state, it is more of a condition over time type of state. It is the perception of growth or decay, as is visually explained through diagrams such as the Mandelbrot Set, the Klein Bottle, and the Mobius Strip. The more discretion used to analyze one of these figures, the greater the complexity. The universe is infinite because it is not finite.
You're redefining it. Infinite by it's nature has to be stagnant when speaking of infinity literally. You're speaking of immeasurable.
One can say that one can go half the distance somewhere, then half again, then half again, etc, and it would take infinite time to get there - this does not mean infinite space between though, it means you are changing the way you measure space in each instance.
The universe, at any given moment stopped in time, is quite finite. By the time we could come up with the means to measure it of course it would be quite a bit larger, this however does not mean it is infinite.
Yes, the instantaneous volume of the universe is finite. But if the volume is boundless, then it will grow to an immeasurable size. Making it infinite.
Well sure it does. If there is no nothingness and only the opposite, then it would be infinite. Assuming that any border or end to the universe would be nothingness.
No, if the universe is folded onto itself, you can travel in any direction and eventually end up back where you started and have this be a finite distance. As opposed to a universe where you can travel in any direction forever. In either case nothingness cannot exist, by definition.
The universe is spherical. And so if you start traveling from the universe's "North pole" and travel south, you will eventially end up back at the north pole, yes.But if the sphere is growing at an increasing rate, and that acceleration has no bounds, then it will accelerate into infinity as will the volume of the sphere. Meaning you can never fully travel back to that original spot, unless you didn't move from it.
One of Eistein's biggest mistakes was saying that the universe was static. He believed that the universe could be finite and hold everything. But Hubble found that it isn't static, its growing at an increasing rate with no sign of stopping.
It's quite simple. Evidence shows that the universe is expanding and an increasing accelleration. Well if it started acceleration 14 billion years ago, its going damn fast now. Making it very plausible that the universe is infinite.
Yes because there is evidence that there have been multiple big bangs, which would make it logical to assume that the process would repeat itself indefinitely. The material would continue moving outward at nearly the speed of light and with the previous statement being said, if there were an end, it'd be covered with material from stars and planets.
yep the universe is finite. if anyone can tell accurately how far it stretches, then I may think of believing those who are arguing against my point...
oh btw!!! how are you troy??? do come online more often!!
And what size is that? size of the sun, earth, bowling ball, marble? And singularity, by definition, is infinitly dense. Density is mass divided by volume. So if it infinitely dense, then i'm sure it's safe to assume that is also infinitly massive and small.
A singularity, last time I checked, was infinitely small (that does not mean infinite, just too uncountably small). Thus it need not to have infinite mass to have infinite density (basic mathematics).
Infinite in what regard? Infinite in scope and size or infinite in time/age? The overall size and shape of the universe depends on it's curvature, which would require us to know the universal constant which is still unknown to science.
Considering that the universe itself is effected by gravity I think it's probable that it will pull back on itself eventually and form a sphere or donut shape.
I think "the universe is finite yet unbounded". I think this kind manifold is necessary for a spatially based big bang. If ultimately matter (as either mass or energy) is to be unified as some kind of spatial distortion it would only make sense that the space itself is finite(in a sense conserved). An endless Euclidean manifold would be your only alternative because for any transfinite cardinal number you may pick I can find still a greater transfinite cardinal number so you would end up choosing endlessness instead. But after choosing an Endless Euclidean Manifold you would soon discover that the edge was very fuzzy. It clear that space must be the same everywhere an Endless Euclidean Manifold would seem to violate that rule.
