Jong: "Eternal Recurrence Theory: Debunking the Infinite Universe Hypothesis

  • Thread starter Sauwelios
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Recurrence
In summary: Originally posted by Sauwelios I am not interested in "net" energy. Of course the net energy is zero: otherwise it should have a positive or negative charge in relation to something else. But I am talking about the whole universe.
  • #1
Sauwelios
55
0
Lectori salutem.

Can anyone refute the finite space/energy/matter in infinite time theory?

Finite space/energy/matter implies that the universe is not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force.

Infinite time implies that it has never begun to become and will never cease from passing away.

This means that the universe consist of a finite amount of energy (in whatever manifestation) that flows on in an infinite stream - not infinitely deep or wide, but infinitely long.

Thanks in advance!

Sauw
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You should probably post this on the Philosophy board.
 
  • #3
And why is that - is it beyond the grasp of physics?
 
  • #4
Originally posted by Sauwelios

This means that the universe consist of a finite amount of energy (in whatever manifestation) that flows on in an infinite stream - not infinitely deep or wide, but infinitely long.


Sauw

So far all measurements show that net energy of universe is zero. Same for all other conserved values (charge, momentum, etc).
 
  • #5


Originally posted by Alexander
So far all measurements show that net energy of universe is zero. Same for all other conserved values (charge, momentum, etc).

Volume?
 
  • #6
Volume is not a conserved value.
 
  • #7


Originally posted by Eh
By convention there is sweet, by convention there is bitter, by convention hot and cold, by convention colour; but in reality there are only atoms and space.


Actually not even atoms.
 
  • #8
Oh, conserved. My bad.
 
  • #9


Originally posted by Alexander
Actually not even atoms.

Fields only then? Well, it was a pretty close guess, considering it was made thousands of years ago.
 
  • #10


Originally posted by Alexander
So far all measurements show that net energy of universe is zero. Same for all other conserved values (charge, momentum, etc).


I am not interested in "net" energy. Of course the net energy is zero: otherwise it should have a positive or negative charge in relation to something else. But I am talking about the whole universe.
 

1. What is the "Eternal Recurrence Theory"?

The Eternal Recurrence Theory, also known as the "Eternal Return" or "Infinite Return" theory, is a hypothesis proposed by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It suggests that the universe and all of its events have occurred and will continue to occur infinitely and identically.

2. What is the "Infinite Universe Hypothesis"?

The Infinite Universe Hypothesis is a scientific theory that suggests the universe is infinite in size and contains an infinite number of galaxies, stars, and planets. This hypothesis is often used to support the idea of the Eternal Recurrence Theory as it provides a framework for the possibility of infinite cycles.

3. How does "Jong" debunk the Infinite Universe Hypothesis?

In his work, "Eternal Recurrence Theory: Debunking the Infinite Universe Hypothesis", Jong argues that the Infinite Universe Hypothesis is based on a flawed understanding of the concept of infinity. He suggests that true infinity is impossible and that the universe must have a beginning and an end, therefore debunking the idea of an infinite universe.

4. What evidence does "Jong" provide to support his argument?

Jong presents various mathematical, philosophical, and scientific arguments to support his debunking of the Infinite Universe Hypothesis. He references the work of mathematicians such as Georg Cantor, who proved that true infinity is impossible. He also argues that the concept of an infinite universe goes against the laws of thermodynamics, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

5. Does the debunking of the Infinite Universe Hypothesis disprove the Eternal Recurrence Theory?

No, the debunking of the Infinite Universe Hypothesis does not necessarily disprove the Eternal Recurrence Theory. While the two theories are often linked, the debunking of the Infinite Universe Hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the universe does not recur infinitely. It simply means that the universe may not be infinite in its size and duration.

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
822
Replies
43
Views
9K
Replies
56
Views
13K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
25
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
802
Back
Top