Skip to main content

The Bathtub and Infinity

By
While in the bathtub tonight I finally understood what Stanley Jaki meant when he said (more than once) that the universe can not be infinite, for an infinite quantity can never be realized.

That never really sank in until I saw it ... right there in the tub as the water was sinking down the drain.  It is the nature of infinity that it has no limit.  Its very definition means it is indefinite - in-de-finite; it can not be real, composed of things.  It can only be conceptual.  There is no such thing as "an infinite number of things" for infinity is, in one sense, not a "number" (you can never count "up to" infinity), and "things" are always "realized".  By its nature infinity can not be "realized", composed of actual things.

Jaki saw this and saw that this was the fundamental philosophical and mathematic reason that the universe was finite; there were empirical reasons as well.  And if the universe is finite, then materialistic atheists who deify Chance have a big big problem.

Anyway, if you don't get it, maybe some day you will.  It took me several years and a nice hot bath.

Stanley Jaki, OSB (1924-2009)

Labels:

Comments

Tom Leith said…
I'd read something about this once. The question is "Since the universe is (evidently) expanding, what's it expanding into? What exactly is meant by 'universe'?" One answer is that it expands into [undefined] -- until the universe expands into [undefined] it is no-thing. At least no-thing we can say or know anything about. Since the distances within the universe are finite, we can say the universe is not infinite. But it can (apparently) expand infinitely. Here Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology.
September 26, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Kevin O'Brien said…
I don't know enough about the current thinking on the expanding universe to comment, Tom - but Jaki used to ask, "Is there a universe?" Here's his proof for it, and it includes the conclusion that the universe is finite. From a commenter on another blog ...

Here is Fr. Jaki’s proof on the reality of the “universe,” I can' remember if it is from A Mind's Matter or one of his other works:

Premise 1: There exists material entities.

Premise 2: All material entities contain quantitatively determinable, measurable properties, in the sense that they can be counted.

Premise 3: Therefore, those entities constitute a coherent system insofar as its parts reveal some basic quantitative properties whereby they can be counted.

Conclusion: And if they can be counted, the universe has to be finite and so the universe must be the strict totality of interacting things.
September 26, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Tom Leith said…
And there's another answer -- the space between the interacting things isn't part of the universe. OK. So maybe the Infinite Improbability Drive will work after all, but not for the reasons we thought. Of course, as much as I like sushi, I really don't want to be turned into a penguin mainly because it would interfere with more important things like getting drunk and dancing with girls. So I should avoid space travel. Probably.
September 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Full Story on Bishop Finn

By
" Let's step outside and settle this thing like men ," she said, and she was a lady. " You're spewing anti-Catholic rhetoric !" he insisted. "How can you criticize a bishop when you're an actor and everyone knows actors are perverts and nitwits ," she screamed. (That last gal had a point). These are all reactions to my post last week about Rod Dreher's article on Bishop Finn's Indictment. And above all, people are charging me with believing the biased media coverage of the scandal. This, at least, is not true. In fact, everything I say in this post will be taken not from a media account of the scandal , but from the independent report on it as commissioned by the diocese , the Graves Report, which you can read on your own here . So let's shove the media aside and see for ourselves what's contained in this internal diocesan report conducted by an independent firm. *** Fr. Shawn Ratigan was a priest of the diocese of Kansas Cit...
99 comments
Read more

What Follows ...

By
At one point I took all of these posts down, because I felt I had been far too willingly brainwashed into a religious system that was doing more harm than good.   But, lately, I decided to republish some of the more interesting posts.  What follows is about ten percent of what I posted from 2007 to 2021.  They are in an odd chronological order, becuase Blogger is a clunky. Meanwhile, you can find my more sane (and more recent) musings here -  https://theateroftheword.substack.com .
Post a Comment
Read more

Alarms and Violent Decisions

By
On Monday I returned from nearly two weeks on the road, our Great North Tour, in which we gave 15 performances of 7 scripts in 13 days in 6 states – from Grand Forks, North Dakota, to Holt’s Summit, Missouri. In all of that wonderful chaos God gave me the great blessing of being away from the internet . And two weeks away from the Lying for Jesus issue was very therapeutic. But as therapy ends and Lent begins, I’d like to conclude my thoughts on the firestorm that swept us all up into the single most divisive issue I have encountered in ten years as a Catholic. My Role in This Back in August, James O’Keefe was invited to give what amounted to the keynote address at the American Chesterton Society Conference in Emmitsburg, Maryland. O’Keefe electrified the crowd by telling us that he was inspired by G. K. Chesterton (he did not mention his other role model, quasi-Satanist Saul Alinsky) and that he, James O’Keefe, was willing to live a monk –like existence harassed by leftists and...
47 comments
Read more