If the universe is considered finite, what distinguishes the outside of it from inside of it?

Question

Basically I've heard some people mention that the universe is finite and continuing to expand. If this is true, what exactly does this process look like? How is the outside of the universe different from the space inside?

Answer 1

The inside is what you can imagine, the outside, what you can't

Answer 2

I believe that the universe infinite, an infinate space with nothing in makes no sence to me.

Since the universe was produced when a singularity (black hole) exploded, maybe that black hole was contained inside a bigger universe, just like the in that we live with in.

Maybe from the other univere we are invisible due to the local space-time being warped around us or our universe is so smal that we would not be seen.

To quote Sir Patrick Moore :

We simply do not know.

Answer 3

1st Heaven- the atmosphere

2nd Heaven- the cosmos, everything outside of that is called the 3rd Heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2-5

Answer 4

This could be a bad example but if you ever saw MIB. At the end of both movies it would look like one was playing marbles and the other was a locker. It was a way of saying that the world is infinite. We wouldnt know if we are in the inside of something or the outside.

The galaxy was on the collar of a cat. To those people the wouldnt think that it was. But our galaxy was a marble w/ others. And it keeps  going and going.  

No begining , no end. Its growing in the sense of what we can see as in new stars are born or  planets may die and make something different.

Answer 5

well theres a theory that there is an entire universe made of anti-matter outside of our universe.

Answer 6

there's this theory called the multiverse. according to it other universes exist outside our own. ^__^

infinite finite universes....mind boggling really.

Answer 7

The Universe contains all of existence, including space itself. Even if the Universe is finite, there's still no "outside," because there's no space.

Answer 8

The question is commonly asked as follows: is the universe finite or infinite?



Since the infinite is the impossible, the latter choice is rightly dismissed.  However, a finite, but unbounded universe can still leave one looking for a satisfactory answer.  A spherical analogy is usually offered to explain what seems to be one's only option, but bringing this proposed solution into literal, three-dimensional reality presents itself as being an insurmountable task.



I submit that both sides of this alternative appear contradictory, because they are.  Since the question above is inexactly formulated for the given context, what is actually at work here is a false dichotomy.



In order to understand why, let us differentiate.  Ask whether the Milky Way is finite or infinite.  Needless to say, one would find no unresolved issues with answering that it is finite - on account of the Milky Way having spatial boundaries.



The existence or nonexistence of spatial boundaries is what makes the difference between an easy answer with the Milky Way, and an enigma with the universe.  This reveals that it is a certain alleged characteristic of the universe - one whose finiteness would be threatened if boundaries were not present - that is actually being called into question.



In this light, one can readily see that "Is the universe finite or infinite in size?" is the actual question being asked.  As such, it is not the universe, but its extent (i.e., size), that is contradictory, whether posited as finite or infinite.



Why, then, must one posit a size of the universe at all?  Objectivism does not posit a temporal extension (age) of the universe, and then ask whether it is finite or infinite, so why do the same with spatial extension (size)?



This analogy between the spatial and the temporal is actually very exact.  The same problems that arise in a finite or infinite size dichotomy appear in the same exact manner as they do in a finite or infinite time dichotomy: both dichotomies force one to accept that the respective characteristic does in fact exist, when both in fact do not.  And, since infinities are impossible, this means: the universe is not finite in size anymore than it is finite in time.



After all: would a theory of "circular time" [1], attempting to reconcile a finite duration that does not possess temporal boundaries, be tenable or necessary?



Objectivism says "No," and thus does away with the temporal false dichotomy of this analogy masterfully.  It recognizes that "Is the universe finite or infinite in time?" is a complex question; it assumes that the concept of time is applicable to existence.  But, it isn't applicable; so, neither is the question.  The universe isn't "in time," so it therefore isn't "finite in time."  ("Finite in time" and "in time," like "finite in size" and "in size," are equivalent statements.)



And, this viewpoint can be validly translated into physical reality, too.  If one had a time machine that was able to go into the future indefinitely at the rate of octillion years a picosecond, one would never get to an "end" of the universe.  One would see the occurrence of event after event, without end.  Of course, this is not because the universe is "infinite in time," but because it isn't "in time" at all.  Needless to say, this is no threat to identity, and no reification of infinity.



Similarly, if one had a spaceship that was able to travel an octillion light-years a picosecond, one would never get to any "end" (or "edge") of existence.  One would fly by existent after existent, and never hit some sort of wall, barrier, or edge of universe.  (If there is no edge, then one cannot reach it.)  Just like with time, this isn't because the universe is "infinite in size," and it is not because "circular space" (anymore than "circular time") is needed or appropriate.  It is because existence isn't "in size" at all.



Just as Dr. Binswanger pointed out that "time is in the universe, the universe is not in time": sizes are in the universe, but the universe is not itself "in size." [2]



However, it is important to remember that - while the universe is not (finite) in time or (finite) in size - it is certainly finite.  The reason for this is that "finite" qua adjective is not very descriptive.  To say that something is finite is merely to say that it is, i.e., that it possesses a specific identity.  The universe is, therefore it is finite.  If everything that exists must be finite, then everything that exists (i.e., existence) must be finite.  Existence exists – finitely.



Or, as Ayn Rand puts this point:



[D]o you know what we can ascribe to the universe as such, apart from scientific discovery?  Only those fundamentals that we can grasp about existence.  Not in the sense of switching contexts and ascribing particular characteristics to the universe, but we can say: since everything possesses identity, the universe possesses identity.  Since everything is finite, the universe is finite.  But we can't ascribe space or time or a lot of other things to the universe as a whole. [3]



Hence, there is nothing in the Law of Identity that mandates every existent possess a (finite) size, anymore than the Law of Identity mandates every existent be (finite) in time.  The concepts of size and time apply to certain existents, which have specific natures that allow for such applicability.



But, the very nature of the universe precludes it from having a size, i.e., a three-dimensional extension.  Since to be finite is to possess a specific identity, the identity of any extension must be the actual extension.  (Existence is identity.)  A specific extension is a limited extension that is bound by its nature.  Which means: for any extension to exist, i.e., for it to be finite, it must possess bounds.



But, unlike the Milky Way, the universe has no bounds, whether temporal or spatial.  Which means: unlike the Milky Way, the universe as a whole has no extension, whether temporal or spatial.



Just as one can integrate the inapplicability of a temporal extension and finiteness, one can do the same with the inapplicability of a three-dimensional extension (i.e. size) and finiteness as well.



Objectivism accepts the former.  It is just as logical to accept the latter.



Thus, the one-line answer to the unbounded, finite universe is as follows: in the same exact way that the universe is eternal, it is also "asizal."





The Integration of "Unbounded" and the Impossibility of an Infinite Number of Entities



It is undeniably true that there cannot be an infinite number of entities in the universe.  But, how can that be integrated with the above?



I submit that the answer lies in the same way the universe not having an infinite size (or age) is integrated; i.e., by recognizing that, just as with the concepts of size and time, the alternative to a finite number is not an infinite number, but the concept of number as not applicable to describe the totality of that which exists.



In order to illustrate my point, let's suppose that someone asked an Objectivist the following question: have a finite number of events transpired throughout the entire history of the universe?  (I use "event" to refer to any causal sequence, i.e., any instance of motion.)  What would an Objectivist properly say to such an inquiry?



There is no reason to believe that all action began at a certain point in the past, and that "before then" everything was motionless.  And, since the universe has always existed, the Law of Identity certainly does not mandate an answer of "Yes" to the question above.



But then, is the alternative that an infinite number of events have ever transpired?  Is that an Objectivist's only option?  No.  In short, the above question steals the concept of number from the concept of quantity.



When Dr. Binswanger was asked a similar type of question - wouldn't the universe have to be infinite in time? - part of his response included the following:



An infinite amount of time has passed between now...and when?...To talk about the amount of time that has passed you have to say 'between now, and some other point.' Any point you take (and the same applies into the future)...there's only a finite amount of time between those two points. [4]



This is a very astute observation.  When someone asks if a finite number of events have transpired throughout the entire history of the universe (to go back to my hypothetical question above), he is not providing those "two points" that serve as bounds of the alleged duration.  As Dr. Binswanger said: "To talk about the amount of time that has passed you have to say 'between now, and some other point.'"  Every duration must have a beginning and an end; if it does not, then one cannot properly call it a "duration," and certainly cannot talk about any number of things within the duration.  If there are no boundaries, then there is no "within the duration."



As Dr. Binswanger also discussed in the same lecture, a number stands for an amount, or a quantity.  (I, like Dr. Binswanger, will take the latter two terms to be synonymous.)  "Amount" and "quantity" are metaphysical concepts, and require ostensive definitions; "number," by contrast, is an epistemological concept, and thus is hierarchically dependent on the existence of a quantity.  Put negatively: if one does not have a quantity, then one cannot ha

Answer 9

The outside is empty, infinite space.

Answer 10

Infinity is impossible for anything that exists in the physical realm. There has to be an end to it and some researchers believe that it's like bubbles in water. Our universe is just one bubble and it is connected with other universes.  

Answer 11

Well...you have certainly got a lot of things on your mind. Now the benefit of debateing this controversy totally escapes me...

The Universe consists of "everything" that is in space. Consider that the only thing one can discuss with any degree of intelligence is a

thing which we have examined from every possible angle and probed inside and out every which way possible. It is not possible to discuss something which is beyond our ability to: see/examine/research/analyze...etc.

We can "see" out into space to a distance of 13 Billion LY in all directions from Earth with the best "optical telescope" equipment that is available. As a result we can discuss some of the characteristics of those various objects that we can see.

We can detect various objects out in deep space using the world's best radio telescopes out to distances of 40 Billion LY in all directions from Earth. As a result, we can discuss the probable nature of many of those things way out in deep space.

However, the limitations of our equipment stop us from "seeing" or "detecting" farther out there than the 13 Billion LY and 40 Billion LY. Those are not the limits or end points of the Universe, they are the limits of the equipment we are using to look out there. Beyond those limits, space continues on and on, and nothing suggests that objects do not continue to populate the vast areas beyond our workable observational distances.

One place to visit and get a much better idea of this information is

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com

You need to activate each of the slides to get a really good view.

There is no finite aspect to Space. There is no defined shape to Space.

The Universe is larger than most people can possibly comprehend.

There is no detectable outside to the Universe, never has been, and never will be. The Universe is "everything," all of the objects that are within space. Whatever they are, they are part of the Universe...If something else is out there, that is part of everything (the Universe)also.

Simple comparisons to the immense distances in space and thoughts within the mind are unfounded, and great oversimplifications of reality. Many people have problems thinking about this, so I am not surprised that you would seek some short of short cut to really doing the work that is involved to really learn about the Universe. People can spend their entire lives studying the Universe and only scratch the surface of the subject...so a short cut is really cheating yourself, and creating an incorrect knowledge base and argumentative foundation.

I suggest  that you spend more time reading about "what we do know about space and the Universe. It would certainly be much more beneficial than debateing something that is undefined.          

Answer 12

No one knows really . all we can do is guess. however i feel if the universe is growing than i ask myself wheres it expanding to myinstinctss tell me that if somethings growing or expanding there must be even more even though wedon'tt have the technology to see it . i feel our universe is like a atom so small it cant be seen with the eye and there are other universes out there expanding creating trions upon trions of universes  which inreturnn those are part of another chain which is growing or expanding and this cycle never ends i think of it this way imagine a single atom in our universe and that atom being a universe growing or expanding into our universe the life living in that atom would be to small to ever see and their atom or universe would be to large for them to know our universe see where im going  with this look how many atoms are here in our universe . if this would be found to be true you could now see why our universe is expanding and mankind says its infinite never ending. however this is only a theory since it in our time or no where in the near future can be proven wrong or right. another theory is beyond our universe time or space does not exsist its just empty i myself find this theory hard to believe so i guess you will have to draw your own conclusion since all theories can not be proven or disproven