Learning to See everythingforever.com
The Timeless Infinite Universe

Homepage  |  Part One  |  Part Two  |  Part Three  |  Part Four  |  Contents  |  People  |  e-mail

  Part One
Cosmic Absolutes
  Part Two
Two Types of Order
  Part Three

The Intent of Time

The Ultimate Attractor
  Part Four
Symmetry Mathematics
(Page Two)

  Advanced Study -
The Cosmology of Symmetry
Convergence: Why Spacetime is Systematic and Orderly

Time's Arrow of Many Directions

Zero is not Nothing and Flat Space is not Empty









Infinite Universe: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real "wow, that's big" time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.

Douglas Adams
















"I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end."

Stephen Hawking
Black Holes and Baby Universes





















Related  Links

Stephen Hawking's Home Page
at Cambridge University


Site Meter  
The greatest visionary of the past is arguably Lucretius, the Roman philosopher who so clearly elucidated the principle "nothing can be created out of nothing."

Titus Lucretius Carus
And the Nothing that isn't

As old as recorded history, there have been people who described the universe as infinite. Born near the year 100 B.C. the philosopher Lucretius argued that space can never end, for what would happen, he asked, if you throw a dart at the outer edge of the universe. "Wherever you may place the ultimate limit of things, I will ask you: 'Well then, what does happen to the dart?' The universe has nothing outside to limit it", said Lucretius. We know today that space is curved, and so the present universe can be finite if it is closed into a circle of some kind, but the point Lucretius made still holds true. There are no walls or edges where space suddenly ends. 

It is interesting to imagine how Lucretius envisioned the universe from his poetic writing. In his book entitled, The Nature of the Universe, he writes:

    If all the space in the universe were shut in and confined on every side by definite boundaries, the supply of matter would already have accumulated by its own weight at the bottom, and nothing could happen under the dome of the sky -- indeed, there would be no sky and no sunlight, since all the available matter would have settled down and would be lying in a heap for all eternity. As it is, no rest is given to the atoms, because there is no bottom where they can accumulate and take up their abode.

Lucretius viewed the infinite as endless and boundless, but he always described it as having a consistent reality of space, time, and atoms. He made the age old mistake of defining atoms as separate things in an independent space. Albert Einstein would one day show that space, time, and matter are interdependent, but you may have noticed that he recognized the universe has no bottom or top, long before anyone knew anything about outer space in a scientific way. It was his ability to reason out such rules with argument, and his belief that such rules formed some basic eternal reality, that gave Lucretius his place in history. In another passage Lucretius writes:

    Things go on happening all the time through ceaseless movement in every direction; and atoms of matter bouncing up from below are supplied out of the infinite. There is therefore a limitless abyss of space, such that even the dazzling flashes of the lightning cannot traverse in their course, racing through an interminable tract of time, nor can they even shorten the distance still to be covered. So vast is the scope that lies open to things far and wide without limit in any dimension.

The most famous quote from Lucretius was, "Nothing can be created out of nothing." He deduced this from carefully observing his environment, noticing that plants died without rain, that things needed time to grow and required raw materials. He wrote, "Surely because each thing requires for its birth a particular material which determines what can be produced. It must therefore be admitted that nothing can be make out of nothing, because everything must be generated from a seed before it can merge into the unresisting air."

Lucretius in my mind is a great example of how science often fails to acknowledge its heritage with philosophers. I have never heard Lucretius given credit for developing the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, yet he was arguably the first to state the first law, deriving it simply from intuitive reasoning and observing his environment.

    The second great principal is this: nature resolves everything into its component atoms and never reduces anything to nothing. If anything were perishable in all its parts, anything might perish all of a sudden and vanish from sight.

From the principle that elementary things are never destroyed, or something never becomes nothing, Lucretius recognized that the universe must exist some way in a forever time. He wrote:

    If throughout this bygone eternity there have persisted bodies from which the universe has been perpetually renewed, they must certainly be possessed of immortality. 

His cosmology was rather complete considering he lived two thousand years ago. He derived the second law also, which states that a system moves from an ordered to a disordered state, stating that all things eventually return to their constituent parts, writing "nature repairs one thing from another, and allows nothing to be born without the aid of another's death. He even had his own version of the anthropic principle.

    Certainly atoms did not post themselves purposefully in due order by an act of intelligence, nor did they stipulate what movements each should perform. As they have been rushing everlastingly throughout all space in their myriad's, undergoing a myriad of changes under the disturbing impact of collisions, they have experienced every variety of movement and conjunction till they have fallen into the particular pattern by which this world of ours is constituted.

One of my first questions in the development of my own philosophy of time was, where did the world come from? I must have been around eight or ten, but I remember asking how it began, arguing like Lucretius that time couldn't begin from nothing. The answer I received was exquisite. I was told by my aunt that a god that had always existed, God had existed forever, and had created the universe. I had taken her by surprise, put her on the spot by asking her such a bold question and I could see that she had improvised in her answer. I think she surprised herself with what was a great answer. After that I remember thinking a lot about the idea of God, or anything, having no beginning or end and so existing in time forever. But I eventually realized this could not be the whole story, because the answer still did not explain how something might exist infinitely without having been created. All she had really done was move the mystery of how something came from nothing from the universe to God, a sort of slight of hand.

As my questions improved I realized no one actually knew answers, they just chose to believe something. And not everybody improvised as well as my aunt had done. Eventually like Lucretius I asked myself a deep but most obvious question. How did the first thing come to exist? In answering this question I eventually concluded that there could never have been a beginning. My reasoning in this was simple. Before the first thing there would naturally have been nothing, and whatever the first thing was, it could not have begun from nothing, simply because there wouldn't be anything to cause a change in the original nothingness. So if there had ever been a nothing in the beginning then it would still be right now, and would remain so forever.

I look back and laugh at myself because this led me to the obvious conclusion of a young thinker, that the universe should not exist. It seemed to me then that we really shouldn't be here, because everything should never have begun, and so it seemed obvious to me that nothingness should be here instead. And so I went around for weeks with that in my head, believing completely that the universe shouldn't be here. Eventually I just became amazed that the universe had somehow cheated past what was unquestionably, logically true.

As an adult I came to understand a profound extension of these ideas and it now seems the complete opposite is true. Rather than it being impossible for the Universe to exist, I now realize it is impossible for the Universe to not exist. There is no alternative to the existence of a universe. I eventually realized that Lucretius and I were both wrong, but only because there are two different kinds of nothing. There is nothing and then there is non-existence. They are very different. Nothing is an idea that refers to real qualities of the Universe. Non-existence cannot be. By its own definition, there cannot be a non-existence. Now I realize there is no place the universe is not and in fact the Universe is inevitable.

As an adult I did some research and discovered that Parmenides and Zeno recognized that non-existence cannot be long before I did. I have come to know that one gains a good deal of contentment when this is understood. Is very nice to understand why the universe is forever. A page called Why We Exist explains my own philosophical thoughts and how I understand this principle which is a universe.

Find out more about timelessness at: 


Homepage  |  Part One  |  Part Two  |  Part Three  |  Part Four  |  Contents  |  People  |  e-mail

  Gevin Giorbran, Copyright 1996 - 2003  All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Usage Policy