# Absolutes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 26, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732 "2012-08-26T18:01:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/21 "2012-08-27T07:11:38Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Yup, we kinda assume at this point that there is neither infinite time nor space. Therefore, nothing is infinite. Nothing we can identify, anyway. In the “cold death” scenario of the end of the universe, wouldn’t time be infinite? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/22 "2012-08-27T15:14:38Z")
> [@badger5149](#): > > How does science view absolutes such as infinity, eternity, perfection. My logic tells me absolutes cannot exist. Uh…as mathmatical abstractions? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/23 "2012-08-27T15:24:44Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Yup, we kinda assume at this point that there is neither infinite time nor space. Therefore, nothing is infinite. Nothing we can identify, anyway. Do we assume that? > [@clairobscur](#): > > In the “cold death” scenario of the end of the universe, wouldn’t time be infinite? Time would be meaningless at that point. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/24 "2012-08-27T17:50:33Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Do we assume that? Well ok, maybe not YOU. But by current theories, the Universe is of finite (but vast) size, had a beginning and will have an end. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/25 "2012-08-27T20:43:09Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > In the “cold death” scenario of the end of the universe, wouldn’t time be infinite? In some variations of this idea, there is a low-level continuing “black hole” energy economy, as black holes eat/emit matter. Such events could be used to tell time. As **msmith537** notes, the concept of time can become meaningless, e.g., in a cosmos where there are no events of any kind. If all clocks stop time doesn’t become “infinite.” It doesn’t “stop” either. It just ceases to be something anyone could measure. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/26 "2012-08-27T20:56:19Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Well ok, maybe not YOU. > > But by current theories, the Universe is of finite (but vast) size, had a beginning and will have an end. No need to get snarky, Stephen Hawking. I’m familiar with the universe having a beginning (Big Bang) and one of several possible ends. But I was not aware they have established a theoretical “size” of the universe outside of the 47 billion light-year radius ball of universe we can observe from the Earth. As far as I had heard, the actual volume of universe we sit in might still be infinite. > [@Trinopus](#): > > In some variations of this idea, there is a low-level continuing “black hole” energy economy, as black holes eat/emit matter. Such events could be used to tell time. > > As **msmith537** notes, the concept of time can become meaningless, e.g., in a cosmos where there are no events of any kind. If all clocks stop time doesn’t become “infinite.” It doesn’t “stop” either. It just ceases to be something anyone could measure. Also, time slows down the closer the observer is to a source of gravity (IOW mass). I’m not sure what that means for a universe where all mass has evaporated into background radiation. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/27 "2012-08-27T20:59:14Z")
But also at very, very, very, (etc) long time spans, entropy can reverse, because it’s a statistical observation rather than an unbreakable rule. So eventually, just by random flucuations of the vacuum, hydrogen gas, and black holes, there will spontaneously arise objects. It’s just we’d have to wait a seemingly endless number of billions of years to just see a spontanous grouping of one kilogram of hydrogen come together for a second or two, let alone anything with real complexity. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/28 "2012-08-28T00:13:49Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Didn’t read the OP then? :dubious: Yes, I did. I tried to engage the OP in the terms used, but don’t accept them as the only possible absolutes. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Y’know, even if you can find some philosophical blind spot in science, that doesn’t mean God automatically takes its place. But the OP did not introduce God to the conversation. > [@msmith537](#): > > Uh…as mathmatical abstractions? Or as a definition? Does a definition qualify as an absolute? > [@badger5149](#): > > Is it even possible for a human to have a concept of nothing? I just tried to develop a concept and all I can imagine is something ripping anything that enters into the smallest possible particles and then sending it carreening toward the edge, but that is still not nothingness. Congratulations. You just invented calculus. And possibly particle physics - I’m not certain. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/29 "2012-08-28T00:27:41Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Congratulations. You just invented calculus. > > And possibly particle physics - I’m not certain. [Vacuum Energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) Calculus handles infinities (division by zero) quite deftly using limits. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/30 "2012-08-28T00:56:12Z")
> [@For You](#): > > [Vacuum Energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) > > Calculus handles infinities (division by zero) quite deftly using limits. Mmm, I was’t being snarky. Constantly approaching but never reaching zero is calculus to me. And “the smallest possible particles … not nothingness” sounds like the physics that I am will to believe from equations rather than understand intellectually. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732/31 "2012-08-28T17:25:40Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Or as a definition? Does a definition qualify as an absolute? infinity: There are a couple different meanings and mathmatical definitions, but it is essentially a set without limits. It is difficult to comprehend because we tend to think in discrete or finite terms. Like we can comprehend a really really big universe. We can’t comprehend an infinite one. People always think “where does it stop?” or “what is it contained in?” The answer is “it doesn’t” and “nothing”. Otherwise it would still be universes all the way down. eternity: t = oo (although I don’t suppose that helps). perfection: This one is actually easier to define as science doesn’t actually define “perfection”. EVERYTHING (give or take) has degrees of uncertainty or errors. So scientists rarely express anything in absolute terms. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absolutes/632732.md?page=1)