3 ms·

Infinity does not have to be a "repeatable process that we can keep doing forever." That seems like a myopic view. Anyways, their reasoning in the rest of the

• kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I'm not convinced their reasoning holds for the rest of the article even if the universe is finitely bounded in time and space. Recall only takes one counterexample to refute. Take the example given to us by Heraclitus, "You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on." My claim extends it such that any river is bundle of infinitely many unique river states. It rests on the infinite divisibility of space. Remember that although the real interval [0, 1] is a finite bounds, there are an infinite number of reals which lie inside it. Take the state of a river at any one point in time. Select any one molecule of water. A finite spatial bounded interval anchored at one end by the selected molecule and the other by a small and arbitrary distance away, say 1cm. It is possible to construct new river states by repositioning the molecule of water along the infinitely possible positions along the spatial interval. Now, realize that this is a special case of a river simply and naturally flowing as all water molecules are interpolatable as they flow. Thus as rivers flow they occupy an infinite number of continuously possible states. So no, I don't think finite bounds of time and space are sufficient. You would also need to have discretized space and time and that's so far not been confirmed.