While
Zeno's Paradox is an interesting
idea that points out that you could certainly
limit yourself from ever getting from any given point A to any other given point B, it's obvious that you can move from point A to point B by not choosing to incessantly continue going only half of the remaining distance between yourself and your destination, but to, instead, traverse the entire distance all at one go.
While I'm no
math whiz by any stretch of the
imagination, I am relatively fair with
intuitive and
deductive reasoning. So the two ideas that I'm about to put forth will use no math at all, but really just a small series of very simple ideas.
First I'll address the idea of motion vs. non-motion to be able to establish my second idea that the
universe must be
infinite in
volume.
Motion of an object is generally thought to need a
frame of reference.
For argument's sake some refer to the object in question as the
center of the universe, and that to be
moving, it must change its position with regard to some other object or observable
something, assuming that
the other something isn't also moving relative to the object in question, or moving in an identical trajectory with the object in question with regard to all other observable things.
Let's suppose for a second that the object in question - we'll use yourself as an easy example - is the only thing in the entire universe. I assert that you may indeed move about freely whether or not you have any frame of reference. Just because there is no frame of reference does not defeat the physical
reality that you indeed can move given the
desire and capability to do so (assuming that you have some mysterious means of propulsion, such as
being able to "swim" through a voided
vacuum). The fact that there's no frame of reference by which you can observe your re-positioning, and thereby prove to yourself that you are indeed moving from one arbitrary point to another, only renders your moving around meaningless and likely pointless, but does not nullify the fact that you have indeed moved from one location to another with regard to where you were. If there was something by which you could have observed your
movement, then you could be certain that you moved, but the idea that you can't be
sure that you moved doesn't necessitate a fact that you
didn't move. So I think you can certainly move whether or not there's any
meaning or
ultimate purpose to that motion.
I also assert, from a purely
Newtonian mindset, that the universe must be infinite. First, I'll give the
Merriam-Webster definition of universe:
universe:
noun - the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
And second, here's a setup to illustrate the assertion:
Let's say the universe consists of nothing but yourself, your clothing, a
pebble in
one pocket, a
swiss army knife in your other pocket, your desire and capability to move with respect to a given center of the universe, and a handful of galaxies contained within a certain set of bounds. I'll use an over-sized shoe box as the set of bounds that contain all the matter and
energy of the universe as it currently exists. And we'll say for now that the size of the box is exactly 500-zillion-bajillion light years long, along its longest side. Outside the box is nothing whatsoever - just absolute and pure
void. We will further assume for now the universe has reached a complete
equilibrium and is neither expanding nor contracting.
Now let's say you "swim" to
the edge of the universe, cut a cantaloupe-sized hole in the box with your trusty knife, and use your thumb and forefinger to flick the pebble roughly 12 feet beyond the bounds of the universe. I realize that in
the void there would be no
friction to slow or stop the
inertia of the pebble, but it's easier for now to just say it stopped at some arbitrarily short distance or blame some gravitational phenomenon. Now, the universe is roughly 500-zillion-bajillion light years and 12 feet long, along its longest side. You've just expanded the universe by 12 feet! Mom would be proud. The point is this: however you define the finite
nature of the universe, anything outside those bounds would be non-universe, and therefore, seemingly obviously nothingness by
the way we define the universe as everything that exists. And, in this case, nothingness = voided vacuum = something. Even if what's outside the universe is completely empty
space, it's more or less a
potential container into which matter or energy could be
displaced from its current location within the shoe box universe into some location outside the shoe box, thereby changing the size, shape, consistency, etc. of the universe in its current form. The fact seems to be that even if there's nothing outside the shoe box, all of that nothingness is a part of the universe. And if there's nothing out there in the way, then you could cut a larger hole in the box, swim right up to the pebble, and kick the
crap out of it to further expand the universe. I see no
logical
reason why you couldn't continue this action ad infinitum. The void is logically limitless and an additional part of whatever
mass and energy constitutes the "meaningful" part of the universe. Thus, the universe is boundless, or infinite in volume.