Thread: Universe: Finite or Infinite?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Its about time a thread based on a finite uni be examined scientifically as if it is a legitimate premise.

Yes, a finite universe is a legitimate premise under the laws of General Relativity. But then, so are infinite ones.

The Uni is 'FINITE' with a beginning.

Yes, the universe did have a beginning ( in all likelihood, anyway ), but that doesn't mean it needs to be finite.

What are the impacts of an absolutely finite universe

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Such a universe would be closed, finite, smooth, and its mathematical description everywhere differentiable. It's one of the possibilities of the standard Lambda-CDM model. See here :

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It should be noted that currently available data does not allow us to decide whether the universe is finite or infinite. The observational data fits both possibilities.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Believe it! NEW PROOF: Science comes from Genesis.

That is not proof. It is an assertion. Anyway, wouldn't your infinitely powerful God have created an infinite universe rather than a paltry finite one?

Its about time a thread based on a finite uni be examined scientifically as if it is a legitimate premise.

Of course it is a legitimate premise. As is an infinite universe. From those premises you should form a quantifiably testable hypothesis. That is how science works, not by making assertions and linking to random videos.

What are the impacts of an absolutely finite universe is 100% incumbent.

I can't see that the universe being infinite or just really big has any impact. Other than theoretical interest.

Of course, if heretics want to insist that God is only capable of making a universe of limited size, and therefore is not omnipotent, then that is their choice. But be prepared to burn in hell for eternity for such offensive thoughts.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Believe it! NEW PROOF: Science comes from Genesis.

Crap.
It implies no such thing.
Where does Genesis mention microwave background or gravitational waves?

The first action listed in Genesis is light. Its residue constitutes waves, before gravity kicked in. The mention of gravity in a writing 1000's of years ago would constitute a lack of authenticity.

The Uni is 'FINITE' with a beginning. Its about time a thread based on a finite uni be examined scientifically as if it is a legitimate premise. What are the impacts of an absolutely finite universe is 100% incumbent.

Also unsupported.

This is what happens when a ridiculous "news" programme gets a nutcase with an agenda to pontificate on science.
Compounded by being watched and pushed by another nutcase.[/QUOTE]

The nutcase in the link happens to be a prominent scientist. What other words can one use 1000's of years ago to describe the universe as finite - noting the term finite never yet existed.

Wow you are nuts

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The nutcase in the link happens to be a prominent scientist.

He is a doctor of philosophy who is criticised by prominent scientists.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

What other words can one use 1000's of years ago to describe the universe as finite - noting the term finite never yet existed.

Yes it did. The concept existed in philosophy around 500 years before Genesis was written.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The mention of gravity in a writing 1000's of years ago would constitute a lack of authenticity.

In other words Genesis says nothing whatsoever about the current findings.

The nutcase in the link happens to be a prominent scientist.

Nope.
The nutcase is a philosopher, not a scientist.

What other words can one use 1000's of years ago to describe the universe as finite - noting the term finite never yet existed.

"God" couldn't have passed it on?

The only point I make is, how does science apply to an absolutely finite universe. It is incumbent since there are only two possibilities, finite or infinite, both unconfirmed. Else how do you know which fits better to what we do know?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The only point I make is, how does science apply to an absolutely finite universe.

All laws of physics take the same form in a finite and in an infinite universe, so it applies equally to both cases.

It is incumbent since there are only two possibilities, finite or infinite

A Menger cube has a finite and well defined edge length, yet its surface area is infinite while enclosing zero volume. So do you consider a Menger cube to be finite or infinite ?
What I am trying to say is that there topological possibilities that aren't as clear cut as it initially appears; whether or not these are physically reasonable topologies is a different matter though.

I enjoy the fact that to answer the question, you need to understand what the words used actually imply. From the postings here some do not.. I will offer a olive leaf to help maybe, When 'I' use that word finite, when talking of the Big Bang is only in regard to that all of everything ( The Universe ) started from a singularity then it can be said to have been at that moment a finite object. That from that instant of time forward a expansion I refer to as a runaway and accelerating still into what I understand as a Unbound Universe forever growing. Runaway expansion into oblivion. I like it that science has not been able yet to rule absolute certainty on this question.. Thats science. Those whom quote passages from a misinterpreted, misunderstood old middle Eastern scripture assembled by monks as the word of God are not being scientific are they ? Finite meaning the content had a limit, or not. That it is Unbound can be construed as infinity seem ultimately realistic for me.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The only point I make is, how does science apply to an absolutely finite universe.

All laws of physics take the same form in a finite and in an infinite universe, so it applies equally to both cases.

We do not know what an infinite realm is. No such thing exists or seen, namely one w/o change.

It is incumbent since there are only two possibilities, finite or infinite

A Menger cube has a finite and well defined edge length, yet its surface area is infinite while enclosing zero volume. So do you consider a Menger cube to be finite or infinite ?
What I am trying to say is that there topological possibilities that aren't as clear cut as it initially appears; whether or not these are physically reasonable topologies is a different matter though.

No sir. A surface area is not infinite. The notion the surface of a sphere is infinite is faulty/trick science: it equates a non-corporeal premise with a corporeal one. A surface length is limited to the circumference of whatever it hovers. A circle ends when it repeats the ground it treads upon again. Otherwise a 1 meter rope can be made infinite by joining its ends. You were conned.

Originally Posted by astromark

I enjoy the fact that to answer the question, you need to understand what the words used actually imply. From the postings here some do not.. I will offer a olive leaf to help maybe, When 'I' use that word finite, when talking of the Big Bang is only in regard to that all of everything ( The Universe ) started from a singularity then it can be said to have been at that moment a finite object. That from that instant of time forward a expansion I refer to as a runaway and accelerating still into what I understand as a Unbound Universe forever growing. Runaway expansion into oblivion. I like it that science has not been able yet to rule absolute certainty on this question.. Thats science. Those whom quote passages from a misinterpreted, misunderstood old middle Eastern scripture assembled by monks as the word of God are not being scientific are they ? Finite meaning the content had a limit, or not. That it is Unbound can be construed as infinity seem ultimately realistic for me.

A singularity cannot perform an action on its own. Science 101: cause & effect requires an interaction. The BB could not have begun by such a mode. The required energy could not have come from within a singularity because that would negate it being a singularity. There is an obvious reason why most theories of the BB never venture a preamble of finite or infinite - the latter is fiction, the former destroys the BBT and leads where it is anathema.

[QUOTE=IamJoseph;545648]We do not know what an infinite realm is. [quote]

Yes we do.

No such thing exists or seen, namely one w/o change.

Unsupported assertion.

If the universe is infinite, then there is at least one example.

A surface area is not infinite.

Unsupported assertion.

The notion the surface of a sphere is infinite is faulty/trick science: it equates a non-corporeal premise with a corporeal one.

No one claimed that the surface of a sphere is infinite, so this is a straw man argument.

A singularity cannot perform an action on its own.

There is no evidence that a singularity has any physical reality. So another straw man.

You are very fond of endlessly repeating your beliefs, without providing any evidence (because there is none). It is getting rather tedious.

If you have nothing more to say than ""I don't believe the universe is infinite because I don't believe the universe is infinite" then please just drop it. There is no value in endlessly repeating the same assertions.

We now know what you believe. No one cares, because this is a science forum.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

We do not know what an infinite realm is. No such thing exists or seen, namely one w/o change.

The notion of an infinitely extended manifold is well defined in mathematics, and it has nothing to do with "change".

A surface area is not infinite.

It is for a Menger cube : Menger sponge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A surface length is limited to the circumference of whatever it hovers.

The sum of all edge lengths ( "circumference" ) in a Menger cube is also infinite, even though each individual edge is of finite length.

Otherwise a 1 meter rope can be made infinite by joining its ends.

That works fine for a circle, but not for a Menger cube.

You were conned.

It is a rather trivial exercise for me to actually perform the calculation myself, so I don't need to take anyone's word for what happens in a Menger cube, I can go and see for myself.
As for having been "conned" - that is just your personal opinion, and a rather silly one at that. You seem to think that everyone just mindlessly memorises facts, but so far as mathematics is concerned I can assure you that that is not the case - instead you learn by doing these calculations yourself, and draw your conclusions from the results obtained.

because that would negate it being a singularity.

No it wouldn't. I don't know from where you are getting those opinions from.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

We do not know what an infinite realm is. No such thing exists or seen, namely one w/o change.

The notion of an infinitely extended manifold is well defined in mathematics, and it has nothing to do with "change".

Math does NOT define this. You are referring to two unrelated thresholds, namely a theoretical/abstract/virtual [math] and a actuality/physicality: a surface is not a reality, it is an imagined contextual representation of reality. Even here, a change [extended] must be inserted. The premise a surface is infinite does not make its counterpart reality as infinite. The surface of a tennis ball is not infinite.

A surface area is not infinite.

It is for a Menger cube : Menger sponge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A surface length is limited to the circumference of whatever it hovers.

The sum of all edge lengths ( "circumference" ) in a Menger cube is also infinite, even though each individual edge is of finite length.

Otherwise a 1 meter rope can be made infinite by joining its ends.

That works fine for a circle, but not for a Menger cube.

You were conned.

It is a rather trivial exercise for me to actually perform the calculation myself, so I don't need to take anyone's word for what happens in a Menger cube, I can go and see for myself.
As for having been "conned" - that is just your personal opinion, and a rather silly one at that. You seem to think that everyone just mindlessly memorises facts, but so far as mathematics is concerned I can assure you that that is not the case - instead you learn by doing these calculations yourself, and draw your conclusions from the results obtained.[/QUOTE]

The Menger sponge account gives an infinite count not in reality but theoretically only. Its like saying one's fantasy is infinite, but not so when it is matched against a physical entity. These are runaway spins to divert from an absolutely finite universe - BECAUSE.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

because that would negate it being a singularity.

No it wouldn't. I don't know from where you are getting those opinions from.

I have reduced the theoretical [mathematical] term to reality. Here, a Singularity represents a point or particle that has no internal components, when no external components are existing. In such a scenario the BB could not commit an action: no expansion or change can occur without the interaction of another entity. It is why the BBT cannot be correct.

[QUOTE=Strange;545651][QUOTE=IamJoseph;545648]We do not know what an infinite realm is.

Yes we do.

No such thing exists or seen, namely one w/o change.

Unsupported assertion.

If the universe is infinite, then there is at least one example.

A surface area is not infinite.

Unsupported assertion.

The notion the surface of a sphere is infinite is faulty/trick science: it equates a non-corporeal premise with a corporeal one.

No one claimed that the surface of a sphere is infinite, so this is a straw man argument.

A singularity cannot perform an action on its own.

There is no evidence that a singularity has any physical reality. So another straw man.

You are very fond of endlessly repeating your beliefs, without providing any evidence (because there is none). It is getting rather tedious.

If you have nothing more to say than ""I don't believe the universe is infinite because I don't believe the universe is infinite" then please just drop it. There is no value in endlessly repeating the same assertions.

We now know what you believe. No one cares, because this is a science forum.

An analogy.

1. Energy & Mass are interchangeable.

2. Apples & pineapples are not interchangeable.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

[
1. Energy & Mass are interchangeable.

2. Apples & pineapples are not interchangeable.

Why is that?

if apples and pineapples are broken down to their smallest parts say in a plasma, subatomic particles, then they are completely interchangebale.

koch snowflake is a infinitely long set of line segments that is bounded by a finite circle. this is also known as the 'coastline length' example.

Koch snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

[
1. Energy & Mass are interchangeable.

2. Apples & pineapples are not interchangeable.

Why is that?

if apples and pineapples are broken down to their smallest parts say in a plasma, subatomic particles, then they are completely interchangebale.

True. But my Q was 'WHY SO"'

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

koch snowflake is a infinitely long set of line segments that is bounded by a finite circle. this is also known as the 'coastline length' example.

Koch snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This again measures theoretical with physical, as in spiritual against historical. The line segments are mental images only. If one wants to measure physical stuff, it should be done against other physical stuff. If one measures non-physical stuff, it should be done against other non-physical stuff. Science enthusiasts should not be in denial to such an extent - you are behaving like fundamental theology folk. Wormholes, Parallel UNI, MV - these are not evidences of infinity, nor is the surface of a circle - these cannot be captured in a lab vase. Those who lie make sure their evidence is far away.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I have reduced the theoretical [mathematical] term to reality. Here, a Singularity represents a point or particle that has no internal components, when no external components are existing. In such a scenario the BB could not commit an action: no expansion or change can occur without the interaction of another entity. It is why the BBT cannot be correct.

Logical fallacy. An electron is an elementary particle and also has no internal components, yet it does have well defined properties such as charge, spin etc.

The Menger sponge account gives an infinite count not in reality but theoretically only. Its like saying one's fantasy is infinite, but not so when it is matched against a physical entity. These are runaway spins to divert from an absolutely finite universe - BECAUSE.

These are not just "runaway spins" - I brought up the example of the Menger cube because recent models of geometrodynamics such as Causal Dynamical Triangulations hint at the possibility that space-time may in fact be fractal in its microscopic structure. In any case, there is currently no convincing empirical evidence to say that the universe much be finite; this is certainly a possibility, yet only one among a few, and hence by no means certain. Currently available data simply does not allow us yet to draw a final conclusion as to whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

you are behaving like fundamental theology folk.

I think this description best fits you. My mind is open to the possibilities of the universe being finite, infinite, fractal, or maybe even some other option that I can't conceive of, because I know that the currently available empirical data fits all of these - whereas on the other hand your mind appears to be stuck in some ill-conceived notion of "absolutely finite" being the only correct option. You have closed your mind to all other possibilities, so don't tell us we are the ones in denial.

these cannot be captured in a lab vase

Neither can the colour blue. So what ?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by astromark

I enjoy the fact that to answer the question, you need to understand what the words used actually imply. From the postings here some do not.. I will offer a olive leaf to help maybe, When 'I' use that word finite, when talking of the Big Bang is only in regard to that all of everything ( The Universe ) started from a singularity then it can be said to have been at that moment a finite object. That from that instant of time forward a expansion I refer to as a runaway and accelerating still into what I understand as a Unbound Universe forever growing. Runaway expansion into oblivion. I like it that science has not been able yet to rule absolute certainty on this question.. Thats science. Those whom quote passages from a misinterpreted, misunderstood old middle Eastern scripture assembled by monks as the word of God are not being scientific are they ? Finite meaning the content had a limit, or not. That it is Unbound can be construed as infinity seem ultimately realistic for me.

A singularity cannot perform an action on its own. Science 101: cause & effect requires an interaction. The BB could not have begun by such a mode. The required energy could not have come from within a singularity because that would negate it being a singularity. There is an obvious reason why most theories of the BB never venture a preamble of finite or infinite - the latter is fiction, the former destroys the BBT and leads where it is anathema.

~ I am on sound ground when I state that popular science revue supports there having been a Big Bang.. and that we are aware of events that took place in the seconds after such.. a Big Bang.. Rapid expansion and later cooling to eventually allow the existence of matter and atoms.. That I see a argument with any of this is a simple case of not understanding what IS known. In such a place as a science forum it is unwise to challenge what is accepted as science understood. That science can test and question is itself why it can not be found as wrong.. I can not find argument and do not understand why you do.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

An analogy.

1. Energy & Mass are interchangeable.

2. Apples & pineapples are not interchangeable.

Why is that?

If you think this analogy makes any sort of sense, then maybe you should answer the question.

Energy and mass are not interchangeable: you cannot build a house from pure energy, you can't boil water by plugging your kettle into a brick.

Apples and pineapples are perfectly interchangeable if I am looking for some fruit to put in a pie.

This appears to simply be further evidence that you have nothing to support your quasi-religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by YangYin

What about dark energy?

It's geometric property of space-time too. Dark energy can be associated with a vacuum energy density.

So their is no force involved but their is a vacuum energy density? I know we have been through this before with the Ricci curve. What is the vacuum density created by a galaxy?

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

koch snowflake is a infinitely long set of line segments that is bounded by a finite circle. this is also known as the 'coastline length' example.

Koch snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This again measures theoretical with physical, as in spiritual against historical. The line segments are mental images only. If one wants to measure physical stuff, it should be done against other physical stuff. If one measures non-physical stuff, it should be done against other non-physical stuff. Science enthusiasts should not be in denial to such an extent - you are behaving like fundamental theology folk. Wormholes, Parallel UNI, MV - these are not evidences of infinity, nor is the surface of a circle - these cannot be captured in a lab vase. Those who lie make sure their evidence is far away.

this response makes no sense to me ? the line segments of a koch snowflake are real as the the real number line.

this response makes no sense to me ? the line segments of a koch snowflake are real as the the real number line.

Join the club.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

koch snowflake is a infinitely long set of line segments that is bounded by a finite circle. this is also known as the 'coastline length' example.

Koch snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This again measures theoretical with physical, as in spiritual against historical. The line segments are mental images only. If one wants to measure physical stuff, it should be done against other physical stuff. If one measures non-physical stuff, it should be done against other non-physical stuff. Science enthusiasts should not be in denial to such an extent - you are behaving like fundamental theology folk. Wormholes, Parallel UNI, MV - these are not evidences of infinity, nor is the surface of a circle - these cannot be captured in a lab vase. Those who lie make sure their evidence is far away.

if you want a real world example of infinity then investigate this: Fractal dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it relates to coastline measurement. as the measuring 'stick' is shortened towards zero then length of coastline increases to infinity.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I have reduced the theoretical [mathematical] term to reality. Here, a Singularity represents a point or particle that has no internal components, when no external components are existing. In such a scenario the BB could not commit an action: no expansion or change can occur without the interaction of another entity. It is why the BBT cannot be correct.

Logical fallacy. An electron is an elementary particle and also has no internal components, yet it does have well defined properties such as charge, spin etc.

The Menger sponge account gives an infinite count not in reality but theoretically only. Its like saying one's fantasy is infinite, but not so when it is matched against a physical entity. These are runaway spins to divert from an absolutely finite universe - BECAUSE.

These are not just "runaway spins" - I brought up the example of the Menger cube because recent models of geometrodynamics such as Causal Dynamical Triangulations hint at the possibility that space-time may in fact be fractal in its microscopic structure. In any case, there is currently no convincing empirical evidence to say that the universe much be finite; this is certainly a possibility, yet only one among a few, and hence by no means certain. Currently available data simply does not allow us yet to draw a final conclusion as to whether the universe is finite or infinite.

An electron displays charge when in a state of interaction of other particles and forces. I'm sure you are aware of this, yet you are positing a challenge to the absolute requirement of more than one particle must prevail for any action.

[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;546101]

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

you are behaving like fundamental theology folk.

I think this description best fits you. My mind is open to the possibilities of the universe being finite, infinite, fractal, or maybe even some other option that I can't conceive of, because I know that the currently available empirical data fits all of these - whereas on the other hand your mind appears to be stuck in some ill-conceived notion of "absolutely finite" being the only correct option. You have closed your mind to all other possibilities, so don't tell us we are the ones in denial.

these cannot be captured in a lab vase

The finite or infinite possibilities represent absolutely opposite results. The BBT fails in a finite universe.

Originally Posted by astromark

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Originally Posted by astromark

I enjoy the fact that to answer the question, you need to understand what the words used actually imply. From the postings here some do not.. I will offer a olive leaf to help maybe, When 'I' use that word finite, when talking of the Big Bang is only in regard to that all of everything ( The Universe ) started from a singularity then it can be said to have been at that moment a finite object. That from that instant of time forward a expansion I refer to as a runaway and accelerating still into what I understand as a Unbound Universe forever growing. Runaway expansion into oblivion. I like it that science has not been able yet to rule absolute certainty on this question.. Thats science. Those whom quote passages from a misinterpreted, misunderstood old middle Eastern scripture assembled by monks as the word of God are not being scientific are they ? Finite meaning the content had a limit, or not. That it is Unbound can be construed as infinity seem ultimately realistic for me.

A singularity cannot perform an action on its own. Science 101: cause & effect requires an interaction. The BB could not have begun by such a mode. The required energy could not have come from within a singularity because that would negate it being a singularity. There is an obvious reason why most theories of the BB never venture a preamble of finite or infinite - the latter is fiction, the former destroys the BBT and leads where it is anathema.

~ I am on sound ground when I state that popular science revue supports there having been a Big Bang.. and that we are aware of events that took place in the seconds after such.. a Big Bang.. Rapid expansion and later cooling to eventually allow the existence of matter and atoms.. That I see a argument with any of this is a simple case of not understanding what IS known. In such a place as a science forum it is unwise to challenge what is accepted as science understood. That science can test and question is itself why it can not be found as wrong.. I can not find argument and do not understand why you do.

Sure. Once we also accepted the earth was flat - it was not a foolish conclusion. Here's why a problem occurs with a finite universe, regardless of the fact we do not know what occurred before the BB point. It could not begin with one entity. Basically, we are saying once there was nothing - then came a particle and then a big action happened. Not possible.

Without quoting this all again.. Here goes a couple of points you seem to not understand. Some thing we shall call a 'event' I have no understanding of that event., but do have a clear view of what happened next. Lets just call it what it was a... 'A Big Bang'. and to address that point you make regarding something from nothing. We actually see this frequently. It's a well tested theory. Matter and energy seem to be able to pop into and out of existence., and just to throw another curve ball at you. Have you any concept of what a multi verse might be.. Judging from what you are saying here. I interpret that you need to do some research. Your view of things is not as others.. are they all wrong ? I would advise caution.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The finite or infinite possibilities represent absolutely opposite results.

Citation needed.

The BBT fails in a finite universe.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this, it won't magically become true.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Once we also accepted the earth was flat

Not true.

It could not begin with one entity. Basically, we are saying once there was nothing - then came a particle and then a big action happened.

There is no theory that says the big bang began with one entity. There is no theory that says once there was nothing - then came a particle and then a big action happened

Once again, you are making stuff up and arguing against it. Doesn't that seem a bit futile?

You might as well say: "the big bang is impossible because it couldn't have been banana flavoured."

Also, your strawman argument applies whether the universe is finite of infinite.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The finite or infinite possibilities represent absolutely opposite results. The BBT fails in a finite universe.

Both finite and infinite topologies are perfectly consistent with the Lambda-CDM model, so you are wrong.

I'm sure you are aware of this, yet you are positing a challenge to the absolute requirement of more than one particle must prevail for any action.

I really don't know where you are getting all of these ideas from. These particles have intrinsic properties which have nothing to do with "absolute requirements". For example, charge is a conserved Noether current of the underlying symmetry groups, nothing more. It does not require any other particles to be defined.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Sure. Once we also accepted the earth was flat - it was not a foolish conclusion. Here's why a problem occurs with a finite universe, regardless of the fact we do not know what occurred before the BB point. It could not begin with one entity. Basically, we are saying once there was nothing - then came a particle and then a big action happened. Not possible.

It WAS a foolish conclusion - it was a downright stupid one that only the ignorant believed. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round. It's a result of what happens when people don't think critically about the stuff they're told. A characteristic you're displaying every time you post a comment.

Originally Posted by astromark

Without quoting this all again.. Here goes a couple of points you seem to not understand. Some thing we shall call a 'event' I have no understanding of that event., but do have a clear view of what happened next. Lets just call it what it was a... 'A Big Bang'. and to address that point you make regarding something from nothing. We actually see this frequently. It's a well tested theory. Matter and energy seem to be able to pop into and out of existence., and just to throw another curve ball at you. Have you any concept of what a multi verse might be.. Judging from what you are saying here. I interpret that you need to do some research. Your view of things is not as others.. are they all wrong ? I would advise caution.

The problem might be a free thinking finite entity might be too prejudice to the concept of infinity or it is willing to accept validating infinity is not possible from a finite prospective. Either way, procreating and evolution should not be taken lightly where laws of conservation holds true.

Originally Posted by YangYin

The problem might be a free thinking finite entity might be too prejudice to the concept of infinity

There are certainly some people (who I assume are finite) who insist an infinite universe is impossible. They never have good arguments for that though.

Either way, procreating and evolution should not be taken lightly where laws of conservation holds true.

What? What on earth does procreation and evolution have to do with conservation laws (apart from the obvious fact that they are bound by them, but so is cooking and football).

Objectively thinking things through.. It is emerging that all of the known Universe is not the same thing as all of the observable, or even All of the Universe. That it does have impact on how you understand what we do know.. That a great expansion is evident, and that it is expanding at a accelerating rate. So we extrapolate conclusions from information obtained.. conclusions are tabled, tested, challenged and this is the manor of science.. That you might want to argue these things, tells me more of you than I want to know. On the other hand, If you are just having a 'go' at the way I worded that.. do it better.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by YangYin

The problem might be a free thinking finite entity might be too prejudice to the concept of infinity

There are certainly some people (who I assume are finite) who insist an infinite universe is impossible. They never have good arguments for that though.

Either way, procreating and evolution should not be taken lightly where laws of conservation holds true.

What? What on earth does procreation and evolution have to do with conservation laws (apart from the obvious fact that they are bound by them, but so is cooking and football).

Do the laws of conservation hold true pre-BB? Is the BB theory a closed or open system?

Originally Posted by YangYin

Do the laws of conservation hold true pre-BB?

Don't be ridiculous. How would we know?

Is the BB theory a closed or open system?

What is your obsession with open & closed systems?
The BB is a theory about the universe. The universe, by definition, is a closed system.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by YangYin

Do the laws of conservation hold true pre-BB?

Don't be ridiculous. How would we know?

Is the BB theory a closed or open system?

What is your obsession with open & closed systems?
The BB is a theory about the universe. The universe, by definition, is a closed system.

Because it is the closed system that breaks down. Is a supernova a closed or open system?

Originally Posted by YangYin

Because it is the closed system that breaks down.

What?

Is a supernova a closed or open system?

Er, open...

~ 'YangYin' What are you trying to say ? One moment we are talking of the Big Bang and all of the Universe. Then you mention a Supernova. A Supernova is stellar event of some considerable force, but can not be compared to the formation moments of the whole of the Universe. Of questions of open or closed systems are best thought of as ; Finite yet unbounded. Can you understand this ?

Does Hawking still believe in his finite universe with no boundary model?

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Does Hawking still believe in his finite universe with no boundary model?

His latest book would indicate a 'Yes.' I would suggest you read for yourself the works of Hawking.

Originally Posted by astromark

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Does Hawking still believe in his finite universe with no boundary model?

His latest book would indicate a 'Yes.' I would suggest you read for yourself the works of Hawking.

The last major thing I read by Hawking is dated over ten years. (Though I didn't read it 10 years ago.) Other than that I've read some proposals and a small amount of lecture note type stuff but nothing major. I should definitely stay more up to date, I just didn't know if he still held to it. A lot can change in 10 years.

Originally Posted by astromark

~ 'YangYin' What are you trying to say ? One moment we are talking of the Big Bang and all of the Universe. Then you mention a Supernova. A Supernova is stellar event of some considerable force, but can not be compared to the formation moments of the whole of the Universe. Of questions of open or closed systems are best thought of as ; Finite yet unbounded. Can you understand this ?

Regrettably, YangYin has established a pattern of coming up with non-sequiturs that he seems to think are, well, sequiturs.

Originally Posted by tk421

Regrettably, YangYin has established a pattern of coming up with non-sequiturs that he seems to think are, well, sequiturs.

This is commonly known as the Deepak Chopra effect.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by tk421

Regrettably, YangYin has established a pattern of coming up with non-sequiturs that he seems to think are, well, sequiturs.

This is commonly known as the Deepak Chopra effect.

You're right.

If you use Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra you can probably come up with an appropriate response after only a couple of clicks.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

It should be noted that currently available data does not allow us to decide whether the universe is finite or infinite. The observational data fits both possibilities.

Actually a very basic observation does dictate the finity of universe. If space is infinite or/and time is infinite then sooner or later (or farther or closer) my almost identical duplicates (and contexts around) are ensured. The series of slightly different copies must manifest a meta consciousness wandering along the meta-times (each t-quanta are separated by huge distances or times). The emerged meta-consciousness conducts the same thought experiment to get meta-meta-consciousness and so on;there is difficulty to stop to finally get a self referencing consciousness unless matrix is finite... it resembles a relative state of Everett-3 m-world; Btw, the size of such multiverse may be measured by complexity of brain and vice versa.

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

Actually a very basic observation...

Your basic observation seems to be predicated on a series of, apparently unsupported, premises.

The series of slightly different copies must manifest a meta consciousness

What is a "meta consciousness"? And what is the evidence that they exist? (And what is the evidence the "wander"?)

wandering along the meta-times

What is a "meta-time"? And what is the evidence for it?

each t-quanta are separated by huge distances or times

What is a "t-quanta"? And what is the evidence for their existence?

Btw, the size of such multiverse may be measured by complexity of brain and vice versa.

Why would the complexity of the brain be related to the size of the universe? Whose brain? How do you define "complexity"? Do you mean maximum complexity (e.g. of some advanced alien race)? If so how do you know what it is? Can you show, in appropriate mathematical detail, how brain complexity relates to the size of the universe?

Strange> ...apparently unsupported, premises...


> Do you mean maximum complexity

Actually it's a minimum brain complexity able for self referencing..

Anyway, your first assertion makes sufficiently pointless any farther discussion...
all the best

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

Anyway, your first assertion makes sufficiently pointless any farther discussion...

It was not an assertion. It was an observation based on the fact that you make a series of statements but provide no support for them.

You are free to show me wrong by providing some support and, perhaps, defining your unusual terminology.

But if you aren't interested in explaining your idea then I guess we can just ignore about it. <shrug>

William Lane Craig is not really a philosopher, he is a theologian. Within philosophy, his arguments and techniques are reviled; even within philosophy of religion. Actually, scratch that: Craig isn't even a theologian, he's just an evangelist. His theology has been criticized by biblical experts, too.

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

Actually a very basic observation does dictate the finity of universe. If space is infinite or/and time is infinite then sooner or later (or farther or closer) my almost identical duplicates (and contexts around) are ensured. The series of slightly different copies must manifest a meta consciousness wandering along the meta-times (each t-quanta are separated by huge distances or times). The emerged meta-consciousness conducts the same thought experiment to get meta-meta-consciousness and so on;there is difficulty to stop to finally get a self referencing consciousness unless matrix is finite... it resembles a relative state of Everett-3 m-world; Btw, the size of such multiverse may be measured by complexity of brain and vice versa.

This argument makes no sense.

One cannot reduce the probability of something happening by increasing trials. This is a basic feature of probability.