Scale of the universe...

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well, I'm saying that existence must be infinite because there's no such thing as non-existence. There can be no "outside." The Big Bang doesn't represent finity, it either represents an event in a larger context or a process that we can't see beyond.

Pretty good. I think "some infinities are larger than others" is a cute way of putting it, but, of course, the great thing about infinities is that they are all the same size (which is bigger, the set of all integers or the set of all odd integers?).

That is not correct.

There are different sizes of infinities.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes

That's an interesting thought experiment, and very likely useful in higher mathematics, but it's an artifact of the calculation, not representative of an attribute of reality. A particular subset of infinity doesn't require a particular one-to-one correspondence to another subset to qualify as infinite.

 

[trekkiedane]

I always love things like that. The ones comparing various star sizes are really neat too. And that taught me something new today. I learned I never want to come face to face with a F***ing Japanese Spider Crab!

Oh, but they're delicious!

 

[Trekker4747]

It's been my understanding that while there is an "edge" to the universe the universe is expanding and the "edge" is expanding faster than can be reached; the edge is actually moving faster than light and dragging everything with it things moving slower and slower the more toward the "center" things get.

The old "like blowing up a balloon!" thing is the most apt as that's what the universe is doing it's expanding and the space between two points is growing because things are moving but the actual space itself is stretching out. Sort of like if you were make two marks on that balloon right next to each-other and then blew the balloon up, the two marks would move away from each other even though they're not "really moving."

 

[FPAlpha]

^^ Well, I'm saying that existence must be infinite because there's no such thing as non-existence. There can be no "outside." The Big Bang doesn't represent finity, it either represents an event in a larger context or a process that we can't see beyond.

Why are you so certain there's no such thing as non-existence? Just because we can't grasp that concept and put it into something we can understand with our psychology doesn't mean it exists/doesn't exist.

There's so much that we don't know and i guess that's one of it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

There is an edge to visible universe, it's how deep into it we can see because the light has had sufficient time to reach us. Look in the sky at night, you're seeing the edge of the universe. What lies beyond that we do not know what but every night we're seeing a tiny bit more of the universe.

A limit to the observable universe is not the same as the universe having an edge. The larger context in which what we see exists must be infinite.

Are you're saying that the Universe is infinite because what is outside the Universe doesn't exist? I'd go along with that.

However it's also true that the Universe started in a Big Bang and has been getting bigger ever since, so in way it's not infinite.

When you say the universe is getting bigger, do you mean matter in the universe is expanding and there's an edge or that even empty space is expanding?

 

[Dart]

Why are you so certain there's no such thing as non-existence? Just because we can't grasp that concept and put it into something we can understand with our psychology doesn't mean it exists/doesn't exist.

There's so much that we don't know and i guess that's one of it.

I think RJDiogenes is a bit of a Philosopher. I'd be more interested in facts.

 

[SPOCKED]

^^ Well, I'm saying that existence must be infinite because there's no such thing as non-existence.

uuuuuuuuh, Snooki doesn't exist in my universe. So yeah... myth busted

 

[1001001]

Pretty good. I think "some infinities are larger than others" is a cute way of putting it, but, of course, the great thing about infinities is that they are all the same size (which is bigger, the set of all integers or the set of all odd integers?).

That is not correct.

There are different sizes of infinities.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes

That's an interesting thought experiment, and very likely useful in higher mathematics, but it's an artifact of the calculation, not representative of an attribute of reality. A particular subset of infinity doesn't require a particular one-to-one correspondence to another subset to qualify as infinite.

They require a one-to-one correspondence in order to be equal, which is the real question.

Our probabilty mathematics professor actually did the proof in class one day.

 

[Dart]

Are you're saying that the Universe is infinite because what is outside the Universe doesn't exist? I'd go along with that.

However it's also true that the Universe started in a Big Bang and has been getting bigger ever since, so in way it's not infinite.

When you say the universe is getting bigger, do you mean matter in the universe is expanding and there's an edge or that even empty space is expanding?

There was some talk lately (eg http://io9.com/5818008/the-universe-probably-isnt-a-giant-hologram-after-all ) that we are all living here in 3D space and at the same time there are 2D versions on the very edge of the Universe. The edge which is expanding faster and faster.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It's been my understanding that while there is an "edge" to the universe the universe is expanding and the "edge" is expanding faster than can be reached; the edge is actually moving faster than light and dragging everything with it things moving slower and slower the more toward the "center" things get.

But expanding into what?

Why are you so certain there's no such thing as non-existence? Just because we can't grasp that concept and put it into something we can understand with our psychology doesn't mean it exists/doesn't exist.

There's so much that we don't know and i guess that's one of it.

Well, you make a valid point because here's where our language comes up against the wall of pure concept. I'm certain there's no such thing as non-existence because that's the definition of the term. Do I know what lies beyond the observable universe or the nature of the larger context in which the observable universe exists-- or even if there is a larger context? Of course not. I'm pretty sure that's the way it must be, but not completely.

I think RJDiogenes is a bit of a Philosopher. I'd be more interested in facts.

True, but I derive my philosophy from science-- I defy dichotomies. I believe that the universe (or multiverse or larger context or whatever you want to call it) is infinite because there's nothing to stop it from being so.

uuuuuuuuh, Snooki doesn't exist in my universe. So yeah... myth busted

I guess you haven't seen the Three Stooges preview.

They require a one-to-one correspondence in order to be equal, which is the real question.

I don't see why. We're talking about abstract numbers. Even if you try to entangle two different subsets of infinity, neither one will ever come to an end. I was being cute when I said that all infinities are the same size, but I think the bottom line is that infinity is simply exempt from the notion of equivalence.