If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, it is uncreated.

[Alan Grayson]

Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent. Such a process is unphysical. Therefore, a universe infinite in spatial extent cannot come into being, and is therefore uncreated. AG

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent.

This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing to something. And yes that is a singularity however in physics, unlike pure mathematics, when you run into a singularity what that is really telling you is that there is some unknown physics going on that you don't understand, or don't understand well enough. Everybody knows something is wrong but nobody knows what.

By the way when people, like me, say that because of AI we're heading towards a Singularity they are using poetic license, things in general and society in particular won't really be changing infinitely fast, just faster than the human meat brain can comprehend. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

e4b

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 2:23:10 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent.

s

This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing to something.

Not exactly. 

I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could run to clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies infinite in spatial extent. IOW, we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. No need to do any measurements. I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the unobservable part. I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. While considering these issues, I realized that a universe infinite in spatial extent must be uncreated, since no matter has fast it expands, and for how much time, it cannot expand to infinity in spatial extent. IOW, the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe is non-physical and can't be realized; namely, a universe which expands infinitely in spatial extent, instantaneously! So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, called the Big Bang. In sum, I believe the universe, our expanding bubble, is finite, not flat in its global geometry, and had a beginning which we can call the Big Bang. I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent misconception, though I might. However, I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. 

AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 4:37:26 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 2:23:10 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent.

s

This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing to something.

Not exactly. 

I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could run to clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies infinite in spatial extent. IOW, we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. No need to do any measurements. I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the unobservable part. I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. While considering these issues, I realized that a universe infinite in spatial extent must be uncreated, since no matter has fast it expands, and for how much time, it cannot expand to infinity in spatial extent. IOW, the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe is non-physical and can't be realized; namely, a universe which expands infinitely in spatial extent, instantaneously! So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, called the Big Bang. In sum, I believe the universe, our expanding bubble, is finite, not flat in its global geometry, and had a beginning which we can call the Big Bang. I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent misconception, though I might. However, I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. 

AG

BTW, I don't agree that the universe would have to expand infinitely fast at T=0 to transition from nothing to something. If that were true, we could conclude that moving an object at rest to some non-zero velocity would require an infinite acceleration. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 4:46:50 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 4:37:26 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 2:23:10 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent.

s

This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing to something.

Not exactly. 

I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could run to clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies infinite in spatial extent. IOW, we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. No need to do any measurements. I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the unobservable part. I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. While considering these issues, I realized that a universe infinite in spatial extent must be uncreated, since no matter has fast it expands, and for how much time, it cannot expand to infinity in spatial extent. IOW, the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe is non-physical and can't be realized; namely, a universe which expands infinitely in spatial extent, instantaneously! So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, called the Big Bang. In sum, I believe the universe, our expanding bubble, is finite, not flat in its global geometry, and had a beginning which we can call the Big Bang. I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent misconception, though I might. However, I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. 

AG

BTW, I don't agree that the universe would have to expand infinitely fast at T=0 to transition from nothing to something. If that were true, we could conclude that moving an object at rest to some non-zero velocity would require an infinite acceleration. AG 

Should read as follows (note all CAPS underlined at beginning):

I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could run THE clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies infinite in spatial extent. IOW, we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. No need to do any measurements. I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the unobservable part. I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. While considering these issues, I realized that a universe infinite in spatial extent must be uncreated, since no matter has fast it expands, and for how much time, it cannot expand to infinity in spatial extent. IOW, the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe is non-physical and can't be realized; namely, a universe which expands infinitely in spatial extent, instantaneously! So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, called the Big Bang. In sum, I believe the universe, our expanding bubble, is finite, not flat in its global geometry, and had a beginning which we can call the Big Bang. I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent misconception, though I might. However, I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. AG

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 04:22:28PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> By the way when people, like me, say that because of AI we're heading towards a
> Singularity they are using poetic license, things in general and society in
> particular won't really be changing infinitely fast, just faster than the human
> meat brain can comprehend. 

The term comes from an expected step change where technology starts to
advance hyperbolically rather than exponentially like it has been
doing since Ogg smashed rocks together. Hyperbolic growth reaches
infinity in a finite amount of time. It is a singularity in exactly
the same sense as the beginning of the universe is a singularity or a
black hole is a singularity. Of course no actual infinities are
expected in any of these situations, but our theories break down well
before.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 10:39:20 PM UTC-6 Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 04:22:28PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> By the way when people, like me, say that because of AI we're heading towards a
> Singularity they are using poetic license, things in general and society in
> particular won't really be changing infinitely fast, just faster than the human
> meat brain can comprehend. 


The term comes from an expected step change where technology starts to
advance hyperbolically rather than exponentially like it has been
doing since Ogg smashed rocks together. Hyperbolic growth reaches
infinity in a finite amount of time.

That's impossible. AG

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 09:50:46PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 10:39:20 PM UTC-6 Russell Standish wrote:
> The term comes from an expected step change where technology starts to
> advance hyperbolically rather than exponentially like it has been
> doing since Ogg smashed rocks together. Hyperbolic growth reaches
> infinity in a finite amount of time.
>
>
> That's impossible. AG
>  

It's mathematics!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_growth

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, September 21, 2024 at 1:38:37 AM UTC-6 Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 09:50:46PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 10:39:20 PM UTC-6 Russell Standish wrote:
> The term comes from an expected step change where technology starts to
> advance hyperbolically rather than exponentially like it has been
> doing since Ogg smashed rocks together. Hyperbolic growth reaches
> infinity in a finite amount of time.
>
>
> That's impossible. AG
>  

It's mathematics!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_growth

You're misinterpreting the mathematics.  E.g., 1/x becomes  arbitrarily large as x --> 0,  but the function is undefined at x=0.  So, if you're considering something physical, at x=0, you can't get there, and certainly not in a finite amount of time. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 4:46:50 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 4:37:26 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 2:23:10 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent.

s

This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing to something.

Not exactly. 

I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could run the clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies infinite in spatial extent. IOW, we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. No need to do any measurements. I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the unobservable part. I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. While considering these issues, I realized that a universe infinite in spatial extent must be uncreated, since no matter has fast it expands, and for how much time, it cannot expand to infinity in spatial extent. IOW, the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe is non-physical and can't be realized; namely, a universe which expands infinitely in spatial extent, instantaneously! So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, called the Big Bang. In sum, I believe the universe, our expanding bubble, is finite, not flat in its global geometry, and had a beginning which we can call the Big Bang. I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent misconception, though I might. However, I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. 

AG

BTW, I don't agree that the universe would have to expand infinitely fast at T=0 to transition from nothing to something. If that were true, we could conclude that moving an object at rest to some non-zero velocity would require an infinite acceleration. AG 

Another point worth considering, is that the global geometry of the universe is approximately spherical, for two reasons; firstly, assuming that our observation is typical, every observer in the universe sees galaxies receding from it (with the exception of local groups), and secondly, since the isotropy is not perfectly identical, there must be small variations in the rate of recession for all observers, from which, together, the characterization of "approximately" originates. AG

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 6:37 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing to something.

> Not exactly.  I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could run to clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere,

If you're assuming that at T=0 the ENTIRE universe could be contained in a sphere of finite size then you're assuming that space is finite, the very thing you're trying to prove.  

 

> say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies infinite in spatial extent.

Not necessarily. In the "3-torus model" space is flat, and space is finite, and space has no boundary, BUT it also has no edges; a 2-D analogy of this would be a video game where if you go too far to the extreme right you disappear and then instantly reappear on the extreme left. However nobody knows what the large scale topology of the universe is, not even you.  

Before the discovery of Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe, people thought if you knew the large scale topology of the universe then you could figure out if it was infinite or finite; if it was flat then it was infinite, if it was positively curved then it was finite, and if it was negatively curved then it was infinite. But now things are not that simple and there is not a clear cut relationship between shape and the finite versus infinite question. Even a positively curved universe could be open and expand forever if the universe is accelerating. And flat doesn't necessarily mean infinite.

> we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. No need to do any measurements.

That's what the ancient Greeks thought, experiments are unnecessary, and that attitude is why physics didn't advance one inch in over 1500 years. I don't care how beautiful a philosophical argument is, if measurement says an idea is wrong then it's wrong. 

> I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the unobservable part.

And that is why, as I said before, when Alan Guth wrote that long ago the universe was just the size of a proton he meant the OBSERVABLE universe. 

> I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. 

And as I said before, IF the universe was finite before inflation then it was finite after it, and IF the universe was infinite before inflation it was infinite after inflation. So inflation is irrelevant in a finite versus infinite discussion, as should've been obvious to you because during inflation although the universe grew by an astronomically large amount that amount was FINITE.

 > the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe is non-physical and can't be realized;

1)A belief is not a proof. 

2) Apparently you believe a nothing to something singularity, where things change INFINITELY (not just astronomically) fast is possible, so why is infinite space so unbelievable?

3) Modern physics says a singularity occurred at T =0, but NOBODY believes that is the last word on the subject! Everybody believes we're missing something, but nobody knows what.   

 

> So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, called the Big Bang.

 Alan, did it ever occur to you that a physics professor at Case Western University who spent his life studying this subject MIGHT know more about it than you do? 

> I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent misconception, though I might.

Crackpots always believe they know more about a subject than the experts do, and to be fair sometimes they actually do and calling them a crackpot is a libel, but for every Galileo there are 6.02*10^23 crackpots.  

> I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. 

 

Gee I wonder why. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wyg

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, September 21, 2024 at 6:41:36 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 6:37 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing to something.

> Not exactly.  I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could run to clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere,

If you're assuming that at T=0 the ENTIRE universe could be contained in a sphere of finite size then you're assuming that space is finite, the very thing you're trying to prove.  

No. Not assuming that. Since there's universal agreement that our bubble is expanding, you can always go back in time, to any time, say T = 10 BY, and put a finite sphere around it. The question is whether that's the whole universe or just the observable part, and whether any part can be infinite in spatial extent and be created. Apparently, you love spooky action at a distance. There's no accounting for taste. AG

 

> say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies infinite in spatial extent.

Not necessarily. In the "3-torus model" space is flat, and space is finite, and space has no boundary, BUT it also has no edges;

My plan for today was to discuss flatness in the context of the torus, but you beat me to it. If we use Euclid's 5th postulate to define flatness, using two lines and a third one which crosses the other two, the torus will be as you describe, flat and finite. But when physicists define flatness, they use the concept that a beam of light going in a straight line will never return to its source. This is what Lawrence Krauss says in one of his videos. AG 

a 2-D analogy of this would be a video game where if you go too far to the extreme right you disappear and then instantly reappear on the extreme left. However nobody knows what the large scale topology of the universe is, not even you.  

Before the discovery of Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe,

Dark Energy, like Inflation, hasn't been "discovered". Rather, they're both ad hoc models to explain unsolved problems. I would conjecture that GR might be able to establish that gravity can be repulsive and attractive, and their respective influence over time might change. Maybe it already allows this, in which case, it's possible that both could establish an expanding universe, even Inflation, as well as the force slowing down the expansion. It would be a great doctoral thesis. AG

 

people thought if you knew the large scale topology of the universe then you could figure out if it was infinite or finite; if it was flat then it was infinite, if it was positively curved then it was finite, and if it was negatively curved then it was infinite. But now things are not that simple and there is not a clear cut relationship between shape and the finite versus infinite question. Even a positively curved universe could be open and expand forever if the universe is accelerating. And flat doesn't necessarily mean infinite.

Sometimes  physicists are sloppy in their math, and what they call flat, is really asymptotically flat, which is really slightly curved and getting closer to flat. For me, AFAICT, our bubble is closed and approximately spherical for reasons previously stated somewhere; because isotropy is approximately uniform. AG

> we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. No need to do any measurements.

That's what the ancient Greeks thought, experiments are unnecessary, and that attitude is why physics didn't advance one inch in over 1500 years. I don't care how beautiful a philosophical argument is, if measurement says an idea is wrong then it's wrong. 

I wish you would do some serious thinking on this issue. Because the universe is huge, our measurements can't distinguish flat from slightly curved. Think of the Earth expanding hugely, so huge that it would impossible to distinguish flat from slightly curved. But you can't think clearly because your focus is NOT on trying to understand what I am saying, but in trying to prove I am mistaken. AG 

> I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the unobservable part.

And that is why, as I said before, when Alan Guth wrote that long ago the universe was just the size of a proton he meant the OBSERVABLE universe. 

And you KNOW this how? AG 

> I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. 

And as I said before, IF the universe was finite before inflation then it was finite after it, and IF the universe was infinite before inflation it was infinite after inflation.

 You've made this statement before, and I told you I agree. What's the point in repeating it? AG

 

So inflation is irrelevant in a finite versus infinite discussion,

 

If  the unobservable part came into existence via Inflation we agree it's finite, but the "expert" at Case Western thinks otherwise -- that the unobservable part is infinite in spatial extent. That was the obvious implication of his critique of my claim, that the bubble we're in, both parts, are finite. AG

 

as should've been obvious to you because during inflation although the universe grew by an astronomically large amount that amount was FINITE. 

Of course. I never claimed otherwise. AG 

 > the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe is non-physical and can't be realized;

1)A belief is not a proof. 

Do you believe Euclid's 5th postulate? That's just an example of many things we believe that we can't prove. AG 

2) Apparently you believe a nothing to something singularity, where things change INFINITELY (not just astronomically) fast is possible, so why is infinite space so unbelievable?

I don't deny infinite space; just that it can't happen instantaneously. It would be spooky action at a distance, on steroids.  So, if infinite space exists, it would be uncreated. In fact, I tend to think the part of the universe from whence our bubble arose, is infinite in space and time, and UNCREATED. AG

3) Modern physics says a singularity occurred at T =0, but NOBODY believes that is the last word on the subject! Everybody believes we're missing something, but nobody knows what.   

 

> So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, called the Big Bang.

 Alan, did it ever occur to you that a physics professor at Case Western University who spent his life studying this subject MIGHT know more about it than you do? 

 Sure, but obviously he hasn't thought deeply enough on the issues I raised. If you think "experts" are flawless, you're a fool. AG 

> I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent misconception, though I might.

Crackpots always believe they know more about a subject than the experts do, and to be fair sometimes they actually do and calling them a crackpot is a libel, but for every Galileo there are 6.02*10^23 crackpots.  

I am hardly a crackpot to argue against infinite and instantaneous creation of space, which is spooking action at a distance, in steroids. AG

> I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. 

 

Gee I wonder why. 

Now you sound like one of those right-wing nuts who think mockery is an argument. Maybe he gets tons of emails. Maybe my question annoys him. I asked if he assumes that just the observable universe is around the size of a photon when Inflation began, or if he also includes the unobservable part. You claim he assumes just the observable universe, but you really don't know this, and he doesn't mention this issue in his lectures, which, presumably you haven't viewed. AG

[Alan Grayson]

Just to be clear; one assumption I am making is that the unobservable universe came into being during Inflation, and is therefore finite in spatial extent. Another is that the observable universe is finite, since we can enclose it by a finite sphere. Together they imply that the global geometry of the universe cannot be flat. AG 

[John Clark]

Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If you're assuming that at T=0 the ENTIRE universe could be contained in a sphere of finite size then you're assuming that space is finite, the very thing you're trying to prove.  

> No. Not assuming that. Since there's universal agreement that our bubble is expanding, you can always go back in time, to any time, say T = 10 BY, and put a finite sphere around it.

But that wouldn't be the entire universe, that wouldn't even be the entire observable universe, so what would be the point?  

> The question is whether that's the whole universe or just the observable part,

We know the observable universe is flat, or at least very nearly flat, and we know there is no evidence the observable universe is a 3-torus, so if the observable part of the universe is the only part there is then the Earth really is the center of the universe. Do you really wanna die on that hill? 

> Apparently, you love spooky action at a distance. 

I love any idea that fits the observational facts, and I don't care if it's spooky or not.  

 

> Dark Energy, like Inflation, hasn't been "discovered".

Inflation is a theory that may or may not be true, Dark Energy is an observational fact. Astronomers discovered in 1997 that the universe is accelerating, and energy is required for something to accelerate, we had to find a name for whatever is causing that acceleration; "unknown energy" would've probably been a better name but for some reason "dark energy" is the name that was picked and we're stuck with that.  

 > I would conjecture that GR might be able to establish that gravity can be repulsive and attractive, and their respective influence over time might change.

Every physicist who read the astronomer's paper showing that the universe is accelerating started thinking about changing General Relativity to explain it, but nobody can make it work.  

 > It would be a great doctoral thesis. AG

It sure would! It would be the greatest breakthrough in physics since Einstein, but it's easier said than done.   

> Because the universe is huge, our measurements can't distinguish flat from slightly curved.

Nobody will ever prove that the universe is absolutely flat because there is always some measurement error, but the Planck satellite discovered that the cosmological scale curvature of space is 0.0007 ± 0.0019, and that is consistent with zero, AKA perfect flatness. If the universe is curved but it's too small for the Planck satellite to observe then it would have to be at least 9.3 TRILLION light years in diameter. Please understand that is just the lower bound, the upper bound is an infinite number of light years. 

>>> I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. 

>> And as I said before, IF the universe was finite before inflation then it was finite after it, and IF the universe was infinite before inflation it was infinite after inflation.

 > You've made this statement before, and I told you I agree. What's the point in repeating it?

I repeated that point because you have apparently forgotten that the question we were discussing is whether the universe is finite or infinite, and in that context inflation is irrelevant. 

>> inflation is irrelevant in a finite versus infinite discussion,

 

> If  the unobservable part came into existence via Inflation we agree it's finite,

No we do not agree! If both the transition between non-existence and existence AND the finite process called "inflation" started at T=0 and stopped at some unknown time later then: 

1) The entire universe is finite if and only if it was finite at T=0 

2) The entire universe is infinite if and only if it was infinite at T=0 

And inflation has absolutely positively nothing to do with it. 

> Do you believe Euclid's 5th postulate?

Of course not! It is not true in general, only in the very special case of a perfectly flat space. If the fifth postulate was correct then General Relativity would be nonsense.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

76c

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 22, 2024 at 6:32:19 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If you're assuming that at T=0 the ENTIRE universe could be contained in a sphere of finite size then you're assuming that space is finite, the very thing you're trying to prove.  

> No. Not assuming that. Since there's universal agreement that our bubble is expanding, you can always go back in time, to any time, say T = 10 BY, and put a finite sphere around it.

But that wouldn't be the entire universe, that wouldn't even be the entire observable universe, so what would be the point?  

You're confused about what I am assuming and concluding. I am saying an infinite universe is eternal and never had a beginning, whereas a finite one can be contained within a sufficiently large sphere at any time in its history. AG 

> The question is whether that's the whole universe or just the observable part,

We know the observable universe is flat, or at least very nearly flat, and we know there is no evidence the observable universe is a 3-torus, so if the observable part of the universe is the only part there is then the Earth really is the center of the universe. Do you really wanna die on that hill? 

> Apparently, you love spooky action at a distance. 

I love any idea that fits the observational facts, and I don't care if it's spooky or not.  

What observational facts are you referring to? There are none. I posit that instantaneous expansion to infinity is a type of singularity. So, if the universe is infinite, it never started and the BB never happened. Another way of saying this is that an infinite universe is uncreated or eternal. It never began! This is where the learned physicist from Case Western got it wrong. He posits that the universe might be infinite, he doesn't realize that such a possibility contradicts the BB (which he presumably affirms). AG 

 

> Dark Energy, like Inflation, hasn't been "discovered".

Inflation is a theory that may or may not be true, Dark Energy is an observational fact. Astronomers discovered in 1997 that the universe is accelerating, and energy is required for something to accelerate, we had to find a name for whatever is causing that acceleration; "unknown energy" would've probably been a better name but for some reason "dark energy" is the name that was picked and we're stuck with that.  

 > I would conjecture that GR might be able to establish that gravity can be repulsive and attractive, and their respective influence over time might change.

Every physicist who read the astronomer's paper showing that the universe is accelerating started thinking about changing General Relativity to explain it, but nobody can make it work.  

It's claimed that GR implies the universe could be expanding or contracting, meaning there are solutions to both situations, that gravity can be attractive and repulsive. If so, that's probably what we're dealing with, at the same time. AG 

 > It would be a great doctoral thesis. AG

It sure would! It would be the greatest breakthrough in physics since Einstein, but it's easier said than done.   

> Because the universe is huge, our measurements can't distinguish flat from slightly curved.

Nobody will ever prove that the universe is absolutely flat because there is always some measurement error, but the Planck satellite discovered that the cosmological scale curvature of space is 0.0007 ± 0.0019, and that is consistent with zero, AKA perfect flatness. If the universe is curved but it's too small for the Planck satellite to observe then it would have to be at least 9.3 TRILLION light years in diameter. Please understand that is just the lower bound, the upper bound is an infinite number of light years. 

It could be that large. Did you pull that number out of a hat? Even though the universe might be only slightly curved, it has immense implications concerning finiteness and closure. AG 

>>> I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. 

>> And as I said before, IF the universe was finite before inflation then it was finite after it, and IF the universe was infinite before inflation it was infinite after inflation.

 > You've made this statement before, and I told you I agree. What's the point in repeating it?

I repeated that point because you have apparently forgotten that the question we were discussing is whether the universe is finite or infinite, and in that context inflation is irrelevant. 

I haven't forgotten. Inflation probably issa irrelevant. AG 

>> inflation is irrelevant in a finite versus infinite discussion,

 

> If  the unobservable part came into existence via Inflation we agree it's finite,

No we do not agree! If both the transition between non-existence and existence AND the finite process called "inflation" started at T=0 and stopped at some unknown time later then: 

1) The entire universe is finite if and only if it was finite at T=0 

2) The entire universe is infinite if and only if it was infinite at T=0 

I don't quite follow your logic. I disagree that T=0 is a beginning time for an infinite universe, which IMO has no beginning. That's been my main point all along, plus the fact that a finite universe cannot be flat since that implies infinity in spatial extent (torus's excluded). AG 

And inflation has absolutely positively nothing to do with it. 

> Do you believe Euclid's 5th postulate?

Of course not! It is not true in general, only in the very special case of a perfectly flat space. If the fifth postulate was correct then General Relativity would be nonsense.  

Stop wasting my time with your stupid sophistry. Euclid's 5th postulate is something totally believable but unprovable -- many famous mathematicians tried to prove it from the other four postulates and failed. And BTW, every semi-educated asshole knows it applies solely to plane geometry, so stop your BS. My obvious point was that there are many things we believe as true, but can't prove. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

According to the theory of eternal inflation, proposed by cosmologist Alan Guth and others, before the beginning of the inflation of our observable universe, there was a state of eternal inflation. Here's an overview of what that means:

1. Eternal Inflation: This theory suggests that there is a "meta-universe" or multiverse composed of multiple "bubble universes." Inflation never ceased in certain regions of this meta-universe. However, bubbles, like our own observable universe, form when portions of this inflating space stop expanding exponentially and begin to evolve according to the laws of physics as we know them.

2. Before the inflation of our universe: If we follow this idea, before the specific inflation of our universe, there was a continuous inflationary expansion, with quantum fluctuations producing these bubble universes. Our universe would have emerged as one of these bubbles, when inflation in our particular region ended, giving rise to the Big Bang and the development of the universe we observe today.

3. A rapidly expanding vacuum: The state of space before the start of inflation in our bubble would have been a rapidly expanding quantum vacuum, characterized by a high energy density. This vacuum would be unstable, allowing the creation of multiple bubble universes, each with different initial conditions.

4. The role of quantum fluctuations: Quantum fluctuations within this inflationary vacuum would have caused local variations that, in certain regions, halted inflation and gave rise to universes like ours. This means each bubble could have distinct physical properties, potentially leading to universes with different laws of physics.

Therefore, before the start of inflation in our observable universe, there would have been a state of continuous inflation within the framework of a global process, constantly creating new bubble universes in an ever-expanding multiverse.

In the framework of classical inflation theory, which is a less speculative version than eternal inflation, the idea is simpler and mainly focuses on our observable universe, without invoking a multiverse or bubble universes. Here are the key points:

1. Classical Cosmic Inflation: This theory explains that the early universe went through a phase of extremely rapid expansion, known as "inflation," shortly after the Big Bang. This expansion occurred within a fraction of a second, during which the universe expanded exponentially, increasing its size by an enormous factor.

2. Before Inflation: In classical inflation theory, what happened before inflation is less well understood. It is generally assumed that before inflation, the universe was in a state of very high energy, often described as a "pre-inflationary" phase. This would have been a state where vacuum energy (associated with a hypothetical scalar field called the inflaton field) dominated the universe.

3. A Hot and Dense Universe: Before inflation, the universe was probably extremely hot, dense, and filled with particles, but still very small. Classical theory does not precisely specify what triggered inflation, but it proposes that this unstable vacuum state or inflaton field led to rapid expansion.

4. Phase Transition: Inflation could be related to a phase transition of this scalar field, similar to changes of state in matter (such as water turning into ice). This transition would have released energy, causing the universe to expand exponentially. Once inflation ended, the remaining energy reheated the universe (a process called "reheating"), leading to the Big Bang as we understand it, where the universe began cooling and forming the matter we observe.

5. The Problem of the Initial Singularity: Classical inflation theory doesn't necessarily resolve the question of what existed "before" inflation or before the Big Bang. It doesn't avoid the problem of the initial singularity—the moment when the universe would have been infinitely dense and small, as suggested by traditional Big Bang models.

In the context of classical inflation theory, what existed before inflation was a high-energy state, likely related to a scalar field (the inflaton) and a very dense and hot universe. The theory does not describe in detail what preceded this state, and the ultimate origin of the universe remains an unresolved question within this framework.

And inflation has absolutely positively nothing to do with it. 

> Do you believe Euclid's 5th postulate?

Of course not! It is not true in general, only in the very special case of a perfectly flat space. If the fifth postulate was correct then General Relativity would be nonsense.  

Stop wasting my time with your stupid sophistry. Euclid's 5th postulate is something totally believable but unprovable -- many famous mathematicians tried to prove it from the other four postulates and failed. And BTW, every semi-educated asshole knows it applies solely to plane geometry, so stop your BS. My obvious point was that there are many things we believe as true, but can't prove. AG 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

76c

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/938d07da-0af0-45a3-b1eb-40068f5c2e27n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

What is the status of the unobserved universe in this process? When, and how does it come into existence? TY, AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:32 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I love any idea that fits the observational facts, and I don't care if it's spooky or not.  

> What observational facts are you referring to?

The observational fact that Bell's Inequality is violated. I find that spooky, and as Niels Bohr said "anybody who is not shocked by quantum mechanics does not understand it". 

> I posit that instantaneous expansion to infinity is a type of singularity. 

If the entire universe became infinite at the same instant the transformation from nothingness to somethingness occurred then the universe wouldn't need to expand at all to remain infinite.

 > if the universe is infinite, it never started and the BB never happened. Another way of saying this is that an infinite universe is uncreated or eternal. It never began! 

The universe could be temporally finite but spatially infinite, or spatially finite but temporally infinite, or both could be infinite, or neither could be infinite. Nobody knows, not even you.  

> This is where the learned physicist from Case Western got it wrong. 

And where you, Professor Grayson, got it right?  Alan, you need to have a little humility and consider the grim possibility that maybe, just maybe, some people know more about some things than you do.

>> Nobody will ever prove that the universe is absolutely flat because there is always some measurement error, but the Planck satellite discovered that the cosmological scale curvature of space is 0.0007 ± 0.0019, and that is consistent with zero, AKA perfect flatness. If the universe is curved but it's too small for the Planck satellite to observe then it would have to be at least 9.3 TRILLION light years in diameter. Please understand that is just the lower bound, the upper bound is an infinite number of light years. 

> It could be that large. Did you pull that number out of a hat?

No. For the deviation to be unobservable by the Planck satellite, deviation from perfect flatness would have to be smaller than about 0.1%. If R is the radius of the observable universe and Rc is the minimum radius of the entire universe then (R/Rc)^2 < 0.001.   Solving this inequality gives us Rc > 32R approximately. Since this is just a back of the envelope estimate and there are many uncertainties I used a factor of 100 to be conservative. Volume is proportional to the cube of that so there must be AT LEAST one million times more stuff in the entire universe than what we can see, or will ever be able to see. And there could be infinitely more stuff. 

>>  If both the transition between non-existence and existence AND the finite process called "inflation" started at T=0 and stopped at some unknown time later then: 

1) The entire universe is finite if and only if it was finite at T=0 

2) The entire universe is infinite if and only if it was infinite at T=0 

 > I disagree that T=0 is a beginning time for an infinite universe, which IMO has no beginning.

I could be wrong but I tend to agree that the universe, the entire universe, probably had no beginning. I say that because I think the Many Worlds theory is probably true, and because I think not just inflation but the particular type of inflation called Eternal Inflation is probably true.  However it was you, not me who first introduced the term "T=0", and by definition that means time started then. And if you just decree that there couldn't be a T=0 if the universe is spatially infinite then, as I said before, you're assuming what you're trying to prove.     

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

atp

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 23, 2024 at 5:35:54 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:32 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I love any idea that fits the observational facts, and I don't care if it's spooky or not.  

> What observational facts are you referring to?

The observational fact that Bell's Inequality is violated. I find that spooky, and as Niels Bohr said "anybody who is not shocked by quantum mechanics does not understand it". 

Yes, we agree. It's truly spooky and tends to support Bohr's claim that measurement causes the properties being measured; they're not pre-existing as Einstein thought. Simply huge and IMO beyond human comprehension. AG 

> I posit that instantaneous expansion to infinity is a type of singularity. 

If the entire universe became infinite at the same instant the transformation from nothingness to somethingness occurred then the universe wouldn't need to expand at all to remain infinite.

You're positing an instantaneous transition from Nothing to Infinite Something. More plausible IMO, and much simpler, is an eternally infinite universe. AG

 > if the universe is infinite, it never started and the BB never happened. Another way of saying this is that an infinite universe is uncreated or eternal. It never began! 

The universe could be temporally finite but spatially infinite, or spatially finite but temporally infinite, or both could be infinite, or neither could be infinite. Nobody knows, not even you.  

Something cannot become infinite through finite processes, and I see time evolving as space evolves, so your hypothesis seems hugely improbable, that time and space can evolve separately. AG 

> This is where the learned physicist from Case Western got it wrong. 

And where you, Professor Grayson, got it right?  Alan, you need to have a little humility and consider the grim possibility that maybe, just maybe, some people know more about some things than you do.

Sure; some do and some don't. I was just pointing out that the professor thinks the universe might be infinite, but apparently doesn't realize that that would preclude a theory he likely endorses; namely, a universe beginning at a T=0.  Nothing to do with my alleged vanity, but I used a sarcastic term (learned) because so many physicists are, indeed, vain, and their inability to see themselves is limited. AG

>> Nobody will ever prove that the universe is absolutely flat because there is always some measurement error, but the Planck satellite discovered that the cosmological scale curvature of space is 0.0007 ± 0.0019, and that is consistent with zero, AKA perfect flatness. If the universe is curved but it's too small for the Planck satellite to observe then it would have to be at least 9.3 TRILLION light years in diameter. Please understand that is just the lower bound, the upper bound is an infinite number of light years. 

> It could be that large. Did you pull that number out of a hat?

No. For the deviation to be unobservable by the Planck satellite, deviation from perfect flatness would have to be smaller than about 0.1%. If R is the radius of the observable universe and Rc is the minimum radius of the entire universe then (R/Rc)^2 < 0.001.   Solving this inequality gives us Rc > 32R approximately. Since this is just a back of the envelope estimate and there are many uncertainties I used a factor of 100 to be conservative. Volume is proportional to the cube of that so there must be AT LEAST one million times more stuff in the entire universe than what we can see, or will ever be able to see. And there could be infinitely more stuff. 

>>  If both the transition between non-existence and existence AND the finite process called "inflation" started at T=0 and stopped at some unknown time later then: 

1) The entire universe is finite if and only if it was finite at T=0 

2) The entire universe is infinite if and only if it was infinite at T=0 

 > I disagree that T=0 is a beginning time for an infinite universe, which IMO has no beginning.

I could be wrong but I tend to agree that the universe, the entire universe, probably had no beginning. I say that because I think the Many Worlds theory is probably true, and because I think not just inflation but the particular type of inflation called Eternal Inflation is probably true.  However it was you, not me who first introduced the term "T=0", and by definition that means time started then. And if you just decree that there couldn't be a T=0 if the universe is spatially infinite then, as I said before, you're assuming what you're trying to prove.   

I didn't claim the universe is infinite. I just asserted that IF is, it had no beginning; that is, it would be UNCREATED. Moreover, IF our bubble is finite, which I tend to believe, since it can be enclosed by a sphere of finite radius, I concluded it can't be flat, since that implies infinite in spatial extent. But I didn't include the unobservable part, which presumably was the professor's objection. But if we believe the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation, it must also be finite. Of course, Inflation didn't directly cause the unobservable part to be unobservable, since that requires expansion faster than c, but I strongly tend to think that it was created in the very early universe, likely during Inflation. In sum, I really don't see why you think I am assuming something I'm trying to prove. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 23, 2024 at 6:46:08 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2024 at 5:35:54 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:32 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I love any idea that fits the observational facts, and I don't care if it's spooky or not.  

> What observational facts are you referring to?

The observational fact that Bell's Inequality is violated. I find that spooky, and as Niels Bohr said "anybody who is not shocked by quantum mechanics does not understand it". 

Yes, we agree. It's truly spooky and tends to support Bohr's claim that measurement causes the properties being measured; they're not pre-existing as Einstein thought. Simply huge and IMO beyond human comprehension. AG 

> I posit that instantaneous expansion to infinity is a type of singularity. 

If the entire universe became infinite at the same instant the transformation from nothingness to somethingness occurred then the universe wouldn't need to expand at all to remain infinite.

You're positing an instantaneous transition from Nothing to Infinite Something. More plausible IMO, and much simpler, is an eternally infinite universe. AG

 > if the universe is infinite, it never started and the BB never happened. Another way of saying this is that an infinite universe is uncreated or eternal. It never began! 

The universe could be temporally finite but spatially infinite, or spatially finite but temporally infinite, or both could be infinite, or neither could be infinite. Nobody knows, not even you.  

Something cannot become infinite through finite processes, and I see time evolving as space evolves, so your hypothesis seems hugely improbable, that time and space can evolve separately. AG 

> This is where the learned physicist from Case Western got it wrong. 

And where you, Professor Grayson, got it right?  Alan, you need to have a little humility and consider the grim possibility that maybe, just maybe, some people know more about some things than you do.

Sure; some do and some don't. I was just pointing out that the professor thinks the universe might be infinite, but apparently doesn't realize that that would preclude a theory he likely endorses; namely, a universe beginning at a T=0.  Nothing to do with my alleged vanity, but I used a sarcastic term (learned) because so many physicists are, indeed, vain, and their inability to see themselves is limited. AG

>> Nobody will ever prove that the universe is absolutely flat because there is always some measurement error, but the Planck satellite discovered that the cosmological scale curvature of space is 0.0007 ± 0.0019, and that is consistent with zero, AKA perfect flatness. If the universe is curved but it's too small for the Planck satellite to observe then it would have to be at least 9.3 TRILLION light years in diameter. Please understand that is just the lower bound, the upper bound is an infinite number of light years. 

> It could be that large. Did you pull that number out of a hat?

No. For the deviation to be unobservable by the Planck satellite, deviation from perfect flatness would have to be smaller than about 0.1%. If R is the radius of the observable universe and Rc is the minimum radius of the entire universe then (R/Rc)^2 < 0.001.   Solving this inequality gives us Rc > 32R approximately. Since this is just a back of the envelope estimate and there are many uncertainties I used a factor of 100 to be conservative. Volume is proportional to the cube of that so there must be AT LEAST one million BLYtimes more stuff in the entire universe than what we can see, or will ever be able to see. And there could be infinitely more stuff. 

FYI; Given that the diameter of the observable universe is 92 BLY, or .092 Trillion LY, the lower bound for the unobservable universe is slightly in excess of 100 times larger in diameter, the radius being 50 Trillion LY, so the minimum volume of the unobserved universe is 125,000 times larger than the observable universe. AG

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 8:46 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The observational fact that Bell's Inequality is violated. I find that spooky, and as Niels Bohr said "anybody who is not shocked by quantum mechanics does not understand it". 

> Yes, we agree. It's truly spooky and tends to support Bohr's claim that measurement causes the properties being measured;

Except that Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation couldn't explain exactly, or even approximately, what a "measurement" is, Many Worlds can do that simply by replacing "measurement" with "entanglement". If Bohr performs the two slit experiment and his experimental equipment records which slit the electrons went through, then the equipment becomes entangled with the electrons, and if Bohr looks at those Instruments he becomes entangled with the experimental equipment, and thus he detects no interference pattern. But if the equipment doesn't record which-way information then Bohr will see an interference pattern.  A measurement by an intelligent entity can cause entanglement, but so can an infinite number of other things.

>> If the entire universe became infinite at the same instant the transformation from nothingness to somethingness occurred then the universe wouldn't need to expand at all to remain infinite.

> You're positing an instantaneous transition from Nothing to Infinite Something.

Even an instantaneous transition from nothing to finite something at T=0 already involves infinity, and if you add one infinity to another infinity you still end up with the same infinity. But for all we know there might not even be a T= 0, maybe the universe is cyclical, or maybe the big bang was just the start of our little out-of-the-way corner of the multiverse. Nobody knows, someday we might know but it won't be because somebody was sitting in a comfortable chair thinking about philosophy. If you really want to solve the most profound questions you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform some experiments.  

>> The universe could be temporally finite but spatially infinite, or spatially finite but temporally infinite, or both could be infinite, or neither could be infinite. Nobody knows, not even you.  

> Something cannot become infinite through finite processes,

Yes.

 

> I see time evolving as space evolves,

Maybe but that is far from obvious because we already know that time and space have fundamentally different properties. There is only one dimension of time but three dimensions of space, and time has a direction but space does not, and at least in big bang cosmology, time is infinite in one direction but not in the other.  

> I didn't claim the universe is infinite. I just asserted that IF is, it had no beginning; that is, it would be UNCREATED.

If time is infinite not just in one direction but in both directions then obviously the universe would have to have been uncreated. And that would be true regardless of if space is infinite or finite. And you did say "I see time evolving as space evolves".

 

> Moreover, IF our bubble is finite, which I tend to believe,

Everybody believes the observable universe is finite.  

> since it can be enclosed by a sphere of finite radius, I concluded it can't be flat, since that implies infinite in spatial extent.

NO. The finite observable universe can be contained in a finite sphere regardless of what the shape of the entire universe is.  

> But if we believe the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation,

Long before anybody came up with the idea of cosmological inflation, everybody believed there must be parts of the universe, perhaps very big parts perhaps infinitely big parts, that we will never be able to see because light moves at a finite speed and the big bang happened a finite number of years ago, and nobody believed that the Earth really was the center of the universe.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

qqv

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 6:50:18 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 8:46 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The observational fact that Bell's Inequality is violated. I find that spooky, and as Niels Bohr said "anybody who is not shocked by quantum mechanics does not understand it". 

> Yes, we agree. It's truly spooky and tends to support Bohr's claim that measurement causes the properties being measured;

Except that Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation couldn't explain exactly, or even approximately, what a "measurement" is,

Seriously; this is nonsense. Hardly anything can be explained "exactly". More important is the fact that this critique is way overblown IMO. When we measure an observable, name any observable, don't we know what we're measuring? The real measurement problem is the collapse of the wf. AG

 

Many Worlds can do that simply by replacing "measurement" with "entanglement". If Bohr performs the two slit experiment and his experimental equipment records which slit the electrons went through, then the equipment becomes entangled with the electrons,

 

Maybe the electrons, all of them, and possibly everything else, wase entangled long ago, in the early universe when everything was in close proximity? AG

 

and if Bohr looks at those Instruments he becomes entangled with the experimental equipment, and thus he detects no interference pattern. But if the equipment doesn't record which-way information then Bohr will see an interference pattern.  A measurement by an intelligent entity can cause entanglement, but so can an infinite number of other things.

>> If the entire universe became infinite at the same instant the transformation from nothingness to somethingness occurred then the universe wouldn't need to expand at all to remain infinite.

> You're positing an instantaneous transition from Nothing to Infinite Something.

Even an instantaneous transition from nothing to finite something at T=0 already involves infinity,

That's like claiming changing a particle at rest to some non-zero value is an infinite process, since the nothing is rest, and the something is acceleration. Simpler to assume the entire bubble, which is finite, emerged from some eternal, timeless, substratum. AG

 .

and if you add one infinity to another infinity you still end up with the same infinity. But for all we know there might not even be a T= 0, maybe the universe is cyclical, or maybe the big bang was just the start of our little out-of-the-way corner of the multiverse. Nobody knows, someday we might know but it won't be because somebody was sitting in a comfortable chair thinking about philosophy. If you really want to solve the most profound questions you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform some experiments.  

>> The universe could be temporally finite but spatially infinite, or spatially finite but temporally infinite, or both could be infinite, or neither could be infinite. Nobody knows, not even you.  

> Something cannot become infinite through finite processes,

Yes.

 

> I see time evolving as space evolves,

Maybe but that is far from obvious because we already know that time and space have fundamentally different properties. There is only one dimension of time but three dimensions of space, and time has a direction but space does not, and at least in big bang cosmology, time is infinite in one direction but not in the other.  

The existence of time depends on change, so if space expands or changes in any way, time will continue to flow.  AG 

> I didn't claim the universe is infinite. I just asserted that IF is, it had no beginning; that is, it would be UNCREATED.

If time is infinite not just in one direction but in both directions then obviously the universe would have to have been uncreated. And that would be true regardless of if space is infinite or finite. And you did say "I see time evolving as space evolves".

 

> Moreover, IF our bubble is finite, which I tend to believe,

Everybody believes the observable universe is finite.  

Now suddenly you appeal to "belief". I don't appeal to belief. I appeal to the fact that the visible universe is expanding and I can turn the clock back, to ANY time in the past, and put a finite sphere around it! You seem to have an inclination to put me down. Why is that? AG 

> since it can be enclosed by a sphere of finite radius, I concluded it can't be flat, since that implies infinite in spatial extent.

NO. The finite observable universe can be contained in a finite sphere regardless of what the shape of the entire universe is.  

> But if we believe the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation,

Long before anybody came up with the idea of cosmological inflation, everybody believed there must be parts of the universe, perhaps very big parts perhaps infinitely big parts, that we will never be able to see because light moves at a finite speed and the big bang happened a finite number of years ago, and nobody believed that the Earth really was the center of the universe.  

 

You can appeal to the Cosmological Principle to assert that unobserved universe is generally the same as the visible part, except for its recessional velocity > c. Anyway, as I earlier stated, I think the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation, a finite process, so it is also finite and the whole bubble is finite. I don't claim I can prove it. AG 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 2:52 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation couldn't explain exactly, or even approximately, what a "measurement" is,

> Seriously; this is nonsense. Hardly anything can be explained "exactly".

True but if you can't explain measurement even approximately, and Copenhagen can't, then for them the word is just a meaningless sequence of ASCII characters. By contrast Many Worlds gives an objective clearly defined meaning to the concept, X is measured (a.k.a. observed) by Y  if and only if X and Y have become quantum entangled.    

> this critique is way overblown IMO. When we measure an observable, name any observable, don't we know what we're measuring?

According to Copenhagen a measurement can collapse the wave function, that's a pretty impressive power but can a dog perform a measurement? Can a cockroach, can an amoeba, can a rock? When you observe an electron you collapse the wave function of the electron, but if I observe you do I collapse your wave function? Copenhagen has no answer to any of these questions.  

> Maybe the electrons, all of them, and possibly everything else, wase entangled long ago, in the early universe when everything was in close proximity? AG

 

All the electrons in the observable universe probably were entangled long ago, Many Worlds certainly thinks so, that's why it claims that the entire universe could be described by one gigantic universal wave function that, depending on  circumstances, can often be simplified to such an enormous degree you can actually use it to make calculations. Billions of years ago all the electrons in the observable universe became entangled because they were jammed up close together and because Quantum Entanglement is a thing, but Quantum Disentanglement is also a thing. Today it's possible to isolate a small group of electrons (or atoms or even large molecules) for a very short time from you and from your experimental equipment and the rest of the universe; that's what happens when you perform the two slit experiment and see an interference pattern. But that can only happen if you are NOT entangled with the electrons, and that can only happen if you do NOT have which-way information. 

>> Everybody believes the observable universe is finite.  

> Now suddenly you appeal to "belief".

Don't be silly. I can observe the observable universe by definition, and if I can observe something then it must be finite. I challenge you to find somebody who claims the observable universe is not observable, or claims that they can observe infinity.  

 

 > I appeal to the fact that the visible universe is expanding and I can turn the clock back, to ANY time in the past, and put a finite sphere around it!

Do you believe  the observable universe is the only part of the universe that exists? If you do then you must also believe that Earth is the center of the universe, or at least very very close to it, because space is flat at the largest scale, or at least very very close to flat.  

> You seem to have an inclination to put me down.

If you treat me politely then I will treat you the same way.  

> I think

Think or believe?  

> the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation, a finite process, so it is also finite and the whole bubble is finite. I don't claim I can prove it. AG

As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and it's an observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away from us, they are ACCELERATING away. And with or without inflation it would still be true that light travels at a finite speed, and the Big Bang happened a finite number of years ago, so that alone severely limits what we are able to see, or will ever be able to see.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ymp

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2024 at 6:10:52 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 2:52 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation couldn't explain exactly, or even approximately, what a "measurement" is,

> Seriously; this is nonsense. Hardly anything can be explained "exactly".

True but if you can't explain measurement even approximately, and Copenhagen can't, then for them the word is just a meaningless sequence of ASCII characters. By contrast Many Worlds gives an objective clearly defined meaning to the concept, X is measured (a.k.a. observed) by Y  if and only if X and Y have become quantum entangled.    

> this critique is way overblown IMO. When we measure an observable, name any observable, don't we know what we're measuring?

According to Copenhagen a measurement can collapse the wave function, that's a pretty impressive power but can a dog perform a measurement? Can a cockroach, can an amoeba, can a rock? When you observe an electron you collapse the wave function of the electron, but if I observe you do I collapse your wave function? Copenhagen has no answer to any of these questions.  

You go off on ridiculous tangents. I was just informing you that the measurement problem is the collapse of the wf. It isn't that we don't know what a measurement is. It's just an action to discover the value of some observable. Next time you see a cockroach make a measurement, be sure to inform the List. AG 

> Maybe the electrons, all of them, and possibly everything else, wase entangled long ago, in the early universe when everything was in close proximity? AG

 

All the electrons in the observable universe probably were entangled long ago, Many Worlds certainly thinks so, that's why it claims that the entire universe could be described by one gigantic universal wave function that, depending on  circumstances, can often be simplified to such an enormous degree you can actually use it to make calculations. Billions of years ago all the electrons in the observable universe became entangled because they were jammed up close together and because Quantum Entanglement is a thing, but Quantum Disentanglement is also a thing. Today it's possible to isolate a small group of electrons (or atoms or even large molecules) for a very short time from you and from your experimental equipment and the rest of the universe; that's what happens when you perform the two slit experiment and see an interference pattern. But that can only happen if you are NOT entangled with the electrons, and that can only happen if you do NOT have which-way information. 

>> Everybody believes the observable universe is finite.  

> Now suddenly you appeal to "belief".

Don't be silly. I can observe the observable universe by definition, and if I can observe something then it must be finite.

Sure, what you can observe, can't be infinite. But there's no guarantee that observations necessarily implyt what's being observed isn't part of something infinite. AG 

I challenge you to find somebody who claims the observable universe is not observable, or claims that they can observe infinity. 

You seem to be getting desperate. Obviously, one can't observe infinity. Neither can one know whether what is being observed is part of something infinite. AG  

 

 > I appeal to the fact that the visible universe is expanding and I can turn the clock back, to ANY time in the past, and put a finite sphere around it!

Do you believe  the observable universe is the only part of the universe that exists?

No. I don't see why you bring this up. There's likely a huge unobservable part, but I think it's finite, created during Inflation -- because if you run the clock backward, the receding galaxies, now out of view, will come back into view. I don't claim I can prove it. I suspect that Guth assumed what existed when Inflation began, was all that existed. AG

 

If you do then you must also believe that Earth is the center of the universe, or at least very very close to it, because space is flat at the largest scale, or at least very very close to flat.  

If the curvature is close to flat, or even flat, then there's more out there than what we can observe. But how you conclude that I might think the Earth is at the center if it isn't flat or close to flat, is baffling. AG

> You seem to have an inclination to put me down.

If you treat me politely then I will treat you the same way.  

> I think

Think or believe?  

Please stop this crap. AG 

> the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation, a finite process, so it is also finite and the whole bubble is finite. I don't claim I can prove it. AG

As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light,

That doesn't necessarily imply an infinite universe. I'd like to know how you've reached this conclusion. Is it based on the assumption of expansion or new physics? AG 

and it's an observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away from us, they are ACCELERATING away. And with or without inflation it would still be true that light travels at a finite speed, and the Big Bang happened a finite number of years ago, so that alone severely limits what we are able to see, or will ever be able to see.  

Sometime, hopefully, you will deal with my main point;  my claim that IF the universe is infinite in spatial extent, there was no BB. In such case, the universe was uncreated and eternal. AG 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 9:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You go off on ridiculous tangents. I was just informing you that the measurement problem is the collapse of the wf. It isn't that we don't know what a measurement is. It's just an action to discover the value of some observable.

A measurement is an observation, and an observation is a measurement. Glad you cleared that up.  

 

> Next time you see a cockroach make a measurement, be sure to inform the List. AG 

OK so a cockroach isn't smart enough to collapse the wave function, what about a frog, or a dog, or a chimpanzee? When a photographic film records an image is that enough of an "action" to collapse the wave function or does a conscious being need to look at the picture? If you open Schrodinger's box and observe the cat you collapse the animal's wavefunction, but if I am in the next room and not looking at you then your wave function has not collapsed, so has the cat's wave function collapsed or not? And when nobody is observing (a.k.a. measuring) the Moon does it still exist? Copenhagen has no answers to any of these questions and apparently you don't either.     

>>  I can observe the observable universe by definition, and if I can observe something then it must be finite.

> Sure, what you can observe, can't be infinite. But there's no guarantee that observations necessarily implyt what's being observed isn't part of something infinite. AG 

I agree completely, there's no guarantee that "what's being observed isn't part of something infinite" but.... you were claiming that the entire universe, observable plus unobservable, must be finite. Have you changed your mind and come over to my position that we just don't have enough information to determine if the universe is finite or infinite? 

 

> Obviously, one can't observe infinity. Neither can one know whether what is being observed is part of something infinite. AG  

Well I guess you have changed your mind.  Good for you! 

>> Do you believe  the observable universe is the only part of the universe that exists?

> No. I don't see why you bring this up.

I keep bringing this up because you don't seem to understand the implications.  

> There's likely a huge unobservable part, but I think it's finite,

OK let's see where that leads. Obviously if the universe is infinite then it can't have a center, BUT it can if it's finite. And we know that our best observations made by the Planck Satellite are consistent with space being absolutely flat, and if it does have zero curvature and it's finite then the Pope was right and Galileo was wrong, Earth really is the center of the universe; and if you travel 13.8 billion light years you'd reach a wall that was impenetrable because there was nothing on the other side, in fact the wall didn't even have another side.   

 >> As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light,

> That doesn't necessarily imply an infinite universe.

I never said or implied that it did. If I was a bookie I'd give you 100 to 1 odds that the Big Bang happened, but on the infinite versus finite question I couldn't do better than 50-50. I don't pretend to know the answer. 

> Sometime, hopefully, you will deal with my main point;  my claim that IF the universe is infinite in spatial extent, there was no BB.

If that is your main point then your main point is nonsense. There almost certainly was a Big Bang, but that information is of no help whatsoever in determining if the universe is finite or infinite.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rpi

[Cosmin Visan]

Universe is not infinite in spatial extension, because universe doesn't exist, "universe" is just an idea in consciousness. But indeed, consciousness is infinite in ideas.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2024 at 1:34:35 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 9:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You go off on ridiculous tangents. I was just informing you that the measurement problem is the collapse of the wf. It isn't that we don't know what a measurement is. It's just an action to discover the value of some observable.

A measurement is an observation, and an observation is a measurement. Glad you cleared that up. 

That's what you needed. Unfortunately, you don't know the difference between a measurement, and the measurement problem in QM. AG  

 

> Next time you see a cockroach make a measurement, be sure to inform the List. AG 

OK so a cockroach isn't smart enough to collapse the wave function, what about a frog, or a dog, or a chimpanzee? When a photographic film records an image is that enough of an "action" to collapse the wave function or does a conscious being need to look at the picture? If you open Schrodinger's box and observe the cat you collapse the animal's wavefunction, but if I am in the next room and not looking at you then your wave function has not collapsed, so has the cat's wave function collapsed or not? And when nobody is observing (a.k.a. measuring) the Moon does it still exist? Copenhagen has no answers to any of these questions and apparently you don't either.     

The same problem persists; your inability to understand English! The fact is animals make measurements all the time. Otherwise they couldn't survive. But the measurement problem in QM is a totally different issue, involving wf collapse, and I made no claim to be able to solve it. AG 

>>  I can observe the observable universe by definition, and if I can observe something then it must be finite.

> Sure, what you can observe, can't be infinite. But there's no guarantee that observations necessarily implyt what's being observed isn't part of something infinite. AG 

I agree completely, there's no guarantee that "what's being observed isn't part of something infinite" but.... you were claiming that the entire universe, observable plus unobservable, must be finite.

 

Actually not. I think our bubble, both parts, are finite, but the substratum from whence it originated, is likely infinite, uncreated, and eternal. AG

 

Have you changed your mind and come over to my position that we just don't have enough information to determine if the universe is finite or infinite? 

Well, of course, we don't know for sure, but I think our bubble is finite, and if you could run the clock back, the galaxies now out of view, would reappear. AG 

 

> Obviously, one can't observe infinity. Neither can one know whether what is being observed is part of something infinite. AG  

Well I guess you have changed your mind.  Good for you! 

No, haven't changed my mind. Just responding to your unnecessary and obvious claim that we can't observe the infinite. AG 

>> Do you believe  the observable universe is the only part of the universe that exists?

> No. I don't see why you bring this up.

I keep bringing this up because you don't seem to understand the implications.  

The problem lies entirely with your misreading my words. AG 

> There's likely a huge unobservable part, but I think it's finite,

OK let's see where that leads. Obviously if the universe is infinite then it can't have a center, BUT it can if it's finite.

Not if it's spherically shaped, which is what think. AG

 

And we know that our best observations made by the Planck Satellite are consistent with space being absolutely flat,

Not absolutely flat. There are always measurement errors, so if the bubble is huge, the difference between flat and slightly curved positively, can't be determined. AG

 

and if it does have zero curvature and it's finite then the Pope was right and Galileo was wrong, Earth really is the center of the universe;

 This is an example of why it's virtually impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. You come to conclusions which are not in the ballpark of what I mean or intend to posit. AG

and if you travel 13.8 billion light years you'd reach a wall that was impenetrable because there was nothing on the other side, in fact the wall didn't even have another side.   

Our bubble has no edge or boundary, like a sphere. AG 

 >> As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light,

> That doesn't necessarily imply an infinite universe.

I never said or implied that it did. If I was a bookie I'd give you 100 to 1 odds that the Big Bang happened, but on the infinite versus finite question I couldn't do better than 50-50. I don't pretend to know the answer. 

> Sometime, hopefully, you will deal with my main point;  my claim that IF the universe is infinite in spatial extent, there was no BB.

If that is your main point then your main point is nonsense. There almost certainly was a Big Bang, but that information is of no help whatsoever in determining if the universe is finite or infinite.  

All I claimed is that IF our bubble were infinite, there was no BB, and that from which it emerged was likely infinite. But I believe our bubble is finite, so there was likely a BB. AG  

[Alan Grayson]

I am still waiting for an explanation of this claim. Also, if galaxies within our view are receding slower than c, and that was occurring for 13.8 BY, why does the observable universe have a radius in excess of 2*13.8 BY? AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/25/2024 5:10 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 2:52 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation couldn't explain exactly, or even approximately, what a "measurement" is,

> Seriously; this is nonsense. Hardly anything can be explained "exactly".

True but if you can't explain measurement even approximately, and Copenhagen can't, then for them the word is just a meaningless sequence of ASCII characters. By contrast Many Worlds gives an objective clearly defined meaning to the concept, X is measured (a.k.a. observed) by Y  if and only if X and Y have become quantum entangled.   

An excessively broad and also too narrow "clear objective meaning".  It's too broad in that every collision of two N2 molecules entangles them.  It's too narrow that Many Worlds says that every measurement (interaction?) that has two or more possible outcomes causes the world (universe? future light cone?) to split into two copies that are indentical except for the measured values.

> this critique is way overblown IMO. When we measure an observable, name any observable, don't we know what we're measuring?

According to Copenhagen a measurement can collapse the wave function, that's a pretty impressive power but can a dog perform a measurement? Can a cockroach, can an amoeba, can a rock? When you observe an electron you collapse the wave function of the electron, but if I observe you do I collapse your wave function? Copenhagen has no answer to any of these questions. 

Neo-Copenhagen says that a measurement is an interaction that leaves a record on which there is intersubjective agreement(i.e. classical).  Decoherence is part of making such records, but not all decoherence is measurement.

> Maybe the electrons, all of them, and possibly everything else, wase entangled long ago, in the early universe when everything was in close proximity? AG

 

All the electrons in the observable universe probably were entangled long ago,

Were they measured?  See above.

Brent

Many Worlds certainly thinks so, that's why it claims that the entire universe could be described by one gigantic universal wave function that, depending on  circumstances, can often be simplified to such an enormous degree you can actually use it to make calculations. Billions of years ago all the electrons in the observable universe became entangled because they were jammed up close together and because Quantum Entanglement is a thing, but Quantum Disentanglement is also a thing. Today it's possible to isolate a small group of electrons (or atoms or even large molecules) for a very short time from you and from your experimental equipment and the rest of the universe; that's what happens when you perform the two slit experiment and see an interference pattern. But that can only happen if you are NOT entangled with the electrons, and that can only happen if you do NOT have which-way information. 

>> Everybody believes the observable universe is finite.  

> Now suddenly you appeal to "belief".

Don't be silly. I can observe the observable universe by definition, and if I can observe something then it must be finite. I challenge you to find somebody who claims the observable universe is not observable, or claims that they can observe infinity.  

 

 > I appeal to the fact that the visible universe is expanding and I can turn the clock back, to ANY time in the past, and put a finite sphere around it!

Do you believe  the observable universe is the only part of the universe that exists? If you do then you must also believe that Earth is the center of the universe, or at least very very close to it, because space is flat at the largest scale, or at least very very close to flat.  

> You seem to have an inclination to put me down.

If you treat me politely then I will treat you the same way.  

> I think

Think or believe?  

> the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation, a finite process, so it is also finite and the whole bubble is finite. I don't claim I can prove it. AG

As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and it's an observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away from us, they are ACCELERATING away. And with or without inflation it would still be true that light travels at a finite speed, and the Big Bang happened a finite number of years ago, so that alone severely limits what we are able to see, or will ever be able to see.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ymp

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3xykx87aP3Cb9bzqeaMm08H28Q2kNxhZaJ_qR9AEu_8A%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 1:08 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think our bubble, both parts, are finite, but the substratum from whence it originated, is likely infinite, uncreated, and eternal. AG

If you believe an infinite number of years is possible why do you believe an infinite number of light years is inconceivable?  Why is space so different from time in this regard? 

>As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and it's an observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away from us, they are ACCELERATING away.

> I am still waiting for an explanation of this claim. 

The expansion of space is not a claim, and it is not a theory, it is an observational fact. The Big Bang is a theory that explains that fact which, I believe, is almost certainly correct. The acceleration of the universe is also an observational fact that needs a good theory to explain it, but currently there is not one. 

> Also, if galaxies within our view are receding slower than c, and that was occurring for 13.8 BY, why does the observable universe have a radius in excess of 2*13.8 BY? AG

Because as I said more than once before, it took light from the most distant galaxies in the observable universe 13.8 billion years to reach us BUT during those 13 8 billion years those galaxys have not remain stationary, instead they have been moving away from us. And during the last 6.5 billion years that expansion has been accelerating.   

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

icc

[Alan Grayson]

Generally speaking, you read English poorly, and I have to keep explaining too many thing repeatedly to make my points. When I get the urge, I will explain exactly what I mean. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 5:28:44 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 1:08 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think our bubble, both parts, are finite, but the substratum from whence it originated, is likely infinite, uncreated, and eternal. AG

If you believe an infinite number of years is possible why do you believe an infinite number of light years is inconceivable?  Why is space so different from time in this regard? 

Did I claim they are different? BTW, "eternal" doesn't necessarily imply a flow of time. In any event, for the nth time, the problem with an infinite number of light years at the birth of our bubble, is that it would have to be achieved instantaneously. I don't think this is physically possible. And, for the nth time, if our bubble is finite, it can't be flat (since it's not torus shaped). AG  

>As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and it's an observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away from us, they are ACCELERATING away.

> I am still waiting for an explanation of this claim. 

The expansion of space is not a claim, and it is not a theory, it is an observational fact. The Big Bang is a theory that explains that fact which, I believe, is almost certainly correct. The acceleration of the universe is also an observational fact that needs a good theory to explain it, but currently there is not one. 

The "claim" (yours) is that expansion will occur in the absence of Inflation! Did I ever deny the existence of expansion? Well, only in your fertile imagination. AG

> Also, if galaxies within our view are receding slower than c, and that was occurring for 13.8 BY, why does the observable universe have a radius in excess of 2*13.8 BLY? AG

Because as I said more than once before, it took light from the most distant galaxies in the observable universe 13.8 billion years to reach us BUT during those 13 8 billion years those galaxys have not remain stationary, instead they have been moving  away from us. And during the last 6.5 billion years that expansion has been accelerating. 

Yes, but presumably not at a velocity > c. so the age and size of the visible universe seem incompatible. Did you actually READ what I wrote before responding? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le jeu. 26 sept. 2024, 16:04, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 5:28:44 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 1:08 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think our bubble, both parts, are finite, but the substratum from whence it originated, is likely infinite, uncreated, and eternal. AG

If you believe an infinite number of years is possible why do you believe an infinite number of light years is inconceivable?  Why is space so different from time in this regard? 

Did I claim they are different? BTW, "eternal" doesn't necessarily imply a flow of time. In any event, for the nth time, the problem with an infinite number of light years at the birth of our bubble, is that it would have to be achieved instantaneously.

He didn't say that, he's saying if time is infinite in the future so does the universe, it's an infinity potential.

I don't think this is physically possible. And, for the nth time, if our bubble is finite, it can't be flat (since it's not torus shaped). AG  

>As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and it's an observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away from us, they are ACCELERATING away.

> I am still waiting for an explanation of this claim. 

The expansion of space is not a claim, and it is not a theory, it is an observational fact. The Big Bang is a theory that explains that fact which, I believe, is almost certainly correct. The acceleration of the universe is also an observational fact that needs a good theory to explain it, but currently there is not one. 

The "claim" (yours) is that expansion will occur in the absence of Inflation! Did I ever deny the existence of expansion? Well, only in your fertile imagination. AG

Expansion doesn't need inflation, inflation is later than expansion theory, and not linked to the inflation field.

> Also, if galaxies within our view are receding slower than c, and that was occurring for 13.8 BY, why does the observable universe have a radius in excess of 2*13.8 BLY? AG

Because as I said more than once before, it took light from the most distant galaxies in the observable universe 13.8 billion years to reach us BUT during those 13 8 billion years those galaxys have not remain stationary, instead they have been moving  away from us. And during the last 6.5 billion years that expansion has been accelerating. 

Yes, but presumably not at a velocity > c.

The galaxies you can see now, lights was emitted 13.8 billion years ago, at that time they weren't receeding faster than c, but now those same galaxies are receeding faster than c due to expansion alone, that's why they are at 46 billion light years now. So soon "some billions more years" they'll go out of view

so the age and size of the visible universe seem incompatible. Did you actually READ what I wrote before responding? AG 

 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

icc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/52eb299e-6825-4b3a-8707-5baad64db5f4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 9:02:02 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le jeu. 26 sept. 2024, 16:04, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 5:28:44 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 1:08 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think our bubble, both parts, are finite, but the substratum from whence it originated, is likely infinite, uncreated, and eternal. AG

If you believe an infinite number of years is possible why do you believe an infinite number of light years is inconceivable?  Why is space so different from time in this regard? 

Did I claim they are different? BTW, "eternal" doesn't necessarily imply a flow of time. In any event, for the nth time, the problem with an infinite number of light years at the birth of our bubble, is that it would have to be achieved instantaneously. AG

He didn't say that, he's saying if time is infinite in the future so does the universe, it's an infinity potential.

JC is disputing my claim that our total bubble is finite, including both parts. He asks why I can't accept an infinite bubble if I believe the substratum from whence it emerged is infinite in space. My answer is that when our bubble emerged, if it were infinite in spatial extent, it would have had to expand to infinity instantaneously, which I deny is physically possible. AG 

I don't think this is physically possible. And, for the nth time, if our bubble is finite, it can't be flat (since it's not torus shaped). AG  

>As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and it's an observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away from us, they are ACCELERATING away.

> I am still waiting for an explanation of this claim. 

The expansion of space is not a claim, and it is not a theory, it is an observational fact. The Big Bang is a theory that explains that fact which, I believe, is almost certainly correct. The acceleration of the universe is also an observational fact that needs a good theory to explain it, but currently there is not one. 

The "claim" (yours) is that expansion will occur in the absence of Inflation! Did I ever deny the existence of expansion? Well, only in your fertile imagination. AG

Expansion doesn't need inflation, inflation is later than expansion theory, and not linked to the inflation field.

OK, I take your word on that, but Inflation started around 10^-35 seconds, so one doesn't get much earlier than that. AG 

> Also, if galaxies within our view are receding slower than c, and that was occurring for 13.8 BY, why does the observable universe have a radius in excess of 2*13.8 BLY? AG

Because as I said more than once before, it took light from the most distant galaxies in the observable universe 13.8 billion years to reach us BUT during those 13 8 billion years those galaxys have not remain stationary, instead they have been moving  away from us. And during the last 6.5 billion years that expansion has been accelerating. 

Yes, but presumably not at a velocity > c.

The galaxies you can see now, lights was emitted 13.8 billion years ago, at that time they weren't receding faster than c, but now those same galaxies are receding faster than c due to expansion alone, that's why they are at 46 billion light years now. So soon "some billions more years" they'll go out of view

I have no problem with the radius being greater than 13.8 BLY.  But I have a problem with how large the radius is, if the observable part has been receding slower than c. See my comment immediately below. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 9:09:17 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent. Such a process is unphysical. Therefore, a universe infinite in spatial extent cannot come into being, and is therefore uncreated. AG

A more direct way of understanding my claim: If you don't believe the universe can instantaneously expand to infinity, it must be finite in spatial extent, since no progressive expansion, no matter how fast, or for how long, can be infinite in spatial extent. Therefore, given the premise, the universe must be finite in spatial extent and cannot be flat. QED. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

I sent the physicist/cosmologist at Case Western a short email reminding him that if he assumes the universe (presumably, the unobservable part) is infinite in spatial extent, it always was, since there is no transition or evolution from finite to infinite, or vis-versa, he was also implicitly assuming that the universe began with an instantaneous transition to infinite in spatial extent at T=0. No reply. No thank you. As expected. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

What about Santa Claus ? Is Santa Claus infinite in expansion ? Argument: He can bring presents to all the children in the world in just 1 night.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, September 28, 2024 at 11:58:23 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

What about Santa Claus ? Is Santa Claus infinite in expansion ? Argument: He can bring presents to all the children in the world in just 1 night.

Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts, unless you can seriously contribute to answering the questions I pose. Your philosophy or theory might be correct, but it doesn't offer any operational value in solving the issues I raise. Good bye and good luck. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. If you don't start a theory from the correct facts of reality, you get nowhere. Sure, some approximations that you make might work in particular cases, but the more you stretch the theory the less likely is to be meaningful. Only because Newton theory worked on Earth, it didn't mean it worked on the solar system. Only because Einstein theory worked on solar system, it didn't mean it worked on the galaxy. And so on. These are all approximations. The more you go outside their domain of applicability, the less likely they are to provide answers. The only way to receive correct answers is if you start from the correct fact of reality. And that is consciousness.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 6:14:05 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. If you don't start a theory from the correct facts of reality, you get nowhere. Sure, some approximations that you make might work in particular cases, but the more you stretch the theory the less likely is to be meaningful. Only because Newton theory worked on Earth, it didn't mean it worked on the solar system. Only because Einstein theory worked on solar system, it didn't mean it worked on the galaxy. And so on. These are all approximations. The more you go outside their domain of applicability, the less likely they are to provide answers. The only way to receive correct answers is if you start from the correct fact of reality. And that is consciousness.

There's nothing you write that indicates in any way, how starting from your perspective is helpful in any way. And don't tell me I need to read your paper. If your perspective is so enlightening, you should be able to point a way to solving some problems I raise. As for the professor who thinks the universe might be infinite but has no clue what that implies, it's obvious he's not as smart as he thinks he is, and has probably fallen in love with his illusion. And that's MY explanation of his behavior. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le dim. 29 sept. 2024, 14:49, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 6:14:05 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. If you don't start a theory from the correct facts of reality, you get nowhere. Sure, some approximations that you make might work in particular cases, but the more you stretch the theory the less likely is to be meaningful. Only because Newton theory worked on Earth, it didn't mean it worked on the solar system. Only because Einstein theory worked on solar system, it didn't mean it worked on the galaxy. And so on. These are all approximations. The more you go outside their domain of applicability, the less likely they are to provide answers. The only way to receive correct answers is if you start from the correct fact of reality. And that is consciousness.

There's nothing you write that indicates in any way, how starting from your perspective is helpful in any way. And don't tell me I need to read your paper. If your perspective is so enlightening, you should be able to point a way to solving some problems I raise. As for the professor who thinks the universe might be infinite but has no clue what that implies, it's obvious he's not as smart as he thinks he is, and has probably fallen in love with his illusion. And that's MY explanation of his behavior. AG 

It's ok to entertain how other people are, It's a shame not to apply this to yourself unfortunately. 

On Sunday 29 September 2024 at 07:06:05 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, September 28, 2024 at 11:58:23 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

What about Santa Claus ? Is Santa Claus infinite in expansion ? Argument: He can bring presents to all the children in the world in just 1 night.

Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts, unless you can seriously contribute to answering the questions I pose. Your philosophy or theory might be correct, but it doesn't offer any operational value in solving the issues I raise. Good bye and good luck. AG 

On Saturday 28 September 2024 at 19:13:23 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 11:56:47 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 9:09:17 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to instantaneously expand infinitely in spatial extent. Such a process is unphysical. Therefore, a universe infinite in spatial extent cannot come into being, and is therefore uncreated. AG

A more direct way of understanding my claim: If you don't believe the universe can instantaneously expand to infinity, it must be finite in spatial extent, since no progressive expansion, no matter how fast, or for how long, can be infinite in spatial extent. Therefore, given the premise, the universe must be finite in spatial extent and cannot be flat. QED. AG 

I sent the physicist/cosmologist at Case Western a short email reminding him that if he assumes the universe (presumably, the unobservable part) is infinite in spatial extent, it always was, since there is no transition or evolution from finite to infinite, or vis-versa, he was also implicitly assuming that the universe began with an instantaneous transition to infinite in spatial extent at T=0. No reply. No thank you. As expected. AG 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1dc228c-8d08-411b-b5a4-b48d5cc7ebadn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 11:33:58 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le dim. 29 sept. 2024, 14:49, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 6:14:05 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. If you don't start a theory from the correct facts of reality, you get nowhere. Sure, some approximations that you make might work in particular cases, but the more you stretch the theory the less likely is to be meaningful. Only because Newton theory worked on Earth, it didn't mean it worked on the solar system. Only because Einstein theory worked on solar system, it didn't mean it worked on the galaxy. And so on. These are all approximations. The more you go outside their domain of applicability, the less likely they are to provide answers. The only way to receive correct answers is if you start from the correct fact of reality. And that is consciousness.

There's nothing you write that indicates in any way, how starting from your perspective is helpful in any way. And don't tell me I need to read your paper. If your perspective is so enlightening, you should be able to point a way to solving some problems I raise. As for the professor who thinks the universe might be infinite but has no clue what that implies, it's obvious he's not as smart as he thinks he is, and has probably fallen in love with his illusion. And that's MY explanation of his behavior. AG 

It's ok to entertain how other people are, It's a shame not to apply this to yourself unfortunately. 

You speak in riddles. What am I not applying to myself?  I agree that self-reference might build the world, but how it helps solve a particular problem has not been demonstrated. When you cease speaking in riddles, we can resume a discussion. Until then, goodbye and good luck. AG

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. That's like asking me how from the functioning of the transistor I can give you the formula for the fireball in World of Warcraft. Is impossible. The higher level world is an interaction between the free will of the consciousnesses involved. You will have to feel what those consciousnesses feel to understand why "the universe is expanding", etc.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 2:58:08 PM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. That's like asking me how from the functioning of the transistor I can give you the formula for the fireball in World of Warcraft. Is impossible. The higher level world is an interaction between the free will of the consciousnesses involved. You will have to feel what those consciousnesses feel to understand why "the universe is expanding", etc.

 Aristotelian logic. AG

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. No. Is simply the truth. When reality is simply the sum of interacting consciousnesses, then whatever patterns might be produced will simply be produced by the free wills of consciousnesses engaging in social relations. The more primitive a consciousness is, the more predictable the pattern of its activity. The more complex a consciousness is, the less predictable its pattern. That's why there appear to be "laws of physics", because those "laws of physics" are nothing else than patterns of interactions of primitive consciousnesses (consciousnesses that you cannot even imagine). Then when you get to chemistry, biology, human society, consciousnesses become more complex and the patterns become more elusive.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 12:50:56 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. No. Is simply the truth. When reality is simply the sum of interacting consciousnesses, then whatever patterns might be produced will simply be produced by the free wills of consciousnesses engaging in social relations. The more primitive a consciousness is, the more predictable the pattern of its activity. The more complex a consciousness is, the less predictable its pattern. That's why there appear to be "laws of physics", because those "laws of physics" are nothing else than patterns of interactions of primitive consciousnesses (consciousnesses that you cannot even imagine). Then when you get to chemistry, biology, human society, consciousnesses become more complex and the patterns become more elusive.

So the planets move in their orbits because of the free will of social relations among consciousnesses?  AG

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. "Planets" is just an interpretation in your consciousness for social interactions between consciousnesses that you cannot even imagine. In the same way that this writing on the screen is your interpretation of there being a "Cosmin Visan" supposedly somewhere.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 5:46:42 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. "Planets" is just an interpretation in your consciousness for social interactions between consciousnesses that you cannot even imagine. In the same way that this writing on the screen is your interpretation of there being a "Cosmin Visan" supposedly somewhere.

I concede that if I can't imagine who's pulling the strings, so to speak, I won't be able to build temples to worship and appease them. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. I have no idea what you just said. But anyway, the point is: as long as you are not a paid scientist that do science in order to build technology, the kind of theoretical "science" that you want to do is just a waste of time. Because is not based on anything logical. Is just conceptual mumbo-jumbo: universes, infinities, atoms, galaxies. What are all these hallucinations ? The only theoretical undertaking that makes sense even if you are not a working scientist is understanding consciousness. Because only in understanding consciousness, you: 1. can have conceptual grounding by using entities that really exist, i.e. qualia, free will, etc., and 2. is important for your own understanding of who you are, and thus make your life better. Everything else is just mental masturbation.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 11:09:49 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. I have no idea what you just said. But anyway, the point is: as long as you are not a paid scientist that do science in order to build technology, the kind of theoretical "science" that you want to do is just a waste of time. Because is not based on anything logical. Is just conceptual mumbo-jumbo: universes, infinities, atoms, galaxies. What are all these hallucinations ? The only theoretical undertaking that makes sense even if you are not a working scientist is understanding consciousness. Because only in understanding consciousness, you: 1. can have conceptual grounding by using entities that really exist, i.e. qualia, free will, etc., and 2. is important for your own understanding of who you are, and thus make your life better. Everything else is just mental masturbation.

What I mean is this; if there are numerous consciousnesses determining outcomes or results in what we, according to you, MIS interpret as physical reality, it seems impossible to know their preferences to understand anything. So, it reminds me of ancient times when temples were built for presumed consciousnesses, then called Gods, to get them to do our biddings. It's like your philosophy for theory is, in part at least, a throwback to an ancient world-view with no predictive, or even enlightening value. For example, the orbit of Pluto occasionally (every few hundred years I would guess) crosses the orbit of Neptune. I know why that occurs. It's totally dependent on initial conditions. But you presumably reject that explanation and have nothing to replace it with, other than the claim that it depends on the collective personal wishes of conscious entities. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

For practical purposes you can use whatever model works. We are not talking here about practicality, but about the nature of reality. Furthermore, even if for convenience you use some model that works, you have to keep in mind at all times that only because that model works in a specific situation, this gives you zero guarantees that it will work on another situation. You try to talk about the universe using a model that only works locally on the solar system. Of course more likely than not it will not work on the universe. So then why waste time ? Is like arguing to reach the Moon on an airplane just because airplanes work so well around the Earth. But the moment you leave Earth, the conditions that made that airplane work around Earth are no longer present. What guarantees you that whatever makes the planets revolve around the Sun is still applicable at the scale of the universe ?

Also, regarding consciousnesses, I hope you understand that is not their wishes directly that move the planets. Those consciousnesses are just minding their own businesses in their own internal realities. They don't know anything about planets. "Planets" is a symbol that YOUR consciousness invents as a best guess in order to account for whatever those other consciousnesses are doing. Is similar with money. You pay 5$ for a kilo of tomatoes, but those 5$ are just a symbol in your consciousness that hides the complexities of the interactions of humans and animals consciousnesses on planet Earth. Behind those 5$ are consciousnesses living all kinds of dramas and tragedies and loves and whatever. But you are totally oblivious to all that. You just have the quale of 5$ to free you from all that unnecessary burden towards achieving your own goals. And of course, you buying those tomatoes, you put your own stamp on the global consciousnesses interactions and modify them a tiny bit.

[Cosmin Visan]

Regarding the analogy with the old gods, the goal of any theory should be the truth. Theories are a side effect of the goal of finding the truth. Truth is what decides what a theory looks like, not the other way around. As such, words such as "throwback" is a mischaracterization of what a theory is doing. If the truth reveals to us that reality is indeed a network of interacting consciousnesses, and that this truth strips us of our powers to make predictions, this is not a "throwback", this is simply the truth. Truth is not throwback or throwforwards. Truth is simply truth. It is what it is. Nobody says that truth should be about making predictions. For predictions there are other tools that you can use, like developing empirical models that you can apply for a certain problem at hand. If you want to design a TV, you clearly don't use the ideas that you would use when designing a washing machine. For such practical problems you can use whatever models work. But truth is truth and you shouldn't impose on it your criteria of what truth should be. Sure, if you think long enough maybe you can even make predictions starting directly from truth. But that is just a bonus.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 3:39:01 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

Regarding the analogy with the old gods, the goal of any theory should be the truth. Theories are a side effect of the goal of finding the truth. Truth is what decides what a theory looks like, not the other way around. As such, words such as "throwback" is a mischaracterization of what a theory is doing. If the truth reveals to us that reality is indeed a network of interacting consciousnesses, and that this truth strips us of our powers to make predictions, this is not a "throwback", this is simply the truth. Truth is not throwback or throwforwards. Truth is simply truth. It is what it is. Nobody says that truth should be about making predictions. For predictions there are other tools that you can use, like developing empirical models that you can apply for a certain problem at hand. If you want to design a TV, you clearly don't use the ideas that you would use when designing a washing machine. For such practical problems you can use whatever models work. But truth is truth and you shouldn't impose on it your criteria of what truth should be. Sure, if you think long enough maybe you can even make predictions starting directly from truth. But that is just a bonus.

 

But what is truth; that is, how do we know we've discovered it? That's where models and predictions have been found to have value, even even though their range is limited. Otherwise, all we have are opinions. While I agree, based on esoteric personal experiences, that the core of reality is consciousness, I still need the bonus you refer to, and so far your truth, to the extent you can articulate it, does not indicate any way to get that bonus. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/1/2024 2:39 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> Regarding the analogy with the old gods, the goal of any theory should
> be the truth. Theories are a side effect of the goal of finding the
> truth. Truth is what decides what a theory looks like, not the other
> way around. As such, words such as "throwback" is a
> mischaracterization of what a theory is doing. If the truth reveals to
> us that reality is indeed a network of interacting consciousnesses,

This nonsense that comes from reifying "the truth".  There are true
statements, but there is no whole "the truth" on pain of realizing
Russell's paradox.

> and that this truth strips us of our powers to make predictions,

Whether any theory is true is determined by testing its consequences
empirically.

> this is not a "throwback", this is simply the truth. Truth is not
> throwback or throwforwards. Truth is simply truth.

Which is just scholastic BS.

> It is what it is. Nobody says that truth should be about making
> predictions.

Then Nobody, whoever that is, doesn't know what they're talking about. 
True premises entail true logical predictions.

Brent

[Cosmin Visan]

There is only 1 truth: I am God. Everything else are just dreams that God has (I have).

[Quentin Anciaux]

That's solipsism... ok, now you can leave this list you know the truth

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c1872af-268d-4342-a94e-56dca716c172n%40googlegroups.com.

[Terren Suydam]

What a strange dream you're having. Of all the dreams you could be dreaming, your dream involves insulting people on the internet who talk about their experiences as if they were real.

--

[Cosmin Visan]

@Quentin. Yes, is solipsism. But not in the way you think. As God, I live all the possible lives. So even though is just Me, God, there are nevertheless an infinity of instantiations of myself. So even though strictly speaking it is solipsism, practically speaking it is as if it is not solipsism.

[Cosmin Visan]

@Terren. Dreams are not random. The dreams of all instantiations of myself interact one with another. As such, they become highly structured.

[Cosmin Visan]

For anyone that has difficulty understanding this, have a look at these 2 minutes from a Rick and Morty episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhnAO9bHI6s