Our universe (our bubble) cannot have a flat global geometry.

[Alan Grayson]

To recapitulate and clarify the argument:

Firstly, by "universe" (our "bubble"), I mean the observable and unobservable regions defining our expanding universe.
 
Secondly, since our universe is expanding, we could run the clock backward to any earlier time, and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, establishing that the observable region is finite in spatial extent. (It's actually measured to have a radius of 46 BLY.)

Thirdly, concerning the unobservable region, let's assume it's infinite in spatial extent. If so, this couldn't have occurred in stages, say by spatial expansion, since no matter how fast it might expand, or for how long a length of time, it would remain finite throughout, and could never achieve infinite status. Hence, the only way it could be infinite in spatial extent, would be for it to be either UN-created, or if it had a beginning it must have expanded instantaneously to infinity in spatial extent. These options are falsified in two ways; first by the CMBR, which is predicted by the Big Bang. That is, empirical evidence affirms it had a starting time. And second, as previously argued, if it is now infinite in spatial extent and had a beginning, it would have had to expand instantaneously to infinity. Since I consider this physically impossible -- which is my unproven and likely unprovable assumption -- by two lines of argument our universe must be finite in spatial extent.

 
Final conclusions:, being finite in spatial extent, it cannot be flat (despite the consensus view), since that implies infinite in spatial extent (assuming it's not toroidal). And there is no need to do any measurements. Using a purely logical argument, our universe is finite in spatial extent and cannot have a flat global geometry. Its likely global geometry is approximately spherical, since it's expanding in all directions from every point in spacetime and is approximately isotropic. What could be uncreated and infinite in space and time, is the substratum from which our universe emerged.
 
QED, AG

[Cosmin Visan]

You can only ever observe yourself. So by unobservable you mean the minds of other consciousnesses ?

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 9:50:12 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

You can only ever observe yourself. So by unobservable you mean the minds of other consciousnesses ?

I'm seeking substantive responses, so please refrain from posting on this thread. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

The very words that you use have no meaning. So how can any conversation be had ? Is like wanting to debate how many angels fit on the head of a needle. Sure, it has the appearance of a well formulated question, but it is actually meaningless.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 11:19:20 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

The very words that you use have no meaning. So how can any conversation be had ? Is like wanting to debate how many angels fit on the head of a needle. Sure, it has the appearance of a well formulated question, but it is actually meaningless.

 

 You're entitled to your opinions, but I'm seeking substantive responses, so please refrain from posting on this thread. AG 



[Cosmin Visan]

First of all, you talk about space as if it is some obvious concept. But is not obvious at all. As a quale in consciousness, space is a particular meaning that ended up in our consciousness for evolutionary reasons: this quale helped us survive and reproduce. Is identical to the quale of "sexy woman". That sexiness that you feel when you look at a woman, is a quale in your consciousness designed to facilitate reproduction. Space is identical to sexiness: is a quale designed to facilitate survival and reproduction. Yes, it feels as if it has nothing to do with such matters, it feels as if it is some pre-existing stage in which consciousnesses only later appeared and only based on this pre-existing stage did they partake in the processes of survival and reproduction. But this feel is misleading. The quale of space itself is involved in survival and reproduction directly. Given this true nature of what space actually is, your questions become simple nonsense, random mumbling, no different that the angels on a needle. Do you understand now how deep the rabbit hole goes ?

And also as I bonus, sometimes when I'm tired and I sit in bed at night, I experience 4D space. How that 4D feels like is as if I'm seeing an object both all-around and inside. So where does that 4D space reside if not solely in my consciousness ?

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 12:35:38 PM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

First of all, you talk about space as if it is some obvious concept. But is not obvious at all. As a quale in consciousness, space is a particular meaning that ended up in our consciousness for evolutionary reasons: this quale helped us survive and reproduce. Is identical to the quale of "sexy woman". That sexiness that you feel when you look at a woman, is a quale in your consciousness designed to facilitate reproduction. Space is identical to sexiness: is a quale designed to facilitate survival and reproduction. Yes, it feels as if it has nothing to do with such matters, it feels as if it is some pre-existing stage in which consciousnesses only later appeared and only based on this pre-existing stage did they partake in the processes of survival and reproduction. But this feel is misleading. The quale of space itself is involved in survival and reproduction directly. Given this true nature of what space actually is, your questions become simple nonsense, random mumbling, no different that the angels on a needle. Do you understand now how deep the rabbit hole goes ?

And also as I bonus, sometimes when I'm tired and I sit in bed at night, I experience 4D space. How that 4D feels like is as if I'm seeing an object both all-around and inside. So where does that 4D space reside if not solely in my consciousness ?

 Good bye and good luck. This is my last response to you. AG

[Brent Meeker]

The universe is spatially flat and it always has been and it's infinite spatially and always has been.  It had an earliest state we know about that was very dense and hot and things have expanded from that state.

Bren

--
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/66ab8acd-3a49-4f69-9817-24fad7eb64afn%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/3/2024 11:35 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> First of all, you talk about space as if it is some obvious concept.
> But is not obvious at all. As a quale in consciousness, space is a
> particular meaning that ended up in our consciousness for evolutionary
> reasons: this quale helped us survive and reproduce. Is identical to
> the quale of "sexy woman". That sexiness that you feel when you look
> at a woman, is a quale in your consciousness designed to facilitate
> reproduction. Space is identical to sexiness: is a quale designed to
> facilitate survival and reproduction. Yes, it feels as if it has
> nothing to do with such matters, it feels as if it is some
> pre-existing stage in which consciousnesses only later appeared and
> only based on this pre-existing stage did they partake in the
> processes of survival and reproduction. But this feel is misleading.
> The quale of space itself is involved in survival and reproduction
> directly. Given this true nature of what space actually is,

If there were nothing corresponding to the quale of space (and to sexy)
then the quale would be of no advantage in reproduction and they would
not have evolved.  As my late friend Vic Stenger used to say, "We don't
know whether our theories of physics are true or not, but we know they
have something to do with reality."

Cosmin has gone so far down his own rabbit hole he's a solipist who
can't stop talking to other people.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

The universe is spatially flat and it always has been and it's infinite spatially and always has been.  It had an earliest state we know about that was very dense and hot and things have expanded from that state.

Brent

It would be desirable and intellectually honest if, instead of preaching the Gospel  (the consensus view among cosmologists who can't think clearly),  you could argue against my logic. Too much to ask? AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 7:34:32 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

The universe is spatially flat and it always has been and it's infinite spatially and always has been.  It had an earliest state we know about that was very dense and hot and things have expanded from that state.

Brent

It would be desirable and intellectually honest if, instead of preaching the Gospel  (the consensus view among cosmologists who can't think clearly),  you could argue against my logic. Too much to ask? AG

So you "think" the universe has always been spatially infinite and yet had a beginning in the BB, as confirmed by the CMBR?  AG 

[Terren Suydam]

Survival and reproduction don't exist. They are only concepts in your consciousness.

--

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/2dd3585c-0abf-44f3-84b3-77289f5ce55cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 8:03:26 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 7:34:32 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

The universe is spatially flat and it always has been and it's infinite spatially and always has been.  It had an earliest state we know about that was very dense and hot and things have expanded from that state.

Brent

It would be desirable and intellectually honest if, instead of preaching the Gospel  (the consensus view among cosmologists who can't think clearly),  you could argue against my logic. Too much to ask? AG

So you "think" the universe has always been spatially infinite and yet had a beginning in the BB, as confirmed by the CMBR? 

Can I conclude you've fallen in love, or are obtuse to an obvious inconsistency; namely, a universe which always existed, yet had a beginning in the BB? AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 10:43:44 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 8:03:26 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 7:34:32 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

The universe is spatially flat and it always has been and it's infinite spatially and always has been.  It had an earliest state we know about that was very dense and hot and things have expanded from that state.

Brent

It would be desirable and intellectually honest if, instead of preaching the Gospel  (the consensus view among cosmologists who can't think clearly),  you could argue against my logic. Too much to ask? AG

So you "think" the universe has always been spatially infinite, yet had a beginning in the BB, as confirmed by the CMBR? 

Can I conclude you've fallen in love, or are obtuse to an obvious inconsistency; namely, a universe which always existed, yet had a beginning in the BB? AG

I think I get it. You must be putting me on. Hard to believe you actually read my post and responded with such a lack of genuine consideration. Not funny. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. You should ask yourself why is it that you don't like the truth and instead want to talk about Santa Claus.

[Cosmin Visan]

@Brent. I told you, even though it is solipsism, it is a solipsism of such a kind that God incarnates itself in all the living beings. As such, given that one of the properties of God is free will, each individual consciousness will equally be free. Therefore, as God, talking to other instantiations of myself, is a valid undertaken given their own freedom.

[Cosmin Visan]

@Terren. Yes, survival and reproductions are ideas in consciousness. They are very powerful tool through which God keeps itself trapped in this fantasy. But if you don't like them you can give up on them, no big deal. You can just kill yourself, is not like you will disappear. You will just return to the pure Self state where you will see how boring it is to be alone, and then you will make yourself another dream in which to trap yourself and of course you will invent again the ideas of survival and reproduction because they are the most effective ideas for trapping oneself in a dream.

[Brent Meeker]

" the only way it could be infinite in spatial extent, would be for it to be either UN-created, or if it had a beginning it must have expanded instantaneously to infinity in spatial extent."

First, this asserts a false premise.  It implies that un-created=no-beginning; or in the positive beginning=>created.  Which any atheist will tell you doesn't follow.  Second, that beginning=>expansion from something (finite?) to infinite spatial extent.  This is false.   The universe could have a beginning in time at which it was infinite in spacial extent.  In fact that is most common current theory.

Brent  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7503c194-b042-4ebd-a817-8619b11bcad9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/3/2024 7:03 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> has always been spatially infinite and yet had a beginning in the BB

There's your problem.  You think that's contradictory.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 2:27:00 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

" the only way it could be infinite in spatial extent, would be for it to be either UN-created, or if it had a beginning it must have expanded instantaneously to infinity in spatial extent."

First, this asserts a false premise.  It implies that un-created=no-beginning; or in the positive beginning=>created.  Which any atheist will tell you doesn't follow.  Second, that beginning=>expansion from something (finite?) to infinite spatial extent.  This is false.   The universe could have a beginning in time at which it was infinite in spacial extent.  In fact that is most common current theory.

Brent  

 I have no idea what you're claiming, such as un-created = no-beginning is false. You must have made it up, and now claim it's Gospel. If the universe is UN-created and exists, it's Eternal, meaning No Beginning. AG

[Alan Grayson]

Really? Only God knows? Do you know what "always" means and what the CMBR implies? AG 

 

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/4/2024 6:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 2:27:00 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

" the only way it could be infinite in spatial extent, would be for it to be either UN-created, or if it had a beginning it must have expanded instantaneously to infinity in spatial extent."

First, this asserts a false premise.  It implies that un-created=no-beginning; or in the positive beginning=>created.  Which any atheist will tell you doesn't follow.  Second, that beginning=>expansion from something (finite?) to infinite spatial extent.  This is false.   The universe could have a beginning in time at which it was infinite in spacial extent.  In fact that is most common current theory.

Brent  

 I have no idea what you're claiming, such as un-created = no-beginning is false.

I'm not claiming it.  It's what you wrote.  It's just a paraphrase of what I quoted above because you convoluted expression made it hard to follow.  If my paraphrase is wrong, you're invited to clarify it yourself.

You must have made it up, and now claim it's Gospel. If the universe is UN-created and exists, it's Eternal, meaning No Beginning. AG

See you reiterated the same thing, which is a false inference.  The universe may have come into being without being created.  Created implies some prior existing agent to do the creating.

Uncreated and eternal and no beginning are three different adjutives.  Uncreated is just the negation of created (see above).  Eternal means lasting for all time.  The universe may last infinitely long into the future, but not be past enternal.  No beginning means past eternal.

If you expect anymore answers you need to write questions which don't need a paragraph of parsing.

Brent

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6bf62d6f-3c71-4e1d-bfd8-20cd967da226n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 9:13:21 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/4/2024 6:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 2:27:00 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

" the only way it could be infinite in spatial extent, would be for it to be either UN-created, or if it had a beginning it must have expanded instantaneously to infinity in spatial extent."

First, this asserts a false premise.  It implies that un-created=no-beginning; or in the positive beginning=>created.  Which any atheist will tell you doesn't follow.  Second, that beginning=>expansion from something (finite?) to infinite spatial extent.  This is false.   The universe could have a beginning in time at which it was infinite in spacial extent.  In fact that is most common current theory.

Brent  

 I have no idea what you're claiming, such as un-created = no-beginning is false.

I'm not claiming it.  It's what you wrote.  It's just a paraphrase of what I quoted above because you convoluted expression made it hard to follow.  If my paraphrase is wrong, you're invited to clarify it yourself.

The claim of "false" was yours, not mine. Your inference! AG

You must have made it up, and now claim it's Gospel. If the universe is UN-created and exists, it's Eternal, meaning No Beginning. AG

See you reiterated the same thing, which is a false inference.  The universe may have come into being without being created.  Created implies some prior existing agent to do the creating.

You're hung up on the word "created". It could have been created by some God, or more much likely IMO, by Laws of Physics as yet unknown. I tend to think our bubble emerged from some preexisting substratum which could be infinite in some way, and eternal. AG 

Uncreated and eternal and no beginning are three different adjutives.  Uncreated is just the negation of created (see above).  Eternal means lasting for all time.  The universe may last infinitely long into the future, but not be past enternal.  No beginning means past eternal.

You mean "adjectives".  AG

Our bubble began, presumably 13.8 billion years ago.  This is what, in part, the CMBR implies. I am not saying our bubble is eternal. It could expand forever in time, or contract and cease to exist. I am just claiming it can't be infinite in spatial extent, since that would mean it began as infinite in spatial extent, which is an hypothesis I reject since it would have to expand to infinity instantaneously, since an expansion of space as an evolution never gets it to be infinite in spatial extent. The latter is the key point; it cannot expand to be infinite in spatial extent. There's a huge difference between getting progressively larger and achieving infinity in spatial extent. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/4/2024 8:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> I am just claiming it can't be infinite in spatial extent, since that
> would mean it began as infinite in spatial extent, which is an
> hypothesis I reject since it would have to expand to infinity
> instantaneously,

That's like saying a football field can't be 100yds long because it
would have to expand to that instantaneously.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

No. We build football fields, in stages, by increments. An infinite field

cannot be built by finite increments. Not a close call. JC made the 

same claim in another thread, and we agree on this. A finite universe

remains finite even if it expands. Likewise, an infinite universe remains 

infinite. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. Ok, lets talk as for babies: Define "space"! 

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/4/2024 9:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 10:01:38 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/4/2024 8:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> I am just claiming it can't be infinite in spatial extent, since that
> would mean it began as infinite in spatial extent, which is an
> hypothesis I reject since it would have to expand to infinity
> instantaneously,
That's like saying a football field can't be 100yds long because it
would have to expand to that instantaneously.

Brent

No. We build football fields, in stages, by increments.

But it only becomes a football field at some moment.

An infinite field

cannot be built by finite increments. Not a close call. JC made the 

same claim in another thread, and we agree on this. A finite universe

remains finite even if it expands. Likewise, an infinite universe remains 

infinite. AG

You understand that, but you refuse to understand that our universe, assuming it's infinite as the evidence points, was infinite from the beginning and being infinite does not entail that it had to expand instantaneously...which you keep asserting.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

The evidence you claim which seems to indicate an infinite universe is, IMO, underwhelming. It seems to indicate a flat universe, and thus infinite in spatial extent. However, there is a small error in the measurement, which is what one would expect if the size of the universe is exceedingly huge and and approximately spherical. Moreover, if we run the clock backward, ostensibly, the observable universe is smaller in the past than at present, and had a beginning as evidenced by the CMBR. Applying the Cosmological Principle, there's no apriori reason to assume the unobservable universe behaves differently. That is, smaller and finite, and will come into view as we go backward in time. OTOH, I do believe the underlying substratum from which our bubble emerged, is likely infinite in spatial extent. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/5/2024 4:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

The evidence you claim which seems to indicate an infinite universe is, IMO, underwhelming. It seems to indicate a flat universe, and thus infinite in spatial extent. However, there is a small error in the measurement, which is what one would expect if the size of the universe is exceedingly huge and and approximately spherical.

That's a troll's remark.  One expects error in any empirical measure.  The best estimate combining various sources in 2013 for the deviation from flatness was Omega_k=0.002+0.009.  And the WMAP7 and supernova data implied -0.12<Omega_k<0.01; so the greater deviation was in the negative, open infinite universe direction.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3000

Moreover, if we run the clock backward, ostensibly, the observable universe is smaller in the past than at present,

Bullshit.  That's assuming what is to proven.  If it's infinite then it was always infinite.  You can't even keep you logical inferences straight.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, October 5, 2024 at 7:25:19 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 10/5/2024 4:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

The evidence you claim which seems to indicate an infinite universe is, IMO, underwhelming. It seems to indicate a flat universe, and thus infinite in spatial extent. However, there is a small error in the measurement, which is what one would expect if the size of the universe is exceedingly huge and and approximately spherical.

That's a troll's remark.  One expects error in any empirical measure.  The best estimate combining various sources in 2013 for the deviation from flatness was Omega_k=0.002+0.009.  And the WMAP7 and supernova data implied -0.12<Omega_k<0.01; so the greater deviation was in the negative, open infinite universe direction.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3000

Name calling will get us nowhere. Yes, there are always measurement errors. I should have noted that fact. But another fact is that if the unobservable universe is sufficiently large, it will be impossible to distinguish flat from slightly spherical. AG 

Moreover, if we run the clock backward, ostensibly, the observable universe is smaller in the past than at present,

Bullshit.  That's assuming what is to proven.  If it's infinite then it was always infinite.  You can't even keep you logical inferences straight.

I was explicitly referring to the observable universe, which is definitely finite with a measured distance to the horizon of 46 BLY. Moreover, since the observable universe is expanding, and there's ample evidence for that, think cosmological redshift, then if we run the clock backward, it will be smaller. That's what all the diagrams show, and it's indisputable. I don't have a clue why you characterize that as BS, or that I'm assuming what you think should be proven. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

While the data you reference does have a bias to support your argument, the fact that the observable universe had a beginning, and therefore the unobservable as well, I find it hard to believe that the unobservable part began as spatially infinite. I think we need new physics to explain that, or maybe magic. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

You should keep in mind that there's a generally held belief in the physics community that when a theory contains or implies an infinity, there's something awry; that is, something is not right with the theory. Your theory of the origin of our universe contains such an infinity, aka a singularity, where at its origin point or time, it instantaneously expands to, or reaches infinity of spatial extent. So, regardless of the fact that data from the Planck satellite tends to support your theory, I remain seriously doubtful. AG  

[Alan Grayson]

Note that in the case of S's cat, it is allegedly in the simultaneous state of |alive> and |dead> only when the box is closed, so the unintelligible claim is unverifiable.  I think the same applies to your claim as well for superposition. AG

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. Is funny how you can talk about "space" without even having a definition of it. How does your talk differentiate from a delirium then ? For example, is the "space" that you talk about the newtonian one ? Is it the einsteinien one ? Is some new graysonian one ? What exactly is it ?

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 6, 2024 at 1:36:59 PM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. Is funny how you can talk about "space" without even having a definition of it. How does your talk differentiate from a delirium then ? For example, is the "space" that you talk about the newtonian one ? Is it the einsteinieu know what it is when you see it, but virtually impossible to define "exactly". AG n one ? Is some new graysonian one ? What exactly is it ?

Space is like pornography. You know what it is when you see it, but virtually impossible to define "exactly". AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

@Alan. Yes, you said right: you see it, so it is an experience in consciousness. But is identical to seeing the duck-rabbit. You see it as a duck, someone else sees it a rabbit and then you fight with him that he doesn't understand the properties of duck and he tells you that is your fault, that you don't understand the properties of rabbit. You should both understand that both your duck and his rabbit are ideas in consciousness and stop wasting your life in illusory debates. If you want to debate something, debate consciousness, figure out how you as God imagine this world as ideas in your mind.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 12:26:49 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

@Alan. Yes, you said right: you see it, so it is an experience in consciousness. But is identical to seeing the duck-rabbit. You see it as a duck, someone else sees it a rabbit and then you fight with him that he doesn't understand the properties of duck and he tells you that is your fault, that you don't understand the properties of rabbit. You should both understand that both your duck and his rabbit are ideas in consciousness and stop wasting your life in illusory debates. If you want to debate something, debate consciousness, figure out how you as God imagine this world as ideas in your mind.

Way too much is hidden to have a meaningful discussion. You apparently think otherwise. But what you call our imagination is overwhelmingly hidden. So I decline your offer. AG