0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
there being just one universe, and only one
Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter
and [an infinite amount of] energy
OK, so no one is arguing against an infinite and eternal universe, but that door is always open to anyone who wants to try a convincing argument.Without Evidence ' for ' & ' against ' it...No Argument is a Convincing one, rather Futile. In the mean time, I like to philosophize about there being just one universe, and only one. It would be an infinite and eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist.Well, if you are Philosophizing...then Why just stop there.How bout Infinite & Eternal Multiverses?That is what I would call a solid foundation to build on. Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter and energy which are the building blocks of everything in the physical universe? I think so.Solid Foundations are not Safe.Earthquakes do Not kill people,Buildings Do!198933,199094,
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 07/07/2023 20:23:40 there being just one universe, and only oneWell I suppose that depends on your definition of 'universe' and of 'there being' as well. I mean, I take a relational empirical approach, which is even more unusual than most of the stuff you propose. So I define 'there being' relative to X as anything measured by X. That means 'the universe' (all that is measured by X' is quite finite in both space and time. Some star like our own, but in a galaxy 7 BLY away? It doesn't exist to me since I cannot measure it. It isn't in my universe.
You can define this more conventionally, like ('everything that exists'). A thing either has this property or not, so there can be only one set of all things that have this existence property and another set of the things that don't. The universe is the former set. There can by definition be only one of those, and it would even be logically inconsistent to talk about a different universe, since if it existed, it would be part of the one universe by definition. Your post seems to indicate you're holding this more conventional definition. The distant star exists even though no light from it has ever reached here yet.
Yes to homogeneity . I have referred to it as the "Sameness Doctrine" in my rantings.Quoteand [an infinite amount of] energyThat presumes more stuff as well, in particular that the mean energy density of the universe is positive. Since there is very much negative energy out there, maybe the negative energy outdoes the positive stuff.
It also doesn't seem to be conserved in a cosmological frame, so the energy is always going both up and down. Dark energy for instance is always going up, but light energy and kinetic energy and such always go down over time. This may not be true in a model like you describe since the cosmological frame is an expanding one with finite time since the beginning.
You don't really have a mathematical model that would be needed in order to answer the question of whether your universe has infinite energy or not.
I get that. I define "universe" as all that is, all matter, energy, everything, all connected in the sense that everything occupies one contiguous, infinite space.
I don't know. Negative energy? Any examples?
Suppose there exists a 5 dimensional being. That can't exist in 3 dimensional space, infinite or not. If it's all connected, then 'universe' is confined only to things with a location in that one space, and not all the existing stuff that isn't in that space. So the statement seems somewhat self-contradictory.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 01/08/2023 01:39:13I have no problem with the universe being confined only to things with a location in that space, since in my view there is only that one infinite and eternal space, and all existing stuff is in that one contiguous space.OK, so your definition of 'all that is' is everything in our particular 3D space and not all the other stuff. The other stuff isn't part of 'all that is'.I'm actually pretty OK with that, and my own relational definition is far more restricted than even that.
I have no problem with the universe being confined only to things with a location in that space, since in my view there is only that one infinite and eternal space, and all existing stuff is in that one contiguous space.
What we can observe and/or detect could certainly be a finite expanding universe from a singular event
any chance you could expand on the statement that "the universe is not classical"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energyps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!
From Zero's link: Alan Guth.
Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.
...That's only a problem for those that suggest that time is something that passes. Not my problem.
We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally? I ask those who notice this topic to comment about their views, for discussion.204094,
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 13/08/2023 14:48:18We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally?...Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)
We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally?
If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.
Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.
How do We really measure Time?
How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?
Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.
... what keeps all of the useful energy in the universe from be expended, is that ... matter and energy are "fundamental" building blocks of everything else, cannot be used up, and are continually being converted from one to the other by natural processes.
And there is no reason why the infinite universe isn't an infinite patchwork of forming crunches and expanding bangs, with new crunches and new bangs going on all the time, here and there across an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. The ultimate perpetual machine.