[Paul Gamble (OP)]

     Dualism, to be a set of extremes or polar opposites, on one side or another.
This is how competing philosophies or beliefs are. In the debate of reason and even facts,
 to prescribe to one idea or theory, is to disbelieve in another. The competitive nature of
reality and survival, combat our dualistic ideologies and thought processes.
     Chaos and order are a prime example. When we delve into the realm of infinity, we labor
to comprehend what nothing really is. How unreal or tangible our reality is, and our existence in a world and its genesis from nothing, are not understood in a way you can factually prove.
     It can be said that matter is mostly empty space and that time is an illusion. To say that our origins are anything but magical, whether you believe in any deities or not, this idea would almost have to be a fact.
     How does space come from nowhere? How do intelligent life forms originate on any planet? How does matter form from empty space? In observation we can see that creation has a genesis. How can we say reality is created by anything but magic? Magic does not have to be telepathy or a super power, it can be a term we use to describe how something works that we do not understand. If we were to show ancient man airplanes or jet packs they may think we were magical beings.
     Infinity itself is full of limitless possibilities. So to ascertain that we know so much is also
to suggest there is so much more to know. It is also suffice to say, that some of what we know may be incorrect. Once you fathom the scale of infinite space and matter, you start to notice a trend. A ripple of ideas that form in the mind of the beholder, only to be replaced by rivers of uncertainty principle. This is infinity at its core, incalculably gigantic in scale and paradoxical in its nature.
     We see light from 100's of light years and light centuries away. Yet how do we know all of that space is still there? The views we see of the heavens with our observatories, are said to not be in real time, and that we are seeing is the past because that light has traveled for eons to reach our lenses. From an observational stand point we can say it was there, but how can we say that those stars galaxies and even the space they occupy is also still there in real time as we are looking at it?
     For example; the closest galaxy is said to be heading towards our galaxy. Yet, we see it as it was in the past; so how can we know it's current position in real time if we are seeing it how and where it was two and half million years ago? Andromeda is 8,806,779,432,000,000 kilometers closer than it appears by our observations. Distance traveled is found by multiplying the speed traveled by the amount of time traveled. It is currently approaching our milky way galaxy at 110 km/s. If we are seeing it where and how it was 2.537 million years ago this is the distance it would have traveled in that amount of time, making it 0.2854082839160775875 kilo-parsecs closer than it appears.
     That is only a calculation, not an observation. If I were to look at the Andromeda galaxy with a telescope, I would not be seeing it at it's current location. I would see it where and how it looked in the past. What we don't know is almost as important as what we do know.  We see that Andromeda did exist 2.5 million years ago and it is safe to assume that it is still there given the lifespan of galaxies.
     The reason I bring this up is to show the duality of knowing a fact. We see it, we are sure it's still there in real time, but how would we know if it wasn't there? If somehow Andromeda "magically" disappeared at this precise moment in real time, we would not observe it happening for another 2.5 million years.
     Uncertainty is not a bad thing, and this is where what we don't know also comes into play. I am talking about the idea of an infinite paradox. The idea of infinite space, matter, and time. I have wrestled with the idea of finite space and time, and I have fought with the idea of infinite time and space. Infinity is quite the adversary to conquer, it cannot be proven or measured.
     For instance, I once tried to calculate the expansion of the universe from it's beginning to our current time, as I researched and really began to understand the scale of creation, I began to understand that instead of choosing a idealistic approach towards what I personally believed and wanted to be true; I realized that I needed to disregard any preconceived notion I or anyone had when it came to the size of creation.
     My idea was to become neutral and undecided when it came to the size of our universe. I worked up some math and decided to put a hypothetical rate of expansion and make it a rate that I personally didn't think was possible the slightest. I chose the rate of the expansion to be the speed of light times itself because the current belief is that the speed of light is as fast as anything can travel through space.
      The equation I used was. RxExT. Radius cubed times E, which stands for the rate of expansion multiplied by time. I realized at the start of my research that I would have to use my own symbols for the variables because I only knew basic Newtonian Physics. Even though I understood calculus enough, I didn't know the language of what the symbols mean.
      When I got the number from the equation of 38,856,702,307,051,845,007,807,680,000,000,000 meters cubed. It made me notice that even if the universe expanded at the speed of light times itself for 13.7 billion years, it would still be something that you can calculate. I fought with the math for awhile and realized another thing.
     For the universe to be infinite in scale when it expanded, it would have had to be expanding by a magic speed to become infinite in size during that given amount of time. This speed was not the speed of light times itself, it was a much more crazier rate of expansion. In fact, the only way I can express this speed is infinity meters a second.
     That is when I reached a paradox. No other rate of expansion can encompass an infinite universe unless you provide any other rate of expansion over an infinite amount of time. When one introduces an infinite amount of time to expand, literally any speed will give you an infinite amount of space, even 1 meter per century.
      When I began to think in these terms I was more convinced of a finite universe that was always growing but not endless. After all, scientists speculate or claim to know the age of the universe. I will admit I don't know how they reached this conclusion, but it seems to be largely agreed upon that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.
     That being said I began to understand that it didn't matter to me anymore what I believed because in my attempt to comprehend the scale of creation, I learned the scope of time will not yield concrete proof mathematically. Einstein said time is an illusion, just a construct of our human minds. This made me wonder if Einstein thought that space might also be an illusion. After all, the planet looks much bigger to an ant than it does to a human.
     Another idea rippled into my mind, I began to wonder what it would mean if there was infinite space, time, and matter. I approached this thought not from a matter of opinion, but hypothetically. What would that suggest supposing it were a fact? I began to see an infinite possibility of objects comprised of different materials. Where I was looking for order, I began to see the true randomness of an infinite reality. I imagined countless worlds like our own and countless stars like our sun. I then took the idea farther.
     I began to imagine exact copies of our Earth with the same exact lifeforms, but instead of these copies of Earth existing in something like a parallel universe; I imagined them being in the same universe as our Earth, just very incredibly far distances away from each other. I am not saying this to be a fact. I am only saying given enough time matter and space, especially an infinite amount of the three, you would begin to see replicas of any object; no matter how basic or complex. You would also likely see an infinite variety of any and every conceivable object that could possibly exist in space.
     The need for a separate or parallel universe for these type of worlds to exist is not entirely necessary inside of an infinite universe. However on the contrary, in a finite universe, in order for worlds like this to exist, you would need a parallel universe that is part of a collective multiverse. This is only because of how far apart these replica worlds would be from one another, we are talking possibly millions of kilo-parsecs apart.

[guest39538]

How does space come from nowhere?

Space is the big no-where and here is time and a place in no-where. Space is the 'omnipresent' entity of nothing .  Nothing cannot be created or destroyed ,  only something can be created from nothingness. The only ''direction'' nothing can go.
Everything is nothing and nothing is everything, space always was and will always be the creator.

[Paul Gamble (OP)]

I brought those questions up to be thought provoking really what i wanted to showcase was my calculations and the paradox of finite verses infinite.