On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:58:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:54:48 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 2:48:23 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 1:07:41 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 1:21:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:04:01 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Velinkin has shown that eternal inflating dS or dS-like spaces are >>>>>> not eternal in the past. They are so into the future. What comes >>>>>> "before," >>>>>> if that makes sense, is not known. The problem is that any extension of >>>>>> time here into that domain, say by translation of coordinates, is >>>>>> questionable. >>>>> >>>>> LC >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not suggesting eternal in the past; rather, that bubbles have >>>>> some starting time, t=0 for a particular bubble, and since, like our >>>>> bubble, they have been expanding for finite time, none cannot be infinite >>>>> in spatial extent. They can't be flat and infinite in spatial extent. AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Examining the codebases of cosmological researchers >>>> >>>> survey here: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/coder-physicists-are-simulating-the-universe-to-unlock-its-secrets-20180612/ >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think that any assumption of infinite space ("infinite in >>>> spatial extent") enters in anywhere. >>>> >>> >>> A flat or saddle-shaped universe extends infinitely in spacial >>> coordinates. Otherwise it has an edge or boundary, which IMO, does NOT >>> characterize our universe. It can't expand at some finite speed, no matter >>> how large, and extend infinitely in space. AG >>> >> > *LC keeps bring up inflation or eternal inflation, but I don't see these > speculative scenarios having anything to do with the logical result I have > stated above. AG* > >> >>>> (but one would have to look at the code) >>>> >>>> If it's not in the code, it's not in the theory. >>>> >>>> @philipthrift >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
Such theories (*"extends infinitely in spacial coordinates"*) are just wrong in the first place, according to Max Tegmark. So they can be eliminated at the start (and hopefully never mentioned again). https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344 ... Not only do we lack evidence for the infinite, but* we don't actually need the infinite to do physics*: our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything from the formation of galaxies to to tomorrow's weather to the masses of elementary particles, use only finite computer resources by treating everything as finite. So if we can do without infinity to figure out what happens next, surely nature can too—in a way that's more deep and elegant than the hacks we use for our computer simulations. *Our challenge as physicists is to discover this elegant way and the infinity-free equations describing it*—the true laws of physics. To start this search in earnest, we need to question infinity. I'm betting that we also need to let go of it. @philipthrift -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4be28460-5f6e-4fc9-a973-f247f617c35e%40googlegroups.com.
