On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 2:41:28 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 6:16:17 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:03:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 6:46:26 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>> >>>> Sure there are! The main phenom for the cosmos is spatially flat and >>>> infinite. Red shift and horizons mean any observer can only access a >>>> finite >>>> amount of information. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The whole point is that, *according to Tegmark*, *there should not be >>> be* *a theory of physics* in which "the cosmos is spatially flat and >>> infinite". >>> >>> So how does one put that in one's pipe and smokes it? >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> >> I don't know if Tegmark is right or wrong. but his dictum is that there >> should be *no theories that have infinite anythings*. So one has to >> start with that. >> >> >> @philipthrift/ >> > > I don't see any problem with having infinities in a theory provided > they're not measurable. For example, consider the steady state universe > which was proposed in 1948 by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle. > It just means a universe which is homogeneous, expanding, with mass density > constant and constant creation of space and matter, and infinite in age > and spatial extent -- where this spatial infinity is much like the concept > of infinity in mathematics, namely, one can travel any distance, in any > direction, and no matter how far, that distance can be exceeded. But what > we have as our best theory today is a universe of finite age, expanding at > a finite rate, yet conceived of by most cosmologists as flat and therefore > infinite in spatial extent. These properties seem inherently contradictory. > Something has to give. AG >
This could be the case: For every formal IUT (infinite universe theory) there is a formal FUT (finite universe theory - there is no infinite entity in the theory) - that is just as good in matching up to all observations. What has to 'give' is this: We can *never, ever know* which one corresponds to reality. @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/df3b2cd0-485b-4154-b36b-1153f3568e16%40googlegroups.com.
