> On 13 Jan 2020, at 10:54, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Le lun. 13 janv. 2020 à 10:50, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > > > On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 2:38:57 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le lun. 13 janv. 2020 à 10:28, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> a écrit : > > > On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:33:01 AM UTC-7, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 13:48, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:30 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: > > > If we're convinced it's finite in age, then it can't be infinite in spatial > > extent. AG > > We don't know for sure our universe is infinite in size and we'll never know > for sure because we'll never be able to measure precisely zero curvature with > no error at all, but we do know it's pretty damn flat, if it's curved it's so > slight that a light beam would have to go at least 500 times as far as our > telescopes can see for it to return where it started. So if you respect the > empirical evidence for the Big Bang but the idea of a beginning of a > infinitely sized universe makes you unhappy then the Multiverse idea offers > you an obvious solution, you get an infinitely large infinitely old > Multiverse but with the observable universe having a beginning and being only > finitely large. However I understand the Multiverse makes you unhappy too. I > fear you may be destined to be unhappy. > > By the way ... does the inverse also make you unhappy, something infinitely > old but finite in spatial extent? > > John K Clark > > All the models pictorially represented, have the Universe beginning very > small, and inflation is claimed to increase its size from, say, much smaller > than a proton, to about the size of the Earth or Solar System in a few Planck > intervals. If it begins small, or if you run the clock backward it becomes > progressively smaller, how could it have started with infinite spatial > extent? Don't you see something wrong with the model? AG > > The model says that a subset of the universe starts small and gets bigger. > This is not inconsistent with the whole universe starting and remaining > infinite in spatial extent. > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > I thought I made that clear; what I am calling "the universe" is precisely > the SUBSET you refer to, which starts small and gets bigger. It is THAT > SUBSET which cosmologists claim has infinite spatial extent, based on > measurements. What you're calling "the whole universe" includes the > underlying entity on which the BB started, and on which measurements CANNOT > be made. It could be infinite in spatial extent, or is possibly an entity for > which the concept of spatial extent might not exist. AG > > And so what do you see not contradictory in the existence of the universe > itself ? Either it has always been, or not, and if not, that makes no sense. > I see nothing contradictory to have something infinite, so it could always > has been infinite in content, seeing it as zero volume is a mistake because > that presuppose a volume in another space. What I'm saying is that there was > infinite content (and still is) but all metrics (space) was of zero extends, > and inflation extended the "space" not the content. > > Anyway, in the end, there can't be an explanation which make sense. The fact > we're here in the first place being able to ask question is magical.
Eventually the magic can be reduced to the magic of the laws of addition and multiplication of natural numbers (or integers, or rational number, or complex number, but not real numbers, note). >From 2+2=4 & Co, or from KKK = K & Co, we can prove the existence of all >universal (Turing complete) entities, and that explains both consciousness and >the appearance of a physical reality. That one has to be “many-worlds” like, >and obey some logical formalism, and up to now, the Digital Mechanist theory >is confirmed by the facts. That would not be the case if we did have evidence >that the observable obey Boolean logic. That gives the only precise and >testable theory of both consciousness and matter compatible with Digital >Mechanism. Now, the machine’s physics is not advanced enough to say anything about the Big Bang. By some aspect, mechanism favours string theory, but on different aspects it fits far better with loop gravity. To decide more on this there is a long sequence of mathematical problem to solve, notably to extract some operator algebra from the machine’s already derived quantum logics. The quantum logics are graded, and if they verify some conditions, the appearance of space would come from a sort of percolation mechanism on coherent set of first person sharable experiences. Physicalism has not been disprove, but it is disproved in any theory assuming enough of Mechanism to make sense of a theory like the theory of evolution, which foresaw the digitalness needed to make sense of the evolution of physical mechanism. Bruno > > Quentin > > As the bigbang is a singularity at the start... what prevents it to contain > an infinite content in a zero/small volume, after all it's a singularity and > we know only things after the big bang started ? and after inflation (which I > understand is only space metric which inflate), there is still an infinite > content. > > The BB is only a singularity as far as GR is concerned, because GR fails at > that point in time. When we have a better theory, the alleged singularity at > T = 0 will go away. What you call "infinite content in zero/ small volume" > makes no sense, which is why we call this condition is called a singularity! > How could the content be space, if you've have zero or small volume. This > idea is immediately, and obviously, self contradictory. AG > > -- > 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 [email protected] <>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c9a07678-7721-4d68-ba7a-ea0b3455c4d7%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c9a07678-7721-4d68-ba7a-ea0b3455c4d7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger > Hauer) > > -- > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a31f806e-0b3c-4bc3-a6d9-5b1543f11918%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a31f806e-0b3c-4bc3-a6d9-5b1543f11918%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger > Hauer) > > -- > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAoo_GM7S-tmDF2Eq-Sb4b%2BFkBT-yyycmjyaKLwqdS%2BYwg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAoo_GM7S-tmDF2Eq-Sb4b%2BFkBT-yyycmjyaKLwqdS%2BYwg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/37DE41A3-21B9-436A-A916-8FE45EF6E326%40ulb.ac.be.
