On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 7:35:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2020, at 11:06, John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:03 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> If infinite distances makes you squeamish I don't see how you can >>> consistently embrace infinite outcomes. And besides this is not >>> mathematics, in physics nothing is provably infinite, nobody has ever >>> found an infinite number of anything. >>> >> >> *> It's not a matter of, or a case of being squeamish with infinite >> outcomes. I just don't see how cosmologists can claim the universe is flat >> -- which means infinite in spatial extent -- if it starts small and expands >> for a finite time.* >> > > Infinity is not a number, infinity is a process that evolves in time. > > > That is Aristotle potential infinite. Cantorial actual infinities are > treated by sets in set theory, and behave like numbers (we can add them, > but it is not commutative, we can multiply them, exponentiate them, etc. > > It is doubtful that there are actual infinities in the observable realm, > and if we are machines, that is a priori undecidable. Now, with a non > mechanist theory of mind, all notions are open. > > > > If a cosmologists says the universe is infinite he means that a pulse of > light will keep getting more distant from its starting point and never > return. I don't know if the universe is infinite or not but I see nothing > obviously absurd with the idea. > > > > It is easy to prove that the physical (observable) universe has to be > infinite, and contains non computable elements once we bet on Mechanism in > the cognitive science. And without mechanism, also, but for very different > reason. > > > > And when cosmologists say the universe started at a singularity what they > mean is it started at a place they don't understand, they never claimed to > know everything. In physics "singularity" doesn't mean infinite density or > zero volume, it means "our theories break down here and produce ridiculous > results”. > > > Yes, and to invoke a singularity in an explanation is not much different > than invoking a god or a primary universe. That explains nothing and such > terms designates our ignorance. >
*What's your problem? No one invokes "singularity" as an explanation of anything; other than the fact that any theory which has one, cannot be applicable at the space-time point of its occurrence. AG* > > > Bruno > > > > > John K Clark > > >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3wK2pNXnHkVEPa9jKsdxk0ObNciXtWbgRL8_ZJRQ4Dgw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3wK2pNXnHkVEPa9jKsdxk0ObNciXtWbgRL8_ZJRQ4Dgw%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/ae10f811-a8e1-4226-9a71-54bb410260fb%40googlegroups.com.
