> On 20 Jan 2020, at 22:53, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 22:45, Alan Grayson <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 6:25:29 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 14:10, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> a écrit :
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 6:04:38 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 13:49, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> a écrit :
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:30:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:02:51 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:31:42 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 1:17:58 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 1:12:45 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 12:57:55 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 10:50:46 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:19 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote:
>
> Last sentence above: I mean that if it had a "start" with infinite spatial
> extent, that would seem to mean it did NOT have an infinite spatial extent
> just prior to the start. For me this seems like a singularity, an infinite
> physical process which occurs in zero time. If I were betting, I'd bet on a
> finite closed universe for any universe which "starts", not for the
> Multiverse. AG
>
> You can bet any way you want. I doubt that the universe gives a shit.
>
> Bruce
>
> I'd go further and ask one question: it obviously doesn't. Is this your idea
> of value-added? What I think it displays is your firmly held belief that it's
> flat, and anger that someone might think otherwise. Not your finest hour. AG
>
> Not anger -- just frustration at your intransigence. I don't care what you
> think, so why should I be angry?
>
> Bruce
>
> Correction in CAPS below:
>
> Annoyance is only slightly removed from anger. Maybe you're being
> intransigent. As Brent pointed out, many origin theories have a "beginning"
> or "start", so before that our universe CAME INTO BEING, IT didn't exist (not
> to be confused with the Multiverse, WHICH COULD BE ANYTHING, FLAT, ETERNAL,
> WHO KNOWS?). But then, magically perhaps, it comes into instantaneous
> existence having an infinite spatial extent since it's alleged to be flat.
> For a genius like you, there's nothing to be explained here. AG
>
> If you had more intellectual integrity, a characteristic lacking in many
> physicists/hacks today, instead of mockery you might posit a universe without
> a beginning. AG
>
>
>
> The problem stems from physicists, for the most part, completely mislead
> people about the relationship between the mathematical language of theories
> of physics and cosmology and physical reality (which we record via lab
> instruments and telescopes into collections of data).
>
> This is explained in Victor Stenger's
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> TY. I'll read it. The likely solution to the problem I've raised is that only
> an un-created universe, one which never began but always existed (in some
> form), can be flat. Unfortunately when one argues too persistently, the
> response is petulance. AG
>
> The truth is, for all his brilliance, Bruce is an asshole. So he makes his
> mocking comments, that he doesn't care what I think, as if that's the issue.
> What shit! What I am established is that flatness is incompatible with a
> universe which had a beginning. So if it's flat, it never had a beginning; or
> else it did, and is closed, hyper-spherical in shape. AG
>
> What prevent it to be infinite since the start ? As I said, it's space that
> expand, so going back in time shows *our obsvervable* universe has been
> small... that doesn't preclude it (our observable part) to be from a vastly
> bigger thing, even an infinite thing, we would still only see our small part.
>
> Quentin
>
> I explained it several times. There's a singularity implied if it had a start
> AND was infinite. If it's infinite, it never had a beginning or start. AG
>
> What singularity ? if being infinite is a singularity, then you're simply
> saying nothing is infinite, start or no start.
>
> You haven't read my remarks carefully. Infinite in spatial extent is not the
> singularity. Rather, it's the creation of that in zero time, at the start,
> since no physical process can occur with a time duration of zero.
>
> And starting from nothing is not a singularity... Why insisting of zero time
> ? It just start infinite... It's no more magical, as starting finite.
>
> Starting from nothing is magical enough.
Glad to hear that.
Of course, we could start from nothing + some operations or principles. In
informal set theory, if we apply comprehension and then reflexion iteratively,
we get
Nothing, represented by { } and denoted by 0.
Then by comprehension and reflexion we get { { } } = {0} = 1
and then { { } { { } }} = {0, 1} = 2
and then …, and actually if you are willing to “comprehend” the limit of this
you get {0, 1, 2, 3, … } = omega,
and then, of course, you get {0, 1, 2, 3, … omega} = omega + 1, and then {0,
1, 2, 3, … omega, omega + 1 } = omega + 2,
…
omega + omega
…
…
And if you “continue far enough", you get *all* ordinals, from nothing except
two very powerful mathematical tools.
The whole construction can be formalised in diverse set theories, and such
theories are usually much more powerful than the theories of arithmetic.
Usually arithmetic is faithfully represented in a initial segment of the model
of reasonable set theories (like ZF).
Now we have two nice recursive representations of the natural numbers:
0 is a number,
IF x is a number, so is Sx.
And in set theory:
0 = { }
n = n U {n}
And of course a natural correspondance:
0 ————— - { }
S0 ————— {0}
SS0 —— —— {0, 1}
Etc.
Note an amusing fact: the unary intersection in pure set theory (where
everything are sets) is: intersection(x) = the usual intersection of all y in
x. The amusing fact is that the unary intersection of the empty set is the
entire universe of sets (the class V made of all set x such that x = x}.
Intersection(x) = V.
We can’t extract any thing from nothing, but you don’t need to add a lot to
make the nothing exploding into the everything. A bit like when we divide by
zero.
To understand the nature of nothing and to understand the nature of everything
is about the same thing.
Bruno
>
> Note that after the start, the universe might be expanding faster than light,
> but not at an infinite rate, which would be necessary to create infinite
> spatial extent. 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/6f7b8392-51fd-4f5b-b304-3a726ae2a083%40googlegroups.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6f7b8392-51fd-4f5b-b304-3a726ae2a083%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] <>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f241d6d6-34e9-41d0-9268-f07bb7f03009%40googlegroups.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f241d6d6-34e9-41d0-9268-f07bb7f03009%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/06ea8550-3e3c-49a5-88bb-9bfe40c5217b%40googlegroups.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ea8550-3e3c-49a5-88bb-9bfe40c5217b%40googlegroups.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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqM3Q%3DWbmssNMo0pas4%3DmdT2G3WZZoHzK89kWDYBeV7BQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqM3Q%3DWbmssNMo0pas4%3DmdT2G3WZZoHzK89kWDYBeV7BQ%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/87F4F013-116C-45FD-8B1F-CB7561D32DA3%40ulb.ac.be.
