On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 9:10 PM Lawrence Crowell < [email protected]> wrote:
> There seems to be some sort of issue with the idea of continuum or space > having an infinite number of points. I see this as a modern day version of > asking how many angels can dance on a pin. I can see what you mean in a de Sitter universe that had no matter in it, then the continuum vs non-continuum argument and even the infinite universe vs finite universe argument would be pretty meaningless, just philosophers running around in circles chasing their own tails. I would even question if a universe that had no matter in it could even meaningfully be said to exist because the best definition of "nothing" I've ever heard is "infinite unbounded homogeneity", and that sure sounds a lot like a de Sitter universe to me. But if it's not de Sitter and real particles exist not just virtual particles, and if space or time is a continuum then even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics you'd need an infinite number of digits to describe the distance between 2 particles and to state their momentum. And no amount of approximation would be good enough to make long term predictions about their position and momentum because even the smallest error could cause huge differences in outcome; and that would be even more true if the universe were accelerating. Anyway, would you agree that there is no effective way to tell the difference between a "finite" universe that is expanding and accelerating forever and a "infinite" universe that is expanding and accelerating forever? If there isn't then it is indeed a modern day version of asking how many angels can dance on a pin. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1SmoGP9u9oiyA%3DxWt_ddHqz%2BWsy%2Bvq00Q%3DibuxtpSi7w%40mail.gmail.com.
