The very words that you use have no meaning. So how can any conversation be had ? Is like wanting to debate how many angels fit on the head of a needle. Sure, it has the appearance of a well formulated question, but it is actually meaningless.
On Thursday 3 October 2024 at 18:59:11 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 9:50:12 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > You can only ever observe yourself. So by unobservable you mean the minds > of other consciousnesses ? > > > I'm seeking substantive responses, so please refrain from posting on this > thread. AG > > > On Thursday 3 October 2024 at 17:21:28 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > > To recapitulate and clarify the argument: > > Firstly, by "universe" (our "bubble"), I mean the observable *and* > unobservable regions defining our expanding universe. > > Secondly, since our universe is expanding, we could run the clock backward > to any earlier time, and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, > establishing that the observable region is finite in spatial extent. (It's > actually measured to have a radius of 46 BLY.) > > Thirdly, concerning the *un*observable region, let's assume it's infinite > in spatial extent. If so, this couldn't have occurred in stages, say by > spatial expansion, since no matter how fast it might expand, or for how > long a length of time, it would remain finite throughout, and could never > achieve infinite status. Hence, the only way it could be infinite in > spatial extent, would be for it to be either *UN*-*created*, or if it had > a beginning it must have expanded *instantaneously* to infinity in > spatial extent. These options are falsified in two ways; first by the CMBR, > which is predicted by the Big Bang. That is, empirical evidence affirms it > had a starting time. And second, as previously argued, if it is now > infinite in spatial extent and had a beginning, it would have had to expand > *instantaneously* to infinity. Since I consider this physically > impossible -- which is my unproven and likely unprovable assumption -- by > two lines of argument our universe must be finite in spatial extent. > > Final conclusions:, being *finite* in spatial extent, *it cannot be flat* > (despite the consensus view), since that implies infinite in spatial extent > (assuming it's not toroidal). And there is no need to do any measurements. > Using a purely logical argument, our universe is finite in spatial extent > and cannot have a flat global geometry. Its likely global geometry is > approximately spherical, since it's expanding in all directions from every > point in spacetime and is approximately isotropic. What could be *uncreated > and infinite in space and time*, is the substratum from which our > universe emerged. > > QED, 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/feb056d8-a939-45a4-ad67-c5ce23180604n%40googlegroups.com.
