AG, your argument assumes a false dichotomy between "nothing" and "something" while making unjustified claims about infinity. If the universe is infinite now, it was infinite at the Big Bang, there’s no "transition" from finite to infinite. Your assertion that this is "not remotely intelligible" is just an appeal to personal incredulity, not an actual argument.
Quentin Le dim. 16 févr. 2025, 09:44, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Saturday, February 15, 2025 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, February 15, 2025 at 9:11:22 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 2/15/2025 7:03 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, February 15, 2025 at 1:56:14 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 2/14/2025 11:36 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 11:06:42 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 2/14/2025 3:23 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 12:36:38 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 2/12/2025 12:55 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > If the age of the universe is finite, which is generally believed, then no > matter how fast it expands, it can never become spatially infinite, So,* > IF* it is spatially infinite, this must have been its initial condition > at or around he time of the Big Bang (BB). But this contradicts the > assumption that it was at a super high temperature at or around the time of > the BB. > > No it doesn't. I can be infinite and high temperature. What gave you > idea it couldn't? > > IOW, if we run the clock backward, the universe seems to get incredibly > small, > > If the universe is infinite, then it is only the Observable Universe that > gets incredibly small. > > > > *Is there any principle you are aware of, which prevents an infinite > universe from becoming incredible small? * > > > > *It would have to undergo an infinite change in size in a finite time, > which would require infinite relative velocities. Brent* > > > *I can't imagine a universe starting as infinite in spatial extent -- can > you? -- * > > As well as I can imagine any infinite thing. Imagination can be trained. > My supervising professor, Englebert Schucking, could visualize four > dimensional objects and draw their projection on the blackboard. If you > can't do that, you just have to suppress some dimensions; then in the (t,r) > plane there's an infinite line, the t-axis, and to the right of this line > is the (t,r) plane and in that plane everything is moving apart. Just look > at Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial: > > https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > > Brent > > > The problem is this; how does one imagine a universe which suddenly comes > into being, initially resumably with zero spatial extent, and when it does, > it's infinite in spatial extent? IMO, this would be a singularity implying > infinite spatial expansion instantaneously. I have no alternative but to > reject this model for a finite one, starting small and hot, and expanding, > since I have no idea what it means to begin infinitely. I am open to > suggestions. AG > > Expand your imagination. Remember "infinite" just means without bound. > You don't have to imagine the whole infinite line, just imagine a line > without imagining it's ends. > > > Not saying I believe it, but the best bet at this point in time, is that > the universe began as a quantum fluctuation, thus small, very small! AG > > BTW, since a finite volume such as the observable universe, can originate > from a point, those pictorial models of the evolution of the universe, > starting from a point, aka the BB, are apparently accurate in their > descriptions. That is, they're not necessarily simplifications of the > evolution. AG > > Probably they are since they don't take account of quantum mechanics; but > we don't know exactly how they are wrong. > > Brent > > > Consider this: For Nothing to become Something and also be infinite in > spatial extent, that Something must have that infinity as its initial > condition, given that it now has a finite age. But transforming from > Nothing to Something and having that infinity as its initial condition as > infinite in spatial extent, is, if you think about, not remotely > intelligible. For this reason, I conclude it can't have this infinity as > its initial condition and can't be flat, which implies this infinity. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2ecdf7ed-88dc-4e07-b870-541003d3ed7bn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2ecdf7ed-88dc-4e07-b870-541003d3ed7bn%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAq5Wti3SCKk_01Bcg-0hO4yo6tQ-bKFc_29spML07kQAg%40mail.gmail.com.
