On Sunday, February 16, 2025 at 2:26:37 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, the finite age of the universe doesn’t create the problem you think it does. If the universe is infinite now, it was infinite at the Big Bang. There was no "transition" from finite to infinite, just a change in density and scale factor.
That's your opinion. AG This follows directly from the FLRW metric, which allows an infinite universe to evolve from an extremely dense state. That's one metric, not necessarily the whole story. Your model assumes the universe "began" as infinite. But couldn't it have started as Nothingness? You dismiss that possibility, which is your OPINION! AG Your claim that this transformation is "not remotely intelligible" is just an argument from personal incredulity. You haven't provided any actual contradiction, just a statement that you find it hard to grasp. That’s not physics, that’s just a preference. I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. Your opinion is to start the universe with some non-zero density and then apply the FLRW metric. My opinion is that it started as a singularity with zero volume and then hugely expanded. Where the matter and energy came from I have no idea. That's the best argument for your model. AG Flatness implies infinite extent only in the absence of curvature, but small positive curvature would still be consistent with observations. We agree on that! AG I have no preference for either a finite or infinite universe. The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite remains unresolved, and neither possibility can be dismissed outright. I dismiss that our bubble is infinite, not that that from which it emerged is finite. IOW, my opinion is that the sub-stratum from which it emerged is infinite, but of course this is just my guess. AG Quentin Le dim. 16 févr. 2025, 10:22, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : On Sunday, February 16, 2025 at 1:57:39 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG wrote > 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 Quentin replied> 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. You need to factor in the finite age of the universe, which shows that if it is infinite now, that must have been its initial condition, and then continue the analysis from the creation event. Much more important, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but saying that I am assuming a false dichotomy isn't true just because you believe it's true. 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ecaa8c1-9a58-4ed9-af49-26293b4d87dfn%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ecaa8c1-9a58-4ed9-af49-26293b4d87dfn%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]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/de06d36e-2b40-429a-ac0f-ed02db2603f5n%40googlegroups.com.
