Infinite Universe?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Infinite Universe?
(16-01-2015 08:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  More customarily, the Universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with that usage. I'm just saying that I think I like the idea of reworking the definitions and using cosmos for for everything and universe for the smaller concept.

I probably should have said "I don't know how common the usage is" rather than "I don't know that that is common usage". I don't have much problem with any definition as long as people make it clear what they mean when they use a term.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: Infinite Universe?
(16-01-2015 11:17 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 08:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  More customarily, the Universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with that usage. I'm just saying that I think I like the idea of reworking the definitions and using cosmos for for everything and universe for the smaller concept.

I probably should have said "I don't know how common the usage is" rather than "I don't know that that is common usage". I don't have much problem with any definition as long as people make it clear what they mean when they use a term.

It is rare, even in speculative cosmology, for the distinction to need to be be made - and when it is, rare yet again for there to be contextual ambiguity.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: Infinite Universe?
(16-01-2015 11:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is rare, even in speculative cosmology, for the distinction to need to be be made - and when it is, rare yet again for there to be contextual ambiguity.

I'm really only looking at it from the point of view of trying to talk with theists and in that context I have found the distinction useful. I'm sure you are right that it is not really an issue for people who have even a basic grasp of the concepts (and I certainly count myself as one at the more basic end of the spectrum).

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Infinite Universe?
(16-01-2015 12:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 11:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is rare, even in speculative cosmology, for the distinction to need to be be made - and when it is, rare yet again for there to be contextual ambiguity.

I'm really only looking at it from the point of view of trying to talk with theists and in that context I have found the distinction useful. I'm sure you are right that it is not really an issue for people who have even a basic grasp of the concepts (and I certainly count myself as one at the more basic end of the spectrum).

Well; it's just that outside some very narrow contexts, does the difference between "the totality of observable interaction" and "the totality of observable interaction, plus whatever else there may be, which we by definition can't relate to" matter?

It's true that in principle the "observable" part of our current, actual universe is necessarily a strict subset of its actual extent.
(observers on the "far sides" of it, for all that that's a bad term, will always be able to see the centre - but not each other; but it gets philosophical in that what does existence even mean in the absence of possible interaction?)

And then there's the part where getting dragged through such tedious pedantry is practically always the theist's fault. So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2015, 01:20 PM
RE: Infinite Universe?
(16-01-2015 11:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 11:17 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with that usage. I'm just saying that I think I like the idea of reworking the definitions and using cosmos for for everything and universe for the smaller concept.

I probably should have said "I don't know how common the usage is" rather than "I don't know that that is common usage". I don't have much problem with any definition as long as people make it clear what they mean when they use a term.

It is rare, even in speculative cosmology, for the distinction to need to be be made - and when it is, rare yet again for there to be contextual ambiguity.

So for me statements like the following have no meaning:

Beyond our universe
Outside our universe
A separate universe
Before our universe

Etc.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: Infinite Universe?
(16-01-2015 01:20 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 11:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is rare, even in speculative cosmology, for the distinction to need to be be made - and when it is, rare yet again for there to be contextual ambiguity.

So for me statements like the following have no meaning:

Beyond our universe
Outside our universe
A separate universe
Before our universe

Etc.

This, a thousand times over.

One the one hand, they're the beloved recourse of the cosmologically ignorant proponents of theistic so-called "cosmological" arguments, but vacuously naive applications of contingent ephemeral perception to unimaginably different contexts is just another new coat of paint on the substituting-feels-for-reality train.

Okay, so it is possible to create mathematical constructs in which universe-like "entities" "exist" "within" some "larger" "manifold" (scare-quotes denoting intuitive definitions need not apply, naturally), and it's even possible to begin to imagine means by which some of that speculation might some day become testable, but that's a hell of a far cry from DUNNO THEREFORE GAWDIDIT.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 04:42 AM
RE: Infinite Universe?
(16-01-2015 08:00 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Offtopic: Possible Ranting Corner material, possible wasted space.

I get iritated by how the word/concept of universe is abused. The following is what I deem to be proper descriptions:

The Universe is the totality of spacetime and everything that exists therein.
The part of the universe that we can see, (is) referred to as the observable universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

So, anything outside our observable universe is still universe, there is nothing outside the universe because the universe encompasses all including “other universes” (which makes absolutely no sense to call it that).

OK, tear me a new one.

True, but when I reference the "observable or local" universe, I am talking about a part of the whole. It would be like saying "known" reality.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 06:11 AM
RE: Infinite Universe?
To the OP, in case it has not been satisfactorily dealt with yet or wiki was not sufficiently comprehensible. Warning, I am not a cosmologist.

The universe is thought to have begun in a "big bang" where the observable portion of the universe and possibly the whole universe occupied/was only a small space. The universe would have been for a time opaque, but once light was able to move freely around it would have reached every part of the observable universe and possibly reached the whole universe. That light is everywhere we look around us but now exists in the microwave spectrum. The entire sky is bright with cosmic microwave background radiation. The first stars came later after the universe had time to expand. The light from these stars needs to traverse large distances to reach us, and from the edge of the observable universe outwards has not yet had time to reach us. The universe is continuing to expand and there does now come a point where light would need to travel across a distance that itself is increasing at or faster than the speed of light. Light from that point outwards will never reach us.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
18-01-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Infinite Universe?
^ This plus...

I'm no cosmologist either, but the other part I remember is that, as space itself stretches out, the wavelengths of these waves also gets longer, pushing them farther "down" the electromagnetic spectrum.
So what started as light, would get reduced to infrared, then to microwaves, etc.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: Infinite Universe?
QM may never allow us to figure out a finite or infinite universe, or it may. The freaky thing is that it seems to be not either/or but both. Just like drawing a finite line on a piece of paper that has an infinite number of places between each end.

Posts like this however, I always like to add the reminder, it should not matter nothing or something, science now knows that no matter what, infinite or finite, a god is not required.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: