Proof the universe doesn't exist?

I have been known to say that communication is inadequate. Figure out how to share perception and you'll bring peace and understanding to the world.

What I am saying is that there is no outside, there is no nothingness...the Universe does not exist somewhere but rather it is the condition for "somewhereness" as all potential is in not out...nothing is nothing such that there is no nothing...Space is an axis of order and has size...size between things with forms has shape also prevented the Universe is finite in spacetime expansion...an argument for finite conception is the Big Bounce theory for the Big Bang, but there are other models for a finite cycling Universe...of course a finite cycling Universe can repeat infinitely, thus the explanation that we can conceive of infinity's...I tend to think of Multiverse as the place of everythingness...no bloody outside of multiverse or nothingness beyond it for sure...
...it is my belief that nothingness only has relative meaning within spacetime, and that absolute nothingness it is an aberration...we refer to the difference from actual to potential objects...the difference between what is here now and what is not here in the next moment, but that nevertheless was possible...I believe the number of possible things is finite...that is, emergence of new effects, or novelty in the Universe as critical mass is reached is limited in number...there must be a maximum number of space slots at plank scale...a finite number of potential arrangements between maximum and minimum entropy...that number describes all our potential and all variation shapes of empty as occupied space...well...there you have a set of my beliefs in a nutshell !...
(...yes I am one of those who avoids infinity at all costs... infinite repeating, with finite complexity or quality, is my way of getting around the problem...)

Not true; look at the "improvements" in communication just over the past century. Atrocities have increased at the same rates.

Improvement in the quality of communication does not match increasing complexity or the number of communications...that's how I go about that...I also believe knowledge brings peace...maybe I am naive...but like hot water molecules jumping around to much communication brings noise rather then knowledge...I prefer room temperature water...

I think you are naive; the most advanced countries build the most "effective" war machines.

Now I see where we diverged.

Our concepts on the Universe are at odds. I hold that the Universe cannot be finite, though the matter within it can be. We observe galactic expansion and have connected it with the Big Bang but need to understand that there must be infinite room for growth. While the Big Bounce supports a cycle of existence that is held by many observations, there are just as many observations that show the Big Bounce to be false. Heisenberg applied to a macro scale would be an example of one such applied observation.

When I state somewhere, what I am really saying is potential. I feel the Universe exists in a state of potential. It is that potential that cannot be enumerated and placed in a set because potential is not finite. With the Universe containing potential, or the Universe residing within potential, there is still a non-linear blob of probability vs possibility that cannot be defined. This does not prove existence, but it does create the "God" argument in that it does not allow disproof either. At least not through this method.

...most advanced in what sense ? When I think of advanced country's I think of Swiss and the likes...besides the most powerful country's are now reducing their nuclear armament...it is the ones in development who are increasing their capability...maybe my hopes are not totally misplaced...

I'm with Fil on this one actually. Communication is inadequate in the sense that there is no possible way to communicate perception. Anything we communicate will be diluted by the perception of the individual receiving the information. How effectively we communicate the same old ideas is not the same as how thoroughly we communicate. It is the thoroughness that I take issue with.

Additionally, it is not fair to call Fil naïve. The concept of "Advanced" countries has nothing to do with their communication ability. I live in America. Our ability to communicate thoroughly with each other is slowly dipping into a combination text-speak and pure illiteracy. Still, we are a "Great Nation".

I cannot know, but I feel that the universe (whatever that is) is neither finite nor infinite. Those puny concepts reveal our limited nature and inability either to ask or answer the "right" questions--just as an ant, no matter how bright a representative of his species he may be, can never grasp the nature of our present behavior we call a cyber conversation.

Of course potential can be finite given a finite quatitized space frame...in fact it is much more logic that potential it is finite..infinite potential as any form of other infinity normally only leads to chaos...everything falls apart...

...the cyber conversation of ants is pheromones, it is a bit like mail... they do it !...

This is my view exactly. Anything is finite once limits are imposed.

Still, we must assume one way or another. Finite or Infinite determines the validity of either of our arguments in this matter. I am willing to admit that, in a finite universe model, your application of set theory is compelling. Still, I have to believe that my theory is also correct given the assumption of an infinite potential/Universe.

...agreed...

"Thoroughness of communication" is not a panacea for correct interpretation and/or reception of the information.

Look at the US politics of today.

Imagine that you have three bottles of beer in the door of your fridge. As they're arranged, they have an order, so we can construct a power set. However, that a certain bottle is an element of more than one subset does not entail the multiplication of that bottle. Power sets can be constructed until your pencil is fully used up, you will still only have three bottles of beer. Likewise with your argument, that the number of elements can be arranged into different subsets doesn't involve any increase in number of elements.

...I was under the impression powersets entail all possible different arrangements and not one particular sequence or arrangement...

There exist at least two people, you and I. Consider that to be the universe of interest. So, we can define a set, which is the universe, and that set has cardinality 2. Both you and I are elements in two of the subsets of the defined set, but that does not mean that there are two different and distinct "you"s, does it? **** about with power sets until your brain bleeds, it makes not a jot of difference to the number of objects which are you, does it?
In short, the argument in the opening post of this thread fails by equivocating over the entities counted and the system of counting.

...if you consider yourself through space time there are allot of variations of "you", even at each short period there are several aspects of personality or personality's competing to emerge consciously as context changes..."you" at large evolves through those variations, such that "you" as a unit is already a set, a collection of units...but simplifying, yeah I see what you mean and I agree he has no point...

If we do not take universe as a primitive concept we define it as the set U such that for any set Y there exists a surjection of U onto Y. Now the theorem you are referring to as Cantor's theorem is just a very special restricted case of a more general theorem , originally proved by Cantor which is " If A is any set,then there is no surjection of A onto the set P(A) of all subsets of A " ; and so , as we defined universe, the power set of U can simply not exist and so your argument has totally been based on the existence of something which simply can not exist ! , and that is very wrong. ( proof of Cantor's Theorem:- Suppose that f : A ---> P(A) is a surjection.Since f(a) is a subset of A , either a belongs to f(a) or it does not. We let D={a belongs to A : a does not belong to f(a) } . Since D is a subset of A, if f is a surjection , then D=f(m) for some m belonging to A. We must have either m is in D or m is not in D . If m is in D , then since D=f(m),we must have , m is in f(m) , contrary to the definition of D. Similarly,if m is not in D , then m is not in f(m) , so that by definition m is in D , which is also a contradiction . Therefore, f can not be a surjection and since f was arbitary(general) mapping of A onto P(A) , there is no surjection of A onto P(A) ,this proves the Theorem )

Placing 'our' universere into a set is assuming it has strict boundaries, which is not the case. Try placing an atom in a box and see what happens. As for 'reality'.......it is what it is.