Is the Universe Infinite?

I havn't read today's posts yet, but I'll submit this notion before I forget. As my wife reminds me, Nietzsche considers the universe to be finite in so far as it contains all that it will ever contain. For new material to enter it from "outside" (if you believe in an outside) would require the existence of some kind of God. New forms within the universe are not actually new; they are transformations of extant materials. Time, on the other hand, is probably infinite, because if it had a beginning and an end, the end would already have happened. Interesting thoughts.

i suppose that, the allusion to Ultimate Reality, within the actual illusion, would have to consided a delusion!

[that's your pre"fix" for the day!]

this is not problematic; the universe is finite; outside it 9without involving deities) are the other universes; and the Ultiverse (all of the above) is infinite, as is it's atemporal relation to space/time.

"Ultimate Reality dreams." What a powerful statement, but it has problems. "Its" dreams cannot be anything we understand; they cannot be like our sleeping dreams. They include, in fact, our WAKING dreams. Can the dualistic statement, Reality (subject) dreams (predicate), describe the absolutistic, non-relativistic and non-dualistic situation? Asherman is suffering the same problem I face when trying to point to the non-dualistic and absolutistic reality of pre-reflective immediate experience in dualistic terms. But it was a productive attempt. Thanks, Ash.

Probably the best answer I'll get all day... and tomorrow.

i wish i could find bits of evidence that the universe is oscillating, but currently no luck

another possibility that nobody has posted yet is that the universe could transform to something else, very different and will sustain a different type of life, did that make sense, "different type of life"?

"matter cannot be creater nor destroyed" right?

it might be the end of the universe as we know it, but definately not the end of the universe

Asher, when I read your post 3 things came to mind:
Quantum Physics: The dreams stuff are made of.
Bill Hicks: Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration.We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.There's no such thing as death
Life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather.
String Theory: The building blocks of space are outside of time and space, sometimes they're attached to it. Sometimes they're not.
'They way they oscillate, dream, is the way things are formed.' A flawed statement, but I don't feel the need to clarify or to express myself more correctly in this particular case, I'm sure you get it.

And of course buddhism, but that didn't come to mind :p
(That's a joke people, laugh, don't correct me )

actually the big bang theory is looking shaky right now

hey Asherman, do you believe the universe is a cyclic universe do you think it is a possibility

I am interested. Why does anyone with an more than an elementary understanding of physics and / or astronomy feel that the Universe is any of:

1) infinite
2) cyclic
3) not created by a Big Bang?

From a philosophy point of view I can understand the what ifs, but the comments I interpret seem to be more delivered as scientific outcomes judging faulty logic.

If you are really interested, dabble for a second here

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=26

The Astronomy and Astrophysics sub-forums of the Advanced Physics Forum. You get quality answers there from other researchers in the field. Beyond what I do as a hobby these guys do for their masters and doctorate degrees, so their information and access to resources is cutting edge.

why cant it be cyclic? or infinite?

(if refering to my question)
Infinite universe falls into option B
Cyclic universe falls into option A
Big Bang was not dismissed by A or B.

*** Many thanks for the link. Time to go get my house of cards shot down with a semi-automatic instead of a rubber band.

hey nipok, do YOU think that the fate of the universe is cyclic?

Yes and No. Yes it is, but not in the customary way you picture it.

You use the word THE with a lower case universe. If you read my posts, these 2 words don't mix in lower case. You can have our universe, lowercase or the Universe uppercase but the universe lowercase does not make sense to me. IE, there is OUR STC (space time continuum) as created by OUR big bang. This would be what I call the lower case universe. I don't like using the word universe and prefer STC or POST (pocket of space time). Then there is Universe with a capital U. That goes along with the word "the" as in the Universe, all there is, all there was, and all there will or can ever be.

So you asked is the universe cyclic.

The Universe is an infinite number and infinite progression of cycles.

Our universe is one of an infinite number of cycles inside of an infinite progression of cycles. BUT that does not mean that entropy will decide the fate of our universe. It may, but I don't think we have enough data to analyze yet to determine what may happen. As a whole, our POST should maintain some cohesiveness due primarily to gravity. The rate of expansion should slow down as the center of gravity of our POST will attempt to exert itself on the outermost edges and everything in between. Does that mean that at some point our POST will begin to fall back on itself and merge mass back into a point singularity so it can provide the mass for another big bang? I don't known (nobody knows) but I don't think so. I think there are other forces at play besides just the center of gravity of our POST. I think our POST has an axis and rotates thus centrifugal and centripetal forces may very well come into play. (yes I know, very theoretical and even harder to prove then our POST Velocity so I am not going to argue or entertain discussion of our POST Axis. (maybe its there, maybe it isn't)

BUT nothing above really explains what I feel is the cyclical nature of The Universe and our universe.

I don't feel our point singularity was a point. I feel our big bang was caused when two masses collided at speeds that we are unable to comprehend. I feel that probability would dictate that our POST will not exist for an infinite period of time but will eventually crash into another POST and most matter inside our known universe will be smashed into smaller and smaller pieces and left to physical laws to regroup and new galaxies will form. But I am a very small minority. Most people don't think this makes any sense at, at least not yet …

how do you feel about the currect evidence we have now, they say it points against a cyclic universe, is it trustworthy to you, do you think it is solid enough to throw out the cyclic universe theory?

and when you said when the universe contracts and it collapses on itself, you said that you dont think it will contract?, what will happen then?

and is the 2 masses that crashed to maked this universe, were they universes too?

could there be other quasi-verses out there?

Read the post again. I stated I don't think we have enough evidence yet to make an accurate deduction as to unending expansion or inevitable collapse but I personally don't think all matter will end up back inside a point singularity because I don't think all matter started from a point singularity.

I don't think that the 2 masses that created our POST were similar to what we have now. I envision them being denser and more coherent, not spread out like our universe. Otherwise we would not see such homogeneous expansion in all directions but we would see more localized pockets of expansion and collision.

I guess over time ( a very very long time) I do see the matter in our universe slowing retracting towards a center of gravity thus making a more condense mass but I just don't see it becoming a singularity.

Thank you Nipok. I don't think that my views on the matter are significantly different than those you've expressed, nor the views of G_day. I tend to put things in ways consistent with my Buddhist beliefs, since I know them a great deal better than the language of science.

so theres a good chance of another big bang? nipok? Asherman?

also we should change the term universe to quasi-verse