the universe and space....?

It would seem the addition of plus one to any mathematical formula defines infinity. c.i.

C.I.,
Only to a mathmetician, And then not always.
It's God to the religious,
It's boundryless to the physicist
It's love to the kindly
It's is to the mechanic
It's the prime mover to the truck driver

Describing an infinity is a lot like the three blind men and the elephant. Didn't really think it would be that much of a trick three years ago.

Very good, akaMech! LOL c.i.

I could explain the concept using space-time models, but I wouldn't know how to put those on the net. I could attempt explaining it through words. But not now. I'm too lazy.

Ha!

I, and most likely, We would love to have you try.

This Universe seems to be a tad difficult for us to understand without some sort of personal belief system.

If you are claiming that you can do it then you will definitely have my best wishes if you try!
Best, M

When you're asking about modeling this, do you want the maths or just the description ?

Mech

I'm not sure that one comes up with "understanding" from a belief system. Certainly hypotheses are important to the process of exploring, but...belief system???

Frrank, I think what Mech means is that it's necessary to begin with a "belief system" before we can proceed to the next step in our inquiry. c.i.

truth
It seems to me that both Frank and AkAMechSmity are right. It is obvious that scientific activity cannot move forward without the generation of hypotheses, either generated from observation, intuition or deduction from general theory, but to be "scientific" it must be testable/falsifiable in some way--and religious systems are generally counterproductive to this activity.
At the same time, it would seem that all science rests, if only implicitly on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality, truth, thinking, etc., etc. These basic tacit postulates are focused upon mainly by philosophers of science, not scientists themselves--the latter accept, I think, a certain level of naivete in this regard. If they didn't their activities would never get off the ground.

ILZ- Heliotrope, and CI particularily

I don't know folks. An overview sufficient to see if we are all working on the same wavelength would be good for openers.

For instance, beginning-- Is it a beginning of everything? A beginning of our observable Universe-- a beginning of time? Of self awareness?

For instance, infinite, never ending? never beginning? line drawn on a sphere?
Measurements-- In spacetime? Light years? totally meaningless?

Are unobservable dimensions required? Inexplicable events. Suspensions of laws of physics?

An explanation of how any thing may be both finite and boundryless.

A definition of the volumes surrounding the Known Universe.

CI and JL, Yes, that is what I meant.
In order to define any universe we must first BELIEVE that we exist.

If I try to define any universe I attempt to limit my assumption to that, then head for the physical laws that support the observations that we all can see. (assuming only that we exist). Extrapolating the rest according to observed behavior of matter and energies. (Yes I know they are the same. Hiroshima and nuclear power proved that sufficiently)IMO

So I take Descartes view as most succint-- "I think therefore I am".
Thats no proof but I think that it is the minimum (and maximum) assumption that we have so far discovered. Hope it flies, M.

Mech, "Consciousness" is one of the ten unsolved problems of physics, so it would seem a good place to start any discussion on universe and space. c.i.

truth
I would begin from a perspective of absolute skepticism regarding our most fundamental categories. All our concepts are artifices of culture, "in here", "out there", space, time, beginning and end, forever-infinity, etc., etc.. Every one of our concepts, including the conceptual the pillars of any theory--including each term of the phrase "cogito ergo sum"--reflect human limitation. From this perspective--which also rests on linguistic limitations--we must take our theoretical efforts regarding the MACROVERSE (both "spatially" and "temporally") with a grain of salt. I think (and, of course, I cannot know this) that our chances of understanding the macroverse "objectively" (and not just in terms of our categories) is no more likely that a bunch of ants figuring out what we are about right now.

CI and JL,
OK, in essence we have agreed to assume that we exist. Lets see what happens tomorrow.

JLN, I would hope that we have a bit more hope than a bunch of ants. c.i.

truth
C.I., IF my skepticism is correct, that we are simply not equipped to understand the MACROpicture (and this means more than the observable universe, because all observations to be noticed must be framed within the context of our concepts), I do not find this in the least depressing (you talk about hope and think I am talking about hopelessness). If that's our nature then it is cosmologically proper that we only understand our "observable" universe--and not from some kind of God-like perspective. I'm sure the ants have the wisdom not to complain about their inherent limitations. So, my friend, go take a trip: that's YOUR nature.

Do you mean "bug off?" ;( c.i.

"IF my skepticism is correct, that we are simply not equipped to understand the MACROpicture (and this means more than the observable universe, because all observations to be noticed must be framed within the context of our concepts),

I think (and, of course, I cannot know this) that our chances of understanding the macroverse "objectively" (and not just in terms of our categories) is no more likely that a bunch of ants figuring out what we are about right now."

If this is true, which it is, then we are not equipped to ever understand our surroundings, our "spacial existence". An ant will never know why he is here, much less why we are. But we can probably get a leg up on that ant there.

I feel much like that ant in the fact that I work, I feed, I defecate and procreate, but I still know nothing of why.

This is a great topic, alot of interesting thought, but until we gain some ground on the ant, shouldn't we focus on ourselves? Let the universe take care of itself, until we know what our place in it is.

Robwill, WELCOME to A2K. The "why" has always been the Achelles' heel for mankind. Perhaps that's the reason why religion is so important to our existence. c.i.

Robwill

Welcome to A2K.

Please do not go away.

I like your thinking and I like the way you expressed it.


(ci -- tell me you didn't think that was me posting under a different name!!)