From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 12:44:49 MST
[Blunderov] This is very bad news. I cannot grasp that the universe might be
finite. I have tried to think of it as:the Universe is a set, U, with
itself, u, as the sole member. This was not a big help. I cannot withstand
the idea that there <em>must<em> be something on the other side of that
boundary. In my experience of the world that's what boundaries do - they
have one other side.
[Hermit] It is not bad news at all. It preserves sanity and allows us to
build effective models. Try to imagine the nightmare of working with sets
with members not included in U! Outside of the Universe is meaningless, as
when you try to define outside it becomes inside! The Universe must contain
everything that can be defined, real and imaginary, including the idea of
other universii. I'm afraid that this is not something very easy to convey
with words, but I'll try to convey at least a glimpse of the idea.
[Hermit] Bear in mind that the Universe is defined by space-time, and that
in the absence of space-time, there is no Universe. There is no anything.
Not even the idea of inside or outside, never mind up or down. It is the
null set, "{}", in every possible way. Until something (gravity, radiation,
matter, force) arrives in a location to establish a reference frame, that
location is undefined - it must be, because outside of the boundaries of
the Universe which encompasses everything. It becomes even more interesting
when you consider that the Universe is expanding, but that that expansion is
effectively from itself into itself. Consider the well worn example of the
raisin loaf (discussed at length during the "Very Sebby Universe" threads).
The Universe is defined by what is in the bread, which is expanding
(including the raisins in it). What is "outside" the bread does not make any
sense within the scope of the Universe. So the entire Universe is expanding,
and some of the material within it is rushing outwards, and creating a
additional volume within the Universe as it defines additional regions of
space time. But there is nothing absorbed by the Universe in order to
expand, the space-time is created as it is required to contain the
matter-energy within the Universe just as the loaf of bread universe does
not "absorb" the oven to expand.
[Blunderov] By the data you have cited, the conclusion that "outside" the
universe there is "nothing" seems unavoidable, but the fact we <i>know<i>
that there <em>is<em> something,(existence, whatever it's actual
nature)seems to preclude the possibility of there being "nothing".
[Hermit] It is a different kind of nothing from that you are used to, that's
all. After all, "nothing" is also an idea - which is inside the Universe.
This is the reason that it is hard to convey the idea, most people are
unfamiliar with the Klein bottle, if you examine a trapped-genii's
perspective of a 3D projection of a Klein bottle (which is a 4D object that
can be conveniently "projected" into 3D space), you will discover that it
has no outside (or if you prefer to view it from the outside, it has no
inside). Perhaps thinking of the Universe along those lines will help
(except that it seems that the Universe has at least 10D). Common sense
doesn't.
Kind Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT