I’ve heard it said by scientists on the educational channels, Discovery and/or History. Sorry I can’t give a reference.
Space is not empty space. There is something there, call it “energy” or whatever you want. Apparently space is only where matter is or close by. So there is nothing outside the universe, not even an “outside”.
It is true that zero point energy exists even in seemingly empty space, but this energy isn’t somehow creating the space. This energy is present due to the fact that energy levels are subject to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, and so the energy level of something cannot be exactly zero, since that would mean its momentum and position are both known, which the Heisenburg uncertainty principle doesn’t allow, so the energy level of even a vacuum can’t be absolutely zero.
This is why there is some energy in empty space, but there is nothing to suggest this energy somehow “creates” the space. It just so happens that there is space and due to the uncertainty principle, some energy must be present.
Were it not for the space, this energy would not be there, so if the energy creates the space, then we have a causal loop of energy creating space which allows for the energy which creates the space… and so on. If this setup of a causal loop is actually possible, then it refutes the cosmological argument, because if causal loops are allowed, then that means you can have a causal chain of events without a beginning. In fact, if this setup of a causal loop is possible, that could provide an alternate reason for the big bang in which the energy of the universe makes the universes’ space possible, and the space makes the energy possible.
Maybe it is true that energy and matter create space, but if that is true, then you end up with a causal loop, and in order for the cosmological argument to work, then causal loops need to be impossible.
When you move, you have to go where space is.
Why does a satellite orbit the Earth? Because is follows the curvature of space.
You can’t go outside the universe because at some point the curvature of space forces you back. This is the boundary.
Sure, as the universe expands this boundary keeps getting pushed further out, but that’s not infinity.
What I mean by boundary is if you were to pick an arbitrary direction and go in that direction, would you be able to continue indefinitely, getting farther and farther away from your starting point or no? If this is possible, then there is no boundary in the dimensions of this universe, and space extends infinitely in that particular direction. I’m not saying this setup is true, but I do think that this scenario isn’t contrary to logic, and if it isn’t contrary to logic, then it seems that we have a real infinity of distance, which means that the prohibition of real infinities doesn’t apply to space, and since space and time are connected and described with the same set of equations in relativity and are affected by acceleration and gravity in the same way, it seems reasonable to say that if the prohibition of real infinities doesn’t apply to space, then it shouldn’t apply to time, either.
I’m rather surprised to read that. “without end” means it will always continue to extend, but not that if will ever reach infinity, which is not a real number and not reality. There will always be a boundary ( of the amount of time that has elapsed ) at any moment in the future.
I never said that it would reach infinity. I’m not the one treating infinity like a number. You’re equivocating on the meaning of boundary. When we are talking about the past, you insist there must be a beginning. If there is such a beginning, then time has a boundary in the past because you can’t go beyond that boundary. That beginning is a limit that you can point to and say “you can’t go any earlier than this point” That’s what we mean by boundary.
You bring up the matter of time being bounded at any given time by the present moment. I admit that in a sense, this is a sort of boundary, but it isn’t the sort of boundary that we are talking about. When we ask ourselves whether a particular thing or quantity is infinite or not, we answer by looking at whether or not we can pick a boundary line which that particular thing or quantity cannot go beyond. If such a boundary exists, then it isn’t infinite. If such a boundary doesn’t exist, then the thing we are talking about is infinite.
The boundary you propose for time isn’t that kind of boundary. Time can move past the present moment. If it couldn’t, then how can there be a next moment? You say that the boundary is always moving, but you can’t count it as a boundary if you have to move it. If you are allowed to move the boundary, then what is the point even trying to see if there is one? In the context of looking at whether something is or isn’t infinite, allowing moving boundaries renders the whole question meaningless.
)
As we say up here-ah in Maine, ‘You can’t get there from here.’