Infinite Universe? Heaven?

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes. You are right that we have both used verbal arguments in this thread which are not rigorously correct; if you remember, that is a point that I have made multiple times. I agree that I have done so in this branch of the thread where we are talking about using the properties of infinite sets to think about an infinite universe, as I have done where we were talking about General Realtivity and cosmology.

I admire your attitude, hecd2. The more honest and humble, the more admirable it seems to me.

So let’s have a couple of definitions, and then I am going to ask you a question and we can go from there.

• An FLRW universe is a homogeneous and isotropic exact solution of the Einstein field equations describing an expanding or contracting universe
• An infinite FLRW universe is flat and is infinite in extent but not necessarily infinite in past time
• For an infinite FLRW universe, the expansion of the universe does not mean that its boundary is expanding since an infinite universe is without boundary
• The expansion of the universe means that the cosmic scale factor changes over time
• Changes in the cosmic scale factor over time results in changes in the relative proper distance of two objects in the universe - (this is called the Hubble flow)
• Changes in distance caused by motion apart from the Hubble flow, arising, for example, from local gravitational interactions, known as peculiar motion, is not included in changes in the scale factor
• The expansion is the same everywhere, so the change in scale factor can be determined by the finite change in the finite proper distance of any two cosmic objects.

The question: given those definitions, do you consider that the concept of an expanding infinite universe can be excluded mathematically or logically? And if so, how would you demonstrate that?

I recognise that you could say that this is a blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof, as it is, but my attempt to use infinite sets in this discussion is not going well. (I think that there might be some mileage in a more rigorous definition of density, and possibly via the Lebesgue measure, but that would need me to learn some measure theory, so that’s not going to be forthcoming in the next day or two).

But I feel that with these set of statements you are inviting me to put my imagination into play, and it really doesn’t work with infinities. We should focus on the mathematical models, but I do not know nor the Einstein field equations nor the FLRW solution to them. I would have to propose something much simpler, really much more simple, to begin with. Please you tell me if this is representative of the problem we are facing: I think on the equation of the line (but please don’t imagine a line in the space, but use only your reason). This simple equation establishes a bijective relation (I) between two infinite sets (X and Y) of real numbers, and it includes a parameter “m” that we call “slope” whose value we can change.

y = mx

We will also define a second bijective relation (II) which we will apply to X and to Y. The set resulting from the application of the relation II to X we will call Dx (distance in X); and the set resulting from the application of the relation II to Y we will call Dy (distance in Y).

dx = |x2 - x1|
dy = |y2 - y1|

where x1 and x2 are elements of X which are related to the elements y1 and y2 of the set Y, respectively; and dx, dy are elements of the sets Dx and Dy, respectively.

Starting with a value of 1 for “m” in the bijective relation I, as we increase it we will observe the following: for a given couple x1, x2, we will obtain the corresponding values of y1 and y2; and then, every time we evaluate the corresponding values of dx and dy, we will notice that dy becomes larger and larger than dx and, of course, larger than before; in other words, it grows as “m” grows. We will decide to call “expansion” to this growth, and applying it to the set Y we will say that it “expands” as “m” grows.

So defined our terms I find absolutely no contradiction in the development. It is only when we want to apply it as a model of the X and Y axis (when we draw a line to relate points in the X axis to points in the Y axis following standard rules) that we feel disturbed. And the problem I see is that we tend to imagine that both axes are made up of mathematical points, which is not the case.

 

[hecd2]

I admire your attitude, hecd2. The more honest and humble, the more admirable it seems to me.

Thank you - particularly for being patient while I took three posts to understand that the line of argment I had chosen was going nowhere, having used imprecise language and, indeed, language rather than mathematical notation - the very limitation I was cautioning you and others about with regard to GR and Riemannian geometry. I am interested to see whether an expanding infinite universe can either be excluded by logic or shown to be compatible with it. I am a physicist not a mathematician and this is more akin to a mathematical or pure logic question than a physics question. So I am not on home territory.

On the one hand, theoretical physicists who are much better mathematicians than I am have no problem with the concept of an expanding infinite universe (defined as I have in the previous post). On the other hand, several people on this and other forums assert (without supporting logic) that the concept is logically absurd. Since it is almost certain that the universe is expanding and it is possible for the universe geometry to be flat then their assertion entails a boundary to the universe which seems even more absurd.

So, I am interested in pursuing mathematical and logical arguments which allow or exclude an expanding (in the sense I defined in the previous post) infinite universe. I can’t find any textbook treatment of this question.

Thanks for your suggestion of a way to talk about expansion in set theory in your last post. It looks promising - I need a day or two to think about it before I respond, and with Christmas almost here I have a lot to organise for our family celebration so it might be more than a day or two.Also I have thought a little more about whether the Lebesgue measure might help clarify things - it is after all a formal way to give a single measure to the interval on a subset of the real numbers and is particularly applicable to thinking about measures on Euclidean space, and it has properties which I think might help, e.g. the property of dilation (yes I realise that GR is conducted on a pseudo-riemannian manifold, so I’d have to see if my idea works first on Euclidean space and then whether it can be made to work on curved space - and how to incorporate your promising start). All of this will take a bit of time, as I said I have some learning to do first and I am not a natural mathematician, but I will come back to this thread with some ideas in due course.

 

[hecd2]

Having written the above, I was put in mind of the oldie but goodie which most will have seen before - nevertheless here it is:

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train from London to Cardiff. They cross the Welsh border and there is a black sheep in a field. The engineer exclaims “Look at that - sheep in Wales are black”. The physicist shakes his head - “No,no,no - some sheep in Wales are black”. The mathematician sighs deeply and explains “No - there is at least one field in Wales, containing one sheep, at least one side of which is black.”

And here’s one against a theoretical physicist: Three fishermen agree to share their catch equally. After landing the last fish and adding it to the pile they fall asleep. The first to wake, divides the pile into three as agreed and there is one fish over which he throws back into the sea. He takes his share and goes. The second to wake doesn’t realise the first fisherman has gone, he divides all the remaining fish into three, finds there is one left over, hurls it into the sea, takes his share and goes. The third does the same, wakes up, doesn’t notice the other two have gone, divides the remaining fish into three, finds there is one left over, throws it back, takes his share and goes.

So the question is what is the least number of fish that the fisherman had to start?

Paul Dirac is said to have proposed the following solution: They started with -2 fishes. The first fisherman threw one fish into the sea leaving -3 in the pile (-2-1 = -3). He put -1 fish in his bag and went home leaving -2 fishes (-3)-(-1). The other fishermen did the same. Some people say this is the same sort of maths he employed to predict the positron.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Having written the above, I was put in mind of the oldie but goodie which most will have seen before - nevertheless here it is:

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train from London to Cardiff. They cross the Welsh border and there is a black sheep in a field. The engineer exclaims “Look at that - sheep in Wales are black”. The physicist shakes his head - “No,no,no - some sheep in Wales are black”. The mathematician sighs deeply and explains “No - there is at least one field in Wales, containing one sheep, at least one side of which is black.”

And here’s one against a theoretical physicist: Three fishermen agree to share their catch equally. After landing the last fish and adding it to the pile they fall asleep. The first to wake, divides the pile into three as agreed and there is one fish over which he throws back into the sea. He takes his share and goes. The second to wake doesn’t realise the first fisherman has gone, he divides all the remaining fish into three, finds there is one left over, hurls it into the sea, takes his share and goes. The third does the same, wakes up, doesn’t notice the other two have gone, divides the remaining fish into three, finds there is one left over, throws it back, takes his share and goes.

So the question is what is the least number of fish that the fisherman had to start?

Paul Dirac is said to have proposed the following solution: They started with -2 fishes. The first fisherman threw one fish into the sea leaving -3 in the pile (-2-1 = -3). He put -1 fish in his bag and went home leaving -2 fishes (-3)-(-1). The other fishermen did the same. Some people say this is the same sort of maths he employed to predict the positron.

Very nice!

Merry Christmas to you hecd2, and merry Christmas to you all, guys!

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I am interested to see whether an expanding infinite universe can either be excluded by logic or shown to be compatible with it. I am a physicist not a mathematician and this is more akin to a mathematical or pure logic question than a physics question. So I am not on home territory.

On the one hand, theoretical physicists who are much better mathematicians than I am have no problem with the concept of an expanding infinite universe (defined as I have in the previous post). On the other hand, several people on this and other forums assert (without supporting logic) that the concept is logically absurd. Since it is almost certain that the universe is expanding and it is possible for the universe geometry to be flat then their assertion entails a boundary to the universe which seems even more absurd.

Dear Alec (hecd2)

It’s amazing how a female hound dog like mine keeps my female mind alert! We climbed up then down the mountain on Christmas day. Beautiful day it was. Clean air and lots of sun. Beautiful weather and lots of fun!

This might be helpful regarding your comments:

Berkeley Lab:
Bringing Science Solutions to the World
A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Managed by the University of California
**
BOSS Measures the Universe to One-Percent Accuracy**
News Release Paul Preuss • JANUARY 8, 2014
Updated: June 1, 2015

[Excerpt from document]
*Combined with recent measures of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and supernova measures of accelerating expansion, the BOSS results suggest that dark energy is a cosmological constant whose strength does not vary in space or time. Although unlikely to be a flaw in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, the authors of the BOSS analysis note that “understanding the physical cause of the accelerated expansion remains one of the most interesting problems in modern physics.”
Among other cosmic parameters, says White, the BOSS analysis “also provides one of the best-ever determinations of the curvature of space. The answer is, it’s not curved much.”
Calling a three-dimensional universe “flat” means its shape is well described by the Euclidean geometry familiar from high school: straight lines are parallel and triangles add up to 180 degrees. Extraordinary flatness means the universe experienced relatively prolonged inflation, up to a decillionth of a second or more, immediately after the big bang.
“One of the reasons we care is that a flat universe has implications for whether the universe is infinite,” says Schlegel. “That means – while we can’t say with certainty that it will never come to an end – it’s likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe.”
The BOSS analysis is based on SDSS-III’s Data Releases 10 and 11 (DR 10 and DR 11) and has been submitted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society; the analysis is available online at arxiv.org/abs/1312.4877.
*
newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/01/08/boss-one-percent/

BOSS Measures the Universe to One-Percent Accuracy - Berkeley Lab

The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS), the largest component of the third Sloan Digital Sky Survey, has measured the clustering of nearly 1.3 million galaxies spectroscopically to determine the “standard ruler” of the universe’s large-scale structure to within one percent. This is...

newscenter.lbl.gov

Regarding theoretical physicists, I like:
MARIA GOEPPERT MAYER (1906 – 1972)
The second woman ever to win a Nobel Prize – and the first (and only) to win for theoretical physics – Maria Mayer helped introduced the nuclear shell model in 1963. She got her start in quantum mechanics at university in 1924, when the field was new and rife for exploration, and was fortunate to have future Nobel Prize winner Max Born as a mentor. She continued her work in physics “just for fun” when her husband took a professorship at Johns Hopkins, and subsequently found herself either unable to obtain a job because of her gender or assigned to side projects to keep her out of the way… until she arrived at the Argonne National Laboratory, where she was hired in the Nuclear Physics department (despite knowing very little about nuclear physics!). There she was able to learn nuclear physics with help from mentor Enrico Fermi (for whom Chicago’s National Accelerator Laboratory –Fermilab – was named) and begin working on nuclear shell theory.
Mayer was instrumental in explaining how atomic particles arranged themselves around the nucleus of an atom by honing the magic numbers theory – the correct number of atoms needed to create self-organizing, stable shell structures within atoms. This theory explains why some atomic elements are stable and others are not, and even accounts for the existence of isotopes. She shared the Nobel Prize for this accomplishment with three male physicists.
fiatphysica.com/blog/women-in-science/female-nobel-prize-winners-in-science-physics
https://www.fiatphysica.com/blog/women-in-science/female-nobel-prize-winners-in-science-physics

I’m whipped from the holiday. Too much fun! I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday. I can’t wait for the HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

[LogisticsBranch]

We talk about science a lot in my robotics class, and a few things have been talked about which I was not sure about.

1. I hear that more scientific evidence is pointing towards an infinite universe. There was a video that talked about the visible universe, and what we cannot see, and that what we do know about the universe as a whole is that it seems to continue to expand.
   Would this be like saying that the universe is not finite, therefore just an infinite regress, and no God? But isn’t an infinite regress illogical or impossible or something?
2. Some questions about Heaven have been popping up too. The recent one was “can Heaven be in another dimension?” This seems tough to think about, but is that a possibility?

Thanks!

Hello dear one~ You are the original poster that started this topic. Thank you. Please read my previous post. Also, you mention God. I did some research and here is and excerpt from what George Smoot (1) said when he was interviewed March 1994 by Monte Davis:

OMNI
What possessed you to use the G-word when you announced the COBE findings?

Smoot
I invoked God because it’s a cultural icon people understand–but there’s something deeper. Talking about cosmology, you can’t help making the connection to religion. In all religions, all cultures, there’s always, “In the beginning.” Either you started from something or you didn’t, right? I got letters from religious people. About half said, “That’s great. It’s wonderful what you’ve done.” The others said, “You don’t need those experiments. You should read the Bible and learn more. It’s right here in the Bible.”

Even so, few letters were antagonistic. Most criticism came from scientists who find the idea threatening because it’s an unresolved issue personally. To get into science, a lot of scientists may have rejected religion initially but then later never went back and got comfortable with that rejection.

OMNI
Were your parents religious?

Smoot
They were Protestant–not strongly religious, but we went to church when I was young. Anyway, I’m comfortable with it.

OMNI
Did the public’s response to your version of creation surprise you?

Smoot
Yes. I thought the finding would appear in texts and popular books on cosmology and only then leak down to the media. But it drew tremendous attention–and it was good news. In science, the news is often that something awful has happened–Chernobyl has blown up or some electrical appliance has become dangerous. Since the COBE announcement, my nephew has decided he wants to be a scientist, because, “You get famous and get to discover the universe!”

We have to change the public’s very stereotyped view of scientists: an extreme parody of Einstein, a brilliant but whacky guy with no practical sense, who somehow gets great stuff done. Or the mad scientist, Frankenstein. Or guys in white lab coats who’re robots disguised as humans, and generally considered to be nerds.

OMNI
What role models did you have when you were growing up?

Smoot
I read about people like Galileo. My father was a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, and my mother a science teacher. But there’s a small percentage of people who just have to know exactly how things work, and I’m probably one of those who would have become a scientist even without scientific role models around. I’m just wired to do it.

…]
aether.lbl.gov/www/personnel/OMNIinterviewSmMarch93.html
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/personnel/OMNIinterviewSmMarch93.html

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot

 

[hecd2]

@JuanFlorencio, hope you had a good Christmas.

Reverting to the conversation about whether a universe infinite in extent can expand, which you and I and others were having: several people in this thread had asserted that such a thing is absurd in logic but didn’t support their assertion. On the other hand, theoretical physicists who are good mathematicians have no problem with the concept. I made an abortive attempt to demonstrate the consistency of the concept using the cardinality of infinite sets. You then took my description of what cosmologists mean by expansion to develop a demonstration that might have satisfied me but didn’t satisfy you. The problem seems to be the association between the set of real numbers and the axes of a real space.

As a physicist, I am less sensitive to problems in your developmen of the kind that troubled you. The entire physics endeavour is built on mathematical models of reality. For example, GR is built on mathematical models of topological space which are, ultimately, abstractions. I was looking for support for the notion that the concept of an expanding infinite (in extent) universe is inconsistent or is consistent, and your development seems to satisfy the latter, but with the weakness that troubles you. So I have sketched out a demonstration using the Lebesgue measure which connects intervals on the set of real numbers with Euclidean length. I have had to learn about the measure and its properties, and my understanding is necessarily shallow – nevertheless I think the sketch is promising. It’s almost certainly the case that I have re-created something in some standard text, or something that is so trivial that no-one has ever bothered to write it down. The sketch is presented in the next post or two. Anyway, see what you think.

 

[hecd2]

Since this forum doesn’t support LaTex or any other equation editor I have had to write down the demonstration off-line and present it as images below.

We need to formalise the association between subsets of the real numbers and lengths in Euclidean space.

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1519/24057163236_efd4e5dbb2_b.jpg

Of course the FLRW solutions do not necessarily result in a Euclidean space, so I originally thought I had to resort to the Hausdorff measure which applies to length of curves and more general metric spaces, but an infinite extent universe is flat so the development above is sufficient. You can find an excellent exposition of the concept of measures here.

 

[GEddie]

Not only does it make sense that Heaven would lie in an alternate dimension, this is the best explanation for it, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Since this forum doesn’t support LaTex or any other equation editor I have had to write down the demonstration off-line and present it as images below.

We need to formalise the association between subsets of the real numbers and lengths in Euclidean space.

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1519/24057163236_efd4e5dbb2_b.jpg

Of course the FLRW solutions do not necessarily result in a Euclidean space, so I originally thought I had to resort to the Hausdorff measure which applies to length of curves and more general metric spaces, but an infinite extent universe is flat so the development above is sufficient. You can find an excellent exposition of the concept of measures here.

Hi hecd2!

Thank you! I am studying your post. Some days will pass before I have something to say, which surely will be very humble.

Kind regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[thinkandmull]

Around minute 6, if anyone is interested, is interesting: youtube.com/watch?v=Zyw3RhmRlsQ

 

[hecd2]

Around minute 6, if anyone is interested, is interesting: youtube.com/watch?v=Zyw3RhmRlsQ

This is about the hypothesis that the topology of the universe could be the Poincare dodecahedral space which is a homology 3-sphere. The space is constructed by gluing the opposite faces of the dodecahedron together with minimal twist which results in a closed 3-manifold.

I remember being very excited by the idea when it was first proposed by a group led by Jean-Pierre Luminet in about 2004. The idea that the universe’s topology could be based on one of the platonic solids seemed elegant and beautiful, and moreover, the suggestion resolved an anomaly in early WMAP data, the lack of energy in low multipoles of the CMB anisotropy.

Sadly, time and data has not been kind to the idea: First, more precise CMB data has limited the anomaly to just the quadrupole, and, moreover, the remaining anomaly is easily accomodated by cosmic variance. Second, Luminet calculates that the idea predicts the density factor of the Universe to be 1.016 and to have a minimum of 1.01 if the hypothesis is to explain the anomaly (which it was intended to do). The latest Planck data contrains the density factor to 1+/-0.005 so that the curvature is insufficient to explain the anomaly. And finally the hypothesis predicts matched circles on the sky which have not been observed.

So, although a Poincare dodecahedral space of size sufficient to explain the anomaly is not definitively ruled out, it seems unlikely, and the motivation for proposing it has diminished. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the idea is ruled out on much larger sizes/smaller curvatures - but if the topology of the universe is a Poincare dodecahedral space with very small curvature, then that would probably be undetectable, so we’d never know.

 

[thinkandmull]

Is sacred geometry a farse? Is the number 7 special as Augustine said? Or is it relative, each person preferring there own numbers? I mean if you believe in God and also in sacred geometry, this might influence what you believe the structure of the universe to be

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

We talk about science a lot in my robotics class, and a few things have been talked about which I was not sure about.

1. I hear that more scientific evidence is pointing towards an infinite universe. There was a video that talked about the visible universe, and what we cannot see, and that what we do know about the universe as a whole is that it seems to continue to expand.
   Would this be like saying that the universe is not finite, therefore just an infinite regress, and no God? But isn’t an infinite regress illogical or impossible or something?
2. Some questions about Heaven have been popping up too. The recent one was “can Heaven be in another dimension?” This seems tough to think about, but is that a possibility?

Thanks!

The vacuum of space is infinite beyond this known universe; and what is beyond is an infinite multiverse within an infinite vacuum. In otherwords, there were a multitude of big bangs within the vacuum of space. We just belong to one universe. There are many universes within this vacuum. We can only realize this one.

The world is knowledgeable unto itself. We know that there are many galaxies within this universe and as this universe being a microcosm of truth, logically it is conclusive that other universes, big bangs exist within this infinite vacuum-plane of existence. We know that the vacuum is infinite because logically if it were not then what would contain it. If this had a finite existence then that means outside of its finite existence, something must exist to contain it. But the truth is that it is not a star globe. It is an infinite expanse of space.

Heaven belongs in another infinite plane of existence.

There are actually infinite “dimensions”. God is so powerful that he creates the infinite and fills it with creation. Nothing cannot exist. Beyond this world is the infinite. There is no end to God’s power. He is not contained and neither is what he creates. World upon world, universe upon universe, plane upon plane. He can do it because there is no measure to him.

 

[Richca]

The vacuum of space is infinite beyond this known universe; and what is beyond is an infinite multiverse within an infinite vacuum. In otherwords, there were a multitude of big bangs within the vacuum of space. We just belong to one universe. There are many universes within this vacuum. We can only realize this one.

The world is knowledgeable unto itself. We know that there are many galaxies within this universe and as this universe being a microcosm of truth, logically it is conclusive that other universes, big bangs exist within this infinite vacuum-plane of existence. We know that the vacuum is infinite because logically if it were not then what would contain it. If this had a finite existence then that means outside of its finite existence, something must exist to contain it. But the truth is that it is not a star globe. It is an infinite expanse of space.

Heaven belongs in another infinite plane of existence.

There are actually infinite “dimensions”. God is so powerful that he creates the infinite and fills it with creation. Nothing cannot exist. Beyond this world is the infinite. There is no end to God’s power. He is not contained and neither is what he creates. World upon world, universe upon universe, plane upon plane. He can do it because there is no measure to him.

Well, if God could create an infinite expanse of space, He certainly can create a finite expanse of space which appears to be the condition of our present universe which the scientists say is expanding. Further, Holy Scripture says that “The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:10). Now, if God created an infinite expanse of space or an infinite quantitative heaven in which the universe we live in is contained, how is it that Christ ascended “far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things?” An infinite expanse of space is measureless and boundless, it could not be traversed nor could Christ ascend far above it. Further, the CCC#290 quoting Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” says the formula “heavens and the earth” expresses the totality of what exists outside of God, of what He created whether of things visible or invisible. Again, though, St Paul says that Christ “ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.” This means that Jesus Christ has ascended far above the totality of whatever God has created whether it be the angelic world or the corporeal universe. Accordingly, we say in the Nicene Creed “he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.”

 

[thinkandmull]

newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm#article3

newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm#article4

 

[LogisticsBranch]

From the Vatican Observatory
ANNUAL REPORT 2014
. . .]
Science Priorities of the Vatican Observatory for the next Decade
COMMITTEE Planetary Sciences, Astrobiology, and Exoplanets (Guy J. Consolmagno, S.J.) Stellar Astronomy (David A. Brown, S.J.) Extragalactic Astronomy ( José G. Funes, S.J., Chair) Cosmology (Gabriele Gionti, S.J.) VATT, Instrumentation (Christopher J. Corbally, S.J.)
Preface
…]
At a colloquium sponsored by the Vatican Observatory on the occasion of the International Year of Astronomy in 2009, Pope Benedict XVI invited those in attendance “to consider the immense progress of scientific knowledge in the modern age and, in a particular way, to turn our gaze anew to the heavens in a spirit of wonder, contemplation and commitment to the pursuit of truth, wherever it is to be found.” Inspired by these words and the recent encouragement of Pope Francis to go to the “existential outskirts,” and aware of the swift progress of our understanding of the universe, the Vatican Observatory staff has prepared this document to chart a scientific roadmap for its quest to address the big questions of astrophysics and cosmology. We are enthusiastic about our mission. Like all astronomers our deepest desire is to be on the frontier of astronomical research; we share with our colleagues the same excitement in seeking answers to the fundamental questions about the universe: Are we alone? Are there other Earths? How do stars and planets form and evolve? How do galaxies form and evolve? What is dark matter and dark energy? What do we know about the universe in its first instants? Are there many universes?
. . .]
[Here is an excerpt from Fr. Josè G. Funes, S.J. Director of Vatican Observatory from January 6, 2014.]
We are enthusiastic about our mission. Like all astronomers our deepest desire is to be on the frontier of astronomical research; we share with our colleagues the same excitement in seeking answers to the fundamental questions about the universe: Are we alone? Are there other Earths? How do stars and planets form and evolve? How do galaxies form and evolve? What is dark matter and dark energy? What do we know about the universe in its first instants? Are there many universes?
. . .]
“For nearly 125 years the Observatory has embraced good science which has been encouraged by the generous support of the Governorate of Vatican City State, the Vatican Observatory Foundation.”
. . .]

vaticanobservatory.va/content/dam/specolavaticana/documenti/Download_Science%20Priorities/Science%20Priorities.pdf
Here is another document from the Vatican Observatory. It’s the 2014 Annual Report:

vaticanobservatory.va/content/dam/specolavaticana/documenti/Download_AR2014/Annual%20Report%202014.pdf

As far as “heaven” goes, I addressed that on another topic. And directed it to Sacred_Heart.

Thanks everyone!

 

[fisherman_carl]

We talk about science a lot in my robotics class, and a few things have been talked about which I was not sure about.

1. I hear that more scientific evidence is pointing towards an infinite universe. There was a video that talked about the visible universe, and what we cannot see, and that what we do know about the universe as a whole is that it seems to continue to expand.
   Would this be like saying that the universe is not finite, therefore just an infinite regress, and no God? But isn’t an infinite regress illogical or impossible or something?
2. Some questions about Heaven have been popping up too. The recent one was “can Heaven be in another dimension?” This seems tough to think about, but is that a possibility?

Thanks!

1. The scientific evidence suggests the universe is finite and more like a balloon. With things moving away from each other because as the balloon expands the objects on the surface of the balloon move away from one another. The objects like galaxies are fixed on the balloon, but the space between them expands as the balloon gets larger.

I don’t think you can have an infinite universe. I think you can make a good philosophical case that an infinite amount of something in the actual world is impossible, and leads to logical absurdities. Have you heard of Hilbert’s Hotel? See youtube.com/watch?v=j_q802eboxA

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Regarding heaven, I wrote the following on here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13555007#post13555007
It just closed so you will have to review what I said there and hopefully the mods will let me respond here to PRmerger:

PRmerger took a small snip it from what I wrote “The soul is the mind.” Read the rest on that link above.

PRmerger said to me, “This is not correct. I am not sure where you are getting this information, but it’s definitely NOT a Catholic articulation you have just expressed.”

This is my response to PRmerger:

I do think the soul is the mind because people have a conscience:

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals
Holy Father John Paul II encyclical
EVANGELIUM VITAE
To the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women religious
lay Faithful
and all People of Good Will
on the Value and Inviolability
of Human Life

1. When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:22-23), calls “evil good and good evil” (Is 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral blindness.
2. "The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator”

Also,

1.) conscious decisions to conserve Earth.
2.)conscious modes of thought, resulting in greater intellectual engagement and active thinking.

ABCs of Being Smart: H Is for Health and Happiness
Foster, Joanne
Parenting for High Potential, v2 n2 p24-25 Oct 2012
It may sound trite but it is nevertheless true that a person needs “health” and “happiness” in order to thrive. In this article, the author looks at what contributes to children’s well-being (of body and mind), so as to enable them to flourish. She encourages readers to think about what they can do to encourage kids to be health-conscious and to feel good about themselves and their day-to-day experiences–all of which will have an impact on how they learn and grow.
Descriptors: Psychological Patterns, Well Being, Child Rearing, Child Development, Health Promotion
National Association for Gifted Children. 1331 H Street NW Suite 1001, Washington, DC 20005.

eric.ed.gov/?q=conscious+AND+mind&pg=2&id=EJ1001809

 

[hecd2]

1. The scientific evidence suggests the universe is finite and more like a balloon.

No, the current scientific evidence tends to support the idea that the universe is flat (and therefore infinite in extent).

I don’t think you can have an infinite universe. I think you can make a good philosophical case that an infinite amount of something in the actual world is impossible, and leads to logical absurdities. Have you heard of Hilbert’s Hotel? See youtube.com/watch?v=j_q802eboxA

Can you make a good philosophical case that an infinite amount of space in the actual universe is impossible? I mean actually make the case, not just state it as an assertion?