4 ms·

I’ve read articles, seen interviews and read book by mathematicians and cosmologists on these issues. None of them agree with you as far as I can tell. Some cos

by simonh 4y ago

I’ve read articles, seen interviews and read book by mathematicians and cosmologists on these issues. None of them agree with you as far as I can tell. Some cosmologists and physicists believe it’s likely the universe is finite, some believe it’s likely it’s infinite, but none I know of believe it’s a settled question. Mathematicians perform calculations that include infinities routinely nowadays. They have sophisticated methods for it, and have discovered powerful tools and useful results from doing so.

ravenstine 4y ago
> None of them agree with you as far as I can tell. Oh really? How about Professor Hawking? https://scitechdaily.com/constraining-the-multiverse-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang/ https://scitechdaily.com/constraining-the-multiverse-stephen... > “We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure,” said Hawking. > “We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes,” said Hawking. > I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can’t be tested. [– Hawking] Not that it particularly matters. Cosmologists believe all sorts of things. Lots of cosmologists treat String Theory as more than a hypothesis despite how it hasn't yet panned out after decades and decades. Same goes for ideas like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which are actually placeholders for some things we can't actually explain. That doesn't mean either of those things live up to their names or exist in any capacity. Hell, a substantial number of cosmologists profess that there's "got to be" alien life out there, despite no credible evidence what so ever. It's fine to hypothesize about all these things, but that doesn't make them even remotely fact, no matter what a cosmologist thinks. Science and mathematics aren't a majority vote. > some believe it’s likely it’s infinite They can believe that all they want, but that doesn't mean they're correct or that they have evidence. It's highly dubious whether it's even possible for us to verify the presence of infinitude. > none I know of believe it’s a settled question. That's because there are no settled questions. Any scientist or mathematician who professes that a question is settled immediately loses credibility by doing so. The difference between infinitude and finitude is one can be demonstrated and the other has yet to be demonstrated. Guess which one hasn't been demonstrated. Just because mathematics can include a construct that allows describing an indeterminate range of numbers doesn't mean calling it "infinite" is accurate. An actual value that can even remotely be referred to as infinity hasn't been calculated and it's possible that it never will if the known universe doesn't even support calculating it. To do math with "infinity" is to use an indeterminate vector in a way that proves useful. It's no different than when someone uses a phrase like "this is taking forever."

by simonh 4y ago

ravenstine 4y ago

> None of them agree with you as far as I can tell. Oh really? How about Professor Hawking? https://scitechdaily.com/constraining-the-multiverse-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang/ https://scitechdaily.com/constraining-the-multiverse-stephen... > “We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure,” said Hawking. > “We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes,” said Hawking. > I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can’t be tested. [– Hawking] Not that it particularly matters. Cosmologists believe all sorts of things. Lots of cosmologists treat String Theory as more than a hypothesis despite how it hasn't yet panned out after decades and decades. Same goes for ideas like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which are actually placeholders for some things we can't actually explain. That doesn't mean either of those things live up to their names or exist in any capacity. Hell, a substantial number of cosmologists profess that there's "got to be" alien life out there, despite no credible evidence what so ever. It's fine to hypothesize about all these things, but that doesn't make them even remotely fact, no matter what a cosmologist thinks. Science and mathematics aren't a majority vote. > some believe it’s likely it’s infinite They can believe that all they want, but that doesn't mean they're correct or that they have evidence. It's highly dubious whether it's even possible for us to verify the presence of infinitude. > none I know of believe it’s a settled question. That's because there are no settled questions. Any scientist or mathematician who professes that a question is settled immediately loses credibility by doing so. The difference between infinitude and finitude is one can be demonstrated and the other has yet to be demonstrated. Guess which one hasn't been demonstrated. Just because mathematics can include a construct that allows describing an indeterminate range of numbers doesn't mean calling it "infinite" is accurate. An actual value that can even remotely be referred to as infinity hasn't been calculated and it's possible that it never will if the known universe doesn't even support calculating it. To do math with "infinity" is to use an indeterminate vector in a way that proves useful. It's no different than when someone uses a phrase like "this is taking forever."