[Dog Gone]

Great article! It takes awhile to read it all, but it was worth it.

[Buggman]

Fascinating article, but the way that the author bandies around terms like "infinite" and "eternal" without really comprehending their meaning bugs me. For example, he speaks of the universe being "infinite" in size because it (in all likelihood) has no borders. However, that's not really what he means. The universe can be finite without ever allowing us to come to an edge just as the inside space of a sphere can be finite without ever allowing the ant crawling around on its inside to come to an opening.

In fact, the volume of the universe must be finite, if Big Bang cosmology or any other cosmology that depends on expansion is true. The Big Bang states that the universe was at one point finite in size (a singularity or near-singularity) before it started expanding. You cannot expand a finite space for a finite period of time (13-15 billion years) and reach infinity. For that matter, you cannot expand something that is already infinite at all.

Likewise, if the volume of space is finite, the mass and energy contained in it must be finite as well, as you cannot fit an infinite amount of mass into a finite container.

I understand that he's writing at the popular level, but he really should be more careful in the use of his terms. The fact is that "infinite" is a purely conceptual word (and a poorly conceived word at that), and not one that can be observationally or even logically sustained. The author here is misusing it, meaning instead "an incoceivably large amount."

I myself tend towards a more Aristotelian worldview for a simple reason: We know that not all mathematical models correspond to reality. For example, suppose my boss asked for an estimate on how many people it would take to complete a certain project. And then suppose that I use a quadradic equation to make my estimate and end up with the numbers 4 and -3 for x. Could I then go to my boss and say, "Well, it'll either take me four people or negative three people"? Is there a conceivable universe in which -3 people would be the correct answer?

To me, the fact that the universe corresponds so well to mathematics is not evidence that the math is the real and my senses are the unreal, but that it was designed by a very good Engineer.

[gcruse]

Whew. I was a lot smarter before I read that article.
Now, I (we) aren't sure about anything.

[mhking]

"Worlds lived. Worlds died. And the universe was never the same again."

- DC Comics, 1985

[Argh]

I hope my double has enough money for beer this weekend, because I sure as hell don't.

[mhking]

"Worlds lived. Worlds died. And the universe was never the same again."

- DC Comics, 1985

[TomB]

Is there a copy of you reading this article?

I hope so. It would be nice to finally get on with our Kilamanjaro Expedition.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Oh crap....does this mean I'm filling out another tax form someplace else........I have enough trouble getting through one.

[Billy_bob_bob]

This strikes me as the newest incarnation of the old "infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters" nonsense, which by the way is no longer considered a valid concept. This too will pass in time.

It seems to me that we have an excess of credulity and a deficit of imagination nowadays. Old saws that were laughed out of the room thirty years ago are now accepted as "conventional wisdom". What a giant load of twaddle.

[BSunday]

This kind of crap belongs on Coast to Coast radio.

[Fitzcarraldo]

"Digits 23-51 of your cadet ID is to verify you belong in our particular universe."

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I think I figured out how Hellery! did so well with cattle futures and why MacAwful, head of the DNC did so well in Global Crossing-- they're time travellers!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere."

I almost agree, although everything must be limited in both space, time, and influence. Otherwise, they would make other things impossible to exhist. How limited? I have no idea. Limited in uniqueness? Nope. And that means, there are lookalikes and actalikes. There's no getting away from it. This ball of stars, the multi-galactic 'universe' isn't the only thing out there. That would be impossible. And as for Heavan and Hell, they are in another plane of exhistence, which opens up another realm of possibility.

[tang-soo]

In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere.

Sounds like Vaphod Beeblebrox and the improbability drive.

[Centurion2000]

Now, how do we find the universe where the US Constitution was never shredded up by big government and how can we get there ?

[MissAmericanPie]

I hope my twin stays on her diet.

[FractalMan]

A few weeks ago, I listened to a program on the radio about the Multiverse (humm, I wonder if that really should be plural). Anyway I began to think about it in the context of the universe that we live in. What is it that keeps us synchronized? Those around me have common understandings of history (except for the liberals who always want to re-write it - sorry had to get a political statement in somewhere). We are able to communicate and understand each other because we are synchronized in our universe.

But then I found myself having a really bad week. My decisions at work weren't right, those around me had difficultly understanding me, I would try to do things around the house and all I would do is make it worse. Then I realized that maybe I was out of sync with this universe! Could it be? Still the question remains, what keeps us and our universe synchronized?