Replies

Assumption: The universe was infinite in extent at the big bang, just as it is infinite in extent now, but it was just a lot smaller back then.

I don't think you can make that assumption. The rate at which parts of the universe are receding from us is proportional to distance. Extrapolating backwards, the time at which the Andromeda galaxy was right on top of us is exactly the time at which a galaxy a google of universes over was on top of us. Zero times "arbitrary" is zero.

Also, I don't think the radius of the hypersphere has anything to do with volume. If I understand things properly, the radius has to do with the curvature. For example, the universe could be all of one square meter in total volume, but the radius of curvature could still be infinite. So making that infinite radius more than just curvature, and saying that the infinite radius is both the radius of curvature and the radius of the volume of the universe, would also be an assumption (although it would be in some ways a satisfactory connection).

Let's see whether I can clear this up. Back it off a dimension, and consider the "hyperverse" to be like the surface of a balloon. Our Hubble volume ("universe") is like a tiny circle drawn on that balloon. The balloon has a radius, and the circle has a radius, and it seems like you might be confusing them. If I say "infinite volume", I'm referring to the area of the balloon, not the area of the circle.

On a serious note, the idea of nature winnowing out vast possibilities of similar intelligent life forms in this particular ball of galaxies might be correct. How different can environmental conditions be, however?

Entire ecosystems are found where there is no sunlight, for example. We cannot even begin to explore high g-force planets, and what kind of life could evolve in them. What form could intelligent life be? Obviously, it could withstand whatever our toughest machines can withstand. This might sound grotesque, but so long as a computer chip can withstand the harshness, so could a brain that we would have difficulty comprehending.

It would be koolness incarnate if we are truly the most intelligent mortal beings in this ball of galaxies. But then there is the "Great Beyond". We will never have the technology to see the end of infinity. And could other beings travel accross incalculable distances at a speed revealing that light is merely the residue of something much faster?

Or perhaps through something more advanced than deep-freeze, 'kryogenics [sic?]', they travel more slowly, but relentlessly across great voids. Then again, a vast void between two multi-galactic orbs would have absolutely no friction, nor would there be much gravitational pull to alter their course. What it's like to travel them, we have yet to learn. Or perhaps there are forms of 'virtual travel' we have yet to comprehend.

Conclusion: Intellectually speaking, we are yet merely babes in the woods. Perhaps we always will be.

I could easilly conceived of advanced life from a doomed world beyond our particular ball of galaxies sending out droids to help other races prosper.

Well, enough of reality. I think I'll turn to some fiction now. =]

[No hard feelings? I was just having fun.]

FReegards....

If you start getting frustrated, just let me know. We can drop this at any time. However, for myself, I don't get a chance to dialog about this stuff very often, so I get a kick out of it.

>>Assumption: The universe was infinite in extent at the big >>bang, just as it is infinite in extent now, but it was >>just a lot smaller back then.

>I don't think you can make that assumption.

Well, why not? An assumption is a thing you just make, so that you can make further progress in some train of reasoning/thought. If you mean, in contrast, that the assumption doesn't make sense, then please explain why the total integrated volume of the universe at some very short time after the Big Bang could not have been infinite. I like a model which is finite the whole time, but a non-finite model seems consistent too.

>Let's see whether I can clear this up. Back it off a >dimension, and consider the "hyperverse" to be like the >surface of a balloon. Our Hubble volume ("universe") is >like a tiny circle drawn on that balloon. The balloon has a >radius, and the circle has a radius, and it seems like you >might be confusing them. If I say "infinite volume", I'm >referring to the area of the balloon, not the area of the >circle.

OK, I'll back off a dimension. I could draw a circle on the ballon (assuming it was rigid), and then cut the circle out. I could use a marker to draw a smaller circle on the curved circle that I cut out, and call that little circle the "Hubble Volume". The piece I cut out still has the same curvature as the balloon, but it doesn't correspond to the radius of either the circle I cut out, or the smaller "Hubble Volume." We are in a situation where we don't know the radius of the cut out, but we do know the other two radii. There is a certain elegance in just assuming that the area of the cut-out is equal to the area of the whole balloon, but I naturally can't see why it is necessary.