Because that's a positive claim: 'The Universe is infinite.' Okey, fine: Maybe you're right. Why
is that so? What empirical evidence
do you have in support?
Indeed. And in a previous post I made precisely this point. If I were prepared to make a rigorous claim that the Universe were finite, the onus would be on me to defend it.
Thanks for this response. But why isn't the onus on you to justify your claim: 'The universe is isotropic from Earth. Therefore, the universe is isotropic from every point in the observable universe.' That's a leap that does not seem to be entailed by the empirical evidence
. The Bedouin would be wrong to say, 'The world looks desert-y in all directions to me. Therefore, the world looks desert-y from all spots on the Earth.' How does going from local isotropy (observationally true) to the cosmological principle not make the same mistake?
But here's a technical question I asked earlier that has not been answered: Is there any amount of matter that would halt
the expansion of the Universe (that is, such that the Universe asymtotically approaches a maximum volume)? If so, the Universe is identical to the observable universe (right?) and if there's a boundary, we could eventually find it (our progeny, that is). Other than the cosmological principle and (your) intuitions about simplicity, is there anything that weighs against a finite universe
Okey. Our inuitions just differ on this point. Thanks again for your very clear and informative reponse.
Are you talking about someone else here? I never claimed any such thing; in fact, I've asked SpaceTiger
to stay out
of the discussion. Part of being a good scientist--indeed, a good human being--is honesty in argument, pervect