# Can infinity fit in the palm of your hand

by YummyFur
Tags: hand, infinity, palm
P: 97
 Quote by marcus Also we don't know if the U had a FINITE SIZE OR NOT at the moment of the BB. Cosmologists work simultaneously with two different versions of the standard model cosmos---finite and infinite. In the same technical paper you may see two tables, one with numbers for the finite volume case and one for the infinite volume case. Or you may have just one table with separate columns of numbers. IT IS PREMATURE TO COMMIT to one mental picture or the other.
So IF the universe was a bounce then that makes our universe special insofar as it's not going to bounce again. Isn't that a little strange? If it originated from a bounce then then how many bounces would there have been before the BB seeing as it ain't gonna bounce no more. It can't be between one and infinity because infinity can neither begin nor end and since our universe is the final bounce (if there was a bounce) there cannot have been an infinite amount of bounces. All in all it seems to me that a bouncing universe does not make sense if we accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
PF Patron
P: 10,386
 Quote by YummyFur So IF the universe was a bounce then that makes our universe special insofar as it's not going to bounce again. Isn't that a little strange? If it originated from a bounce then then how many bounces would there have been before the BB seeing as it ain't gonna bounce no more. It can't be between one and infinity because infinity can neither begin nor end and since our universe is the final bounce (if there was a bounce) there cannot have been an infinite amount of bounces. All in all it seems to me that a bouncing universe does not make sense if we accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Just because we see accelerating expansion currently, does not mean that it will continue. We don't even know the reason for the expansion, only that it is occuring. (Although I'm almost certain there are several theories) In the view of inflation after the BB, something had to cause it and something had to cause it to end. Remember that all of the theories on the BB and on the end of the universe are VERY tenuous and only represent our current knowledge on the subject, which is improving as time goes on. If there is something that will cause the universe to stop expanding 10 billion years from now, well there's pretty much no way for us to even know about it yet!

The short version of this is pretty much take the views on the beginning and end of the universe with a grain of salt and stick to the middle!
P: 97
 Quote by DaveC426913 Hrm. I was rather hoping that, with the realization that object versus energy was a critical shift in mental models, you'd say 'Ohhh! Ah! I see now.'
;¬)

 Well... yes. That's the general understanding.
That's good because I'd like discuss in a new thread the concept of 'consciousness' as the substantive form of the universe rather than an attribute of a material substance which is how it is commonly perceived. In a sense this would be the grand unification.
PF Patron
P: 10,386
 Quote by YummyFur That's good because I'd like discuss in a new thread the concept of 'consciousness' as the substantive form of the universe rather than an attribute of a material substance which is how it is commonly perceived. In a sense this would be the grand unification.
That's probably against PF rules on personal theories, so I would be careful.
P: 15,294
 Quote by YummyFur That's good because I'd like discuss in a new thread the concept of 'consciousness' as the substantive form of the universe rather than an attribute of a material substance which is how it is commonly perceived. In a sense this would be the grand unification.
I don't know how you got from the Big Bang to consciousness but, generously, that would be considered a personal theory. A better term would be woo-woo-ism.

Either way, PF isn't the place for it.
PF Patron
P: 22,331
 Quote by YummyFur ... All in all it seems to me that a bouncing universe does not make sense if we accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Well that case has been studied. It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to the computer that runs the model

You ask "isn't that a little strange?" I think the answer is no, it is not especially strange. For example the U can have always existed and have been contracting until the bounce occurred some 14 billion years ago.
That is one case that has been studied a lot. No more strange than that the U has been existing always in a steady state. Less, I'd say. (steady state is not stable, contraction and expansion each are stable modes according to Gen Rel.)

The deSitter U is one of the oldest models, and it does this. No beginning. Long contraction followed by bounce, followed by long (accelerating) expansion. Dates from around 1917 as I recall. We are used to that face of existence. Perhaps you think existence itself strange? But given that the U exists, eternal existence seems no more inherently strange than existence that fails in one way or another to be eternal.
 P: 97 @Drakkith, this is precisely why I wished to clarify that nothing more that what existed comes into existence other than in a different form. If I proceed I will choose my words carefully. Is it analogous to say when you pick up a stone and place it on a table, seeing as you have increased it's potential energy you have therefore increased its mass. The analogy is between the seemingly intangible property of energy and the substantial property of mass.
P: 97
 Quote by DaveC426913 I don't know how you got from the Big Bang to consciousness but, generously, that would be considered a personal theory. A better term would be woo-woo-ism. Either way, PF isn't the place for it.
If that's the case then fair enough. However just as a scientific method is to look at matter and ask the question, 'what is this stuff' wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that at the BB that whatever matter (or anything) is ultimately it already was at the BB, albeit in another form.

And as we look around us we wonder, 'what is this stuff'. Also quantum physics keeps bringing in the concept of 'an observer', and therefore is not it reasonable to also delve into, in a scientific way precisely what this 'observer' is? Without using fuzzy language or metaphysical concepts.
P: 97
 Quote by DaveC426913 I don't know how you got from the Big Bang to consciousness ...
Simply that 'consiousness' whatever it is, was already existent because as you have already agreed it must have been albeit in a form other than how it is understood. It just seems to me to be a simple logical conclusion.
PF Patron
P: 10,386
 Quote by YummyFur @Drakkith, this is precisely why I wished to clarify that nothing more that what existed comes into existence other than in a different form. If I proceed I will choose my words carefully. Is it analogous to say when you pick up a stone and place it on a table, seeing as you have increased it's potential energy you have therefore increased its mass. The analogy is between the seemingly intangible property of energy and the substantial property of mass.
Energy is an abstract quantity but it is not intangible. Energy has mass too!

 Quote by YummyFur If that's the case then fair enough. However just as a scientific method is to look at matter and ask the question, 'what is this stuff' wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that at the BB that whatever matter (or anything) is ultimately it already was at the BB, albeit in another form.
Sure. But since we have models that say it was there as energy, I don't really see your point.

 And as we look around us we wonder, 'what is this stuff'. Also quantum physics keeps bringing in the concept of 'an observer', and therefore is not it reasonable to also delve into, in a scientific way precisely what this 'observer' is? Without using fuzzy language or metaphysical concepts.
An observer can be anything that a particle interacts with, such as another particle. It has no relation to consciousness.

 Quote by YummyFur Simply that 'consiousness' whatever it is, was already existent because as you have already agreed it must have been albeit in a form other than how it is understood. It just seems to me to be a simple logical conclusion.
There is a difference between something like energy and mass existing and not yet forming into matter, and something like a Hurricane. A hurricane is an emergent phenomena I think, (Not sure if that term is correct) as could be argued with consciousness. This means that the combination and interaction of simple building blocks constructs something much more complex than any of its parts individually. But I guarantee you that this hurricane did not exist at the BB.
P: 97
 Quote by Drakkith Energy is an abstract quantity but it is not intangible. Energy has mass too!
Was I not already acknowledging that in my post which you quoted from, when I said that 'as potential energy is increased, so is the mass'?

 Sure. But since we have models that say it was there as energy, I don't really see your point.
My main point is in fact the precise opposite of your final conclusion, that consciousness is an 'emergent' property.

 There is a difference between something like energy and mass existing and not yet forming into matter, and something like a Hurricane. A hurricane is an emergent phenomena I think, (Not sure if that term is correct) as could be argued with consciousness. This means that the combination and interaction of simple building blocks constructs something much more complex than any of its parts individually. But I guarantee you that this hurricane did not exist at the BB.
A hurricane is a name for a form of matter and energy. I am positing consciousness as the material substance of the world, literally.
 Mentor P: 5,223 Guys and Gals please keep to the discussion at hand. Off-topic posts from now on will be deleted.
P: 366
 Quote by Ryan_m_b Guys and Gals please keep to the discussion at hand. Off-topic posts from now on will be deleted.
GZ on the PF mentor status Ryan! Maybe we can have some good moderation on the "FTL warp drive" inventors and the "lets colonise mars in the next few weeks" promoters!!
PF Patron
P: 10,386
 Quote by YummyFur A hurricane is a name for a form of matter and energy. I am positing consciousness as the material substance of the world, literally.
Then you should find a good philosophical forum for this idea then, as this is not the place for that topic.
P: 15,294
 Quote by YummyFur I am positing consciousness as the material substance of the world, literally.
Yep. Not the place for it. Thread marked for closure.
PF Patron
P: 4,941
 Quote by YummyFur Simply that 'consiousness' whatever it is, was already existent because as you have already agreed it must have been albeit in a form other than how it is understood. It just seems to me to be a simple logical conclusion.
Yummy, I've been very pleased to see how polite everyone has been about this post. Often the response to such things is quite abrupt. Although several folks have told you nicely that this is not the place for such speculation, they perhaps should have added that you really need to read the forum rules about overly speculative posts so that you'll better understand why you have been getting this message. This is a great forum but it is a SCIENCE forum and far-out theories, particularly ones that are not falsifiable, don't fly.
 PF Patron Sci Advisor Emeritus P: 9,789 This stopped being science a long time ago, if it ever was. Thread closed.

 Related Discussions General Engineering 4 Classical Physics 2 General Physics 3