Can infinity fit in the palm of your hand

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the conceptualization of the universe's size and nature immediately after the Big Bang (BB). Participants explore the paradox of an infinite universe that can also be described as finite yet without boundaries, questioning how to visualize this nascent state. They clarify that when the universe is said to have been the size of a grapefruit, it refers to the matter within the observable universe, not all of existence. The conversation also touches on the uncertainty surrounding whether the universe had a finite size at the moment of the BB, with cosmologists considering both finite and infinite models. Ultimately, the complexity of visualizing the universe's early state highlights the ongoing challenges in understanding its fundamental nature.
  • #31
Ryan_m_b said:
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!
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
YummyFur said:
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.
 
  • #33
YummyFur said:
I am positing consciousness as the material substance of the world, literally.

Yep. Not the place for it. Thread marked for closure.
 
  • #34
YummyFur said:
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.
 
  • #35
This stopped being science a long time ago, if it ever was.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K