The discussion revolves around the concept of what contains the universe, exploring ideas of infinity, the nature of space, and the implications of the Big Bang. Participants engage with both philosophical and scientific perspectives, questioning the definitions and implications of a finite versus infinite universe.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the universe is finite or infinite, and multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of these concepts. There is ongoing debate about the nature of boundaries and containment.
Participants express uncertainty about visualizing complex concepts related to the universe's structure and expansion. The discussion includes various assumptions about definitions of finiteness and containment that are not universally agreed upon.
There is no such logic. You are making it up out of whole cloth to fit your preconceived notions of how things must be.Spin2win said:Are maths going to help me transcand the logic that something finite can't be everything there is?
The example of Earth's surface was a 2D example of what spatially is 3D in the universe: You can have a closed three dimensional, finite surface of a four dimensional manifold. Can I imagine it? No. Does math help to imagine it? Maybe, but at least it allows me to calculate with it, and this doesn't require imagination. I do not claim the universe to be the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere, but it cannot be ruled out from the start. Cosmologists try to figure it out, but that's not an easy task, since manifolds aren't "embedded" in something. They are all there is: no outside!Spin2win said:Its not because its everything there is FOR us that its everyrhing there is no? Are maths going to help me transcand the logic that something finite can't be everything there is? How do you picture it yourself?