Let’s assume the universe is infinite. You could keep flying in a spaceship in one direction forever. Would you eventually loop back to the starting point, or just keep going away from it forever? If the latter, will you eventually run into a planet identical to earth with an astronaut identical to you in every way (personality, memory, experiences)? Or would you find yourself in an endless void flying forever without encountering such a planet? In other words, could the universe be infinitely empty beyond the observable scope, or would infinity necessitate that eventually you will run into an identical earth somewhere out there?
>>16999790>will you eventually run into a planet identical to earth with an astronaut identical to you in every way (personality, memory, experiences)?no. (You) are the only you. Any other you is not (You)
>>16999790In terms of pure math, it depends on the topological features of the universe. You could in theory walk in the same direction forever on the surface of a sphere.As far as physics is concerned, the question is meaningless since everything has an expiration date.My two cents
>>16999790bro, you'll be dead by age 80 you aren't even reaching the nearest star. best not to dwell on such nonsense
>>16999790glowies gatekeep infinity because they believe only god should have that power
>>16999790... You are part of the universe you just keep going. It's like the smallest thing or Planck constant, you just keep breaking it down further and that's the new smallest thing
>Would you eventually loop back to the starting point, or just keep going away from it forever?You go forever, that's what infinite means. >will you eventually run into a planet identical to earth with an astronaut identical to you in every way (personality, memory, experiences)?No, assuming you are immortal and have unlimited fuel and unlimited luck on a long enough timeline you will find a planet and astronaut similar to you, maybe in almost every way , but he would still be different, not you. Like your evil twin with a scar and different hair color and a bigger dick. >Or would you find yourself in an endless void flying forever without encountering such a planet? Again you would eventually find such a planet but it's likely to be different in every way when you look deeply enough. There will be 99.999999999999999879% empty void and passing beyond the observable universe is not the barrier you suspect it is and as you travel into the deep universe you will be able to see more you couldn't see before so the edge of the universe should populate more and more as you travel. Given infinite life, a ship that can't be damaged during travel, infinite fuel and on board supplies, the mental health to survive a journey of this length, and other such cheat codes you will indeed travel to an Earth like planet filled with two legged hairless apes in some state of technological advancement. HOWEVER, even if they looked and acted just like humans they will have evolved with unique culture, unique hardships, and be a distinct race in every way. A 1:1 copy of Earth does not exist, even in an infinite universe. inb4, "but it's infinite!!" So yes, if you could travel 10^10000000000000 light years per second then maybe you will find a copy of Earth but that's the same thing as saying no, it's not possible. Or are we going to have the fight that 0.99999(repeating) is different than 1 again? God I hope not.
>>16999790>Let’s assume the universe is infinite.Pass
>>16999993if it were actually infinite how could it expand? it would already be everywhere that expansion could happen
I'm not going to assume an infinite universe. An infinite universe is a universe without telos, and this universe has telos.You would never eventually run into a clone of yourself, or an identical planet, because there would be no telos by which something could sponteously organize itself in the same way earth and its life has, because there's no teleological blueprint to be repeated from.
>>16999997It’s not expanding “into” some broader space. It’s the entire self-contained universe, just getting bigger. If you assume a broader space then you already have an “infinite” space and it’s only semantic which parts count as “the universe”
>>17000470how can anything get bigger if there isnt space in which to bigger? how can anything be completely self contained. didnt it have to exist in some place before the expansion?
>>17000481>how can anything get bigger if there isnt space in which to bigger?Because the space within it is getting bigger.>didnt it have to exist in some place before the expansion?Sure it did. That place was everywhere. Granted, everywhere was a much smaller place back then.
>>17000484>Because the space within it is getting bigger.if there is a within there has to be a without. there is nothing we can observe in nature that has an inside but no outside. why is that the default assumption about the universe if we are unable to perceive it anywhere else in nature>That place was everywhere. Granted, everywhere was a much smaller place back then.i have heard this and i understand this from our perspective because everything that exists is just a rearrangement of the same thing when it was very hot and dense. but that doesnt preclude the existence of something else outside our Everywhere.
>>17000484There's no way to confirm that it's "getting bigger", if it was getting smaller, you, your instruments, the space between your atoms and their perception would be getting smaller too, which would make it look like it's getting bigger in every conceivable way.To definitively claim it is one, and not the other, is an underdetermined argument.Thanks for playing, retard
>>17000520Wouldn't the size of, say, an atom not stay constant though? Or are atoms and fields themselves also shrinking here?
>>16999790>If the latter, will you eventually run into a planet identical to earth with an astronaut identical to you in every way (personality, memory, experiences)?huh? why would that happen?
>>17000528I think they read about space only having only so many possible configurations, and think that means they'll reach a repeating structure if they keep flying in the same direction, because they've exhausted everything else possible.
>>17000523That's what the "expanding model" says. Not "atoms are staying the same size" (nothing at all is staying the same size) Instead it says: everything is expanding everywhere into "somewhere" that is not "in here" (in the universe. They're not just saying the boundary (the edges) of the Universe and the nothing is expanding outward (although they're implying that too)
>>17000535This is what happens when you steal your foundations from theologically grounded frameworks and then strip God from them.Reality is unfalsifiable, and if something is unfalsifiable it is nonscientific my the demarcation rules of science. So, science is the study of nonscience, elevating itself above the nonscience that it studies by stealing the truth of Theistic frameworks, and then removing the God telos from them.
>>17000532so he's one of those morons who think infinity means everything
>>17000536To prove this assertion, let's look at theological cosmology. By definition declaring there is a universe of laws maintained and governed by deity is nonscientific, but if I just remove God from that and replace "God" with "a computer" that runs the simulation and maintains the order of the system, a computer and a programmer who must have the same attributes as God, the latter is a scientific hypothesis that gets Ted Talks and Elon Musk declaring it 99% likely that it is a true scientific hypothesis, and the math being used to pencil it out, is Newton, Planck, Maxwell, Shrodinger, Pauli, and Einstein, all of who were deists that I. The founding documents that science steals declared the universe causal by God. "God does not play dice with the universe"So, "Science" which is elevated to the status of being more Real than Reality itself, by using frameworks established on theological precepts as the causal hinge that have retroactively stripped God from them, is more factual than reality itself, and if the science doesn't match reality, we can just develop conformal measurements, call them constants, and retrofit measurement to the assumed reality of Science.
>>17000540You’re the moron that didn’t finish reading the OP before asking dumb questions
>>17000518>if there is a within there has to be a withoutMeaningless sophistry.>that doesnt preclude the existence of something else outside our Everywhere.Sure. But what does preclude the existence of that "something else" is the definition of the universe.>>17000520>To definitively claim it is one, and not the otherNothing is "definitive" in science. Thanks for playing, retard.
>>17000639>Meaningless sophistry.we have never observed it, we can't test it, everything we have ever seen or detected with empirical methods has always had an inside and an outside. how is this sophistry to say that you can't prove it and have no evidence, and that all the existing data seems to point to the contrary? where is the data that supports your idea?
>>17000664"The universe" is categorically different from the things in it.The moment you define a set of all things, you have already precluded the existence of things that exist outside of that set.
>>17000673Why can't there be other causally consistent sets of all things? From our perspective we're the set, from their perspective they're the set. It's far more strange to think we're the only possible set of all things, rather than just one of all possible sets of all things. If we're the only one, that makes uncomfortable implications about chosen timelines and other bs.
>>17000675Well the observable universe can be framed as a causally isolated bubble. Going far enough beyond it means being in a distinct casually isolated bubble where nothing exists within both of them at once. But from that perspective, the answer to the question of "what is the universe expanding into" has a rather boring answer:It's expanding beyond the threshold of our local bubble.
>>17000673>"The universe" is categorically different from the things in it.can you provide some evidence or data that supports that claim?
>>17000683The definition of "the universe" is the onle relevant data point here
Our universe would make an outer edge which would have all the information in it. Then it's absorbed by the outside singularity. That's why I got in trouble for ditching someone here after our galaxy was swept up far into the future, the information finally passed through.
