On 3/19/2025 10:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 10:50:41 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



    On 3/19/2025 9:14 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


    On Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 3:28:40 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:



        On 3/19/2025 4:56 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


        On Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 5:40:48 AM UTC-6 John Clark
        wrote:

            On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 4:30 AM Alan Grayson
            <[email protected]> wrote:

                /> If the universe is infinite in spatial extent,
                and we run the clock backward, is all  the
                mass/energy of the observable region confined to a
                tiny or zero volume?/


            *The short answer is nobody knows what will happen if
            you run the clock back to zero, and the mystery remains
            regardless of if the universe is finite or infinite.
            Nobody knows what will happen when things get super
            small because our two best physical theories, Quantum
            Mechanics and General Relativity, disagree with each
            other. Most believe that something will prevent a zero
            volume from ever occurring, but nobody knows what that
            "something" is. *
            *
            *
            ***John K Clark    See what's on my new list at
            Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*


        Maybe it's a 5th force. What I'd like to know is this;
        assuming an infinite spatial universe and that it gets very
        very small as we run the clock backward, the observable
        regions shrinks, but what happens to the unobservable
        region? Quentin claimed to have an answer, but I can't
        recall what it was. AG
        All theories treat the unobservable regions as being similar
        to the observable (what else could you justify?).  So every
        finite region, observable or not shrinks to zero.

        Brent


    *But if every finite subset of an infinite set strinks to zero,
    in the case the assumed infinite set is the spatial extent of the
    universe, won't the infinite spatial set of the universe also
    shrink to zero (which is what Quentin denies)? AG*

    *No.

    Brent*


But, as I've shown, this contradicts basic set theory. AG

Basic set theory has no metric.  Shrink to zero in meaningless for a set.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ade5cbcf-bc92-4b72-8f40-fcaeef214137%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to