[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Grand Unified Theories

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 21:09:36 +0100
Message-id: <20150305200936.GA19372@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hello Avril,    (01)

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:09:15PM +0200, Avril Styrman wrote:
> > an infinite 4-dimensional space + an infinite time-dimension (past+future?)
> > just to hold our closed universe for 13+ billion years?
> Infinite space only in the sense that you can imagine going infinitely  
> many rounds around the surface of a finite ball. The volume of the 3D  
> space is always finite: it is thought that the familiar 3D space  
> resides on the surface of the 4D ball. The surface of the 4D ball  
> counts for the 3 dimensions, and the radius of the ball is the fourth  
> dimension; there is nothing inside the 4D ball and nothing outside it.      (02)

Of course there is: 4D-space - usually infinite in all directions if one of
its roles is to explain the finite 3D-volume.    (03)

And this notion is quite fantastic - so it should better make some equations
very elegant to be more justified than the spaghetti monster or the cellular
automaton.    (04)

> And yes, the past must be supposed to be infinite and the future  
> potentially infinite,    (05)

Even more fantastic :-)    (06)

> unless the only alternative is accepted: that  
> the Universe was born out of nothing and will vanish into nothingness  
> (or some combination of these)    (07)

Would an eternal heat death count as nothingness?    (08)

> Why not go for  
> the eternal bouncing Universe scenario instead?    (09)

Wouldn't that mean endless repetition (if we only allow finite variation)?
I cannot see the difference to a finite one-shot.    (010)

> If the Universe is  
> eternal, then its every temporal stage is a cause of something and a  
> consequence of something; if it was born out of nothing and will  
> vanish into nothingness, then the first temporal state has a special  
> status: it was not a consequence of anything although it was a cause  
> of the second one. Likewise, the last state should be a cause but not  
> a consequence.    (011)

There can be a first state but no last state too. Isn't this what people 
usually assume today?    (012)

Regards,    (013)

Michael Brunnbauer    (014)

++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel    (015)

Attachment: pgpTCvS8Uj2Na.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>