Mr. Sammi

LiquidRage, tut, tut.

I am naive. Let us assume this is true for the moment. So can you qualify my following questions?

(1) Do you agree the universe seems to be expanding?

(2) If (1) is false then OK, kick me.

(3) If (1) is true then what is expanding? You say points are getting further apart? Would these points be points that were measurable?

There is only 1 reply to Q4.
(4a) THE balloon is getting bigger.
(4b) THE balloon is getting smaller.
(4c) THE balloon is the same.
(4d) DO not know of any balloon.
(4e) I HAVE another answer.
(4f) I HAVE NO IDEA or ANSWER.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Starspun

So basically, at this point in time, humans really don't know. Is that a safe premise?
Damn, I hate unanswered questions.

Liquidrage

Do know what?

There is nothing outside of the universe. That is known.

Liquidrage

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

No matter what anyone claims is outside the universe. Whatever IT is, is also part of the universe. That is what the universe means.

I'll be nice and play ball though and reply to your questions.

#1) Sure

#2) Nope, we're safe with this one

#3) What points are you talking about? I've never claims points exist.

#4) You're taking the balloon analogy too far. Just because we can use a balloon to help us understand aspects about how the universe expands, does not mean we can discuss proerties of a real balloon to get answers about the real universe.

tronvillain

Sammi, emotions drive everything that humans say and do. Who have you been reading and believing? Were it not for emotion you would have no reason to get out of bed, let alone come here and discuss things in such a pretentious manner.

Well, they might laugh at you if you attempted to tell them there was no "outside the universe" but one suspects that would be because you wouldn't do a very good job. If the universe is infinite, there does not need to be anything else for it to expand into, just as the points on the line did not need anything else to expand into. As Liquidrage points out, you are naively clinging to the classical view.

Starspun

alrighty then...
I have the book The Elegant Universe. Having only read a portion of part I, I found a couple of things very interesting and exciting.

From page 4:
At the moment of the Big Bang the whole universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size makes a grain of sand look colossal.

The Elegant Universe-Brian Greene

Holy sheot! I am sure as a I read more, the explantion to this mind blowing concept will come to light, but my curiosity is getting the best of me and I have to ask: How is this possible? All matter came from a something smaller than a grain of sand?
Truley fascinating!!


[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

LiquidRage,

In philosophy a metaphor used as an example to illustrate a point, must necessarily be complete else the metaphors used are only gangling threads of untenable positions. Exactly like the one in which you claim I am taking the balloon analogy too far. IF the baloon analogy cannot be taken to its infinite possibility as an expression of what it is supposed to represent, THEN it is totally useless an an "appropriate analogy". Under these cases it is far far better to NOT use the metaphor because of its confusing qualities.

INcomplete metaphors ADD confusion INSTEAD of edification. I would then suggest you adjust your metaphors OR state clearly where the metaphor breaks down.

TRON, you seem to press the point of pretension. I would sincerely suggest that you attack the subject matter to unveil its pretensions INSTEAD of merely claiming such as its status.


Sammi Na Boodie (Thank You)

Liquidrage

Sammi,

Really, what we are using I consider analogies. But if you want to call them metaphors, that is your right.

Under your rules of use, no metaphor/analogy could be used ever unless all entities were excactly alike in all senses.
This (your) view I surely don't agree with as there would then be no reason to ever use an analogy.

Mr. Sammi

LiquidRage, I thought the use of analogies was to simplify the matter by using some mechanism OR mechanisms that most people would find comfortable. This is usually because the subject matter conatins new terms or difficult concepts. The language of analogy would be within the scope of understanding of the listeners, and they can use the analogy completely SO they would not be confused. Usually analogies are subsets of the subject matter. Logically I find you incorrect, and your partial balloon position untenable.

* * *

TRON : "If the universe is infinite, there does not need to be anything else for it to expand into", THEN you agree with me that the universe is expanding into infinity OTHERWISE the universe is already infinite and as such it is not expanding.

CAN you apply your argument then from first cause. My argument can stand up to first causes UP TO NOW-TIME.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

tronvillain

Sammi:
I already have, but I'll do it again if you like:

(1) Do you agree the universe seems to be expanding?

Yes.

(2) If (1) is false then OK, kick me.

Number one is not a statement that is true or false. Do I get to kick you anyway?

(3) If (1) is true then what is expanding? You say points are getting further apart? Would these points be points that were measurable?

Space appears to be expanding while matter remains the same size, so it could be said that points are getting further apart.

There is only 1 reply to Q4.
(4a) THE balloon is getting bigger.
(4b) THE balloon is getting smaller.
(4c) THE balloon is the same.
(4d) DO not know of any balloon.
(4e) I HAVE another answer.
(4f) I HAVE NO IDEA or ANSWER.

I have another answer - the analogy of the balloon is better applied to the expansion of a finite universe curved in on itself. Imagine a line extending into infinity in both directions from where you are, with points one centimeter apart. Now, slowly move those points from one centimeter apart to two centimeters apart. The points near to you will move away slowly, while those more distant will fly away from you at incredible speed. What are the points expaning into? Infinity. Where is the edge of the expansion? There is no edge - the points extend into infinity.

Now, you attempted to address this:
No, an infinite universe can expand, in that every point can always potentially move further away from any other point.

What exactly is your argument then? Perhaps it is something along the lines of "Matter explodes outwards from the big bang into infinite space" or perhaps you propose some sort of infinite "meta-space" for finite space to expand into somehow.

Anyway, can I apply my argument then from first cause? I am not sure there was any such thing. Can you apply your argument then from first cause? You claim to be able to, but would you care to actually show us?