Fitting the theory is not enough.
Originally Posted by Dali
I don't buy the scientific reasoning that something is scientifically true because it fits within one theory which has not yet been contradicted (or improved) by another theory.
The scientifically correct reasoning would be that until the model (the theory) helps me doing something it is valid within that limited scope. But my limited model is not THE TRUTH. It is just a tool in my knowledge toolbox. And I can get a better tool tomorrow. I can, because it's a tool and not the "ultimate knowledge". It would be impossible to improve on that.
Saying that the universe is limited because human means do not "see" much beyond a certain (huge) distance and because it is (or appears to be) "expanding" does not sound scientific to me.
An "infinite" (whatever that means) number of universes could exists and expand, or contract, or play leapfrog with each other without us knowing or suspecting. Even if our "universe" were really expanding (not everybody agrees but that's another point) that doesn't mean it is the only universe or, for that matter, the only KIND of universe. There could be as many different universes as there are different animal species on Earth, and we would be discussing our universe just like a deep-see crab would think there is no universe without water.
What we call "void" could actually be filled with some sort of substance of which we do not even suspect the existence. And by the way, even if "void " actually exists and is "void", "void" exists so it is and if it is, is part of the infinite, although a void infinite. An infinite void could not be negated.
This kind of questions will never have and answer because human ability to study this kind of problems stops much before human ability to ask this kind of questions.
I have nothing against atheism and I guess I have been an atheist (or, rather, a sceptic, which is different) myself but I do find that some atheist scientists try to use science to forward their own prejudicial idea and paint it with scientific objectivity.
Honest scientists when confronted with this kind of questions just raise their hands and declare the insufficiency of scientific means to give any kind of answer.
Any other position is IMO motivated by meta-scientific prejudices.
I did not mention THE TRUTH as you do, just the knowledge which is totally different and a much less absolute statement.
Too, when you write that universe is expanding, you implicitely state that it is limited. If it were not the case, it could not expand.
litody in post #11 said "But the universe isn't infinite" which is, so to speak, quite a statement ;)
Originally Posted by Dali
Thomas in post #16 referring to the above asked "How do you know?" which is quite legitimate a question;
Answering him, in post #28 you said: "because it fits the theory".
I constructed that as if you agreed with litody that "the universe isn't infinite" and that his affirmation is validated by fitting "the theory". Maybe I got it wrong.
In fact saying that the universe is expanding (not something I can really say I say, rather something I say others say) is limited to a common use or definition of the term "universe", which is more or less what we think expands after that hypothetical big ban. In that sense, universe - the all we can explore around us with our means - appears to be expanding.
But "Universe" etymologically means "the all" or if you prefer "the everything". Just like "infinite" means "without limits".
"All" is by definition infinite because we don't know where "all" ends. In this sense the concept of "all" has "no limits". If it had limits it wouldn't be "all" because limits define different sets of the "all".
So the Universe (the all) must have no limits and be "infinite" just by definition. We refer to the Universe when we mean "all that exists" not "all of that we can have some traces of existence".
EDIT: correct spelling as evidenced below
what does ethimologically mean ?
Etymologically, from etymology. The study of word origins and the origin and evolution of word meanings.
Not just one, an infinite number of identical shots will be taken by an infinite number of monkeys.
It is not because something has no limit that it is infinite. The surface of a sphere has no limit but is finite.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
But we far from the original topic, monkeys and Leica II... :D
Can you explain why the surface of a sphere has no limit?
Originally Posted by Dali
Because for a sufficiently small sphere (for example), I can wrap a sheet of 8.5"x11" (or A4, for those using the metric standard) completely around it. Now you would agree that a sheet of paper has a finite surface area, so why wouldn't a sphere also have a finite surface area? If a sphere had an infinite surface area, it would take an infinitely large sheet of paper (or an infinite amount of paint) to cover it. Yet you can travel an infinite distance on the surface of the finite sphere (granted you will be traveling over the same points at some point).
Topography (the study of surfaces) makes my brain hurt.
But how will they all get in the same position at that point in time?
Originally Posted by Steve Smith