you like big numbers? Youtube Graham's number, and then Tree(3). — tim wood
I was just checking. A Planck Length may be, but is not definitely, the smallest possible length. — T Clark
If it is, then a cubic Planck Length is the smallest possible volume that can be packed completely in a 3 dimensional space. I guess a sphere with a diameter of the Planck Length would be the smallest possible volume. Then, that would mean that the volume of the universe expressed in cubic Planck Lengths is the largest meaningful number. Yes? No?
But we can still talk about numbers larger than that. The fact that something might be meaningless has never stopped us from discussing it before.
As for meaningless and pointless numbers, yes the googology hobbyists make a hobby of competition naming the largest numbers, even though they don't enumerate anything. — Michael Ossipoff
Also, if the universe turns out to be infinite, then maybe physics or astronomy will someday be able to say things that involve the super-huge numbers. — Michael Ossipoff
The idea that set theory could ever be an experimental science is so absurd as to provide a strong argument against the existence of an actual infinity in the world. Likewise to the idea of an infinite metaverse. Same argument. — fishfry
So, it can't possibly be true because it would be absurd. That's a terrible argument — T Clark
But most physicists must not either, because they're nearly unanimous about there being black-holes in which there's matter with infinite density. — Michael Ossipoff
But more recently, it occurs to me that there's really something ridiculous about the notion of places of infinite matter-density scattered here and there around us. Infinite density in our physical world is nonsensical. — Michael Ossipoff
But intuitively I expect that the universe is infinite. — Michael Ossipoff
I suspect that perhaps the physicists really mean something along those lines. They say infinite but if they had paid better attention in math class they'd say unbounded. — fishfry
Or not? I can't square those two statements.[...that I intuitively reject infinite density, but intuitively expect that the universe is infinite]. — fishfry
I'm going to look into this question. What the physicists really think about the singularities where the equations break down.
But intuitively I expect that the universe is infinite.
The universe is the whole of all that there is in our physical world. How could that whole universe be finite like us? Sure, the things in the universe, like us, our planet, etc., are finite. But wouldn't the universe be a whole grand order-of-magnitude bigger than we are? If we're finite, must it not be infinite? — Michael Ossipoff
There are lot of idiots making videos on YouTube. — tom
Your suggestion that the physics just isn't valid in the region in question seems to make more sense than saying that the density there is infinite. — Michael Ossipoff
An infinite size is simpler and un-arbitrary. — Michael Ossipoff
Maybe one reason why the universe is very large or infinite is because the initiation of life is so vanishingly rare, that a universe that leads to us living things is much more likely to be a super-large or infinite one, instead of a smaller one. But, for any particular large size, why that particular large size? — Michael Ossipoff
"An infinite size is simpler and un-arbitrary." — Michael Ossipoff
As I said, I can provide no evidence that the universe is finite. — T Clark
Maybe one reason why the universe is very large or infinite is because the initiation of life is so vanishingly rare, that a universe that leads to us living things is much more likely to be a super-large or infinite one, instead of a smaller one. But, for any particular large size, why that particular large size? — Michael Ossipoff
This is the same as the strong anthropic principle, isn't it?
I am not a fan. Why do you assume life is rare.
There is no direct evidence yet. My bet is on life being abundant.
hat's based on my understanding that we are starting to understand how life might develop out of non-living conditions. As I say - "might."
Some biologists have said that life is vanishingly unlikely, and, so, most likely vanishingly rare. — Michael Ossipoff
Then as Enrico Fermis asked, "Where are they?"
Though this galaxy has had life-capable stars for long enough that, if life were abundant, someone could have thoroughly explored and cataloged every star and planet in the galaxy, we've never heard from anyone. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, but they don't know how that happened. Of course it did happen. But it isn't biologically established (though some biologists have an opiniion on that) how rare it can be expected to be. — Michael Ossipoff
My bet is on life being abundant. That's based on my understanding that we are starting to understand how life might develop out of non-living conditions. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.