Everything, whatever that may be: does it have a spatial or temporal location? — frank

That every thing has a spatial and temporal location is merely the convention of human intelligence, as the means to show position of objects relative to diverse observations of them. It is much less a matter of convention to suppose the Universe is a thing, for none other than the entirely insufficient reason that because it can be talked about it must exist, and that which exists empirically must meet the conditions of time and space. Juxtapositioning these major and minor conventions brings about a contradiction, insofar as on the one hand the Universe as a thing is required to be extended in space and successive in time, because that’s what convention says things do, yet on the other hand no thing extending into one space can at the same time contain the same one space all else that is knowable, themselves extends into.

It follows necessarily, and with respect to the OP, that the Universe is not a thing therefore not subject to the same condition as things, or, the Universe is a thing extended into a space other than the space the Universe’s constituent objects extend into. The former is possible but unknown, the latter is possible but unknowable, from a strictly human perspective.

Fun question.

Empty space appears to have properties - such as quantum fields and (maybe) dark energy. It seems to be something substantial. — Devans99

On my view that's more nonsense that we're making up in order to avoid having to revise theories on a more foundational level.

On my view that's more nonsense that we're making up in order to avoid having to revise theories on a more foundational level. — Terrapin Station

Science seems to show the pattern of two steps forward, one step back - for example they seem to have it badly wrong on infinity IMO - so maybe science could be wrong with the nature of empty space too. A lot of what we know now will surely turn out wrong in the fullness of time.

The concept of virtual particles is a little worrying - they do not exist for long enough to be directly detectable so we infer their existence from theory and side effects. But the side effects, like the casimir effect have other viable explanations. So it seems that there is no proper empirical support for virtual particles... more like a metaphysical theory than a physics theory.

But I think the expansion of the universe is in better shape - we have the redshift evidence and the CMB radiation.

Science seems to show the pattern of two steps forward, one step back - for example they seem to have it badly wrong on infinity — Devans99

Mathematics is a science? maybe at the limits it acts in part like a science, but I do not think math properly understood is a science.

And they seem to have it wrong? Well, put seeming aside! Do they have it wrong or no? The trouble with being a weasel in this kind of thinking is that all of your thinking become thus contaminated and infected. And if persisted in, is toxic. So make your case or concede your case, but stop being poison.

Infinity is used in cosmology which is a science.

You are an idiot to believe everything you are taught - you swallow it like a fool without questioning.

It is a fact that a large proportion of what we were taught at school is plain wrong. You have to learn to be skeptical. Have you never heard of group think?

You are downright rude, aggressive for no reason and ignorant.

Infinity is used in cosmology which is a science. — Devans99

Where, please?

if this universe is all that there is then i would agree with you that it has no position. If there are higher and lower dimensions then it does have some sort of position.

Lots of cosmology models use it. CCC for example is eternal in time (past eternity is an example of actual infinity):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

Any model of the universe that is actually infinite in space or eternal in past time is using actual infinity. Wikipedia summarises the situation - an actually infinite universe is an open question in cosmology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Cosmology

if this universe is all that there is then i would agree with you that it has no position. If there are higher and lower dimensions then it does have some sort of position. — christian2017

I agree. You're pointing to the fact that location is an extrinsic property.

We've been there on this. You're deliberately confusing infinite with unbounded.

You're also confusing countable with infinite. From the website you cite:

"The question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries."

But I know you're impenetrable on this. I simply ask you to stop with the nonsense, or prove the sense.

Past eternity is infinite rather than unbounded. I have no issues with the 'no boundary' model... maybe it could be true... the point is it is a finite model so I cannot rule it out.

Actually infinite is completely different from unbounded - the example I gave (CCC) has an actually infinite past - it has nothing to do with unbounded.

I simply ask you to stop with the nonsense, or prove the sense. — tim wood

On which note I ask you: How exactly does countability even become an issue here?

All physically real objects have locations defined by at least three dimensions. So we are all volumes, not points. On that basis, I like @Terrapin Station & @Coben’s answer:

It has a location--a lot of them, actually because that's what space is. — Terrapin Station


Yes, it's a bit like asking where in the elephant is the elephant.

Answer: everywhere. — Coben

But suppose our universe exists inside a larger universe, for example, as imagined in string theory. So long as we aren’t sticklers for the word “where” applying only to the spatial dimensions of our own universe, but accept that it may apply to other dimensions as well, our universe then has a location inside that larger universe. Which leads us to christian2017’s answer:

if this universe is all that there is then i would agree with you that it has no position. If there are higher and lower dimensions then it does have some sort of position. — christian2017

“But,” some might say, “that’s just being pedantic. If the box is inside a larger box, the real question being asked here is clearly about the location of the larger box! Indeed, what we are really asking is where is the location the largest box of all. Whatever it may be.”

“Fair enough,” I say. “But what if there is no largest box? What if there is an infinite series of boxes? In that case there is no largest box, and every box has a location inside another box.”

Does that defeat Terrapin Station’s original answer?

I don’t think so. So long as we have some description or conception of the whole shebang, the infinite series [Edit: perhaps network rather than series?], even if our concept is just the word “cosmos,” then the location it has is clearly the set of all ordinates inside that cosmos.

Still... it was a fun ride while it lasted.

And I can’t help but add:

“Wherever you go, there you are.”

Who says philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom?

if this universe is all that there is then i would agree with you that it has no position. If there are higher and lower dimensions then it does have some sort of position. — christian2017


“But,” some might say, “that’s just being pedantic. If the box is inside a larger box, the real question being asked here is clearly about the location of the larger box! Indeed, what we are really asking is where is the location the largest box of all. Whatever it may be.” — Theologian

The assumption of the previous post i was responding to assumed the universe was all there was. I have no problem with you response. My response was based on someone elses response. I think we are in agreement on this.

Cool :smile:

On which note I ask you: How exactly does countability even become an issue here? — Theologian

How many positive integers are there? Well, they're countable, obviously. But how many? It's called aleph-naught (0), a transfinite cardinal. Well so what? How many irrational numbers are there? How many more irrationals than rationals? Wa-ay more. And that "how-many" is called aleph-c, another transfinite cardinal bigger than aleph-0. Whether c=2 or if there is one or more intermediate transfinite cardinals between aleph-0 and aleph-c is an open question. How many more alephs are there until you get to infinity? Well that depends in part on definitions, but in any case, a whole lot.

So countability is a feature of the first and least transfinite cardinal. So if someone is going to talk informally about "infinity," countability is one measure of what transfinite cardinal they're talking about. In any case, that would be a very, very small "infinity." And properly speaking, no infinity at all.

Much confusion on this topic, much ignorance, And many people who say, "in my opinion." But this is well-established mathematics, opinions are of no significance. You understand or you don't. And if you don't, then the right move is to withdraw and learn.

Do we really need people who continually argue that 2+2=5 and will not stop? In my view that's pathological and toxic. And in the world of 2019, there's a lot of that going around.

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of countable vs uncountabile infinities. How exactly does it affect this argument?

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of countable vs uncountabile infinities. How exactly does it affect this argument? — Theologian

Science seems to show the pattern of two steps forward, one step back - for example they seem to have it badly wrong on infinity — Devans99

Still not seeing what any of this has to do with countable vs uncountable infinities.

Well, leave it go, then. I'm really on Devan and his continual inaccurate nonsense about infinite numbers.

What I like about the question of this thread and the resulting discussion is that it tends to illustrate how concepts which are useful at human scale can't always be mapped to different scales. Things that make perfectly good sense in our daily lives aren't always relevant to the quantum or cosmic scale, for example.

Religion discussions come to mind. Does God exist or not? Exists or not is a reasonable kind of question at human scale. But when we try to apply it to space, and perhaps gods, the exists or not concept starts falling apart.

Gotta answer your question with another question I often ask:

Is what we humans refer to as "the universe"...everything that exists?

Obviously it is possible that what we humans refer to as "the universe" may be just a tiny element in a much, much larger...thing.

If so...then the thing we call the universe probably does have a location within it.

Ummm...which is a rather convoluted way of saying, "No way we can know."

I left this forum forever.

The Big Bang took place about 14 billion years ago so assigning temporal coordinates seems possible. — Devans99

That's 14 billion years our time. The theoretical big bang is a black hole with a minus sign. If you fell toward a black hole, an observer outside the event horizon would see you fall faster and faster, then vanish (our time). But your experience would be an eternal freefall, getting ever closer to the singularity but never reaching it. Chuck a minus sign on that, i.e. run the early universe backwards, as an "observer" emerging from the big bang but backwards, and you'd get ever closer to the singularity, but never reach it. In this sense, the universe is both 14 billion years old (far from the singularity) and eternal (proper time of something emerging from the start, not that anything that could have a meaningful proper time did: all energy has a proper lifetime of zero).

does it have a spatial or temporal location? — frank

Yes. Here and now.

There is no larger box. — Bitter Crank

The fact we can't perceive a larger box doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means that even if there would be one, we can't say anything sensibly about it.

So, if there are other boxes, doesn't there have to be a larger container? — Bitter Crank

Assuming that these boxes require individual space, that's to say that they arent able to overlap or exist simultaneously in the same location. Considering that the 1D, 2D, 3D and time dimensions exist and overlap one another in the same location I've no doubt other universes if they occupy other dimensions can simply be exactly in the same place as ours.

observer" emerging from the big bang but backwards, — Kenosha Kid

This gave me shivers. Oh look here comes the observer (13.8 billion years of emergence and evolution later) ... humans/life.

:rofl:
*flies past*
EEEEEEEEEMMM PPLLEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHH

mo0d.