Is the universe infinite? If so, does this imply there exists infinite matter or does matter only occur finitely often?

>>16716033 (OP)
The universe is not infinite. There is a causality horizon.

>>16716033 (OP)
Scientists unironically believe in insane shit like "infinity"

>>16716033 (OP)
If it's infinite, and homogenous, that has wild implications. There should be infinite copies of everything. Somewhere else you're reading this same post but one letter is different. Somewhere else it's the same but in a different font.

I don't believe it's infinite.

>>16716033 (OP)
>Is the universe infinite?
No observed violation of Poincare invariance + the cosmological constant is non-negative imply it is.
>>16716207
>I don't believe it's infinite
You don’t have to believe it. We can literally test it.

>>16716295
dark energy implies an infinite universe how so?

>t. I get you called it the cosmological constant inn bee fore dat guy

>>16716295
>We can literally test it.
it used to get on my nerves the way we all say literally liberally yet rarely if ever say figuratively

>>16716304
Please refrain from calling it dark energy. It offends people who actually know general relativity. It means the geometry of space is (locally) hyperbolic. Go ahead and draw a hyperboloid of one sheet. Is it a compact surface? Same argument for the vanishing cosmological constant: Minkowski space is non-compact.
>>16716308
There are thousands of papers on testing Poincare invariance violations. People sometimes say Lorentz invariance because the Poincare group is sometimes called the inhomogeneous Lorentz group.

Assumptions on how the universe works outside of the observable universe are purely speculative and usually break down as "it's just easiest to assume what we see keeps going"

As for what's really out there, if anything, there is not, nor will there ever be, a way to tell, so speculation on it runs more into fiction than science.

On the plus side it probably doesn't matter.

>>16716316
>it's just easiest to assume what we see keeps going
It’s not “easiest”. It’s the only consistent deduction. If things in one part of the universe work differently from how they work in other, then Poincare invariance would be violated. We don’t observe such violations and have extremely tight bounds coming from experimental evidence.

>>16716033 (OP)
its not infinite though.

personally i believe in the toroidal universe, the hypothesis that the universe is shaped like a torus, so that the further outwards you go, the more youll arrive inwards, where you started
meaning there is no "edge" or end to space, only finite matter enclosed within something that has no edge, where if you try to go towards the edge youll enter the center

This is what I love about s o y e n c e. Whatever the current mainstream belief is: It's the truth, has always been the truth, will always be the truth, and anyone who dares to question it needs to just shut up.

>>16716033 (OP)
consciousnesses is infinite, do you have borders to your imagination? whatever the creator imagines comes into being, there are no limits

>>16716392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDETIdUF-Q

>>16716932
>do you have borders to your imagination?
>he doesn't know about the borders
Hello, retard. Please review Known unknown, unknown known, known known, and unknown unknown.

Not only is the universe infinite, the opposite of infinite doesn't actually exist

Which specific aspect, measurement of the universe are you distinctly referring to?

Is Pi infinite, or finite?
What specifically is Pi a measurement of?
What is a measurement?

>>16716207
1/3 gives an infinite sequence but doesn't given you every number let alone every combination of number, not all infinites are the same. Infinite doesn't automatically mean infinite variation, or infinite repetition.

>>16716033 (OP)
All of existence? Yes. Our observable universe? No. Our universe? No. It depends on how you define our universe but most likely no. There is a boundary/event horizon to our universe. Other universes, realities, spaces beyond our boundary would exist.

>>16716955
dont ever address me double digit IQ peasant

>>16717053
Really? Double digit? For pointing out how your mental borders work?
I address you because you deserve it.

>>16716033 (OP) The universe has a egg-like shape, a form, so it is finite, but scientists cannot see beyond when light was formed. There are also various universes, so... it is finite.

>>16716033 (OP)
The universe is necessarily eternal in both time directions

>>16716516
This is simply not true and you're a shit for brained midwit

Which measurements of the universe, specifically, are finite...

...and which measurements are infinite?

All?
None?
How can some things be finite, yet others infinite?
If everything has already been done and measured already, then why keep running the measurement?

>>16716033 (OP)
I somewhat believe in NDE/dmt messages that we are here to "learn." The universe is limited because on the "otherside" it's an infinite consciousness based realm. We only get to experience non-infinity here.

>>16716036
>There is a causality horizon.
you're so retarded holy shit

>>16716392
https://archive.org/details/worlds-beyond-the-poles-f.-amadeo-giannini_202212/mode/2up

>>16717726
For something to do. But we could all be doing better things couldn't we? The question is how, not why.

>>16716033 (OP)
>Is the universe infinite?
no.
>>16716392
there is no evidence of this.

>>16716039
Then what is the last decimal number if the concept of infinity (no limit the the number of decimals) is wrong?

>>16716033 (OP)
There's matter n shit, if it's true. Inverse square law makes me think if everything we have in our inverse square radius is inverse square from another inverse square radius, then in between would be a gap

>>16716311
> It means the geometry of space is (locally) hyperbolic.
Nope. Non zero cosmological constant doesn't mean you have an open universe. De Sitter and LCDM are CC dominated, and yet flat. Observational data points to our universe being flat, or very close to it and slightly open.
> It offends people who actually know general relativity.
The point in calling it dark energy is that is that it is an assumption the cosmological constant is driving the observed acceleration. An assumption which is being tested by experiments like the Dark Energy Survey, the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Euclid, LSST and so on.

>>16716033 (OP)
That's not the universe.
That's an artistic interpretation of an ovum, which is definitely finite.

>>16716033 (OP)
I don't think it is infinite, but rather constantly increasing (in volume and total energy content)

>>16716392
So you are saying the Universe is like a cunt? Figures.

>>16721885
>slightly closed*

>>16716033 (OP)
Maybe the answer is WE DON'T KNOW YET

Just like we don't know yet whether life exists elsewhere in the universe

Why are humans so terrified of uncertainty? "Oh I can't possibly admit that I don't know yet, so instead I'll just believe in some plausible-seeming theory, just so I have an answer?" That stupid fucking mindset gave us religions.

>>16716033 (OP)
Existence is infinite, not the universe.
Notice that "before" the emergence of time's arrow and entropy, and the rapid expansion of the universe, existence simply existed, atemporally, undifferentiated and whole. Right now, existence is atemporal, undifferentiated and whole, because pure existence isn't the same as nature or the universe. Even if you think about the simplest ambient space of all natural possibilities, "existence" is even simpler than that. Nature itself is incidental to pure existence, because nature encompasses plurality and change, while existence itself is perfectly simple and unchanging: indeed, existence is separable from time and space precisely because cosmology already posits how the earliest state of the universe was before being stamped with a temporal arrow, and that state of the universe had existence yet wasn't existence per-se. Only existence per-se is infinite, because even this universe will fade into nothingness in however way it ends, big freeze, heat death, big crunch, whatever. And anything that temporally begins and ends cannot be infinite.

>>16716033 (OP)
"Dimensions" are like pages - a substrate.

>>16721981
UNCERTAINTY IS FUCKING BORING AND GAYI , I WANT ANSWERS YOU LAZY SACK OF SHITS!