NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there was a thread about the big bang theory, but I'm more interested in this one particular concept: the infinite universe. Please, those of you who have given this thought, explain to me using whatever belief system you hold how an infinite universe is possible! How can something go on and on forever, yet not be INSIDE something? How can there be no limits? HOW!!??

It makes my brain ache just trying to imagine it.

So stop thinking. It clearly isn't your forte'.

If it goes on and on forever, logically it can't be in something..........

Besides which, if it were inside something, which makes no sense, it wouldn't be inside something, as it would include whatever it is inside, hence the term universe.

Just start counting up from 0 and you'll figure out how there can be no limits

I think Scientist still don't know what are the limits of the universe or if there is a limit or not. Nobody knows.

What they do know is that they calculate that the stars and everything itself are getting further away from a "centre".

Kinda makes you feel insignificant doesn't it?

Well... if the universe is primarily made from nothing, it doesn't actually have any boundaries. I mean, there'd be a technical edge, where there aren't any more stars, etc, but apart from that, it'd just be nothing, like what makes up most of the universe anyway. The edge of the universe, to me, is a misconception.

Another interesting question raised. How can there be nothing? How do we know it's there?

Apparently, the universe itself isn't expanding, just the space inside it is. Work that one out (after you've found out how the universe itself can be infinite).

Another interesting question raised. How can there be nothing? How do we know it's there?
We dont ... its an event horizion on a universal scale

Apparently, the universe itself isn't expanding, just the space inside it is. Work that one out (after you've found out how the universe itself can be infinite).

Well yeah.......

By definition the universe is everything. So everything is inside it. What happens to the stuff inside it is no concern of the universe.

Firstly. The universe is not believed to be infinite. It is believed to be finite. It does not go on forever. But it is unbounded. It has a size but no edges.. This however does not mean that there is anything beyond it, or any beyond for anyhting to be in.

We are used to one thing being contained in another, so this shapes our way of thinking. It is something we can not avoid.

If Big Bang theory is correct then we have some very difficult concepts to deal with. A finite univererse with a starting point, which BB implies, crerates the inevitable questions of what is beyond and what was before. These questions are like asking what is beyond an idea or what is before green. They simply do not apply. All that there is is the universe. (All that can be known anyway, for the M-brane fans) There is no beyond for there to be anything. No space, no there. The same applies to time. There was no before the big bang as time started with the big bang. Before is a concept that implies at the time that occured prior to some other time. No time means no before.
Do not try to visualise these ideas. They do not fit our visualisation scheme, which depends upon experience. These are not ideas from experience, they are purely theoretical.

This has probably not helped at all. It is however the best I can do for now.

We dont ... its an event horizion on a universal scale
And not even only universal. Even at microscopic scale there is "nothingness"

Just remember what ol' Mach said about experience.

It can't be trusted.

there are somethings (no matter how great we as humans think we are) we cant comprehend easily, or at all

I love thinking about that, it's so weird.

what I like about it is how inconcievable both of the two concievable possibilities are...

either it DOES go on forever, which is impossible to imagine and just challenges everything we think we know about everything to the point of driving me crazy...

or it does just stop somewhere.... inwhich case, what the hell could be outside of it??

if the term "Universe" implies "Everything that exists" then there simply CAN'T be anything that is OUTSIDE of the Universe!

But how can something in this physical realm go on forever! Nothing does- everything has a beginning and an end.

arrgh!

What they mean is that due to the curvature of space, there is no actual boundary to the Universe. No matter where you are in the Universe, you're always 14 Billion (give or take a few million) light years from the edge.
So we'll never be able to jump over to the edge and poke our head out and take a look at what's around the Universe.
Think of it as a Koch Triangle. It has an infinite perimeter but has an area always smaller than the cirlce that surrounds it, where all corners of the original equilateral triangle touches the circumference.
That might help you get an idea of how the Universe is a paradox.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KochSnowflake.html

There's also 3-D cuboids which have infinte surface area and 0 volume.

Space-Time-Density anyone?

most people think of the universe as stars, and galaxies, etc. But, if you get far enough away from them, there is just black space, with no electromagnetic waves, and no matter of any kind. Therefore, is there is actually nothing there, why can it not go on forever?

Also id like to clarify something: Time did not start with a big bang, it was always around, as was space. Matter, the stuff that makes up everything around us, is what supposedly was formed/dispersed in a big bang. Since matter is, basiclly, everything, we say that the universe began. space and time, however were already here by that point, and since they are technically nothing, dont need a beginning or an end. :)

Any String theorist here that can explain further about this?

I love thinking about that, it's so weird.

what I like about it is how inconcievable both of the two concievable possibilities are...

either it DOES go on forever, which is impossible to imagine and just challenges everything we think we know about everything to the point of driving me crazy...

or it does just stop somewhere.... inwhich case, what the hell could be outside of it??

if the term "Universe" implies "Everything that exists" then there simply CAN'T be anything that is OUTSIDE of the Universe!

But how can something in this physical realm go on forever! Nothing does- everything has a beginning and an end.

arrgh!
Think of it as if you are a two-dimensional being standing on the Earth's surface. Whereever you look, space just spreads out as a flat surface away from into the distant.
Yet if you were to start walking in a straight line (ignoring the seas and mountains) you would eventually get back to where you started. How can you, as a 2-D person, explain this? It's simply mind-boogling!
Now try to visualise the same as a 3-D person within this Universe.

I wish I knew more math so I would know what is going on here.

It starts...and doesn't stop... ;)

Think of it as if you are a two-dimensional being standing on the Earth's surface. Whereever you look, space just spreads out as a flat surface away from into the distant.
Yet if you were to start walking in a straight line (ignoring the seas and mountains) you would eventually get back to where you started. How can you, as a 2-D person, explain this? It's simply mind-boogling!
Now try to visualise the same as a 3-D person within this Universe.

Just add a few more dimensions, and we'll be on track.

Do you really need to feel the edge of the universe?

now if i can rember corrctly space-time is curved so if you travil in the same direction for long enougth you will wind back where you started from. so you dso not reach the end so for you the univerce is never ending. this is probly totaly wrong so if you need me i'l be hiding behind this fire guard.

most people think of the universe as stars, and galaxies, etc. But, if you get far enough away from them, there is just black space, with no electromagnetic waves, and no matter of any kind. Therefore, is there is actually nothing there, why can it not go on forever?

Also id like to clarify something: Time did not start with a big bang, it was always around, as was space. Matter, the stuff that makes up everything around us, is what supposedly was formed/dispersed in a big bang. Since matter is, basiclly, everything, we say that the universe began. space and time, however were already here by that point, and since they are technically nothing, dont need a beginning or an end. :)
Time did start. Before the Big Bang there was no history. There is absolutely no telling on what was there before, so time (to us) did not exist.

Go here for more on the Edge
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_p2.html

Well... if the universe is primarily made from nothing, it doesn't actually have any boundaries. I mean, there'd be a technical edge, where there aren't any more stars, etc, but apart from that, it'd just be nothing, like what makes up most of the universe anyway. The edge of the universe, to me, is a misconception.

Yeah, what he said ^^^

Humans find it difficult to think about something as being 'infinite' simply because everything we do is 'finite'. Our lives have an end, our planet has a limited amount of space, our star has a limited lifespan, batteries run out after a certain amount of time, etc etc etc. Nearly everything we experience has limits, except for the apparent numbers of rats McDonalds has stored away in each of their branches. So, having only experienced things with limits (except for ratburgers), they then assume everything has limits.

And, infinite being by its very nature infinite, there is no other way of explaining how the universe can be infinite other than simply saying it is infinite. I could start off with the 'it just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on' way of explaining it, but eventually the post would run out of characters, and then the forum would run out of space, either that or I died, whichever came first.

If you want to know what happens after space go here........

All your answers (http://www.trevorvanmeter.com/flyguy/)

Just go all the way to the top and you will have your answer.

P.S. Check out the things along the way!

So stop thinking. It clearly isn't your forte'.
I can see you'll have a short stay in NS...

I can see you'll have a short stay in NS...
Yeah already early and flamerific

If you want to know what happens after space go here........

All your answers (http://www.trevorvanmeter.com/flyguy/)

Just go all the way to the top and you will have your answer.

P.S. Check out the things along the way!
wtf? Hulaing monkeys? :confused:

Any String theorist here that can explain further about this?
It's to do with the concept that we live in a multi-dimensional universe. Aside from the 4 dimensions we percieve, there's also 6 others that are tightly curled up (at around a Planck unit, which is 10^-35m), which the atoms vibrate through. BTW, the general concept taught about atoms as having a nucleus and an electron whizzing around isn't true.
We're talking about things so small, they have no shape. the electron would look more like a cloud around the nucleus, being nowhere yet everywhere at the same time.
String theory views all these things as simply vibrations along the multi-dimensions, like a guitar string. So an electron has a different vibration to a proton or a graviton. Which has a certain beautiful simplicity to it.

Anyway, back to the dimensions. There's 10 Dimensions in our Universe, and an 11th one that the whole Universe resides in. This one is also tiny (a planck unit again), but the whole universe is tied up within it. So this dimension is no further than 10^-35m from anywhere in the Universe. It's closer to you than your own clothes.
This dimension can be thought of as a membrane in which our Universe lives. But it's not a placid membrane. Ripples flow through the membrane. And other universes reside there as well. When these ripples cause two universes to meet, the resulting energy release causes another universe to be created. Of course not all can sustain life. If the way the universes collide isn't just right, the inflationary period after the big bang may be too much, which will cause the matter to disperse too greatly and there'll be no stars created.
This is happening all the time. It's estimated that something like 10^-33 seconds a new universe is created.

I still don't get it...even if there was 'nothing' beyond the universe, I just can not accept that nothing really means nothing. I mean, even anti-matter is supposed to be 'something'. Nothing would mean 'nothing exists', but even that absence of existence in itself would be SOMETHING. By naming it, it exists, no?

I feel like we have declared the universe to be infinite (or hugely finite, with no understanding of what its boundaries truly are) simply because we don't KNOW. Just as we once declared the earth to be flat. When we are able to find out...what WILL we find out? Is our universe contained within something? Bordered by 'nothing' which is still 'something'? It exists on some level, doesn't it? If so, there are limits, and something BEYOND those limits...

Reminds me of something Terry Pratchett once said... space is either a small place containing nothing, or a big place containing everything.

Reminds me of something Terry Pratchett once said... space is either a small place containing nothing, or a big place containing everything.
Exactly...but even if it were the latter, it couldn't really contain EVERYTHING...it couldn't contain itself, could it?

Exactly...but even if it were the latter, it couldn't really contain EVERYTHING...it couldn't contain itself, could it?
Every collection contains itself

I still don't get it...even if there was 'nothing' beyond the universe, I just can not accept that nothing really means nothing. I mean, even anti-matter is supposed to be 'something'. Nothing would mean 'nothing exists', but even that absence of existence in itself would be SOMETHING. By naming it, it exists, no?

I feel like we have declared the universe to be infinite (or hugely finite, with no understanding of what its boundaries truly are) simply because we don't KNOW. Just as we once declared the earth to be flat. When we are able to find out...what WILL we find out? Is our universe contained within something? Bordered by 'nothing' which is still 'something'? It exists on some level, doesn't it? If so, there are limits, and something BEYOND those limits...

There may or may not be anything beyond our Universe. The important thing to note is that we'll never know for sure since anything outwith our universe is
(A) Unobservable from within our own universe,
(B) Does not interact with our universe.
We can therefore effectively say there is for all intents and purposes nothing outside our universe simply because there is nothing that can affect us...

Every collection contains itself
My Led Zepplen collection doesn't contain itself...my CD holder does.

My Led Zepplen collection doesn't contain itself...my CD holder does.
Errr.... yes it does. By definition of "collection" :rolleyes:

There may or may not be anything beyond our Universe. The important thing to note is that we'll never know for sure since anything outwith our universe is
(A) Unobservable from within our own universe,
(B) Does not interact with our universe.
We can therefore effectively say there is for all intents and purposes nothing outside our universe simply because there is nothing that can affect us...
We don't think it can affect us. We are limited in our knowledge. Yet, just because something is REALLY far away, doesn't mean it isn't there. Africa used to be unimaginably far from Canada, but now it isn't. It was still there back before we could fly to it though...we just had no idea what it looked like.

Every collection contains itself

Also every collection contains the empty set {0} or Ø




sorry a surge of information from university just came back to me with that sentence

Every collection contains itself

In that case Frege was right, ands Russell wrong! :eek:

Errr.... yes it does. By definition of "collection" :rolleyes:
Don't you roll your eyes at me, Leggy Piratica! Yes, the collection is self contained, as in no songs exist outside the collection. Nonetheless, the collection itself does not exist in NOTHING...it exists in a format (wav file) which is then contained inside a physical format (the CD itself) which is then contained within my CD holder, which is contained within my home, which is contained....you get the point:) Damn eye roller!

We don't think it can affect us. We are limited in our knowledge. Yet, just because something is REALLY far away, doesn't mean it isn't there. Africa used to be unimaginably far from Canada, but now it isn't. It was still there back before we could fly to it though...we just had no idea what it looked like.

The point is that if it is there, and can affect us then it is part of our universe whether we have observed it yet or not...

Don't you roll your eyes at me, Leggy Piratica! Yes, the collection is self contained, as in no songs exist outside the collection. Nonetheless, the collection itself does not exist in NOTHING...it exists in a format (wav file) which is then contained inside a physical format (the CD itself) which is then contained within my CD holder, which is contained within my home, which is contained....you get the point:) Damn eye roller!
So you're just saying that your Led Zep collection is a subset of your CD holder?

I know there was a thread about the big bang theory, but I'm more interested in this one particular concept: the infinite universe. Please, those of you who have given this thought, explain to me using whatever belief system you hold how an infinite universe is possible! How can something go on and on forever, yet not be INSIDE something? How can there be no limits? HOW!!??

It makes my brain ache just trying to imagine it.
The universe is apparently infinite but bounded. What this means is that the three dimensions with which we are familiar are enclosed within a higher dimension.

Imagine a huge piece of paper on which two-dimentional beings live. When the paper is flat, it's obvious to them that it has boundaries at the edges. Now imagine that the paper forms an immense sphere. The beings on the paper can no longer see boundaries, but because the sphere exists in a higher dimension which the beings cannot see, the third dimension, their paper universe is infinite.

That's about as good an explanation as I can come up with.

The universe is apparently infinite but bounded. What this means is that the three dimensions with which we are familiar are enclosed within a higher dimension.

Imagine a huge piece of paper on which two-dimentional beings live. When the paper is flat, it's obvious to them that it has boundaries at the edges. Now imagine that the paper forms an immense sphere. The beings on the paper can no longer see boundaries, but because the sphere exists in a higher dimension which the beings cannot see, the third dimension, their paper universe is infinite.

That's about as good an explanation as I can come up with.


Wasn't it found out, that although the universe is indeed finite, that it still has not stopped expanding.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html

Basically it's saying that this "Dark Energy" is the hidden force that is expanding the universe. So for all we know the Universe could expand infinitely...but will always have finite dimensions.

Does that make sense?

I love whipping out the infinite universe theory in RE lessons, i get lots of blank stares! I always say that life on earth must be a pure coincidence because the universe is infinite and therefore every possibility, however small (eg abiogenesis), must and will happen an infinite amount of times. REMEMBER THE MONKEYS!

Regardless of what anyone else said before, the answer is 42 anyways...

Besides, what should be beyond the "borders" of the universe if it is not infinite?

6+6+6=18
18+18+18=54

54? Wtf?

So you're just saying that your Led Zep collection is a subset of your CD holder?
No. I am saying (I think) that the collection is made up of binary code (it is, isn't it? I'm computer illiterate), but that the binary code has to exist WITHIN something. Our universe is like that code...we experience it in a certain way, and we can understand it in a certain way, but we are not able to see outside our boundaries. To go back to my awful analogy, the Led Zep collection is self contained within its code. Yet it is contained in another form on the CD itself. And so on. So I picture our universe. The possibilities are perhaps limitless (imagine a CD with infinite space), but our universe is just a code contained within another format.

Or something.

I just don't think that we have to limit ourselves to imagining the universe contained in something LIKE the universe. But I do think it is contained within SOMETHING.

No. I am saying (I think) that the collection is made up of binary code (it is, isn't it? I'm computer illiterate), but that the binary code has to exist WITHIN something. Our universe is like that code...we experience it in a certain way, and we can understand it in a certain way, but we are not able to see outside our boundaries. To go back to my awful analogy, the Led Zep collection is self contained within its code. Yet it is contained in another form on the CD itself. And so on. So I picture our universe. The possibilities are perhaps limitless (imagine a CD with infinite space), but our universe is just a code contained within another format.

Or something.

I just don't think that we have to limit ourselves to imagining the universe contained in something LIKE the universe. But I do think it is contained within SOMETHING.

The rules for interpreting the pattern of bits on the Led Zep CD are not directly contained on the CD. And if you don't know the rules, it's rather hard to deduce them from the bitstream itself.

Given enough CDs, you might eventually figure it out. But there's a piece of critical information that is, in essence, missing from every CD, and that is "how to read this CD". They assume that your machine already knows this information.

No. I am saying (I think) that the collection is made up of binary code (it is, isn't it? I'm computer illiterate), but that the binary code has to exist WITHIN something. Our universe is like that code...we experience it in a certain way, and we can understand it in a certain way, but we are not able to see outside our boundaries. To go back to my awful analogy, the Led Zep collection is self contained within its code. Yet it is contained in another form on the CD itself. And so on. So I picture our universe. The possibilities are perhaps limitless (imagine a CD with infinite space), but our universe is just a code contained within another format.

Or something.

I just don't think that we have to limit ourselves to imagining the universe contained in something LIKE the universe. But I do think it is contained within SOMETHING.
So you are saying that every set is in fact a subset of something bigger than itself?

That is not true

I still don't get it...even if there was 'nothing' beyond the universe, I just can not accept that nothing really means nothing. I mean, even anti-matter is supposed to be 'something'. Nothing would mean 'nothing exists', but even that absence of existence in itself would be SOMETHING. By naming it, it exists, no?

I dunno, naming your imaginary friend doesn't make him suddenlly exist, at least not anywhere outside of your own mind.

Also, your comparing anti-matter to the abscence of existance isn't really a good analogy- no one ever said anti-matter was nothing (but its very name, it is *matter*, after all.), merelly negativelly charged in comparison to the most common matter in our universe.

As for nothinginess being so hard to concieve- why? I mean, what existed in the space the universe now occupies before the big bang? there *had* to be "space" for existance to move into (Even if the concept of "space" is meaningless to something that lacked even dimensions to define it.) I don't find the concept of nothingness any more confusing that I do the concept of a blank canvas- its simply the abscence of anything acting upon it yet. Potential.

The rules for interpreting the pattern of bits on the Led Zep CD are not directly contained on the CD. And if you don't know the rules, it's rather hard to deduce them from the bitstream itself.

Given enough CDs, you might eventually figure it out. But there's a piece of critical information that is, in essence, missing from every CD, and that is "how to read this CD". They assume that your machine already knows this information.
So the information is useless without something to 'interpret' it. But it still exists, right? It is self-contained in the sense that it exists, complete, but it is NOT self-contained in the sense that it can 'interpret' itself...

So you are saying that every set is in fact a subset of something bigger than itself?

That is not true
By subset, I would think that you would mean that these things had some similarities, which is not what I am trying to say. I think that our universe exists WITHIN something very different than our conception of a universe, something we don't understand, but nonetheless exists.

Even if I WAS saying that everything is a subset, I'm not sure why that would not be true...

By the way, Legitus Piratonicus, this is the MOST 'real' conversation I think I've had with you, and I have to say, you are making my brain sweat!

I just don't think that we have to limit ourselves to imagining the universe contained in something LIKE the universe. But I do think it is contained within SOMETHING.

Does that something also have a container, and does that container have a container, and so on to infinitey, with a container for every container?

Remindes me of this story:


A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He
described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast
collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and
said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.” “You’re very
clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

I don't find the concept of nothingness any more confusing that I do the concept of a blank canvas- its simply the abscence of anything acting upon it yet. Potential.
But the blank canvas in itself would still be SOMETHING. The painting would be the universe, the absence of painting would be the absence of universe, but the medium on which the painting exists or not would STILL BE THERE.

So you are saying that every set is in fact a subset of something bigger than itself?

That is not true

It is true of our experience though. You can always, in what we perceive, go up a level. To the next bigger set.

Mathematically it is not true, but you can not imagine the universal set.

Does that something also have a container, and does that container have a container, and so on to infinitey, with a container for every container?


I'm not sure. Sometimes that's what I think...but then the question is raised whether or not that collection of containers too is limitless, and how would THAT be possible...

So the information is useless without something to 'interpret' it. But it still exists, right? It is self-contained in the sense that it exists, complete, but it is NOT self-contained in the sense that it can 'interpret' itself...

It is not, recoverable. And therefore, can only exist in relation to the set of data required to interpret it.

If the recovery information were available on the disc, then yes, it would be entirely self-contained.

One might say, that as it is, the set of bits on the disc are self-contained, but the information about the songs is not self-contained.

By subset, I would think that you would mean that these things had some similarities, which is not what I am trying to say. I think that our universe exists WITHIN something very different than our conception of a universe, something we don't understand, but nonetheless exists.
That might be so, but if there is absolutely no physical way to check it out, we can assume there isn't
Even if I WAS saying that everything is a subset, I'm not sure why that would not be true...
A subset of something bigger than itself. Everything is it's own subset

Does that something also have a container, and does that container have a container, and so on to infinitey, with a container for every container?

Remindes me of this story:
Turtles all the way down story


Which comes from Hawking's "A brief History of Time".

Another way to look at the CD is to ask, does it contain its own abstraction?

That is, does it contain the information necessary to identify what's on the disc?

And the answer is no.

But we contain our own abstraction.

By the way, Legitus Piratonicus, this is the MOST 'real' conversation I think I've had with you, and I have to say, you are making my brain sweat!
It's just in an area I just had classes in.

And I like it too

A subset of something bigger than itself. Everything is it's own subset
Ok...so why is that not true?

Ok...so why is that not true?
Take the binary numbers {0,1}
We have subsets {},{0},{1} and {0,1}
The first three are all smaller subsets, but {0,1} is equally big.

Take the binary numbers {0,1}
We have subsets {},{0},{1} and {0,1}
The first three are all smaller subsets, but {0,1} is equally big.
Sorry, I don't really understand this. {0,1} is equally big to what? To its subsets?

Do those numbers even exist? I mean, they don't have mass...they aren't made up of matter...

Neither does my imaginary friend have mass or matter...yet she doesn't exist and these numbers do? Why? Because we agree they do? If we agree that God exists, does He?

I'm not sure. Sometimes that's what I think...but then the question is raised whether or not that collection of containers too is limitless, and how would THAT be possible...

All I can think of (off the top of my head) is that the bottom most container contains the topmost container - which in turn contains (eventually propigating down through the containers) the bottom most container; kinda like the idea that our galaxies are just 'electrons' in a much bigger universe except that our galaxies are electrons in our own universe...

However this essentailly means that our universe does infact contain everything
:D
sorry

Sorry, I don't really understand this. {0,1} is equally big to what? To its subsets?
To the universe (= {0,1} in this mathematical example)

I know there was a thread about the big bang theory, but I'm more interested in this one particular concept: the infinite universe. Please, those of you who have given this thought, explain to me using whatever belief system you hold how an infinite universe is possible! How can something go on and on forever, yet not be INSIDE something? How can there be no limits? HOW!!??

It makes my brain ache just trying to imagine it.

It's hard for me to imagine something going on forever also. I use to think there has to be a stopping point somewhere.. and it may well be, we just don't know what or where and probably never will. Our galaxy is just a speck. We don't know what all is out there.

It's hard for me to imagine something going on forever also. I use to think there has to be a stopping point somewhere.. and it may well be, we just don't know what or where and probably never will. Our galaxy is just a speck. We don't know what all is out there.
Never is a long time to assign a probability to ;)

To the universe (= {0,1} in this mathematical example)
Sorry, I'm lost:( I'm not good with mathematical concepts.

Do those numbers even exist? I mean, they don't have mass...they aren't made up of matter...
It's a mathematical construction. They exist because we agreed they exist.

So if everyone agreed God existed, He would in fact exist

Sorry, I'm lost:( I'm not good with mathematical concepts.
Awww.

Dammit :(

It's a mathematical construction. They exist because we agreed they exist.

So if everyone agreed God existed, He would in fact exist
Does EVERYONE have to agree in order for Him to exist?

If we all agreed that the universe was contained within a cleverly woven basket (as one of my people's legends goes)...would that be true?

Is time infinite? I mean, if we can accept the fact that our fourth dimension, time, is limitless in a linear plane (ie forwards-backwards), than why can't the universe be infinte in three linear dimensions?

Awww.

Dammit :(
I know...it's something I am fascinated with, and CAN understand when I apply myself, but I lose it easily and have to keep practising to get it. Right now, my little brain isn't up to it.

It's a mathematical construction. They exist because we agreed they exist.

So if everyone agreed God existed, He would in fact exist
the idea of god would exist (but that happens if only one person believes it exists)

(btw this all reminds me of a game "Black and white")

It's a mathematical construction. They exist because we agreed they exist.

So if everyone agreed God existed, He would in fact exist

No, the constructions that we agree on are postulates.

Postulates are not necessarily true, nor do they necessarily have existence.

They are adhered to by faith, or common belief.

Is time infinite? I mean, if we can accept the fact that our fourth dimension, time, is limitless in a linear plane (ie forwards-backwards), than why can't the universe be infinte in three linear dimensions?
I don't think time is infinite...it has a beginning somewhere, and and end somewhere. I think:)

It's to do with the concept that we live in a multi-dimensional universe. Aside from the 4 dimensions we percieve, there's also 6 others that are tightly curled up (at around a Planck unit, which is 10^-35m), which the atoms vibrate through. BTW, the general concept taught about atoms as having a nucleus and an electron whizzing around isn't true.
We're talking about things so small, they have no shape. the electron would look more like a cloud around the nucleus, being nowhere yet everywhere at the same time.
String theory views all these things as simply vibrations along the multi-dimensions, like a guitar string. So an electron has a different vibration to a proton or a graviton. Which has a certain beautiful simplicity to it.

Anyway, back to the dimensions. There's 10 Dimensions in our Universe, and an 11th one that the whole Universe resides in. This one is also tiny (a planck unit again), but the whole universe is tied up within it. So this dimension is no further than 10^-35m from anywhere in the Universe. It's closer to you than your own clothes.
This dimension can be thought of as a membrane in which our Universe lives. But it's not a placid membrane. Ripples flow through the membrane. And other universes reside there as well. When these ripples cause two universes to meet, the resulting energy release causes another universe to be created. Of course not all can sustain life. If the way the universes collide isn't just right, the inflationary period after the big bang may be too much, which will cause the matter to disperse too greatly and there'll be no stars created.
This is happening all the time. It's estimated that something like 10^-33 seconds a new universe is created.
Green couldn't have put it better. Nice job, avoiding unnecessary math (to show off) and putting it in an easy to understand way for most non-physicists.
Maybe you could write a book explaining evolution to creationists someday?

I don't think time is infinite...it has a beginning somewhere, and and end somewhere. I think:)
The passage of time is an illusion.

No, the constructions that we agree on are postulates.

Postulates are not necessarily true, nor do they necessarily have existence.

They are adhered to by faith, or common belief.
True true

Mathemathics are based on a foundation of assumptions which no one can proove true or false

The passage of time is an illusion.
Na..it's just relative:)

Green couldn't have put it better. Nice job, avoiding unnecessary math (to show off) and putting it in an easy to understand way for most non-physicists.
Maybe you could write a book explaining evolution to creationists someday?

Aren't you omitting the idea that these universes that are being created so rapidly are the multiple universes that Everett discussed?

I happen to believe in the multiverse...

The passage of time is an illusion.

Time is the transition from order to decay, enthalpy to entropy.

Time is the transition from order to decay, enthalpy to entropy.

Our perception of it is illusory.

Never is a long time to assign a probability to ;)


I mean us on this planet. Living here on this earth. We would have destroyed ourselves before we would get close to knowing everything there is to know about this Universe.

I mean us on this planet. Living here on this earth. We would have destroyed ourselves before we would get close to knowing everything there is to know about this Universe.
Maybe, but what are we really? We are made up of the very fabric of the universe...we contain nothing that does not physically exist somewhere in the universe. We are simply a physical manifestation of that universe that has developed the sentinence to think about ourselves...in essence, we are the universe thinking about itself. Just because humans may die out completely, does not mean the universe will never again think about itself through some other physical manifestation...

The passage of time is an illusion.
BS. You could not have made that post if it was

Our perception of it is illusory.

Indeed. Any observation we make without full understanding must be at least in part illusion, since our mind fills in the knowledge we lack, and since we have full understanding of nothing, it could be argued that all human perception is illusion.

Indeed. Any observation we make without full understanding must be at least in part illusion, since our mind fills in the knowledge we lack, and since we have full understanding of nothing, it could be argued that all human perception is illusion.
*brain cramp*

I think I'll get jiggy with it for a moment...*gets jiggy with it*

...ok, that's better. Let's continue:)

Maybe we should ask this,

1) Do you think the universe is infinite?
2) If so, then why. If not, then why.

My answer:

No. Because it just doesn't compute. :)

Maybe we should ask this,

1) Do you think the universe is infinite?
2) If so, then why. If not, then why.



1) No.
2) The universe is expanding. It must be. There are too many forces for a simple static status quo, and since we believe that time shifts, at least one of the four main dimensions is not static. In the three physical dimensions, the pattern of background radiation suggests that it has expanded in the past, and since we know of no major physical shift will likely continue to expand. That however is prediction, not actual knowledge.

Maybe we should ask this,

1) Do you think the universe is infinite?
2) If so, then why. If not, then why.

My answer:

No. Because it just doesn't compute. :)

Or maybe, since there is no possible way to use the portion of the universe we know about, we should ask "Why does it matter anyway?". The universe is so vast, and we have so far only been able to actually get to an infintecimal portion of it. Granted, speculation on the subject is interesting, but on the whole it is time that could be spent more usefully if it were applied to more practical discussions. :headbang: Or we could all be figments of someone elses twisted imagination.
:sniper:

Aren't you omitting the idea that these universes that are being created so rapidly are the multiple universes that Everett discussed?

I happen to believe in the multiverse...
Well, I didn't omitt anything. My post was just a compliment to DH.

Anyway, there's different views on what a multiverse would like like, and different physics theories that propose reasons for their existence.

In the Quantum Mechanics model, trying to pinpoint the exact location of atomic particles like electrons is utterly impossible. They have no single location in spacetime.
The only explanation we could come up with is that the particles don't just exist in our universe. They "appear" into existence in other universes. There are an infinite number of these parallel universes, and each of them are just a little different from the others. Really weird stuff.

In the Superstring/M-Theory model, universes are born so frequently, it's just an everyday, nothing-dpecial occurance. Here's a funny quote from one physicist that cracks me up:
"I in fact have worked with several other people for some period of time on the question of whether or not it's in principle possible to create a new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it really works we don't know for sure. It looks like it probably would work. It's actually safe to create a universe in your basement. It would not displace the universe around it even though it would grow tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the territory that we currently lay claim to." ~Alan Guth :D

Or maybe, since there is no possible way to use the portion of the universe we know about, we should ask "Why does it matter anyway?". The universe is so vast, and we have so far only been able to actually get to an infintecimal portion of it. Granted, speculation on the subject is interesting, but on the whole it is time that could be spent more usefully if it were applied to more practical discussions. :headbang: Or we could all be figments of someone elses twisted imagination.
:sniper:
What constitute practical discussions? Seriously...

True true

Mathemathics are based on a foundation of assumptions which no one can proove true or false
They can be proven false.

Maybe we should ask this,

1) Do you think the universe is infinite?
2) If so, then why. If not, then why.


(1) I think the universe is probably infinite, but then, how can this be proven/disproven?
(2) Well, (A), I like to tick the Christians off by saying it is, (B), I just like the idea, and (C), have you ever looked up in the sky and seen the billions of stars in the sky? Every single one of those stars is a sun, a center of an entire solar system! And maybe from some other planet you can see different stars, and it's this whole big thing. I dunno. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

They can be proven false.
Some perhaps..but not all, surely...

Almost forgot: To answer the question, it depends on what your definition of "universe" would be. If you mean our personal little universe made up of everything we'll ever see or know, then it's finite (but so enormous, it seems like a dumb word to use).
Around our little universe though, probably exists another universe ininite by any definition we have.

What constitute practical discussions? Seriously...

How to make better use of the portion of the universe we have access to. I'm not saying that this discussion is a complete waste. My main point was to inject some levity into the discussion through the "twisted imagination" portion.

We could confuse Sinuhue further --- by talking about the multiverse, and the proof of its existence...

We could confuse Sinuhue further --- by talking about the multiverse, and the proof of its existence...
Confusify on...

The proof being?

Some perhaps..but not all, surely...
Well I haven't thought it through properly, but I would guess they could. All you would need to do is to identify a potential condition in which the assumption does not hold. If that condition is observed, the assumption falls, because (I think) fundamental assumptions in maths are always absolute*. (That last statement is the bit I haven't really thought about BTW.)

For example, a fundamental assumption in arithmetic is that 1+1=2. The first time a situation is observed in which 1+1=/=2, the assumption is proven false. (And life suddenly becomes more interesting than hitherto.)


*Including the assumption that logical paradoxes are cheating and therefore not allowed in any properly brought up mathematical system.

We could confuse Sinuhue further --- by talking about the multiverse, and the proof of its existence...
I responded about multiverses, so we already are.

Confusify on...

The proof being?
I tried not to confuse anyone in my post on the subject.
Your turn.

We as humans dont have the scientific/technological capabilities to understand the universe yet. All we can do right now is just ask ourselves questions. Perhaps over the next millenia we can figure out some of the riddles of the Universe. Other than that I would waste your brain power on something more constructive.

We as humans dont have the scientific/technological capabilities to understand the universe yet. All we can do right now is just ask ourselves questions. Perhaps over the next millenia we can figure out some of the riddles of the Universe. Other than that I would waste your brain power on something more constructive.
What's with all this "constructive" talk? What would be more constructive? GIVE ME A PURPOSE FOR MY BRAIN POWER(other than regulating my bodily functions).

Confusify on...

The proof being?

We could talk about the so-called two-slit experiment.

Back in the day, people were unsure about whether or not light was a particle, or a wave.

If you make a piece of cardboard with two vertical slits in it, and in a dark room, shine a light through the slits, you get an interference pattern of light and dark bars (depending on the spacing of the two slits).

People took this to show the wavelike nature of light. And, if we increase the number of slits to four, we get half the number of light and dark bars, because some of the waves from one slit are cancelling out the waves from another.

Got it so far?
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html

I'll continue after you look at that picture.

(C), have you ever looked up in the sky and seen the billions of stars in the sky? Every single one of those stars is a sun, a center of an entire solar system! And maybe from some other planet you can see different stars, and it's this whole big thing. I dunno. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

This is actually prof that the universe is finite if it is populated throughout by stars. If it were infinite then there would be a star in every direction you looked. This means that the night sky (and the daytime sky) would be blindingly brilliant as we would be being hit by light from all directions. That we can see stars is evidence that either
a) the universe is not infinite
or
b) Only a finite portion of the universe is populated with stars.

This is actually prof that the universe is finite if it is populated throughout by stars. If it were infinite then there would be a star in every direction you looked. This means that the night sky (and the daytime sky) would be blindingly brilliant as we would be being hit by light from all directions. That we can see stars is evidence that either
a) the universe is not infinite
or
b) Only a finite portion of the universe is populated with stars.
Hey, dude... don't rain on my infinite universal parade! :D

Got it so far?
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html

I'll continue after you look at that picture.
Ok. Got it.

This is actually prof that the universe is finite if it is populated throughout by stars. If it were infinite then there would be a star in every direction you looked. This means that the night sky (and the daytime sky) would be blindingly brilliant as we would be being hit by light from all directions. That we can see stars is evidence that either
a) the universe is not infinite
or
b) Only a finite portion of the universe is populated with stars.

Or, the universe isn't uniform, or some of the light is absorbed by gas and dust...

This is actually prof that the universe is finite if it is populated throughout by stars. If it were infinite then there would be a star in every direction you looked. This means that the night sky (and the daytime sky) would be blindingly brilliant as we would be being hit by light from all directions. That we can see stars is evidence that either
a) the universe is not infinite
or
b) Only a finite portion of the universe is populated with stars.

or C) since light only travels at light speed, new stars are forming far enough away and recently enough that the light from them has not yet travelled to Earth. Prepare dark rooms everyone! When it hits, we'll all be blinded!

Or, the universe isn't uniform, or some of the light is absorbed by gas and dust...

Or light is affected by gravity.

Ok. Got it.

Ok, but Einstein proved through the photoelectric effect, that light was composed of quanta, or packets, or particles called photons.

In fact, we can do this next experiment with electrons OR photons - it doesn't matter which.

We make an electron gun, to shoot out electrons. As they come out of the gun, they go and hit a steel plate that has two slits in it.

A detector plate sits on the other side, and lo and behold, we get the interference pattern, from particles just as we get from waves.

We might assume that the electrons are coming out really fast, and bumping into each other - interfering with each other - so that they come out of one slot or another.

So we slow the rate of fire down so that we get one photon (or one electron) every second. We put detectors all around so that we know no other stray particles are entering our experiment.

No matter how slow we go, we still get the interference pattern.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit3.html

The question is, what is causing the interference?

Answer in a minute...

If there is no time before the big bang becuase there is nothing to relate time to, is it possible to go 'before' the bang? Would my existance 'before' the bang create time, since I am a body and there for something for time to be relative to? Is this a physics oriented Zen Coan?(sp)

What's with all this "constructive" talk? What would be more constructive? GIVE ME A PURPOSE FOR MY BRAIN POWER(other than regulating my bodily functions).

The only purpose basically for your brain is to keep you alive. So you can have children. In a nut shell thats it. Unfortunately I dont think we serve any other purpose beyond that.

The only purpose basically for your brain is to keep you alive. So you can have children. In a nut shell thats it. Unfortunately I dont think we serve any other purpose beyond that.
Wow. You are basically saying we are about as purposeful as a computer virus. Crappiness. :cool:

If there is no time before the big bang becuase there is nothing to relate time to, is it possible to go 'before' the bang? Would my existance 'before' the bang create time, since I am a body and there for something for time to be relative to? Is this a physics oriented Zen Coan?(sp)

The Big Bang is a physical phenomenon, and we don't yet understand how time connects to the physical dimensions. Thefore, we don't know if it existed before the big bang or not.

or C) since light only travels at light speed, new stars are forming far enough away and recently enough that the light from them has not yet travelled to Earth. Prepare dark rooms everyone! When it hits, we'll all be blinded!

Oh No! I hadn't thought of that! I'm off to preparte my dark room now! :eek: (Actually to get my kid from school, catch you all later. )

Ok, but Einstein proved through the photoelectric effect, that light was composed of quanta, or packets, or particles called photons.

In fact, we can do this next experiment with electrons OR photons - it doesn't matter which.

We make an electron gun, to shoot out electrons. As they come out of the gun, they go and hit a steel plate that has two slits in it.

A detector plate sits on the other side, and lo and behold, we get the interference pattern, from particles just as we get from waves.

We might assume that the electrons are coming out really fast, and bumping into each other - interfering with each other - so that they come out of one slot or another.

So we slow the rate of fire down so that we get one photon (or one electron) every second. We put detectors all around so that we know no other stray particles are entering our experiment.

No matter how slow we go, we still get the interference pattern.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit3.html

The question is, what is causing the interference?

Answer in a minute...


The answer is that when no other particles in this universe are interfering with the particles out of our gun, the interfering particles come from another universe - a universe parallel to, and almost exactly like ours.

Everett's "many worlds" hypothesis, that every split second (as indicated in a previous post), the universe is bifurcating into two universes. A universe where Kennedy lived, and one where Kennedy died. Etc., etc.

In this case, the many universes parallel to our own also have someone setting up a two-slit experiment - in nearly the same place at the same time - and particles from their experiments are interfering with yours.

Wow. You are basically saying we are about as purposeful as a computer virus. Crappiness. :cool:

Maybe we are a computer virus? We have infected Earth very well. Bound to infect the Galaxy and beyond. This is a interesting topic in itself I think. What is our purpose. Maybe I will post this and ask that question.

Maybe we are a computer virus? We have infected Earth very well. Bound to infect the Galaxy and beyond. This is a interesting topic in itself I think. What is our purpose. Maybe I will post this and ask that question.

In which case self-fulfillment would be meaningless, since fulfillment could only be achieved by humanity as a whole.

Oh No! I hadn't thought of that! I'm off to preparte my dark room now! :eek: (Actually to get my kid from school, catch you all later. )
But more importantly, because further astronomical objects are both travelling faster away from us and closer to the start of the universe, the consequent red shift in their light means there is a limit to how far and how far back we can see - the (?)14 billion years or so mentioned previously in this thread.

I'm not sure that any person will be able to comprehend infinity, because we are bound to perceive the world in terms of space and time (Kant). Our brains can only perceive within the scope of these dimensions: either things happen simultaneously or subsequently, and they take place in relation to each other within a defined space. You can extrapolate that space or time to probably infinitely smaller and smaller or larger and larger chunks. But since we are bound by our brain, we simply can't perceive infinity - even if it is indeed happening all around us as predicted.

I think the short answer is believe in the concept, but trying to comprehend infinity is inherently useless.

Here is an easier way to attempt to comprehend infinity and the universe, depending on how you look at existence and space-time. The universe contains ALL things, so if the universe was not infinite and only dose travel a certain distance then beyond the edge there would be pure nothingness. No light, no matter, just nothing.

Wikipedia article peice about paradoxes involving infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox#Infinity)
Wikipedia article on infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity)

The universe, as big as it is, is finite, but boundless. It borders its self.

The Big Bang is a physical phenomenon, and we don't yet understand how time connects to the physical dimensions. Thefore, we don't know if it existed before the big bang or not.

Mass distorts the space time continuum, curving it - this creates the gravitic effect and also slows the flow of time, intensifying as the gravitic field intensifies. This is measurable phenomenon.

At the beginning of the universe, all matter would have been compressed to such a degree that gravity would have been close to infinite. Therefore the curvature of space and time would have also been almost infinite, meaning that time would have been, to all intents and purposes, standing still. So there would be no time whatsoever before the explosion of the big bang and the ending of the time loop.

It's a loop. Eventually if you keep going, you'll come back to your starting point.

There is no in, There is no out, there is no before or after, only an eternal now. everytime you label you limit. what is after idea? maybe implementation. What is before green? maybe red. it all depends on perspective. Nothing scientifically can be proven, only proven wrong, so what you've been told, or you have read, is not the truth, just maybe convenient to the supposid facts at hand. remember a word is only a crude attempt to describe the truely indescribable.

maybe the answer is 42.

toro

It's a loop. Eventually if you keep going, you'll come back to your starting point.

That is a valid arguement of how the universe can be "infinite", and one of the possibilities of the formation of our universe.

I didn't read the 8 some pages in this thread, so I do not know if something that I will say has previously been said, so I preemptively give my apologies if this is a rerun.

If you can recall, which I'm sure you do, the video game Astroids. When your ship travels to the left of the screen and continues traveling into the side of the screen, a person that has never seen a television before, with their three dimensional brain, would think that the space ship would keep going, off the screen infanitly. But to his suprise, it apears on the opposite side of the screen at exactly the same height. Likewise, if your ship moves to the bottom of the screen, it apears at the top. Thus, there is an entirely self-contained universe in that video screen. You can never leave the universe defined by that screen. But children and teenagers playing Astroids never really pondered, or asked their parents what the universe is actually shaped like. Now if their parent were smart, or were a physicist, he would point out that the topology of the video screen is that of an inner tube. Think of the video screen as a sheet of paper. We first match the top and bottom points by wrapping up the screen. Then we match the points on the left and right-hand sides by rolling up the screen like a tube. In this way, we can show that the video game screen has the topology of a doughnut. Every time the rocket vanishes off the video screen and reappears on the other side of the screen, this corresponds to the rocket ship moving across the glued join of the inner tube.

Physists have conjectured that our sister universe has the shape of some sort of twisted six-dimensional torus. Our sister universe can be described by what mathematicians call an orbifold. To visualize an orbifold, think of "Flatlanders" (2-dimensional beings) living on a cone. If they move less than 360 degrees around the apex of the cone, they arrive at the same spot. Thus and orbifold is a higher-dimensional generalization of a cone. To get a good feel of an orbifold, think of Flatlanders living on what is called a z-orbifold, which is equivalent to the surface of a square bean bag (the kind you can get at carnivals or fairs). If they explore the surface they begin to find strange things happening. If a flatlander walks in a straight direction for long enough, he returns to his original position as though he walked in a circle.

Now think if you were to reach the "end" of the universe, which is in the shape of the "higher-dimensional cone"; the orbifold. You would apear at the other side of the universe, and if you were to keep going, you would end up at the same spot in which you started; earth. The Flatlander can not imagine the 3-dimensional cone, and therefore will keep on traveling in a straightline and will not find out how he apeared on the other side. Same is with our 3-dimensional brains: we can not imagine a higher dimensional object that we may live on.

Gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anyone or anything to get them moving. Therefore these molecules can move forever, requiring no beginning or end. Thus, a theory of God's abstenince as a creator. As hard as that may seem to imagine, it must be true. For the big bang, the expansion and contraction of the univerese are almost prooved by scientific studies. Quantum theory of the weak, electormagnetic and strong interactions reveals the picture of the history of our universe bring back almost to the instant of it's birth where temperatures and pressures exceeded anything ever found in our solar system.


However, the shape of our universe is somewhat relevent to the issue of it's creation and it's history before the Big Bang: as mentioned several times on this thread. If you want to know more about what happened "before the Big Bang", you probably should read up more on the ten-dimentional superstring theory.

I read a few books on this stuff, and I've only touched on it; I suggest you reading them if you're interested.

EDIT: I read some posts people have made questioning how there might be "nothingness" before the Big Bang. A relevant question for atheists might be how there is "nothingness" after death: insted of an afterlife. Now, me an atheist, shall try to explain to you nothingness as easily as I may can:

Our brains tell us that there must be an afterlife; we must go somewhere. "Nothingness" seems impossible, or is it? Think of an intellegent robot, such as the ones featured in the movies Artificial Intellegence: A.I. or iRobot. They think, have emotions and feelings just like a human. A robot asks "I must go somewhere when you turn me off! I must!". But everyone knows that in actuality, the robot does not go anywhere, insted they just simply "turn off". It's so complicated, yet so simple to immagine no afterlife.

Also, we would only know if there is an afterlife if there is one. For instance, if there is no afterlife, then in the end you would not know that there is no afterlife because you would think nothing, see, tast, feel, and hear nothing. So if us atheists are correct, we shall never know in the end what is the truth.

Our brains tell us that there must be an afterlife; we must go somewhere. "Nothingness" seems impossible, or is it? Think of an intellegent robot, such as the ones featured in the movies Artificial Intellegence: A.I. or iRobot. They think, have emotions and feelings just like a human. A robot asks "I must go somewhere when you turn me off! I must!". But everyone knows that in actuality, the robot does not go anywhere, insted they just simply "turn off". It's so complicated, yet so simple to immagine no afterlife.

Also, we would only know if there is an afterlife if there is one. For instance, if there is no afterlife, then in the end you would not know that there is no afterlife because you would think nothing, see, tast, feel, and hear nothing. So if us atheists are correct, we shall never know in the end what is the truth.
Hence Pascal's wager, whether or not you agree with it. If there is nothing, then you lose nothing. If there is something, then you lose everything.