Strange

Apparently you think that this is a strawman because you used the term "absolute infinite" instead of "infinite". As you failed to explain how this difference in terminology was important or relevant to the universe, I ignored it. However, we can drop this line of discussion, if you wish. (But you really should learn a little bit about cosmology; it is a fascinating subject. Much more rewarding than making things up.)

And that includes the space outside the observable universe (which you claim does not exist). And, by definition, being outside the observable universe, we cannot observe that space. It has nothing to do with technology. Have you ever thought that it might be a good idea to learn something about a subject before spouting off with such confidence? Or are you planning a career in politics, instead. That if the universe is infinite it will be infinitely dense.

Really? What do you base this claim on? You cannot answer such problems with logic. That is why philosophers (and scientists) do not know the answer. I don't agree with your fantasies.

See previous posts. Also: ”Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Universe in its totality is finite or infinite.[3][57][58]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe Ah, I see. You are talking about a fantasy universe that only exists in your imagination. You will excuse me if I am only willing to discuss reality; the universe we live in. Which may be infinite. Sorry, this is not science.

An infinite universe does not imply infinite density. (And Cantor doesn’t say anything about density)

And I am trying to find out why you claim it is impossible when it is not possible to know. Note: this is a science forum, so wild guesses are not acceptable.

Why? The mass here is not affected by the physical extent of the universe. The mass of the Earth is the same if the universe is 10 time bigger than the observable universe, or 10,000 times bigger or 100 billion times bigger. Or infinitely bigger. You did. You said that if the universe beyond the observable universe were infinite then density differences would disappear. This is not logical.

What is the evidence for that claim? What evidence do you have that matter can be infinitely dense?

There is no reason to say that there must be regions of infinite density (which sounds physically impossible) in an infinite universe. The rest of the universe could be largely the same as the visible universe. (And I have reported you for creating more sock puppets.)

Why would density difference vanish? Why would the density differences here on Earth be affected by the universe beyond the observable universe which by definition can have no effect on it. We don't now anything about the inside of a black hole. And it isn't relevant anyway (being finite). I don't see why.

How exactly would you tell the difference between the universe being, say, 10 times bigger than the observable universe and being infinite? Given that nothing outside the observable universe can be measured or have any effect on you. Local density differences would be exactly the same however large the universe is.

None of that tells you if the universe is finite or infinite. Obviously.

Wow. Impressive superpower. I'm afraid your (possibly delusional) perceptions don't really count as scientific evidence. It also appears to be a non sequitur, which doesn't really help.

You don't know that.

Apart from their self-induced feelings.

Is that a quotation? If so, you should provide the source. What image are you talking about?

That is not a programming language, it is an IDE.

While there is no evidence for something coming from nothing, I don't think you can dismiss the concept based on "common reason and logic". Especially, as I guess that when you say "logic" you mean "something that makes sense to me, personally". Many things that were thought to be contrary to common sense and "logic" have turned out to be true.

Wow. Superhuman powers. /sarcasm

We are not that similar physically: there are big strong people, small fast people, etc. Different physical attributes are valuable for different tasks. The same is true (perhaps more so) for personalities. Say you want to build a house: you are going to need some "artistic" people with imagination to come up with interesting designs; you will want some of those to be more down-to-earth to ensure the designs are practical; then you will want some people who are more interested in detail and working things out to make sure the structure will be strong enough, how many bricks you need, how much it will cost; then you want some practical people who just like getting on with the job to actually build it. Creating a complex society requires even greater range of skills, interests and attributes.

Today I learned why there are so many disparate words for "bear" in Indo-European languages. Apparently, bears were so terrifying that the word for them was taboo (in case naming them caused them to appear) and so a variety of euphemisms were sued: "bruin" (the brown one) and related forms in Germanic languages (which is where we get bear" from); "medved" (honey eater) and similar names in Slavic languages; and so on. https://www.charlierussellbears.com/LinguisticArchaeology.html

There is no such thing. Not likely. There could be some examples to use in school lessons on logical fallacies, critical thinking, etc. So you can't be bothered to read it but you think it is wrong. Arrogance or naivety, I'm not sure. How about you give us some examples of this "bad science" and maybe we can tell you whether it is something you have failed to understand or, perhaps, something that Darwin got wrong but we know have a better understanding of. And, of course, a lot more has been explained since Wallace and Darwin's work. But there is a lot more to understand. That doesn't make Creationism any more credible.

Congratulations!

I don’t see how “nothing” can be unstable, there wouldn’t be anything to be unstable. And I am not going to listen to an entire (stupid sounding) audiobook to see if it makes any sense. Why is there something? Because there is. Because if there weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. This is not a question science can answer. It is one for philosophy or religion (but they can only answer by making something up).

Today I learned what happens if you glue two Mobius strips together and then cut them down the middle. You may be surprised... There is an interview Tokieda here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/tadashi-tokieda-collects-math-and-physics-surprises-20181127/ He is an interesting guy. He taught himself maths from a book he found in the library. Only the book was in Russian, so first he had to learn Russian....