# Universe is (In)Finite?

## Recommended Posts

I have recently been reading Michio Kaku's new book, The God Equation, and a couple of things stood out to me that raised significant questions.

"But if we blindly accept Einstein's theory, then we get into trouble, since his equations predict that the gravitational force at the very center of a black hole or the beginning of time is infinite, which makes no sense."

Why is it that this "makes no sense"? Why is it that this assertion is frequently purported to be unassailable without any accountability to basic logic?

In a section entitled "Why is the Night Sky Black?" Kaku writes:

"If we start with a universe that is infinite and uniform, then everywhere we look into space our gaze will hit a star. But since there are an infinite number of stars, there must be an infinite amount of light entering our eyes from all directions... The final answer was actually given by Edgar Allen Poe in 1848. Being an amateur astronomer, he was fascinated by [Olber's] paradox and said that the night sky is black because, if we travel back in time far enough, we eventually encounter a cutoff-that is, a beginning to the universe. In other words, the night sky is black because the universe has a finite age. We do not receive light from the infinite past, which would make the night sky white, because the universe never had an infinite past. This means that telescopes peering at the farthest stars will eventually reach the blackness of the Big Bang itself. So it is truly amazing that by pure thought, without doing any experiments whatsoever, one can conclude that the universe must have a beginning."

Kaku's conclusion here makes sense, IF and only IF you subscribe to his presupposition that the universe is infinite AND uniform. The Universe, as we are all aware, is not uniform, so how could Kaku get a way with such a blatant flaw in basic logic?

To demonstrate the flaw in his logic, I present a simple paradox:

Let's assume for the moment that the Universe is infinite. There are infinite Sun-like stars, and infinite M-Dwarf stars. Infinity is infinity, so there is the same number of both types of star... Right? Wrong. The reason is simple. In infinite spacetime, M-Dwarf stars are vastly more common. So even thought there are infinite Sun-like stars and infinite M-Dwarf stars, there are infinitely more M-Dwarf stars than sun-like stars.

This simple paradox demonstrates quite conclusively that the universe can be infinite without blinding us by an indefinite field of endless white light.

To explain Olber's paradox, all you need to do is eliminate the presupposed "uniformity" of the universe and account for the relative speed of light.

Furthermore, isn't belief in a finite universe a bit like belief in a flat Earth? isn't the underlying implication that, upon traveling a definable distance, you will eventually hit a magical wall or fall off the edge of the universe? This strikes me as rather absurd.

Right now, there are objects approximately 1,000 light-years away that exist in the relative present, but nobody on Earth will see them for 1,000 years. That doesn't mean I doubt their existence. Likewise, the Big Bang is a barrier in time obscuring the Singularity from our relative sight. So is the Event Horizon, and the Planck Length. That doesn't mean that I doubt its existence. Every instance of the Singularity in physics should be treated not as separate, individualized entities, but as a unified instance of a single phenomenon: the physical manifestation of the fundamental physics of infinity, acting as the frame of reference from which all relative physics can be derived.

Edited by infamouse

• Replies 65
• Created

#### Posted Images

First, congratulations on spotting a professional using popular science techniques to create unnecessary controversy. "Blindly accept" is a bit intellectually dishonest, imo, for a professional physicist talking about Einstein, or any other scientists. That's not how the methodology works, and Kaku knows it, but his audience may not. And Einstein's infinities are the fault of the precision of our maths, and aren't supposed to represent true infinite force or heat or density, so it's kind of shady to say that part of Einstein's theory makes no sense.

26 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Kaku's conclusion here makes sense, IF and only IF you subscribe to his presupposition that the universe is infinite AND uniform. The Universe, as we are all aware, is not uniform, so how could Kaku get a way with such a blatant flaw in basic logic?

On galactic scales, the universe is homogenous (the same basic structure) and isotropic (the same in all directions), so this may be what he's referencing. I've never heard another professional physicist claim the universe was finite or infinite, and in fact the discussions here so far confirm we just can't know right now. Our observable universe is finite, but the entire thing may not be.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, infamouse said:

I have recently been reading Michio Kaku's new book, The God Equation, and a couple of things stood out to me that raised significant questions.

"But if we blindly accept Einstein's theory, then we get into trouble, since his equations predict that the gravitational force at the very center of a black hole or the beginning of time is infinite, which makes no sense."

Why is it that this "makes no sense"? Why is it that this assertion is frequently purported to be unassailable without any accountability to basic logic?

In a section entitled "Why is the Night Sky Black?" Kaku writes:

"If we start with a universe that is infinite and uniform, then everywhere we look into space our gaze will hit a star. But since there are an infinite number of stars, there must be an infinite amount of light entering our eyes from all directions... The final answer was actually given by Edgar Allen Poe in 1848. Being an amateur astronomer, he was fascinated by [Olber's] paradox and said that the night sky is black because, if we travel back in time far enough, we eventually encounter a cutoff-that is, a beginning to the universe. In other words, the night sky is black because the universe has a finite age. We do not receive light from the infinite past, which would make the night sky white, because the universe never had an infinite past. This means that telescopes peering at the farthest stars will eventually reach the blackness of the Big Bang itself. So it is truly amazing that by pure thought, without doing any experiments whatsoever, one can conclude that the universe must have a beginning."

Kaku's conclusion here makes sense, IF and only IF you subscribe to his presupposition that the universe is infinite AND uniform. The Universe, as we are all aware, is not uniform, so how could Kaku get a way with such a blatant flaw in basic logic?

To demonstrate the flaw in his logic, I present a simple paradox:

Let's assume for the moment that the Universe is infinite. There are infinite Sun-like stars, and infinite M-Dwarf stars. Infinity is infinity, so there is the same number of both types of star... Right? Wrong. The reason is simple. In infinite spacetime, M-Dwarf stars are vastly more common. So even thought there are infinite Sun-like stars and infinite M-Dwarf stars, there are infinitely more M-Dwarf stars than sun-like stars.

This simple paradox demonstrates quite conclusively that the universe can be infinite without blinding us by an indefinite field of endless white light.

To explain Olber's paradox, all you need to do is eliminate the presupposed "uniformity" of the universe and account for the relative speed of light.

We don't nor ever have, accepted blindly what Einstein or any other scientist has said. SR/GR are tested everyday and so far have passed all tests of their validity. Where you are confused is that the singularity at the core of a BH, is where our laws of physics and GR simply do not apply. Physicists and cosmologists generally reject the infinite curvatures and densities as predicted and understand such results are a failure of the theory at those levels. We need a validated QGT to explain or throw more light onto the nature of spacetime at those levels. The same applies of course to the BB.

Your next summary re Olber's paradox neglects the fact that the universe is constantly expanding and the cosmological redshift, which tells us that the light from much of the infinite number of stars simply has not reached us and others never will. That's why we have only an "observable universe".

Also on the very large scales, the universe is uniform, and isotropic and homogenous as far as we know and as confined by the observable universe.

All the data available so far from WMAP and onwards, suggest that the universe is flat to within small error bars. This implies that the universe is infinite. Still while those small error bars exist, the flatness we decipher, may be just part of a much larger curvature. So we still have no convincing irrefutable evidence that tells us whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Then we have the likelhood of inflation and the more recent discovery of acceleration in the expansion rate and consequently DE. While there is still much we cannot be certain of, the validity of GR within its bounds of applicability, is as well evidenced as any scientific theory.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I have recently been reading Michio Kaku's new book, The God Equation, and a couple of things stood out to me that raised significant questions.

"But if we blindly accept Einstein's theory, then we get into trouble, since his equations predict that the gravitational force at the very center of a black hole or the beginning of time is infinite, which makes no sense."

Why is it that this "makes no sense"? Why is it that this assertion is frequently purported to be unassailable without any accountability to basic logic?

In a section entitled "Why is the Night Sky Black?" Kaku writes:

"If we start with a universe that is infinite and uniform, then everywhere we look into space our gaze will hit a star. But since there are an infinite number of stars, there must be an infinite amount of light entering our eyes from all directions... The final answer was actually given by Edgar Allen Poe in 1848. Being an amateur astronomer, he was fascinated by [Olber's] paradox and said that the night sky is black because, if we travel back in time far enough, we eventually encounter a cutoff-that is, a beginning to the universe. In other words, the night sky is black because the universe has a finite age. We do not receive light from the infinite past, which would make the night sky white, because the universe never had an infinite past. This means that telescopes peering at the farthest stars will eventually reach the blackness of the Big Bang itself. So it is truly amazing that by pure thought, without doing any experiments whatsoever, one can conclude that the universe must have a beginning."

Kaku's conclusion here makes sense, IF and only IF you subscribe to his presupposition that the universe is infinite AND uniform. The Universe, as we are all aware, is not uniform, so how could Kaku get a way with such a blatant flaw in basic logic?

To demonstrate the flaw in his logic, I present a simple paradox:

Let's assume for the moment that the Universe is infinite. There are infinite Sun-like stars, and infinite M-Dwarf stars. Infinity is infinity, so there is the same number of both types of star... Right? Wrong. The reason is simple. In infinite spacetime, M-Dwarf stars are vastly more common. So even thought there are infinite Sun-like stars and infinite M-Dwarf stars, there are infinitely more M-Dwarf stars than sun-like stars.

This simple paradox demonstrates quite conclusively that the universe can be infinite without blinding us by an indefinite field of endless white light.

To explain Olber's paradox, all you need to do is eliminate the presupposed "uniformity" of the universe and account for the relative speed of light.

Furthermore, isn't belief in a finite universe a bit like belief in a flat Earth? isn't the underlying implication that, upon traveling a definable distance, you will eventually hit a magical wall or fall off the edge of the universe? This strikes me as rather absurd.

Right now, there are objects approximately 1,000 light-years away that exist in the relative present, but nobody on Earth will see them for 1,000 years. That doesn't mean I doubt their existence. Likewise, the Big Bang is a barrier in time obscuring the Singularity from our relative sight. So is the Event Horizon, and the Planck Length. That doesn't mean that I doubt its existence. Every instance of the Singularity in physics should be treated not as separate, individualized entities, but as a unified instance of a single phenomenon: the physical manifestation of the fundamental physics of infinity, acting as the frame of reference from which all relative physics can be derived.

Hello, and welcome.

You opening post reminds me of when I was 12 and wrote to Patrick Moore because I did not understand the greenhouse effect and he wrote me a letter not only beautifully explaining it to me but also encouraging me to keep thinking and questioning.

So it is with you and infinity.

Infinity is not only a very stange beast it is also a many headed one.

The light that is worrying is infinitely spread out, if the size of the universe is infinite.
So there will be no flood of light at any point, no matter how much light there is in total.

In fact we now know that what we see is not totally black (ie zero light) but there is a residual amount at a very low level called the CMB or background radiation.
Additionally there isobviously more light when we look at a nearby source of light, and the closer the source is the brighter is seems.

Does this help ?

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, studiot said:

So it is with you and infinity.

Infinity is not only a very stange beast it is also a many headed one.

Well put!

##### Share on other sites

Olber's paradox was shown not to be paradoxial at all once universal expansion was detected by E Hubble in 1929 ( I believe ).
And Michio Kaku is fully aware that A Einstein's theory is not applicable at lo-separation/hi-energy extremes such as the center of a Black Hole or the Big Bang pre inflation.
But saying "We just don't know ( yet )", doesn't sell many books.
Being controversial does.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

But saying "We just don't know ( yet )", doesn't sell many books.
Being controversial does.

Aint that true! Then add the conspiracy illustrated by the 'God of the gaps" argument. ☺️

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Aint that true! Then add the conspiracy illustrated by the 'God of the gaps" argument. ☺️

Which God?

##### Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

First, congratulations on spotting a professional using popular science techniques to create unnecessary controversy. "Blindly accept" is a bit intellectually dishonest, imo, for a professional physicist talking about Einstein, or any other scientists. That's not how the methodology works, and Kaku knows it, but his audience may not. And Einstein's infinities are the fault of the precision of our maths, and aren't supposed to represent true infinite force or heat or density, so it's kind of shady to say that part of Einstein's theory makes no sense.

On galactic scales, the universe is homogenous (the same basic structure) and isotropic (the same in all directions), so this may be what he's referencing. I've never heard another professional physicist claim the universe was finite or infinite, and in fact the discussions here so far confirm we just can't know right now. Our observable universe is finite, but the entire thing may not be.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond!

I want to focus on one particular part of my original comment for the moment, and how I feel it relates to your reply:

"Right now, there are objects approximately 1,000 light-years away that exist in the relative present, but nobody on Earth will see them for 1,000 years. That doesn't mean I doubt their existence."

The observable Universe, if I recall correctly, is about 96 billion light-years across. Doesn't saying that our observable Universe is finite, therefore we can't know if it is infinite, imply that we also can't know if anything really exists within that sphere *at present*? The light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach us, so for all I know the Sun might not be there anymore. There might not be a single star left in the Universe for all I can say, because we are only capable of viewing them in a past state.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

Olber's paradox was shown not to be paradoxial at all once universal expansion was detected by E Hubble in 1929 ( I believe ).
And Michio Kaku is fully aware that A Einstein's theory is not applicable at lo-separation/hi-energy extremes such as the center of a Black Hole or the Big Bang pre inflation.
But saying "We just don't know ( yet )", doesn't sell many books.
Being controversial does.

As I got to thinking about this I thought about how expansion of the universe would cause much of that light to redshift beyond the visible spectrum before it reaches us anyways, so I appreciated your reply.

If the Universe were infinite and uniform, i.e. if it were not expanding and everything was infinitely spread out, all of that light would be capable of reaching us at blinding capacity. I was specifically referencing Kaku's argument.

Edited by infamouse
##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, infamouse said:

I appreciate your taking the time to respond!

I want to focus on one particular part of my original comment for the moment, and how I feel it relates to your reply:

"Right now, there are objects approximately 1,000 light-years away that exist in the relative present, but nobody on Earth will see them for 1,000 years. That doesn't mean I doubt their existence."

The observable Universe, if I recall correctly, is about 96 billion light-years across. Doesn't saying that our observable Universe is finite, therefore we can't know if it is infinite, imply that we also can't know if anything really exists within that sphere *at present*? The light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach us, so for all I know the Sun might not be there anymore. There might not be a single star left in the Universe for all I can say, because we are only capable of viewing them in a past state.

As I got to thinking about this I thought about how expansion of the universe would cause much of that light to redshift beyond the visible spectrum before it reaches us anyways, so I appreciated your reply.

If the Universe were infinite and uniform, i.e. if it were not expanding and everything was infinitely spread out, all of that light would be capable of reaching us at blinding capacity. I was specifically referencing Kaku's argument.

Obviously you missed my response as it contained the answer to your original question.

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Which God?

Exactly!

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, infamouse said:

we also can't know if anything really exists within that sphere *at present*?

There is no universal 'now', or 'present'.

9 hours ago, infamouse said:

If the Universe were infinite and uniform, i.e. if it were not expanding and everything was infinitely spread out, all of that light would be capable of reaching us at blinding capacity.

It would also need to be infinitely old.
The speed of light is finite, so light from infinite distance will take infinite time to reach us.

Expansion means, as you wind back the clock, that the universe had a beginning , of sorts, and we can calculate that to be about 13.7 billion years ago.
IF ( big if ) the universe is infinite in extent, light from its furthest reaches cannot have gotten here in 13.7 B years

##### Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 11:55 PM, MigL said:

There is no universal 'now', or 'present'.

It would also need to be infinitely old.
The speed of light is finite, so light from infinite distance will take infinite time to reach us.

Expansion means, as you wind back the clock, that the universe had a beginning , of sorts, and we can calculate that to be about 13.7 billion years ago.
IF ( big if ) the universe is infinite in extent, light from its furthest reaches cannot have gotten here in 13.7 B years

Firstly, I was referring to the *relative* present. I did not wish to invoke a "universal" present. Sorry I was not more specific.

Secondly, space and time are not separate entities, so if space is infinite, time must be also.

I would go so far as to say that it can be demonstrated quite simply that the Universe is infinite. I believe there is a faulty assumption underlying this debate that in an infinite universe, time would continue to operate on relatively similar scales.

Imagine you pin down the second of creation; you determine that, to the nearest second, it is exactly 13.8 billion years old.

Now, measure the beginning of the Universe to the nearest 100th of a second. What are the odds it is still exactly 13.8 Billion years? How about at the nearest trillionth of a billionth of a nanosecond? This exercise can be carried on ad infinitum. Even if you measure the "beginning" of the Universe to the nearest 10^-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a second, you will have infinite room to improve upon the precision of your measurement. This is because physics operates ultimately on scales of infinity, the infinitesimal to the infinitely vast, and can only ever be understood in the context of a particular frame of reference. What is the speed of light in a vacuum? It is the speed of light relative to infinity.

On 10/23/2021 at 3:04 PM, beecee said:

Exactly!

God is not beholden to religious definitions. God is the supreme being, the collective of all that was is or ever will be, the manifestation of whom appears in our physics as the Singularity. Every instance of the Singularity in our physics, is a single unified phenomenon, not distinctively separate occurrences. What a genuine comprehension of the Singularity reveals, is that the underlying principle of physics is God. Not the Christian God, or Judaic God, or Islamic God... just God. The one and only.

On 10/23/2021 at 2:43 PM, studiot said:

Obviously you missed my response as it contained the answer to your original question.

The part of my reply you quoted was not directed at you. You don't seem to understand what you are talking about.

Edited by infamouse
did not include quote of post I was replying to
##### Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Firstly, I was referring to the *relative* present. I did not wish to invoke a "universal" present. Sorry I was not more specific.

Secondly, space and time are not separate entities, so if space is infinite, time must be also.

I would go so far as to say that it can be demonstrated quite simply that the Universe is infinite. I believe there is a faulty assumption underlying this debate that in an infinite universe, time would continue to operate on relatively similar scales.

Imagine you pin down the second of creation; you determine that, to the nearest second, it is exactly 13.8 billion years old.

Now, measure the beginning of the Universe to the nearest 100th of a second. What are the odds it is still exactly 13.8 Billion years? How about at the nearest trillionth of a billionth of a nanosecond? This exercise can be carried on ad infinitum. Even if you measure the "beginning" of the Universe to the nearest 10^-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a second, you will have infinite room to improve upon the precision of your measurement. This is because physics operates ultimately on scales of infinity, the infinitesimal to the infinitely vast, and can only ever be understood in the context of a particular frame of reference. What is the speed of light in a vacuum? It is the speed of light relative to infinity.

Some elements of truth in that, amongst a whole lot of word salad.

21 minutes ago, infamouse said:

God is not beholden to religious definitions. God is the supreme being, the collective of all that was is or ever will be, the manifestation of whom appears in our physics as the Singularity. Every instance of the Singularity in our physics, is a single unified phenomenon, not distinctively separate occurrences. What a genuine comprehension of the Singularity reveals, is that the underlying principle of physics is God. Not the Christian God, or Judaic God, or Islamic God... just God. The one and only.

This is the physics/science section, and any speculative issue about any deity is unscientific at best.

##### Share on other sites

For a while, I thought Infamouse was invoking Zeno's paradox, and the ability to measure to greater and greater detail, as proof of infinities.
Then I realized he was just stringing Cosmology buzz-words together, in a word salad of nonsense, and stopped reading.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, infamouse said:

God is not beholden to religious definitions. God is the supreme being, the collective of all that was is or ever will be, the manifestation of whom appears in our physics as the Singularity. Every instance of the Singularity in our physics, is a single unified phenomenon, not distinctively separate occurrences. What a genuine comprehension of the Singularity reveals, is that the underlying principle of physics is God. Not the Christian God, or Judaic God, or Islamic God... just God. The one and only.

!

Moderator Note

This is the Physics section. Refrain from supernatural explanations when you're posting here. This is a section for mainstream science only.

##### Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 2:04 PM, infamouse said:

I have recently been reading Michio Kaku's new book, The God Equation, and a couple of things stood out to me that raised significant questions.

Bait.

4 hours ago, infamouse said:

God is not beholden to religious definitions. God is the supreme being, the collective of all that was is or ever will be, the manifestation of whom appears in our physics as the Singularity. Every instance of the Singularity in our physics, is a single unified phenomenon, not distinctively separate occurrences. What a genuine comprehension of the Singularity reveals, is that the underlying principle of physics is God. Not the Christian God, or Judaic God, or Islamic God... just God. The one and only.

Switch.

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, infamouse said:

The part of my reply you quoted was not directed at you. You don't seem to understand what you are talking about.

You don't seriously expect me to continue our conversation, following that reply do you ?

##### Share on other sites

12 hours ago, infamouse said:

physics operates ultimately on scales of infinity, the infinitesimal to the infinitely vast, and can only ever be understood in the context of a particular frame of reference. What is the speed of light in a vacuum? It is the speed of light relative to infinity.

Gravity is the Singularity. Spacetime is the Singularity. It is all tied together: wave-particle duality, the thermodynamic arrow of time, redshift, blueshift, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, are actually all manifestations of relative infinity.

You're going to have to do more than hand-wave your way through this. What testable predictions can you make based on it?

##### Share on other sites

22 hours ago, beecee said:

Some elements of truth in that, amongst a whole lot of word salad.

This is the physics/science section, and any speculative issue about any deity is unscientific at best.

I know physicists love to believe there is no overlap between physics and philosophy, but there is. The very fact that physicists have failed to ascertain the nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter for so long stands as testament to this fact.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

You don't seriously expect me to continue our conversation, following that reply do you ?

We were having a conversation?

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

This is the Physics section. Refrain from supernatural explanations when you're posting here. This is a section for mainstream science only.

I said nothing about anything supernatural. I am talking about a scientific understanding of God. Please note, I was not the one to bring up God in the first place.

19 hours ago, MigL said:

For a while, I thought Infamouse was invoking Zeno's paradox, and the ability to measure to greater and greater detail, as proof of infinities.
Then I realized he was just stringing Cosmology buzz-words together, in a word salad of nonsense, and stopped reading.

You are not obligated to read, just as you are not obligated to understand Dark matter or Dark energy. Admittedly I am not an academic and as such have certainly not met the standard of a scientific paper. However, the endless floundering in the dark on such issues will continue indefinitely until matters of infinity are conceptually incorporated into the framework of physics. I understand your position, best of luck to you.

##### Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, infamouse said:

best of luck to you

Thank you.

6 minutes ago, infamouse said:

you are not obligated to understand Dark matter or Dark energy ...  the endless floundering in the dark

Was the pun intentional ?
Nice one.

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, swansont said:

You're going to have to do more than hand-wave your way through this. What testable predictions can you make based on it?

I predict that using a precisely calculated slingshot maneuver, future space travelers will be able to travel to the future using a black hole as the catalyst. The implications of this is that the space obstructed from our view by the Event Horizon actually exists in the future. All time is relative, as we know. However, contrary to our standard notions of space and time, there are pockets of space in the Universe that "already" exist in the relative future. Any matter or energy that passes beyond the event horizon passes into the relative future, therefore we can not observe it, trapped as we are in the relative present on a relatively stable progression of time.

I am not a scientist, I would rather have the conversation on merit. I have not thought this through perfectly nor am I claiming such. I believe the best way to work out the details of a theory or hypothesis is through argument.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Thank you.

Was the pun intentional ?
Nice one.

The pun occurred to me after I wrote it. Thanks 😜

22 hours ago, beecee said:

Some elements of truth in that, amongst a whole lot of word salad.

This is the physics/science section, and any speculative issue about any deity is unscientific at best.

I believe the word "deity" is only unscientific when used outside the context of science. I am not talking about mythology or religion, I am talking about a literal interpretation of the scientific evidence. As I noted to the moderator, I have not invoked any supernatural or otherwise unexplainable phenomenon, only science, which I believe is the only path to a physical understanding of God. This stance is actually common throughout history; like science, our understanding of God is always evolving and never complete. It is only in recent years that this perspective has not only fallen out of favor, but resulted in the ostracization of its promulgators.

##### Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, infamouse said:

I said nothing about anything supernatural. I am talking about a scientific understanding of God. Please note, I was not the one to bring up God in the first place.

!

Moderator Note

The understanding you're talking about has NOTHING to do with science, since you'd need to support your concept first. If you continue to bring up your concept of gods, I will move this to Religion.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

We were having a conversation?

You mean you did not understand what I offered you so you chose to insult me rather than ask for better detail.

Should I report this as an infringement of the rules here?

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I know physicists love to believe there is no overlap between physics and philosophy, but there is. The very fact that physicists have failed to ascertain the nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter for so long stands as testament to this fact.

Not really, and you have things arse up. No one mentioned any overlap between physics/science and philosophy.I said, "Some elements of truth in that, amongst a whole lot of word salad. This is the physics/science section, and any speculative issue about any deity is unscientific at best".

And of course your greatest faux pas, or "excuse making" was inferring that because science/physics does not yet know everything, it somehow denigrates it? Science is a discipline in eternal progress, based on new observational and experimental evidence, along with the tried and true scientific methodology and the philosophy that underlies that. And again just to re-enforce another fact, and discussion of supernatural or paranormal nonsense, is just that, nonsense, plus unscientific in its very nature.

Hope that helps.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I believe the word "deity" is only unscientific when used outside the context of science. I am not talking about mythology or religion, I am talking about a literal interpretation of the scientific evidence.

There isn't any.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I am not a scientist, I would rather have the conversation on merit. I have not thought this through perfectly nor am I claiming such. I believe the best way to work out the details of a theory or hypothesis is through argument.

I am not a scientist either, but I have read plenty of reputable material. Obviously you have not worked this through perfectly, or perhaps you are hindered by an underlying agenda? which is evident on the block of word salad you presented, with the many errors, some of which have been pointed out.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×