whats the beginning and the end of space and if it has an end then whats next or aside of it?

[juanji15]

i seen this question in alot of programs but they always leave me wandering whats the answer?

[chris_uk_83]

simple answer: we don't know

complicated answer: we really don't know.

[Chaigidel]

but you could wiki membrane and string theory, it actually addresses in some strange way whats around the ends of the universe :O

or you could research any number of metaphysical occult explanations which actually approach very closely the scientific metaphysical concepts.

[juanji15]

ummmmmmmmmmm so that brings me to my other question so space is infinite so could it be life out there?

[DisgruntledGoat]

ummmmmmmmmmm so that brings me to my other question so space is infinite so could it be life out there?

The two questions you asked are totally independent of each other. We don't know if space is infinite. As to the other half of the question.... I don't know what you are asking.

[David Deas]

ummmmmmmmmmm so that brings me to my other question so space is infinite so could it be life out there?

Space must be infinite because infinity, just like the first thing, is an axiom.

If space were not infinite, we would be forced to ask the self-contradictory question - 'what is outside of space?' And then we would have to follow that question with the question asking - 'what is outside of the thing that is outside of space?' And so on, and so forth. If an answer were offered each time a person asked what was in the space outside of space, the number of answers would extend to infinity, which ends up giving you the same answer (axiom) as you started with; space is infinite.

'Outside of space' is a self contradictory suggestion because "outside" is a spacial term. There cannot be anything 'outside of space'. It makes little sense to suggest that an object 'inhabiting a space outside of space,' would 'be outside of space.' The object would be in space.

I hope that was English.

[Who]

ummmmmmmmmmm so that brings me to my other question so space is infinite so could it be life out there?

We view life as carbon based, something we can see, feel, smell, etc. You have to realize that all life (unless you're a creationist) basically came from one organism. Because of this we all have common characteristics, i.e. eyes, mouths, brains. Carbon based life on other planets do not necessarily have to evolve in these ways, but I cannot fathom any other way a carbon based life form would exist, as life on earth is all the life I can base it on. Also, something doesn't have to be carbon based to be "life." It seems our representation of life is something that can change its environment, and, because we don't know everything there is to know, something doesn't need to be carbon based to do so. Perhaps there are other elements yet to be discovered that do not follow the laws that we have only discovered in this miniscule corner of the universe. Perhaps there is something made of a material not in the "physical" world that we cannot percieve with any of our five senses. Yes there is smell(picks up on certain molecules), sight (picks up visible light), touch (picks up changes in temperature and pressure), sound (picks up sound waves), and taste (picks up on certain attributes of an item), but that doesn't mean that there are other senses that humans did not develop. An example is infrared waves, we have nothing to pick that up (though I guess you could say sensing differences in temperature senses it.) Also, we only recently discovered what we think are all the EM waves, but what if there are other types of waves, that we just cannot percieve with our minds. There is a lot out there that we just don't know.

[Bootsiuv]

The visible universe (the universe that we can see) is theorized to be some 96 billion light years across.

That may only be a small fraction of the entire universe.

Even if it's a fairly large fraction like 20 percent. Half a trillion light years across may not be infinite, but it seems pretty damn close to us. The human brain simply can't comprehend scales that large, so it might as well be infinite.

To think that we're the only living things in this whole entire expanse is, I think, narrow-minded and a little arrogant.

[Amorphos]

it is difficult when seen in large numbers, but it may be visualised as a point [the universe, and a space [infinity]. it matters not the scale of that which is within the point, nor how many times it exists, you put the pencil to paper and it is there, then i infinity rubs it off and it has never existed.






...although it always exists in its moment, thence the edge is never present in time or form.

as for aliens, the idea that there are none is completely ridiculous and from the same bold line of thinking that goes with the flat earth society.

[Simetrical]

I deleted some off-topic stuff. The man asked a serious question, let's answer him seriously, please.

but you could wiki membrane and string theory, it actually addresses in some strange way whats around the ends of the universe :O

Those are, however, not yet empirically rigorous.

or you could research any number of metaphysical occult explanations which actually approach very closely the scientific metaphysical concepts.

Only in extremely vague and ill-defined ways. The fundamental difference is that scientific theories are detailed, precise, and at least theoretically rigorous, while occult explanations don't even attempt to make solid predictions or (generally) promote a detailed and internally consistent worldview.

ummmmmmmmmmm so that brings me to my other question so space is infinite so could it be life out there?

DisgruntledGoat answered your question admirably. Space may or may not be infinite (mostly assumed not, I think), and life may or may not be out there. Microbial life might be fairly common, complex life probably much less so. It's worth keeping in mind that life twenty billion light-years away is pretty much the same thing from our perspective as no life at all.

To think that we're the only living things in this whole entire expanse is, I think, narrow-minded and a little arrogant.

But not yet ruled out empirically.

it is difficult when seen in large numbers, but it may be visualised as a point [the universe, and a space [infinity]. it matters not the scale of that which is within the point, nor how many times it exists, you put the pencil to paper and it is there, then i infinity rubs it off and it has never existed.

The universe differs in a number of salient ways from a point. First of all, as far as I'm aware it's not clear whether or not it's infinite in extent, whereas a point is decidedly finite. Second of all, points are one-dimensional, whereas the universe has at least four dimensions. And finally, there is no particular quality of a point that in any way makes it easier to understand any aspect of the universe, so it fails pretty terribly as an analogy.

as for aliens, the idea that there are none is completely ridiculous and from the same bold line of thinking that goes with the flat earth society.

Absurd. We simply do not have the facts yet, either way. While the Copernican principle would tend to suggest that there's probably some intelligent life out there, it's hardly a settled issue, and it probably won't be unless we actually discover some intelligent life.

[Big War Bird]

I think my answer of turtles everywhere is a serious answer, as that explaination appears in Stephen Hawkins A Brief History of Time.

[Simetrical]

As an amusing anecdote to make the serious explanation to follow more readable. If you had provided a serious explanation as well then I wouldn't have minded. For that matter if you'd have been the only silly post I wouldn't have minded, but there were half as many random/silly posts as serious posts, and that's too much.

[chris_uk_83]

For that matter if you'd have been the only silly post I wouldn't have minded, but there were half as many random/silly posts as serious posts, and that's too much.

Ah Sim, you're such a killjoy

[Simetrical]

Space must be infinite because infinity, just like the first thing, is an axiom.

It doesn't, and it isn't. Space does not need to be infinite, and science has no axioms regarding that which it observes (it only has "axioms", if you can call them that, relating to the scientific method). Space's extent is an empirical question and it cannot be addressed axiomatically.

If space were not infinite, we would be forced to ask the self-contradictory question - 'what is outside of space?'

You're confusing infinity with boundedness. Things can be mathematically unbounded but finite, and certainly there's no reason to think the same couldn't be true physically (leaving aside common sense, an extremely poor indicator of physical reality). A classic example of something unbounded by finite is an elliptic geometry, like the surface of a sphere taken in isolation. Unfortunately, that tends to elicit the question "but what about the stuff inside/outside the surface of the sphere?", which is nonsensical as a question but it's hard to explain why unless you grasp the mathematical formalism.

Suffice it to say: that you see a wall need not mean there's anything on the other side. Generally there will be, in day to day experience, but logically there doesn't have to be. Stephen Hawking has compared asking what came before the Big Bang to asking what's north of the north pole, and the same idea is potentially applicable here (but we don't know yet, not having empirical evidence either way).

And then we would have to follow that question with the question asking - 'what is outside of the thing that is outside of space?' And so on, and so forth. If an answer were offered each time a person asked what was in the space outside of space, the number of answers would extend to infinity, which ends up giving you the same answer (axiom) as you started with; space is infinite.

No, you just answer the first question with "nothing". Then subsequent questions are asking "what's outside of nothing?", which is nonsense and the answer is again "nothing". So you get a finite space plus lots of "nothings", which makes a finite space overall.

[Bootsiuv]

I still have a hard time with this.

If there is nothing outside of space, then it would be empty space i.e. no atoms whatsoever....but isn't nothing "something"?

This entire question is simply beyond human comprehension as far as I'm concerned. Somehow, reality came into being, and we're here to contemplate such questions....but to think we'll ever find an end-all, be-all answer is probably impossible.

[David Deas]

It doesn't, and it isn't. Space does not need to be infinite, and science has no axioms regarding that which it observes (it only has "axioms", if you can call them that, relating to the scientific method). Space's extent is an empirical question and it cannot be addressed axiomatically.

Actually, the uncaused first thing *is* an axiom. So, therefore, would be the existence of infinity.

What exactly the first thing is, or what exactly the infinite thing is are separate questions apart from whether or not those concepts have physical manifestations. You appear to answer those questions with a suggestion of 'nothingness' beyond our Universe. Concrete nothingness, which is humanly incomprehensible, describes a singularity; a state devoid, not only of space/time and matter, but of all dimension. All you've done, essentially, is relocate the question. Now we must discuss the infinities of your suggestion of 'nothingness'.

You're confusing infinity with boundedness. Things can be mathematically unbounded but finite, and certainly there's no reason to think the same couldn't be true physically (leaving aside common sense, an extremely poor indicator of physical reality). A classic example of something unbounded by finite is an elliptic geometry, like the surface of a sphere taken in isolation. Unfortunately, that tends to elicit the question "but what about the stuff inside/outside the surface of the sphere?", which is nonsensical as a question but it's hard to explain why unless you grasp the mathematical formalism.

Considering the fact that the surface of a sphere cannot be taken in isolation anywhere in the Universe, what you call a nonsensical question I call a practical one. It's only nonsensical when we adopt the initial fundamentally nonsensical assumption of a sphere taken in isolation.

Suffice it to say: that you see a wall need not mean there's anything on the other side. Generally there will be, in day to day experience, but logically there doesn't have to be. Stephen Hawking has compared asking what came before the Big Bang to asking what's north of the north pole, and the same idea is potentially applicable here (but we don't know yet, not having empirical evidence either way).

No. Stephen Hawking believes the answer to this question is that although space-time has a beginning and end in real time, the Universe itself is infinite in it's timelessness as described by what he terms Imaginary Time. The sarcastic comment from Stephen Hawking that you're quoting has nothing to do with anything here.

No, you just answer the first question with "nothing". Then subsequent questions are asking "what's outside of nothing?", which is nonsense and the answer is again "nothing". So you get a finite space plus lots of "nothings", which makes a finite space overall.

There is no such thing as nothingness.

This hypothetical state of 'nothingness' you speak of does, however, satisfy the axiom of infinity because this 'nothingness' of yours would extend to infinity. The statements you've made here explaining how the answers of "nothing" would extend to infinity certainly appear to agree with that. However, since this 'nothingness' has a location relative to the Universe, defined simply as outside of the Universe (if that could be said), it can never constitute the absence of existence because it inescapably contains at least one dimension. If such a hypothetical state of 'nothingness' did exist in any some location, then said state would have to irrevocably be considered a part of existence. Or the Universe.

I guess this argument here is not so much about the existence of infinity. The existence of infinity is an axiom that we are often times unaware we subconsciously refer to. The uncaused first thing is also an axiom that we are often times unaware we subconsciously refer to. By claiming that, while the Universe does not extend to infinity, a hypothetical state of 'nothingness' surrounding the Universe does extend to infinity, we simply relocate the axiom much as a religious individual relocates the axiom of the uncaused first thing. My response to either of those is the same; the relocation of these axioms from the Universe to hypothetical constructs are unnecessary conclusions.