You've not really made it very clear why you even bother to adopt it.
It's simple logic. If, for example, the universe started out from infinite energy, the entire universe would have infinite energy, as per math.
The maths potentially applicable to this scenario do not begin and end with adding or subtracting numbers from a (numerical) infinity. What about set theory? If there is a set that comprises all natural numbers, then that set is infinite. However, it does not follow that every subset of that set is also infinite. As such, our known Universe - being analogous to a subset of that set - may be finite, but the sum total of all of existence - being analogous to the entire set - may yet be infinite. Further, in such a scenario you are not removing
anything from the sum total of existence; the sum total of energy and matter that makes up the known Universe is still a part of existence whether it's distinguishable as a Universe or not. As such, your footnote appears to be somewhat of a non sequitur: there is no need to "decrease infinity", as a subset
of an infinite set may itself be finite.
You yourself said you don't recall the websites. If you can't recall the sources of your information, why would anyone have any trust in your recall of the data itself?You'd make a good point, if I didn't know myself.
The source of my information becomes useless once the information is accepted. If it was accepted, it's because I deemed it worthy. While this process does cause some problems (now being a good example of one), it saves up memory for other things.
Clearly the information source isn't quite
useless, then. ;-)
True; TBBT doesn't state that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang in so many words, but it's a simple conclusion based on what it does claim.
It's not evident that it's a conclusion that is warranted at all. It would be useful if you could show your working.
TBBT proposes that all of the universe (time and space included) was condensed into a single point of infinite mass and density.
It proposes that all matter and energy was thereby condensed, and that the "arrow of time" as we understand it started at the moment of the Big Bang; however, it is careful not to make any pronouncements beyond that.
Time and space are a requirement for existence, and so nothing could have existed prior to time and space.
You have not established this claim nor given a reason to accept this as a premise, and you've already conceded that you don't know how time and space can exist without existence. The logical position to be hold, conversely to that which you state, is that existence
is a requirement for anything to "exist" at all, including (but not limited to) space and time.
Nor did I ask for a GOOJFC. I don't need one. If I am wrong, so be it. If I'm not, hooray for me.
That's up to you, of course; but if I were wrong, I wouldn't be content with "so be it". I'd want to work out where the error was and how to fix it.
Good points. I concede that I was wrong. I ignored your quotes (I'd say it was by mistake, but I doubt you'd believe me).
I'm happy to accept your concession, and its explanation, at face value.
I read that article. Coincidentally, I had also considered the possibility that our universe was once a black hole of another universe, and that all black holes might contain universes. However, I dismissed it, due to the fact that, as far as I know, no black hole has ever been shown to "randomly" expand outward.
It's not entirely clear why one would expect a black hole to "randomly" expand outward in such a scenario.
That's what I am trying to get to. Are actual infinities in some way a logical impossibility, things that cannot exist in reality under any circumstances due to some fundamental contradiction inherent in the proposition itself? Or are they a practical impossibility from a perspective that only this Universe, which is apparently finite in all perceptible dimensions, exists (a perspective which, itself, appears to be an assumption about reality)? If the latter, could actual infinities exist in a scenario where this Universe is not all that exists - a scenario which you appear to have arbitrarily disregarded?
I think it's the former.
If that's so, then we can ditch all the talk of the Big Bang, black holes, virtual particles, time and space, and get straight down to the brass tacks of logic and maths. If actual infinities are logically impossible, then they belong in the same category as married bachelors, square circles, the natural number Pi and (arguably) omnimax transcendent entities: there'd be some definitional reason why the notions of "infinite" and "real" were logically incompatible. Is there one?
If no such definitional contradiction exists, then what we have isn't a logical impossibility (though it might yet be a practical one, depending on the nature of reality).
That said, if the latter is the case, then you have a point.
And don't assume I have disregarded the multiverse hypothesis (theory?).
It's not an assumption; it's a direct conclusion from your own position that (1) "time and space are requirements for existence". If one accept that as a premise (and you have declared your adherence to that position, twice now, in this thread), and if one (2) defines as time and space the dimensions in our known Universe alone (as you have also declared in this thread, by asserting that they originate with the Big Bang), then that leaves no room for any sort of existence outside that framework - if (3) multiverses lie outside of your thus-defined time and space, then they cannot exist (1+2+3), so you must
either: (a) disregard such notions as multiverses as incompatible with your premises, (b) succumb to logical inconsistency; or (c) ditch at least one of your premises.
You can't really ditch (3). You can't place multiverses within
our space-time and still call them "multiverses". Anything within our space-time is definitionally our Universe.
(2) is not a premise that's under serious contention. There may be dimensions outside our known Universe that are analogous to time and space in ours, but they're not what we
understand by "time" and "space",
So yet again, that pesky premise (1) - that time and space are a prerequisite for existence - is the premise that looks to be the shakiest, and also the easiest premise of which to unburden oneself. With it, multiverses cannot (logically) exist; without it, they can (again, logically; whether they can exist in reality
is a whole other question that is contingent upon a whole swathe of other questions about reality that we're currently ill-equipped to answer).
If we don't know what happens in a black hole, how can it count to prove that infinities can exist?
For the record, "infinities can exist" isn't (yet) an assertion that anyone has made. We're still stuck on the notion that actual infinities can't
exist, as per Reply #1 to this thread. I have expressed skepticism of that position; that does not amount to an assertion or assumption of the contrary position.
Per your statement above, it appears that you believe that actual infinities are in some way a logical impossibility. If so, there's no reason to discount black holes: a logical impossibility remains thus irrespective of the frame of reality we're dealing with. If, however, the supposed impossibility of actual infinities is a feature contingent upon some particular configuration of reality in some particular locale, then excluding black holes might
be construed as dismissing a potential frame of reference whereby actual infinities might be found in reality.