The Universe Is Not "Logical"

Fallacy: False Dilemma:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

Fallacy: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Fallacy: Appeal to complexity http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity

Logic is not pulled from the aether. It is a set of rules discovered about reality. Thus one is not 'stuck inside' logic, but rather discovers that the universe conforms to a set of rules, and uses those rules to his own advantage.

We call these physical laws, the laws of logic, and the laws of mathematics.

 

I have more to add to this actually.

Thinking, as you are, of the universe in the absolute single reference sense is probably wrong. We know that time is relative to a frame of reference. Someone observing the earth from space will observe clocks on earth running more slowly than his wrist watch.

But time is also a particular measurement of change, and not something of a tangible reality. Time is an abstraction. Thus measures-of-change are relative both to a frame of reference and to the subject of measurement (it might be radioisotopes, or a clock, or a star, or whatever).

There seems little reason not to assume that the universe has always existed. This is not illogical, because time presupposes some measurable change, and a measurable change presupposes matter in which said measurable change can occur.

Thus time is dependent on the existence of matter. No matter = no time. The universe works logically if matter is indestructible, or if there is always some matter somewhere.

 

Time moves more slowly in areas of high space-time distortion, so yes. Theoretically you will have aged only slightly compared to the earth.

 

No, everything is finite.

This can be reasonably shown:
Every 'thing' that has been discovered to date has been measurable.
For anything to be immeasurable, we would either not notice its existence due to its lack of definition (metrics constitute definition), or be unable to measure it, and hence unable to verify that it is indeed infinite.

 

Why can't it?

The solar system ends. The galaxy ends. Just because we can't see the end of the universe doesn't mean it isn't finite. Have we any reason to assume it's infinite? It can still be everything and be finite. Just the full set of all matter in existence.

 

Fallacy: Circular reasoning.
To call the universe 'a boundless entity' is to assert that the universe is infinite. Thus making your argument: The universe is infinite, because the universe is infinite.

An adequate definition of the universe is 'everything that exists everywhere' or 'everything in existence'.

As yet you have not provided any rational argument as to why the universe can/should/must be infinite. Given that all tangible 'things' so far discovered in reality have been finite, at minimum you must provide some rational basis as to why the universe might be different.

 

No. My definition was everything in existence.

 

Well the difference between something being finite and infinite is that a finite thing can be measured, and an infinite thing cannot. The latter being the case, even if something infinite were to exist, it would be impossible to prove conclusively that it was infinite due to its immeasurably.

You are really missing the point here. It doesn't necessarily have to be finite, but there is no reason to assume that it isn't finite (or at least you haven't provided a reason). All empirical evidence about the universe suggests that it is finite, so why would one assume that it is not?

I find it interesting that everyone has such a hard time contemplating that, in all likelihood the universe is finite. Everything you've ever experienced or learned in reality has been finite. Why would it be so surprising, or unintuitive, that the universe is also finite?

What I am saying is that there isn't any reason to assume there is an infinite amount of matter. Why wouldn't it be finite, like everything else? 'The universe' can still encompass everything in existence when 'everything' is a finite set.

It is sort of understandable that you think in terms of three dimensional Cartesian coordinates. When you say 'what is beyond it' you are typically thinking about looking out to the horizon and wondering about the land beyond. Can there just be nothing? Sure? why not? Or maybe the dimensions bend back around and the universe meets itself inside out? Remember that all frames of reference are relative. As far as we know there is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference. The universe and your surroundings appear different depending on your frame of reference.

Well general relativity has been more or less proven by its practical application (compensation for) in the Global Positioning System. So there is empirical evidence that atomic clocks subject to greater space-time distortion tick more slowly.

Well, no. The burden of proof is on the claimant. To claim that the universe is infinite requires proof. To claim that the universe is not infinite (or more exactly put: to assume that it is finite) is to remain consistent with all empirical evidence to date about the finiteness of nature, reality, matter, energy and all things. One would say that the assumption of measurability (finiteness) is reasonable because there is no evidence to suggest something which is immeasurable can actually exist in reality.

Well to begin with I think the big bang theory is a stupid theory. And I wouldn't support it any more than I would support the theory of dark matter.

Secondly, why would you insist that there is infinite matter in the universe then also insist, in the same sentence, that there is finite energy. Especially considering the commonly held belief that matter is energy (although I personally reject that on basic metaphysical grounds).

And thirdly, being as there is no drag force in open space (or wherever your big-bang is supposed to have occured) there is no reason to expect objects in motion to change their course (slow down). Newton's first law: [FONT=helvetica,geneva,arial]Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. [/FONT]

Well its not my stupid theory. You guys are the proponents of it, so presumably you should be answering that.