ManWithAPlan

No. But it seems I shouldn't expect you to actually read what I'm saying once you've made your mind up on what you think I mean.

My last post never made a claim that the universe is infinite. I'm simply disputing the reasoning that because people die, nothing is infinite. However, I should caution you again against the arrogance of simply believing whatever it is "every physicist/cosmologist/astrophysicist/etc" believes (and I doubt very much that every man more learned in the field than you or I believe this). After all, was it not Galileo who was punished for declaiming the flat earth theory? We never know, and as far as I'm concerned this theorizing is inconclusive, and more importantly IMPERTINENT to this discussion. So kindly, please drop it.

One of us is misunderstanding this discussion. I see this as a hypothetical question of concept and potential. Your argument, as I see it, is that because the universe will end (according to popular opinion), nothing can be infinite.

To this, I say, what if you have a yard stick and you cut half of it off. Is it still a yard stick?

Better example: If a bullet is flying and you lift up a piece of metal and block it half way before it reaches its target. Can you not make a projection of where it would go?

So even if the universe ends, precluding an infinite process, motion, etc, is it wrong to call it infinite?


----

also, @zeraph and @meri

I don't think meri was being literal. It's a hypothetical principle used to outline certain flaws in logic. It was first introduced to me in calculus class when studying integration and derivation, because those deal with infinitely halving things.

__________________
In the end we are but wisps