Quote:
Originally Posted by ManWithAPlan
It's not teleology to say that the universe must reside in something. It's just logical. If you have something that is not infinite, then what happens when you go outside it? Note: I'm not saying it does reside in something because I'm not saying it's finite. But if we take as given that it's finite, and we can traverse it, then that means there must be such a point where we cease to be in the universe and must be in _something else_.
Note the scenario where all space is bent such that when traveling to the outer reaches of the universe you end up wrapping around. This would be something like a hyper-sphere effect where the dimension is folded up upon itself. To me, that would be infinite, but that's another topic, sort of.
Why do you need a frame of reference? Because that's how time is measured. Theory of relativity?
|
It's implicitly teleological, a few steps down the road from asking why. Saying something is "logical" doesn't mean anything. It's also perfectly logical to say that the universe must not reside in something. Something that is finite has a boundary, but that doesn't mean that there is anything outside the boundary.
If the universe was finite, it probably wouldn't need its finiteness measured. It's quite possible that it would remain finite without any sort of frame of reference to measure it. Time passes while we sleep, after all.