Orac, I don't really have a big problem with infinity and nothing the way Bill S. does, but this brings up a sort of a problem. Earlier you said that the universe is finite. That then raises the question of what is outside the universe. That would presumably be absolutely nothing. So there is a bit of a conflict there.
Bill Gill
No you can't have an absolute nothing you made that decision in step one so it can only be a nothing which supports virtual particles.
I mean the current workable idea goes something like virtual particle pair pops into existence they balance back in all values to zero. The pair will create a scalar field, they will create time around, they will create space.
They won’t last long and they will drop back into the nothing.
But what if quite a lot of other virtual pairs turned up before that first particle pairs stopped? Perhaps there are imbalances that could develop that start or "bud" a universe.
So here nothing is simply a zero of all the pieces created it isn't an absolute nothing in that you can borrow against the nothing by simple particle-anti particle physics. That is after all why science is taking a good look at matter-anti matter imbalance.
From that theory start point our universe is most definitely finite against a backdrop of a nothing but that backdrop is not and can not be an absolute nothing.
Now lets assume we are way off track and something like string theory were right and the start point is in one of 10 dimensions we don't see etc. It doesn't change the problem absolute nothing still can't exist if it does you have a god because the definition of absolute zero gives you no option.
It doesn't matter how you roll the problem back, change the laws of physics, absolute nothing is a concept that only allows one option to a start which is a god.
So there is either a god or there is no absolute nothing you can't hide from the choice.
