06 Mar '07 10:43>
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you're back to semantics again. What I mean to say is precisely
There is a distinct difference between saying:
1. There is nothing outside the universe.
and
2. There is no such thing as outside the universe.
Put another way.
1. There is nothing before time began and therefore time came from nothing.
or
2. There is no such thing as before time began so to talk about where time came from is nonsensical and meaningless.
what I say, that there's nothing beyond our universe (or if it's a
multiverse construct, then at some point you reach the nothing, which is
exactly that: nothing).
I think you have a hard time accepting the thought that there is no need
for something to "exist" beyond the borders of our universe. Or maybe
I'm crazy for so easily accepting this thought. My mind automatically
wants to think of some sort of space beyond our universe, but the idea is
that nothing exist beyond this border. The border is very much there,
but it doesn't separate one body of space from another, but rather is the
point where space cease to exist entirely and then there is no space left.
At the same time, since there's nothing there the universe can keep
growing indefinitely as the universe defines the very concept of space.
Your last point is perhaps correct in the sense that since there was
nothing before a certain point in time (in my belief) and there is nothing
beyond a certain spacial dimension, it makes no sense to try and define
or explain that nothing. It's an argument that will crash in on itself
because at the very moment I try to speak about that nothing, I'm using
the term nothing as if it were something. Which clearly it is not. Forget
the semantics and accept the nothing as the complete absence of
anything at all, and you're pretty much in line with how I think. (At the
moment this is the one hypothesis - if I may be so bold as to call it
that - that makes the most sense to me from my limited perspective.)