57 replies to this topic

[exapted]

If the universe is infinite, it has infinite resources, and can be infinitely intelligent.

But the universe seems kind of dumb. (Not reprehensibly stupid, mind you, just not infinitely intelligent.)

Questions:
Is the universe infinite?
If the universe is infinite, why does it not seem to embody the intelligence of a mind with infinite resources (AIXI)? Is it because the speed of light limits data transmission?

Or, are we just witnessing the very early universe?
Wouldn't a conscious observer picked at random in an infinite universe be likely to observe a highly intelligent universe? (I have an answer for this, but it would take up too much space and I want to hear others' thoughts.)

If the universe had infinite resources, would we be operating under constraint and would we have ethical problems that limited our development?

My opinion:
There *could* be some kind of infinite capacity to our universe that just needs to be unlocked, but currently the observable universe seems to operate under constraint. So the simplest answer is that the universe is not infinite. My guess is that the universe will become more intelligent, but that there is no saying how intelligent it will become.

[JackChristopher]

I believe existence is infinite in all the ways you mentioned—we're in a multiverse—but of course I can't prove it.

But one reason the universe may seem dull is that we're finite conscious beings. A finite being can't observe or experience an infinite, because that would necessarily negate it's own experience. You can't be part of a infinite thing observing itself and be finite simultaneous. But you could be a finite being in a universe that can observe a small subset of a infinite multiverse.

Also I don't rule out the idea of one observer per universe. In fact, it seems the most likely.

Edited by JackChristopher, 26 November 2009 - 12:27 AM.

[Vgamer1]

The universe may be infinite, but we may not be able to access it all. Actually I think we're probably guaranteed not to be able to access it all. We'd never be able to explore all of infinity. However, I think it may be possible to tap into 'infinite energy' so to speak. A system can't overall reduce it's entropy, but it's state of entropy can stabilize without increasing. There's something called reversible computing, which I think applies here.

Edited by Vgamer1, 26 November 2009 - 01:20 AM.

[Cyberbrain]

Is the universe infinite?

No. It's finite in space, matter, and energy.

If the universe is infinite, why does it not seem to embody the intelligence of a mind with infinite resources (AIXI)? Is it because the speed of light limits data transmission?

Assuming the universe is infinite, and ignoring physical constraints (such as the speed of light) ... if the universe was intelligent, it would be intelligent in one of two ways ...

... one, the universe would be intelligent like a brain. But if so then it will not appear to us intelligence the same way a brain wouldn't seem intelligent if we were living on a neuron.

... two, the universe would be intelligent on a metaphysical level therefore everything happening on our plane of existence is the outcome of the universe 'thinking'.

[brokenportal]

This is a great question, a question of unprecedented magnitude really, and as such, being that we havent figured that out, and dont seem to be nearing any way to figure this out, we need more time. We need to try to figure this out, because it is so mind blowingly unbeleivable. There just doesnt seem to be any possible way that it could be finite, and there doesnt seem to be any possible way that it could be infinite, and there doesnt seem to be any possible way it couldnt be finite, and it seems there couldnt be any possible way it couldnt be infinite.

This would be kind of like, a person waking up in the morning and finding that, their house is upside down, floating through a pink river in an unknown place where the trees are walking around, and you can hover around or something.

If you woke up and that were the case, you wouldnt just, get back to life as usual, eat, sleep and occupy yourself with trivialities right? No, you would do whatever you could, to try to figure out how in the hell this situation came to be right?

This question is so big that some of us think that it is part of the "big 8" questions that a thinking being could ask, and those 8 are:

To know:

- the nature of "infinity"
- if there is a god, gods, no god, or something else
- how we got here
- how the universe got here
- what all else is out there like hover ability, light speed, aliens, populated galaxies, dimensions etc..
- all forms and extents of all pleasures current and undiscovered.
- the fulfillment of all goals that time brings you to want, restaurant owner, pro football, climbing mountains etc..
- universal elimination of fallacy



So in short, I think the answer to your question is, lets hurry up with care to do what we can to get indefinite life extension so we can have a chance to know that incredible mind blowing answer.

[Mind]

An older thread about singularity and universe issues, where I comment about countable and uncountable infinite sets.

[Luna]

I believe it is most logical for it to be infinite.

I just want to point out to Cyberbrain that I dislike "no" or "yes" in those kind of questions because we can't prove it either way.
We don't know if we have a number or infinite space and matter.

And we already have problems with the idea of driving out of the universe, as well as "space expanding" as by most common assumption space is believed to be pretty much nothing, maybe?

And even if space is expanding then space is definitely not nothing, but is something and the universe is infinite at least by/in potential and probably so is matter.

Edited by Luna, 26 November 2009 - 02:23 PM.

[caston]

If God does exist the dumbest thing we do is assume that he is stupid.

[brokenportal]

Ive never assumed that if there is some kind of god like being that it is stupid, but come to think of it, I suppose it could be.

[Rags847]

Ha! If God exists. If "God" "exists" why is "he" alone (a single bachelor dude)?
What if the Easter Bunny exists?
Does Santa Clause pay taxes?

[exapted]

I believe it is most logical for it to be infinite.

I just want to point out to Cyberbrain that I dislike "no" or "yes" in those kind of questions because we can't prove it either way.
We don't know if we have a number or infinite space and matter.

We already know about the observable universe. The explanandum I would like to account for is that we don't observe that our universe behaves like an intelligent system with infinite resources. But We already sort of understand finite systems. So by Occam's Razor the most logical explanans is that the universe is finite. That of course doesn't make it absolutely true or even probabilistically true (unless we had warrant for some prior probability and update rule).

I don't see how an infinite universe hypothesis is more likely to be true than a finite universe hypothesis. In explaining our current universe, I don't see how an infinite universe is more theoretically virtuous. A finite universe explains our universe more efficiently.

Granted that, an infinite universe hypothesis is virtuous in the sense that it makes the universe seem limitless, and avoids questions of boundaries or limitations, which would complicate and darken our view of the role of intelligence in the universe. A kind of optimistic view of intelligence operating in the universe could lead us to conclude that the universe is infinite, but that is to naively and perhaps hopefully assume that the universe is infinite.

One question I have is the following:
If the universe is infinite, then consider the reference class of intelligent observers who would understand the universe at our level or beyond. It would seem there would be a vastly greater quantity of observers in the future. So, why do we happen to observe a universe that does not seem to be filled with intelligence, if the future is filled with so many intelligent observers in an infinite universe that is potentially infinitely intelligent?

I have half an answer, and I might as well mention it. I think we should consider that intelligent observers in the future would be a part of a different reference class, and the reference class at or beyond our level of intelligence is too broad. Maybe observers in the future will have moved on to better and bigger questions, and would dismiss such a conundrum. They might be running on different substrate, too. So my answer is inconclusive. But it still leaves the question of where we are in the grand scheme of things. I don't have much of an answer to that one, but I would guess that we are the most intelligent part of the observable universe, and our intelligence will expand, and basically always operate under constraint. If the universe is infinite, it should mean that eventually we would operate without any real constraint (time constraints would not really count once we permeated the entire universe). In an infinite universe (countably or uncountably infinite) he universe could embody AIXI level intelligence. I would just guess that the universe is finite because it is the simplest explanation consistent with the data we have. Of course that's just an application of Occam's Razor, and I'm not sure it is "true".

[exapted]

If God does exist the dumbest thing we do is assume that he is stupid.

No unacknowledged assumptions, just an application of Occam's Razor. I realize you are sort of applying Pascal's Wager, but that's something different from the kind of truth we are trying to get at here. You are mixing discipline/morality with truth, and that is sort of a categorical error. The fact that you would make such an error shows that you are either very dedicated to an invisible overlord, or conversely that you actually see that the invisible overlord might not exist and need a little faith in the form of moralistic cliche.

EDIT: But maybe you're just saying something like "God doesn't play dice", so perhaps ignore the last sentence.

Edited by exapted, 27 November 2009 - 01:20 PM.

[Luna]

I think that it doesn't make it all that logical.

If it's finite and expanding (space? nothing is expanding?) then what is space, really? What is beyond? Paradox?

Still, 16.7(|?) billion years, in quite a limited space, where are everyone?

And if the space is infinite, well they are somewhere over there.. :D

Even if space is infinite, it doesn't mean it evolved yet, it could still be empty and filling up a bit slowly.

Think of the multiverse, but instead of being different dimension, think of it like galaxies.

Big bangs might feel a void in the infinite of space. - caused by the existence of space(?)

Edited by Luna, 27 November 2009 - 01:34 PM.

[exapted]

I think that it doesn't make it all that logical.

If it's finite and expanding (space? nothing is expanding?) then what is space, really? What is beyond? Paradox?

If space is finite, nothing is "beyond". You can't get "there", because "there" is not "there". Sure, we would want to explain what happens near the "boundary", if it even makes sense to say "boundary" here. That doesn't make it ultimately paradoxical.

I think the "why is there something instead of nothing?" question is based on our tendency to use our minds as simplicity measure. In our minds it is efficient to think of the "objective" world as an ideal 3rd-person perspective. However, if there was nothing, there would be no mind to lament over it. No one would be lonely about it. That is because there is no actual 3rd-person perspective. No ultimate truth, only emergent truth.

Still, 16.7(|?) billion years, in quite a limited space, where are everyone?

And if the space is infinite, well they are somewhere over there.. :D

Even if space is infinite, it doesn't mean it evolved yet, it could still be empty and filling up a bit slowly.

Think of the multiverse, but instead of being different dimension, think of it like galaxies.

Big bangs might feel a void in the infinite of space. - caused by the existence of space(?)

If space is infinite, then we can imagine that all sorts of stuff exists, and that's interesting.

Yes I agree that space could be filling up with intelligence a bit slowly. But why not in a finite universe?

I don't know enough about physics to comment on big bangs.

I think it is perhaps a good idea to assume that the universe is infinite. It is very inspiring. However, when I apply Occam's Razor, a finite universe seems to explain what we observe with the most compact theory.

[exapted]

This question is so big that some of us think that it is part of the "big 8" questions that a thinking being could ask, and those 8 are:

To know:

- the nature of "infinity"
- if there is a god, gods, no god, or something else
- how we got here
- how the universe got here
- what all else is out there like hover ability, light speed, aliens, populated galaxies, dimensions etc..
- all forms and extents of all pleasures current and undiscovered.
- the fulfillment of all goals that time brings you to want, restaurant owner, pro football, climbing mountains etc..
- universal elimination of fallacy



So in short, I think the answer to your question is, lets hurry up with care to do what we can to get indefinite life extension so we can have a chance to know that incredible mind blowing answer.

Yes I also want life extension ASAP. Mind uploading would perhaps be better.

I would add to your list of 8 things to know:
Self comprehension. With the Vedanta Koshas, we have a rough outline of a hierarchy of mind from physics to bliss. Consciousness is not "special". It would be great to understand exactly how we work, and dissolve the false boundary between "subjective" and "objective", and "mental" and "physical". Doing so might remove a few items from your list, such as the one about gods, or the one about fallacy.

[Luna]

I am not sure if razor helps here that much, that is due to the fact that the story of the universe as you lean on is lacking, nothing explains how it started expanding, from a singularity which was nothing just a moment before.
They only describe a process which might or might not have somehow happened or did not happen.

And everything else is based on that and could as easily change completely.
In truth, we barely know our universe and we like to take comfort in believing that we know, just like when we decapitated for saying earh was round or the sun revolved the earth or that god did not crate us.

For a while we believed newton was right, and then even more justified that he was right because others didn't believe him, then came einstein.
We might find he was wrong too.

In my opinion, we need to wait quite a bit of time, but what's important is not if it's infinite or finite, but how can we use it to sustain ourselves indefinitely, forever.

[brokenportal]

Ha! If God exists. If "God" "exists" why is "he" alone (a single bachelor dude)?
What if the Easter Bunny exists?
Does Santa Clause pay taxes?

Hence, when included in the big 8, its worded as follows: To know if there is a god, gods, no god, or something else.

Yes I also want life extension ASAP. Mind uploading would perhaps be better.

I would add to your list of 8 things to know:
Self comprehension.

There are many things like this that we could want to know that are wrapped up in the 7th one, "To know the fulfillment of all goals."

A seperate part of that, a better understanding of objectivity and subjectivity and things like that is tied up in the 8th one, "To know the universal elimination of fallacy."

As for mind uploading, of course, thats great in theory, but like we all hear, and can intuit, uploading, singularity, mass tech expansion, etc... might cause things like, world fatal wars, any body to have access to destroying the world, horrible side effects, etc... That though, seems to be another good arguement in favor of indefinite life extension now, and more work on uploading and singularity type things later.

Some of these advantages are that, longer lived healthy people have more experience, and become wiser, and wiser. Replacing old dying generations with fresh new generations injects ignorance, cockiness, as of yet unexposed greed and corruption, inexperience, etc... in to the process. What incentive to we have to really, really give a crap anyways if we are just going to be dead? If our survival remains tied to this then we will all have more reason to care that things go smoothly. There are many more, but those are some of them.

[exapted]

I am not sure if razor helps here that much, that is due to the fact that the story of the universe as you lean on is lacking, nothing explains how it started expanding, from a singularity which was nothing just a moment before.
They only describe a process which might or might not have somehow happened or did not happen.

And everything else is based on that and could as easily change completely.
In truth, we barely know our universe and we like to take comfort in believing that we know, just like when we decapitated for saying earh was round or the sun revolved the earth or that god did not crate us.

For a while we believed newton was right, and then even more justified that he was right because others didn't believe him, then came einstein.
We might find he was wrong too.

In my opinion, we need to wait quite a bit of time, but what's important is not if it's infinite or finite, but how can we use it to sustain ourselves indefinitely, forever.

I agree with what you are saying. It seems like you are saying that the "truth" in the matter doesn't matter because we are far from finding the truth. Better to assume the universe is really smart, so that we will be ready for it. I hope you don't mind if I compare what you are saying to what someone else said earlier in this thread: "If God does exist the dumbest thing we do is assume that he is stupid."
Of course I am not saying that you are invoking religion, but it seems like you are saying.... Occam's Razor is not practical here. And I agree. We better not assume our universe is stupid.

What it means to me is that Occam's Razor is not the definition of rationality. To me it is confusing. I don't have a method to evaluate such questions like "Is the universe infinite? Why?" It is a valid question that won't go away.

Edited by exapted, 27 November 2009 - 08:15 PM.

[Vgamer1]

One question I have is the following:
If the universe is infinite, then consider the reference class of intelligent observers who would understand the universe at our level or beyond. It would seem there would be a vastly greater quantity of observers in the future. So, why do we happen to observe a universe that does not seem to be filled with intelligence, if the future is filled with so many intelligent observers in an infinite universe that is potentially infinitely intelligent?

If the universe is infinite, there's no telling about the placement of intelligent observers relative to each other. We may be trillions of light years from the closest intelligence or farther. Given an infinite universe there's no telling how long it would take the closest intelligence to expand to reach us. And in fact, if the universe is truly infinite, there would be no way for an intelligence to entirely fill it.

I believe the universe is infinite, but logically there would be no way to observe the entirety of it. Any intelligence would be limited in the amount that it could explore in a given time. Even given "unlimited" time (if that is even possible) we wouldn't make it. It's like trying to count to infinity starting at 1. You can count forever, but you'll never reach it.

But, as I said earlier, just because there's an infinite universe, doesn't meant we can't harness infinite energy. Entropy may not be able to decrease, but it can stabilize and stop increasing. Check out reversible computing.

[exapted]

If the universe is infinite, there's no telling about the placement of intelligent observers relative to each other. We may be trillions of light years from the closest intelligence or farther. Given an infinite universe there's no telling how long it would take the closest intelligence to expand to reach us. And in fact, if the universe is truly infinite, there would be no way for an intelligence to entirely fill it.

But you are side-stepping the thought experiment. I acknowledge that it is possible that intelligent observers might be trillions of light years away from each other. Still, if you think it is possible or likely that intelligent life could get a lot more intelligent than us, why do *we* happen to be observing a level of intelligence far below what we deem possible. If we randomly chose an intelligent observer from time and space in the universe, wouldn't we be most likely to choose an observer in the distant future, where there are vastly more intelligent observers?

I am referring to a variation of the Doomsday Argument. I have an answer to this thought experiment (which is inconclusive, see some of my responses above), but I am interested in how other people would answer.

Yes I read a little bit about reversible computing, but I don't know much about it. It is a very interesting idea. However, if the universe is infinite, I don't think energy is much of a limiting factor. Perhaps thermodynamics is not a limiting factor if the universe is infinite. We can just permeate more of the universe.

Edited by exapted, 27 November 2009 - 09:21 PM.

[Luna]

I agree, it's not a limiting factor if infinite energy is available.

I'd still argue vacuum can't be nothing in both cases of universe size though.

I think the law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed will have an addition that "energy is infinite (so it doesn't really matter)" to it one day, because the beginning state of the universe had to be vacuum everywhere (infinite or whatever size), and energy must have came from it somehow.

For our sake, I hope I am right.

Also, I remember reading in some cases, especially micro-scale, that entropy sometimes reverses. besides, just because we don't know howw to use energy efficiency or recycle it safely, doesn't mean we can't. We barely know anything when it comes to physics, we just like to say or think we do,

Edited by Luna, 28 November 2009 - 08:17 AM.

[JackChristopher]

I believe it is most logical for it to be infinite.

I just want to point out to Cyberbrain that I dislike "no" or "yes" in those kind of questions because we can't prove it either way.
We don't know if we have a number or infinite space and matter.

So by Occam's Razor the most logical explanans is that the universe is finite. That of course doesn't make it absolutely true or even probabilistically true (unless we had warrant for some prior probability and update rule).

I don't see how an infinite universe hypothesis is more likely to be true than a finite universe hypothesis. In explaining our current universe, I don't see how an infinite universe is more theoretically virtuous. A finite universe explains our universe more efficiently.

Granted that, an infinite universe hypothesis is virtuous in the sense that it makes the universe seem limitless, and avoids questions of boundaries or limitations, which would complicate and darken our view of the role of intelligence in the universe. A kind of optimistic view of intelligence operating in the universe could lead us to conclude that the universe is infinite, but that is to naively and perhaps hopefully assume that the universe is infinite.

From Wiki (Modification me):

Doesn't Occam's Razor rule against a plethora of unobservable universes – wouldn't Occam prefer just one universe; i.e. any non-MWI interpretation?

MWI response: Occam's razor actually is a constraint on the complexity of physical theory, not on the number of universes. MWI is a simpler theory since it has fewer postulates.^[41]

I think Occam (and Kolmogorov) back an "infinite" uni multiverse. The algorithm to output a multiverse is simpler than the one to output any one specific universe—it's K-Complexity is too darn high. It's still possible that this is the only universe. But that's seems incredibly improbable.

Also, no multiverse implies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong.


These two speculative theories explain my view of existence:

Does the universe in fact contain almost no information?

At first sight, an accurate description of the state of the universe appears to require a mind-bogglingly large and perhaps even infinite amount of information, even if we restrict our attention to a small subsystem such as a rabbit. In this paper, it is suggested that most of this information is merely apparent, as seen from our subjective viewpoints, and that the algorithmic information content of the universe as a whole is close to zero.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9603008

What is the Ultimate Ensemble Theory of Everything?

All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically. This is in the sense that "in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".

http://en.wikipedia....erse_hypothesis

Edited by JackChristopher, 28 November 2009 - 04:48 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

I believe it is most logical for it to be infinite.

I do too, but opinions aren't fact.

I just want to point out to Cyberbrain that I dislike "no" or "yes" in those kind of questions because we can't prove it either way.
We don't know if we have a number or infinite space and matter.

I feel like I'm the only one who wasn't asleep in physics class. Cosmology 101 tells us the universe is finite in space but is expanding infinitely outward like two dots on a inflating balloon. That is indeed difficult to picture, but vector calculus and linear algebra helps.

Though I would agree that our picture of the whole cosmos is incomplete and even this theory has yet to be 100% confirmed.

[Luna]

I believe it is most logical for it to be infinite.

I do too, but opinions aren't fact.

We have no facts O_o only assumptions.

I just want to point out to Cyberbrain that I dislike "no" or "yes" in those kind of questions because we can't prove it either way.
We don't know if we have a number or infinite space and matter.

I feel like I'm the only one who wasn't asleep in physics class. Cosmology 101 tells us the universe is finite in space but is expanding infinitely outward like two dots on a inflating balloon. That is indeed difficult to picture, but vector calculus and linear algebra helps.

Though I would agree that our picture of the whole cosmos is incomplete and even this theory has yet to be 100% confirmed.

Just because it fits a mainstream model doesn't mean it's true, it means it's what's currently people seem to fit a possibility.
It leaves a lot unanswered and a lot bogus too though. Don't just go blindly at what is being said at physics classes on things which are barely evidential yet. It still lacks a lot and people know it.
And it still makes no sense to say space itself is expanding.

[Cyberbrain]

Just because it fits a mainstream model doesn't mean it's true, it means it's what's currently people seem to fit a possibility.
It leaves a lot unanswered and a lot bogus too though. Don't just go blindly at what is being said at physics classes on things which are barely evidential yet. It still lacks a lot and people know it.
And it still makes no sense to say space itself is expanding.

I did recall mentioning that it's important to be cautious. Even the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity aren't 100% complete. Like science my beliefs constantly change. I don't advice anyone to blindly follow science. Science itself is young. But I will for the time being side with the scientific community on cosmology until further notice.

[exapted]

From Wiki (Modification me):

Doesn't Occam's Razor rule against a plethora of unobservable universes – wouldn't Occam prefer just one universe; i.e. any non-MWI interpretation?

MWI response: Occam's razor actually is a constraint on the complexity of physical theory, not on the number of universes. MWI is a simpler theory since it has fewer postulates.^[41]

I think Occam (and Kolmogorov) back an "infinite" uni multiverse. The algorithm to output a multiverse is simpler than the one to output any one specific universe—it's K-Complexity is too darn high. It's still possible that this is the only universe. But that's seems incredibly improbable.

Also, no multiverse implies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong.

Before getting into the rest of your post, I would like to say that I have indeed considered the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I think it has theoretical virtue. What I meant, and what I should have specified, (or perhaps I did earlier in this thread?) is that Occam's Razor supports the hypothesis that "this word" is finite. There could be infinite worlds a la MWI and I don't think it is really related to my point.

[exapted]

These two speculative theories explain my view of existence:

Does the universe in fact contain almost no information?

At first sight, an accurate description of the state of the universe appears to require a mind-bogglingly large and perhaps even infinite amount of information, even if we restrict our attention to a small subsystem such as a rabbit. In this paper, it is suggested that most of this information is merely apparent, as seen from our subjective viewpoints, and that the algorithmic information content of the universe as a whole is close to zero.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9603008

What is the Ultimate Ensemble Theory of Everything?

All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically. This is in the sense that "in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".

http://en.wikipedia....erse_hypothesis

I am curious, even if those two speculative theories are correct, if you think this universe is finite or infinite.

[Singularity]

If we were never indoctrinated about fantasy gods in the sky, then I don't think we would ask such questions with such intensity. We all suffer a real loss when we are told, even by our selves, Santa Clause does not exist. Some of us keep searching for something to worship, even if it's technology. If we were raised in reality then maybe we wouldn't struggle so much with these conundrums.

With that being said, your question is certainly the most aggravating question I know of. I am stopped dead in my tracks after "well, if that's the end of the universe, then what's on the other side of THAT???" That's as far as I've ever heard anyone get. Neither infinite or finite makes sense. Is there something in between?

[Cyberbrain]

If we were never indoctrinated about fantasy gods in the sky, then I don't think we would ask such questions with such intensity. We all suffer a real loss when we are told, even by our selves, Santa Clause does not exist. Some of us keep searching for something to worship, even if it's technology. If we were raised in reality then maybe we wouldn't struggle so much with these conundrums.

With that being said, your question is certainly the most aggravating question I know of. I am stopped dead in my tracks after "well, if that's the end of the universe, then what's on the other side of THAT???" That's as far as I've ever heard anyone get. Neither infinite or finite makes sense. Is there something in between?

Well if the Multiverse (from string thoery) exists then there infinite number of universes existing in different dimensions. Our dimension of time has no meaning when you're dealing with 2, 3, 4, etc dimensions of time.

[Singularity]

If we were never indoctrinated about fantasy gods in the sky, then I don't think we would ask such questions with such intensity. We all suffer a real loss when we are told, even by our selves, Santa Clause does not exist. Some of us keep searching for something to worship, even if it's technology. If we were raised in reality then maybe we wouldn't struggle so much with these conundrums.

With that being said, your question is certainly the most aggravating question I know of. I am stopped dead in my tracks after "well, if that's the end of the universe, then what's on the other side of THAT???" That's as far as I've ever heard anyone get. Neither infinite or finite makes sense. Is there something in between?

Well if the Multiverse (from string thoery) exists then there infinite number of universes existing in different dimensions. Our dimension of time has no meaning when you're dealing with 2, 3, 4, etc dimensions of time.

Yeah, but, the idea of ONE infinite dimension is hard by itself. No matter how you look at it, it's all impossible.

But, if the universe was finite, that would imply it is a self contained system, or a perpetual motion machine... I think. Even if you consider the Big Crunch along with the Big Bang, it can't do that forever if it is finite. So, if it is finite, then where did it get it's energy to start it's motion in the first place? It must be from an outside or prior source. This brings you back to being infinite.

That's why I asked the off-the-wall question as to whether there is something in between finite and infinite; to stimulate a different perspective hopefully.