if the universe had an expansive beginning such as the 'big bang' it couldn't be actually 'infinite' and it would therefore have a boundary of some type [and dimension of size]. IF the big bang theory is correct then it should be possible to approximate the location of the singularity that all this came from [as soon as it started expanding it would have created 'time and space', as you say, which would have had to have an origination; this would always be in the center of it all (without regard to what the actual definition of 'center' is because in this case it means the 'singularity' that supposedly 'spawned' the universe) and i see no reason why this location of the origin of physically dimensional space wouldn't have a location (IOW- to me where all this matter came from is definitely NOT a 'moot point' (though this is probably seen as a fairly pointless concern the reason i insist it's not is because in dismissing these types of things as 'pointless', 'indeterminate', 'moot' or whatever, one would just be sidestepping the fact that matter and the universe do in reality exist in dimensions of time and space, ALL of which is measurable (wasn't it Einstein's that said time is what you measure with a watch, space is what you measure with a ruler, or something like that?)].

In my mind, relativity, in describing the 'look' of the universe to different observers, is based on something macrocosmic, of sorts [as a single observer can only be in one point in the universe at a given time- which, because of the size of the universe, makes it, for all practical purposes, possible for any individual observer to treat it as an infinity and ignore any possiblity of deviation from any potential non-local uniformity which, for most observers, is likely to be so distant as to not matter much].

IMO, when the universe is taken as a whole there should be some geometry involved [since we are dealing with, fundamentally, when it comes right down to actual space itself (and ignoring time for the moment), a 3 dimensional 'reality'] and that should make it possible to determine a place and estimate a time where all this started [in fact, many man-hours have already been spent trying to determine how long ago the big bang happened. If 'when' is determinable, then 'where' should be just as].

Allowing an assumption of a 'big bang' and then proclaiming it's origin indeterminate is, to me anyway, either:
1) a direct implication that everything- all of us and all that we see out there including our own solar system and galaxy is nothing but some kind of an illusion and that nothing actually really exists at all
or b)
an indirect implication that the physical reality of matter consists of more dimensions than the time-including 4 [which is now thought to be the case, from a mathematical standpoint at least but seems to have little effect on stuff like the basic laws of physics that describe how the visible universe generally operates] and therefore STILL an illusion as these 'unseen' dimensions would have to be the controlling factor(s) of the 'real' reality.

I would prefer to think that the universe [and me, at least for 'now'] do physically exist and 'reality' isn't some sort of 'magic trick'.

• And you would still be wrong. - kc4ixa - August 19, 2002 - 13:51 UTC
  • says you. - slamhound - August 20, 2002 - 02:50 UTC
    • OK Andy - kc4ixa - August 20, 2002 - 12:41 UTC
      • hey- no apologies necessary - slamhound - August 20, 2002 - 18:24 UTC
        • OK - kc4ixa - August 20, 2002 - 19:41 UTC
          • as long as we've got a discussion going... - slamhound - August 21, 2002 - 00:27 UTC
            • Where... - kc4ixa - August 21, 2002 - 12:32 UTC
              • actually, i'm not trying to persuade... - slamhound - August 21, 2002 - 14:18 UTC
              • Off-topic - kc2gwx - September 6, 2002 - 04:07 UTC
                • Hi Sam. - kc4ixa - September 6, 2002 - 12:44 UTC
                  • Yup. - kc2gwx - September 6, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
            • The UNIVERSE - treborm - October 16, 2003 - 19:18 UTC