Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras
View Post
Yes, if there is a finite boundary to space, then there is a finite boundary to space. That seems fairly tautological.
This doesn't follow, in the slightest. Again, there is nothing which is north of the North Pole. This does not imply that there must actually be something which is north of the North Pole, and that this something is infinite in expanse.
I would be tempted to call attention to the false dichotomy, here, except that it isn't even a dichotomy. You're saying that either the universe is expanding into something or else it is expanding into something. Again, it is not the case that the universe is expanding into something. It is unnecessary to posit the existence of some sort of super-space in which to situate space-time.
I'm not going to spend yet another thread trying to rehash the same discussions of the B-Theory. For now, I'll simply say that the fact that all moments of time are coextant on the B-Theory does not imply that all states at those moments are equal.
It is incoherent because you are attempting to say that space ends and that it doesn't end at the same time. The word "outside" is a spatial descriptor. It is meaningless in the absence of space. If space is finite, that means that there is a boundary. Not a wall or a partition or a blockade. It means that space ends. There is no "outside," as that would imply the existence of space after the end of space, which is self-contradictory and nonsensical.
I said, "Either you have to admit that there may be something which exists without having been 'born' or you are forced to claim that our universe exists within an infinite panoply of shell universes like some sort of unending series of Matryoshka dolls." The first word of your reply to that statement was, "No," after which you described something which exists without having been born. This is why I was confused.
So then why do you think spacetime has a cause or "belongs" to anything?
Comment