> In a message dated 11/25/97 10:58:59 PM, you wrote:
>
> Epistemologically? Why is there no reason for believing in a closed
> universe for *epistemic* reasons?
> >>
>
> Any conceptualization of a closed universe(hold your favorite version
> of a closed universe in your mind right now) is subject to the infinite
> regress fallacy.
Hmm, I *think* you mean something like this: the conceptualization of
the closed universe will be something like a ball, inside a space of
some kind. That space will be another universe, and so on. Am I right?
This is of course a completely bogus argument. First, our
conceptualizations doesn't have to be at all similar with how the
universe really looks; if your conceptualization of something leads to
problems, it is not the fault of the object you are referring to, it
is your conceptualization that is bad. Second, and more importantly,
there is no problem at all dealing with manifolds with no embedding
space, mathematicians do so every day. They are just strange to people
not used to topology.
(Apologies if I misunderstood your argument).
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y