Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe

Bradley Graham Weslake (
Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:44:12 +1100 (EST)

> In a message dated 11/26/97 6:28:38 AM, you wrote:
> <<> <<> Epistemologically there are zero reasons for believing a closed
> > > universe is even possible.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Estacado
> >
> Could you explain this please? I am not educated in the area of Infinite
> Regress Fallacy.>>
> In other words, if you get to the end of the universe then what's beyond
> that?
> Then what's beyond that? Etc.
> For a more detailed look at the profound implications of epistemology
> I recommend _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_ by Ayn Rand.
> If you really feel you need cosmological support for an open universe
> I recommend _The Big Bang Never Happened_ by Eric J. Lerner.
> Estacado

The infinite regress fallacy does in no way apply to the closed universe.
The universe is entirely self contained: there is no "outside" or
"beyond". The easiest way to conceptualise this is to think of the
surface of a sphere: the area has no bounds, but is finite. Likewise, the
(idealised) hypersphere of the closed universe is finite in spacetime but
boundless (ie. there is no "outside"). In the closed universe one could
theoretically start travelling in one direction into space and end up
where one started.

btw, I have read Lerner's book, which details the less known "plasma"
model of the universe. I found it pretty interesting, and a decent read.