@Chad and genkaus: I've been enjoying this exchange as an observer, and have only jumped in to speak to this particular issue. I would like to see Chad clarify one point, after which I intend to resume lurking.
It is an open question, and the answer may be found in what is now highly theoretical (i.e. speculative) physics. However, the observational data we have does not appear to support the "big crunch" hypothesis. In any case, the assertion that spawned this tangent (see below) does not appear to align with what we do know. Perhaps my interpretation of your statement is different from what you intended.
I believe this is a vastly different statement than the one that spawned this particular tangent, namely:
(April 18, 2012 at 12:08 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I do not currently have the knowledge to affirm or deny this. I thought this was still an open question in astrophysics, whether the universe expands indefinitely or collapses back on itself.
It is an open question, and the answer may be found in what is now highly theoretical (i.e. speculative) physics. However, the observational data we have does not appear to support the "big crunch" hypothesis. In any case, the assertion that spawned this tangent (see below) does not appear to align with what we do know. Perhaps my interpretation of your statement is different from what you intended.
(April 18, 2012 at 12:08 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Either way the fact that the physical universe changes state does not undermine the idea that reality's structure (the truths of math, validity of logic, etc.) manifest in the physical is different from one place to another or under some conditions and not others. To assert otherwise is deny the possibility of acquiring knowledge.
I believe this is a vastly different statement than the one that spawned this particular tangent, namely:
ChadWooters Wrote:physical reality fits together with all its constants and forces in perfect balance