Quote:

then all of the conservation laws would apply to it...

---

Quote:

and that would mean that it has been in existance forever and will exist forever.

---

I'm not following you here...
It (the Universe) being a closed system has nothing to do with the possibility of being indestructible, nor does it tell anything about the lack of existence of something from outside this enclosed system that could have the capacity of destroying it.

MushroomTrip said:

Quote:

then all of the conservation laws would apply to it...

---

How's that?

---

Ped said:

In order for a system to be regarded as "closed", it must have boundaries against another confined phenomenological locale.  Since the term "universe" encompasses all phenomena everywhere, no such boundaries can possibily be determined.  It follows therefore that the term "closed" cannot be correctly applied to describe the system without first redefining two critical points to this contemplation:  the definition of the word "universe", and, more importantly, the conceptual process by which we articulate our popular scope on existence.

---

+5

Quote:

MJF said:to be a closed system means they aren't being acted on by something outside of it.

---

Quote:

en⋅close
   /ɛnˈkloʊz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-klohz] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -closed, -clos⋅ing.
1. to shut or hem in; close in on all sides: a valley enclosed by tall mountains.
2. to surround, as with a fence or wall: to enclose land.
3. to insert in the same envelope, package, or the like: He enclosed a check. A book was sent with the bill enclosed.
4. to hold or contain: His letter enclosed a check.
5. Roman Catholic Church.
a. to restrict to the enclosure of a monastery or convent.
b. (of a monastery, convent, church, etc.) to establish or fix the boundary of an enclosure.

---

Quote:

i don't know what you mean by indestructable anyway. if all of the stars suddenly exploded..that doesnt' mean the universe would be destroyed.

---

Indestructible as in it not being affected in any way by outside factors, which could turn into an opened system.
If something like this would happen, then it won't exist forever now, will it?

MJF said:

i don't know how one could ever prove that it was or not....but if it was...

then all of the conservation laws would apply to it...and that would mean that it has been in existance forever and will exist forever.

it amazes me how incomprehensible reality truly is.

something my linear albegra professor said today, "now this is weird, two planes in 4d could intersect at just one point"

i don't even know how to begin to visualize that

---

You need to settle down there youngster. All that amazement will kill you sooner or later.

MushroomTrip said:

Quote:

MJF said:to be a closed system means they aren't being acted on by something outside of it.

---

No it doesn't.
Let's look at the definition of the word enclosed fast, shall we?

Quote:

en⋅close
   /ɛnˈkloʊz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-klohz] Show IPA
?verb (used with object), -closed, -clos⋅ing.
1. to shut or hem in; close in on all sides: a valley enclosed by tall mountains.
2. to surround, as with a fence or wall: to enclose land.
3. to insert in the same envelope, package, or the like: He enclosed a check. A book was sent with the bill enclosed.
4. to hold or contain: His letter enclosed a check.
5. Roman Catholic Church.
a. to restrict to the enclosure of a monastery or convent.
b. (of a monastery, convent, church, etc.) to establish or fix the boundary of an enclosure.

---

Having the quality of being closed doesn't guarantee indestructibility. It also doesn't imply that it can have some sort of control over what's happening outside of it.

---

Quote:

we're talking about scientific terminology.

---

They dont like science much here in the philosophy forum, and dont ascribe to scientific definitions.  It confuses me alot (and is a little annoying) but its not a science forum so people arnt gonna be using scientific definitions. 

Rahz said:

This video claims that everything has a limit, and that is... infinity. There's a concept in math which states that an infinity can be a subset of a larger infinity. All the possible points between 1 and 2 represent an infinity contained inside the infinity of possible points between 1 and 3... which would be twice as large an infinity. This concept is actually functionally in some way, but I would have to dig for info. Anyway, once all possible infinities are accounted for, there is no logical means of identifying the possibility of "more" since more would already be included in the subset of all possible realities.

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

we're talking about scientific terminology.

---

They dont like science much here in the philosophy forum, and dont ascribe to scientific definitions.  It confuses me alot (and is a little annoying) but its not a science forum so people arnt gonna be using scientific definitions. 

---