Quotes by me:

Laplacian determinism:

“Imagine we have a box, the box is not accelerating, we are assuming there is nothing outside the box in this universe, now let’s say there is a ball in this box, we know the exact speed of this ball relative to the box, its exact spin and exact direction of travel, these are the only 2 things in the universe. Let’s say energy is preserved and there is no friction on the box or the ball, we can predict everything the ball is going to do in the box and we can work out going back everything that it has done, we can still do this if there is two balls, or 999,999 of them, now let’s say the balls are atoms and the box is the universe. Ignoring pesky quantum stuff we can still figure out everything about everything theoretically, just not in practice, there is no fundamental randomness in this classical model, every atom is on its path and it is going to go down that path,”

Is science a belief system?

“Science is not a belief system, if something is proven wrong almost no one is clinging on to it within the scientific community, especially after an alternative is suggested, we just say, okay, what is correct then? And we repeat the scientific method until we find the correct answer. Saying science is a belief system completely undermines the scientific revolution that happened. The best way I can describe ‘believing’ in science is that, if I were to bet money, on say, how old the Earth is, I would bet money on 4.54 billion years old, rather than 6,000 to 10,000 years old, because I see no evidence for this I would not feel safe betting money on it being true.”

Can you be in the center of the universe?

“Let's say there is a 2D spherical universe that is expanding and has been expanding since the big bang. The center of the universe in this very specific case is the Big Bang and all of time before it (with specific uses of higher dimensions). From the perspective of higher-dimensional space, this is where you could be both on the surface of the sphere and at its center. Therefore, the center of the universe is the Big Bang and all time before it (this means the center of the universe is in the past). Since 2 dimensional things in this universe can only be on the surface of this universe, something would need to be one more dimensional than its universe to be at the center of the universe. We will assume this universe does not have a time dimension. If the extra dimension this object has above its universe is time, then it could be at the center and be on the surface at once. Those two places would be its 'sides' in the time dimension. How expansion without time would work is each instant in time is nested within another instant in time like Russian nesting dolls (a block universe model). The logic we found that we need more dimensions than our universe to see or be in its center applies to most universe models (especially leading theories).”

Is the universe infinite?:

“I do not know if the universe is spatially infinite in all directions, it depends a lot on the true dimensions of our universe:

Likely shapes for the universe:

Flat: if the universe is flat then it is statistically favored that the universe is infinite, but if it is finite, it would likely be at least ~250x* larger than our universe.

Torus: If the universe is torus shaped then the minimum size of the universe could be even smaller than the observable universe. But if it is torus shaped it would likely be at least 3 to 4 times larger.

Unlikely shapes for our universe:

Spherical: then the universe is at least ~250x* bigger than the observable universe.

Hyperbolic (Or 'Saddle' shaped): then the universe would likely be infinite.

Poincaré Dodecahedral Space: This is a dodecahedron shaped universe. It is extremely unlikely, if you go out one face you come back in the opposite face. The universe would be at least 80% the size of the observable universe.”

~250x number comes from: Applications of Bayesian Model Averaging to the Curvature and Size of the Universe.

Stormon-C