Steady State Universe vs Aristotle's Eternity of the World

[Constantine]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6VYOchKiY0g

What difference is there between this steady state universe and Aristotle's Eternity of the World?

[alan1000]

I'm not familiar with Aristotle's thinking on this particular subject, but I'll bet London to a brick he didn't know any particle physics!

[lauryfriese]

Aristotle's concept of the Eternity of the World, on the other hand, dates back to ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle believed in the existence of an eternal and unchanging universe. He argued that the universe has no beginning or end and has always existed in its current form. Aristotle's view was influenced by his belief in the immutability of nature and the idea that the cosmos operates based on eternal principles and laws. Candy Crush

[alan1000]

Aristotle's view was also, broadly, the Newtonian view, which prevailed until the end of the 19th C, if I understand correctly. Two significant developments then occurred. The first, I think, was Poincare's thesis of the "Eternal Recurrence", which came in the 1880's; and the paradox he put forward was finally resolved by Relativity Theory at the beginning of the 20th C.

Poincare proved, with irrefutable mathematical arguments, that if the universe were a simple Euclidean infinity in both space and time, as was the contemporary belief (following Aristotle and Newton), then there must exist infinitely many perfect copies of the planet Earth, including perfect copies of you and me. This seemed obviously absurd, but nobody could prove it so. The paradox was only resolved, of course, when Einstein demonstrated that the universe is indeed infinite, but in a rather special way which the classicists would not have understood.

[seeds]

...Poincare proved, with irrefutable mathematical arguments, that if the universe were a simple Euclidean infinity in both space and time, as was the contemporary belief (following Aristotle and Newton), then there must exist infinitely many perfect copies of the planet Earth, including perfect copies of you and me.

Has it also been proven that this hypothesis of there being "perfect copies" of you, and me, and planet Earth, is any less ridiculous than Everett's "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"?

This seemed obviously absurd, but nobody could prove it so. The paradox was only resolved, of course, when Einstein demonstrated that the universe is indeed infinite, but in a rather special way which the classicists would not have understood.

In what "special way" did Einstein demonstrate that the universe is infinite?
_______

[VVilliam]

This seemed obviously absurd, but nobody could prove it so. The paradox was only resolved, of course, when Einstein demonstrated that the universe is indeed infinite, but in a rather special way which the classicists would not have understood.

In what "special way" did Einstein demonstrate that the universe is infinite?

_______

I put that question in a GPT prompt and got the following reply.

Albert Einstein did not demonstrate that the universe is infinite in a "special way." In fact, his theories of relativity did not provide direct evidence for the universe's finiteness or infiniteness. Instead, Einstein's theories of relativity, particularly his general theory of relativity, revolutionized our understanding of gravity and the structure of the universe, but they did not provide a definitive answer about the universe's overall size or whether it is infinite.

Einstein's general theory of relativity, formulated in 1915, described gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. It allowed for a dynamic, expanding, or contracting universe, which was a departure from the static, unchanging model of the universe that was prevalent at the time.

The question of whether the universe is infinite or finite is still an open topic in cosmology, and it's a question that Einstein's theories alone could not definitively answer. To address this question, scientists have relied on observations and measurements, such as those made by the Hubble Space Telescope, cosmic microwave background radiation studies, and large-scale structure observations. These observations have led to the development of the current standard cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, which suggests that the universe is very large and possibly infinite, but the debate and research in cosmology continue.

[seeds]

This seemed obviously absurd, but nobody could prove it so. The paradox was only resolved, of course, when Einstein demonstrated that the universe is indeed infinite, but in a rather special way which the classicists would not have understood.

In what "special way" did Einstein demonstrate that the universe is infinite?

I put that question in a GPT prompt and got the following reply.

Albert Einstein did not demonstrate that the universe is infinite in a "special way." In fact, his theories of relativity did not provide direct evidence for the universe's finiteness or infiniteness. Instead, Einstein's theories of relativity, particularly his general theory of relativity, revolutionized our understanding of gravity and the structure of the universe, but they did not provide a definitive answer about the universe's overall size or whether it is infinite.

Einstein's general theory of relativity, formulated in 1915, described gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. It allowed for a dynamic, expanding, or contracting universe, which was a departure from the static, unchanging model of the universe that was prevalent at the time.

The question of whether the universe is infinite or finite is still an open topic in cosmology, and it's a question that Einstein's theories alone could not definitively answer. To address this question, scientists have relied on observations and measurements, such as those made by the Hubble Space Telescope, cosmic microwave background radiation studies, and large-scale structure observations. These observations have led to the development of the current standard cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, which suggests that the universe is very large and possibly infinite, but the debate and research in cosmology continue.

Yeah, in all of my studies regarding Einstein's accomplishments, I don't remember ever reading anything about him "demonstrating" that the universe is infinite.

Indeed, that's why I posed the question to alan1000 - a question that he did not respond to.

Perhaps he'll respond to you and fill us in on why he stated that about Einstein.
_______

[VVilliam]

Yeah, in all of my studies regarding Einstein's accomplishments, I don't remember ever reading anything about him "demonstrating" that the universe is infinite.

Indeed, that's why I posed the question to alan1000 - a question that he did not respond to.

Perhaps he'll respond to you and fill us in on why he stated that about Einstein.

Maybe.

Meantime if you want to continue I am keen to do the same.

[Age]

Aristotle's concept of the Eternity of the World, on the other hand, dates back to ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle believed in the existence of an eternal and unchanging universe. He argued that the universe has no beginning or end and has always existed in its current form. Aristotle's view was influenced by his belief in the immutability of nature and the idea that the cosmos operates based on eternal principles and laws. Candy Crush

IF 'this' here CLAIMED 'belief' IS True, then, even AFTER all of 'this time', NO has been ABLE TO REFUTE 'this BELIEF' of "aristotles". And, there is absolutely NO 'proof' AGAINST 'this BELIEF, NEITHER.

[Age]

Aristotle's view was also, broadly, the Newtonian view, which prevailed until the end of the 19th C, if I understand correctly. Two significant developments then occurred. The first, I think, was Poincare's thesis of the "Eternal Recurrence", which came in the 1880's; and the paradox he put forward was finally resolved by Relativity Theory at the beginning of the 20th C.

Would you be willing to elaborate on 'this' further, and/or go into further detail regarding 'this'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Poincare proved, with irrefutable mathematical arguments, that if the universe were a simple Euclidean infinity in both space and time, as was the contemporary belief (following Aristotle and Newton), then there must exist infinitely many perfect copies of the planet Earth, including perfect copies of you and me.

If this was even remotely true, then will you provide the alleged 'IRREFUTABLE mathematical arguments'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

This seemed obviously absurd, but nobody could prove it so.

'What', EXACTLY, seemed obviously absurd, which, supposedly, nobody could prove 'it' so?

The paradox was only resolved, of course, when Einstein demonstrated that the universe is indeed infinite,

'What' IS the ACTUAL, purported, 'paradox' here? In what definition of the 'paradox' word are you USING here?

And, HOW and WHEN did "albert einstein", supposedly, demonstrate that the Universe, Itself, is, indeed, infinite?

but in a rather special way which the classicists would not have understood.

IN what, so-called, 'special way' was 'that way', EXACTLY?

[seeds]

Yeah, in all of my studies regarding Einstein's accomplishments, I don't remember ever reading anything about him "demonstrating" that the universe is infinite.

Indeed, that's why I posed the question to alan1000 - a question that he did not respond to.

Perhaps he'll respond to you and fill us in on why he stated that about Einstein.

Maybe.

Meantime if you want to continue I am keen to do the same.

Sure.

Continue with what?
_______