Fine Tuning

[UNBeliever905]

I wanted to discuss this topic after watching an intelligence squared debate quite awhile ago and again while reading the head to head debate between OSTENG and NENB.

Now the "Fine Tuning" of the universe, theory is "the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

Now in this case i would argue, that the theory itself is not as important as why it is believed. It is believed because people who have a preexisting belief in a designer, see the actual fact that if certain things in our universe were different we, and this is the important bit, AS WE ARE HERE AND NOW could not be here. Now they see this fact and say "Well if there is no God, WHY is the universe perfect for us". Admittedly a slightly reductionist version of the argument but i dont think it misrepresents it honestly. My point is can a believer in fine tuning tell me why me thinking a god of the gaps argument based on a pointless question is an acceptable argument in an intelligent conversation?

[otseng]

For a start, multiverse theory dates back at least 500 years, and there have been religious plural cosmologies dating back at least two thousand years.

I do not dispute that. But, what scientists took multiverse seriously even 50 years ago?

Under the "God created only this one Universe" hypothesis
You assume:
God is possible (This is actually a large series of further postulates)
God exists
God created this Universe
This Universe is special, and the only one that exists

Sure, I assume those.

Under the multiverse hypothesis:
Multiple Universes can co-exist

There are additional assumptions:

Other universes are possible.
Something created all the universes.
Other universes exist which have different fundamental constants.
This universe is not unique.
There is a large number/infinite number of other universes.

Now, an example.
The chance of rolling all sixes with three fair six sided dice is (1/6)^3, or 1 in 216. Say I take three dice, and put them in a glass box, where no human can touch the dice, and shake it up. Some unspecified period of time later, I roll three sixes.
For whatever contrived reason, you don't know how many times I've rolled.
Which sounds more reasonable? That I rolled the set of dice 108 or more times (so that it is more likely that I got the three sixes than not) or that a conscious being we didn't know existed or could exist influenced the dice intentionally?

As the number of dice increases, it becomes more unlikely that chance is a viable explanation. Eventually, the odds of something happening by chance is so remote that it is practically zero.

[otseng]

Really, the only evidence we have is the existence of the one universe we know. Either it is fine tuned to the exact set of fundamental constants that we observe or it is one of many.

I completely agree.

It is fundamentally simpler to assume the existence of a variety of something we know to exist than to presume the existence of something totally different.

A caveat is that practically an infinite number of universes is required. So, I do not think it is fundamentally simpler to posit a (near) infinite number of things that we know about.

The scientists are not claiming that many or possibly infinite number of universes exist, we have no evidence.

I would not go so far as to say that scientists claim that they actually exist, but they do posit it.

[Jashwell]

Under the multiverse hypothesis:
Multiple Universes can co-exist

There are additional assumptions:

Other universes are possible.
Something created all the universes.
Other universes exist which have different fundamental constants.
This universe is not unique.
There is a large number/infinite number of other universes.

For basic multiverse theory, what is required, is:

"Other Universes are possible " >> Universes can co-exist
"Universes can exist" >> This universe exists

I'm not assuming something created all the Universes, they don't even need to have been created, they might tenselessly exist.

If you're going to say "this Universe is unlikely because of fine tuning" - which is quite a statement to make in the first place, then we can estimate the number of Universes from the probability of this Universe.

For example, by the way, if fundamental constants can't have different values, then the probability of Universes having life giving constants is 1. Then there's no fine tuning.

Now, an example.
The chance of rolling all sixes with three fair six sided dice is (1/6)^3, or 1 in 216. Say I take three dice, and put them in a glass box, where no human can touch the dice, and shake it up. Some unspecified period of time later, I roll three sixes.
For whatever contrived reason, you don't know how many times I've rolled.
Which sounds more reasonable? That I rolled the set of dice 108 or more times (so that it is more likely that I got the three sixes than not) or that a conscious being we didn't know existed or could exist influenced the dice intentionally?

As the number of dice increases, it becomes more unlikely that chance is a viable explanation. Eventually, the odds of something happening by chance is so remote that it is practically zero.

You've missed the point. There are only three dice.
You don't know how many times I've rolled, but you do know that I've got all sixes without any humans interfering.
Is it more reasonable to suppose that I rolled multiple times or that a conscious being we didn't know existed interfered intentionally?

[arian]

Generally, when we see things in nature, they rarely occur once.

Exactly how many other universes are there?

Greetings otseng.

Good question, and where do all these universes reside? If time and space are created within each universe, and each universe may be infinitely big, then where do all these universes reside in?

If they say 'nothing', then nothing is not nothing, so where is our universe in? Have they come up with a name for this place?

There are a lot of different ways multiple Universes can co-exist.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Firstly, it's not difficult to have multiple infinitely big objects, depending on how you're determining big. If you have an infinitely big piece of paper, you can still fit more pieces of paper on top of it in a stack with little to no trouble.
(I don't know anyone whose saying the Universe might be infinitely big though)

If you have an infinitely big piece of paper, you have infinity, there would be no need for more infinity.

Wikipedia on the 'size of our universe' mentioned our 'observable universe' which is apr 90 billion light years in diameter, and that our actual universe may be infinitely big/large (and still expanding? Hmm..)

Secondly, depends how you mean "in nothing". If Universes are all that exist - does it make sense to say that they are in anything? If they are not in anything, aren't they in nothing?

Nothing can be 'in nothing' and I can prove that. The universe is physical, so it has to be IN something, and even 'nothing' is in something. I can actually show you the existence of 'nothing', which is part of everything. What is wonderful is that I can show you 'nothing' within this universe, not outside of it.
With this proof of the existence of nothing, and properly defining 'nothing', we can freely remove the possibility, the idea that our universe may be residing in 'nothing'.

But where does this leaves us with the question regarding as to where the universe (or multi universes) are residing and expanding IN?

The most logical explanation is; "In God, the Eternal, All Powerful, Infinite Mind" We are dreams, concepts come to reality by ID, and the proof is that within each one of us a tiny piece of God, .. our 'mind'. It is that which makes this physical body a living soul. Without that tiny spirit controlling our brain, we would be nothing but bones, muscles covered in skin which will eventually turn back to dust.

You seem to be thinking of nothing as an object, a noun. The only way to make sense of nothing is as the negation of anything. When you say "That is nothing" you don't mean "That is this thing called nothing", because nothing cannot be a thing by definition. You mean "That is not any thing", or "That is nothing"

Yes, 'nothing' is an object, a very unique object like gravity, only unlike gravity that varies in power, 'nothing' is absolute. It doesn't get stronger or weaker as gravity does. As long as we don't confuse 'nothing' with 'something', in it's absolute form it is as powerful as the total sum of 'everything' that has ever been created. The best part is, I can prove this in a simple experiment and logic. But of course, .. who the hell cares, it's nothing right? Yet it possesses the equivalence of the total sum of everything we know and have observed. I mean that is big, wouldn't you say?

The 'nothing' is also a creation of God, so it too exists in God as everything else does that has been created.

I am NOT playing with words here, and if you have even the basic education you should be able to see that. I am not well educated to be able to play with words with you guys. What you see here is confidence, because I can honestly prove the existence of 'nothing' just as easily as I can prove the existence of any other obvious things around us.

E.g. "There was nothing there" means "There was not anything there". It doesn't mean there was an object called "Nothing" that was there.

I know what you mean, and this is why it is so hard to comprehend, because of its multiple uses like you just said above.

The best way to explain this is my way, which is that; "I can prove to you the existence of 'nothing' as easily as I can prove the existence of a .. let's say 'lemon'."
I can show you the power of it, as surely as Newton showed us the effects of gravity. Now remember that this is NOT a theory on 'nothing', but the real deal.

So when you say "in nothing", if you mean "not in anything" then yes, that could well by right.

Thank you for at least taking the time to think about this very important subject, usually I just get some smart a... remark and that's as far as it gets. No, "In nothing" is bad usage we have learned to accept over the years, like asking: "What is he doing?"
A. "Nothing"

No, there is nothing IN 'nothing', but 'nothing' is part of, or exists in everything just as an apple, or a lemon, or a bolt, or a rock, or gravity, or air.

A void is a space with nothing substantive in it. It doesn't really have nothing at all - it will have quantum particles, even if separated they will simply create and destroy ex nihilo.

I know this may sound arrogant especially coming from me, but you will have to put aside everything you have learned on 'nothing'. 'Nothing' is NOT a perfect void (as I mistakenly explained some time ago) because of what I have read about the definition, and other brilliant philosophers, scientists etc. regarding their explanations, their own understanding of 'nothing', and so far every one of their definitions are incorrect. They all have this preconceived notion of 'nothing' which is false, and they go and build on that, something like you just said above. As I said, 'nothing' is NOT a Void, or a vacuum. There are some good definitions like "the absence of everything", but it can be confusing.

You have to start with a clean slate, with 'nothing' and define it, prove its existence. Not take anything, or everything out of something, because then it was 'NOT nothing' to begin with, correct?

The Universe is getting bigger.
The majority of the Universe is empty space - void in astronomy means a large region of practically empty space, but in any other sense, the Universe is certainly sparse.

Because of my knowledge and understanding of 'nothing', I can honestly tell you that the Universe is NOT getting bigger, and it's filled with trillions of galaxies of stars, so I wouldn't say it's mostly empty either.

The 'nothing' is in space that is, in our universe, but doesn't take up any space.

Warning!
For those who refuse to believe in God the great I Am Who I Am, or those satisfied with their god or gods created by their religions, .. I say warning, because once you understand and see 'nothing' for what it really is, you will understand why God cannot be named, or seen, yet is the Creator of all things created.

If you can understand (and if you don't I can answer any questions you have) and see 'nothing' as it exists, your eyes will be opened and you too will be able to see God for who He really is. You will understand the difference between Creator and the created.

So who is daring here and possibly leave their religious ideologies behind for the ultimate experience in actually knowing 'God' and understanding the difference between God the Creator, and gods the created?

[arian]

You've missed the point. There are only three dice.

OK, you have three dice.

You don't know how many times I've rolled,

OK, we don't know how many times 'YOU' rolled

but you do know that I've got all sixes without any humans interfering.

Three dice, you rolled, but no human interaction, .. got it. It's called chance. You have to roll the dice, if there is no dice, or no one to roll you cannot create a chance.

Is it more reasonable to suppose that I rolled multiple times or that a conscious being we didn't know existed interfered intentionally?

So are you saying that the universe came about by a conscious act of playing the dice and creating every element, atom, matter, light, energy, stars, galaxies, planets, and self-conscious biological life on one of its planets who can understand and create chances on their own with dice?

Or are you going to take the dice, and the person throwing the dice out of the picture and say: "See, it is possible that by chance a complete universe can be created without effort of a roll, or the existence of dice, but just an empty infinity without time or space" ?

[McCulloch]

If you have an infinitely big piece of paper, you have infinity, there would be no need for more infinity.

You would if you were fitting an infinite sized drawing (universe) on each sheet.

Wikipedia on the 'size of our universe' mentioned our 'observable universe' which is apr 90 billion light years in diameter, and that our actual universe may be infinitely big/large (and still expanding? Hmm..)

There is quite a difference between vastly big and infinitely big. Cosmologists currently have not entirely arrived at a consensus, but personally, I am with the side that argues that the universe is finite.

Secondly, depends how you mean "in nothing". If Universes are all that exist - does it make sense to say that they are in anything? If they are not in anything, aren't they in nothing?

Nothing can be 'in nothing' and I can prove that. The universe is physical, so it has to be IN something, and even 'nothing' is in something. I can actually show you the existence of 'nothing', which is part of everything. What is wonderful is that I can show you 'nothing' within this universe, not outside of it.
With this proof of the existence of nothing, and properly defining 'nothing', we can freely remove the possibility, the idea that our universe may be residing in 'nothing'.

There is still the problem of infinite regression. Suppose we define some space-like continuum that contains the universe or universes. Is that continuum finite or infinite? Is it fixed, growing or shrinking? If a universe cannot be contained in 'nothing' then neither can this hypothetical continuum that contains the universe. So you must then define another continuum to contain it and so on and so on. Ultimately, just like in the cosmological argument, you must conclude that eventually there must be, in order to avoid infinite regression, a continuum that is not contained in anything. Defining that continuum to be God would be Pantheism. But if there is a possibility that there is a continuum that is not contained, then Occam would argue that it is most likely that the universes themselves are not contained within anything.

But where does this leaves us with the question regarding as to where the universe (or multi universes) are residing and expanding IN?

The universe is just simply expanding. It is finite in size and its size is greater than it was. That's all.

The most logical explanation is; "In God, the Eternal, All Powerful, Infinite Mind"

No, this is not the most logical explanation.

We are dreams, concepts come to reality by ID, and the proof is that within each one of us a tiny piece of God, .. our 'mind'.

Our minds cannot be shown to be a tiny piece of God.

You seem to be thinking of nothing as an object, a noun. The only way to make sense of nothing is as the negation of anything. When you say "That is nothing" you don't mean "That is this thing called nothing", because nothing cannot be a thing by definition. You mean "That is not any thing", or "That is nothing"

Yes, 'nothing' is an object, a very unique object like gravity, only unlike gravity that varies in power, 'nothing' is absolute. It doesn't get stronger or weaker as gravity does. As long as we don't confuse 'nothing' with 'something', in it's absolute form it is as powerful as the total sum of 'everything' that has ever been created. The best part is, I can prove this in a simple experiment and logic. But of course, .. who the hell cares, it's nothing right? Yet it possesses the equivalence of the total sum of everything we know and have observed. I mean that is big, wouldn't you say?

This is nonsense. Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothingness is the state of being nothing; the state of nonexistence of anything.

The 'nothing' is also a creation of God, so it too exists in God as everything else does that has been created.

If this were true, then the following syllogism would be valid:

1. A sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than being in heaven.
3. Therefore, a sandwich is better than being in heaven.

This syllogism is not valid only because you are not allowed to treat nothing as something that exists.

I am NOT playing with words here, and if you have even the basic education you should be able to see that. I am not well educated to be able to play with words with you guys. What you see here is confidence, because I can honestly prove the existence of 'nothing' just as easily as I can prove the existence of any other obvious things around us.

I await your proof.

Because of my knowledge and understanding of 'nothing', I can honestly tell you that the Universe is NOT getting bigger, and it's filled with trillions of galaxies of stars, so I wouldn't say it's mostly empty either.

You disagree with the majority of cosmologists. The universe, they say, is getting bigger. Please demonstrate that they are wrong.
By terrestrial standards, the majority of the universe is a whole lot emptier than what we experience. Liquid water, for example, has a density of roughly 10²⁸ molecules per m³. Whereas, the intergalactic void contains less than one molecule per cubic meter.

[arian]

If you have an infinitely big piece of paper, you have infinity, there would be no need for more infinity.

You would if you were fitting an infinite sized drawing (universe) on each sheet.

Thank you McCulloch
You cannot have a universe, or anything else in creation that is infinite, so one 'infinite' sheet will do for anything you ever want to create on/in it. If you run out of room on the first sheet, then it wasn't infinite to begin with. God is infinite, eternal and this is why there is no other Gods besides Him.
Now there are many created gods, both real (like us men) and made up by religions. But these too are IN God. We can alternate God with infinity, same principles apply, only that God is an infinite conscious creative mind with a purpose. The word 'infinite' is just the blank sheet of paper that you can put as big and as many finite things on/in as you want. It can never fill up.

Wikipedia on the 'size of our universe' mentioned our 'observable universe' which is apr 90 billion light years in diameter, and that our actual universe may be infinitely big/large (and still expanding? Hmm..)

There is quite a difference between vastly big and infinitely big. Cosmologists currently have not entirely arrived at a consensus, but personally, I am with the side that argues that the universe is finite.

I'm with you on that, everything in creation, whether multidimensional multiverses, or just our universe, it is all finite.

Secondly, depends how you mean "in nothing". If Universes are all that exist - does it make sense to say that they are in anything? If they are not in anything, aren't they in nothing?

Nothing can be 'in nothing' and I can prove that. The universe is physical, so it has to be IN something, and even 'nothing' is in something. I can actually show you the existence of 'nothing', which is part of everything. What is wonderful is that I can show you 'nothing' within this universe, not outside of it.
With this proof of the existence of nothing, and properly defining 'nothing', we can freely remove the possibility, the idea that our universe may be residing in 'nothing'.

There is still the problem of infinite regression. Suppose we define some space-like continuum that contains the universe or universes. Is that continuum finite or infinite? Is it fixed, growing or shrinking? If a universe cannot be contained in 'nothing' then neither can this hypothetical continuum that contains the universe. So you must then define another continuum to contain it and so on and so on. Ultimately, just like in the cosmological argument, you must conclude that eventually there must be, in order to avoid infinite regression, a continuum that is not contained in anything. Defining that continuum to be God would be Pantheism. But if there is a possibility that there is a continuum that is not contained, then Occam would argue that it is most likely that the universes themselves are not contained within anything.

I understand what you are saying, the question; "where does the infinite creative mind God reside in?" cannot be answered with finite things like mathematics, analogies of bubbles within bubbles, multi-dimensions, or even quantum theory because these are things that we can see and interpret with our brain. Anything that has laws, or are governed by laws are all creations that reside IN God. As I keep saying; the finite cannot define the infinite, or become infinite, or fill infinite. Finite, no matter how large, no matter how fast it expands can never, ever fill infinite.

So the most accurate and proper description of infinite, and our Creator God is our mind. It is a tiny bit of God only within a finite body, a tent which makes it an individual. We can dream, imagine and create things in our mind throughout eternity and never fill it up, because our mind is of God, infinite. The things that we come up with, the dreams, the concepts are the finite.

You know how we say: "You have to be out of your mind!" when someone comes up with a bad or harmful idea, right? Well it's true, someone planning and implementing harmful crazy ideas like Agenda 21 is out of their mind and using only their physical brain. Communism is another good example, the idea is Christ-like, but taking God (our mind) out of the picture, well you see where it got them. Because it was a mindless act, using only our brain which is very limited. So when they seen it doesn't work, their brain freaked out because the plan itself is a good one and it should work, .. right? So what can the finite brain do? It attacks and blames itself, the other finite things around him. It's called 'pride'. "It has to work, .. even if we have to kill everyone on the planet!", this is why I keep pointing our Heavens Gate cult leader Marshal Applewhite, he is a 'perfect' example of a man out of his mind being lead by only his brain, what he THINKS is true, not what is absolute truth.

Absolute truth is defined in the Bible summed up in 'love'. "Love is patient, love is kind, does no wrong, is not rude like Odon (arian)," .. etc.

But where does this leaves us with the question regarding as to where the universe (or multi universes) are residing and expanding IN?

The universe is just simply expanding. It is finite in size and its size is greater than it was. That's all.

As I asked many times, I ask again; "Can you show me an example of something expanding, but only from the inside? Another word 'expanding' but not expanding 'into' anything?" You can use philosophy, quantum theory, the Theory of Relativity, art, song, whatever you wish, as long as we both can agree that this something is expanding (stretching, inflating etc.) only from the inside, but not from the outside, or into anything.

The most logical explanation is; "In God, the Eternal, All Powerful, Infinite Mind"

No, this is not the most logical explanation.

It's the absolute truth, but you/we cannot see this only with our physical brain no matter how much knowledge we accumulated because it doesn't compute. We have to sift through our memory storage with our spiritual mind, phrase the truth from all that we have experienced and learned and seen in life, and put it back in proper order, find the words in our brain to express this truth, and make the mouth say it, or our fingers to type it.

You see your human response, and you are one smart cookie! But because you cannot 'see' what I'm talking about, for you it is the most logical conclusion from your brains POV, .. that "No, this is not the most logical explanation."

We are dreams, concepts come to reality by ID, and the proof is that within each one of us a tiny piece of God, .. our 'mind'.

Our minds cannot be shown to be a tiny piece of God.

Sure it can, it is infinite for one, and create, dream up unlimited concepts (we can create a rock in it as big as the universe, then ten universes or 'known universes', and we can lift it and put it anywhere, no matter how far, or wide or high we want. Just try to do that with your brain controlling your body?

Stop thinking that your 'brain is it', that when that dies, you are gone. You are NOT your brain, the brain is just a control panel that receives and sends information from and to your body. It is your 'mind' that interprets this information, and which sends trillions of data throughout our body without the brain even being aware of most of it.

Here is the thing, .. most people limit the information in the brain, and use only what has been approved, or what their teachers, professors, ministers, parents approved in there, thus limiting their mind to only that. This is indoctrination, or brain washing, putting blockers like fear, pride, jealousy, discrimination, anything and everything to limit our mind from viewing and considering everything at once before we answer.

Like I said before about a simple uneducated grade school dropout playing basketball. Barely can spell, basic 3rd grade math skills, no Algebra, no trig, no physics, yet his mind can take him through very complex steps, duck under four arms trying to block his shot, glide, turn, and shoot, and swoosh! nothing but net. If he can do it, we all can.

But let's take a physics student who exceeds in every subject, from philosophy to quantum mechanics, knows relativistic theories backwards, has the complete knowledge of using the most sophisticated computer to figure any engineering problems, he knows probability and can chart possible outcomes, and would take the basketball, and start putting all the information into his laptop as to how he is going to make the shot?

OK he says; I have two guys on me, one is a foot taller than me, the other is quick as lightning with years of hard core gang basketball playing. The wind is blowing from the NW at 3, .. no 2.79 mph, the sun would be in this position, using these muscles and applying this amount of pressure, .. lower my heart rate, slow my breathing to such and such levels of oxygen, .. see what I mean? He would go crazy before he would even step on the court.

This is why comprehending infinity, mind, 'nothing' or our Creator God is so difficult just with our brain, it is next to impossible. Actually it is impossible because finite cannot explain the infinite. Only our infinite mind can take in the infinite.

You seem to be thinking of nothing as an object, a noun. The only way to make sense of nothing is as the negation of anything. When you say "That is nothing" you don't mean "That is this thing called nothing", because nothing cannot be a thing by definition. You mean "That is not any thing", or "That is nothing"

Yes, 'nothing' is an object, a very unique object like gravity, only unlike gravity that varies in power, 'nothing' is absolute. It doesn't get stronger or weaker as gravity does. As long as we don't confuse 'nothing' with 'something', in it's absolute form it is as powerful as the total sum of 'everything' that has ever been created. The best part is, I can prove this in a simple experiment and logic. But of course, .. who the hell cares, it's nothing right? Yet it possesses the equivalence of the total sum of everything we know and have observed. I mean that is big, wouldn't you say?

This is nonsense. Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothingness is the state of being nothing; the state of nonexistence of anything.

The absence of anything is a void, or a vacuum. It is the absence of most things, but it does not describe nothing. Like I said, you don't take things out to get nothing. Nothing IS exactly that, 'nothing'. And yes, nothing is a state of being nothing if you mean as an apple is a state of being an apple? That would be correct. So now you know that it would be impossible for the universe to expand IN nothing, because a universe, or even a speck of gravity cannot be contained in nothing. So what is your universe expanding in?

It is you guys who keep saying that; "it is expanding into nothing, or that it is NOT expanding into anything", .. right?

The 'nothing' is also a creation of God, so it too exists in God as everything else does that has been created.

If this were true, then the following syllogism would be valid:

1. A sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than being in heaven.
3. Therefore, a sandwich is better than being in heaven.

This syllogism is not valid only because you are not allowed to treat nothing as something that exists.

Why would a sandwich be better than 'nothing'? I like 'nothing' exactly the way it is, and what it is. I may prefer an orange over a lemon, but that doesn't mean I would want all lemon to disappear or never have been (preference)? We are talking about definitions, like the definition of 'nothing', not preferences described through syllogism. Nothing exists, and IMO is as valuable and important as everything that exists in its entirety. Another word; nothing = the total sum of everything, which includes 'nothing'. Only how you understand this is very important, because when we include 'nothing' with 'everything' that is a a finite, or a physical view. But my statement nothing = the total sum of everything is a spiritual, or can be only understood with your mind, not to be limited by the brain. Nothing exists on its own like everything else in existence, and it doesn't interfere with anything else in existence.

I am NOT playing with words here, and if you have even the basic education you should be able to see that. I am not well educated to be able to play with words with you guys. What you see here is confidence, because I can honestly prove the existence of 'nothing' just as easily as I can prove the existence of any other obvious things around us.

I await your proof.

Oh boy, .. so nothing I said made any sense to you regarding the true definition of 'nothing'? You want to meet somewhere, you and whoever else here and I will show and explain, and answer any questions? Name the place and the time, you guys want my address here, I'll even cook up some Hungarian dishes. I can promise we'll have fun even if we may not agree on too many things!

Yeah right, .. like that will be the day, .. in my dreams right?

Because of my knowledge and understanding of 'nothing', I can honestly tell you that the Universe is NOT getting bigger, and it's filled with trillions of galaxies of stars, so I wouldn't say it's mostly empty either.

You disagree with the majority of cosmologists. The universe, they say, is getting bigger. Please demonstrate that they are wrong.

How about them proving to me that they are right? They make this claim, prove it? Show me an example of something expanding. inflating, stretching that can only be detected and measured from the inside, not from the outside? Something that expanding, yet not INTO anything, and yet creating more and more measurable space within itself?

Otherwise I ask that cosmologists retract their unverifiable religious claims. I mean come on, measuring the Doppler effects of light? Really?

By terrestrial standards, the majority of the universe is a whole lot emptier than what we experience. Liquid water, for example, has a density of roughly 10²⁸ molecules per m³. Whereas, the intergalactic void contains less than one molecule per cubic meter.

Thank you, and if we magnify our body enough, we too would see us a lot less denser or emptier then we presently experience, right?

Thanks again my friend.