Strange

Maybe DannyTR is one of them.

I don’t understand. There are not two things here (A and B). Just one: the proof of the uncountability of the power set.

The cardinality of the power set of N is [math]|\mathbb R|[/math]. It is not known if this is equal to [math]\aleph_1[/math] or not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum) But I don't see where you think the problem is. Why do you think this is wrong?

How is probability in quantum theory any different from classical probability? I don't think you can go from a probability to a wave function. I can only imagine that you find it deficient because you don't understand it. In the end, it doesn't matter. The model works; it correctly predicts the probability of, for example, finding an electron in the appropriate orbital of an atom. Is this supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum argument? It isn't at all clear what you mean. But it is completely pointless because the fact that integers are infinite is inherent in their definition. It is a hypothesis. It has not been confirmed, and I'm not sure it can be. But it does solve some problems. And "beginning to admit" seems odd for an idea that goes back to 1973, with origins around the beginning of the last century. As far as I know there is no such thing as a boson with negative energy. Do you have a reference for this? And, sadly, none of this seems relevant to the topic of the thread.

You could check this (and each other component of your calculation) by working backwards: you know that energy is conserved (I hope) so work out from that what the velocity should be and see if it is different from what you calculate. As you haven’t posted your calculations here (an illegible image doesn’t count) I don’t see how anyone can find your error for you. It looks like, once again, you have created something more complicated than you are capable of analysing. Why do you do that? And why do you expect others to find your errors for you?

What program? And how is computer program relevant to the universe? edit: just read the irrelevant nonsense in the previous post. So ignore those questions

I don't see why. But even if it is, that doesn't tell us about the real universe. The physical extent of the universe isn't defined by what some subset of human philosopher's believe. More baseless assertions. Do you any evidence for anything you claim? Or is it going to be one baseless claim after another. You might as well claim that the moon is populated by invisible unicorns. It has as much evidence as your other claims.

Even if that is true (which I don't accept) it would be, as you say, a problem with the model. The universe doesn't care about our models.

The measure problem is, as you said, a mathematical problem. It tells us nothing about the nature of the universe. That isn't how science (or reality) works. As you are unable to provide any evidence for your claims I will report the thread for closure.

You had another thread where you asked people to find your error. Is this the same thing? Or, if you are claiming that energy is not conserved, you have posted this in the wrong place. Which is it?

Not of a 2D surface, no. For someone who appears to be almost completely ignorant of mathematics, it probably isn't a good idea to try using mathematics to argue that the universe must be finite. Let's stick to the science, instead. It depends on the topology. For example, measurements of the overall curvature of the universe show that it is flat, within the limits of measurement. That would imply that the universe is infinite (sorry, Danny!). But, it might not for at least two reasons: The curvature might just be smaller than we can measure (for example, draw a triangle on the surface of the Earth; if you make the triangle big enough the sum of the angles will be more than 180º. Now imagine being on the surface of planet that is so huge that however big a triangle you can practically make, the angles still add up to 180º as near as you can measure. It's not flat but you can't detect the curvature.) The topology could be such that it is flat but still finite. For example, the surface of a torus (donut shape) is geometrically flat even though it is finite. What this means is that if you draw a triangle on the surface of a torus, the angles will add to 180º - unintuitive, I know.

No. The best analogy is the surface of the Earth; the 2D surface has a finite area but no edges. Extend that to three dimensions (not easy to visualise!) and you have a finite but unbounded volume. You can also think of it as a "Pacman universe": if you go far enough in one direction you end up coming in from the there side.

But you can’t say there is a lack of “absolute infinity” without evidence that the universe is finite. You have not yet provided that evidence. Well, it is good that you admit your Ignorance of the subject you are discussing. And hopefully you are willing to learn. I would suggest you start a thread on the subject. In part because I am going to suggest this thread is closed as you are unable to follow the rules.

You do know that in modern cosmology, even if the universe is finite it has no boundary ... don’t you?

There is no proof against it either. What evidence do you have for your claim? If you don't provide some evidence in the next post then I will report this thread to the moderators.

Don't be silly. The universe might not be infinite. We don't have enough information to "prove" it either way. (And science doesn't really prove anything.) But you are the one making a definitive claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence. Can you do that?

The universe may be infinite.

How do you know that?

Like the integers, then.

As we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite, this would be premature.

What does that mean? It is gibberish. Yes. That is the definition of them being infinite. You keep repeating this claim. Where is the evidence?

By that "logic", the natural numbers can't be infinite because I can count from 1 to 10. (I can count further than that, by the way.)

Don't lie. You have already been told, by a moderator, that you are allowed to tell us. What you are NOT allowed to do is just keep saying "I have this great idea, but I'm not going to tell you what it is." Also, it is very frustrating when you jump randomly from one thing to another without answering questions about the first one. And then ignoring answers to your questions. This is supposed to be a dialogue, not just a series of random (and often incorrect) objections from you. For example, what does "gravity bound to empty space" mean?

It is not really an extraordinary claim, just surprising at the time (nearly one hundred years ago - people should be very used to the idea by now). But, even if it is remarkable, it has remarkably good evidence for it. Nothing needs to be taken on faith. Then it isn't science. Don't know and don't care. That is philosophy, not science. But actually, we don't know they are the same everywhere. It is a good working assumption but it needs to be tested. Most tests so far are consistent with this, but there is some very slight evidence that some people claim could mean that some constants, for example, are not the same everywhere. We won't know until you tell us what it is. And as you are not willing to do that, the question is moot.