Something that could be mentioned here is that in string theory, there are two mathematical models that predict the same physical observations of the whole universe. One is "as large as we think the universe is", about the 74 billion light years circumference predicted in Weeks' model. The other is as much smaller than the Planck Length as that huge size is larger than it! Both mathematics are just as good to explain what "we" see.
The idea that our universe could be BOTH incomprehensibly tiny and also incomprehensibly big, at the same time, could be taken as evidence for cognitive science of mathematics and against the mechanistic paradigm. We might just be talking about projections of human senses when we are talking about the so-called universe. If that is not the case, then, we would seem to be CHOOSING whether the universe is utterly huge or utterly tiny, and it would fluctuate between these based on our choice. This seems wrong to me, I do not think humans should be so powerful. ;-)
- I put some of that on the string theory page. I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense, but I put it there anyway. :) Very difficult thing to simplify. A
Should the distinction between the 'physics' version and 'religion' version of cosmology be more clear? The English version of the article makes the distinction more clear and subdivides the article into different sections. Any thoughts? -Midorihana- (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)