We’re all trying to measure the vastness of the universe using a single framework, but what if we measure its spatial dimensions using a different metric: time?
Let’s think of the universe as ‘potentially infinite’. I came to this conclusion through principles such as the ‘equivalence principle’ and others underlying the ‘theories of relativity’, including the law of conservation of information.
The crux of the matter is that the universe, like the matter within it, must exhibit dualism. If particles can exist both as corpuscles and as waves, then the universe must be ‘closed on itself’ and ‘potentially infinite’, experiencing its own time at every moment.
This ‘dualism’ also grants the universe the right to consist of ‘entangled particles’.
As for measuring the size of the universe in terms of time and its ‘potential infinity’, if this is true, then in some remote areas the universe is potentially very young or even unborn, and exists in a singularity. Conversely, in other parts of the distant cosmos it is ancient, spanning countless trillions of years.
Theoretically, you could discern the age of the universe in space; some galaxies should appear younger than expected, while others may appear older.
Why do we use ‘potential’ instead of ‘infinite’? Because the universe still has a finite value for its maximum time. In some remote regions of space, there exists a “maximum” duration of its existence.
We can express the ‘current temporal age of the universe’, not just what we observe from our spatial viewpoint. However, we cannot exactly put into words the “full spatial extent of the universe.” Somewhere there, space loses meaning in the absence of matter, and elsewhere it becomes meaningless at a singularity point.
At any time and at any point in its existence it is impossible to express the spatial dimensions of the universe. Yet these dimensions have potentially no boundaries, indicating that the universe is ‘potentially infinite’.
In relation to ‘being isolated in oneself’ this concept is easier to understand. The constant here is that if there is something in the universe, then the universe essentially exists within that thing.
By the same logic, the ‘center of the universe’ would be a point of minimum entropy. However, detecting them is not feasible, at least not according to the ‘principle of existence everywhere’ – equivalence. In practice, this point would be observed everywhere and at any given time, and from any spatial perspective the universe would look flat.
Where does the universe have its ‘own time’?
To address this, let’s ask a few more questions. What is the ‘real distance’ from the center of a black hole to a point outside it? It is considered infinite, or better said, immeasurable. We can only refer to it as ‘angular distance’.
Now what if we try to measure the ‘real distance’ from the center of one black hole to the center of another black hole?
It seems that the value would have to exceed ‘infinity’, which would formally equate to ‘eternity’, thus introducing an ‘additional time vector’ into the universe.
At the same time, this time vector traverses us, but not the entire universe, indicating that it does not belong directly to the universe, and that the universe therefore possesses its ‘own time’. In this scenario, only we exist in the ‘difference’, and not in the universe.
The universe contains all these vectors simultaneously, collectively, not individually, and not in their mutual differences – contrary to our experience. We can also possess the ‘macroscopic’ and ‘microscopic’ arrows of time.
Nevertheless, the size of the universe remains only ‘potentially infinite’ if we consider its actual age in relation to its ‘own time’. Unfortunately, the true age of the universe eludes us, and the perceived age is not authentic from our point of view.
In summary, the size of the universe knows no bounds, neither in space nor in future time. From any observational point of view, the size of the universe will be consistently inaccurate in the past.