Summations Only

Who says the Universe ain't an object? Why can't it be the object that is all objects?

Abstraction only furthers the objectification.

Nope. Doesn't follow.ABE: I mean, your conclusion doesn't follow. Non-objects are a part of the universe too, even tho the universe contains all objects.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : reduced ambiguity

The Redshift doesn't tell you what the Universe is expanding into. And that's a nonsense question anyways because the Universe is everything so there can't be anything "else" for it to expand into.What the Redshift shows is that the Universe is expanding. It takes inference to get to the singularty. But ya know what, it works with the math of the physics behind it so it does seem to be a correct inference.

The Universe contains all things. Any thing that it would be expanding into would also be some thing that is a part of the Universe, and thus subject to that expansion. There cannot be anything outside of the Universe for which it to expand into. Well hang on, I'm not saying that the model is most definately the truth. I'm just explaining to you what the model says. Even if the model is wrong, we can still talk about what the model does and does not say. That's fine, but all that really means is that the word "expand" is not totally sufficient for describing the behavior of the Universe in this model. All points in the Universe have the distance between them getting larger. That doesn't require something outside of the universe to exist.

I think you accidentally a word. Well, that's what the most current and best model shows. Pardon me for not just taking your word that our smartest scientists are dumbasses. The math works, and the observations are consistent with the model. That's all we can really expect at this point.

Dude. Please. This is embarassing. An open system is not open in the sense that windows are opened.