I fall much more in the former.

I really don't see why it couldn't. Relative to a non-fixed object, you can make it arbitrarily large, correct? In that perspective it would seem to be absurd if the universe were *not* infinite... Though, we are certainly both fully unqualified to give any opinion of any value on this topic.

Math certainly is the correct thing to use, as an infinite space is very much a mathematical concept. *If* the universe is infinite, what we could define as "expanding" certainly leads to no paradox. You are trying to disprove that the universe is "infinite" by treating it like a finite object, that's not how it works.

(The definition of the *smallest* infinity is a one-to-one mapping with the naturals. The most relevant property of an unbounded metric space, which is what I think we are talking about here as "infinity", is that, taking any object and real value distance, you will find an element with greater distance.)

There are plenty of mathematical infinities to work with, in real life. We do not live in discrete world, so, that is necessarily true.

(ex: it would require *infinite* energy to increase the velocity of an object with mass to the speed of light.)

Okay, there's exactly 0 point in arguing over something we haven't defined properly.

With "infinite universe" I imply the concept of the universe being an unbounded metric space - everyone agrees upon that, yes?

we live in the matrix😉

Maybe not even that far from the thruth

 I can't very well be right or wrong when i asked a question. ^^

Thruth is, we don't have enough information to know yet. 

Though i wonder... if we have been "programmed" with chemical processes that determine our decisions, we wouldn't be more than a computer program. What distinguishes us is that we can process new information. How that works is the interesting part. A new concept, like quantum mechanics. How do our brains go about discovering different ways to think, to see reality, to discover? That, i believe, separates us currently from programs. We can accept new variables in a way a program can only accept the ones it was instructed to.

Though, there has to be a logic to the madness, and most likely there is, though we don't know how yet. The "secret" of counciousness may be there.

Until we find what that is people can relax about the machine invasions as machines are still stupid and only do what you tell them to.

Edit: Sorry, just noticed you already gotba better answer. Was still catching up with the thread.

The universe is infinite as far as we know. We can only measure how far the light goes, but it's not like it ends as far as we know. The light we can see ends. On the side of the big bang it gets so bright we can't see past it. Those are the "barriers". They only mean our inability to see past them.

Besides... it would only beg the question of what is in the other side then? 

I doubt our religious friends are reading, but the only honest answer to that question is "i don't know".

I think you're underestimating programs quite a bit, here, and overestimate humans. Machine learning is fully capable discovering patterns/paths to solve problems in manners that the program isn't directly instructed to. Very, very general LSTM machine vision programs are capable of distinguishing a set of 5 newly introduced objects (let's say - cat, dog, mug chair and pencil-case) with 80% accuracy using only 3 specific data samples, after fine-tuning *themselves* to recognize quicker with entirely separate datasets. That's a much better result than any specific recognition program humans could attempt to write, the computer thus able to create efficient methods to work with largely by itself.

Humans are also very much limited to the input we receive (be it sound, audio, touch, etc...), our sensors being currently much more capable than what a machine has to work with. Everything we create stems from this input, one way or another. Yes, we are able to apply it creatively, but again, that's something machine-learning can achieve quite nicely, as well.

Hmm... well, you have shown alot of knowledge and i only had one year of programming learning, and i don't keep up with the latest. But, even if a machine can recognise patterns if programmed to do so, it should not be able to come up with what to do with them, if not already pre-programmed aswell, from what i know. Basically, they have no initiative of their own. Whatever a program does, even wich parameters it uses to recognise the patterns and make a database have all been pre-programmed. 

Of course, at the end of the day, we may discover that we are the same way and our IF's are wether chemical A is more prevelant than B.

My intention was not to say humans are better, but until we know what gives us conscience, we can't replicate it in a machine/program. If we do... yeah time to panic.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a planet once existed in the universe, but its light reflection depleted before human beings could measure it, did it ever actually exist? If giant stone structures exist where an old culture once lived, yet very little logical evidence of these people physically constructing them exists, did they really build them?

We simply may never know. Which brings into question, what is important and what is not, and does knowing anything other than the few things necessary to survive even matter?
As far as I'm concerned, what matters is a personal decision. If you want to search for as many answers as possible, you are free to. If you simply wish to survive and fill your time with casual fun, that's another choice.

People seem to look for answers because it tends to lead to what we call progress, things like micro processors for example. This isn't really a surprise since this seems to be what the universe and everything it has created eventually tries to accomplish in some form over time. Cramming as much information into as small and efficient a body/device as possible. Efficiency speaks for itself, no matter the underlying means and purpose. Considering life is about survival first and foremost, and the Earth will one day become inhabitable, figuring out how to leave and where to go, seems very natural in terms of wanting to learn about space and devices that can help us accomplish that.

This is why robotic AI actually makes a lot of sense. Earth is dangerous enough to humans, never mind space and beyond. A being with our intelligence or more, with non organic bodies that require non organic energy, can explore space on a level we could not even fathom. All these worries of AI robots killing off humanity is nonsense if it was given the proper design and means to leave. Why destroy humanity if it can just fly to the moon or mars etc, and build, live, and expand there? If AI can end up where some have envisioned, we may be as good as organic life get's on this planet, using robotics and AI to continue our existence for as long as living on Earth is viable.

What comes after death? Well I can't remember what I 'was before' I was born, so I'm not even going to try and comprehend what will happen after. If it matters, I have no way of factually knowing, and for all I know, it doesn't matter.

I am merely a construct of your mind. Asking me questions results in a new, perfect dimension where you never became self-aware.