This is one of the ten indeterminate questions. I think all schools of Buddhism, at least sutra based, accept this.
Buddha wouldn't answer questions about these topics and said trying to sort this out one way or the other, for sure, is something that's not conducive to the path, basically, and will make one bewildered and confused.
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
Ten indeterminate questions
As a scientist I see that as a bit different from e.g. using infinite time and space in physics. There you need something for your maths, and it is easier to work with infinite time and space than finite time and space in most situations.
So, I don't think one needs to worry about getting bewildered and confused just doing physics with an infinite time or space, don't think he is talking about that.
You are not really trying to prove that the universe is infinite, just that it makes the maths easier to assume it is.
But if you were to get really worked up and invest a lot in it in whether the universe is finite or infinite - I think it is pretty clear that there is no way that we could definitively prove through science that space is infinite or time likewise.
Because any theory we came up with can only be based on our local knowledge of the universe where we are and over the time period we can access with our telescopes, through archaeology, studying meteorites etc.
E.g. if you ask - is it infinite, and you say "yes in my theory the universe is infinite in time and space". Fine. But if you then ask, is it as old as e.g. 10 followed by a million zeroes years - how could any of our data we get over mere billions of years prove that? And what then about a number of years that is so fast that the number 1 followed by a million zeroes is just the number of zeros in the number of years?
I.e. (for mathematicians): 10^ (10^(10^6) ) years?
And for mathematicians that is a tiny number compared with infinity, what about 10^(10^...10) with a tower of 10^10 exponents? All that is still really tiny compared with some huge numbers you can define easily in maths.
So - is the universe as old as that? Or older? Or younger? Or so old that no matter how high the tower of exponents, no matter if you use super-exponents or some of the special rapidly growing functions designed just for defining enormously large numbers in maths, it is still older than that?
So as a scientist, well I can see that a question like that is one that would just get you going round and round in circles with no chance of a conclusion.
And as for proving that it is finite - as a scientist - even if you some day found a way to show that the universe as far as you know it is finite, in both space and time, how can you say that this is all that there is?
As for e.g. Stephen Hawkings idea of a universe coming from nothing, with time also beginning then - it might just be that it seems from our point of view to come from nothing, I don't think that rules out a previous universe as seen from another perspective. It's based on taking ideas of quantum mechanics to an extreme situation beyond anything we either know about or can test.
And even if he was right there's the question - how then did we come to take birth in such a universe? In terms of karma - actions and their effects, it might be that it is due to previous rebirths in other universes that we are reborn here.
And anyway it is just one of many ideas about origins of the universe. For instance Roger Penrose thinks that our universe originated from a previous universe that expanded for ever until there was no matter left, just photons - and then it "lost track" of its size and became the big bang through a process called "conformal mapping" which I rather like :). Conformal cyclic cosmology
Are many other ideas also. Ideas that universes like ours split off from others inside black holes - that that's what is really going on when black holes form, that inside, a new universe is being created, a new baby universe that then expands like ours. See Black-hole cosmology
Lots of other ideas Eternal inflation
Cyclic model
Multiverse
And how we could ever settle this I don't know :). The conformal mapping idea has empirical tests, through observation of the three degree background radiation, Conformal cyclic cosmology - empirical tests. I suppose conceivably we might find some empirical evidence of what happened before our universe, not impossible but something that would take a lot of establishing.
I don't think Stephen Hawkings idea is more strongly supported than the others, just one that got widely publicized and so more widely known amongst the general public than the others because of his very successful book on it.
Buddha wouldn't answer questions about these topics and said trying to sort this out one way or the other, for sure, is something that's not conducive to the path, basically, and will make one bewildered and confused.
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
Ten indeterminate questions
As a scientist I see that as a bit different from e.g. using infinite time and space in physics. There you need something for your maths, and it is easier to work with infinite time and space than finite time and space in most situations.
So, I don't think one needs to worry about getting bewildered and confused just doing physics with an infinite time or space, don't think he is talking about that.
You are not really trying to prove that the universe is infinite, just that it makes the maths easier to assume it is.
But if you were to get really worked up and invest a lot in it in whether the universe is finite or infinite - I think it is pretty clear that there is no way that we could definitively prove through science that space is infinite or time likewise.
Because any theory we came up with can only be based on our local knowledge of the universe where we are and over the time period we can access with our telescopes, through archaeology, studying meteorites etc.
E.g. if you ask - is it infinite, and you say "yes in my theory the universe is infinite in time and space". Fine. But if you then ask, is it as old as e.g. 10 followed by a million zeroes years - how could any of our data we get over mere billions of years prove that? And what then about a number of years that is so fast that the number 1 followed by a million zeroes is just the number of zeros in the number of years?
I.e. (for mathematicians): 10^ (10^(10^6) ) years?
And for mathematicians that is a tiny number compared with infinity, what about 10^(10^...10) with a tower of 10^10 exponents? All that is still really tiny compared with some huge numbers you can define easily in maths.
So - is the universe as old as that? Or older? Or younger? Or so old that no matter how high the tower of exponents, no matter if you use super-exponents or some of the special rapidly growing functions designed just for defining enormously large numbers in maths, it is still older than that?
So as a scientist, well I can see that a question like that is one that would just get you going round and round in circles with no chance of a conclusion.
And as for proving that it is finite - as a scientist - even if you some day found a way to show that the universe as far as you know it is finite, in both space and time, how can you say that this is all that there is?
ABOUT PARTICULAR IDEAS FOR ORIGINS OF OUR UNIVERSE
As for e.g. Stephen Hawkings idea of a universe coming from nothing, with time also beginning then - it might just be that it seems from our point of view to come from nothing, I don't think that rules out a previous universe as seen from another perspective. It's based on taking ideas of quantum mechanics to an extreme situation beyond anything we either know about or can test.
And even if he was right there's the question - how then did we come to take birth in such a universe? In terms of karma - actions and their effects, it might be that it is due to previous rebirths in other universes that we are reborn here.
And anyway it is just one of many ideas about origins of the universe. For instance Roger Penrose thinks that our universe originated from a previous universe that expanded for ever until there was no matter left, just photons - and then it "lost track" of its size and became the big bang through a process called "conformal mapping" which I rather like :). Conformal cyclic cosmology
Are many other ideas also. Ideas that universes like ours split off from others inside black holes - that that's what is really going on when black holes form, that inside, a new universe is being created, a new baby universe that then expands like ours. See Black-hole cosmology
Lots of other ideas Eternal inflation
Cyclic model
Multiverse
And how we could ever settle this I don't know :). The conformal mapping idea has empirical tests, through observation of the three degree background radiation, Conformal cyclic cosmology - empirical tests. I suppose conceivably we might find some empirical evidence of what happened before our universe, not impossible but something that would take a lot of establishing.
I don't think Stephen Hawkings idea is more strongly supported than the others, just one that got widely publicized and so more widely known amongst the general public than the others because of his very successful book on it.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0