The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

[Paradigmer]

The crux of this OP with the sunrise example is to illustrate: “The entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.”

[Pattern-chaser]

First, I assume you use the word "illusion" in its most common form, that your favoured dictionary describes as follows:

Something that looks or seems different from what it is : something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real. [Link to dictionary entry]

By this definition, there is no illusion. I.e. there is no perceptual mistake or misunderstanding that seems to show us "something that is false or not real". What we see, from either viewpoint, or both, is actual (as far as we know), and not an illusion or misperception. We see two different views from two different viewing points; this should not surprise us. It's what we should expect.

We have considered two different points-of-observation, one in my garden, and the other outside the Solar System, looking in. Unsurprisingly, we see different views from these different vantage points. We can even explain one view in terms of the other. But there is no illusion (as defined above) and no paradox either.

The paradox of the morning rising Sun appears to the Earth-bound observers to float up like a rising balloon from the east horizon while the Earth appears stationary, qualifies the dictionary definition for illusion on "Something that looks or seems different from what it is : something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real.".

I'm not going to say all the same things again. Consider this:

• You are standing in front of me, facing me. You see an image of me that includes my face.
• Now you move around behind me, but still facing me. Now you see an image that includes the back of my head, but not my face.

As a result of your second observation, are you going to assert the 'illusion' that I am, or have become, face-less?

A different perspective reveals a different view. Our experience of life, if nothing else, confirms that this is normal, expected, real and actual, and not an illusion.

[Pattern-chaser]

The crux of this OP with the sunrise example is to illustrate: “The entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.”

Yes, I know. ... And yet I see no evidence at all that your speculation reflects the real and actual universe.

[Paradigmer]

I'm not going to say all the same things again. Consider this:

• You are standing in front of me, facing me. You see an image of me that includes my face.
• Now you move around behind me, but still facing me. Now you see an image that includes the back of my head, but not my face.

As a result of your second observation, are you going to assert the 'illusion' that I am, or have become, face-less?

A different perspective reveals a different view. Our experience of life, if nothing else, confirms that this is normal, expected, real and actual, and not an illusion.

This perspective example of yours is non sequitur for relating to the relative motion illusion.

The believers of geocentrism insist the Sun actually moves as per se from the perspective of an actually stationary Earth, which in fact are the illusions of knowledge stemmed from its delusion perceiving the relative motion illusion.

Nonetheless, am conceded not able to convince you with the different perspective arguments you are insisting.

[Paradigmer]

The crux of this OP with the sunrise example is to illustrate: “The entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.”

Yes, I know. ... And yet I see no evidence at all that your speculation reflects the real and actual universe.

I have no proof at all concerning the real and actual universe.

However, I do claim numerous proofs and evidence that reflect the observable universe of the cosmos is subliminally paradoxical, these are as per se with the apparently perceived natural phenomena from the macrocosms to the microcosms.

These are elaborated in the UVS case studies.

For those interested to explore these evaluations of the listed natural phenomena with its grounded theory, please take a moment to start with the "Preface" of the UVS treatise, which should show readers the inroads.

To further explore the philosophical insights of these UVS case studies, readers could explore "The scientific revolution of the UVS research".

[Paradigmer]

This is the correct link to the "The scientific revolution of the UVS research".

My apology for this mistake in the previous post.

[Pattern-chaser]

The crux of this OP with the sunrise example is to illustrate: “The entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.”

Yes, I know. ... And yet I see no evidence at all that your speculation reflects the real and actual universe.

I have no proof at all concerning the real and actual universe.

However, I do claim numerous proofs and evidence that reflect the observable universe of the cosmos is subliminally paradoxical, these are as per se with the apparently perceived natural phenomena from the macrocosms to the microcosms.

These are elaborated in the UVS case studies.

For those interested to explore these evaluations of the listed natural phenomena with its grounded theory, please take a moment to start with the "Preface" of the UVS treatise, which should show readers the inroads.

To further explore the philosophical insights of these UVS case studies, readers could explore "The scientific revolution of the UVS research".

I can't make your links work. Even if I google "UVS studies", the pages found won't open in my browser. Sorry.

[Pattern-chaser]

The believers of geocentrism insist the Sun actually moves as per se from the perspective of an actually stationary Earth...

From the perspective you describe - i.e. from the observation-point you describe - the Sun does actually move in that way. It is not an illusion, just a view from a particular vantage point. Other vantage points offer different views, of course, but all observations from all points-of-view are valid and actual. Some views may be more useful than others, but that's a separate issue.

...which in fact are the illusions of knowledge stemmed from its delusion perceiving the relative motion illusion.

No, there are no illusions. There may be misunderstandings in interpreting our observations of actuality, but that too is a separate issue.

[Atla]

The paradoxical effect of the cosmos is a subliminal natural effect that misleads people in its states of delusion.

In the observable universe, this effect subliminally renders various forms of natural cognitive paradox by negating the observations of natural phenomena in a typical obfuscated manner.

A resolved example in modern astronomy for illustrating how a cognitive paradox subliminally negates its actuality, is the perceptive with the transcendental perspective on of how the Sun appears in its localized perception to be rising in the east from the horizon.

It is merely a perception on a rotating spheroidal Earth that renders the relative motion illusion of sunrise in its delusion.

But there is a much simpler way to explain this 'illusion', than positing a paradoxical effect inherent to the entire cosmos:

We are limited beings, who evolved to survive on the surface of this planet. Our limited brains/minds evolved for everyday survival, not omniscience. For omniscience, we would have to have evolved much larger and more complex brains, probably infinitely large/complex ones, which wasn't evolutionary feasible.

So our brains cut corners, for everyday survival we don't have to know that the more general understanding is that everything is in motion and the Earth is spinning. It's a pretty efficient approximation that the ground is stationary and the visible stars are moving around it, and that's it.

[Paradigmer]

But there is a much simpler way to explain this 'illusion', than positing a paradoxical effect inherent to the entire cosmos:

That sunrise example was meant as an illustration for elucidating the paradoxical effect of the cosmos.

And it has the intention to show how the entire observable universe is subliminally paradoxical.

We are limited beings, who evolved to survive on the surface of this planet. Our limited brains/minds evolved for everyday survival, not omniscience. For omniscience, we would have to have evolved much larger and more complex brains, probably infinitely large/complex ones, which wasn't evolutionary feasible.

We indeed are limited beings.

Nonetheless, we do not necessary need to be omniscience to correctly understand the actualities of the cosmos.

The UVS treatise could show how this could be done, which the methodology is elaborated in "Overviews of the UVS research".

So our brains cut corners, for everyday survival we don't have to know that the more general understanding is that everything is in motion and the Earth is spinning. It's a pretty efficient approximation that the ground is stationary and the visible stars are moving around it, and that's it.

This is so true.

However, we all also aspire to know how the cosmos actually work.

[Paradigmer]

I can't make your links work. Even if I google "UVS studies", the pages found won't open in my browser. Sorry.

This occasionally happens without any warning. My apology.

Just check a minute ago, and the website was found as up and running again.

[Atla]

Nonetheless, we do not necessary need to be omniscience to correctly understand the actualities of the cosmos.

How do you know that everything moving and the Earth spinning, or a nested vortical hypersphere-structured subliminally paradoxical cosmos, aren't just the next illusions? Maybe we limited humans are infinitely far away from the actualities.

When I apply Occam's razor I really see no reason to assume this paradoxical nature to the cosmos. The idea seems sufficient that our limited brains/minds, shaped by evolution, simply use efficient simplifications, approximations.

[Atla]

.

Although I think there could be something to the nested hypesphere "vortex", I think QM naturally points towards something like an ininitely (extradimensionally) nested hypespheroid structure that isn't literally a vortex but can be said to have central point, an "eye". I've been searching for that "eye" for a long time.

[Paradigmer]

Nonetheless, we do not necessary need to be omniscience to correctly understand the actualities of the cosmos.

How do you know that everything moving and the Earth spinning, or a nested vortical hypersphere-structured subliminally paradoxical cosmos, aren't just the next illusions? Maybe we limited humans are infinitely far away from the actualities.

When I apply Occam's razor I really see no reason to assume this paradoxical nature to the cosmos. The idea seems sufficient that our limited brains/minds, shaped by evolution, simply use efficient simplifications, approximations.

If you are contended with the day to day pragmatism, then "simply use efficient simplifications, approximations" would suffice.

The very reason to assume this paradoxical nature of the cosmos is because the science delusions of theoretical physics with the intrinsically flawed scientific method is definitely staggering.

And humanity could be better off by understanding the natural negations of the cosmos as illustrated in the UVS case studies.

[Paradigmer]

.

Although I think there could be something to the nested hypesphere "vortex", I think QM naturally points towards something like an ininitely (extradimensionally) nested hypespheroid structure that isn't literally a vortex but can be said to have central point, an "eye". I've been searching for that "eye" for a long time.

To be more specific, the archetypal structure could be considered as a multidimensional nested vortical hypersphere that is intrinsically vortexing in the microcosms as well as the macrocosms throughout the cosmos.

And this "hypespheroid structure" in the UVS treatise is postulated as the variants of transformed tori that are formed in a paradigm of vortical transmutations.

The UVS treatise illustrates there indeed have an "eye" in every microcosm as well as every macrocosm in the natural world.

And the understanding of this "eye" is absolutely essential.