Socrates to sandal maker: How can you possibly make what you call sandals, and even claim to wear a pair, when you can't even give me the one and only True definition for the Sandal?creation wrote: ↑December 28th, 2019, 6:34 am By the way, the very reason why you and countless others are still so confused, bewildered, and dumbstruck on things regarding the Universe, Itself, is because you do not even know how to define the Universe.
There is ONLY One True definition and and One True meaning for the word 'Universe' and that is the One that fits PERFECTLY with what the Universe, Itself, actually IS, obviously.
The Infinite Universe
- Bluemist
- Posts: 129
- Joined: November 15th, 2009, 10:11 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
No, or I do not like to.
To me, either words stand on their own, or really there in no use in saying them.
Often a large part of what is being discussed is indeed the definitions of words. [/quote]creation wrote:In that they cannot even define the simple word Universe yet. How could people have proper discussion about something that they cannot even define what it is yet?
This is a bit like discussing/arguing about whether God exists or not? I wonder, and ask; If you cannot even define the word 'God', then what is it that you are actually discussing/arguing about exactly?
That is one thing and seems perfectly reasonable to me. But discussing/arguing about if some thing labeled like, for example, 'God' actually exists or not, without ever knowing or even defining what that 'thing' could even be, is a completely other thing.
Yes.
If they cannot define 'God', and align that definition with all the other definitions for all the other words being used, to form one coherent crystal clear picture or an ambiguous, irrefutable story/fact of things, then I would regard all of those people as being somewhat confused and bewildered.
For the moment yes, but this is because I am not sure where you are going to take this now.
What does 'exist' mean in this regard? Does a 'unicorn' for example exist in this definition you gave? In other words do things that do not and/or can not exist in actual physical terms classed as 'exist' also?
By the way, 'arguments', to me, are not something to be solved. Arguments can be something, which solves problems, themselves. Either an 'argument' is sound and valid, and therefore irrefutable and not able to be disputed, or they are not, and thus quite often disputable, and disputed.
No.
I have just observed quite often in so called "scientific writings" words similar to, "In the beginning", "At the start of the Universe", "When the Universe began", "Shortly after the start of the Universe", et cetera.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
But who has said the one and True definition cannot be obtained, and given?Bluemist wrote: ↑December 29th, 2019, 6:28 pmSocrates to sandal maker: How can you possibly make what you call sandals, and even claim to wear a pair, when you can't even give me the one and only True definition for the Sandal?creation wrote: ↑December 28th, 2019, 6:34 am By the way, the very reason why you and countless others are still so confused, bewildered, and dumbstruck on things regarding the Universe, Itself, is because you do not even know how to define the Universe.
There is ONLY One True definition and and One True meaning for the word 'Universe' and that is the One that fits PERFECTLY with what the Universe, Itself, actually IS, obviously.
If someone has ever said that, then they would be suggesting that they know the one and only True knowledge of things.
Does socrates ever give the, so called, ' "sandal" maker ' a chance to provide ANY definition for 'sandal'?
By the way who called a human being a ' "sandal" maker ' did they have A definition for the word 'sandal', and/or 'maker', before they call 'them' that, let alone having the one and only True definition?
One human being to another; How can you possibly say words, and even claim to know what you are talking about, when you do not even explain what the words you use mean?
Do words, themselves, have a one and only True definition, or do they mean whatever we want them to and say they do?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
creation wrote:I do not use "others" for support, for my assertion. I only assert what I can back up and support on my own.
Steve3007 wrote:Do you ever refer to evidence gathered by other people or arguments that have been made by others?
I didn't ask you whether or not words stand on their own. I asked whether you ever refer to evidence gathered by other people or arguments that have been made them. If your answer to that is "no" then I cannot believe you and also believe that you are a functioning human being. You have already shown that you do, in fact, refer to evidence and arguments collected and enunciated by others. In the mere act of talking to me on this forum, using computers and the internet, you are relying on what other people have told you about how various pieces of technology work. In driving a car, eating food or thinking that a country which you have never visited exists, you are relying on evidence provided by other people.creation wrote:No, or I do not like to.
To me, either words stand on their own, or really there in no use in saying them.
If people did that without even the slightest notion of what they or each other mean by the word "God" then it wouldn't make much sense. But, generally, there is some overlap between different people's notions of what that word means - enough to get the discussion going - and the discussion then serves more than one purpose in parallel: it is often a discussion both about what people mean by the word and whether they have any use for the concept that it represents.creation wrote:That is one thing and seems perfectly reasonable to me. But discussing/arguing about if some thing labeled like, for example, 'God' actually exists or not, without ever knowing or even defining what that 'thing' could even be, is a completely other thing.
I wouldn't. At least no more confused and bewildered than a person who has precisely defined the word.If they cannot define 'God', and align that definition with all the other definitions for all the other words being used, to form one coherent crystal clear picture or an ambiguous, irrefutable story/fact of things, then I would regard all of those people as being somewhat confused and bewildered.
In this context, yes a unicorn exists. If the word "Universe" is defined as "everything of every kind that ever has or ever will exist" then that includes all of the contents of all past, present and future human minds, and that includes unicorns.For the moment yes, but this is because I am not sure where you are going to take this now.
What does 'exist' mean in this regard? Does a 'unicorn' for example exist in this definition you gave? In other words do things that do not and/or can not exist in actual physical terms classed as 'exist' also?
Fair enough.By the way, 'arguments', to me, are not something to be solved. Arguments can be something, which solves problems, themselves. Either an 'argument' is sound and valid, and therefore irrefutable and not able to be disputed, or they are not, and thus quite often disputable, and disputed.
So what? How is that in any way related to the question:No.
I have just observed quite often in so called "scientific writings" words similar to, "In the beginning", "At the start of the Universe", "When the Universe began", "Shortly after the start of the Universe", et cetera.
?Steve3007 wrote:Do you assert that the proposition "The Universe began at the Big Bang" has never been put into question or challenged?"
I've seen a lot of things in a lot of writings. That doesn't mean those things have never been put into question or challenged.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
This is a logically nonsensical proposition that should immediately be discarded from any serious consideration (questioning/challenging).Steve3007 wrote:Do you assert that the proposition "The Universe began at the Big Bang" has never been put into question or challenged?"
X<X is logically impossible. Time cannot exist before it exists. Without the pre-existence of time, "beginnings" don't exist. If the "Universe" includes 'time', then this statement ("The Universe began at the Big Bang") is utter nonsense (a logically impossible oxymoron) and should immediately be dismissed as such.
Those that continue to speak of the "Beginning of Time", speak nonsense; and are ignorant of simple basic logic.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
Please tell me HOW you could not see my answer?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 7:47 am viewtopic.php?p=344490#p344490creation wrote:I do not use "others" for support, for my assertion. I only assert what I can back up and support on my own.Steve3007 wrote:Do you ever refer to evidence gathered by other people or arguments that have been made by others?I didn't ask you whether or not words stand on their own. I asked whether you ever refer to evidence gathered by other people or arguments that have been made them.creation wrote:No, or I do not like to.
To me, either words stand on their own, or really there in no use in saying them.
What do you mean by "If ..."?
My answer is obviously a 'No, or I not like to'.
If you do not believe me and also do not believe that I am a functioning human being, then so be it. To you, then is what it is, and there is nothing I can prove to you otherwise.
Where are we heading with this?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 7:47 am You have already shown that you do, in fact, refer to evidence and arguments collected and enunciated by others. In the mere act of talking to me on this forum, using computers and the internet, you are relying on what other people have told you about how various pieces of technology work.
For example, if I say, "There is no such physical thing as 'time' because ....", then what has this got to do with what someone taught me about how to turn on a computer, and then how to use it?
Are you serious here?
I said: I do not use "others" for support, for my assertion. I only assert what I can back up and support on my own.[
To which you asked: Do you ever refer to evidence gathered by other people or arguments that have been made by others?
I was obviously only referring to and talking about 'my assertions' only, which can be clearly seen, as I used that term twice.
You asked me a question directly to what I said. Now, it appears I made a completely WRONG presumption in thinking you were asking me a question relating to what I actually said and wrote.
It now appears that you were asking me a question in relation to ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I say and do, and not just in relation to 'my assertions alone'.
I will have to take far more care from now. I am sorry for being so mistaken and not understanding you much better.
If there was absolutely only one possible way to answer your question, then why ask it?
If you want to prove that I did NOT clarify with you, what you actually meant EXACTLY, in regards to your question, BEFORE I answered it, then you have succeeded. I would have been much better off clarifying with you what your question was ACTUALLY in relation to, instead of just thinking your question asked directly after what I had written was asked in relation to what I had said, and not to something else completely unassuming.
True.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 7:47 amIf people did that without even the slightest notion of what they or each other mean by the word "God" then it wouldn't make much sense.creation wrote:That is one thing and seems perfectly reasonable to me. But discussing/arguing about if some thing labeled like, for example, 'God' actually exists or not, without ever knowing or even defining what that 'thing' could even be, is a completely other thing.
Do you know what the word 'God' means? Do you have a slight notion of what I, or you, mean by the word 'God'?
If yes, then what is it?
Also, do you ever wonder WHY human beings have for thousands of years now never even come close to resolving what 'God' actually is, and if 'It' actually exists or not, YET?
Okay, this sounds very straight forward and simple. But do you have any reasons WHY none of the meaningful questions in Life have actually been sufficient answered yet?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 7:47 am But, generally, there is some overlap between different people's notions of what that word means - enough to get the discussion going - and the discussion then serves more than one purpose in parallel: it is often a discussion both about what people mean by the word and whether they have any use for the concept that it represents.
Could there be another way of discussing things, like above, which may actually resolve those issues, once and for all?
I wouldn't. At least no more confused and bewildered than a person who has precisely defined the word.[/quote]If they cannot define 'God', and align that definition with all the other definitions for all the other words being used, to form one coherent crystal clear picture or an ambiguous, irrefutable story/fact of things, then I would regard all of those people as being somewhat confused and bewildered.
Okay, that is fair enough. But, WHERE is this taking us?
Also, are you really saying that if a person defines ALL words, which forms a Truly coherent story and crystal clear picture of ALL things, which is irrefutable, then they would not be less confused and bewildered as someone who could not do this?
But, seriously, how long do discussions with you take before we get onto the actual topic of the discussion?
What does 'exist' mean in this regard? Does a 'unicorn' for example exist in this definition you gave? In other words do things that do not and/or can not exist in actual physical terms classed as 'exist' also?[/quote]For the moment yes, but this is because I am not sure where you are going to take this now.
In this context, yes a unicorn exists. If the word "Universe" is defined as "everything of every kind that ever has or ever will exist" then that includes all of the contents of all past, present and future human minds, and that includes unicorns.[/quote]
Okay. So, the Universe is infinite and eternal, agreed?
If not, then why not?
Fair enough.By the way, 'arguments', to me, are not something to be solved. Arguments can be something, which solves problems, themselves. Either an 'argument' is sound and valid, and therefore irrefutable and not able to be disputed, or they are not, and thus quite often disputable, and disputed.
So what? How is that in any way related to the question:No.
I have just observed quite often in so called "scientific writings" words similar to, "In the beginning", "At the start of the Universe", "When the Universe began", "Shortly after the start of the Universe", et cetera.
Well I obviously answered your question with a resounding, No. So, that is EXACTLY how my response is directly related to your question. (Did you miss the No?)Steve3007 wrote:?Steve3007 wrote:Do you assert that the proposition "The Universe began at the Big Bang" has never been put into question or challenged?"
But then, I just added, by providing actual examples, of how, scientific writings, themselves, quite often, obviously do not put into question, what we were discussing.
So, just to clarify, The proposition, "The Universe began at the Big Bang" has been put into question, and/or challenged, maybe many or even countless times previously. But also is the fact that quite often that proposition is not put into question nor challenged, by the examples I gave, and as such, is sadly just accept as a fact already, sometimes.
I am not sure how you could not relate what I wrote in my response to the question that you asked me.
Or, is it like the question above, where I have obviously thought you were asking a question about what I actually wrote, but which it now appears to be not the case at all?
Did you see my answer, which was; 'No'?
This means that I do NOT assert the proposition, "The Universe began at the big bang", has not been put into question before.
Just to make it absolutely clear: I have seen the proposition, "The Universe began at the big bang", been put into question and challenged before.
But I have also seen in scientific writings it being expressed that the Universe began at the big bang.
Hopefully this is all settled now, and we can move on?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
I don't understand the question.creation wrote:Please tell me HOW you could not see my answer?
I mean "in the event that..." or "on the condition that..."What do you mean by "If ..."?
Yes, I know. I shortened it slightly. You can insert that full wording into my comments if you like. I don't think it would radically alter my point.My answer is obviously a 'No, or I not like to'.
I do believe that you are a functioning human being. I may be wrong. You may not be a human being at all. But I believe, based on the limited evidence at my disposal, that you are.If you do not believe me and also do not believe that I am a functioning human being, then so be it. To you, then is what it is, and there is nothing I can prove to you otherwise.
My general direction of travel is towards proposing that indirect evidence, provided via the testimony of other people, is not radically different from evidence that we might like to think is direct as a result of it coming from our own senses. I propose that we decide what to think is true (I would use the term "what to believe" here but I fear that we differ too much in our usages of that word) and what we think is not true using the same methods. I decide whether to believe the evidence of my own eyes using the same methods I use to decide whether to believe the words of another person testifying as to the evidence of their eyes. (Sorry, I used the word "believe" there. Insert another one if you like.). My tendency to believe my own "direct" senses or other people's testimony is, in both cases, based on pattern and precedent.Where are we heading with this?
Whether you make use of other people's insights and evidence would depend what comes after "because...". Obviously the example you've introduced there, of time, has nothing to do with turning on computers.For example, if I say, "There is no such physical thing as 'time' because ....", then what has this got to do with what someone taught me about how to turn on a computer, and then how to use it?
Yes. I was interested in your answer. Your answer was "No, or I do not like to.".Are you serious here?
I said: I do not use "others" for support, for my assertion. I only assert what I can back up and support on my own.[
To which you asked: Do you ever refer to evidence gathered by other people or arguments that have been made by others?
Ok. Understood.I was obviously only referring to and talking about 'my assertions' only, which can be clearly seen, as I used that term twice.
You asked me a question directly to what I said. Now, it appears I made a completely WRONG presumption in thinking you were asking me a question relating to what I actually said and wrote.
It now appears that you were asking me a question in relation to ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I say and do, and not just in relation to 'my assertions alone'.
I will have to take far more care from now. I am sorry for being so mistaken and not understanding you much better.
This was said underneath a quote from me which was not a question. So I do not know what you're referring to here.If there was absolutely only one possible way to answer your question, then why ask it?
For the avoidance of doubt in the future:If you want to prove that I did NOT clarify with you, what you actually meant EXACTLY, in regards to your question, BEFORE I answered it, then you have succeeded. I would have been much better off clarifying with you what your question was ACTUALLY in relation to, instead of just thinking your question asked directly after what I had written was asked in relation to what I had said, and not to something else completely unassuming
When I quote you and then ask a question or make a comment below, I am generally referring to the passage that I have quoted. That is why I have quoted it. Sometimes, for the sake of brevity and not cluttering up the conversation, I will quote a section which I see as exemplifying the essential point of a larger passage. (If I'm wrong to do that, please tell me).
My comments and questions should generally be taken at face value. If I ask a question it is because I am interested to know the answer. Questions and proposition/statements/assertions are different things. If I ask you a question I'm not asserting or proposing anything. If I assert of propose something I am not implying a question. I generally end questions with question marks.
If I quote you having said something in a fairly recent post I don't want to have to go back and find what you were referring to and post a link to it. I have to assume that, to some extent at least, you remember or can find out what you yourself were referring to. You're free to assume the same of me.
Before posting I preview to make sure I haven't made a mistake with the quote tags. I'd find it helpful if you'd do the same.
Yes, I have a slight notion of what various people understand by that word. As with most words, my notions come from having heard the context in which various people have used the word during the course of (most of) my 50-something years of life.Do you know what the word 'God' means? Do you have a slight notion of what I, or you, mean by the word 'God'?
If yes, then what is it?
Some people appear to mean a kind of super-parent and ultimate arbiter of right and wrong who punishes the people deemed to have been bad and rewards those who deemed to have been good. Some people have a more abstract idea that God is simply the embodiment of The Good, without the concepts of punishment/reward. Some people have a still more abstract notion that God symbolises Order, as opposed to Chaos, or represents a notion that they might call "purpose" and which they assert to exist in the Universe outside of human minds. There are various other apparent shades of meaning used by different people.
For myself, I have never knowingly had any use for any of those concepts in my life so far, so my understandings of what "God" means are entirely gleaned from other people's usages. Hence the variety.
Yes, I wonder lots of things. That's why I'm interested in philosophy. But my interest in questions about God is relatively small. My best guess is that it's because it's not, in any sense, an empirical question like "is it raining outside?". It is entirely a personal question, a bit like "how are you feeling?". For as long as there are new people being born, with ever changing moods, there will be new answers to questions like "how are you feeling?" and questions about God-esque concepts.Also, do you ever wonder WHY human beings have for thousands of years now never even come close to resolving what 'God' actually is, and if 'It' actually exists or not, YET?
If you're referring to questions similar to "is there a God?" I dispute that they are particularly meaningful questions.Okay, this sounds very straight forward and simple. But do you have any reasons WHY none of the meaningful questions in Life have actually been sufficient answered yet?
This particular line of enquiry (about conversations about God) is not, in my view, taking us anywhere particularly interesting.Okay, that is fair enough. But, WHERE is this taking us?
Nothing is ever irrefutable. You have said something similar yourself in the past. Words are defined by popular consent. Their meanings are not dictated by individuals. Individuals are, of course, free to attempt to dictate their meanings, but that, in my experience, will not help those individuals to successfully communicate their ideas to others.Also, are you really saying that if a person defines ALL words, which forms a Truly coherent story and crystal clear picture of ALL things, which is irrefutable, then they would not be less confused and bewildered as someone who could not do this?
That varies depending on the topic. Do you have a specific topic in mind?But, seriously, how long do discussions with you take before we get onto the actual topic of the discussion?
Could you tell me your (irrefutable?) definitions of the words "infinite" and "eternal". Are you referring respectively to space and time?Okay. So, the Universe is infinite and eternal, agreed?
If not, then why not?
No, on the contrary, my intended meaning was: "What does the part after the 'no' have to do with the 'no'?"Well I obviously answered your question with a resounding, No. So, that is EXACTLY how my response is directly related to your question. (Did you miss the No?)
If a statement in a book (scientific or otherwise) is not written in the form of a question, does that automatically mean that it is meant to be an assertion of what the author believes to be unquestionable truth? Propositions can be challenged. Your have challenged some yourself.But then, I just added, by providing actual examples, of how, scientific writings, themselves, quite often, obviously do not put into question, what we were discussing.
Do you think that everything proposed by science should always be put in the form of a question? Or just the Big Bang Theory?So, just to clarify, The proposition, "The Universe began at the Big Bang" has been put into question, and/or challenged, maybe many or even countless times previously. But also is the fact that quite often that proposition is not put into question nor challenged, by the examples I gave, and as such, is sadly just accept as a fact already, sometimes
I hope so....Hopefully this is all settled now, and we can move on?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
Not that one. Although I hope that what I say here answers that one too.creation wrote:But, seriously, how long do discussions with you take before we get onto the actual topic of the discussion?
I mean this one:
I'll make a couple of assumptions. I assume, in this context at least, "infinite" is intended to mean "an unlimited amount of space" and "eternal" is intended to mean "an unlimited amount of time".creation wrote:Okay. So, the Universe is infinite and eternal, agreed?
If not, then why not?
If these assumptions are correct then my answer to the question is: no, not necessarily. If the Universe, by definition, contains all of space and all of time, that doesn't, in and of itself, mean that it contains unlimited space and unlimited time. There certainly can't be an edge or boundary, in space, which marks the end of space. Likewise, there can't be a beginning, in time, of time. I don't know of anybody who says that there can, regardless of their views about the Big Bang Theory. Clearly the word "beginning" refers to a point/position in time and the word "edge" refers to a position in space. But that doesn't mean that the Universe is infinite or eternal.
Space is the gaps in between objects or points on objects. It's perfectly logically possible that space is such that it could be filled with objects to the extent that it is full with a finite number of objects and no other objects would fit. That would make space finite. It wouldn't mean that it had an edge or a boundary. And it wouldn't violate our definition of the word "Universe".
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
...and nor can there be an edge or boundary, outside of space. Without space, there can be no "edge/boundaries", whatsoever!Steve3007 wrote:There certainly can't be an edge or boundary, in space, which marks the end of space.
...and nor can there be a beginning, outside of time. Without time, there can be no "beginnings", whatsoever!Steve3007 wrote:Likewise, there can't be a beginning, in time, of time.
"Beginning" is a temporal word that logically implies 'time'. No time means no beginnings. A "beginning of time" (i.e. a "time before time") is therefore an oxymoron; a logical impossibility.Steve3007 wrote:Clearly the word "beginning" refers to a point/position in time and the word "edge" refers to a position in space.
"Edge/boundary" is a spatial word that logically implies 'space'. No space means no edges/boundaries. A "boundary of space" (i.e. a "containment of space") is therefore an oxymoron; a logical impossibility
Sure it does! Since X<X is a logical impossibility, then if X exists, then it exists infinitely.Steve3007 wrote:But that doesn't mean that the Universe is infinite or eternal.
1. Logically, since time cannot exist before it exists (X<X), therefore, if time exists then it exists infinitely.
2. Logically, since space cannot exist outside of itself (X<X), therefore if space exists, then it exists infinitely.
How can you logically "fill" something that has NO borders/edges/boundaries? And when does it, and how could it, EVER become "full"? --- A "non-containing container" (a border-less border) is an oxymoron. If Space exists then it can only infinitely exist (NOT "finitely" exist!).Steve3007 wrote:It's perfectly logically possible that space is such that it could be filled with objects to the extent that it is full with a finite number of objects and no other objects would fit.
Not so. A space without borders (edges/boundaries) is an "infinite space", not a finite space.Steve3007 wrote:That would make space finite. It wouldn't mean that it had an edge or a boundary.
A "finite" containment of space is a logical impossibility for there would be no where (no place/space!) for this container (edge/boundary) to exist, because ALL the "wheres" (places/spaces) are INSIDE the container. And X cannot exist outside of itself. X<X is a logical impossibility!
Space-time (and matter!); aka the "Universe", has always (infinitely) existed. Logically, it can be no other way.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
This is getting to confusing to explain but, more or less, you asked me a question.
I said, 'No'. And, then said something else.
To which you then replied:
I didn't ask you whether or not words stand on their own. I asked whether you ever refer to evidence gathered by other people or arguments that have been made them.
My answer was a clear 'No', (just with other things added on).
So, I then asked you the question:
Please tell me HOW you could not see my answer? Meaning how could you not see my answer, which was a clear; 'No'?
So, do you know understand the question?
The dots after the 'If' word meant, What do you mean by "If ...." (and the rest of the sentence. But what I was getting to, was, you asked me a question that " 'If' ... my answer was 'No' .... ." I was inferring that my answer was a OBVIOUS 'No'. There was no doubt that my answer was 'No'. So, what I was alluding to was there was absolutely no point by starting your question to me with the 'If' word, because there was no doubt at all what my answer was.
I had clearly wrote the word 'No', directly after your question posed to me.
So, this is why I also wrote; Please tell me HOW you could not see my answer?
Can you now see how they are related?
So, WHY did you ask me:
If your answer to that is "no" (then I cannot believe you and also believe that you are a functioning human being).
IF you know what my answer was, then why write your next question starting with "If your answer to that is a "no"?
It was clearly a 'No', which by the rest of your sentence now meas that you cannot believe me, (my answer) and also believe that I am a
functioning human being at the same time.
I am not sure what this is in relation to, and really do not care as I am not interested in this, for now.
But you just said contrary to this. You said that IF my answer was a 'No', which it clearly was, then you could not believe me, and at the same time believe that I am a functioning human being.
You now, however, say that you do believe that I am a functioning human being, so this would now infer that you do now actually believe me that I can assert things, without using "others" for support and that I can, by myself, back up and support my own claims.
Only you could clear up what it is that you believe or do not believe now.
But as you have already said about your belief that I am a functioning human being may be wrong anyway, so then you would be back to not believing that I can back up and support my own claims and assertions on my own, and that I do you use "others" for this.
This is a completely different matter, which can be looked at and discussed later on.
Well this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I first proposed, which led to this discussion now.
Again, nothing whatsoever to do what what I first proposed here
Okay. You are absolutely free to choose to do whatever you want to do. But again, nothing to do with what i first proposed here.
You never have to be sorry to me for what you, yourself, choose to say and do.
I have absolutely no interest in what you choose to say or do. You have the absolute freedom to say and do whatever you so choose to say and do.
Maybe so, but of nothing whatsoever to do with what I first proposed here.
Okay great. So, why would say something like:
In the mere act of talking to me on this forum, using computers and the internet, you are relying on what other people have told you about how various pieces of technology work. In driving a car, eating food or thinking that a country which you have never visited exists, you are relying on evidence provided by other people.
In relation to what I first proposed here, which was:
I do not use "others" for support, for my assertion. I only assert what I can back up and support on my own.
How exactly has me talking to you on this forum, using computers and the internet, and my having had to rely on what people have told me about how various pieces of technology work, or the fact that I rely on "evidence" provided by other people in driving a car, eating food or thinking that a country which I have never visited exists, got absolutely anything to do with or not about my proposition that:
I do not use "others" for support, for my assertions. Or, about that I say; I only assert what I can back up and support on my own?
In other words what has what you have said here got to do with what I first proposed?
We are in a philosophy forum. If I assert something, then I say, I do not use other people to help me for back up and support for what I claim or assert. I, like I said, like to just use myself, or my own words, to back up and support my own assertions or claims.
Hopefully this is now fully understood.
Okay, so how did it get from just my very simply explained, straightforward clarifying answer, to all of these other things, which you have said here?
I do not feel like explaining all of this now.
But if you feel it is necessary to, then I will.
But my whole point has been, this is not what you have done.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 am
For the avoidance of doubt in the future:
When I quote you and then ask a question or make a comment below, I am generally referring to the passage that I have quoted. That is why I have quoted it. Sometimes, for the sake of brevity and not cluttering up the conversation, I will quote a section which I see as exemplifying the essential point of a larger passage. (If I'm wrong to do that, please tell me).
What you did, from my perspective, is you asked me a question directly after you quoted me, but from what I can ascertain your question was not about what I actually proposed in my words, which you quoted, but about everything one does in Life in general.
My comments and questions should generally be taken at face value. If I ask a question it is because I am interested to know the answer. Questions and proposition/statements/assertions are different things. If I ask you a question I'm not asserting or proposing anything. If I assert of propose something I am not implying a question. I generally end questions with question marks.[/quote]
This is all well and good, and it is exactly what I acknowledge I do as well.
What I, however, have been talking about is the question you asked me, which I immediately answered, does not seem to be in relation to the quote of mine, which I thought your question was in relation to. This is all.
I do not like to assume anything at all, including what you do above here.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amIf I quote you having said something in a fairly recent post I don't want to have to go back and find what you were referring to and post a link to it. I have to assume that, to some extent at least, you remember or can find out what you yourself were referring to. You're free to assume the same of me.
Okay. Just curious have I shown any signs so far that I do not do the same?
Okay.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amYes, I have a slight notion of what various people understand by that word. As with most words, my notions come from having heard the context in which various people have used the word during the course of (most of) my 50-something years of life.Do you know what the word 'God' means? Do you have a slight notion of what I, or you, mean by the word 'God'?
If yes, then what is it?
Some people appear to mean a kind of super-parent and ultimate arbiter of right and wrong who punishes the people deemed to have been bad and rewards those who deemed to have been good. Some people have a more abstract idea that God is simply the embodiment of The Good, without the concepts of punishment/reward. Some people have a still more abstract notion that God symbolises Order, as opposed to Chaos, or represents a notion that they might call "purpose" and which they assert to exist in the Universe outside of human minds. There are various other apparent shades of meaning used by different people.
For myself, I have never knowingly had any use for any of those concepts in my life so far, so my understandings of what "God" means are entirely gleaned from other people's usages. Hence the variety.
Just for your information, just about all questions relating to God come back to being empirical questions. But this is way off topic here and not of any real issue here now.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amYes, I wonder lots of things. That's why I'm interested in philosophy. But my interest in questions about God is relatively small. My best guess is that it's because it's not, in any sense, an empirical question like "is it raining outside?".Also, do you ever wonder WHY human beings have for thousands of years now never even come close to resolving what 'God' actually is, and if 'It' actually exists or not, YET?
It is entirely a personal question, a bit like "how are you feeling?". For as long as there are new people being born, with ever changing moods, there will be new answers to questions like "how are you feeling?" and questions about God-esque concepts.
'God' itself was never the issue here. I just used the word or label 'God', as an example for how discussing things without actually knowing what it is that is being talked about is a pointless and useless exercise.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amIf you're referring to questions similar to "is there a God?" I dispute that they are particularly meaningful questions.Okay, this sounds very straight forward and simple. But do you have any reasons WHY none of the meaningful questions in Life have actually been sufficient answered yet?
Great.
So, do you find anything interesting about discussing the topic of the thread here now?
I was showing how the Universe is infinite, to me, and then started a conversation with you, when I proposed that I do not use other people to help me back up and support my own assertions or claims, like, for example, I claim and assert that the Universe is infinite and eternal, and as proposed, I will not need anyone else to help me to back up and support this claim and assertion.
Now, we can go back to discussing that, if you would like.
Is this what you believe is absolutely true?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amNothing is ever irrefutable.Also, are you really saying that if a person defines ALL words, which forms a Truly coherent story and crystal clear picture of ALL things, which is irrefutable, then they would not be less confused and bewildered as someone who could not do this?
Or, is this irrefutably true?
Also, is the proposition and claim; "Nothing is ever irrefutable" irrefutable, itself?
Because, if it is not irrefutable, then it is refutable, which would mean that it is not even true at all, anyway.
See, what will be discovered is that for every proposition that claims things like, "There is no such thing as absolute Truth", like your claim is like here also, then those claims will actually be false, wrong, and incorrect, themselves.
Unless, of course, shown otherwise.
I do not recall saying something similar to this myself in the past, but I may well have.
Of course I would say dictionary definitions are a definition, which would be considered to be by popular consent. But words definitions and meanings can also be very individualistic.
But, to me, meanings are very dictated by individuals.
Just look at any piece of writing. What it means to you can be completely different and even completely opposing to what it means to another, which may well even be very different again to the meaning the writer intended it to mean.
This depends on what you mean by the word 'dictate'. One could just use a word with a different meaning, which is generally seen as the meaning. and just 'dictate' this verbally or in writings by explaining how, for example, that through this different meaning, then this fits in much better with other words and their meanings to form a bigger or more true picture of Life and/or of things.
If, during communicating one's ideas, they are expressly clear about the meanings of the words being used, then just maybe it will not take thousands of years, like it has now, to become no closer to resolving things anyway. After all it may just be the current and past meanings of words, which is causing the actual confusion and bewilderment that exists now?
We will just have to wait and see what happens if someone does start 'dictating', or expressing clearly, their meanings, which may end up not being that different at all to the general usage. Those meanings may in fact just show and clear up the very reasons why some people are still looking for answers?
Yes, considering we are conversing in this thread, then the specific topic I would say would be the topic of this thread, which is, by the way, is the infinite Universe.
Definitions, by themselves, are not necessarily irrefutable so I cannot, for now, tell you my irrefutable definitions of the words 'infinite' and 'eternal', but I can obviously give you a definition for those words.
'Infinite', limitless or endless, in extent, or size.
'Eternal', lasting or existing forever; without end.
Yes.
I explained this below.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amNo, on the contrary, my intended meaning was: "What does the part after the 'no' have to do with the 'no'?"Well I obviously answered your question with a resounding, No. So, that is EXACTLY how my response is directly related to your question. (Did you miss the No?)
No. But this was not what I was talking about.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amIf a statement in a book (scientific or otherwise) is not written in the form of a question, does that automatically mean that it is meant to be an assertion of what the author believes to be unquestionable truth?But then, I just added, by providing actual examples, of how, scientific writings, themselves, quite often, obviously do not put into question, what we were discussing.
Okay.
But if propositions that have not yet been verified, and are written as though they have already been verified and/or proven true, then do you think this is the best way to express things, especially in scientific papers or writings?
As I have put forward already, it is hard enough to just start to explain an idea or a new idea, especially if it is in contention with what is generally accepted scientifically if things like; "When the Universe began", is written in scientific papers or writings. The more it gets written and not challenged, then the more people believe it is true, and the more people will use scientific writings to back up and support their beliefs.
The more people read some things, then the more they can start believing it is more and more true.
All I suggest is just writing what is the actual of things. This helps in discovering, finding, seeing, and understanding what is the actual truth of things.
When I write; 'Put into question, or challenged', I absolutely do not mean things have to be put into the form of a question, or into question 'form'. When I say and write; 'To put a proposition into question, or challenge', is to just question the proposition, itself, or to challenge the proposition, itself?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 11:06 amDo you think that everything proposed by science should always be put in the form of a question? Or just the Big Bang Theory?So, just to clarify, The proposition, "The Universe began at the Big Bang" has been put into question, and/or challenged, maybe many or even countless times previously. But also is the fact that quite often that proposition is not put into question nor challenged, by the examples I gave, and as such, is sadly just accept as a fact already, sometimes
This is very different to the meaning that you have put into what I have said and wrote here. That is; I never meant to put the proposition, itself, into the form of a question, but, to question the proposition, itself.
It certainly did not appear so though.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
Your assumptions are not absolutely correct, from my perspective, but close enough, for now.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 12:19 pm To move things along I'll re-visit the question from creation's last post, aimed at me, which was most relevant to the subject of this particular topic:
Not that one. Although I hope that what I say here answers that one too.creation wrote:But, seriously, how long do discussions with you take before we get onto the actual topic of the discussion?
I mean this one:
I'll make a couple of assumptions. I assume, in this context at least, "infinite" is intended to mean "an unlimited amount of space" and "eternal" is intended to mean "an unlimited amount of time".creation wrote:Okay. So, the Universe is infinite and eternal, agreed?
If not, then why not?
If these assumptions are correct then my answer to the question is: no, not necessarily.
True, it also does not mean anything else contrary. The only thing that means is the Universe contains all of 'space' and all of 'time'.
This could be very easily disputed and refuted, but for the purposes you are saying this, then it will, for now, suffice.
Likewise, there can't be a beginning, in time, of time. I don't know of anybody who says that there can, regardless of their views about the Big Bang Theory. Clearly the word "beginning" refers to a point/position in time and the word "edge" refers to a position in space. But that doesn't mean that the Universe is infinite or eternal.[/quote]
Okay, so now you have explained two things to us that does not mean the Universe is infinite nor eternal. Because I like ice cream also does not mean that the Universe is infinite or eternal, but what does not make the Universe infinite and eternal is not what I was asking for.
My question to you was; If you do not agree that the Universe is infinite and eternal, then why not?
In other words, what do you use as evidence or proof for why you think or believe that the Universe is finite and/or began?
This is perfectly NOT possible to me. You will have to explain to me how there logically could possibly be a finite number of objects that would fill space (the gaps in between objects or points on objects), so no other object would fit.
To me this sounds very illogical and extremely nonsensical when discussing an infinite Universe. For example, a place where there is no gaps, or no space between objects, as all space is filled with objects, then that instantly means there is just an infinite compression of matter, or 'singularity', which would have to be infinite as well. Obviously, if all space is 'filled in', then there could not be space around an object, or singularity, So, if the Universe is more or less ALL-THERE-IS, then we are back to an infinite Universe. But this time It would be One of no space, and just One of one object only, instead.
What you proposed does not make space finite at all.
A place where ALL space is filled in with objects, would eventually mean there is just one object only, because if there is no space, or no gaps between objects, then all objects become One. If there is no space between or around objects, then there is no separation. If there is no separation, then there can only be One.
And now, this One object also, as you just stated, would not mean that it had an edge or a boundary also. So, like I said we are back to an infinite Universe again. This time the Universe is just One object only. But although this could be a possibility, it obviously is NOT actuality, nor in a real sense possible anyway. Because if the Universe ever was just one object, then there would not be anything that could even fathom nor consider what Its Self is. Something as being as thick and as dense as One singular thing could not ever have the ability to just wonder what It is, let alone come to ever understand and know what Itself is.
Your conceptualization here certainly does violate MY definition of the word 'Universe', which was (and is I think?) the exact same as yours.
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
(Besides a couple of tiny little inconsistencies here, which is of no real importance at all to this discussion), this is very well put, and said.RJG wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2020, 3:04 pm...and nor can there be an edge or boundary, outside of space. Without space, there can be no "edge/boundaries", whatsoever!Steve3007 wrote:There certainly can't be an edge or boundary, in space, which marks the end of space.
...and nor can there be a beginning, outside of time. Without time, there can be no "beginnings", whatsoever!Steve3007 wrote:Likewise, there can't be a beginning, in time, of time.
"Beginning" is a temporal word that logically implies 'time'. No time means no beginnings. A "beginning of time" (i.e. a "time before time") is therefore an oxymoron; a logical impossibility.Steve3007 wrote:Clearly the word "beginning" refers to a point/position in time and the word "edge" refers to a position in space.
"Edge/boundary" is a spatial word that logically implies 'space'. No space means no edges/boundaries. A "boundary of space" (i.e. a "containment of space") is therefore an oxymoron; a logical impossibility
Sure it does! Since X<X is a logical impossibility, then if X exists, then it exists infinitely.Steve3007 wrote:But that doesn't mean that the Universe is infinite or eternal.
1. Logically, since time cannot exist before it exists (X<X), therefore, if time exists then it exists infinitely.
2. Logically, since space cannot exist outside of itself (X<X), therefore if space exists, then it exists infinitely.
How can you logically "fill" something that has NO borders/edges/boundaries? And when does it, and how could it, EVER become "full"? --- A "non-containing container" (a border-less border) is an oxymoron. If Space exists then it can only infinitely exist (NOT "finitely" exist!).Steve3007 wrote:It's perfectly logically possible that space is such that it could be filled with objects to the extent that it is full with a finite number of objects and no other objects would fit.
Not so. A space without borders (edges/boundaries) is an "infinite space", not a finite space.Steve3007 wrote:That would make space finite. It wouldn't mean that it had an edge or a boundary.
A "finite" containment of space is a logical impossibility for there would be no where (no place/space!) for this container (edge/boundary) to exist, because ALL the "wheres" (places/spaces) are INSIDE the container. And X cannot exist outside of itself. X<X is a logical impossibility!
Space-time (and matter!); aka the "Universe", has always (infinitely) existed. Logically, it can be no other way.
The more I look at this topic, the more is being shown that the Universe truly is infinite and eternal, and the clearer this knowledge becomes actually more truer, more right, and more correct. So, the old beliefs that the Universe began, and is expanding, are slowly being wilted away like the beliefs that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth were finally corrected.
This time, however, it is the "scientists" who are being stubborn, just like the "religious" people were, previously. Now this is exposing and showing just how strong the actual power of 'belief' is. So, when 'belief' is alleviated from the human psyche completely, then progression in the rate of knowledge and understanding will be exponential, beyond current imagination.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
creation wrote:This time, however, it is the "scientists" who are being stubborn, just like the "religious" people were, previously.
There is nothing more certain in all of the universe than that of a logical/mathematical impossibility. Logic/math are not man-made. They are not "confused notions" of limited hominids. They are clear truths of the universe given to man.Greta wrote:Time and space are probably either circular, toroidal or contain extra dimensions, or some confusing nonsense like that, which leaves beginnings, ends, boundaries and eternity as little more than the confused notions of limited hominids
The "confusion" arises when man refuses to accept simple clear irrefutable logic in favor of their own man-made truths (e.g. science/religion).
-
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm
Re: The Infinite Universe
And, the Universe, and how It works, could not get anymore simple nor anymore easy to understand.RJG wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2020, 7:34 amcreation wrote:This time, however, it is the "scientists" who are being stubborn, just like the "religious" people were, previously.There is nothing more certain in all of the universe than that of a logical/mathematical impossibility. Logic/math are not man-made. They are not "confused notions" of limited hominids. They are clear truths of the universe given to man.Greta wrote:Time and space are probably either circular, toroidal or contain extra dimensions, or some confusing nonsense like that, which leaves beginnings, ends, boundaries and eternity as little more than the confused notions of limited hominids
The "confusion" arises when man refuses to accept simple clear irrefutable logic in favor of their own man-made truths (e.g. science/religion).
The Universe logically, reasonably, and sensibly could only exist infinitely and eternally HERE-NOW.
As just pointed out 'confusion' arises when humans refuse to look at and accept what is essentially just pure clear irrefutable logic.
Time and space are not circular, not toroidal, not containing extra dimensions, nor some confusing nonsense like that at all. Time and space are really just extremely very simple, and very easy, terms to understand, and explain.
If anyone wants to propose that the Universe is finite and/or began, then just explain how this could even be logically possible, then we would at least have something logical to look at and discuss. Until then I will just continue to look at what is actually logically possible instead.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023