An anti-realism

[Age]

Unless it's better not stated, which is how I see my best guess. That's why I never talk about my actual philosophy.


Being cyclical indeed doesn't explain anything. As usual, looping around without being cyclical is the logical idea imo.


No, the theory wasn't about changing rules, things don't get replaced.

So, we the universe has identity through time, but also not changing rules? Once it falls out of superposion (at a universal level), that's it, it's Einsteinian, or something else?

A to me related issue: the role, reality, existence of the past. It seems to me that a strong metaphysical antirealist should also consider every conclusion about the past as a useful fiction about something that cannot be directly sensed and then further...have some questions about its use as evidence.

I'm not sure what to say. The rule could roughly be that the rest of the universe is consistent with our "identity" at every point in time, on a technical level. And this rule doesn't change.

Say take an organism or something else from say 4 billion years ago. It was a fairly simple "identity" and maybe could have existed in a very undefined, malleable kind of space and time that could act like both Newtonian and Einsteinian space and time and maybe even differently from both.

Then at some point in time, the "identity" of some organism or something else got to a level where it was only compatible with Newtonian and Einsteinian space and time anymore, so the universe got reduced to those two possibilities. Then later "identity" got more particular again, and space and time got reduced to just one, Einsteinian.

We could take what you say here, or we could take trillions of other ideas or views that you may or may not have but they may all be as False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect as this one of yours is here.

We, instead however, could take the One and only possible True and Right view and perspective, and from there/here we can find and see what the actual Truth of things is exactly.

This one Einsteinian spacetime may still be a narrow band of infinite possibilites though, that we may not be able to narrow down further.

If absolutely anyone thinks or believes that human beings may not be able to 'narrow down' things further, from in the days when this is being written, and narrow things down far, far closer to what the actual Truth of things is exactly, then this one could not really get more closed, more stupid, nor foolish.

There are unresolvable questions.

Really?

If yes, then will you share some of what you claim to be unresolvable questions?

The time problem is a problem for all of philosophy imo,

But there is no 'time problem' at all, neither.

What 'time' is exactly, which fits in perfectly with everything else is already known and understood "atla".

But because you believe, absolutely, that this is not true, you will remain as closed and as knowledgeable as you are showing "yourself" to be here.

if time doesn't timelessly loop around without cycles and without actual change, we have a logical problem.

you are sounding more like "eodnjoe7" everyday "atla" with your 'loopy loops' and 'looping around' here.

Of course the irrefutable answers to the Universe circle back onto themselves to form a self-verified loop of Truth, because it could not work in any other way, but the way you go about things here "atla" the only loop you are creating here is a self-refuting one.

Then there's the problem that the above picture with three seemingly inconsistent slices of the universe may either need an extra dimension or some kind of mental magic, is also a problem for all philosophy imo. Although maybe there are other explanations.

Of course there is the other explanation, which is and holds the actual Truth that no one can actually refute.

But as you have continuously shown and proved True here "atla" people like you are still some way off from learning and understanding the One and only actual Truth. you, first, have to be prepared for It.

Another example for the theory would be modern space telescopes. Let's say until recently, only a tiny fraction of the ~100 billion galaxies took the shape that we would call galaxies, the rest were smeared out superpositions.

If only these people used imagination to look for what is actually possible and for the actual Truth only instead of using it to dream up these completely absurd and foolish ideas and views.

Now whenever we look at new galaxies with our telescopes, they are forced into a shapes that are consistent with the specifics of our looking and consistent with everything else we have already established about the world.

Let us not forget that just about, if not, all of the 'already established views' about what was called 'the world' became 'established falsehoods'.

How many views/ideas that were 'established' by human beings ended up being False and/or Wrong?

And in the future, we will continue to force the world into taking shape as more galaxies and other stuff.

This one still believes that 'it' and other human beings 'force' 'the world' into taking shapes.

Of course one has to 'force' falsehoods' into 'taking shape/s', however the actual Truth of things just falls into place, and literally no forcing at all was needed nor necessary.

Being Truly OPEN the Truth is just seen, whereas presumptions and falsehoods 'force' things into varying different shapes, ways, and forms.

[Age]

Another example for the theory would be modern space telescopes. Let's say until recently, only a tiny fraction of the ~100 billion galaxies took the shape that we would call galaxies, the rest were smeared out superpositions. Now whenever we look at new galaxies with our telescopes, they are forced into a shapes that are consistent with the specifics of our looking and consistent with everything else we have already established about the world. And in the future, we will continue to force the world into taking shape as more galaxies and other stuff.

How do we encounter anomalies then? Like they just found a star (Methuselah star) that is older than the universe (with some potential for error, as always).

How you people keep finding what you call 'anomalies' is because you human beings keep making up stories before you know, for certain, what the actual Truth is exactly. If you stopped making up stories, which do not fit in perfectly with what is actually True, then you would not keep coming across anomalies like the one above here.

See, every time human beings keep proclaiming that the Universe began, has some age, and/or is expanding, then you will keep finding anomalies.

While one is Truly OPEN, then there are no anomalies, and what is continually seen is ONLY 'that', which is actually irrefutably True.

See, if people cannot yet find and see what the actual irrefutable Truth is, then this is a sure sign that they are looking from or through some made up False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect story of things. Which is what is clouding, blocking, or preventing them.

Or some of the archaeological finds that don't fit the main tribe to civilization narratives in history and archaeology.

Again, we have another prime example of stories stopping and preventing the actual Truth from being seen, and uncovered.

[Age]

Another example for the theory would be modern space telescopes. Let's say until recently, only a tiny fraction of the ~100 billion galaxies took the shape that we would call galaxies, the rest were smeared out superpositions. Now whenever we look at new galaxies with our telescopes, they are forced into a shapes that are consistent with the specifics of our looking and consistent with everything else we have already established about the world. And in the future, we will continue to force the world into taking shape as more galaxies and other stuff.

How do we encounter anomalies then? Like they just found a star (Methuselah star) that is older than the universe (with some potential for error, as always). Or some of the archaeological finds that don't fit the main tribe to civilization narratives in history and archaeology.

Either those aren't anomalies, like the star isn't actually older.

Or, actually the Universe does NOT have an age.

But do not let this Truth get in the way of the story that some believe about how the Universe had a beginning.

Or they really are anomalies to our current knowledge,

you say this like there would be some surprise here.

The 'current' knowledge, in the days when this is being written, is so far behind from what the actual Truth is exactly, that just thinking that that 'current knowledge' was even close is just too absurd and too hilarious for us to even consider.

but our current knowledge was a misunderstanding but everything available to us was also 100% compatible with another view all along without us realizing.

This here appears somewhat very confusing, but either way, a fair amount of 'current knowledge', in the days when this was being written, was based upon previous misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misconceptions, and missed opportunities.

Imo this kind of antirealism is unprovable and would look exactly like the world we live in. The bigger question is, what would happen if in the future, the number (if there's such a thing) of observers got drastically reduced so they cancel each other out a lot less, and/or one observer gets to a higher level (if there's such a thing) than all others. And tries to 'take control'.

Eventually, relative to when this is being written, the highest level is reached, where there is only One Observer, and who is 'in control', but which every one else is in total agreement and acceptance with.

But you, posters, here are never expected to comprehend and understand this, nor how this works fully.

[Age]

How do we encounter anomalies then? Like they just found a star (Methuselah star) that is older than the universe (with some potential for error, as always). Or some of the archaeological finds that don't fit the main tribe to civilization narratives in history and archaeology.

Either those aren't anomalies, like the star isn't actually older. Or they really are anomalies to our current knowledge, but our current knowledge was a misunderstanding but everything available to us was also 100% compatible with another view all along without us realizing.

Imo this kind of antirealism is unprovable and would look exactly like the world we live in. The bigger question is, what would happen if in the future, the number (if there's such a thing) of observers got drastically reduced so they cancel each other out a lot less, and/or one observer gets to a higher level (if there's such a thing) than all others. And tries to 'take control'.

The overriding idea is that minds and their capacities are entangled with ontology and natural laws (which aren't quite like laws, it seems to me).

They evolve together. Or, really, aren't two processes, but one.

The reason why the idea that there is more than One Mind was the overriding idea, back in those olden days, is obvious, but it was not something that these people would have ever even considered.

[Atla]

...

Didn't read a word from your comments in this thread, "sorry".

[Age]

...

Didn't read a word from your comments in this thread, "sorry".

1. you do not need to be sorry for or about absolutely anything here "atla". your words so far have said it all, and enough.

2. People can and do claim to have not read a single word of another, especially when those words absolutely refute and/or completely counter what was said and written by the person claiming to have not read anything. Claiming to not have read serves their purpose, very well I will add.

[Age]

For those who would like to know what "atla" claims here, which I showed is an absolute Falsehood,

"atla" claims that the earth was never 'round' before human beings agreed and accepted that it was. "atla" also claims that only until the human being known as "atla" accepted and agreed that the earth was in fact round, then that is exactly when the earth became round.

[Atla]

How do we encounter anomalies then? Like they just found a star (Methuselah star) that is older than the universe (with some potential for error, as always). Or some of the archaeological finds that don't fit the main tribe to civilization narratives in history and archaeology.

Either those aren't anomalies, like the star isn't actually older. Or they really are anomalies to our current knowledge, but our current knowledge was a misunderstanding but everything available to us was also 100% compatible with another view all along without us realizing.

Imo this kind of antirealism is unprovable and would look exactly like the world we live in. The bigger question is, what would happen if in the future, the number (if there's such a thing) of observers got drastically reduced so they cancel each other out a lot less, and/or one observer gets to a higher level (if there's such a thing) than all others. And tries to 'take control'.

The overriding idea is that minds and their capacities are entangled with ontology and natural laws (which aren't quite like laws, it seems to me).

They evolve together. Or, really, aren't two processes, but one.

Yes they are one process, that has absolute internal consistency. I didn't just make up this idea out of thin air, this one process with absolute internal consistency is, to the best of my knowledge, how our world was actually shown to work by QM. Although I'm not really sure that what I just wrote is correct.

Here is an example from QM, with a double-slit experiment. We do a double slit where we force a "collapse" / a "reduction of the superposition to what looks like eigenstates to us". But we don't look at the result of the experiment, instead record it on some device, put the device on a rocket and send it to a galaxy far away.

Our shaped reality is one process and absolutely internally consistent, so since that recorded result exists somewhere in our shaped reality, no matter how far away, it will contribute. As long as it is theorethically available, it counts. The question is again the observer problem: available to what?

There seems to be this absolutely internally consistent 'island' within a broader reality of infinite flux. Distances don't matter so maybe the entire known universe could be our playground. Maybe quite so. Maybe just a little. Maybe not at all. It remains to be seen.