Is there really a single universe?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Indeed!

Talking phantoms are full of it.

But if the shoe fits....

.

You're the one not making sense.

PhilX

I don't exist.

.

Your problem.

PhilX

[ken]

Maybe in some philosophical sense but not in any way that would lead to a greater scientific understanding of how the Universe functions

What is the difference between some philosophical sense and in any other way

Can not a philosophical sense of how the Universe actually functions lead to a greater scientific understanding of how the Universe functions

Philosophy is nowhere near rigorous enough a discipline for understanding how the Universe functions and science is far better at it anyway

But you are the one who has just been reconfirming how it is from physics that these incompatible theories of how the Universe functions has developed.

Thus science is what is leading you to NOT have a greater understanding of how the Universe works.

As I have suggested to you previously, how the Universe actually functions is already very easy to understand.

[ken]

If you would like to again write what are the perceived incompatibilities that you and others see between general relativity and
quantum mechanics then I will try again to explain HOW those perceived incompatibilities can actually be re united and re solved

A philosophical answer to a scientific question will not solve the surface discrepancy problem or remove infinity from the equations
What would really help however would be a scientific answer to these particular problems for that is what is actually required here

What is the so called 'surface discrepancy problem', from your perspective, and I will endeavor to show you how it can easily be solved.

Why would any person want to remove infinity from equations if infinity is part of the answer, solution, and/or formula?

Well I, nor any person, can not begin to provide a scientific answer to any problem until the problem is laid out into question form. So, if you want answers, then begin by asking questions. We can not begin to find the answers for you until you ask the questions.

[surreptitious57]

If you would like to again write what are the perceived incompatibilities that you and others see between general relativity and
quantum mechanics then I will try again to explain HOW those perceived incompatibilities can actually be re united and re solved

A philosophical answer to a scientific question will not solve the surface discrepancy problem or remove infinity from the equations
What would really help however would be a scientific answer to these particular problems for that is what is actually required here

What is the so called surface discrepancy problem from your perspective and I will endeavor to show you how it can easily be solved

Why would any person want to remove infinity from equations if infinity is part of the answer solution and / or formula

Well I nor any person can not begin to provide a scientific answer to any problem until the problem is laid out into question form
So if you want answers then begin by asking questions We can not begin to find the answers for you until you ask the questions

The surface discrepancy problem pertains to space being smooth at the classical level and rough at the quantum level
Infinites are nonsensical in physics equations because a probability can only be between zero and one and nothing else
Unless you can provide scientific answers to these questions then anything that you do say is not going to be much help

[surreptitious57]

science is what is leading you to NOT have a greater understanding of how the Universe works

As I have suggested to you previously how the Universe actually functions is already very easy to understand

Science is an inductive discipline that deals in probable truth not absolute truth so understanding how the Universe functions
is always going to be a work in progress. It is not very easy to understand from a scientific perspective because science does
not have all of the answers. And like I already said philosophy is nowhere near as rigorous as science for understanding how
it functions. A philosophical answer would be an ontological one but science does not do ontology so it is therefore useless

[ken]

To Me there is NO incompatibility between the two there is only a perceived incompatibility

There can not be any incompatibility between actual phenomena but there is in the models themselves

Why do you TRY TO twist and turn around what I say? I said there is a perceived incompatibilty between THE MODELS THEMSELVES.

Just like there is a perceived 'one or the other' view in discussions like nature/nurture, creation/evolution, et cetera. To be able to see past the perceived incompatibilities in these discussions and in the models above allows the truth to come through. Then finally you can come to understand the answer to these discussions and to how the Universe actually works.

A 'model', of some thing, is an attempt at an accurate copy of that thing. If the model is not an accurate depiction of that thing, then obviously human beings themselves have added some thing inaccurate in there or left some thing out.

I suggest if you want an accurate depiction of how the Universe actually works, for example, then just look at what IS instead of adding wrong information and/or leaving any thing out. It is all very simple indeed.

Looking at and seeing those models as incompatible stops you from being able to look at and see the actual truth. That is, if you look at the truth and the falsehoods in both models and then disregard just that what IS false, then what you are left with is just what IS. This then shows you what the actual Truth IS.

What IS, true, right, and correct is the answer that you are looking for anyway.

Learning how to find and see the Truth in ALL things IS very simple and easy to do, once you know how.

This is why Quantum Mechanics and / or General Relatively are only approximations of such phenomena

Looking at what IS only, from the outset, removes ALL the approximations, guess work, assuming, and everything else that has led you, singlely and collectively, to still not have a clear understanding of how the Universe actually works.

Looking at what IS only, BEFORE you begin to assume any thing allows you to find, see, and understand True answers, practically instantly.

The answers are obvious and thus are very simple to find. Getting you, human beings, to formulate questions is in fact a harder thing to do, as I have just proven here in this discussion with you.

[surreptitious57]

To Me there is NO incompatibility between the two there is only a perceived incompatibility

There can not be any incompatibility between actual phenomena but there is in the models themselves

Why do you TRY TO twist and turn around what I say. I said there is a perceived incompatibilty between THE MODELS THEMSELVES

I completely agree with what you have said but in your mind you think that I am trying to twist what you have said when that is clearly not so

[ken]

A philosophical answer to a scientific question will not solve the surface discrepancy problem or remove infinity from the equations
What would really help however would be a scientific answer to these particular problems for that is what is actually required here

What is the so called surface discrepancy problem from your perspective and I will endeavor to show you how it can easily be solved

Why would any person want to remove infinity from equations if infinity is part of the answer solution and / formula

Well I nor any person can not begin to provide a scientific answer to any problem until the problem is laid out into question form
So if you want answers then begin by asking questions We can not begin to find the answers for you until you ask the questions

The surface discrepancy problem pertains to space being smooth at the classical level and rough at the quantum level

Do you realize a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution? So, until you pose the actual question you are unable to be given the answer, which will then solve your problem.

Infinites are nonsensical in physics equations because a probability can only be between zero and one and nothing else

But I do NOT look at probabilities anyway. I only look at what IS, thus I only see and understand what IS.

What you are telling Me here explains further why some human beings, and human beings on a whole, take such a long time to only look at, and thus find and discover, what IS.

Unless you can provide scientific answers to these questions then anything that you do say is not going to be much help

You do realize that I am still waiting for YOU to ask questions?

By the way, and just out of curiosity, WHY do you NOT quote Me exactly, especially when I have asked you nicely on a few occasions already to do so. If you do not quite Me exactly, then what I am actually saying AND meaning can be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted even more easily than I am being now.

[surreptitious57]

I suggest if you want an accurate depiction of how the Universe actually works for example then just look at what IS
instead of adding wrong information and / or leaving any thing out. It is all very simple indeed

Looking at and seeing those models as incompatible stops you from being able to look at and see the actual truth
That is if you look at the truth and the falsehoods in both models and then disregard just that what IS false then
what you are left with is just what IS. This then shows you what the actual Truth IS

The problem with this is that it is not how it actually works. For one thing the truth can not always be known
Knowledge increases over time so is not instantaneous. You are providing answers based on a God perspective
but human beings are not God. This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here

[ken]

There can not be any incompatibility between actual phenomena but there is in the models themselves

Why do you TRY TO twist and turn around what I say. I said there is a perceived incompatibilty between THE MODELS THEMSELVES

I completely agree with what you have said but in your mind you think that I am trying to twist what you have said when that is clearly not so

Now that you have explained that you were agreeing with Me, then you are exactly right, in that in the thoughts within this head (what you call "your mind") one of those thoughts was that you were trying to twist what I was saying when you actually were not. My wrong. Thanks for clearing it up now.

To me, it obviously was not clearly what you were not doing, otherwise that thought would not have arisen. But it was my fault for not clarifying BEFORE i made the assumption. The reason that wrong assumption was made from what you wrote I will not go into detail now.

[surreptitious57]

What is the so called surface discrepancy problem from your perspective and I will endeavor to show you how it can easily be solved

Why would any person want to remove infinity from equations if infinity is part of the answer solution and / formula

Well I nor any person can not begin to provide a scientific answer to any problem until the problem is laid out into question form
So if you want answers then begin by asking questions We can not begin to find the answers for you until you ask the questions

The surface discrepancy problem pertains to space being smooth at the classical level and rough at the quantum level

Do you realize a problem is just a question posed for a solution so until you pose the
actual question you are unable to be given the answer which will solve your problem

The problem does not actually have to be in the form of a question but simply a statement with all the relevant information
I gave you two examples and so the onus is upon you to provide an answer to either of them if you can but if not just say so
And by the way it is not my problem as you have incorrectly stated since I do not ever expect to possess absolute knowledge

[ken]

I suggest if you want an accurate depiction of how the Universe actually works for example then just look at what IS
instead of adding wrong information and / or leaving any thing out. It is all very simple indeed

Looking at and seeing those models as incompatible stops you from being able to look at and see the actual truth
That is if you look at the truth and the falsehoods in both models and then disregard just that what IS false then
what you are left with is just what IS. This then shows you what the actual Truth IS

The problem with this is that it is not how it actually works.

What is the 'it', which you are referring to here?

Could you mean some thing like, that is not how 'you' actually work?

For one thing the truth can not always be known

Is that 'the truth'?

If so, can 'that' always be known?

Knowledge increases over time so is not instantaneous.

Obviously knowledge increases over time, and, as long as there is knowledgeable creatures existing, knowledge will keep increasing along the way. Further to this, the actual rate that knowledge is gathered increases over time also. As is evidenced through the human beings evolution. And, in fact the rate at which knowledge can be obtained can be increased tremendously from the rate that it is obtained nowadays, when this is written.

Again, remaining OPEN to how this can be learned, and thus known, is all it takes.

You are providing answers based on a God perspective
but human beings are not God.

Did human beings evolve from some thing else? Did human beings stop evolving?

What could human beings evolved from, and, what could human beings evolve into?

Or anther question, could human beings just be a part of One thing, which is always evolving into Its Self?

This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here

Was this a 'fundamental flaw' because it did not fit in with your view and perception of how the Universe works, which you, hopefully, would honestly admit that you do not fully understand yet, or, was this a 'fundamental flaw' becaise it did not fit with how the Universe actually works?

If it was the latter, then how do you KNOW this?

If it was the former, then I totally agree.

[surreptitious57]

I suggest if you want an accurate depiction of how the Universe actually works for example then just look at what IS
instead of adding wrong information and / or leaving any thing out. It is all very simple indeed

Looking at and seeing those models as incompatible stops you from being able to look at and see the actual truth
That is if you look at the truth and the falsehoods in both models and then disregard just that what IS false then
what you are left with is just what IS. This then shows you what the actual Truth IS

The problem with this is that it is not how it actually works

What is the it which you are referring to here
Could you mean some thing like that is not how you actually work

The it is knowledge acquisition and yes it is how I actually work but others do this as well
It applies to any human being trying to acquire knowledge they want for whatever reason

[surreptitious57]

For one thing the truth can not always be known

Is that the truth If so can that always be known

Yes it is the truth and it can always be known

[surreptitious57]

Did human beings evolve from some thing else Did human beings stop evolving [ at some point ]

What could human beings evolved from and what could human beings evolve into

Or anther question could human beings just be a part of One thing which is always evolving into Its Self [ now ]

Human beings did evolve from something else but may have stopped evolving before now though I do not know

Human beings share a common biological ancestor with all animals and plants going back nearly four billion years

I see no reason at all to think that human beings are a part of Mind or Consciousness or any other non falsifiable idea