The Existential Crisis

[surreptitious57]

Also at those moments when you are interacting with the world or Universe around you are you being just an observer or a participant ?

Also when you write in this philosophy forum are you being an observer or a participant or both ?

More observer than participant to both questions as I am just slowly letting go the older I become
No need to hold onto positions which could potentially change so I remain as detached as possible

[Age]

Also, this coming from the one, if I recall correctly, states that the Universe is expanding, and therefore it 'must of' began.

You misunderstand. Yes it is true that I believe the universe is expanding. That is because I have made the effort to look at the evidence,

LOL

I have told you ALREADY WHY that so called "evidence" is FLAWED.

which I find compelling, and the logical arguments which to me look valid.

Of course you find that, so called, "evidence", 'compelling', and of course you find the laughable and so called, "logical arguments", 'valid'. This is because of your confirmation biases, which are there because of your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS. As I keep informing you.

Also, because of your already held BELIEFS, and the subsequent confirmation bias, you are incapable of seeing anything else, no matter how compelling and valid it actually IS.

But if you can find any example of me saying 'must of', I will give you a lollipop.

The words 'must of' were highlighted for a very specific reason. They were highlighted there to to specify that I was not sure that they were the EXACT WORDS but were words that implied what you were using in reference to your view that the Universe did 'actually' begin.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that I specifically used the words, 'if I recall correctly', for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

For one thing it is terrible grammar, but more to the point, if an MSc in History and Philosophy of Science teaches anything, it is that people who insist anything must be the case frequently end up with egg on their face.

WHY? I insist I wrote the words; " 'must of' began ". So, why 'must this be' the case that I frequently end up with, so called "egg on my face".

WHY does it necessarily follow, to a msc in history and philosophy of science, that people who insist 'any thing' (one thing) 'must be' the case frequently end up with egg on their face?

Are you able to explain HOW this logically follows, to one with such highly recognized learned teachings? To a complete non intellectual this does NOT follow.

I, obviously, can insist the above, insist this is thee Truth, and still NOT end up with, so called, "egg on my face". I think what will be found is that what I insisted just now is in fact irrefutably thee actual Truth.

Yet, when questioned and challenged about this, is another one who instead of answering the actual questions posed and taking up the challenge turns to 'deflection' as well, or refusing to respond, which is clearly evidenced from our previous discussions, and which will be clearly evidenced again, soon enough.

Here, look again, this is the evidence that I believe supports the hypothesis that the universe is expanding: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname

I have already seen what you see as being evidence for what you already believe is true. I have also already explained why it is the 'interpretation', itself, which calls that 'evidence' for expansion, which is flawed and wrong.

What is observed is NOT disputed. That it is evidence for expansion is what is being disputed. But, obviously, if a person already believes or says that 'it' is 'the' evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Universe is expanding, then they are NOT open to anything else.

I do not know how many more times I have to repeat this BEFORE some people Truly understand it.

[Age]

Yeah yeah and once again you babble about how to channel the Universe.

Another PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is completely and utterly CLOSED to anything besides their OWN made up assumptions, which they also BELIEVE is thee irrefutably One and ONLY Truth. Yet, when asked for evidence or proof is completely and utterly incapable of providing BECAUSE what they say is ALL a figment of their own making.

More certain statements coming from the Universe.

If that is what you BELIEVE they are, then that is what they ARE, to you.

Also, the more that is being written, then the more the statements are being VERIFIED True, Right, and Correct. Thanks to 'you'.

[Age]

And why do you say that if you are so called detached then you do not have to have a position at all ?

Because for me that is what detachment is namely the absence of fixed positions
And so instead I just let my thoughts be without committing to any specific views

Does, "just let my thoughts be", also entail not questioning them either?

I found questioning ALL of my thoughts very helpful, in deed.

[Age]

Also what is it exactly which you are supposedly detached from ?

Everything that does not directly affect me which is most things

But who (and/or what) is the me, which is directly affected by some things but supposedly not by most things?

And, what things do directly affect that 'me', and, what things do not directly affect that 'me'?

Also, are there things that 'indirectly' affect that 'me', and how does that 'me' distinguish them apart?

Not wasting mental energy on that which has zero impact on me

When ALL is revealed the irony of this statement is beautiful.

How does the 'me' actually decide to not, so call, "waste mental energy", on some thing which has had 'zero impact' on it anyway.

[Age]

Also at those moments when you are interacting with the world or Universe around you are you being just an observer or a participant ?

Also when you write in this philosophy forum are you being an observer or a participant or both ?

More observer than participant to both questions as I am just slowly letting go the older I become
No need to hold onto positions which could potentially change so I remain as detached as possible

Okay, so really it could be argued that 'you' are actually becoming 'younger', again, instead of 'older', or as I like to call it 'newer'. This is because when you were Truly young, and new, you NEVER had a position, let alone held onto a position, and so you were once completely detached.

And, by the looks of it becoming that way again, which is Truly beautiful to observe, and SEE.

[uwot]

What is observed is NOT disputed. That it is evidence for expansion is what is being disputed.

See, this is the bit you don't understand. Let's take galactic redshift. It is evidence for the expansion. It is also evidence that photons get 'tired' the further through space they travel. It is evidence that god was running out of red paint as he got nearer to Earth. It is evidence that you are only a brain in a bucket and the pool of blood from your still twitching corpse is spilling over the rim and slowly diluting its way towards your one remaining eye. As I keep saying, any hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence could be true.

But, obviously, if a person already believes or says that 'it' is 'the' evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Universe is expanding, then they are NOT open to anything else.

Age, I am so fucking open to "anything else". Tell me what you think galactic redshift is evidence for, and if I like it, I will crawl over broken glass and give you a lollipop.

I do not know how many more times I have to repeat this BEFORE some people Truly understand it.

Here Age, if you are wearing socks, pull them up because I want your undivided attention. See, the clever people on this forum know perfectly well that a good story isn't the same as a true story. It is the dummies and the nutters who believe that because they can understand their story, it must be true.

[surreptitious57]

What is observed is NOT disputed . That it is evidence for expansion is what is being disputed . But obviously if a person already believes
or says that it is the evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Universe is expanding then they are NOT open to anything else

The observable Universe is definitely expanding but that does not mean that the entire Universe is expanding [ it may be / it may not be ]
So statements about what cannot be observed cannot be accepted as true [ even if they are true ] as there is no evidence to support them

[surreptitious57]

But who ( and / or what ) is the me which is directly affected by some things but supposedly not by most things ?

And what things do directly affect that me and what things do not directly affect that me ?

Also are there things that indirectly affect that me and how does that me distinguish them apart ?

The me is i and the things that directly / non directly / indirectly affect me are too many to mention
I do not need to distinguish between them but just deal with those that do affect me when necessary

[surreptitious57]

How does the me actually decide to not so call waste mental energy on some thing which has had zero impact on it anyway ?

I only possess a finite amount of mental energy so do not want to waste any of it at all
And so avoid using it whenever possible but being detached requires very little anyway

[Atla]

Another PRIME EXAMPLE of one who is completely and utterly CLOSED to anything besides their OWN made up assumptions, which they also BELIEVE is thee irrefutably One and ONLY Truth. Yet, when asked for evidence or proof is completely and utterly incapable of providing BECAUSE what they say is ALL a figment of their own making.

More certain statements coming from the Universe.

If that is what you BELIEVE they are, then that is what they ARE, to you.

Also, the more that is being written, then the more the statements are being VERIFIED True, Right, and Correct. Thanks to 'you'.

Even more revelations

[Age]

What is observed is NOT disputed. That it is evidence for expansion is what is being disputed.

See, this is the bit you don't understand.

Wow that is one HUGE ASSUMPTION you just made, based on just a very few words of mine.

Let's take galactic redshift.

Great, let us take a look at this.

It is evidence for the expansion.

LOL Wow, see how quickly you have jumped to this conclusion?

I just informed you that what is observed is NOT disputed, and, that 'what is observed' is evidence for expansion is what is being disputed, but you seem to just COMPLETELY IGNORE this comment outright. You refuse to question this at all, and you just completely dismiss it wholeheartedly.

If you were really serious about, "Let us take galactic redshift, then you would listen to what "others" have to say, and then question and challenge them. But you do not do this. You instead just want to insist that "galactic redshift" is EVIDENCE that the Universe IS expanding.

As I was referring to earlier, galactic redshift' is NOT being disputed. BUT, what it actually means and what you and "others" have interpreted it to mean is NOT necessarily the one and the same thing. The interpretation is being disputed.

If some thing is 'evidence' for some thing else, then, in your head, can that be doubted?

What is observed, and what the interpretation of what that means, are not always the same thing. Remember what is observed is the sun revolving around the earth, which was then interpreted to mean that this is evidence that the earth is in the center of the Universe. Was this interpretation right?

If it was not right, then it was NOT 'evidence' for that.

Now, what is observed is 'galactic redshift', which is not in dispute, but does this then necessarily mean that the interpretation that this is evidence that the Universe is expanding is right?

'Galactic redshift' is observed and some people, like yourself, believe that this is evidence that the Universe is expanding. But, thee Truth IS this is NOT evidence that the Universe is expanding, this is just yours and some "others" interpretation that it means the Universe is expanding.

When you understand this FULLY, then we will NOT be in dispute. Or, if you explain how you define and use the word 'evidence' here, then we might not be in dispute.

It is also evidence that photons get 'tired' the further through space they travel. It is evidence that god was running out of red paint as he got nearer to Earth. It is evidence that you are only a brain in a bucket and the pool of blood from your still twitching corpse is spilling over the rim and slowly diluting its way towards your one remaining eye. As I keep saying, any hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence could be true.

But as I keep saying, 'galactic redshift' is NOT 'evidence' for any thing other than what it is actually 'evidence' for.

Obviously, 'galactic redshift' is NOT, for example, 'evidence' that "God ..." if there is NO God anyway.

And as I also keep saying, when only what IS is LOOKED AT, and assumptions, guesses, theories, hypothesis's, et cetera are STOPPED by made, then thee actual Truth is observed, and SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.

And, as I keep telling you, 'galactic redshift' is NOT 'evidence' that the Universe is expanding. This is only yours and just some "others" interpretation of what this means.

When, and IF, you ever become OPEN enough, then you and "others" will LEARN WHY that is NOT 'evidence' that the Universe is expanding at all. Obviously, you are completely INCAPABLE of learning and understanding this fact while you keep maintaining that BELIEF that 'galactic resdshift' is EVIDENCE that the Universe is expanding.

But, obviously, if a person already believes or says that 'it' is 'the' evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Universe is expanding, then they are NOT open to anything else.

Age, I am so fucking open to "anything else". Tell me what you think galactic redshift is evidence for, and if I like it, I will crawl over broken glass and give you a lollipop.

To me, the observed 'galactic redshift' are just PARTS of thee Universe which are expanding, away from earth, while 'galactic blueshift' are just those PARTS of the Universe, which are doing the opposite.

Besides this observed 'galactic redshift' could NOT evidence for the whole Universe, Itself. This is because human beings are not yet able to observe, thus SEE, the whole Universe, Itself. If they want actual 'evidence' for the whole Universe, Itself, then they need to be able to see the entire Universe. They cannot observe the entire Universe. Therefore, if they Truly want to be able to learn, SEE, and UNDERSTAND the WHOLE 'picture', then they need to learn HOW to LOOK AT and SEE things differently than they do now, when this is being written.

When they discover HOW to be OPEN enough, which will be soon enough, then they will then LEARN HOW to observe and SEE things how they EXACTLY ARE.

I do not know how many more times I have to repeat this BEFORE some people Truly understand it.

Here Age, if you are wearing socks, pull them up because I want your undivided attention. See, the clever people on this forum know perfectly well that a good story isn't the same as a true story.

That line, which 'you', human beings, all to frequently say and use; "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story", partly explains WHY you make up so many of these, so called, "good" stories, which, obvious to me anyway, do NOT align with thee actual Truth of things.

I much prefer to just say and use, the line; 'NEVER let a story get in the way of thee Truth'.

That way I am NOT 'trying to' "justify" my own made up stories as being, so called, "good", and therefore somehow reasonable.

By the way, who are the actual, so called, "clever people" on this forum?

Would you, coincidentally, 'just happen' to be one of them?

It is the dummies and the nutters who believe that because they can understand their story, it must be true.

Do you believe that the observed 'galactic redshift' is 'evidence' that the Universe is expanding?

Do you understand your own story about how the observed 'galactic redshift' is evidence that the Universe is expanding?

Do you believe that your own story is a 'good' story?

Do you believe that your own story is true?

If you do not believe you own story is true, then why not?

But, if you do believe that your own story is true, and you believe that it is a good story as well, then are you a, so called, "dummy" or a, so called, "nutter" also? Or, is that only reserved for the "others", who have 'stories' that you do not agree with and accept?

See, if you really a 'clever' person, then you would have observed and thus already noticed that the proposition;
the clever people on this forum know perfectly well that a good story isn't the same as a true story

Is illogical, and not reasonable.

Are ALL 'true stories', so called, "bad" stories, and ALL, so called, "good" stories 'false stories'?

If no, then that would mean that a, so called, "good" story might IN FACT actually BE the EXACT SAME as a 'true story'.

But, the so called, "clever people", on this forum, will NEVER discover and KNOW this, because according to your, so called, "logic" these people KNOW 'perfectly well' "that a good story is NOT the same as a true story", correct?

[Age]

More certain statements coming from the Universe.

If that is what you BELIEVE they are, then that is what they ARE, to you.

Also, the more that is being written, then the more the statements are being VERIFIED True, Right, and Correct. Thanks to 'you'.

Even more revelations

If that is what you see them as being, and you say they are, then that is what they ARE, to you.

As I have already said and noted; the more that is being written, then the more the statements are being VERIFIED True, Right, and Correct. Thanks to 'you'.

Thus, the more that is actually being REVEALED, again thanks to 'you'.

Those that are starting to discover, learn, and understand and know who and what the 'you' actually IS, will be-coming Truly amazed at what is actually unfolding here NOW, and on reflection, what has been unfolding and coming-to-light.

[Age]

What is observed is NOT disputed . That it is evidence for expansion is what is being disputed . But obviously if a person already believes
or says that it is the evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Universe is expanding then they are NOT open to anything else

The observable Universe is definitely expanding

Is that a 'definite', like the sun revolves around the earth was also once a 'definite' as well?

Also, how does your position here that, "The observable Universe is definitely expanding", align with your other position that there is; "No need to hold onto positions which could potentially change so I remain as detached as possible"?

Could the position; "The observable Universe IS expanding", potentially change, or could this NOT potentially happen?

And, if it could potentially change, then how does that effect your position/view that you are being as "detached as possible"?

but that does not mean that the entire Universe is expanding [ it may be / it may not be ]

IF, and that is a HUGE IF, the observable Universe is, as you say, "definitely" expanding, then that means that it could NOT be any thing else. There is NO 'may be' nor 'may not be'.

Now, to SEE what IS HAPPENING to the entire Universe, in order to discover and learn HOW the Universe, Itself, actually works and behaves, then one just needs to be able to observe and SEE, UNDERSTAND, a part of thee Universe, Itself. HOW this is actually possible is learned and understood when one is Truly OPEN, or as you say "detached". But one HAS TO BE ACTUALLY 'detached' and NOT just say they are.

The Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding, although it may appear to some human beings that the observable universe, to them, is expanding. Remember, in the observable universe the sun is observed to be revolving around the earth, but, is this what is DEFINITELY happening?

So statements about what cannot be observed cannot be accepted as true [ even if they are true ] as there is no evidence to support them

EXACTLY.

And, what else I do NOT automatically accept is human being's 'interpretations' about what they think or believe is true. I need to SEE the actual supporting evidence and proof, which backs up what they claim is true. If they cannot or will not show and provide this, then I question them WHY?

Are you able to SHOW with evidence that proves your claim that the observable universe IS DEFINITELY expanding.

If yes, then will you?

If yes, then what have you?

[Age]

How does the me actually decide to not so call waste mental energy on some thing which has had zero impact on it anyway ?

I only possess a finite amount of mental energy so do not want to waste any of it at all

Okay, I had ALREADY figured that out. This is also only what you WANT.

My question revolved around how it was possible for you to decide not to do some thing, when supposedly you had not been impacted in any way, anyway.

Obviously if you had been supposedly impacted in NO way, or by ZERO, then how could you then make a decision? What would you basing the decision to, so call, "waste mental energy" on some supposed thing, which supposedly had zero impact on you anyway?

And so avoid using it whenever possible but being detached requires very little anyway

You are aware right, that in order to 'decide' to not "waste mental energy", then you are using, so called, "mental energy"?

Besides "mental energy" what else causes 'decision' making?

If "mental energy" does not create decisions, then what else does?