Is our universe alone?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:34 am HOW can I misunderstand some thing if I have absolutely NO understanding of that thing at all?
You are fibbing.
Did you misunderstand the question, again?

In fact did you misunderstand that it is just a question? The question mark ? at then end is a clue.

How could I be fibbing? I did NOT make a statement about any thing. What I did instead was, just ask a question.

By the way, WHAT do you think/BELIEVE I am fibbing about exactly?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 am If you understood the Bayesian framework you wouldn't accuse me of "black and white" thinking.
Did you MISS the whole point of what I was saying?

That is; I do NOT understand the bayesian framework at all. I had NOT even heard that name, before, you mentioned it here.

I based my accusation of 'black and white thinking' on what I KNOW of 'black and white thinking', NOT on any such thing with a given label "bayesian framework".

If I understood the "bayesian framework" I may not, or I still may, accuse you of 'black and white thinking'. If I did or not would ALL depend on what I choose to do. WHY do you think/BELIEVE that if I understood the "bayesian framework" then I would NOT accuse you of 'black and white thinking'? Just because one understands a "framework" does NOT necessitate that that person HAS TO, or even would, follow it at all, or follow it exactly and fully, or follow it any where in between.

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 amSo whether I said "you don't understand" or "you misunderstand" I am pointing at the same phenomenon: your false conclusion due to lack of information.
Is it possible that it is supposedly "my false conclusion", from YOUR perspective, because you did NOT understand what I said and wrote?

See if you can understand this, from this information; If one is NOT aware of some thing, then they obviously could neither understand it nor misunderstand it. If they have NO awareness of some thing, then how could they understand/misunderstand that thing? Does that make sense to you? If some one is unaware of some thing, then that one is unaware of it. Plain and simply true.

I was completely unaware of what the "bayesian framework" IS, other that that is a label given to some thing, which you say is a "tool". So, WHAT the ACTUAL framework IS I am unaware of. If I am unaware of THAT, then I could neither understand it nor misunderstand it. I am unaware of what the actual framework of the "bayesian framework" IS, therefore, I could neither understand nor misunderstand it.

This was NEVER about whether you said; "you don't understand" or "you misunderstand" AT ALL. This is about HOW if I am UNAWARE of some thing, then I could NEITHER misunderstand that thing, nor, understand that thing. To be able to mis-understand some thing one first HAS TO have some understanding in the first place. I could NOT even have AN understanding of the framework you talk about because I am completely UNAWARE of THE framework. Do you NOW understand?

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 amThis would be an example of how you insist on me using the "correct" phrase to convey my message e.g attempting to control language.
I have NEVER insisted on you using the "correct" phrase to CONVEY YOUR MESSAGE. You convey YOUR message 'absolutely perfectly', all by your self, with YOUR own very WORDS. I just TRY TO clarify what you are actually saying and meaning. I do this by questioning YOU. If you interpret My questions as being some thing other than THAT they are or THAT they are NOT, then either that is my fault alone, or some thing else.

I am attempting to understand YOU better. I do this by questioning. Especially when you insist some thing as being True and Right, and especially even more so when your insistence is based solely upon YOUR BELIEFS. I find humor in what actually comes to light through and from My questioning.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:34 am If, however, you really want to teach me some thing regarding whatever that thing is that has been given the name "bayesian framework, then feel free to go ahead. But if you are at all interested. I am NOT really interested in that "tool".
I gave you a link to a book.
Which, by the way, you gave WHILE I was responding and so did not get the link until just now. I did not get it earlier.

Beyond that I am not interested in spending any of my time teaching you.[/quote]

Then it might be of NO real importance anyway?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 am You are welcome to read the reviews of the book and decide if you are, or aren't interested in the tool.

Here is one review: https://unvarnishedveritas.wordpress.co ... inference/
Thank you for the invite, and especially for allowing Me to decide if I am interested or not.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:49 am How could I be fibbing? I did NOT make a statement about any thing. What I did instead was, just ask a question.
Naturally. And I asked myself a question: WHY do YOU ask that particular question?

And by asking THAT question, I came up with a plausible explanation. That is - you are uncertain. E.g you don't know. Because if you knew you wouldn't ask the question.
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:49 am If I understood the "bayesian framework" I may not, or I still may, accuse you of 'black and white thinking'.
If you understood the Bayesian framework you would be less likely to accuse me of black-and-white thinking. Because you would understand that I think like a scientist and in terms of probabilities.

But you don't understand that framework, which tells me YOU don't think like a scientist. So it is far more probable that you are guilty of black-and-white thinking than I am.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:18 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:06 am Did you misunderstand the question?
No. I did't.
It appears you did.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:18 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:06 am Did I say there was a third?
Did you misunderstand your question?
No. Do you think/BELIEVE I misunderstood MY question?

Did you have a BELIEF some where, which distorted your view, which in turn turned into a WRONG ASSUMPTION, which then lead you to say the most absolutely off-topic, inappropriate, out-of-context statement; Prove me wrong (e.g teach me!) by providing a third.

I only asked; Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with?

You even said; "Yes". But then you went on some off-topic tangent about proving you wrong by providing a third one.

Talk about getting trapped in one's own language.

ASKING: Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with?
IS NOT saying that there IS a third one.
So, I do NOT have any thing to prove.
Nor did I misunderstand MY own question.

I asked: Did I say there was a third? To wit THE ANSWER is NO.

Your ASSUMPTION that I did say there was a third, lead you to seeing things not even there, which then lead you to having distorted thinking and distorted views what was actually said here, and of what was actually taking place here.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:18 amYou asked me how many I could come up with.
NO. I did NOT. I NEVER asked any thing even like that. I just asked you, WHAT I DID ASK YOU. Which was: Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:18 am I came up with 2. I am reasonably certain there is no 3rd option (unless somebody provides one).
NOW this IS the RIGHT and CORRECT answer to MY actual written down question.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:18 amI have framed my claim in a way that is falsifiable. So - until falsified it's not wrong.

You either know of a 3rd option, or 2 is the correct number...
1. I NEVER claimed your claim is wrong. You just ASSUMED this.
2. I just wrote; Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with? Nothing else. It is a question that can be answered either with a YES or a NO response.
3. There is NO "correct" number to the answer. Considering I was asking YOU, how many YOU can come up with, whatever number YOU GIVE is the correct and ONLY answer possible. That is; of course if you are not lying.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:49 am How could I be fibbing? I did NOT make a statement about any thing. What I did instead was, just ask a question.
Naturally. And I asked myself a question: WHY do YOU ask that particular question?
Which is fine, if you remain OPEN. But if you do NOT remain OPEN, which you did NOT, confusion inevitably creeps in, as has once again been proven here. And, and shown with and in written evidence.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 amAnd by asking THAT question, I came up with a plausible explanation.
'Plausible' explanation does NOT mean CORRECT explanation. 'Plausible' does NOT even mean that that 'explanation' is even close to being the correct explanation.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 am That is - you are uncertain. E.g you don't know. Because if you knew you wouldn't ask the question.
An OBVIOUS conclusion. And a perfect one also. That is; if you just left it at that. But you had to make up an ASSUMPTION, ALSO.

You ASSUMED that I was saying/suggesting that there was a third conclusion, which I was NOT saying NOR suggesting. Your ASSUMPTION lead to your confusion, and then your completely unnecessary accusations, and the completely unnecessary writings, from both of us, as well.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:49 am If I understood the "bayesian framework" I may not, or I still may, accuse you of 'black and white thinking'.
If you understood the Bayesian framework you would be less likely to accuse me of black-and-white thinking. Because you would understand that I think like a scientist and in terms of probabilities.
To me, people known as "scientists" can be and ARE FOLLOWERS just as much as people who are "religionists". You each have BELIEFS, listen to and WHOLLY accept and BELIEVE what "others" say, and then blindly go where you are being lead. You each have NO insight into WHAT you are actually doing nor WHERE you are actually heading.

'Probabilities' can BE just as far off from actually being True, Right, and Correct BECAUSE WHAT IS actually True, Right, and Correct is NOT yet KNOWN by either 'you', scientists, nor you' religionists.

WHEN ALL of 'you' come to an agreement of WHAT IS actually True, Right, and Correct, only then 'YOU' will begin to understand this better, then 'you' WILL better understand ALL-THERE-IS, including EXACTLY what IS, happening right HERE NOW.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 amBut you don't understand that framework, which tells me YOU don't think like a scientist.
YES, YES, YES. I certainly do NOT think like a human being, and especially with the self-given label 'scientist'. Let Me keep telling you this so that you KNOW it, for sure, and, will NOT forget it.

I, also, have ALREADY told you WHY I do NOT understand that framework. The most simplest of explanations, of which you still can NOT even yet SEE and understand, IS I do NOT understand that framework BECAUSE I am NOT even aware of that framework.

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 am So it is far more probable that you are guilty of black-and-white thinking than I am.
Are you at all able to explain what 'black and white thinking' is/means to you?

Then, does WHAT it is/means to you, MEAN that that IS the 'absolute and only correct' definition for THAT thinking?

In other words; Are you 'absolutely certain' WHAT 'black and white thinking' IS?
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:59 am Which is fine, if you remain OPEN. But if you do NOT remain OPEN, which you did NOT, confusion inevitably creeps in, as has once again been proven here. And, and shown with and in written evidence.
If you understood the Bayesian framework you would RECOGNISE that I am, in fact open.

And by your own admission - you don't understand it. So maybe doubt your own openness ;)
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:29 am 1. I NEVER claimed your claim is wrong. You just ASSUMED this.
You never claimed it's right either. You answered the question with a question.
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:29 am 2. I just wrote; Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with? Nothing else. It is a question that can be answered either with a YES or a NO response.
IS it a question that can be answered with a 'YES' or 'NO'? Are you sure there isn't a 3rd option?

To the observers: note how it struggles to control the discourse. It refuses to answer questions, it answer questions with questions ;) It externalises responsibility by appealing to an unstated agenda ;)
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:05 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:29 am 1. I NEVER claimed your claim is wrong. You just ASSUMED this.
You never claimed it's right either.
Was I supposed to?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:05 amYou answered the question with a question.
I answered WHAT question, with a question?

Do you think/BELIEVE that it is somehow WRONG to ask for clarification about the definition or meaning of words or terminology used in a question BEFORE the question is answered?


If No, then WHY did you bring up that I answered a question with a question?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:05 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:29 am 2. I just wrote; Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with? Nothing else. It is a question that can be answered either with a YES or a NO response.
IS it a question that can be answered with a 'YES' or 'NO'?
Yes.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:05 amAre you sure there isn't a 3rd option?
No I am NOT sure. That is; once again, WHY I asked you: Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with?

If you can only come up with two, then that is fine, and so be it. End of story.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:05 amTo the observers: note how it struggles to control the discourse.
I am NOT trying to control any thing. So, I am NOT struggling.

Note how there is NO example of where "it" SUPPOSEDLY struggles to control the discourse.

Note also: Was that comment "timeseeker" just wrote AN attempt at trying to, now, control the discourse?

Is that FEAR dwelling inside of you "timeseeker", when feeling 'out of control', and/or, of 'being seen to be WRONG and out of control' producing such thinking and thoughts now?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:05 am It refuses to answer questions, it answer questions with questions ;) It externalises responsibility by appealing to an unstated agenda ;)
Can you, will you, provide any examples of WHERE this "one" supposedly REFUSES to answer questions IS?

Can you guide US to YOUR questions that YOU allege that I refuse to answer?

Also, WHAT can very easily be counted is just how many questions of yours I have actually answered compared to how many of My questions that you have actually answered. This would be very easy for any Observer to go back through our discussions and COUNT.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:03 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:59 am Which is fine, if you remain OPEN. But if you do NOT remain OPEN, which you did NOT, confusion inevitably creeps in, as has once again been proven here. And, and shown with and in written evidence.
If you understood the Bayesian framework you would RECOGNISE that I am, in fact open.
I do NOT need to read up on and/or understand the "bayesian framework" to KNOW that you are NOT open.

Your written words speak for themselves, regarding this. Your words SHOW and TELL a lot about who 'you' really ARE.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:03 amAnd by your own admission - you don't understand it. So maybe doubt your own openness ;)
Yes I do NOT understand "it" because I am UNAWARE of what "it" IS. I was the One who TOLD you that is the reason WHY I do NOT understand "it".

No ONE needs to understand "it" to KNOW if they are OPEN or NOT.

The WAY one speaks, writes, and reacts SHOWS how OPEN or NOT they really are.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am Yes.
You are wrong. The option "I don't know" is always on the table. That makes for 3 options. So your "yes/no" formulation of the question makes a false dilemma.
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am No I am NOT sure. That is; once again, WHY I asked you: Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with?
If you can only come up with two, then that is fine, and so be it. End of story.
What answer do you expect to that question? I came up with 3 conclusions, but I only mentioned only 2!

Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am Note also: Was that comment "timeseeker" just wrote AN attempt at trying to, now, control the discourse?
Well. I don't have an agenda and you do. So I have no reason to control the discourse.
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am Can you, will you, provide any examples of WHERE this "one" supposedly REFUSES to answer questions IS?

Can you guide US to YOUR questions that YOU allege that I refuse to answer?

Also, WHAT can very easily be counted is just how many questions of yours I have actually answered compared to how many of My questions that you have actually answered. This would be very easy for any Observer to go back through our discussions and COUNT.
All of your questions are loaded. So I choose not to answer them.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 am I do NOT need to read up on and/or understand the "bayesian framework" to KNOW that you are NOT open.
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 am Yes I do NOT understand "it" because I am UNAWARE of what "it" IS. I was the One who TOLD you that is the reason WHY I do NOT understand "it".
Is it possible that you don't understand what "openness" really is? Maybe your conception of "openness" is not open enough.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:46 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am Yes.
You are wrong. The option "I don't know" is always on the table.
BUT the ACTUAL question, which you leave out for REASONS only you REALLY KNOW, WAS: IS it a question that can be answered with a 'YES' or 'NO'?

So, My answer of Yes, can NOT BE WRONG.

In case you FORGOT, YOU asked ME a question, of which I answered. The question, in question, that YOU, your self, WROTE is: CAN this question be answered with a "YES" or "NO" and the obviously RIGHT answer is a resounding YES. THAT question, in question, CAN BE answered with a YES.

If, THAT question, COULD BE answered with a 'I don't know' was NEVER asked for (nor even, literally, in question). The ONLY THING that was asked for was If THAT question CAN BE answered with a YES or NO. And, AGAIN, YES it can be answered with a YES. This is a True, Right, and Correct ANSWER, and therefore NOT a WRONG answer, as you SAY and WRITE it IS.


TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:46 amThat makes for 3 options. So your "yes/no" formulation of the question makes a false dilemma.
I think, and hope, if you re-read this you will better understand, more.

Are you absolutely certain MY 'yes/no' formulation of that question makes it a "FALSE" dilemma?
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:46 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am No I am NOT sure. That is; once again, WHY I asked you: Are there only two conclusions, that you can come up with?
If you can only come up with two, then that is fine, and so be it. End of story.
What answer do you expect to that question? I came up with 3 conclusions, but I only mentioned only 2!
I was NOT expecting any thing to that question.

I learned NOT to expect any thing a long time ago, especially in a so called "philosophy" forum.

I, however, was hoping for HONESTY and OPENNESS, WHEN 'you' are answering that and ALL questions I ask.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:46 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am Note also: Was that comment "timeseeker" just wrote AN attempt at trying to, now, control the discourse?
Well. I don't have an agenda and you do. So I have no reason to control the discourse.
WHAT agenda EXACTLY do you THINK/BELIEVE that I have?

Also, if you do NOT have an agenda here, then WHY are you partaking in discussions with Me?

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:46 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:38 am Can you, will you, provide any examples of WHERE this "one" supposedly REFUSES to answer questions IS?

Can you guide US to YOUR questions that YOU allege that I refuse to answer?

Also, WHAT can very easily be counted is just how many questions of yours I have actually answered compared to how many of My questions that you have actually answered. This would be very easy for any Observer to go back through our discussions and COUNT.
All of your questions are loaded. So I choose not to answer them.
Well that is a COMPLETE turn around from what you wrote just prior to this quote, which was; It [Me] refuses to answer questions, it answer questions with questions ;) It externalises responsibility by appealing to an unstated agenda ;)

But now, you say, it is YOU who is the one that chooses NOT to answer not just some of My questions but actually ALL of My questions, because you BELIEVE and/or ASSUME that ALL of My questions are supposedly loaded.

WHO is ACTUALLY trying to EXTERNALIZE responsibility?

You accuse Me of refusing to answer your questions, yet, WHEN I ask you to guide us to YOUR questions that I supposedly REFUSE to answer, you do NOT do that. Instead you just say really it is you who REFUSES to answer MY questions, which leaves Me wondering, at least, HOW many of YOUR questions could you find that I have NOT answered. And, even if there are ANY that I have NOT answered, that does NOT mean that I refused to answer them. Just maybe I overlooked those ones, or forgot to answer them, or for some other reason. I, obviously, am NOT even ABLE TO give the reason WHY I did NOT answer your questions if they are NEVER even provided for us to look at. I NEED to be even given a chance of WHY I did NOT do something, if in fact that was the case, BEFORE I can actually do it.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:47 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 am I do NOT need to read up on and/or understand the "bayesian framework" to KNOW that you are NOT open.
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 am Yes I do NOT understand "it" because I am UNAWARE of what "it" IS. I was the One who TOLD you that is the reason WHY I do NOT understand "it".
Is it possible that you don't understand what "openness" really is?
OF COURSE it is POSSIBLE. Unlike 'you', to Me, any thing IS possible.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:47 amMaybe your conception of "openness" is not open enough.
That is very TRUE. But, can there ever be MORE openness, then OPENNESS?

If yes, then HOW?

I have also already explained HOW the True, Right, and Correct definitions of WORDS can be found. Once THAT definition for OPEN and OPENNESS is discovered AND agreed upon by and with EVERYONE, then we can and will SEE if My conception of OPENNESS is OPEN enough or NOT.

(The issue HERE IS I can NEVER be WRONG, for the very OBVIOUS reasons of WHY having ALREADY being stated, and explained, simply. But we will NOT mention this, because of WHERE that will then take this discussion, and then I could be again accused of trying to control the discussion once more.)
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:38 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:47 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 am I do NOT need to read up on and/or understand the "bayesian framework" to KNOW that you are NOT open.
Age wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 am Yes I do NOT understand "it" because I am UNAWARE of what "it" IS. I was the One who TOLD you that is the reason WHY I do NOT understand "it".
Is it possible that you don't understand what "openness" really is?
OF COURSE it is POSSIBLE. Unlike 'you', to Me, any thing IS possible.
TimeSeeker wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:47 amMaybe your conception of "openness" is not open enough.
That is very TRUE. But, can there ever be MORE openness, then OPENNESS?

If yes, then HOW?

I have also already explained HOW the True, Right, and Correct definitions of WORDS can be found. Once THAT definition for OPEN and OPENNESS is discovered AND agreed upon by and with EVERYONE, then we can and will SEE if My conception of OPENNESS is OPEN enough or NOT.

(The issue HERE IS I can NEVER be WRONG, for the very OBVIOUS reasons of WHY having ALREADY being stated, and explained, simply. But we will NOT mention this, because of WHERE that will then take this discussion, and then I could be again accused of trying to control the discussion once more.)
You are wrong about never being wrong.

Simply because you think in absolutes.

In the same breath that you claim that “unlike me you believe anything is possible” you also question how there can be anything more open than OPENNESS.

Naturally. OPENNESS + 1.

Is it possible that you are wrong about not being wrong? ;)
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
Is absolute certainty possible or impossible or I do not know
I think it is possible in some circumstances but not in others

For example I am absolutely certain that one and one is two but I am not absolutely certain about when I am going to die
So some things are definitely known while others are not and others still may be assumed to be known but not absolutely

But absolute certainty in science other than disproof through falsification is not possible
Since even theories which occupy the highest epistemic status there is could be falsified
Even if the quantity / quality of evidence supporting them makes this incredibly unlikely
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Is our universe alone?

Post by TimeSeeker »

surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:45 pm For example I am absolutely certain that one and one is two
Are you sure about that? I bet you that you can't give me an example of "1" of anything at the scale of human perception.
Post Reply