Is our universe alone?

[QuantumT]

The exact properties of our universal forces, the physical constants of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, gravity and light, combined with the accelerating expansion of our universe, strongly suggests that there might be many other universes out there, with different physical constants, and whose gravity is pulling in ours from all directions.
If that is the case, dark energy is no longer required to explain the acceleration, and 'our fine-tuned' universe is not special, but just one among many in a vast void filled with quantum fluctuation.

Some have suggested that the acceleration can be explained with 'our universe going through a wormhole in another, much bigger, universe', but I see a conflict in 'two (or more) universes filling the same space', because they would have different properties (and because it is violating Ockham's Razor by complicating things). I obviously could be wrong.
In my understanding, a universe's tuning does not allow other tuning's within it, and in a wormhole, the gravitational pull would be bipolar, not omnidirectional.

Crazy luck is of course also an option, which then puts dark energy back into the equation, but I am very sceptical towards this 'perfect first and only quantum fluctuation' model.

Finally there is the 'unspeakable' option of a single, unique, perfectly tuned universe, that is made by "someone", but let's not get into that in this thread.

[Impenitent]

if our universe was not alone, it would end someplace and another would begin...

-Imp

[QuantumT]

Informational video:

How large is the Universe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaX4iGw-b_Y (Duration: 25 mins)

[QuantumT]

if our universe was not alone, it would end someplace and another would begin...

-Imp

In an infinite void, there is no such thing as an "end"...

[Age]

Since this thread came from another thread. The same issue still remains; What is the actual definition of the thing being talked about?

The 'thing' being discussed in this thread is the 'Universe'. So, what is the definition of the 'Universe'. When the RIGHT definition is found/given, then the RIGHT answer to the question WILL BE KNOWN.

HOW we will KNOW if we have the 'right' definitions and answers IS when there is NO thing in disagreement with those definitions AND answers. They will be RIGHT because they ALL fit together perfectly to form a perfectly very easy and simply understood and explained 'picture' of the real thing.

So, what is the RIGHT definition for the 'Universe'?

You WILL KNOW when you have the RIGHT answer.

If you would like a suggestion, the I am more than willing to provide one.

[TimeSeeker]

The 'thing' being discussed in this thread is the 'Universe'. So, what is the definition of the 'Universe'. When the RIGHT definition is found/given, then the RIGHT answer to the question WILL BE KNOWN.

HOW we will KNOW if we have the 'right' definitions and answers IS when there is NO thing in disagreement with those definitions AND answers. They will be RIGHT because they ALL fit together perfectly to form a perfectly very easy and simply understood and explained 'picture' of the real thing.

So, what is the RIGHT definition for the 'Universe'?

You WILL KNOW when you have the RIGHT answer.

How will I KNOW that I have the right answer? What does KNOWING feel like?

And what if I disagree with your definition of KNOWLEDGE?

[Age]

The 'thing' being discussed in this thread is the 'Universe'. So, what is the definition of the 'Universe'. When the RIGHT definition is found/given, then the RIGHT answer to the question WILL BE KNOWN.

HOW we will KNOW if we have the 'right' definitions and answers IS when there is NO thing in disagreement with those definitions AND answers. They will be RIGHT because they ALL fit together perfectly to form a perfectly very easy and simply understood and explained 'picture' of the real thing.

So, what is the RIGHT definition for the 'Universe'?

You WILL KNOW when you have the RIGHT answer.

How will I KNOW that I have the right answer?

You will KNOW you have the RIGHT answer because you will KNOW EVERYONE else has the SAME answer.

What does KNOWING feel like?

Do you KNOW what confusion feels like? If so, then KNOWING is the opposite of that.

Sometimes the feeling of KNOWING is certainty, contentment, or any of the opposite feelings of confusion, disorientation, et cetera. But I can only speak for me only. I do NOT know how you will experience it.

And what if I disagree with your definition of KNOWLEDGE?

Did you ask for my definition of KNOWLEDGE, previously?

What we disagree on does NOT matter. Disagreements are of no importance. What is important is what we do agree on.

Also, if you disagree on the definition of a word, then be prepared to be able to explain how that definition fits in perfectly with every other definition with every other word to form a big and whole picture of ALL-THERE-IS. Otherwise, your definition is just a subjective defined view relative to the one observing who is providing it.

[TimeSeeker]

You will KNOW you have the RIGHT answer because you will KNOW EVERYONE else has the SAME answer.

Well, that actually happened around the 16th century. Everybody thought the Earth was the centre of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

And then this asshole came about and ruined everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolution

Do you KNOW what confusion feels like? If so, then KNOWING is the opposite of that.

So you KNOW that the feeling of confusion is the opposite of the feeling of knowing. You've experienced both I take it?

What we disagree on does NOT matter. Disagreements are of no importance. What is important is what we do agree on.

Also, if you disagree on the definition of a word, then be prepared to be able to explain how that definition fits in perfectly with every other definition with every other word to form a big and whole picture of ALL-THERE-IS. Otherwise, your definition is just a subjective defined view relative to the one observing who is providing it.

OK, lets agree on what knowledge is I don't buy the opposite of 'confusion', because that's just begging the question.
What is 'confusion' ? On and on we go in circles.

We need to start with something that is NOT a word or a feeling/experience. We need arbitration.

[Age]

You will KNOW you have the RIGHT answer because you will KNOW EVERYONE else has the SAME answer.

Well, that actually happened around the 16th century. Everybody thought the Earth was the centre of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

And then this asshole came about and ruined everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolution

'EVERYONE' means EVERY thing as One. 'EVERYONE' includes more than just human beings.

I have also already explained, not that that means that you have already seen it, but the RIGHT answer to any and everything also has the proviso added that no matter what answer EVERYONE as One has and agrees with, that does NOT make it the final answer. As long as every one remains OPEN, then any further or newer RIGHT answers, which may come along, will also come to light.

Imagine if people were truly OPEN around the 16 century how long it would have taken them to understand the simply explained truth that the sun does NOT go around the earth, and what in fact happens is the earth goes around the sun?

On a side note; That example just given of when everyone is believing some thing to be true is a good example of how even though the actual and real truth may be different to the relative and subjective viewed truth, a thing's truthfulness is held up with the one's who are thinking (about) it.

Do you KNOW what confusion feels like? If so, then KNOWING is the opposite of that.

So you KNOW that the feeling of confusion is the opposite of the feeling of knowing. You've experienced both I take it?

Yes, very much so.

What we disagree on does NOT matter. Disagreements are of no importance. What is important is what we do agree on.

Also, if you disagree on the definition of a word, then be prepared to be able to explain how that definition fits in perfectly with every other definition with every other word to form a big and whole picture of ALL-THERE-IS. Otherwise, your definition is just a subjective defined view relative to the one observing who is providing it.

OK, lets agree on what knowledge is I don't buy the opposite of 'confusion', because that's just begging the question.
What is 'confusion' ? On and on we go in circles.

By using the word 'circles' are you assuming that there is NO end?

If so, then ask your self WHY you would assume that?

Then when you give answers also ask yourself if you are basing these answers on relative to the one observing experiences, and thus they will have to only be subjective answers, or, are you basing these answers on a truly OPEN perspective? If your answers are coming only from what that body has previously experienced, then they are just subjective answers which could well be wrong. But if your answers are coming from a perspective that every thing would agree with it, then that is the objective answer that is needed to gain the RIGHT answer.

Also, 'confusion' is the emotional feeling when you are just NOT knowing, for sure. 'Confusion' is an emotion internally felt when one is perplexed or puzzled about some thing.

We need to start with something that is NOT a word or a feeling/experience. We need arbitration.

On a side note; That arbitrator needed for true arbitration I call 'Everyone, as One'. To me, that is the One and ONLY One that has the right or the true ability to make judgments, which is needed here.

Now, what do you propose to use for arbitration?

Also, I KNOW the length of time it would take in the way you/we were going, and it would go on and on, exactly what you said, although I KNOW that if done correctly it does NOT go in circles at all, but comes to a very revealing outcome. But the length of time that takes is just way to long.

The quickest and easiest way to find the RIGHT answers I found is to just be truly Honest, Open, and Willing to change, for the better. That may seem like not much to do with finding answers, especially to question like; Is the Universe alone? (There is NO 'our' in relation to the Universe, Itself). Anyway, once we people seriously WANT to change, for the better, and do it all for the RIGHT reasons, then they will discover Who/what they really are? Who/What the I really is? and from that uncovering all the other meaningful mysteries of Life start being revealed also. So, that very simple and easy questions/problems like Is the Universe alone? are very simply and easily answered/solved, almost instantly, and the RIGHT answer KNOWN, for sure.

I think that it is far quicker, simpler, and easier for me to continually keep learning how to communicate much better an idea about how really it is possible to very easily and simply ALL live in peace and harmony together with everyone as One. Once people understand this idea, then they can and will find thee answers all by and for themselves.

Human beings much prefer to find answers themselves rather than just being told what the answers are anyway.

[TimeSeeker]

'EVERYONE' means EVERY thing as One. 'EVERYONE' includes more than just human beings.

Uhhhh. How do we build consensus with cows? Or with plants? How do we build consensus with any of our food sources?

Imagine if people were truly OPEN around the 16 century how long it would have taken them to understand the simply explained truth that the sun does NOT go around the earth, and what in fact happens is the earth goes around the sun?

Imagine if people were truly open how quickly we could explain to them why the universe is not 'perfect'
The word 'perfect' means 'just the way I WANT it'. Perfection is a value-judgment, not a property of the universe.

By using the word 'circles' are you assuming that there is NO end?

If so, then ask your self WHY you would assume that?

Because it's demonstrably true. Language is circular.

Also, 'confusion' is the emotional feeling when you are just NOT knowing, for sure. 'Confusion' is an emotion internally felt when one is perplexed or puzzled about some thing.

You just keep digging. Now you've introduced two more words you need to define: 'perplexed' and 'puzzled'. And if I ask you to define then you are going to introduce yet more words that I don't understand. You aren't solving anything You are just increasing the number of words that need defining.

Now, what do you propose to use for arbitration?

Empiricism and Prediction towards a common goal.
We use the past and present as a way to calibrate our language.
We use the future as a way to calibrate our understanding.

The one that guesses FUTURE events more precisely understands reality better.

Also, I KNOW the length of time it would take in the way you/we were going, and it would go on and on, exactly what you said, although I KNOW that if done correctly it does NOT go in circles at all, but comes to a very revealing outcome. But the length of time that takes is just way to long.

The quickest and easiest way to find the RIGHT answers I found is to just be truly Honest, Open, and Willing to change, for the better. That may seem like not much to do with finding answers, especially to question like; Is the Universe alone? (There is NO 'our' in relation to the Universe, Itself). Anyway, once we people seriously WANT to change, for the better, and do it all for the RIGHT reasons, then they will discover Who/what they really are? Who/What the I really is? and from that uncovering all the other meaningful mysteries of Life start being revealed also. So, that very simple and easy questions/problems like Is the Universe alone? are very simply and easily answered/solved, almost instantly, and the RIGHT answer KNOWN, for sure.

I think that it is far quicker, simpler, and easier for me to continually keep learning how to communicate much better an idea about how really it is possible to very easily and simply ALL live in peace and harmony together with everyone as One. Once people understand this idea, then they can and will find thee answers all by and for themselves.

Human beings much prefer to find answers themselves rather than just being told what the answers are anyway.

Your way doesn't work. The right answers need the scientific method

[Age]

Do you remember when I said something along the lines of; 'you' have a NEED to be RIGHT, and you continually TRY your hardest to be RIGHT?

For others, the proof of that is obvious here.

'EVERYONE' means EVERY thing as One. 'EVERYONE' includes more than just human beings.

Uhhhh. How do we build consensus with cows? Or with plants? How do we build consensus with any of our food sources?

Because I read all of what you wrote here, before I responded, (which i do not usually do), I will now give a different response.

Because of your skepticism, which overrides your ability to see clearly, the answer I will give instead is a question; Do you think it is even possible to do that?

If you do, then how?

I was going to show how your use of words in a question is you promoting the answers you so desperately want and seek, in order to satisfy your already held views and BELIEFS. And then, I was going to show you how if you just defined some of the words you used and replaced them with possible words, EXACTLY HOW it is possible to gain a perspective from those things you labelled above. But i will NOT now. There is NO use in doing so. I have already explained the REASONS for always remaining OPEN. But you obviously do NOT want to do that, so what use is there in giving answers to things that you are incapable of, at the moment, even beginning to understand?

Imagine if people were truly OPEN around the 16 century how long it would have taken them to understand the simply explained truth that the sun does NOT go around the earth, and what in fact happens is the earth goes around the sun?

Imagine if people were truly open how quickly we could explain to them why the universe is not 'perfect'

You do NOT need people to be open to begin to explain. So, why have you not even began to explain that the Universe is not 'perfect'?

I have ALREADY explained that with everything what I write and say I am still OPEN to be shown otherwise, and in fact I thrive on being shown where what I write and say is WRONG and WHY it is WRONG.

The word 'perfect' means 'just the way I WANT it'.

Is that what the word 'perfect' ACTUALLY MEANS? Is that an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed? Or, is that just the way you LIKE TO define the word 'perfect'? Are you OPEN to it meaning any thing else, or are you closed off to even considering that?

Perfection is a value-judgment,

If that is the case, then there could be just as many value-judgments are there are value-judging creatures, which at the moment in that year some call 2018 it is sometimes said there are over seven billion persons, or value-judging animals. If this is case, which one of those seven billions is correct?

not a property of the universe.

If you believe and say it is not, then that IS WHAT it IS.

You seem to like to say you KNOW what things are and HOW they work.

By using the word 'circles' are you assuming that there is NO end?

If so, then ask your self WHY you would assume that?

Because it's demonstrably true. Language is circular.

Human beings can and do "demonstrate" any thing they want using "reason". They do this to satisfy their own distorted thinking and BELIEFS and they also do this to TRY TO prove, to themselves and, others they they are RIGHT.

Therefore, if a person like your self likes to "demonstrate" that language is circular, which is based on your already gained and strongly held BELIEF that language IS circular, then what you will DO is keep making language go around in circles.

You have already demonstrated that you are NOT open at all and thinking from a very narrow and closed views of things when you stated something similar to some thing previously about; one should know or have the answer they are seeking prior to or when they are asking a question.

Because of you BELIEFS you are dearly holding on to now you could not nor would not do any thing other than MAKE language circular, which IS obviously already a very extremely and easy thing to do. Human beings have proven countless times already just how stupid they can be. So, going around in circles, like a dog chasing its tail, is nothing new for human beings, hitherto.

Also, 'confusion' is the emotional feeling when you are just NOT knowing, for sure. 'Confusion' is an emotion internally felt when one is perplexed or puzzled about some thing.

You just keep digging. Now you've introduced two more words you need to define: 'perplexed' and 'puzzled'. And if I ask you to define then you are going to introduce yet more words that I don't understand. You aren't solving anything You are just increasing the number of words that need defining.

I already have explained this further down in my last post. So, the only digging I am doing is to uncover the actual and real Truth of things hidden deep within you, and ALL things.

You ONLY see me digging myself deeper with no way out because that is what you want to see, and are hoping for.

Now, what do you propose to use for arbitration?

Empiricism and Prediction towards a common goal.

That is what i have used and continue to use.

We use the past and present as a way to calibrate our language. [/quote]

Or we can do it a much more successful way, because you have already stated and BELIEVE past and present language IS circular. Therefore, how can you calibrate circular? What could you calibrate some thing circular into? Whilst you BELIEVE language IS circular, then it can NOT be any thing else, to you.

We use the future as a way to calibrate our understanding.

How do you propose to use some thing, which most people think has not yet existed, to calibrate some thing that has past or will have past, and therefore already gone?

The one that guesses FUTURE events more precisely understands reality better.

Well considering I am the only one here who HAS so far, what you call, "guessed" FUTURE events there is therefore no other thing to measure 'more precisely understand reality better' to.

Also, I KNOW the length of time it would take in the way you/we were going, and it would go on and on, exactly what you said, although I KNOW that if done correctly it does NOT go in circles at all, but comes to a very revealing outcome. But the length of time that takes is just way to long.

The quickest and easiest way to find the RIGHT answers I found is to just be truly Honest, Open, and Willing to change, for the better. That may seem like not much to do with finding answers, especially to question like; Is the Universe alone? (There is NO 'our' in relation to the Universe, Itself). Anyway, once we people seriously WANT to change, for the better, and do it all for the RIGHT reasons, then they will discover Who/what they really are? Who/What the I really is? and from that uncovering all the other meaningful mysteries of Life start being revealed also. So, that very simple and easy questions/problems like Is the Universe alone? are very simply and easily answered/solved, almost instantly, and the RIGHT answer KNOWN, for sure.

I think that it is far quicker, simpler, and easier for me to continually keep learning how to communicate much better an idea about how really it is possible to very easily and simply ALL live in peace and harmony together with everyone as One. Once people understand this idea, then they can and will find thee answers all by and for themselves.

Human beings much prefer to find answers themselves rather than just being told what the answers are anyway.

Your way doesn't work. The right answers need the scientific method

Obviously you have completely missed or misunderstood what 'Everyone'/'Everything' entails. You once again completely missed the point. The word 'Everything' does NOT mean absolutely EVERY thing, EXCEPT for the scientific method. The word Everything means, literally, EVERY thing as One Thing. How much simpler could it be to explain what Everything is? When people misunderstand the word 'Everything' and so I even have to explain what that word means from the context I write that one very simply understood word. Then that is WHY I have already agreed with you that your way takes way to long.

Absolutely Everything I, eventually, write can and will be proven with and through scientific method. This includes the Theory of Everything. WHERE and WHEN the Universe began. Who/What we are and Who/what the Creator of the Universe IS. As well as HOW the Universe is eternal AND infinite. And, many upon many other FACTS.

[TimeSeeker]

Do you remember when I said something along the lines of; 'you' have a NEED to be RIGHT, and you continually TRY your hardest to be RIGHT?

Yes, we will make a scientist out of you yet You are close but no cigar. I am not trying my hardest to be RIGHT - that is an impossibility. What I am trying is to be less wrong. I make a living out of it making as few mistakes in reasoning as possible.

Is this not the same thing you are preaching? Improving oneself? I've improved my mind.

Because of your skepticism, which overrides your ability to see clearly, the answer I will give instead is a question;

I am not really sure that's what's happening here....

You said: You will KNOW you have the RIGHT answer because you will KNOW EVERYONE else has the SAME answer.
You also said: 'EVERYONE' means EVERY thing as One. 'EVERYONE' includes more than just human beings.
I asked: How do we build consensus with cows? Or with plants? How do we build consensus with any of our food sources?

We need to do that SO that we can CHECK that we have the SAME answer as them. The same way that you and I need to CHECK that we have arrived at the same answer.

You answered with a question: Do you think it is even possible to do that? If you do, then how?

This line of reasoning is non-sensical to me. If it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW what other things' answers are, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to have the SAME answer as EVERY THING. Then it is IMPOSSIBLE to have the RIGHT answer?

I was going to show how your use of words in a question is you promoting the answers you so desperately want and seek, in order to satisfy your already held views and BELIEFS

Yes. I already pointed out that I have my answer. I think it's the right answer. You can prove me wrong.
I also pointed out that my beliefs pay rent. If they are not useful - they get evicted.

And so I do not distinguish between opinions and objective truth. I speak truth. Where I have no truth - I say "I don't know". I feel no need to speculate.

You do NOT need people to be open to begin to explain. So, why have you not even began to explain that the Universe is not 'perfect'?

Because 'perfection' is a man-made idea. It is non-sensical to ascribe that property onto the universe, because there is no scientific way to measure/determine 'perfection'

I have ALREADY explained that with everything what I write and say I am still OPEN to be shown otherwise, and in fact I thrive on being shown where what I write and say is WRONG and WHY it is WRONG.

It is self-contradictory. I am pointing it out - you aren't acknowledging it. So I am interpreting that as evidence that you are unwilling to be open....

Is that what the word 'perfect' ACTUALLY MEANS? Is that an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed? Or, is that just the way you LIKE TO define the word 'perfect'? Are you OPEN to it meaning any thing else, or are you closed off to even considering that?

Lets not beat around the bush. Show me a scientific experiment that can detect the difference between 'perfect' and 'imperfect'.

If that is the case, then there could be just as many value-judgments are there are value-judging creatures, which at the moment in that year some call 2018 it is sometimes said there are over seven billion persons, or value-judging animals. If this is case, which one of those seven billions is correct?

Remember when I said that there are as many as 10^10 ways of seeing the world.... This is what I meant

You seem to like to say you KNOW what things are and HOW they work.

To the best of my ability, bar any errors that have not been corrected.

Human beings can and do "demonstrate" any thing they want using "reason". They do this to satisfy their own distorted thinking and BELIEFS and they also do this to TRY TO prove, to themselves and, others they they are RIGHT.

That is why I prefer empiricism.

Therefore, if a person like your self likes to "demonstrate" that language is circular, which is based on your already gained and strongly held BELIEF that language IS circular, then what you will DO is keep making language go around in circles.

No. This is one of those things that is outside of your control. Try all you want CHOOSE all you want. DO all you want.
English is circular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

You have already demonstrated that you are NOT open at all and thinking from a very narrow and closed views of things when you stated something similar to some thing previously about; one should know or have the answer they are seeking prior to or when they are asking a question.

Well. I am open to correction. And I am thinking from a very broad and open and holistic perspective.

Because of you BELIEFS you are dearly holding on to now you could not nor would not do any thing other than MAKE language circular, which IS obviously already a very extremely and easy thing to do. Human beings have proven countless times already just how stupid they can be. So, going around in circles, like a dog chasing its tail, is nothing new for human beings, hitherto.

Well. This thing you call BELIEFS, I call KNOWLEDGE. And so I hold onto it. What 'being open' means to me is that I am always willing to be corrected where I am wrong.

That is the extend of my openness.

I already have explained this further down in my last post. So, the only digging I am doing is to uncover the actual and real Truth of things hidden deep within you, and ALL things.

Kant calls this a-priori knowledge. I think it's a silly idea. The 'truth' within you is self-knowledge. It is important. Once you discover it...

You ONLY see me digging myself deeper with no way out because that is what you want to see, and are hoping for.

Quite the opposite. I am hoping that you would stop digging and recognize the problem. Then ask a relevant question on how to escape it.
If language is circular and leads to no new answers - then WHAT leads to new answers?

Or we can do it a much more successful way, because you have already stated and BELIEVE past and present language IS circular. Therefore, how can you calibrate circular? What could you calibrate some thing circular into? Whilst you BELIEVE language IS circular, then it can NOT be any thing else, to you.

I draw distinction between spoken and formal languages. English vs Mathematics vs Programming languages.
English is circular. Mathematics is less circular. Programming languages are not.

How do you propose to use some thing, which most people think has not yet existed, to calibrate some thing that has past or will have past, and therefore already gone?

You make a guess. And then you find out if you guessed right, or you guessed wrong.
When you guess wrong - you ask why you made an error.

Do that A LOT! And then you will begin to understand what I mean by 'understandng'. Being able to 'see' things.

Well considering I am the only one here who HAS so far, what you call, "guessed" FUTURE events there is therefore no other thing to measure 'more precisely understand reality better' to.

That's an error in prediction

You aren't the only one. I am I am guessing FUTURE events about you. I am guessing MORE future events about you. Errors in reasoning.

And I am pointing them out.

Obviously you have completely missed or misunderstood what 'Everyone'/'Everything' entails. You once again completely missed the point. The word 'Everything' does NOT mean absolutely EVERY thing, EXCEPT for the scientific method. The word Everything means, literally, EVERY thing as One Thing. How much simpler could it be to explain what Everything is?

Well, for starters this THING you want to understand - you can stop using two different words to refer to it.

Is EVERYTHING the SAME or DIFFERENT from 'THE UNIVERSE", If it's the same - then why do you need another word?

If it is different, then you need to explain WHAT the difference is between 'EVERYTHING' and 'THE UNIVERSE'.

When people misunderstand the word 'Everything' and so I even have to explain what that word means from the context I write that one very simply understood word. Then that is WHY I have already agreed with you that your way takes way to long.

Absolutely Everything I, eventually, write can and will be proven with and through scientific method. This includes the Theory of Everything. WHERE and WHEN the Universe began. Who/What we are and Who/what the Creator of the Universe IS. As well as HOW the Universe is eternal AND infinite. And, many upon many other FACTS.

No. You only have to explain 'everything' when you use it to mean something other than 'the universe'.

Furthermore, you have a serious misconception about science. Science cannot prove anything. Science can only disprove.

[Age]

Do you remember when I said something along the lines of; 'you' have a NEED to be RIGHT, and you continually TRY your hardest to be RIGHT?

Yes, we will make a scientist out of you yet You are close but no cigar. I am not trying my hardest to be RIGHT - that is an impossibility.

How can trying your hardest be an impossibility?

I think you will find that once again you misread and misinterpreted what I actually wrote and/or misunderstood what I actually said?

What I am trying is to be less wrong.

Well instead of TRYING, why do you not just be less wrong? But to do that you would first NEED to WANT to change.

You have to want to be less wrong first before you can be less wrong. But you do not like to be less wrong because you assume that what you already believe, IS RIGHT. Your NEED to keep trying to prove that you are right is obvious here. So, really you do not want to be less wrong than you are NOW.

I make a living out of it making as few mistakes in reasoning as possible.

How is it possible to 'make a living'?

You use a lot of words and terms and use them in the nonsensical way that generally most human beings use them.

Is this not the same thing you are preaching? Improving oneself? I've improved my mind.

This is NOT the same thing at all. You are making out that you are superior to others with sentences like; 'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'. Who are you trying to fool here? You certainly are NOT fooling Me. What it the word 'possible' here in relation to exactly? Your sentence is nonsensical and unable to be reasoned without in relationship to some thing. So, your sentence, 'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'
can not even be reasoned itself, unless of course you prove me otherwise.

With all that 'making as few mistakes in reasoning as possible' powers that you have, explain to us here, so we call all see it;
What is the 'mind'?
How does the 'mind' work?
What/who is the 'my', and how is it in relation to that 'mind', that you just spoke off while making as few mistakes in reasoning as possible?
How 'you' have improved "your mind"?
Who/what 'you' actually are?

ALL of these things are very easy to see and understand, and also ALL can be explained very simply. But I am sure with no doubt you already KNOW this, especially as you are the one who makes a so called "living" out being "less wrong", by making as few mistakes in reasoning as possible.

This sort of absurdity and grandiose stance some human beings try to make of themselves I find nearly unbelievable. In this day and age when this is written human beings are still so insecure of themselves that they still resort to this sort of misbehavior. Who and what some people think they are, compared to others, is nearly beyond comprehension.

[TimeSeeker]

How can trying your hardest be an impossibility?

That's not the impossibility. Being RIGHT is the impossibility.

As Richard Feynman once said:

We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong

I think you will find that once again you misread and misinterpreted what I actually wrote and/or misunderstood what I actually said?

I think you will find that you are the guilty party of that transgression

Well instead of TRYING, why do you not just be less wrong? But to do that you would first NEED to WANT to change.

Wrong. To do that first I must know WHAT to change. I need to spot an error. A problem that needs to be corrected.

You have to want to be less wrong first before you can be less wrong.

Insufficient.

But you do not like to be less wrong because you assume that what you already believe, IS RIGHT.
Your NEED to keep trying to prove that you are right is obvious here. So, really you do not want to be less wrong than you are NOW.

Straw-man. What if this is the least wrong I can be given the current state of affairs?

If you think I can be more wrong than I currently am then YOU should be able to point out an error in my reasoning. Go ahead. Please!

How is it possible to 'make a living'?

You use a lot of words and terms and use them in the nonsensical way that generally most human beings use them.

Because I am not 'most humans'. I am a scientist.

This is NOT the same thing at all. You are making out that you are superior to others with sentences like; 'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'. Who are you trying to fool here? You certainly are NOT fooling Me.

OK look. I am not trying to fool anybody. It's just - I've run out of falsification. I cannot prove myself any more wrong than I have already proven myself wrong.

So if you think I am not superior to you then you should provide me with a falsifier. All you need is one. Find an error.

What it the word 'possible' here in relation to exactly? Your sentence is nonsensical and unable to be reasoned without in relationship to some thing.

The meaning of impossible: Violates the laws of physics.
The meaning of possible is therefore: Anything which does not violate the laws of physics.

So, your sentence, 'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'
can not even be reasoned itself, unless of course you prove me otherwise.

Does the above definition work for you?

What is the 'mind'?

It is an emergent property of your brain.

How does the 'mind' work?

Approximately like a computer, but not quite.

What/who is the 'my', and how is it in relation to that 'mind', that you just spoke off while making as few mistakes in reasoning as possible?

Do not understand the question.

How 'you' have improved "your mind"?

Iterative application of the scientific method + repetitive failure + correction. 30 years of it.

Who/what 'you' actually are?

I am TimeSeeker.

ALL of these things are very easy to see and understand, and also ALL can be explained very simply. But I am sure with no doubt you already KNOW this, especially as you are the one who makes a so called "living" out being "less wrong", by making as few mistakes in reasoning as possible.

Indeed! And I have given you simple answers.

This sort of absurdity and grandiose stance some human beings try to make of themselves I find nearly unbelievable. In this day and age when this is written human beings are still so insecure of themselves that they still resort to this sort of misbehavior. Who and what some people think they are, compared to others, is nearly beyond comprehension.

That's why I don't compare myself to anybody else but my past self. The current version of "me" is the best version of me.

Tomorrow "me" will be better than "today" me. Until my mind starts to rot from old age.

[Age]

How can trying your hardest be an impossibility?

That's not the impossibility. Being RIGHT is the impossibility.

I KNOW that is what you meant. BUT, as I have just pointed out, you NEVER responded to that actual words I write, and meant. What you did was respond to what you THOUGHT I write and meant. I NEVER said being RIGHT was even possible. You just ASSUMED that is what I was saying.

I have noticed you do NOT read the actual words I write. You read what you THINK I wrote and meant. You have a tendency to see what is NOT there and make up your own narrative from what I am actually writing, saying and meaning. You see what IS wrong, which is NOT even there, so that you can then appear RIGHT, in front of others. Also, for the buzz, warm fuzzy feeling you get inside you, when you feel you have proved some one else WRONG.

As Richard Feynman once said: We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong

And, if we were sure we were WRONG, then we would NOT then express it. Unless of course for some underlying reason.

Also, just because another, of who we look up to and admire, says some thing that in and of itself does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

By you just displaying that here for all to see just shows who you FOLLOW and look to for guidance and knowledge.

The TRUE and RIGHT knowledge is within YOU. You, the human being, does NOT need to look to others for inspiration and/or knowledge. You just need to learn how to find the CORRECT knowledge that is within ALL of YOU.

I think you will find that you are the guilty party of that transgression

I just proved otherwise.
I wrote: you continually TRY your hardest to be RIGHT?
You responded: I am not trying my hardest to be RIGHT - that is an impossibility.
I responded: How can trying your hardest be an impossibility?
Your response: That's not the impossibility. Being RIGHT is the impossibility.

Can you KNOW notice that I NEVER wrote, said, nor meant being RIGHT was possible. To which that is what you responded to. What I ACTUALLY did write, say, and mean was; You continually TRY your hardest to be RIGHT. They are two vastly different different sentences with two vastly different meanings. If you WANT to KNOW what I actually mean when I write some thing, then just ask for clarification. If you start making ASSUMPTIONS, like you do, then you will start to SEE things that are NOT even there, which you have just shown that you do do.

Wrong. To do that first I must know WHAT to change. I need to spot an error. A problem that needs to be corrected.

EXACTLY. You have to admit the WRONG that you are doing first, in order to be able to change for the better.

I have already on a couple of occasions explained WHAT needs to be changed. Because I have already explained the error a couple of times already, it should not be to hard to spot the error now.

I am sure you are already well aware that you have to firstly admit that you have a problem, before you are actually able to fix it.

Insufficient.

HOW and WHY is it insufficient?

Straw-man.

What do you mean by 'straw-man' here?

What if this is the least wrong I can be given the current state of affairs?

I admit this is the least wrong you can be given the current state of affairs. That current state of affairs, in the HERE and NOW or 'absolute perfection, being you assume that what you already BELIEVE, IS RIGHT. So, really you do not want to be less wrong than you are HERE and NOW.

ONLY when you seriously WANT to change, for the better, then that is only when you can, and WILL, begin to change, for the better.

If you think I can be more wrong than I currently am then YOU should be able to point out an error in my reasoning. Go ahead. Please!

Are the words; "If you think I can be more wrong than I currently am" really what you wanted to write down here?

They appear to suggest that you BELIEVE, wholeheartedly, that there is no way that you could NOT be MORE RIGHT than you are NOW. Which is true in a sense. But the 'I am RIGHT, NOT WRONG' superiority complex shines through very blindingly and obviously.

If you would really like me to point out an error in your reasoning, then that error is having actual BELIEFS and in the making of ASSUMPTIONS. That is where the error in your reasoning IS. Beliefs AND assumptions, themselves, DISTORTS reasoning. There are a few other things, but they are the main ones.

Because I am not 'most humans'. I am a scientist.

Again that trying to be more superior than other human beings attitude coming to light and the fore front. Do you think/believe that 'a scientist' can be any more or less intelligent than any other human being?

In could be very easily and simply be argued that EVERY human being starts out as a 'scientist', (and that they grow out of it as they mature). But depending the definition and meaning we give to words and the terms we use, then again just about any thing can be reasoned, and argued.

Also I have lost count now of how many times you misunderstand what I actually write, say, and mean. For example; just now I ask you a simple question. You have completely dismissed or disregarded that and went off on some other tangent. You went chasing your own THOUGHTS about what you thought I was saying instead of following on with what I was ACTUALLY SAYING.

OK look. I am not trying to fool anybody. It's just - I've run out of falsification. I cannot prove myself any more wrong than I have already proven myself wrong.

Believing you can not prove yourself ANY MORE WRONG, means you BELIEVE you are RIGHT.

There is also the other false BELIEF there you can NOT do some thing of which you CAN very EASILY and SIMPLY do.

So if you think I am not superior to you then you should provide me with a falsifier. All you need is one. Find an error.

You, BELIEVING.
You, ASSUMING.
You, THINKING.

There is three.

By the way WHAT is with you ultimate desire of seeking superiority over others. You, human beings, are ALL the same. Hint, there is NO one better, nor less, than another. There is also NO one with more, nor less, intelligence than another. When will you, human beings, even begin to start looking at what is ACTUALLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT?

The meaning of impossible: Violates the laws of physics.
The meaning of possible is therefore: Anything which does not violate the laws of physics.

The words you wrote were; 'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'.
I asked for clarification about what the word 'possible' is in relation to.
Your response is: Anything which does not violate the laws of physics.

Which does not really answer my question. I will ask again; What is the word 'possible', in your gloating representation, compared to exactly. In other words; Do you make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible compared to ALL other people, compared to a few, compared to me, or compared to some other thing? What is the actual relationship between you makings as few mistakes in reasoning compared to WHAT other thing?

The statement; 'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible' has no bearing or meaning all by its lonesome. It needs to be relative to some other thing in order to then be nonsensical, which it is on its self.

You have again appeared to have completely lost the point and misunderstood what I was asking.

Does the above definition work for you?

Not one iota.

It is an emergent property of your brain.


Approximately like a computer, but not quite.


Do not understand the question.


Iterative application of the scientific method + repetitive failure + correction. 30 years of it.

Yet you could NOT even understand the question prior to this one, which was; What/who are 'you', AND, how is that definition of 'you' in relation the definition of the 'mind' that YOU just gave?

I am TimeSeeker.

If that is the best, most reasoned, and sufficient enough answer that you can come up with for now, then that is perfectly fine. If that is all you are capable of understand for now, then that is absolutely perfect, as well.

Indeed! And I have given you simple answers.

And indeed yes you did give me them. That is what I was seeking, so thank you.

Now to see if I have summed you up correctly; 'You' are timeseeker and to timeseeker the 'mind' is the emergent property of your brain that does not approximately work quite like a computer and with the scientific method

For over 30 years, through correction of the repetitive failure, during the repetitive application of the scientific method, that one human being (whoever/whatever that may be) who IS timeseeker has improved that thing that approximately works not quite like a computer and which is the emergent property of your brain that is the 'mind'. Which, until now, timeseeker has not yet explained what exactly is the relationship of timeseeker to that said emergent property of your brain. Is this about right?

To me, it appears very convoluted, and leaving still a lot more unanswered questions to be asked, by me, and clarified and answered, by you.