Einstein on the train

[Age]

WHEN evidence is provided, then OBVIOUSLY that would suffice.

The litmus test for dogmatism goes like this: What would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your view?

The litmus test for beliefs goes like this: What could be considered to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief?

I have quite literally already told you on numerous occasions that I do NOT have any beliefs. Therefore, contrary to your belief, I am NOT dogmatic about any thing at all. You are the one being DOGMATIC.

Now if that is NOT valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief, then what would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief?

Would the actual FACT that so far you have been totally incapable of providing just one of these so called beliefs, which you BELIEVE that I have?

If that is NOT valid nor sufficient enough evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of the belief that you are so strongly and desperately holding onto and, literally, attached to, then what could be considered to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief?

I am quite literally asking you to identify and express your own uncertainty. Try to prove yourself wrong.

Have you been asleep here. I have quite literally been ASKING for; What is WRONG in what I wrote? AND, I have also been asking for; WHAT could start a finite universe? How much more could I SHOW of the uncertainty of my view? AND, How much more could I ask for to prove myself WRONG?

Obviously, IF I have "proof" of WHERE my VIEW is WRONG, then I would NOT express it. (Unless of course I was attempting to SHOW or PROVE some thing else).

BUT, if you can NOT show HOW a finite universe could start, then HOW do you propose that I prove myself WRONG and show HOW a finite universe could start? If you can NOT think of any way a finite universe could begin, and no one else can either, then WHY do you EXPECT me to think up one?

By the way I am NOT saying any thing 'is the case', therefore there is NOTHING to "prove" wrong. A view, which is clearly being stated as; Just a VIEW, which could actually be WRONG, could NOT be "proven" wrong, because it is NOT being stated as it is even remotely close to being true nor right in the beginning.

My views are, literally, stated OPENLY as could be WRONG, so that ALL the wrongness in them could be, and, HOPEFULLY, WILL BE pointed out and SHOWN to ALL the readers.

I WANT the wrongness in my views made perfectly clear to EVERY one. I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA if the Universe is infinite or NOT. I WANT to be made aware of what the actual and real Truth IS, in this regard.

How much MORE do you WANT me to identify and express my own uncertainty?

For if your claim is unfalsifiable, then all the burden of proof for your views is on you. Russel's teapot...

If my claim is unfalsifiable, then so to is the claim that the Universe is finite, and/or had a beginning, also unfalsiable.

If one is unfalsifiable, then so is the other, obviously.

Do you actually READ ALL of what I WRITE?

I WROTE: I have already offered up 'EVERY action causes a reaction' and the 'cause and effect principle' for an infinite Universe.

So, WHATEVER WRONGNESS is in these, then just POINT IT OUT and SHOW IT to us, NOW.

If these are falsifiable, then falsify them.
If these are unfalsifiable, then what does that SHOW you?

[Logik]

I have quite literally already told you on numerous occasions that I do NOT have any beliefs. Therefore, contrary to your belief, I am NOT dogmatic about any thing at all. You are the one being DOGMATIC.

Now if that is NOT valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief, then what would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief?

It is trivial to convince me that I am wrong.

Stop telling me about your knowledge and start showing me your knowledge. Stop mentioning it and start using it.

[Age]

I have quite literally already told you on numerous occasions that I do NOT have any beliefs. Therefore, contrary to your belief, I am NOT dogmatic about any thing at all. You are the one being DOGMATIC.

Now if that is NOT valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief, then what would you consider to be valid and sufficient evidence that demonstrates the wrongness of your belief?

It is trivial to convince me that I am wrong.

But I do NOT want to convince you of any thing at all, right nor wrong.

Either you can SEE the Truth of things or you can NOT. I would NEVER TRY TO 'convince' you of any thing.

If you can NOT already see the Truth of things by yourself, then what does that imply?

Stop telling me about your knowledge and start showing me your knowledge. Stop mentioning it and start using it.

I have SHOWN my VIEWS. I did this by expressing my views. If, however, you can NOT see what I SEE, then that means I have more to learn, about how to express better, right?

I have clearly expressed, from what I SEE, that the Universe is infinite and eternal. I have also expressed WHY I SEE this: The 'cause and effect principle', 'EVERY action causes a reaction phenomena', there is NOTHING logically that has put forward yet that could even begin to explain HOW a universe could even begin, nothing has been observed that even suggests that the Universe began nor that the Universe has any sort of limit/boundary to It, and there are other things that I have already CLEARLY EXPRESSED and SHOWN. If, however, you can NOT SEE them, then I will keep learning how to communicate my views better.

If you can NOT find fault in what I have clearly expressed so far, then that is okay. If, however, you can find fault in what i have already expressed, then bring it to our attention please. I, for one, would love to SEE it.

Until then I remain OPEN while waiting patiently.

[Scott Mayers]

@Age

I like more depth than the average person as I too can write long posts. But we've already established the concerns you have and the depth does come across as repetitive or what I've expressed as 'explosive', meaning that you take each and every word one responds to in each and every sentence and amplify the quantity of effort to respond in an exponential way. When you parse your writing for the contextual meaning, it shows that you are not adding more information about the questions you have. That was what I was trying to express by giving imagined responses that you would have.

You may need time to absorb the content prior to responding because you ARE appearing like the comedian who took the challenge to see how long he could drone on as though he had depth but saying nothing. [If I can find a link, I'll send you one on the comedian and where he said this....(EDIT: this is the comedian: Andy Daly)] Just trying to take a bit of time to absorb what you are fed back in responses may be all you need.

I think you need to first look at definitions. You use the word, 'fact', as though this means 'matter-of-fact' or 'obvious'. Facts can't speak for themselves and require us to interpret them. A 'fact' by most standards is the reality regardless of whether we know them or are even necessarily able to know them.

You said you agree to the Big Bang singularity. To me this is itself an 'end-point' or 'boundary' or 'limit'. The reason I pointed out the word 'definition' was to get you to notice that it had the root '-fin-' in it, as it is in the words, "finite", "infinite", and, now I'll also add, "finish" and "definite" and "fine", etc. The word is understood by noting the French 'fin', which means, END. Though it seems to only mean the end versus a beginning, it means anything that confines anyone from passing. A fence to a yard is similar in meaning. That is, any border (boundary) for something whether it is the time concepts beginning or end or anything that expresses an interval, is 'finite' as an expression. We only understand things we can 'capture' in our head. Thus even for things we can't but want a word for, we capture it AS THOUGH it is containable, even if it is not.

So the concept of "definition", is to trap or fix any meaning into a way we can grasp the idea. It is like if you have cattle that you want to claim as your own by fencing them into a confined area. To be sure you don't lose the cattle, you need to set up fences all around with no openings anywhere or they'd escape. The same is for 'definitions'. The word, "infinite", then, is like any yard that has ANY hole or opening in the fence of cattle that you want to keep hold of. Anything that has a hole at any end of something you define is "UNBOUND", meaning it lets something escape.

So, in reference to the the word, Universe, this term is a finite expression that we use to 'bind' the idea, even if the actual thing we are referring to is something that is potentially unbound, such as having no beginning or no ending.

Now if we are speaking of the singularity of the Big Bang as a concept, that singularity is bound on one end (has a limit or fence) that prevents us from getting past it. It may either be just a perceptual wall or a real one. We cannot tell which is the case though. There are a few kinds of ways something can be bound in reality though. If you think of how you can travel in one line that goes around the Earth, it loops back on itself and so is 'infinite' but 'bound' because we can still capture it as 'finite' even though it is also infinite as a path one might try to take. I used the idea of the infinitesimal points between two numbers as another kind of 'bounded' infinity. This one is linear unlike the Earth example, but is still a reality if you ask yourself to imagine how big the smallest interval of time or space is.

I think you actually understand these ideas in context to what you are saying but just don't share the same words of expression, something we all struggle with here from having different backgrounds to some degree. What throws me off for your own interpretation (or expression of it) is that you expressed a default faith in the Big Bang singularity AS A REAL endpoint, yet deny as 'a matter of fact' that there can be no such thing as a "beginning" even conceptually. To me, this seems contradictory of you to assert as two distinct 'facts' you trust. You assert that you don't hold any biased assumption yet these ARE assumptions that you hold as 'facts'.

All that matters for now is that (1), you default to trust the singularity as existing, as some fact. If so, you must recognize this as a boundary whether it is real or just the perception from the evidence. If you believe it is just a perception, it would NOT be certain to be an 'origin' but as just a potential possibility only. I hold that the singularity IS just a perception personally. As such, it may or may not be an actual or absolute 'origin' but it IS a "relative origin" at least because it is the furthest time boundary that we can interpret in a 'finite' way from an earlier time. Even if it is only an illusion, it is a relative beginning but in the way that we define things.

(2)You question the rationality of anything bound (finite expression of something finite or infinite in reality) could be something that 'expands' because you can't perceive having anything greater than the infinity bounded already. This is a normal understandable issue but needs a step back into the mathematics of infinities of infinities first. While to you math is just the language, the math of this topic is originally based upon looking at reality geometrically. The mathematician, Cantor, lost his mind trying to make sense of this as a reality but was able to grant us the 'expression' of his concern in math and logic. He imagined a real wheel in the form of a geometric circle and asked how many 'points' does this have. Of course, you cannot literally count an infinity of points that are nothing. Yet you can define it as having some infinity of points in a finite way, just as we can have a real measure of some wheel's circumference.

Then he asked himself how you can extend the meaning of the 'infinite' points of one wheel of one size with any other. If you draw another larger circle around the first one, when we imagine it representing a real wheel, it can have a different real size. Yet, is the same number of 'infinite points' of one circle equal to the other? This is where he determined that there are different infinities, even though it has some mental struggle to imagine in the same way you appear to be thinking correctly.

As to real space, while the reality seems distinct from a model or geometric expression of it, the reality still has the same fault that the model expresses. But 'factually' we should be able to agree that Nature has its own justification that is non-conflicting as we may have in our heads about the reality, right? How would or could a REAL space multiply itself as though it takes something out of nothing? The same question exists about the singularity though if it were real too. How could anything 'bang' a universe of stuff into reality.

One option to the Big Bang was that Steady State interpretation I mentioned. This is a 'bound' but infinite space. This theory though accepts expansion, though. So this still doesn't answer your question. You prefer a 'static' concept of space, if infinite. I ask you to look at the 'static' kinds of similar problems that Cantor imagined though because this is still a problem logically even IF you didn't have an expanding universe. If this is true of a static reality, it suggests it equally POSSIBLE of an expanding space. This is where I'm trying to get you to. If you understand the problem in a static sense, the dynamic concept can at least be 'possible' to be factual. This is why you need to step back before treating the questions you have as to 'how' this could even be rationally possible. Once (and if) you see it as 'possible' then you can see why we cannot determine IF there is or is not a beginning, BUT that a 'beginning' is still a very real possibility.

[Age]

@Age

I like more depth than the average person as I too can write long posts. But we've already established the concerns you have and the depth does come across as repetitive or what I've expressed as 'explosive', meaning that you take each and every word one responds to in each and every sentence and amplify the quantity of effort to respond in an exponential way. When you parse your writing for the contextual meaning, it shows that you are not adding more information about the questions you have. That was what I was trying to express by giving imagined responses that you would have.

You may need time to absorb the content prior to responding because you ARE appearing like the comedian who took the challenge to see how long he could drone on as though he had depth but saying nothing. [If I can find a link, I'll send you one on the comedian and where he said this....(EDIT: this is the comedian: Andy Daly)] Just trying to take a bit of time to absorb what you are fed back in responses may be all you need.

All of this could be returned back.

I think you need to first look at definitions. You use the word, 'fact', as though this means 'matter-of-fact' or 'obvious'.

Did you really take a bit of time to absorb what I fed back to you? Or, have you just made an ASSUMPTION, and are sticking to that, INSTEAD OF just asking clarifying questions so that you would discover what the actual and real Truth or fact IS?

From what you have written so far it does not appear that you have really made the effort to absorb what the actual Truth IS. Or, maybe more correctly you have NOT spent enough time to obtain this.

Facts can't speak for themselves and require us to interpret them. A 'fact' by most standards is the reality regardless of whether we know them or are even necessarily able to know them.

If a 'fact' is the reality, then 'what' exactly is there to interpret?

If you can NOT see the reality, almost instantly, then what is STOPPING or PREVENTING you from doing so? May I suggest that it could BE the ASSUMPTIONS and the BELIEFS that is doing this. Also, may I suggest that ASSUMPTIONS relate closer to PREVENTION while BELIEFS relate closer to STOPPING.

Take as much time as you like to LOOK AT and ABSORB this.

May I suggest LOOKING AT and thinking about 'what' ASSUMPTIONS that you are having, which are PREVENTING you from SEEING the real facts, almost instantly, AND also LOOKING AT and thinking about 'what' BELIEFS that you are having/holding, which are actually STOPPING you from SEEING the facts, literally, altogether.

You said you agree to the Big Bang singularity.

Did I?

Is that EXACTLY what I agreed to, from the concept of "big bang singularity", which you have and/or are holding onto?
Or,
Did I agree that there could have been a bang, of a relatively "big" size, which came from an infinite compression of matter, or singularity, as this is some times referred to?

Are you aware that the two concepts could be, and probably are, two very distinct and two very different things?

To me this is itself an 'end-point' or 'boundary' or 'limit'.

Yes I am already aware that the "big bang singularity" is an 'end-point', 'boundary', 'limit', to you. It is to most adult human beings. This is because of the way they LOOK AT it.

The reason I pointed out the word 'definition' was to get you to notice that it had the root '-fin-' in it, as it is in the words, "finite", "infinite", and, now I'll also add, "finish" and "definite" and "fine", etc. The word is understood by noting the French 'fin', which means, END. Though it seems to only mean the end versus a beginning, it means anything that confines anyone from passing. A fence to a yard is similar in meaning. That is, any border (boundary) for something whether it is the time concepts beginning or end or anything that expresses an interval, is 'finite' as an expression. We only understand things we can 'capture' in our head. [/quote]

Well that is how the brain works. It can only SEE that what has been fed into it. The brain is 'limited', and thus is a closed system.

The Mind, however, is Truly OPEN and NOT limited, nor closed, by any thing. Except the thinking, assuming, and/or believing from the brain certainly TRIES TO 'close the Mind'. Fortunately though this can NOT happen in the True sense.

Thus even for things we can't but want a word for, we capture it AS THOUGH it is containable, even if it is not.

So the concept of "definition", is to trap or fix any meaning into a way we can grasp the idea. It is like if you have cattle that you want to claim as your own by fencing them into a confined area. To be sure you don't lose the cattle, you need to set up fences all around with no openings anywhere or they'd escape. The same is for 'definitions'. The word, "infinite", then, is like any yard that has ANY hole or opening in the fence of cattle that you want to keep hold of. Anything that has a hole at any end of something you define is "UNBOUND", meaning it lets something escape.

This just sounds like a brain TRYING its hardest to "justify" WHY it can NOT SEE the Truth of things (ALL-THERE-IS).

Just because the 'fin' word is in the word 'definition' this does NOT mean that the Universe is NOT infinite.

To me, it appears that you could be getting "trapped" yourself into believing that the 'fin' in de-finite means that the Universe, Itself is definitely limited or bounded.

The actual word 'infinite', by definition, means that the Universe COULD BE NOT finite.

It could argued that the 'infinite' word is used to close the gap, and provide a deFINite word that, literally, describes an infinite Universe.

So, in reference to the the word, Universe, this term is a finite expression that we use to 'bind' the idea, even if the actual thing we are referring to is something that is potentially unbound, such as having no beginning or no ending.

An 'INFINITE Universe' is a term used in reference to, and "binds" that, which IS infinite.

Now if we are speaking of the singularity of the Big Bang as a concept, that singularity is bound on one end (has a limit or fence) that prevents us from getting past it.

No it does NOT at all do this.

The word 'singularity' does NOT 'bound on one end' at all. A brain, making assumptions based on past experiences, is the only thing limiting this, and prevents 'you' from getting past it. The big band singularity is only ASSUMED to be A limit. Thinking this is way is just another example of the very small and narrowed field of view perspective, which comes from thee brain.

It may either be just a perceptual wall or a real one. We cannot tell which is the case though.

The wall/limit/boundary is only set by a narrow thinking brain. The perceptual wall comes from the brain. If the big bang singularity IS actually a limit is another thing. I can certainly tell which is the case.

There are a few kinds of ways something can be bound in reality though. If you think of how you can travel in one line that goes around the Earth, it loops back on itself and so is 'infinite' but 'bound' because we can still capture it as 'finite' even though it is also infinite as a path one might try to take.

But a physical body traveling in one line in an infinite Universe does NOT necessarily loop back on itself.

I used the idea of the infinitesimal points between two numbers as another kind of 'bounded' infinity.

But as I pointed out that example does NOT reference an infinite Universe in any real way.

This one is linear unlike the Earth example, but is still a reality if you ask yourself to imagine how big the smallest interval of time or space is.

One could do that, but that will NOT SHOW the Truth of what an infinite Universe IS.

I think you actually understand these ideas in context to what you are saying but just don't share the same words of expression, something we all struggle with here from having different backgrounds to some degree. What throws me off for your own interpretation (or expression of it) is that you expressed a default faith in the Big Bang singularity AS A REAL endpoint, yet deny as 'a matter of fact' that there can be no such thing as a "beginning" even conceptually.

But that is your misinterpretation of what I was actually saying, which is NOT your fault, because of my lack of being able to explain things clearly and succinctly.

To me, this seems contradictory of you to assert as two distinct 'facts' you trust.

Hopefully, you are aware by now that I have NOT asserted the two distinct things, which you see I have.

You assert that you don't hold any biased assumption yet these ARE assumptions that you hold as 'facts'.

Or, you have "maybe" just misinterpreted what I have actually meant, and so are ASSUMING some thing, which is NOT what I view.

All that matters for now is that (1), you default to trust the singularity as existing, as some fact. If so, you must recognize this as a boundary whether it is real or just the perception from the evidence.

1. I do NOT default to trust the singularity as existing.
(a) I, instead, accept that A singularity could exist. Singularities, after all, are just said to be what is at the end of black holes.
(b) The singularity in reference to what is some times called the "big bang" may just be one of many of these singularities.
(c) 'Singularity' being the infinite compression of matter, and NOT the infinite compression of ALL matter. Although this still could be the case.
(d) For any singularity to explode/expand, no matter what size it actually is, then there NEEDS to be space around it so that matter could actually expand.
(e) This accounts for the space between matter, after initial expansion and when matter is expanding apart from each other, without necessitating that 'space' is expanding also.
(f) Singularity, from this perspective, is NOT an 'origin' of the Universe but just the Universe in another shaped or form, which to me It is continually in. That is, continual-change. Although that singularity may be seen as the 'origin' of this relatively "newly" shaped Universe in which a species with enough intelligence and intellect to observe and consider these type of things.

If you believe it is just a perception, it would NOT be certain to be an 'origin' but as just a potential possibility only.

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. (And human beings wonder WHY I repeat things).

I hold that the singularity IS just a perception personally. As such, it may or may not be an actual or absolute 'origin' but it IS a "relative origin" at least because it is the furthest time boundary that we can interpret in a 'finite' way from an earlier time.

I can certainly, and have, SEEN and UNDERSTAND exactly WHY some human beings think/assume and/or believe/see that that bang was thee 'origin'. I also KNOW WHY those ones jump to the conclusion that that 'origin' "therefore" MUST BE the 'origin' of Everything.

Even if it is only an illusion, it is a relative beginning but in the way that we define things.

Then just maybe it is the way 'you' human beings define things that is the real issue here, which coincidentally is what I have been saying and pointing out from the outset of coming into this forum.

(2)You question the rationality of anything bound (finite expression of something finite or infinite in reality) could be something that 'expands' because you can't perceive having anything greater than the infinity bounded already.

I do NOT question any thing finite nor infinite bounded by a de-finite, nor definitive, expression. What I do question, however though, is HOW could an infinite Universe expand or get bigger?

The "infinity bounded" in relation to an infinite Universe is ONLY the term/phrase being bounded upon the Universe and NOT the Universe, Itself, being bounded.

So I have yet to perceive of an infinite Universe expanding or getting bigger, but I certainly do NOT perceive that this is the end and NOT possible, nor do I perceive that a better term/phrase could NOT come into place.

This is a normal understandable issue but needs a step back into the mathematics of infinities of infinities first.

You have TRIED this BEFORE, on a couple of occasions already, and I have already explained and pointed out that a bounded thing, like finite numbers, which can have an infinities of infinities within them, does NOT have much at all to do with an infinite Universe. An infinite Universe is NOT bounded in any way, except maybe by a de-fin-itive term/word. But surely you are NOT TRYING TO suggest that boundary has anything whatsoever to do with infinities of infinities within mathematics, are you?

While to you math is just the language, the math of this topic is originally based upon looking at reality geometrically.

One has to watch when the 'reality' word is brought into 'play' as the author of it, and/or a reader of it, might actually start ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that when that word is used that it is in actual reference to the one and only True Reality.

The mathematician, Cantor, lost his mind trying to make sense of this as a reality but was able to grant us the 'expression' of his concern in math and logic. He imagined a real wheel in the form of a geometric circle and asked how many 'points' does this have. Of course, you cannot literally count an infinity of points that are nothing. Yet you can define it as having some infinity of points in a finite way, just as we can have a real measure of some wheel's circumference.

What is it EXACTLY that you want to "others" to see here?

Do you want "us" to see that an infinite Universe is an impossibility, or, is it some thing else?

Any one can bring maths and/or statistics in to "prove" just about any thing, which they already ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is already True.

Then he asked himself how you can extend the meaning of the 'infinite' points of one wheel of one size with any other. If you draw another larger circle around the first one, when we imagine it representing a real wheel, it can have a different real size. Yet, is the same number of 'infinite points' of one circle equal to the other?

A wheel, real or not, really does NOT have much to do with the infinite Universe, from my perspective.

This is where he determined that there are different infinities, even though it has some mental struggle to imagine in the same way you appear to be thinking correctly.

If you want to LOOK AT me, and just want to TRY TO put me down, then just say so in simple language.

As to real space, while the reality seems distinct from a model or geometric expression of it, the reality still has the same fault that the model expresses.

Do you think or maybe believe that the more times you use the 'reality' word, then the MORE real Truth you are saying?

But 'factually' we should be able to agree that Nature has its own justification that is non-conflicting as we may have in our heads about the reality, right?

But I do NOT see any conflict anywhere when I LOOK AT Reality, Nature, and the Universe, Itself.

How would or could a REAL space multiply itself as though it takes something out of nothing?

I have absolutely NO idea. As I have said a couple of times; I have NEVER said that I see space expanding nor contracting anywhere.

The same question exists about the singularity though if it were real too. How could anything 'bang' a universe of stuff into reality.

Why NOT ask people who suggest such things could happen. I certainly have NEVER said any thing like this here.

Also, if the big bang refers to an expansion of singularity, then obviously ALL the stuff is ALREADY "there" in "reality". ALL the matter and ALL of the space, (That is; ALL-OF-STUFF) is ALREADY existing before, during, and after the expansion began.

One option to the Big Bang was that Steady State interpretation I mentioned.

Yes this is another thing that you have already repetitively stated.

But I do NOT SEE any of these things happen. To me, NONE of the models and the explanations of the models are True with what actually IS the case. As I have repetitiously been asking; WHY NOT just LOOK AT what IS actually True and Real INSTEAD of making up ASSUMPTIONS, models, and/or theories about what COULD BE the case?

It is far simpler, quicker, and easier to just LOOK AT and SEE the Truth of things, then it is to make up stories and assumptions about what COULD BE.

This is a 'bound' but infinite space.

Who really cares.

This has NOT much at all to do with what I have actually been talking about.

Maybe you are thinking that what I am talking about has ANYTHING to do with the models and interpretations that previous human beings throughout history have been talking about. Is this what you think I might be referring to when I talk about an infinite Universe? Do you think I am basing this view on things that "others" have been talking about?

As I have alluded to previously I do NOT know the details of all of these made up theories, models, and/or interpretations. I found that when LOOKING AT them they can to easily and to quickly distort SEEING what the actual and real Truth of things IS.

This theory though accepts expansion, though.

Again, who really cares?

That is NOT what I have been talking about.

By the way the faults in ALL of those theories, models, interpretations, et cetera can be quickly SEEN and POINTED OUT.

So this still doesn't answer your question.

So a lot of words, which you have previously stated, to then say it still does NOT answer my question.

You prefer a 'static' concept of space, if infinite.

If you replaced the word 'space' with the word 'Universe', and by 'static' you mean that the Universe is infinite and eternal but ALWAYS in a constant state of CHANGE, without ASSUMING nor BELIEVING any thing else, then yes that is what I SEE. Also I do NOT have a "preference" for any thing. I am ONLY expressing the VIEWS I have, from what I SEE.

By the way I did NOT form these views nor did I intentionally intend to form such views. These are just the views, which have been obtained and formed, from what this body has experienced, along the way, hitherto.

I ask you to look at the 'static' kinds of similar problems that Cantor imagined though because this is still a problem logically even IF you didn't have an expanding universe.

If you would like me to LOOK AT a particular "problem", then it is best to put the actual "problem" in front of me. I, after all, could be LOOKING everywhere for what you want me to LOOK AT, and "find" what I "think" you want me to see, but really it is NOT that at all.

If this is true of a static reality, it suggests it equally POSSIBLE of an expanding space.

If 'what' EXACTLY is true?

This is where I'm trying to get you to. If you understand the problem in a static sense, the dynamic concept can at least be 'possible' to be factual.

If you really want me to get to somewhere, then just say where/what that is. It really is that SIMPLE.

To me, there is NO problem whatsoever in the static sense. What so called "problem" do you perceive?

This is why you need to step back before treating the questions you have as to 'how' this could even be rationally possible. Once (and if) you see it as 'possible'

LOL once I see 'what' EXACTLY is possible.

If you just WRITE 'what' it IS that IS possible, then I can, literally, SEE it. Until then it would only be guess work and assuming HOW it is possible, which as I have repeatedly stated, I do NOT like to make ASSUMPTIONS at all.

To me, ABSOLUTELY ANY thing IS 'possible'. So, IF you KNOW HOW could be 'possible', like what I have been asking, then would it be a good idea to SHARE that with us so that, at least, I COULD SEE IT?

then you can see why we cannot determine IF there is or is not a beginning, BUT that a 'beginning' is still a very real possibility.

But I can very easily DETERMINE IF there is a beginning or not. I can also very easily SEE and DETERMINE WHY some human beings think/assume/believe that there was a beginning. But,

If 'EVERY action causes a reaction' is actually True, then HOW could there even be a beginning? And,
If 'cause and effect' is an actual True principle, then HOW could there even be a beginning?

There is absolutely NO suggestion that singularity nor a bang, by themselves, was a beginning to Everything anyway, correct?

The ONLY suggestion that there was a beginning to Everything comes from human beings, and their ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

[Logik]

If a 'fact' is the reality, then 'what' exactly is there to interpret?

If you can NOT see the reality, almost instantly, then what is STOPPING or PREVENTING you from doing so? May I suggest that it could BE the ASSUMPTIONS and the BELIEFS that is doing this. Also, may I suggest that ASSUMPTIONS relate closer to PREVENTION while BELIEFS relate closer to STOPPING.

https://www.basicknowledge101.com/subjects/brain.html

The brain processes 400 Billion bits of information a second. BUT, we are ONLY aware of 2,000 of those?" -Dr. Joseph Dispenza, D.C. The average "clock speed" of neurons in the brain is a mere 200 firings per second. 10 Mbits of information are transmitted along each optic nerve PER SECOND. But is transmission speed the same thing as processing speed? Brain processes data no faster than 60 bits per second? The brain processes around 0.1 quadrillion information bytes per second? The human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second? It appears that a tremendous amount of compression is taking place if 11 million bits are being reduced to less than 50. Note that the discrepancy between the amount of information being transmitted and the amount of information being processed is so large that any inaccuracy in the measurements is insignificant.

What Each Human Senses Processes?
eyes - 10,000,000 bits per second
skin - 1,000,000 bits per second
ears - 100,000 bits per second
smell - 100,000 bits per second
taste - 1,000 bits per second

[Age]

If a 'fact' is the reality, then 'what' exactly is there to interpret?

If you can NOT see the reality, almost instantly, then what is STOPPING or PREVENTING you from doing so? May I suggest that it could BE the ASSUMPTIONS and the BELIEFS that is doing this. Also, may I suggest that ASSUMPTIONS relate closer to PREVENTION while BELIEFS relate closer to STOPPING.

https://www.basicknowledge101.com/subjects/brain.html

The brain processes 400 Billion bits of information a second. BUT, we are ONLY aware of 2,000 of those?" -Dr. Joseph Dispenza, D.C. The average "clock speed" of neurons in the brain is a mere 200 firings per second. 10 Mbits of information are transmitted along each optic nerve PER SECOND. But is transmission speed the same thing as processing speed? Brain processes data no faster than 60 bits per second? The brain processes around 0.1 quadrillion information bytes per second? The human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second? It appears that a tremendous amount of compression is taking place if 11 million bits are being reduced to less than 50. Note that the discrepancy between the amount of information being transmitted and the amount of information being processed is so large that any inaccuracy in the measurements is insignificant.

What Each Human Senses Processes?
eyes - 10,000,000 bits per second
skin - 1,000,000 bits per second
ears - 100,000 bits per second
smell - 100,000 bits per second
taste - 1,000 bits per second

Another example of just HOW thoughts interfere with, twist, and distort what IS, actually being talked about.

What was being talked about were THOUGHTS. What comes back, as a reply, is about the BRAIN.

WHY human beings are taking SO LONG to catch up and SEE what IS the actual Truth of things IS because they much prefer to LOOK AT and STUDY the physical things that they can physically see, instead of LOOKING AT ALL things, and STUDY them instead.

[surreptitious57]

WHY human beings are taking SO LONG to catch up and SEE what IS the actual Truth of things IS because they much prefer to
LOOK AT and STUDY the physical things that they can physically see instead of LOOKING AT ALL things and STUDY them instead

What are these other things that need to be looked at and how can they be studied
How can one even be certain that these things actually exist if they cannot be seen

[Age]

WHY human beings are taking SO LONG to catch up and SEE what IS the actual Truth of things IS because they much prefer to
LOOK AT and STUDY the physical things that they can physically see instead of LOOKING AT ALL things and STUDY them instead

What are these other things that need to be looked at and how can they be studied

I NEVER said they NEED to be looked at. But if any one WANTS to SEE the Truth of things, then they NEED to LOOK AT ALL things, and NOT just some things.

The things that can be LOOKED AT and studied are:
1. 'Thoughts'. They can be studied by LOOKING AT one's own self, from a Truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to change perspective. This involves LOOKING AT ALL of the WRONG each one does, as there is NO use Wanting to change the RIGHT each one does. But how many people really Want to LOOK AT the WRONG they do, OPENLY and Honestly?

2. 'Mind'. This becomes KNOWN through the Wanting to change of one's own self, which unintentionally involved the STUDYING of one's 'self', which, an unintentional consequence of, is the discovery/revealing of the answer to the question Who am 'I'?

How can one even be certain that these things actually exist if they cannot be seen

Very easily.

1. Are there 'thoughts' within that body?
2. Is there a 'Mind' within that body?

If yes, to both of these, then one can be FAIRLY certain that these things actually exist, even though they can NOT be 'seen', with the physical eyes that is. They can, however, be SEEN, with and by the Mind's EYE, AND UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by this Mind. But this if for later on.

If, however, the answer is no to either or both of these questions, then maybe that 'you' is NOT prepared to LOOK AT and STUDY these things, yet.

[Logik]

Another example of just HOW thoughts interfere with, twist, and distort what IS, actually being talked about.

What was being talked about were THOUGHTS. What comes back, as a reply, is about the BRAIN.

You sound very confused. How can that which is being talked about interfere with what is actually being talked about?

Ever heard of the mind-body problem?

[Atla]

1. Are there 'thoughts' within that body?
2. Is there a 'Mind' within that body?

If yes, to both of these, then one can be FAIRLY certain that these things actually exist, even though they can NOT be 'seen', with the physical eyes that is. They can, however, be SEEN, with and by the Mind's EYE, AND UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by this Mind. But this if for later on.

If, however, the answer is no to either or both of these questions, then maybe that 'you' is NOT prepared to LOOK AT and STUDY these things, yet.

This is totally not the "actual truth" you moron. You can physically see "thoughts" on a brain scan. You can also cut out a part of the brain and look at it (but then the person is already dead). They will simply look very different because this time you're looking at them from the "outside", not "directly" seeing them from the inside.

[Age]

1. Are there 'thoughts' within that body?
2. Is there a 'Mind' within that body?

If yes, to both of these, then one can be FAIRLY certain that these things actually exist, even though they can NOT be 'seen', with the physical eyes that is. They can, however, be SEEN, with and by the Mind's EYE, AND UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by this Mind. But this if for later on.

If, however, the answer is no to either or both of these questions, then maybe that 'you' is NOT prepared to LOOK AT and STUDY these things, yet.

This is totally not the "actual truth" you moron. You can physically see "thoughts" on a brain scan.

If you say so, then it MUST be True, correct?

By the way, on a brain scan is the actual 'THOUGHT' there to be physically seen?

If no, then okay.
If yes, then can 'thoughts' actually be physically seen or is it some thing else that is seen, like for example just brain activity?

If thoughts, themselves, can actually be physically seen, then can 'what the actual thought IS' be read, understood, or known, just by physically looking?

If no, then okay.
If yes, then HOW?

You can also cut out a part of the brain and look at it (but then the person is already dead).

You can also cut out all of the brain and look at it, but what has any of this got to do with the actually ability or not to physically being able to see 'thoughts', themselves?

If you can physically see thoughts, like you are implying you can, then what does a 'THOUGHT' look like physically?

Also, it is possible to work on (in?) a brain on a living breathing human body, so the person is then NOT dead, so what do these 'thoughts' look like?

They will simply look very different because this time you're looking at them from the "outside", not "directly" seeing them from the inside.

How do 'thoughts', themselves, look very different from the "outside" compared to seeing them "directly" from the inside? What is the actual difference that you are talking about here?

Also, HOW is it possible to see "directly" from the inside from and through the physical eyes, which, obviously, LOOK OUTWARDS?

Are you able to explain this to this moron, or any one else here, actually?

[Age]

Another example of just HOW thoughts interfere with, twist, and distort what IS, actually being talked about.

What was being talked about were THOUGHTS. What comes back, as a reply, is about the BRAIN.

You sound very confused. How can that which is being talked about interfere with what is actually being talked about?

Easily, You just PROVIDED evidence of this, by doing this.

What was being talked about, which was 'thoughts', themselves, then became involved, from that body, then interfered with this discussion through expression, seen as those words under the label "logik", which are talking about some thing else.

Ever heard of the mind-body problem?

Yes.

Ever heard that there are NO actual problems in Life, and that ONLY human beings MAKE UP 'problems'?

By the way there is NO Mind-body, so called, "problem" at all, from my perspective.

[Atla]

1. Are there 'thoughts' within that body?
2. Is there a 'Mind' within that body?

If yes, to both of these, then one can be FAIRLY certain that these things actually exist, even though they can NOT be 'seen', with the physical eyes that is. They can, however, be SEEN, with and by the Mind's EYE, AND UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by this Mind. But this if for later on.

If, however, the answer is no to either or both of these questions, then maybe that 'you' is NOT prepared to LOOK AT and STUDY these things, yet.

This is totally not the "actual truth" you moron. You can physically see "thoughts" on a brain scan.

If you say so, then it MUST be True, correct?

By the way, on a brain scan is the actual 'THOUGHT' there to be physically seen?

If no, then okay.
If yes, then can 'thoughts' actually be physically seen or is it some thing else that is seen, like for example just brain activity?

If thoughts, themselves, can actually be physically seen, then can 'what the actual thought IS' be read, understood, or known, just by physically looking?

If no, then okay.
If yes, then HOW?

You can also cut out a part of the brain and look at it (but then the person is already dead).

You can also cut out all of the brain and look at it, but what has any of this got to do with the actually ability or not to physically being able to see 'thoughts', themselves?

If you can physically see thoughts, like you are implying you can, then what does a 'THOUGHT' look like physically?

Also, it is possible to work on (in?) a brain on a living breathing human body, so the person is then NOT dead, so what do these 'thoughts' look like?

They will simply look very different because this time you're looking at them from the "outside", not "directly" seeing them from the inside.

How do 'thoughts', themselves, look very different from the "outside" compared to seeing them "directly" from the inside? What is the actual difference that you are talking about here?

Also, HOW is it possible to see "directly" from the inside from and through the physical eyes, which, obviously, LOOK OUTWARDS?

Are you able to explain this to this moron, or any one else here, actually?

In the last 100 years neuroscience, psychology has firmly established how subjective experiences correlate with brainscans. The exact process is unknown yet but will probably be figured out in the near future. Thoughts seem to have a lot to do with electromagnetism and although we can't literally see EM fields with our eyes (especially not the EM fields in a living human's head) but we can measure it more and more accurately anyway and then display it in some way.

There is still a long way to go but your schizophrenic delusion which you call the "actual truth" can with near 100% certainty be ruled out by now. There never was any hint of a physical-mental duality.

Do you get it now? I told you a 100 times you are simply insane.

[Scott Mayers]

I think you need to first look at definitions. You use the word, 'fact', as though this means 'matter-of-fact' or 'obvious'.

Did you really take a bit of time to absorb what I fed back to you? Or, have you just made an ASSUMPTION, and are sticking to that, INSTEAD OF just asking clarifying questions so that you would discover what the actual and real Truth or fact IS?

From what you have written so far it does not appear that you have really made the effort to absorb what the actual Truth IS. Or, maybe more correctly you have NOT spent enough time to obtain this.

You are repetitively saying nothing more than the same thing over and over again like a broken record. Any questions I have asked of you is redirected without actual answers but with a trivializing of the question or to be commanded as irrelevant to your interest as though that were sufficient. I would need actual background from you to determine how to continue trying to speak with you.

Tell me who you are. Are you female/male? What is your education? And how old are you?

I can't read any further. If you want respect, prove you are FACTUALLY human. Otherwise I'll NOT ASSUME you as anything as per your wise advice.