Einstein on the train

[Age]

BUT the object, itself, (hotel/glass/Universe) does NOT expand. It is ALREADY infinite.

Just because you can keep adding more of any thing, water or people, to some thing that is ALREADY infinite has NO bearing on the FACT that an infinite thing can NOT get bigger.

Obviously, IF some thing is ALREADY infinite, then it can NOT expand, grow, or get bigger, logically.

That hotel argument/paradox, just like ALL the other ones, human beings discuss as though they make sense, ALL get misconstrued just BECAUSE of a few of the words within them.

Just like in this example given. Just because MORE people/water are being added to the thing in question does NOT mean that the thing itself is expanding, getting bigger, or becoming MORE, also.

Some times the forest can NOT be SEEN just because of a few trees.

*sigh* So you have focused on the hotel, not on its occupancy. OK

Lets skip the dualism and your silly shenanigans and boil it down to Maths.

Is this true or false: ∞ + 1 > ∞

You have skipped ALL of what I pointed out AND focused on the very thing that TRICKS you.

The hotel is ALREADY INFINITE. It does NOT get any bigger NO matter how many OCCUPANTS there ARE.

Did you really MISS that in what I wrote?

[Logik]

You have skipped ALL of what I pointed out AND focused on the very thing that TRICKS you.

The hotel is ALREADY INFINITE. It does NOT get any bigger NO matter how many OCCUPANTS there ARE.

Did you really MISS that in what I wrote?

I considered what you wrote and I dismissed it. About 20 years ago. When I was playing the same games as you.
It is only you who thinks that you are pointing out some new idea/perspective.
It's only you who thinks that I have been "TRICKED".

If the hotel is already infinite, where are the additional occupants coming from?

[Age]

You have skipped ALL of what I pointed out AND focused on the very thing that TRICKS you.

The hotel is ALREADY INFINITE. It does NOT get any bigger NO matter how many OCCUPANTS there ARE.

Did you really MISS that in what I wrote?

I considered what you wrote and I dismissed it. About 20 years ago. When I was playing the same games as you.

WHAT game do you think, assume, and/or believe that I am playing?

It is only you who thinks that you are pointing out some new idea/perspective.

Is it?

So you ALREADY KNEW HOW and WHY it was stupid to use that hotel example when discussing How an infinite Universe could expand?

From your conception of the universe (being the infinite void) follows that The Big Bang happened IN the universe.

BUT I do NOT have that conception at all.

Matter is expanding (more occupants are arriving for the hotel). Where is it coming from?

But who says matter is expanding (or that more occupants are arriving)? I do NOT, so where matter is coming from, nor whether matter is "coming from anywhere or not, is NO issue for me at all.

And, so you ALREADY can SEE and KNOW the hotel paradox/argument does NOT work in regards to an infinite Universe NOT expanding because the paradox is NOT looking at the object but only LOOKING AT its contents/occupants?

[Logik]

(...)

Like uwot said.

Basta!

True or false: ∞ + 1 > ∞

if you can't/won't answer then fuck off

I have already made it clear that I subscribe to Ultrafinitism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism ). The only reason I engage in any discussion which contains the concept of "infinity" is to point out how ridiculous infinities are.

[Age]

I considered what you wrote and I dismissed it. About 20 years ago. When I was playing the same games as you.

WHAT game do you think, assume, and/or believe that I am playing?

It is only you who thinks that you are pointing out some new idea/perspective.

Is it?

So you ALREADY KNEW HOW and WHY it was stupid to use that hotel example when discussing How an infinite Universe could expand?

From your conception of the universe (being the infinite void) follows that The Big Bang happened IN the universe.

BUT I do NOT have that conception at all.

Matter is expanding (more occupants are arriving for the hotel). Where is it coming from?

But who says matter is expanding (or that more occupants are arriving)? I do NOT, so where matter is coming from, nor whether matter is "coming from anywhere or not, is NO issue for me at all.

And, so you ALREADY can SEE and KNOW the hotel paradox/argument does NOT work in regards to an infinite Universe NOT expanding because the paradox is NOT looking at the object but only LOOKING AT its contents/occupants?

Like uwot said.

Basta!

True or false: ∞ + 1 > ∞

if you can't/won't answer then fuck off

That is what philosophy forums NEED more of. Accept and agree with me or "fuck off". Well that is, literally, one way of "arguing".

[/quote]I have already made it clear that I subscribe to Ultrafinitism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism ).[/quote]

I really do NOT care what BELIEFS you HOLD ONTO, subscribe to, and have made clear.

What I care about is IF the BELIEF, you subscribe to, stands up on its own or NOT.

Obviously that BELIEF does NOT stand on its own. So, without any evidence to support such a BELIEF, then really you are on your own.

Trying to bring mathematics into the two questions,

How could an infinite Universe expand? And,
How is saying 'infinite Universe' is describing a BOUNDED universe?

really is NOT going to help you and your BELIEF.

Either you can just answer the questions or you can NOT.

The only reason I engage in any discussion which contains the concept of "infinity" is to point out how ridiculous infinities are.

So, this is the "logic" that "logik" uses; I BELIEVE some thing and any thing opposing that BELIEF is RIDICULOUS.

IF 'infinities' are ridiculous, then what has this got to do with 'Infinity' Itself.

You can SEE the difference between the two I hope.

[Logik]

That is what philosophy forums NEED more of. Accept and agree with me or "fuck off". Well that is, literally, one way of "arguing".

Philosophy forums also need less liars and more Cooperative principle

So I have absolutely no idea why you BELIEVE that I want you to agree with me.
I am simply asking for your cooperation and OPINION on the answer to: ∞ + 1 > ∞

So that I can understand what position you are arguing for OR against.

IF you are not interested in cooperation then you can fuck off

IF 'infinities' are ridiculous, then what has this got to do with 'Infinity' Itself.

That is a rather peculiar sentence to be uttered by somebody "without beliefs".

Is "infinity itself" a belief that stands on its own?
Is a "thing-in-itself" a belief that stands on its own, or have you just read too much Kant?

[Logik]

WHAT game do you think, assume, and/or believe that I am playing?

Why do you BELIEVE that "I thought, assumed or believed" anything?

I GUESSED that are playing the game of constructing your own identity from first principles. That which you call being OPEN.

You are examining and arguing against all positions without holding a position of your own.

You are protecting your ego, because it can't stand on its own. The easiest way to avoid being "wrong" and to manage your fear of failure is to be a Pyrrhonian skeptic.

Which is rather ironic, given the way the scientific method does things.
What you are doing is not even wrong. And I mean that as a pejorative.

[Age]

That is what philosophy forums NEED more of. Accept and agree with me or "fuck off". Well that is, literally, one way of "arguing".

Philosophy forums also need less liars and more Cooperative principle

So I have absolutely no idea why you BELIEVE that I want you to agree with me.[/quote]

But I do NOT even believe that.

Are you suggesting that there are some liars in this philosophy forum?

If yes, then who do you BELIEVE they are?

Also, is if you can't/won't answer then fuck off way of communicating with "others" a particular part of this "cooperative principle"? I could NOT find any reference to communicating like this in that link you provided.

I am simply asking for your cooperation and OPINION on the answer to: ∞ + 1 > ∞

So that I can understand what position you are arguing for OR against.

But I am NOT arguing for NOR against any position.

I also have simply been asking for your cooperation and OPINION on the answer to two questions, which are based on what you, yourself, have stated:
How could an infinite Universe expand? And,
How is saying 'infinite Universe' is describing a BOUNDED universe?

And IF you are NOT interested in answering them, then WHY did you respond to me?

Was it just to TRY TO introduce mathematics and/or computers back into yet ANOTHER discussion?

By the way MY question has to do WITH what you wrote, whereas, YOUR question has to do WITH a mathematical question, which has NOTHING to do with what I have been talking about.

IF you are not interested in cooperation then you can fuck off

Does that go both ways?

Or ONLY for YOU?

True or false: Is the Universe expanding?

If you are NOT interested in cooperating, which OBVIOUSLY so far you clearly are NOT, then continue on NOT cooperating.

IF 'infinities' are ridiculous, then what has this got to do with 'Infinity' Itself.

That is a rather peculiar sentence to be uttered by somebody "without beliefs".

Is it? Why?

Do you actually KNOW the difference between "infinities" and 'infinity'? You come across as though you do NOT.

Is "infinity itself" a belief that stands on its own?

Not that I am aware of.

Is a "thing-in-itself" a belief that stands on its own, or have you just read too much Kant?

Not that I am aware of.

What is a kant?

Also, How is saying 'infinite Universe' describing a BOUNDED universe?

Are you interested in cooperation? You make a statement, but are you ABLE to clarify and/or elaborate on it? If you kant, then you KNOW what you could do.

By the way is infinity + 1 a logical question?

If yes, then what is the answer?

[uwot]

My own alternative treats matter as 'open-ended' strings (spirals, more specifically). I begin by reversing General Relativity's perspective that space is curved by matter TO BECOME "curved lines ARE matter" instead.

Fair enough. It's consistent with the Schrodinger quote I keep citing: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." The idea that atoms, and more lately the fundamental particles they are made of, are some sort of distortion in some sort of medium goes back at least to Lord Kelvin (the temperature scale bloke, which I'm sure you recognise). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory Einstein put it this way: "according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field". http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html Some contemporary quantum field theories posit different fields for the different fundamental particles, so there is a fairly broad consensus that something like your hypothesis is probably true, and it is what I base parts of my book on.
Where there is disagreement is just how many 'fields' there are and, broadly, whether those fields were created by the big bang, or the big bang was an event in some preexisting field or fields. And of course, there are alternatives to the big bang itself. No one really knows and you could well be right. The main problem I have with 'string theory' is what keeps strings vibrating for the best part of 14 billion years? I appreciate that is not what you are forwarding, but do you have a theory as to how the spirals maintain their structure?

Either way, your own description fits as a more cohesive expression of science that new people would at least appreciate that doesn't dismiss the present paradigm, something that my own theory would/does require a lot of undoing to reconstruct things from scratch.

Well, as I have pointed out, the current issue of Philosophy Now includes a short biography I wrote about Thomas Kuhn (https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996), so I'm no stranger to paradigms being ripped up.

[Logik]

But I am NOT arguing for NOR against any position.

You are examining and arguing against all positions without holding a position of your own.

You are protecting your ego, because it can't stand on its own. The easiest way to avoid being "wrong" and to manage your fear of failure is to be a Pyrrhonian skeptic.

[Logik]

I also have simply been asking for your cooperation and OPINION on the answer to two questions, which are based on what you, yourself, have stated:
How could an infinite Universe expand? And,
How is saying 'infinite Universe' is describing a BOUNDED universe?

Do you even recognize that you are asking two different questions about two different conceptions of the universe?
Do you draw a distinction between the universe and matter IN the universe?

Back to the hotel analogy. When you say "The Universe" do you mean ONLY the hotel, or do you mean the hotel AND the occupants?

When scientists say "the universe is expanding" what scientist mean is "there are more occupants ".
Why? Because we, humans are made of matter. We are biased that way. We are not interested in the "infinite void".

So no, I cannot answer your questions because you are asking them from both perspectives (intentionally, I might imagine).

And until you CHOOSE a perspective and stick to it I am going to keep telling you to fuck off

By the way is infinity + 1 a logical question?

If yes, then what is the answer?

It is a Mathematical inequality. An inequality is either true or false.

I don't know what THE answer is. It's not a "right" or "wrong" kind of question.
It's an axiom. A choice.

That is why I asked your OPINION.

IF you answer the question, then I can understand what you mean by "infinity".
If you don't answer the question - well. Fuck off

[Age]

WHAT game do you think, assume, and/or believe that I am playing?

Why do you BELIEVE that "I thought, assumed or believed" anything?

But I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

If you are wondering WHY I wrote what I did, then that is because YOU WROTE: When I was playing the same games as you.

I am just wondering what game/s do you think, assume, and/or believe that I am playing?

What games were playing that you say that I am playing?

Since we are LOOKING AT this in further detail; How many games are you referring to here? And, how often do you SEE "others" doing what you used to do?

I GUESSED that are playing the game of constructing your own identity from first principles. That which you call being OPEN.

Well you GUESSED WRONG, ONCE AGAIN.

You are examining and arguing against all positions without holding a position of your own.

I started this by GIVING my VIEW. And have clearly expressed if there is ANY thing WRONG in my VIEW, then please explain WHERE it is WRONG, and more importantly WHY it is WRONG.

So, since I started this I am NOT sure where you are getting the idea/BELIEF that I am NOT holding a position of my own.

I also WHY would you think, assume, and/or believe that I am examining and arguing again ALL positions, when I do NOT recall actually examining and arguing against ANY position. Maybe you would like to provide some examples of WHEN you supposedly SEE that this is what I have done.

Furthermore, because you used to/still do examine and argue against "other's" positions WITHOUT ever providing a position yourself, could that be the MAIN reason WHY you GUESSED I am doing the same?

For as far as I am aware there is NO actual evidence anywhere for this, in this thread. Unless, OF COURSE, you can SHOW otherwise.

You are protecting your ego, because it can't stand on its own.

Am I? But if, as you say, I am NOT holding a position, then WHAT EXACTLY would NEED protecting?

Or, AGAIN, is it because this is EXACTLY what you did/do, and so KNOW from EXPERIENCE? And, also that you are now TRYING TO project yourself onto "another"?

The easiest way to avoid being "wrong" and to manage your fear of failure is to be a Pyrrhonian skeptic.

Really?

Are you speaking from EXPERIENCE?

And what EXACTLY is 'pyrrhonian skeptic', from YOUR perspective?

Which is rather ironic, given the way the scientific method does things.
What you are doing is not even wrong.

Considering I wrote MY VIEW, starting of by using the VERY SPECIFIC WORDS; The actual Truth IS: and I also write: If you SEE some thing WRONG with what I write, then POINT IT OUT. And, I can SHOW WHERE ALL the scientific "conclusions", at the moment of when this is written, CAN be correct OR falsified, I am wondering if you really do KNOW what you talk about here.

And I mean that as a pejorative.[/quote]

IS saying things as a 'pejorative' another example of the 'cooperative principle', which you link to?

[Logik]

Considering I wrote MY VIEW, starting of by using the VERY SPECIFIC WORDS; The actual Truth IS: and I also write: If you SEE some thing WRONG with what I write, then POINT IT OUT.

You don't really take feedback as well as you think you do.

[Logik]

IS saying things as a 'pejorative' another example of the 'cooperative principle', which you link to?

No, It's a intentional "fuck off" to somebody who refuses to cooperate.

And I will demonstrate immediately.

Considering I wrote MY VIEW, starting of by using the VERY SPECIFIC WORDS; The actual Truth IS:

In your ACTUAL TRUTHFUL VIEW is this true: ∞ + 1 > ∞

From here onward any avoidance to the above will earn you nothing but profanities and pejoratives

[Age]

My own alternative treats matter as 'open-ended' strings (spirals, more specifically). I begin by reversing General Relativity's perspective that space is curved by matter TO BECOME "curved lines ARE matter" instead.

Fair enough. It's consistent with the Schrodinger quote I keep citing: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." The idea that atoms, and more lately the fundamental particles they are made of, are some sort of distortion in some sort of medium goes back at least to Lord Kelvin (the temperature scale bloke, which I'm sure you recognise). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory Einstein put it this way: "according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field". http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html Some contemporary quantum field theories posit different fields for the different fundamental particles, so there is a fairly broad consensus that something like your hypothesis is probably true, and it is what I base parts of my book on.
Where there is disagreement is just how many 'fields' there are and, broadly, whether those fields were created by the big bang, or the big bang was an event in some preexisting field or fields. And of course, there are alternatives to the big bang itself. No one really knows and you could well be right. The main problem I have with 'string theory' is what keeps strings vibrating for the best part of 14 billion years? I appreciate that is not what you are forwarding, but do you have a theory as to how the spirals maintain their structure?

Because the Universe is NOT static, and thus ALWAYS dynamic, It is ALWAYS creating, energy, which is always creating vibrations, which always creates, evolving strings, which are always EVOLVING into, and CREATING, matter, which reacts with other matter "FREELY" because of the space around and between matter, which is WHAT is always the constant energy, which produces the constant-change, which the Universe is in NOW.

Also, you say; No one really knows, but the Truth is some One MIGHT.

But then again I have NO credentials, and relatively NO scientific understanding, and thus am NOT worthy of even being listened to, correct?

Either way, your own description fits as a more cohesive expression of science that new people would at least appreciate that doesn't dismiss the present paradigm, something that my own theory would/does require a lot of undoing to reconstruct things from scratch.

Well, as I have pointed out, the current issue of Philosophy Now includes a short biography I wrote about Thomas Kuhn (https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996), so I'm no stranger to paradigms being ripped up.