The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

[Scott Mayers]

I was responding more to everyone on this topic assuming only a thought experiment to why I believe it rational to infer that there is always MORE of something between any two points than we can explain EVEN if we think we've exhausted all points. I believe it is a good argument if I expanded on it properly -- something that I only 'intuitively' expressed in a small post summarily without completion.

The argument I am thinking is based on an original argument that begun with Zeno's paradox of the Arrow and rooted in the similar problems about the origins of the problem of 'rational numbers' that lead to the 'irrational numbers'. It all relates to those 'incompleteness theorems' many of us have been speaking on in various threads here.

Some one in this forum mentioned these "zeno's paradoxs" previously, so I looked them up. From what I can remember there is NO actual 'paradox' at all there. It is just the way that they are worded that deceives, intentionally or unintentionally, people to see things "wrongly", if that is the correct word to use here.

To me, a 'paradox' is just a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

To me, the statement; ' 'We', human beings, do NOT need money to live' IS a paradox.

The three things that are quoted as being zenos are just statements/propositions that, intentionally or unintentionally, lead to WRONG conclusions.

1. Arrow "paradox": The thing is there is NO actual 'instant', other than a conceptual one, or one caught on film, photo, picture, or print. There is, however, ALWAYS 'change' instead of any ACTUAL 'instant', which can be actually 'experienced or observed', any way.

2. As for the 'achilles and some tortoise', the deceptive words here are 'has been'. In the conclusion sentence: Thus, whenever Achilles arrives somewhere the tortoise HAS BEEN, he still has some distance to go before he can even reach the tortoise. There creates a subtle deception within you in thinking about 'ARRIVING' where the tortoise 'HAS BEEN'. If, however, the statement was about 'ARRIVING' where the tortoise 'IS', then there is NO issue here at all.

3. Dichtomoy "paradox's" conclusion; Hence, the trip cannot even begin. BUT, if it HAS begun, then there is MOVEMENT, or, if there is MOVEMENT, then the trip CAN and HAS even begun.

To me, these three statements/propositions are NOT paradoxes at all. They just use language that subtlety deceives, again maybe intentionally or unintentionally.

I'be raised these but they are raised often here by various people. I have threads discussing 'walls' of three types, by which I mean 'boundaries' or finite limits. Two are based on time and space as 'origins' and 'endings'. The third is to what is here and now, or the present for time and a point in space.

The paradoxes raised by Zeno were about these. I don't want to argue what one thinks is or is not sufficiently resolved. Zeno knew these were not 'true' realities but true problems one needs to overcome to make sense of the how and why questions. When he spoke of the problem he demonstrates should imply that NO movement is possible, obviously he doesn't literally think this is true but that given they ARE true, it is conflicting with what we already know of other things.

For one, the resolution, that he couldn't figure out, was that space and time are 'relative', something that had to wait for Einstein. Newton's first law asserted that anything NOT moving or moving in some constant velocity remains in their state unless something else outside of it (a force) causes it to change. The problem here is that there is no such thing as something NOT moving. Something not moving has zero velocity relative to us.

But if there is no place in space nor time where anything is not moving, then space itself has no 'background' reference. This means there is no actual point in space, like an 'address' anywhere... in principle. So we still have a different kind of paradox for fixing it using relativity UNLESS space itself is NOT REAL or 'virtual'.

If it is NOT REAL, then you would have part of your answer to how space can POSSIBLY 'expand'. Obviously if say a unicorn is not real, for instance, it can actually grow a horn and STILL be unreal.

You personally cannot assert you know these paradoxes aren't real contradictions to us without demonstrating from your own understanding how you know nature resolves this.

For the 'origin' problem, something you agreed with me (for different reasons) cannot exist, since we cannot reach outside of the universe to be certain there is nothing beyond that 'wall', Zeno's paradoxes ARE precisely as he stated but can be resolved with infinitesimals rather than infinities. In the real world at present, we know we CAN move and reach a wall that we are walking towards. But the actual reason for this is because there is still something on the other side of the wall, even if we didn't actually know what it may be. This is because we end up running into the wall for experimenting upon the challenge and get stopped.

This explanation may not fit with your but you still have to have one or you just wouldn't care to be discussing this at all. So can you tell me how you know and trust these are not paradoxes?

ALL are based on one main concept:

Contradiction.

In relation to space, if we take ANY two different points, we can imagine that no matter which two different points there are that we choose, there will always be another one that we can find in between those two no matter how close the first two points are. In geometry and math, this can be summarized by what is called the "Intermediate Value Theorem". Intuitively it is easy to imagine this but is actually a very very hard thing to prove but has been (and why they have called it a 'theorem')

Where was it "proved"?

We won't presume (pre-assume) this a 'theorem' but something that we might think as just a maybe true thing.

But, hang on, you just said it HAS BEEN proved (already). So, without ANY 'evidence' I am NOT going to might think as 'just a maybe true thing', at all.

Either you HAVE proof or you do NOT. You just stated that it HAS BEEN proved so you MUST HAVE some proof of WHERE this "proof" is.

Just because it is EASY to imagine some thing, then, to me, that in NO way even comes close to implying some thing is true, let alone inferring it is true.

I can just as EASILY imagine half way between two points in space as I can getting to a 'point' where the half way between two points is NOT even worth imagining about, and I end up just SEEING it as one point (in space).

Okay. The Intermediate Theorem is a Calculus and logic proof that is even too hard for me to prove here. BUT we can intuit this as rational. If I have any TWO points in space, if there were NOT any other possible point in between them, it would be ONE and the SAME point, NOT TWO. So is this or is this not 'paradoxical'? We both already know that there is such thing as two different points in reality. But HOW can this be the case?

Here is the general summary from a website on them without the proofs:

2019-05-04_055002.png (71.06 KiB) Viewed 2162 times

NOW you ask why even state this obvious reality. WHY is this even necessary?

I need you to at least agree to this as being the case formally or you could possibly later claim you have no proof of something else that is based upon this. And note that the best Calculus books that prove everything step by step, SKIP this particular proof even though it seems obvious because it is actually very hard to prove and requires a lot of formal logic to present the case. All that matters is that you INTUIT this as true from your subjective reality.

I want you to get the sense of paradoxical flavor to the following more specific case: take two points exactly "next" to (or touching) each other. Then ask yourself, are these still two distinct points or are they one? If I say they ARE two, then it means they each lie in distinct spaces and then require asserting some 'measure' of the distance of the two points. CAN you find such a distance? If you say they are exactly ONE point away from each other, what is the SIZE of this 'point' measure mean?

[surreptitious57]

Can you name things that are physically separate and name what it is that separates them

Physical objects are separated from each other by the space between them

[surreptitious57]

My definition for space is the distance between and around matter
From this definition I have yet to see how space could be divided but I am OPEN for your explanation

Space is the distance between matter but it is a dynamic state not a fixed one
Therefore it can be divided and not only physically but mathematically as well

[surreptitious57]

It is is NOT up to just one person to REVEAL the Truth but it is from ALL as One the Truth comes to light or is REVEALED

Truth is not conditional on popularity even where the truth in question is universal
The truth value of something is contained within the truth itself and nowhere else

[surreptitious57]

What is a true paradox compared to a normal or just plain paradox

It is simply a figure of speech so there is no difference between them as such
Paradoxes cannot exist in Nature because that would be physically impossible
So any that apparently exist only appear to because of insufficient knowledge

[Age]

I was responding more to everyone on this topic assuming only a thought experiment to why I believe it rational to infer that there is always MORE of something between any two points than we can explain EVEN if we think we've exhausted all points. I believe it is a good argument if I expanded on it properly -- something that I only 'intuitively' expressed in a small post summarily without completion.

The argument I am thinking is based on an original argument that begun with Zeno's paradox of the Arrow and rooted in the similar problems about the origins of the problem of 'rational numbers' that lead to the 'irrational numbers'. It all relates to those 'incompleteness theorems' many of us have been speaking on in various threads here.

Some one in this forum mentioned these "zeno's paradoxs" previously, so I looked them up. From what I can remember there is NO actual 'paradox' at all there. It is just the way that they are worded that deceives, intentionally or unintentionally, people to see things "wrongly", if that is the correct word to use here.

To me, a 'paradox' is just a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

To me, the statement; ' 'We', human beings, do NOT need money to live' IS a paradox.

The three things that are quoted as being zenos are just statements/propositions that, intentionally or unintentionally, lead to WRONG conclusions.

1. Arrow "paradox": The thing is there is NO actual 'instant', other than a conceptual one, or one caught on film, photo, picture, or print. There is, however, ALWAYS 'change' instead of any ACTUAL 'instant', which can be actually 'experienced or observed', any way.

2. As for the 'achilles and some tortoise', the deceptive words here are 'has been'. In the conclusion sentence: Thus, whenever Achilles arrives somewhere the tortoise HAS BEEN, he still has some distance to go before he can even reach the tortoise. There creates a subtle deception within you in thinking about 'ARRIVING' where the tortoise 'HAS BEEN'. If, however, the statement was about 'ARRIVING' where the tortoise 'IS', then there is NO issue here at all.

3. Dichtomoy "paradox's" conclusion; Hence, the trip cannot even begin. BUT, if it HAS begun, then there is MOVEMENT, or, if there is MOVEMENT, then the trip CAN and HAS even begun.

To me, these three statements/propositions are NOT paradoxes at all. They just use language that subtlety deceives, again maybe intentionally or unintentionally.

I'be raised these but they are raised often here by various people. I have threads discussing 'walls' of three types, by which I mean 'boundaries' or finite limits. Two are based on time and space as 'origins' and 'endings'. The third is to what is here and now, or the present for time and a point in space.

The paradoxes raised by Zeno were about these. I don't want to argue what one thinks is or is not sufficiently resolved. Zeno knew these were not 'true' realities but true problems one needs to overcome to make sense of the how and why questions. When he spoke of the problem he demonstrates should imply that NO movement is possible, obviously he doesn't literally think this is true but that given they ARE true, it is conflicting with what we already know of other things.

For one, the resolution, that he couldn't figure out, was that space and time are 'relative', something that had to wait for Einstein. Newton's first law asserted that anything NOT moving or moving in some constant velocity remains in their state unless something else outside of it (a force) causes it to change. The problem here is that there is no such thing as something NOT moving. Something not moving has zero velocity relative to us.

I see a 'problem' as a question posed for a solution. So, I do NOT see a 'problem' here at all.

But if there is no place in space nor time where anything is not moving, then space itself has no 'background' reference. This means there is no actual point in space, like an 'address' anywhere... in principle. So we still have a different kind of paradox for fixing it using relativity UNLESS space itself is NOT REAL or 'virtual'.

If it is NOT REAL, then you would have part of your answer to how space can POSSIBLY 'expand'. Obviously if say a unicorn is not real, for instance, it can actually grow a horn and STILL be unreal.

But HOW can a unicorn ACTUALLY grow a horn and STILL be unreal?

How can some thing that is NOT even real do some thing?

You personally cannot assert you know these paradoxes aren't real contradictions to us without demonstrating from your own understanding how you know nature resolves this.

Did you read what I wrote; I gave my definition for the word 'paradox', and did you read what I wrote in regards to those three so called "paradoxes"?

If you do, then you can SEE where I demonstrated from my own understanding how I KNOW nature resolves this.

First, they are NOT even paradoxes, under my definition of the word 'paradox'.

Second, nature does NOT have to resolve them, there is just an apparent unresolved issue in them. But this is only because of the way they are written. People become deceived because of the way they are written. There is NOTHING actually in them to be resolved other than LOOKING AT the actual words in them.

Third, I looked at wikipedia's version of zeno's paradoxes, and then provided THE resolution for them. I demonstrated from my own understanding how they are resolved. If you can NOT see this in my explanation above ALREADY given, then maybe better if you write your own version of zeno's so called "paradoxes" here, and then I will explain how to easily and simply resolve them for you, from your version of them.

For the 'origin' problem, something you agreed with me (for different reasons) cannot exist, since we cannot reach outside of the universe to be certain there is nothing beyond that 'wall',

I think you misunderstood the point I was getting at. It does NOT matter if you are uncertain about what is on the other side of the wall or not.

Even if there is nothing on the other side of the wall that is STILL a part of the Universe. From my definition of the word 'Universe' meaning ALL-THERE-IS or Everything, the Universe can NOT expand. It really is that simple and easy to understand. There really is NO thing that is hard nor complex about understanding the Universe, Itself. To me the simplicity of the Universe is Its beauty, Itself.

Zeno's paradoxes ARE precisely as he stated but can be resolved with infinitesimals rather than infinities.

To me there is NOTHING else to resolve in those so called "paradoxes" besides just LOOKING AT the words in them properly and correctly, which just naturally dissolves any apparent contradiction in them very simply and easily. There is NOTHING actually to be resolved anyway. Just being aware of one's own thinking, when reading them, things get resolved and answered automatically.

In the real world at present, we know we CAN move and reach a wall that we are walking towards. But the actual reason for this is because there is still something on the other side of the wall, even if we didn't actually know what it may be.

I do NOT follow your "logic": The REASON we CAN move and reach a wall, which we are walking towards, is because there is something on the other side of the wall.

This makes NO sense to me.

This is because we end up running into the wall for experimenting upon the challenge and get stopped.

This is even more nonsensical to me, in regards to the previous sentence.

But, obviously, we human beings are stopped when we run into physical walls, either for experimenting or not, and even if challenged to do so or not.

This explanation may not fit with your but you still have to have one or you just wouldn't care to be discussing this at all. So can you tell me how you know and trust these are not paradoxes?

1. I do NOT know what a 'paradox' is to you, but to me, a 'paradox' IS, as I explained above. So, from this perspective, they are NOT paradoxes.

2. I do NOT know if you read what I wrote above regarding those three zeno's things, but I have ALREADY EXPLAINED how they are NOT paradoxes, even when the word 'paradox' is used with other definitions from what I supplied.

If you would like me to FULLY demonstrate EXACTLY how they are NOT paradoxes, so that you can clearly SEE and UNDERSTAND this, then first I will NEED your definition for the word 'paradox', and secondly I will NEED you to provide your version of the three so called zeno's paradoxes, then I can SHOW and TELL you AGAIN how I KNOW and TRUST these are NOT paradoxes.

ALL are based on one main concept:

Contradiction.

In relation to space, if we take ANY two different points, we can imagine that no matter which two different points there are that we choose, there will always be another one that we can find in between those two no matter how close the first two points are. In geometry and math, this can be summarized by what is called the "Intermediate Value Theorem". Intuitively it is easy to imagine this but is actually a very very hard thing to prove but has been (and why they have called it a 'theorem')

Where was it "proved"?

We won't presume (pre-assume) this a 'theorem' but something that we might think as just a maybe true thing.

But, hang on, you just said it HAS BEEN proved (already). So, without ANY 'evidence' I am NOT going to might think as 'just a maybe true thing', at all.

Either you HAVE proof or you do NOT. You just stated that it HAS BEEN proved so you MUST HAVE some proof of WHERE this "proof" is.

Just because it is EASY to imagine some thing, then, to me, that in NO way even comes close to implying some thing is true, let alone inferring it is true.

I can just as EASILY imagine half way between two points in space as I can getting to a 'point' where the half way between two points is NOT even worth imagining about, and I end up just SEEING it as one point (in space).

Okay. The Intermediate Theorem is a Calculus and logic proof that is even too hard for me to prove here.

Even though that theorem is a calculus and logic proof can very easily and very simply be proven, that still has NOTHING to do with my ABILITY to imagine a place where two points in space can NOT be halved.

BUT we can intuit this as rational.

Human beings can and do "intuit" any thing as "rational" if and when it is being used to back up and support some assumption and/or belief that they are holding onto and are TRYING TO prove is true, right, and/or correct. But, intuiting any thing as rational does NOT actually prove any thing. What is it that you are TRYING TO prove here? If it is that space can expand, then just define the word 'space', and then explain how 'that' can expand.

I have ALREADY defined the word 'space', and have ALREADY explained how 'that' can expand. So, that is what you are TRYING TO prove here, then WHY. I have already done this, ALREADY.

If I have any TWO points in space, if there were NOT any other possible point in between them, it would be ONE and the SAME point, NOT TWO. So is this or is this not 'paradoxical'?

I have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE NOR ANSWER to your question here. What do YOU mean when you use the 'paradoxical' word here?

By the way you can NOT have to points in space, from my perspective. Full stop.

From my perspective there is NO actual 'space' just like there is NO actual 'time'. But understanding this more fully and more thoroughly takes much more understanding of other things first.

Also, I can SEE how you can have two points with space between them but I can NOT see how you could have two points with no space between them. If there is NO space between two points, then that is just nonsensical. There is either two separate points with space BETWEEN or just one point with space AROUND it.

We both already know that there is such thing as two different points in reality. But HOW can this be the case?

Very simply and easily. If there is two different points, then there is two different points. If, however, there is only the one point, then there is, obviously, only one point.

Here is the general summary from a website on them without the proofs:
2019-05-04_055002.png

NOW you ask why even state this obvious reality. WHY is this even necessary?

Besides the fact I have NO idea at all what you are stating here in your sentence, and asking in your question, I ALSO have NO idea what that silly little theorem has to do with what you are talking about in regards two points with space between them and/or just one point.

If you believe you can place two points separated and move them together FOREVER MORE and they will NEVER join up as One point, then so be it. But when I do that, as ALREADY explained, they become one point.

Now even if you can NOT join them as One, because you BELIEVE that there is always a point in between them, why tell me this? What do you think that would prove, even if it were True and Possible, anyway?

I need you to at least agree to this as being the case formally or you could possibly later claim you have no proof of something else that is based upon this.

Put simply, But I do NOT agree to this as being the case formally, or informally.

So me just agreeing to some thing, which I do NOT agree with, is NOT going to help either of us.

You would have to PROVE that two points moving together forever more can NOT join up as One. If, and when, you learn how to show, tell, or prove this, then please let me KNOW. Until that time I can SEE when there is NOT point between two points. That is; when those two points become One or are aligned with the third one to become One, whichever way you want to LOOK AT it.

And note that the best Calculus books that prove everything step by step,

BUT there is NO calculus book, nor books, that proves EVERY thing step by step, or by any other way, as well.

Unless of course you can SHOW me one.

SKIP this particular proof even though it seems obvious because it is actually very hard to prove and requires a lot of formal logic to present the case.

Some times what seems obvious is just NOT the case, and NOT the Truth of thing. For example it was, and still is to some, obvious that the world is flat, that the sun revolves around earth, and that the Universe is expanding, but that does NOT make it necessarily True Right, nor Correct.

All that matters is that you INTUIT this as true from your subjective reality.

But I do NOT INTUIT this as true from my subjective reality, nor from My Objective Reality.

I want you to get the sense of paradoxical flavor to the following more specific case: take two points exactly "next" to (or touching) each other. Then ask yourself, are these still two distinct points or are they one?

OBVIOUSLY they are TWO. WHY? Because you just told me they are TWO.

If I say they ARE two, then it means they each lie in distinct spaces and then require asserting some 'measure' of the distance of the two points.

I would just say, if there are two, then they are NOT the same one.

CAN you find such a distance?

Where? In between two separate things?
If yes, then yes I can.
If no, then can I find such a distance WHERE?

If you say they are exactly ONE point away from each other, what is the SIZE of this 'point' measure mean?

I would NOT say any thing like this, so moot.

[Age]

Can you name things that are physically separate and name what it is that separates them

Physical objects are separated from each other by the space between them

I could NOT have said it any better.

[Age]

My definition for space is the distance between and around matter
From this definition I have yet to see how space could be divided but I am OPEN for your explanation

Space is the distance between matter but it is a dynamic state not a fixed one

Yes obviously I agree.

Therefore it can be divided and not only physically but mathematically as well

But how can the distance between matter be divided physically?

Think about this NOT from the perspective you were thinking when you last answered, but from the specific definition I gave for the word 'space'. Think about the space AFTER physical objects are in place and NOT before they are moved. If matter is NOT moved, then how could space be divided physically?

Also, dividing space mathematically is just a concept so you are RIGHT you can divide space conceptually. So, I can SEE that. But I am still yet to SEE how space can be divided, actually.

Further to this, you are the one who stated; Space can be divided without matter
To which I replied: How do you divide space without matter?

Would you care to elaborate on and explain this further, before we move on to my replies? If you just mean mathematically, then there is NO disagreement from me.

[Age]

It is is NOT up to just one person to REVEAL the Truth but it is from ALL as One the Truth comes to light or is REVEALED

Truth is not conditional on popularity even where the truth in question is universal

HOW would any one KNOW if truth is universal or not?

The truth value of something is contained within the truth itself and nowhere else

And where does this truth 'value' ACTUALLY come from?

Think about what you are saying and relate it to what I am saying.

If truth in question is 'universal, then obviously ALL are in agreement.
If ALL are in agreement, and is therefore universal, then that truth is CONDITIONED on popularity.
If there is NO one disagreeing on the truth in question, then by popularity or not that truth IS thee Truth of things.

Truth 'value' obviously comes from the ones who see truth within things. The truth of some thing, like a ball is red, could be said is contained within the truth itself and nowhere else. But the 'ball is red' is ONLY a truth that human beings have put onto it. There is NO truth, within the truth itself. Truth only comes from a value creating creature. The truth value of some thing is contained only within a truth seeking/finding creature.

Now, the truth value lays within each of these individual truth seeking/finding creatures. Each individual one having its own individual perspective or truth value. Therefore, the truth 'value' is an individual thing depending on each individual subjective creature.

The truth 'value' of some thing is relative to the individual and subjective creature who is making the 'truth value' them self. So, the MORE that are in agreement on what the actual and real Truth is, then there is more 'truth value' laid into or onto that thing.

If, and only IF, ALL are in agreement on some thing, then 'that' becomes the actual and real Truth of that thing, because NO one is in disagreement. Absolutely ALL 'truth value' IS contained within that Truth Itself.

Also, only IF and WHEN LOOKING from the ALL of the subjective perspectives, then that is when a Truly Objective VIEW can be, and IS, SEEN. From this perspective is also only when the actual and real Truth of things can be, and IS, SEEN. This is WHERE the Truth, Itself, IS, and WHERE the 'Truth Value' also IS.

The actual and real Truth is CONDITIONAL on ALL, and NOT just some. For example, if all are saying that the sun revolves around the earth but just one is saying the opposite, then truth is obviously NOT conditional on popularity. But that "truth" was NOT popular in the fullest extent. It was only partly popular.

If, and when, ALL are agreeing on some thing as being True, then obviously it could ONLY BE 'that', which is absolutely True, because NOT every one would agree on some thing that was NOT absolutely True.

ONLY 'THAT' what IS absolutely True could be agreed with by ALL. So, only 'THAT', which is agreed with by ALL, could be the actual and real Truth of things.

[Age]

What is a true paradox compared to a normal or just plain paradox

It is simply a figure of speech so there is no difference between them as such

Okay.

Paradoxes cannot exist in Nature because that would be physically impossible

Why would a paradox be physically impossible?

What does 'paradox' actually mean to you?

To me, a paradox is just some thing written or some thing said, which both can obviously physically exist in Nature.

So any that apparently exist only appear to because of insufficient knowledge

We seem to have two very different definitions for the word 'paradox'. I have already given my definition. What is your definition for the word 'paradox'?

Maybe here you are saying that what the 'paradox' is describing is physically impossible in Nature, and therefore the apparent existence of the said talked about 'thing' within the paradox only exists because of insufficient knowledge. Is this what you are meaning?

If yes, then this still contradicts my definition of the word 'paradox', so I will have to wait and see what your definition for the word 'paradox' is.

[surreptitious57]

Maybe here you are saying that what the paradox is describing is physically impossible in Nature and therefore the
apparent existence of the said talked about thing within the paradox only exists because of insufficient knowledge

The so called paradox - which is the existence of contradictory states - only exists because of insufficient knowledge
about a specific set of things that are interconnected in some way - though in reality no such paradox actually exists

[surreptitious57]

ONLY THAT what IS absolutely True could be agreed with by ALL
So only THAT which is agreed with by ALL could be the actual and real Truth of things

The notion of absolute truth is not scientifically valid as science does not deal in absolutes - this is the problem of induction
What science deals in is probable truth - that is something is more likely to be probably true - not absolutely so
All scientific theories could be potentially falsified even though theories are the highest classification in science

Though if something has been falsified then that is the nearest that science gets to establishing definitive knowledge
No amount of white swans will prove that all swans are white but only one black one is needed to disprove it though

[Age]

Maybe here you are saying that what the paradox is describing is physically impossible in Nature and therefore the
apparent existence of the said talked about thing within the paradox only exists because of insufficient knowledge

The so called paradox - which is the existence of contradictory states - only exists because of insufficient knowledge
about a specific set of things that are interconnected in some way - though in reality no such paradox actually exists

Well this might be the reason WHY you are appearing to be disagreeing with me here. If that is YOUR definition for the word 'paradox' (I am NOT quite sure as you did NOT make yourself real clear here. If that is what you were intending to also is another matter), then YOUR "definition is for all intents and purposes completely OPPOSING MY definition for the word 'paradox'. So, really we are NOT disagreeing with each other. We are just LOOKING AT things, from a different perspective, which has come from the different definitions we use. Therefore, from where you are coming FROM, you are EXACTLY RIGHT, and, from where i am coming FROM, I am EXACTLY RIGHT, also.

YOUR definition for the word 'paradox', if I am correct, is completely OPPOSITE to MY definition for the word 'paradox'. But I can NEVER prove this is True and Right UNTIL you provide YOUR definition. I have ALREADY provided MY definition.

[surreptitious57]

A paradox is a statement that makes no logical sense because of the specific way that it is worded
For contained within it is a contradiction that may be true or false but appears initially to be false
Paradoxes can exist in statements about Nature but not within Nature itself since it is entirely true

[Age]

ONLY THAT what IS absolutely True could be agreed with by ALL
So only THAT which is agreed with by ALL could be the actual and real Truth of things

The notion of absolute truth is not scientifically valid as science does not deal in absolutes - this is the problem of induction

Those people who do "science" have YET to discover and learn a LOT of things also.

Studying things, which is what 'science' basically IS, means those people who do 'science' are better suited to their jobs when they are COMPLETELY and ALWAYS OPEN, this mean NOT ruling any thing out. Saying some thing is NOT "scientifically valid" is being a VERY CLOSED person, and thus being NOT completely and always OPEN.

By the way 'science', itself, does NOT deal in any thing. Only human beings who study things deal in things. If people choose to study in absolutes or NOT is another matter. Remember it is ONLY human beings who say things like:

The earth is flat is absolutely true.
The sun revolves around the earth is absolutely true.
The Universe is expanding is absolutely true.

All of these people who say these things base the absolute truth of these on the so called observed "evidences" for them.

If the notion of absolute truth is not scientifically valid for and to those human beings who propose to do "science", then they would also have to admit that an expanding Universe is NOT absolutely the truth as well. And, therefore, the Universe may not be expanding at all.

What science deals in is probable truth - that is something is more likely to be probably true - not absolutely so

So, to you is an expanding Universe a probable truth or thee truth?

Why is this?

Could it be because what is absolutely so does NOT need to be "studied", because it is OBVIOUSLY ALREADY A FACT?

Is an expanding Universe 'probably true' or 'absolutely so'?

All scientific theories could be potentially falsified even though theories are the highest classification in science

You have informed me of this many times, but when I say things like; the Universe is expanding theory, you appear to dislike this as you use to 'evidence' word in reply and refer to things, which you say is "evidence" for an expanding Universe, as though this is the truth of things.

Though if something has been falsified then that is the nearest that science gets to establishing definitive knowledge

Has the theory that the Universe is NOT expanding been falsified?

No amount of white swans will prove that all swans are white but only one black one is needed to disprove it though

Why do you human beings use this example, when it FITS IN MORE with what I continually talk about, which is STOP ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING things, and just REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS, then it EVER fits in with what you human beings talk about, which is you MUST believe some things, you MUST assume some things, or 'this' IS TRUE because the "evidence" says so?

It is you adult human beings who KEEP TRYING TO tell me 'what the actual and real Truth IS' based on your OWN very closed, narrowed, and small perception of things.

For example, adult human beings TRY TO say that the Universe is expanding, yet they only a very small and tiny narrow view of IT. They TRY TO base that the Universe (all swans) is expanding (are white) because they can observe some of It (an amount of white swans).

I suggest if people want to disagree with what I am saying, and also want to TRY TO use things to back and support their perspective of things, then it be better, for them, to use things that back up and support their views, instead of my views.