Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
@Age
I was hesitant to respond to a prior post in which you again rallied back on me about 'assumptions', something that others here are also a bit frustrated with you on.
They are NOT the only ones who feel those frustrated feelings.
I'm trying not to be rude and know that this may not be something you intend. So I want to just note in this post something about 'assumptions' that I don't want to raise again and won't respond to again because it is getting exhausting to try.[/quote]
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amThe word "assumptions", can literally be translated as "As YOU, the same it is for ME". It's not important if this is the literal origin of the word but it stands to reason that this is the intentional meaning as it is for things like logic and/or science.
That is one translation. Another is If you ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME. It is also not important if this is the literal "origin" as well. If some WANT to use that word, from that interpretation, then they might, like you just did, USE it, and then also state: it stands to reason that this is the INTENTIONAL MEANING as it is for things like GUESSING what is right or true BEFORE what is right and true is even actually known.
Does this 'stand to reason' also, or only YOUR one definition/interpretation 'stand to reason'?
Absolutely ANY thing can 'stand to reason' because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If ANY thing appears to 'fit in with' views already obtained, then 'that' will TRY TO be used to "justify" one's own position. (That is; if they are HOLDING ONTO one position).
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amAs such, assumptions are ONLY the pretenses BETWEEN two or more people that is needed to move forward with anything.
Lol is that the "ONLY" thing they ARE?
Are you at all aware that different human beings give different definitions to words?
Are you also aware that there can be many different definitions to just one word, so to say and/or imply that A word has ONLY ONE meaning/definition just SHOWS how closed some people are and can be.
One reason human beings are confused about things is because there are so many different definitions and meanings to the individual words they use. But CLARITY clears up this self-caused, which by the way CLARITY is what can move people forward with anything MUCH FASTER than ASSUMPTIONS ever did or could.
In fact Honest CLARITY is THE quickest, simplest, and easiest path, thus the BEST, I have found to moving forward to FINDING and SEEING/ UNDERSTANDING the actual and real Truth of things.
I found, and continually witness, hitherto how ASSUMPTIONS actually prevent the Truth from being found and can actually cause more confusion than clarity. This can be OBSERVED clearly in this forum.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amWhen I question the world, I default NOT to assume anything in my own investigations of my reality.
When you use the word 'reality', how are you interpreting/defining that word?
How CAN you "investige" 'reality'?
When I LOOK AT ANY thing, and ALL things as One. I am OPEN and NOT believing ANY thing. I also do NOT like to make any ASSUMPTIONS at all.
That way I can SEE things for how and what they REALLY ARE.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amBecause I cannot read through another mind,
Lol Have you ever read my writings where I suggest to ask "others" clarifying questions so that a much better and truer understanding of what they are actually saying and meaning can be found?
If NOT, then that is A reason WHY I ask so many clarifying questions and WHY I continually ask to be challenged with and by clarifying questions also
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amI require gambling that those other beings out there, like you and all other 'people' in my perspective are only sensations with respect to my consciousness as far as I can tell.
Who cares?
I cannot control most other things outside of my mind.
This is twice you have used this 'mind' word. Would you care to clarify want the 'mind' actually IS?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amThis tells me that reality is greater than I am at least with respect to my present self. All of reality COULD be only MY universe but because I cannot MAKE other things fit perfectly to my will, I have to infer this means that there are other factors out there that I have to try to try different things in order to see if those things I'm sensing is like me. When I 'poke' this world of my senses, the feedback I get needs to 'bounce' back something I expect and when this occurs and can continue to test, those things out there that 'reflect' my call tells me they are something that 'senses' me as I sense it.
Who cares?
And, the REASONS WHY you "cannot MAKE other things fit" US OBVIOUS, for reasons ALREADY given.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amThis is the 'assumption' factor.
Which partly explains WHY you can NOT "make" things fit.
TRYING TO 'MAKE' things happen is another reason WHY are STILL investigating and looking for answers.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am I cannot KNOW anything for certain unless it reflects me perfectly. When it reflects back to me (ie. feedback), if it is absolutely what I expect [like a 'ping' that bounces back to acknowledges something is out there], the sensations that are perfectly in my control DEFINES ME. So, for instance, when I 'look' out and see some face in front of me that moves in every way exactly as I do, it confirms to me that is 'me'. That I happen to be looking in the mirror can be one such experience.
Who cares?
Reality is not as predictable for all things. For those things that I may try to ping but cannot get a reflected expected acknowledgement from, I infer this as something perfectly not me nor like me. If I cannot manipulate it at all and I am unable to get it to feedback as I wish, these things I am sensing for which I'm trying to test are things that are NOT me nor LIKE me.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amAs to other people, though, I would sense some partial power to ping. If I have hope to communicate with it, it needs to reflect back some things that I send (ping) and then I have to acknowledge its own pings to me. Once this is done, we have a 'link' to each other. This is the 'assumption' in its most basic form.
You forgot to add that that interpretation/definition of 'assumption' is what 'assumption' is, TO 'ME' "scott mayers".
As you proposed it just now it is like you are proposing that that is the ONLY interpretation/definition in it's most basic form.
There are, after all, MORE basic forms of that one word.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amSo assumptions are only a type of agreement that is 'pretended' for the sake of further communicating.
Again you forgot to add the word that that is TO 'ME' "scott mayers".
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amI'm using some terms related to computing (like ping and acknowledge) because these are the first steps for any two things to communicate like this. For everything my computer does on the Internet, it pings, waits for an expected copy in a given time. If it comes, then I wait for it to send its own distinct ping (computers can do this simultaneously but animals need to 'prove' it is acknowledgable too).
So what? And who cares?
But if you really want me to 'ping' back with my views on what I am seeing in your views, then what I see is you want reflect back to you 'that' what 'refects' with your views. You WANT to see a reflection of yourself, in "others" (views) so that 'you' cab substianted as being true and right. You only want to SEE 'that' what ONLY relects your own views. But do not be to concerned with this as you are not alone. EVERY other adults human being also does this exact same thing.
Adults do NOT LOOK AT what IS, rather they LOOK AT and FOR 'that' what they ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is True.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am My point is only to express that assumptions are required ONLY between two or more beings. We still don't actually KNOW each of us are 'real' beings like ourselves.
If you say so.
But all of this seems like a very long convoluted way if just saying that no matter what you say you are still unsure if it is correct or not.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amScience is a subset of philosophy that restricts communication and procedures to the lowest common denominator and is specifically a logic of the senses. As such, a stricter set of assumptions have to be negotiated about senses, the logic used and agreed procedures. This doesn't require being a part of an institute. So we here could DO science among ourselves in the same way we discuss other philosophical things.
And this helps EXPLAINING WHY you human beings are STILL searching for the Truth of things. I have already told you the best way to the truth (of things).
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amI don't know if this suffices and won't care nor respond if this is not something you care to agree to or not. So this is the last I'm mentioning this point and don't want to argue with you on this.
People do NOT want to 'argue' whenever they do NOT like to LOOK further into their own words to SEE if they are actually correct or not.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amWhat is needed to understand for the topic of expansion is some principle assumptions.
And by any chance are those ASSUMPTIONS you want to remain and be agreed with and/ or accepted are those ones that you put forward?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amOne is the Cosmological Principle. I prefer the Perfect Cosmological Principle which assumes things in the past or future has to be of the same kind of physics that respects the senses we use locally.
Now what a coincidence. You WANT to ASSUME 'that' what ALREADY fits in with your ALREADY held VIEWS.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 amWorking definition of the
Perfect Cosmological Principle:(1.0) All things we sense are to be interpreted as 'equally' observable in kind to our local sensation in space, matter, energy, and time. Since Cosmology is about observing things at a remote distance that won't feedback information by poking it unlike things in a controlled lab, this means that we assume everything we see has no special place and so will interpret things anywhere to appear SIMILAR (isotropic) no matter where you are in the universe and has an equal similar distribution of things (homogeneous).
You can ASSUME that, if you like, for as long as you like.
I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise.
But just to inform YOU that is NOT going to help you find 'that' what you are LOOKING FOR.
By the way, does the adding of the word 'perfect', into that Principe title, make you feel better about assuming such a thing? Or, make the principle any better in any way?