Dilemma of beginning of time

[Scott Mayers]

Ontology = the study of reality
Epistemology = the study of Knowledge, which originates in logic and is a prerequisite to discussing reality.

You appear to be simply refusing to attend to invest in what I say prejudicial to your belief that logic has no 'rational' connection to reality. The idea of logic is to communicate BETWEEN people ABOUT reality. Reality outside of subjective observations requires communicating to others if only to determine agreement THAT you share the same 'observation', NOT that the interpretation is shared. Then, once this is established, you USE logic to prove or disprove certain INTERPRETATIONS of each others subjective observations.

They are intimately linked. The subjects are separated because you can't speak of Ontological matters (or other areas of philosophy) without FIRST discussing how you can 'know' and what rules is needed to judge each others observations collectively.

If something is Ontological it must be Epistemological; If Epistemological, it is not necessarily Ontological.

You are thus 'choosing' not to attempt to invest in my argument a priori for something you personally hold opposition to regarding what is or is not possible in reality. But you hold that a priori reasoning cannot be real itself [separating truth exclusively from validity]. Thus are you implying that nothing can be 'sound' (both real and valid).

I don't follow Kantian categories, I follow modern scientific knowledge about how the mind works.

You are ignoring the heart of the issue: truth statements are merely in the head, and there is no known reason to assume that they are part of an infinite possibility. By infinite possibility we typically mean an infinite multiverse/multiversal field, why are you assuming that truths are part of it too? And why not just assume any form of supernatural as well then?

I still don't follow. The topic is about the paradoxes involved about origins. I haven't read anything on Kant and so can't confirm nor deny any presumption about me as 'following' his categories not want to digress there.

You appear more likely to have the same problem the ancients had about not seeing any utility for the concept of 'zero' because you can't '"see" a nothing. If you can't 'see' some nothing as a something, like that zero is real versus the limit of 1/∞ = 0 as its appearance, then you are merely forcing OUT the possibility to discuss something by denying it is anything more than an invention.

An Absolute Nothing as an origin doesn't HAVE laws to obey nor disobey. It doesn't require BEING logical where logic nor reality exists at that point. But it CAN create for the same reason. It doesn't act as in something that creates through time but "acts" in that it statically takes ALL possibilities without bias in Totality. Otherwise you are begging that 'law' itself, while only a thought to you, has essence in an eternal sense, that powerfully derives rules that make real things behave uniquely.

Rather than treat reality dynamically, you have to interpret reality as equally causing time that makes things dynamic. And to do this requires recognizing that reality is just a manifestation of all possibilities that only separately form combinations of subsets within the whole of totality as pixels on an infinite sized screen necessarily creates an infinite set of complete images. Each arrangement is a 'world' to which, WHEN it forms patterned worlds that are 'consistent', they form 'images' of worlds such as our universe.

You have to agree that we also have empirical evidence of this by your very interpretation of this as only something in your head. If all you can determine outside reality (outside your consciousness) is only an 'image', then you have PROOF that reality is itself indifferent from being determined any more nor less real than an image. Thus what is not 'real' about causation from nothing requires you prove that you, for instance, have existed forever, or you are not being 'scientific' NOR 'logical'.

...and why I have to ask if you 'know' you were born ...and 'know' that this is a 'real' fact?

You can't empirically deny that nothing is a never-existent reality without logically implying that only something has always existed. But has your own consciousness ever been in a state of non-existence? Can you not empirically at least interpret it possible that an origin exists?

Similarly, can you empirically assert that existence itself is infinite but bound? (that reality as a whole is infinite in time both forwards and backwards in time such that what is non-existent lies OUTSIDE of this boundary)

I didn't empirically deny non-existence (in fact it's part of my worldview). But assuming the idea that something comes from nothing, and assuming that there are origins, are again extra (and illogical) ideas that I see no reason to assume.

Why assume so much from the start, when the simpler picture usually turns out to be correct?

The simplest picture IS to assume Absolute Nothing OR Absolute Everything.

Absolute Everything requires at minimal an Absolute Nothing or then the meaning of 'Absolute Everything' is excluding something and is 'contradictory', correct?

But while an Absolute Nothing seems contradictory to you logically, than THIS suggests that 'contradiction' is itself a relative reality of the infinite possibilities, and would no longer require Absolute Everything to be 'contradictory' AFTERWARDS. But you have to begin with a strict 'absolute', not a relative one.

If relative, such as our particular universe among all universes, you require to empirically prove something OUTSIDE of our universe exists OR default ONLY to the 'logical' reasons alone by the evidence we have. So you can't assert that there is NO ORIGIN but only that it is a logical possibility to be one, the other, or both.

One logical way that assures BOTH cases true, is if what is non-existent of some universal can be a 'part' of it, not just something outside of it. Because this is most INCLUSIVE of possibilities for observations within our limits to perceive, then we can also determine that our own universe's apparent singularity in time is itself infinitely BOUND inside it. This can occur if the singularity is a mere illusion. The closer in time you try to get to that origin, the distance appears to be the same. The universe should look 14 Billion years old no matter where NOR when you are.

[Atla]

I still don't follow. The topic is about the paradoxes involved about origins. I haven't read anything on Kant and so can't confirm nor deny any presumption about me as 'following' his categories not want to digress there.

You appear more likely to have the same problem the ancients had about not seeing any utility for the concept of 'zero' because you can't '"see" a nothing. If you can't 'see' some nothing as a something, like that zero is real versus the limit of 1/∞ = 0 as its appearance, then you are merely forcing OUT the possibility to discuss something by denying it is anything more than an invention.

I just said that non-existence is part of my worldview.
Non-existence isn't 0, 0 is something.

An Absolute Nothing as an origin doesn't HAVE laws to obey nor disobey. It doesn't require BEING logical where logic nor reality exists at that point. But it CAN create for the same reason. It doesn't act as in something that creates through time but "acts" in that it statically takes ALL possibilities without bias in Totality. Otherwise you are begging that 'law' itself, while only a thought to you, has essence in an eternal sense, that powerfully derives rules that make real things behave uniquely.

Nothing can't create something and doesn't act, because it's nothing.
"takes ALL possibilities without bias" what are you talking about?

Rather than treat reality dynamically, you have to interpret reality as equally causing time that makes things dynamic. And to do this requires recognizing that reality is just a manifestation of all possibilities that only separately form combinations of subsets within the whole of totality as pixels on an infinite sized screen necessarily creates an infinite set of complete images. Each arrangement is a 'world' to which, WHEN it forms patterned worlds that are 'consistent', they form 'images' of worlds such as our universe.

Okay let's stop it here, I don't have time for this backwards thinking bullshit

[Logik]

OK, so where's the problem with an infinite past?!
EB

Infinite past requires infinite memory.

Memory = space/matter.

Infinite past requires infinite matter.

[Scott Mayers]

I still don't follow. The topic is about the paradoxes involved about origins. I haven't read anything on Kant and so can't confirm nor deny any presumption about me as 'following' his categories not want to digress there.

You appear more likely to have the same problem the ancients had about not seeing any utility for the concept of 'zero' because you can't '"see" a nothing. If you can't 'see' some nothing as a something, like that zero is real versus the limit of 1/∞ = 0 as its appearance, then you are merely forcing OUT the possibility to discuss something by denying it is anything more than an invention.

I just said that non-existence is part of my worldview.
Non-existence isn't 0, 0 is something.

An Absolute Nothing as an origin doesn't HAVE laws to obey nor disobey. It doesn't require BEING logical where logic nor reality exists at that point. But it CAN create for the same reason. It doesn't act as in something that creates through time but "acts" in that it statically takes ALL possibilities without bias in Totality. Otherwise you are begging that 'law' itself, while only a thought to you, has essence in an eternal sense, that powerfully derives rules that make real things behave uniquely.

Nothing can't create something and doesn't act, because it's nothing.
"takes ALL possibilities without bias" what are you talking about?

Rather than treat reality dynamically, you have to interpret reality as equally causing time that makes things dynamic. And to do this requires recognizing that reality is just a manifestation of all possibilities that only separately form combinations of subsets within the whole of totality as pixels on an infinite sized screen necessarily creates an infinite set of complete images. Each arrangement is a 'world' to which, WHEN it forms patterned worlds that are 'consistent', they form 'images' of worlds such as our universe.

Okay let's stop it here, I don't have time for this backwards thinking bullshit

You need to move to my own threads on this to follow my case rather than repeat it here. If you understand Zeno's dilemmas, a bit of Calculus as an advantage, and how science has used these to determine certain solutions, you'd see how this operates. We already agree that an origin is not 'necessary' [your view treats it as an empty set outside of the domain of reality versus the relative nothings within it.] And I also agree we at least have to default to the infinite in practice, something counter to just the opposite most scientists hold today. But nevertheless, you cannot rule OUT that nothing MAY be an origin. Your own refusal to interpret meaning of it is because you don't understand my distinction: I say, AS A CONDITIONAL, that IF there is an 'origin' (not that there is), then it has to be one of an Absolute Nothingness. At only such an extreme can you have the nature of contradiction be a real paradox. IF such an origin existed, it has to be of an Absolute Nothing.

On the other hand, to show how your strict 'law' of something you think, "Something cannot come from Nothing", I point to an acceptance of Absolutely Everything, which has to include any form of "nothing" within it. That is, "Totality" itself contains all that is something AND nothing. There is no 'outside' place for unicorns unless you expand totality to something greater infinitely, something just as acceptable.

I disagree with the Big Bang precisely because it posits an 'origin' when the default has to be to an infinite one which is more inclusive UNLESS we could know that something exists beyond that 'singularity' as a wall.

[Logik]

I just said that non-existence is part of my worldview.
Non-existence isn't 0, 0 is something.

Now that the notion of non-existence occupies you mind, e.g engages non-zero of your neurons non-existence became something.

It's a signifier without a signified. The paradox of the Null-pointer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

The more you keep talking about it, the more nothing becomes something.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent.

[Logik]

I disagree with the Big Bang precisely because it posits an 'origin' when the default has to be to an infinite one which is more inclusive UNLESS we could know that something exists beyond that 'singularity' as a wall.

The crux of the matter is that a finite machine (your brain) cannot process infinities.

IF the universe is infinite we cannot understand it. Probability theory (the foundation of science) cannot function with infinities.


IF the universe is infinite. Drinking beer is a better way to spend your time than to try to understand it.

[Scott Mayers]

OK, so where's the problem with an infinite past?!
EB

Infinite past requires infinite memory.

Memory = space/matter.

Infinite past requires infinite matter.

But the only other options are that nothing exists OR some specific number, like 42, is this number of 'memory units'. Your reasoning is why I think you are misinterpreting the limit theorems. They argue that we cannot cover (completely exhaust) all REAL problems because we are always bound to the finite. The proofs show that given a universal finite machine that can solve all problems in its domain, it cannot solve all 'real' problem because you can still have another finite machine that has one more memory space than this one that can do MORE. And this is infinitely so.

You can have a machine that is finite that solves an infinity of problems even with an infinite set of memory spaces. This computer (that Turing Universal machine) is 'complete on an infinite set of problems. Yet it proves it still cannot cover (completely exhaust) all real problems because there are different levels of infinities too.

And seeing your post above, before I post, I agree: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent."[= "Ineffable"]
We can determine whether a finite boundary exists for discovering MORE but without that evidence, we are permanently unable to assertively claim a finite end when an infinite set of possibilities is the only option to asserting a unique and special one without proof. The default to either nothing or everything, which inclusively contains nothing, means that only nothing can be an origin but we can never get there, just approach it infinitely.

[Scott Mayers]

I disagree with the Big Bang precisely because it posits an 'origin' when the default has to be to an infinite one which is more inclusive UNLESS we could know that something exists beyond that 'singularity' as a wall.

The crux of the matter is that a finite machine (your brain) cannot process infinities.

IF the universe is infinite we cannot understand it. Probability theory (the foundation of science) cannot function with infinities.


IF the universe is infinite. Drinking beer is a better way to spend your time than to try to understand it.

I have a positive theory that defines precisely what the exact nature of matter, energy, and space is. But it depends upon understanding this problem as I'm trying to express it. You can begin with an absolute nothing state with the nature of it being both contradictory and without 'law' to dictate consistency as a prerequisite to all of reality (Totality, that is). AND I can still to save my beer and drink it too.

[Logik]

But the only other options are that nothing exists OR some specific number, like 42, is this number of 'memory units'. Your reasoning is why I think you are misinterpreting the limit theorems.

I am not mis-interpreting anything. For as long as you are dealing with symbols/symbolism your mere USE of the term "nothing" suggests meaning.

The way you represent NOTHING in formal logic is by simply... not saying anything.

They argue that we cannot cover (completely exhaust) all REAL problems because we are always bound to the finite. The proofs show that given a universal finite machine that can solve all problems in its domain, it cannot solve all 'real' problem because you can still have another finite machine that has one more memory space than this one that can do MORE. And this is infinitely so.

You mistake the theoretical for the practical. In practice the biggest Turing machine is the universe.
Can you gave a machine that has "one byte more memory" than the Universe?

You can have a machine that is finite that solves an infinity of problems even with an infinite set of memory spaces.

What?

It's called a Finite STATE MACHINE.. State is stored in memory.
A machine with INFINITE memory has INFINITE states

This computer (that Turing Universal machine) is 'complete on an infinite set of problems. Yet it proves it still cannot cover (completely exhaust) all real problems because there are different levels of infinities too.

No. Infinities don't exist in reality. Infinities are theoretical.

And seeing your post above, before I post, I agree: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent."[= "Ineffable"]
We can determine whether a finite boundary exists for discovering MORE but without that evidence, we are permanently unable to assertively claim a finite end when an infinite set of possibilities is the only option to asserting a unique and special one without proof. The default to either nothing or everything, which inclusively contains nothing, means that only nothing can be an origin but we can never get there, just approach it infinitely.

You have lost yourself in your own circular reasoning.

[Logik]

I have a positive theory that defines precisely what the exact nature of matter, energy, and space is.

And thus your error. That is then an ontological theory e.g it doesn't take system dynamics (change) into account.

Unfortunately all ontological theories (explanations) are bullshit. Given a finite set of datapoints N.

The number of mathematical functions that can be fitted to N is larger than N. In the worst case is N-factoriel.

Said simply: given a small sample-size (finite dataset) the number of explanations exceeds the number of datapoints exponentially.

Curve fitting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting

The only objective standard for a theory is not its ability to explain, but its ability to predict.
Explanation is a sandpit.

[Scott Mayers]

But the only other options are that nothing exists OR some specific number, like 42, is this number of 'memory units'. Your reasoning is why I think you are misinterpreting the limit theorems.

I am not mis-interpreting anything. For as long as you are dealing with symbols/symbolism your mere USE of the term "nothing" suggests meaning.

The way you represent NOTHING in formal logic is by simply... not saying anything.

You responded before you read the end, I'm guessing. My point about you missing it is about thinking that the theorems were asserting that reality itself was finite. That is a misrepresentation of the theorems. If you read Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Braid, as you said you had, AND understood it, this was the point about his own explanation. The empty complement to a finite universe/universal, is only a one way reality. That is, if you complement X to become not-X, the complement of not-X, in reality is not-X, but X PLUS not-X. [See page 71(paperback version) figure 18 in the chapter on Figure and Ground. The 'ground' is that complement to the posited 'figure' of a finite known logical universal.]

They argue that we cannot cover (completely exhaust) all REAL problems because we are always bound to the finite. The proofs show that given a universal finite machine that can solve all problems in its domain, it cannot solve all 'real' problem because you can still have another finite machine that has one more memory space than this one that can do MORE. And this is infinitely so.

You mistake the theoretical for the practical. In practice the biggest Turing machine is the universe.
Can you gave a machine that has "one byte more memory" than the Universe?

A Turing Complete machine is any GENERAL COMPUTER now but WITH an infinite memory (ideal). The machine itself is finite, the memory infinite. You can't use Cantor's final representation to his proof without this factor. Since the machine represents logic, the data and its spaces represent the input/outputs of reality.

You can have a machine that is finite that solves an infinity of problems even with an infinite set of memory spaces.

What?

THAT's what a Turing Complete machine is. See the definition at Turing Compete

In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer's instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any Turing machine.

A "Turing machine" is any particular PROGRAM in his particular design from his paper.

It's called a Finite STATE MACHINE.. State is stored in memory.
A machine with INFINITE memory has INFINITE states

Yes. He needed to have a general computer that can hold an ideal infinite memory set. The proof was to show that the programs placed in the memory to create any particular program (Turing machine) cannot have one of them specifically designed to solve the problem: "list all the programs (Turing machines) that cannot 'hang', using our terminology today." It can't do so because if you make a list of all possible programs even if you could exhaust all infinite possibilities, you will still find that there is another program that is not on that list....Infinity + 1. He then uses Cantor's proof of this to show the list cannot be exhausted, thus the VERY program (particular Turing machine) used to seek a problem WITHIN its domain is not able to....and thus, incomplete.

This computer (that Turing Universal machine) is 'complete on an infinite set of problems. Yet it proves it still cannot cover (completely exhaust) all real problems because there are different levels of infinities too.

No. Infinities don't exist in reality. Infinities are theoretical.

And seeing your post above, before I post, I agree: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent."[= "Ineffable"]
We can determine whether a finite boundary exists for discovering MORE but without that evidence, we are permanently unable to assertively claim a finite end when an infinite set of possibilities is the only option to asserting a unique and special one without proof. The default to either nothing or everything, which inclusively contains nothing, means that only nothing can be an origin but we can never get there, just approach it infinitely.

You have lost yourself in your own circular reasoning.

No, the meaning is like asking how many real numbers are between the bounded integers 0 and 1. There are an infinity of them! But the ends are not defined. That is the question is to find find x in the open sentence: 0 < x < 1. Zero and One are not defined here. The 'universe' of the real solution set still exists infinitely between these boundaries, and yet there still exists some potential infinite possibilities outside of this: all y such that y < 0 or 1 < y.

Being a reality in our universe is like being one of those real numbers between 0 and 1. We cannot know the ends because there are always another real number on either side of whatever number represents us. So this says that we can't assert neither that there is a 0 or a 1 nor any other number outside this range. You are inappropriately concluding that there is either certainly a finite or infinite solution but cannot make sense of the infinite as a real possibility outside with CLOSURE and so must take the finite solution. I'm saying we have to accept the infinite conclusion for NOT KNOWING by default because it is not BIASED to exclusive options. I don't assert there IS not a finite singularity nor the infinite possibility (ineffable) BUT that we can assert the infinite for it being more inclusive without closing our minds out of the possibility. It includes what is finite (non-ineffible...something we can speak of) but is always incomplete: thus without knowing precisely what exists beyond, we still "KNOW" that something is beyond that we cannot explain.

[Scott Mayers]

I have a positive theory that defines precisely what the exact nature of matter, energy, and space is.

And thus your error. That is then an ontological theory e.g it doesn't take system dynamics (change) into account.

Unfortunately all ontological theories (explanations) are bullshit. Given a finite set of datapoints N.

The number of mathematical functions that can be fitted to N is larger than N. In the worst case is N-factoriel.

Said simply: given a small sample-size (finite dataset) the number of explanations exceeds the number of datapoints exponentially.

Curve fitting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting

The only objective standard for a theory is not its ability to explain, but its ability to predict.
Explanation is a sandpit.

And thus why I need to show this thinking wrong. To say it cannot "predict" is begging. If I can explain how something real works, the reality of it working has to at least FIT with that explanation, and THEN, running that reality is predictable through the logic of it.

Your stuck on the religious condemnation embedded in those who believe that science SHALL never explain why, but yet, still predict? The Turing paper lacked an actual real device built yet but laid the foundation for its realization: the stored memory computer that enables a general machine. This design is a logical one but 'predicts' that one can be built. And then the reality is THAT we are using computers now.

The theory comes before its proof AND a theory can also reinterpret what is already been proven real, but has a false or incomplete explanation.

I'm not going further into this without you understanding the logic of the REAL limits that coincide to the logical limits. Otherwise it can ONLY BE non-sense to you or others not able to get to this minimal level of understanding before the proof.

[Logik]

And thus why I need to show this thinking wrong. To say it cannot "predict" is begging. If I can explain how something real works, the reality of it working has to at least FIT with that explanation, and THEN, running that reality is predictable through the logic of it.

*sigh* Yes. It's called Model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ).

Your stuck on the religious condemnation embedded in those who believe that science SHALL never explain why, but yet, still predict?

Small-minded fool.

If I have a thousand DIFFERENT ontological models all of which predict with identical accuracy which one of them is the "real" one?
Whose model is 'better'?

That's how religious wars start.

If prediction is the only redeeming quality of a model, then it all boils down to utility.

And utility is anything BUT objective. Different people want different things and have different utility-functions.

To argue over 'what is real' is quite literally - fighting words.

[Logik]

You responded before you read the end, I'm guessing. My point about you missing it is about thinking that the theorems were asserting that reality itself was finite. That is a misrepresentation of the theorems. If you read Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Braid, as you said you had, AND understood it, this was the point about his own explanation. The empty complement to a finite universe/universal, is only a one way reality. That is, if you complement X to become not-X, the complement of not-X, in reality is not-X, but X PLUS not-X. [See page 71(paperback version) figure 18 in the chapter on Figure and Ground. The 'ground' is that complement to the posited 'figure' of a finite known logical universal.]

And if you were actually familiar with logic, its theory and inner workings you wouldn't have to use an entire, verbose paragraph to say what you just said.

It's called "completeness'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

The book you appeal to is 40 years old. It merely popularised that which was understood in the 70s. Things have happened since.

A Turing Complete machine is any GENERAL COMPUTER now but WITH an infinite memory (ideal). The machine itself is finite, the memory infinite. You can't use Cantor's final representation to his proof without this factor. Since the machine represents logic, the data and its spaces represent the input/outputs of reality.

Cantor is a set-theorist. All my arguments are based on the rejection of set theory as the foundation of logic. I also reject all the attempts to rescue set theory e.g ZFC.

My foundation is type theory. And until you recognize this disparity we are speaking from different paradigms and hence: different languages.

Yes. He needed to have a general computer that can hold an ideal infinite memory set. The proof was to show that the programs placed in the memory to create any particular program (Turing machine) cannot have one of them specifically designed to solve the problem: "list all the programs (Turing machines) that cannot 'hang', using our terminology today." It can't do so because if you make a list of all possible programs even if you could exhaust all infinite possibilities, you will still find that there is another program that is not on that list....Infinity + 1. He then uses Cantor's proof of this to show the list cannot be exhausted, thus the VERY program (particular Turing machine) used to seek a problem WITHIN its domain is not able to....and thus, incomplete.

You are mistaken.

1. You think a program is a Turing machine - it's not. That which EVALUATES the program is the Turing machine.
That which evaluates "A and B is True" is your mind. The hardware.
The logic (language, rules for evaluating things) is the software.

2. That is PRECISELY THE POINT of the halting problem. The consequence of the halting problem is a rejection of infinities!

Because (100th time I am saying this and I am getting ruther frustrated with the dumb)

Logic is the laws of THOUGHT, NOT the laws of the universe.

Logical theorems/axioms etc. are about THOUGHT, not REALITY.

How you apply thought TO reality? Entirely separate issue!

We can determine whether a finite boundary exists for discovering MORE but without that evidence, we are permanently unable to assertively claim a finite end when an infinite set of possibilities is the only option to asserting a unique and special one without proof. The default to either nothing or everything, which inclusively contains nothing, means that only nothing can be an origin but we can never get there, just approach it infinitely.

But I can permanently claim that your mind is finite. And for as long as your mind is finite and it's SMALLER than the universe you will always be working with the map not the teritory.

e.g Kolmogorov complexity. a.k.a compression.

No, the meaning is like asking how many real numbers are between the bounded integers 0 and 1. There are an infinity of them!

No there aren't. The number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is a function of amount-of-time, the rate at which you can generate new numbers and your range-precision trade-off function.

I will spell out range-precision trade-off in the easiest way possible for you. ARBITRARY CHOICE.

infinite precision requires infinite numbers between any range.
Be it 0 and 1, or 0 and 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..........1

So you will spend an infinite amount of time BEFORE you can even utter a single real number!

Infiinties are stupid.

[Scott Mayers]

And thus why I need to show this thinking wrong. To say it cannot "predict" is begging. If I can explain how something real works, the reality of it working has to at least FIT with that explanation, and THEN, running that reality is predictable through the logic of it.

*sigh* Yes. It's called Model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ).

Your stuck on the religious condemnation embedded in those who believe that science SHALL never explain why, but yet, still predict?

Small-minded fool.

If I have a thousand DIFFERENT ontological models all of which predict with identical accuracy which one of them is the "real" one?
Whose model is 'better'?

That's how religious wars start.

If prediction is the only redeeming quality of a model, then it all boils down to utility.

And utility is anything BUT objective. Different people want different things and have different utility-functions.

To argue over 'what is real' is quite literally - fighting words.

Does this mean you are actually getting angry or just making some point?

You misunderstand. While there can be an infinite set of 'explanations', not all of them cover at LEAST what we finitely know. [example: atomic physics based upon quantum theory's Copenhagen interpretation doesn't fit with the Cosmological large scale model of Big Bang theory, not to mention the problems within each branch.]

All theories are not 'equal'. All theories can be presented in Totality but as distinct worlds, most of which lack any meaning or have consistency. [Given anything not-totality means something in it; ...that nothing is within totality along with something.] You can have a 'Christian' world reality, even if it is only false here because it lacks consistency. This 'world' is NOT our world though.

The theory I will be presenting is able to draw closure, can be interpreted in an infinite ways in science as those models Hawking refers, but not as complex and incomplete a model as what is presently understood.

BUT PLEASE, deal with the topic at present. I presented you some things you seem to be unwilling to tackle. Are you looking only for something extraneous you see as 'weak' to attack instead? Ignore this. Deal with the question of whether there can be an origin or not.

I'm hearing you assert that reality is should be treated only as finite by default rather than infinite, with respect to origins, should we not be able to know which is true or not. While you think it 'practical' to only deal with the finite, it can prevent allowing yourself to listen to the rational alternate theories as equally as the non-rational. Note how this too fits in with the problem of the limits?: If the sum of all possible explanations are listed, most are overwhelmingly more than the actual complete ones. But if you only stick to what you know, while this is alright, you can't tell others they cannot continue to address this. My drug, like your beer, can be as much about seeking out what is or is not true. And I am sure you share this at least in part.