Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
Requoting in reflection to Scott, Age wrote:
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.
Understood.
You appear to be replying back to your own writings here.
Also, it states "Age wrote: ..." BUT I did NOT write that. YOU wrote that.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amAge wrote:
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).
...and is why I asserting the what is meant for assumptions BETWEEN two or more agreeing people.
Are you yet aware that "we" were just speaking from TWO different usages/definitions/meanings of the one word ASSUMPTION?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am The 'assumptions' you are referring to is the definition of a ONE-SIDED, non-negotiated assumption we make of the world as the other
person. That is the ONLY reason they present one as an 'ass'.
Yes OBVIOUSLY.
Are you only just becoming aware of this now?
We HAVE BEEN speaking from, and will continue to speak from, different definitions and meanings of the words we use. In order to overcome the confusion that this can and will do, then the best way I found is to ask each other clarifying questions. What i also found is if we do NOT ask clarifying questions but instead just make ASSUMPTIONS, then more confusion and unclear communication is caused, creating more and more misunderstandings.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amIt in context means that WHEN WE MAKE assumptions of Nature, Nature acts as the 'U' in "as yoU, me". While this is normal, it is what makes discussions in context BETWEEN people a distinctly different 'you'. And when you are discussing with another person, one needs to be open to negotiating among the people involved what is to BE the 'assumptions'.
But ONLY if you BElieve that there NEEDS to be ANY 'assumption' IN THE BEGINNING.
Some can just move forward, and by the way SEE things far quicker, without any necessity to make up an assumption of some thing, which may be WRONG any way.
You WANT to do things your way, and you BELIEVE that it is the better way. Go ahead. No one is STOPPING you. But just remember when you claim some thing as though it is either true, right, or correct, and I WANT TO, then I will question you about it.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amThat is what I mean when discussing science. It has a set of negotiated assumptions that agree NOT to allow extraneous biases against the other person when you are trying to communicate.
I think I asked you before, but what is 'science' to you? I have already provided my view on what 'science' IS.
When you 'discuss' science what do you actually discuss about?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amThis goes TWO ways, just as you already agreed to differences of perspective of the different definitions. What good would it be to NOT agree to our terms (presumptions) in common?
What good does it do to ASSUME some thing, which could be WRONG any way?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amWe use the same words in different contexts. The assumption definition you are thinking of the (2) below when I'm speaking of the (1):
Google Definition wrote:as·sump·tion
/əˈsəm(p)SH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"
synonyms: supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, notion, impression, fancy;
2.
the action of taking on power or responsibility.
"the assumption of an active role in regional settlements"
synonyms: acceptance, shouldering, handling, managing, tackling, taking on;
The second one is about power of an
individual person or group to dictate the terms (have power to assume one-sided). You are mixing the two when these are distinct meanings.
Have I?
If yes, then will you provide the evidence for this?
If no, then okay.
You were making the ASSUMPTION that when I say 'assumption' that it MEANS what you SEE it as meaning.
I know that this may not be the precise meaning you mean. In fact, but as you further say,...
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amAge wrote: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.
The STOP
assuming the second definition HAS to be included in the first. I agree with you to what you say about that meaning. It is different than the assumptions one makes BETWEEN people. These kind of assumptions are like the rules of a game two or more people are playing. If you propose NO assumptions, you equally propose NO rules to any game.
If two people are playing a 'game' and they make up the 'rules', then this is very different from two people LOOKING AT things to DISCOVER WHAT they ARE and HOW they WORK and MAKING UP ASSUMPTIONS BEFORE they even begin to LOOK.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am How do you think that others will perceive the person coming along to play a game demand that you want to play but demand your preference to have no rules?
You could NOT have twisted and distorted this around any more even if you intentionally tried to.
ALL you are doing here is TRYING your hardest to make things 'fit in with' the assumptions and beliefs that you already have.
RULES (for games) and ASSUMPTIONS (for studying) IS two very different things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amThat's not team playing, it is selfishly expecting others to comply to your POWER to assume only.
LOL But I am the one saying NOT to assume. YOU are the one who is saying WE MUST ASSUME. And, just coincidentally, the ASSUMPTION you want "others" to have and hold is the EXACT SAME one that you ALREADY have and are holding onto, correct?
You ASSUME and BELIEVE the perfect cosmological principle is the BEST one, so you EXPECT "others" to ASSUME this one also, that is; when you want them to SEE things the same way that you do.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amThat you assume "no assumptions"
HOW could any one assume "no assumptions"?
You either assume some thing is true or is false. To say; you assume "no assumptions", is non-sensical.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amSHOULD be permitted when you want to play with others is no different than demanding that YOU are the one to define HOW we are to play.
You are FREE to ASSUME as many things as you like. I have just said that ASSUMPTIONS prevent you from seeing the Truth of things. I am NOT demanding any thing.
You can KEEP ASSUMING as much as you like for as long as you like. I really do NOT care. Remember it is NOT me who is LOOKING FOR answers. It is YOU who IS.
If any one is demanding here, it is YOU. You say that assumptions MUST BE MADE before we start 'discussing science'. You insist that ASSUMING is actually PART OF THE GAME. There is also more to the list you have just made here TRYING TO make "justifications" for your VIEW that ASSUMING is necessary.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amSo I'm only saying that science is about sensing things that we need to negotiate some guidelines of conduct, rules we PRETEND for the sake of moving on.
And this is part of the reason WHY human beings through 'science' still can NOT get along and agree on things. IF you START with ASSUMPTIONS, then from then on things are just going to get worse.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amIt makes it hard to PLAY the game if we can't get a shared agreement to the rules.
Why do NOT just say what it is you mean? Instead of TRYING TO use other words.
If you mean 'It makes it hard to DO science if we can NOT get a shared agreement to the ASSUMPTION (we are going to MAKE UP about what we BELIEVE is reality)?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am Demanding no rules is identical to saying ALL rules of discussing science has to always be permitted OR that you and only YOU, get to define the rules arbitrarily and everyone else has to follow.
But I have NEVER demanded 'no rules'. Only you brought that word in to TRY and 'justify' YOUR POSITION, that ASSUMPTIONS are NECESSARY.
And I have NEVER said there is ANY rule. You are the one making up and demanding rules by saying WE MUST MAKE UP ASSUMPTIONS and AGREE BY THEM.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
If you were given two or more different pictures, although the pictures themselves can be treated as speaking for themselves factually, the link between them is NOT OBVIOUS. This is again your own bias about reality that you are demanding of what you think is 'fact'.
WHAT ASSUMPTION are you making up now?
And, WHAT are you talking about?
You are TELLING me WHAT I would or would NOT see, as well as TELLING me WHAT I would or would NOT do.
Please STOP 'assuming' ANY thing about 'me'. 'you' have absolutely NO idea who/what the 'I' IS, yet.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amIf I gave you the Rorschach test that uses ink blots, is this following image 'obvious' of some FACT that it
is a skeletal hip?:
inkblot-158309_960_720.png
The OBVIOUS fact has ALREADY been SEEN, and thus is ALREADY KNOWN.
I'm not saying it IS a hip because it is just an inkblot that tests how others are thinking.
The title of this thread IS 'the expanding universe- why and how we know it is expanding.
First thing, 'we' do NOT know. Some might but NOT ALL. So, 'we' refers to a select group of ... Well that answer has to be clarified.
Second, IF any one KNOWS that the Universe is expanding, then How do 'they' KNOW this, and, considering it is in the title, also Why 'you' KNOW it is expanding.
Now, some people say 'space' is expanding instead of using the word 'Universe'. For these people WHAT is 'space'? HOW could sapce expand? How do you KNOW it is expanding, and, Why 'you' KNOW it is expanding.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am The point is that anything we 'observe' certainly has some FACT of it with respect to reality apart from our opinion of it.
But absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, (as I keep reminding people here). What is 'reality' if it is NOT a part of YOUR OPINION?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am But if you insist that we are not allowed to guess at what they mean, you falsely presume that YOU alone think you KNOW what the reality is or are demanding that you ASSUME control of the way others are required to express what they see as fit to your own.
That is one HUGE ASSUMPTION, or group of assumptions, you are MAKING HERE.
You are FREE to do whatever you like. But be prepared to be questioned.
I do NOT insist any thing here. I do NOT presume any thing here. I do NOT think that i alone think i KNOW what the reality is. I do NOT demand that I ASSUME control of any thing.
But YOU may be LOOKING INTO that mirror you were talking about, which is 'pinging' back to you right now. Those words you just wrote might be a strong reflection and ping?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 amThis is all I can say. I'm not responding to any more of this. I think you understand but are not wanting to let it go for some other unknown reason.
What do you think I understand but are not wanting to let "it" go?
Also, what is 'it' that I supposedly do NOT want to let go of?
Again, could this be another 'ping'?