The Topic on Space and Energy

[wtf]

Do you BELIEVE the Universe BEGAN and/or IS EXPANDING?

In the interest of what's left of my own sanity, I am not going to reply point by point to your latest post. Can we agree to focus this down?

To answer this one question of yours, I have no particular belief in the matter. Roger Penrose has an interesting idea called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, in which the universe has a big bang, eventually collapses, and that starts yet another big bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal ... _cosmology

There's another popular idea, Eternal Inflation, in which the universe started at the big bang, but continues for an infinite amount of time, and contains lots (how many, they aren't sure) mini-universes, of which our universe is one.

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

I don't "believe" any of these ideas. I have no idea how the world came to be.

I do believe the universe is expanding. The evidence is extremely strong. Red shift and all that.

I found a halfway decent article on pair production for your reading pleasure.

https://medium.com/nakshatra/the-nature ... 4033e752f4

[Age]

Do you BELIEVE the Universe BEGAN and/or IS EXPANDING?

In the interest of what's left of my own sanity, I am not going to reply point by point to your latest post. Can we agree to focus this down?

Yes.

To answer this one question of yours, I have no particular belief in the matter.

Okay, that was all that was being sought here.

Roger Penrose has an interesting idea called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, in which the universe has a big bang, eventually collapses, and that starts yet another big bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal ... _cosmology

There are a LOT of human beings who have so-called 'interesting ideas'.

Which can be found in MANY places.

There's another popular idea,

So-called 'popular ideas' do not really interest me.

Eternal Inflation, in which the universe started at the big bang, but continues for an infinite amount of time, and contains lots (how many, they aren't sure) mini-universes, of which our universe is one.

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

This is ANOTHER idea, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT even be a POSSIBILITY, let alone the ACTUALITY.

I don't "believe" any of these ideas. I have no idea how the world came to be.

Okay. But it is ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.

I do believe the universe is expanding. The evidence is extremely strong. Red shift and all that.

ACTUALLY that data is evidence for, and is FURTHER PROOF of, HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS and IS, in fact, infinite AND eternal, and thus NOT expanding.

But you BELIEVE otherwise, so this will be the end of this ALSO, correct?

And, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED to "others", the INTERPRETATION of 'data' INFLUENCES what 'evidence' LOOKS LIKE and is then SAID TO BE FOR.

I found a halfway decent article on pair production for your reading pleasure.

https://medium.com/nakshatra/the-nature ... 4033e752f4

Thank you.

But you do NOT want to TALK ABOUT 'this', correct?

[Belinda]

Communication is not the search for "the One". You can't communicate if you are in solitary confinement, or suffering from shut-in syndrome.In both these cases and in all other cases the search for "the One" is via experience. Experience when it is absolute experience, is "the One".

Because experience is ultimately all of what there is ,experience , when it's split into separate lives, is what links us to the absolute.

Perhaps the word "experience" is more appropriate.
But in my opinion the word "communication" can also give the idea, where there is no one who communicates.


This nobody is the One who is returning to himself.

I'd claim communication is one sort of experience of which there are countless other forms of experience. As experience is more all-embracing than communication so , not absolute communication, but absolute experience is the One.

Nonetheless I am so glad to read you who has an intimation of the One, or as I call it the Absolute.

[wtf]

Okay, that was all that was being sought here.

Ok.

There are a LOT of human beings who have so-called 'interesting ideas'.

Yes, but only one human is Sir Roger Penrose. As they say, his bad ideas are better than most people's good ones.

So-called 'popular ideas' do not really interest me.

Popular with professional cosmologists.

This is ANOTHER idea, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT even be a POSSIBILITY, let alone the ACTUALITY.

I agree with you that eternal inflation seems far fetched. But you are the one claiming the universe is infinite. What is it about eternal inflation that you disagree with?

Okay. But it is ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.

You keep claiming that without providing any additional insight.

I do believe the universe is expanding. The evidence is extremely strong. Red shift and all that.

ACTUALLY that data is evidence for, and is FURTHER PROOF of, HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS and IS, in fact, infinite AND eternal, and thus NOT expanding.

How so? Please be specific. How is the evidence that the universe is expanding, evidence that the universe is not expanding? Be specific please.

But you BELIEVE otherwise, so this will be the end of this ALSO, correct?

I don't believe or disbelieve anything. I said that the scientific evidence for expansion is very strong. That's a fact.

But you do NOT want to TALK ABOUT 'this', correct?

I'd be glad to talk about it. What did you think about the article?

[bobmax]

I'd claim communication is one sort of experience of which there are countless other forms of experience. As experience is more all-embracing than communication so , not absolute communication, but absolute experience is the One.

Nonetheless I am so glad to read you who has an intimation of the One, or as I call it the Absolute.

I too am happy to read you.

Especially for the goodness that shines through your words.
Regardless of how true what we say, this is what really matters.

Yes, the Absolute gives the best idea.
Karl Jaspers used it, I have to try to use it again too.

[Age]

Okay, that was all that was being sought here.

Ok.

There are a LOT of human beings who have so-called 'interesting ideas'.

Yes, but only one human is Sir Roger Penrose. As they say, his bad ideas are better than most people's good ones.

Who says this?

What are those 'bad ideas'? And,

What are the 'good ideas' that 'most people have', which supposedly that one person's 'bad ideas' are better than?

So-called 'popular ideas' do not really interest me.

Popular with professional cosmologists.[/quote]

Only what is actually and irrefutably true is what really interests me. So, unless a 'popular' idea, or ANY 'idea', is actually irrefutably true, then 'it' is of no real interest, to me.

And, just being 'popular' does NOT give an idea any more actual 'weight'.

This is ANOTHER idea, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT even be a POSSIBILITY, let alone the ACTUALITY.

I agree with you that eternal inflation seems far fetched. But you are the one claiming the universe is infinite. What is it about eternal inflation that you disagree with?

That it is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

Okay. But it is ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.

You keep claiming that without providing any additional insight.

NO one has sought out NOR asked for ANY additional insight.

I do believe the universe is expanding. The evidence is extremely strong. Red shift and all that.

ACTUALLY that data is evidence for, and is FURTHER PROOF of, HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS and IS, in fact, infinite AND eternal, and thus NOT expanding.

How so? Please be specific. How is the evidence that the universe is expanding, evidence that the universe is not expanding? Be specific please.

You will first have to inform me of what 'evidence' there is for an expanding Universe, which you are talking about and using, so then I could inform you of how 'that' is evidence and/or proof for an infinite Universe, if it is.

But you BELIEVE otherwise, so this will be the end of this ALSO, correct?

I don't believe or disbelieve anything.

WHAT?

You just got through telling us that you BELIEVE the Universe is expanding.

And, you even said that the evidence that the Universe is expanding is EXTREMELY strong.

I said that the scientific evidence for expansion is very strong. That's a fact.

You actually said 'EXTREMELY strong', and, you NEVER said 'scientific evidence'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED above.

It was also a fact that the so-called 'evidence' for a geocentric Universe and for a flat earth was probably claimed to also be EXTREMELY strong.

And, besides these things there is NO actual 'evidence' for an expanding Universe, so there could be NO 'very strong, NOR extremely strong, evidence here. Also, it is the INTERPRETATION of the data, which is what is called 'evidence'. But, as always what is INTERPRETED is NOT necessarily what is True, Right, and/or Correct anyway.

But you do NOT want to TALK ABOUT 'this', correct?

I'd be glad to talk about it. What did you think about the article?
[/quote]

It was based upon AN ALREADY HELD ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that the Universe BEGAN. So, it is then necessary to "find" 'evidence', which backs up and supports that ASSUMPTION/BELIEF.

What did you think about the article?

[Belinda]

Bobmax wrote:

the Absolute gives the best idea.
Karl Jaspers used it, I have to try to use it again too.

I did not know Jaspers had done so, and will be looking up the reference. I like Jaspers.

Bobmax, after my search this is what I have found:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/72/Dea ... iliz_Peach

It's interesting that Jaspers said that the intimation of the Absolute("The One) happens in an Augenblick the blink of an eye. Karl Jaspers is opposed to the methods of those religionists who seek to limit men to pre-set dogmas. KJ uses the term 'transcendence' (the German word for it) a lot. I had difficulty with what was being transcended until I read the Philosophy Now article above.


I must link to the title of this discussion. The post I recommend below is relevant to a discussion of the Absolute (The One) and also to the discussion of nothing versus something. Controversy about the existence of space is an example of something versus nothing. I recommend Dattaswami's last post on page one.( Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:27 pm)

[bobmax]

Bobmax wrote:

the Absolute gives the best idea.
Karl Jaspers used it, I have to try to use it again too.

I did not know Jaspers had done so, and will be looking up the reference. I like Jaspers.

I consider Jaspers my teacher.

He was the source of many inspirations.
I am in tune with him.

For me "Philosophy" is his masterpiece.

I met him by chance many years ago, attracted by the book "On the truth" exhibited in the library. And I immediately bonded with him.

[bobmax]

Bobmax wrote:

the Absolute gives the best idea.
Karl Jaspers used it, I have to try to use it again too.

I did not know Jaspers had done so, and will be looking up the reference. I like Jaspers.

Bobmax, after my search this is what I have found:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/72/Dea ... iliz_Peach

It's interesting that Jaspers said that the intimation of the Absolute("The One) happens in an Augenblick the blink of an eye. Karl Jaspers is opposed to the methods of those religionists who seek to limit men to pre-set dogmas. KJ uses the term 'transcendence' (the German word for it) a lot. I had difficulty with what was being transcended until I read the Philosophy Now article above.


I must link to the title of this discussion. The post I recommend below is relevant to a discussion of the Absolute (The One) and also to the discussion of nothing versus something. Controversy about the existence of space is an example of something versus nothing. I recommend Dattaswami's last post on page one.( Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:27 pm)

Jaspers distinguishes between being there, existence and transcendence.

It is not easy to get in tune with this point of view.
But just because it's really simple, it's our own simplicity that needs to be addressed.
And the simple is always very difficult...

The eternal in the instant is an essential point of Jaspers' philosophy, as is the all-encompassing horizon.

[Belinda]

Bobmax wrote:

the Absolute gives the best idea.
Karl Jaspers used it, I have to try to use it again too.

I did not know Jaspers had done so, and will be looking up the reference. I like Jaspers.

I consider Jaspers my teacher.

He was the source of many inspirations.
I am in tune with him.

For me "Philosophy" is his masterpiece.

I met him by chance many years ago, attracted by the book "On the truth" exhibited in the library. And I immediately bonded with him.

That was marvellous for you to meet Karl Jaspers! And to immediately bond how lovely. I bet his experience as a psychiatrist helps to make him a good communicator.

[Age]

Bobmax wrote:

the Absolute gives the best idea.
Karl Jaspers used it, I have to try to use it again too.

I did not know Jaspers had done so, and will be looking up the reference. I like Jaspers.

Bobmax, after my search this is what I have found:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/72/Dea ... iliz_Peach

It's interesting that Jaspers said that the intimation of the Absolute("The One) happens in an Augenblick the blink of an eye. Karl Jaspers is opposed to the methods of those religionists who seek to limit men to pre-set dogmas. KJ uses the term 'transcendence' (the German word for it) a lot. I had difficulty with what was being transcended until I read the Philosophy Now article above.


I must link to the title of this discussion. The post I recommend below is relevant to a discussion of the Absolute (The One) and also to the discussion of nothing versus something. Controversy about the existence of space is an example of something versus nothing. I recommend Dattaswami's last post on page one.( Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:27 pm)

Jaspers distinguishes between being there, existence and transcendence.

It is not easy to get in tune with this point of view.
But just because it's really simple, it's our own simplicity that needs to be addressed.
And the simple is always very difficult...

NO it IS NOT.

The 'simple' is, literally, SIMPLE, and EASY to understand.

As can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN above and PROVED true 'you' just complicate the 'simple'.

The eternal in the instant is an essential point of Jaspers' philosophy, as is the all-encompassing horizon.

[bobmax]

I think that too his experience as a psychiatrist has positively influenced his philosophy.

But it is his love for the human being, which is perceived in each of his writings, that makes his thought so profound.

Quite the opposite of Heiddeger, where beyond the concepts there is no heart.
Although both philosophers are considered exponents of the philosophy of existence, there is an abyss between the two.

Reading "Being and Time" takes me disgust.

Why can't I read it without experiencing this rejection? I was wondering...

Until I read a biography of Jaspers, published posthumously, I imagine for the reluctance of the philosopher, where he described his perplexities regarding H.
They were my own considerations!

H. copied badly from Jaspers. And he reduced his thinking to empty reasoning. But he was successful. Because H. is able to convince the careless reader that he has understood!
While instead he has lost the depth of existence present in Jaspers. H. pretended to be friends with Jaspers to grab some ideas.
But only as a logical thought, to show how good he is.
But without understanding its essence.

[Belinda]

I think that too his experience as a psychiatrist has positively influenced his philosophy.

But it is his love for the human being, which is perceived in each of his writings, that makes his thought so profound.

Quite the opposite of Heiddeger, where beyond the concepts there is no heart.
Although both philosophers are considered exponents of the philosophy of existence, there is an abyss between the two.

Reading "Being and Time" takes me disgust.

Why can't I read it without experiencing this rejection? I was wondering...

Until I read a biography of Jaspers, published posthumously, I imagine for the reluctance of the philosopher, where he described his perplexities regarding H.
They were my own considerations!

H. copied badly from Jaspers. And he reduced his thinking to empty reasoning. But he was successful. Because H. is able to convince the careless reader that he has understood!
While instead he has lost the depth of existence present in Jaspers. H. pretended to be friends with Jaspers to grab some ideas.
But only as a logical thought, to show how good he is.
But without understanding its essence.

Obviously you have studied more Heidegger and Jaspers than I.One of Jasper's traits of which I read (only yesterday) is he has an anthropological bent. Clearly the theory of the Axial Age is anthropological and ultimately historical.
Anthropology must depend on love of the human as 'love' means caring about.

[bobmax]

Obviously you have studied more Heidegger and Jaspers than I.One of Jasper's traits of which I read (only yesterday) is he has an anthropological bent. Clearly the theory of the Axial Age is anthropological and ultimately historical.
Anthropology must depend on love of the human as 'love' means caring about.

The Axial Age theory is fascinating.
An almost contemporary blossoming in many corners of the globe of the same metaphysical impetus...

I think that among the many interesting ideas of Jaspers the most significant is the Limit Situation.

We are always in a situation, but in some cases this situation stops being obvious and makes us feel the limit.
And there we have the opportunity to eternalize.

[Skepdick]

So what? Consider the integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...

There is no smallest integer, and every integer has an immediate predecessor. There is no first integer. And what of it? This is perfectly commonplace. You learned it in grade school. Why do you call this "bad logic?"

Personally, I'd call this "bad logic" because of all the inconsistency at 0. Take the real numbers just the same.

It's the only element which has no dual under negation; and then there's all the special-and-unique-snowflake behaviour under multiplication and division.

It's subtle things like which make me question the veracity of naming conventions. Is it a continuum; or a discontinuum?

You seem to be giving the Kalām cosmological argument often promoted by Christian apologist William Lane Craig. It's nonsense. Why can't there be an endless chain of causes?

Of course, there can be an endless chain of causes, but it's also a growing chain of causes; and the observer/Mathematician is always located at the infimum.

I don't think they teach us how to model that in school...