Check dictionary!
Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. The property of spacetime is its curvature.
Check dictionary!
Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. The property of spacetime is its curvature.
So, you do not seek out proof, you just rely or go on what is told to you, right?VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 6:08 pmYes. I critique the information. What is told is not regarded as 'true or false' but whether it fits with other information.That is what I am attempting to ascertain. There are cases where "being told" is done "as if" the information is true, rather than presenting the information as theory (which may or may not be true).Is there any 'actual other information' existing regarding the supposed and alleged 'expansion of space, itself'?
Or, is it just the beliefs and/or presumptions that is what is getting shared, and told, here only?
That depends upon the quality of the information. If someone told me they were from the future I could accept their word at face value as being "true" or "false" thus I accept they have told me they are from the future but the quality of that information is lacking anything which would help me to place it in the probably true or probably false category.So, what would you be able to 'critique', or 'treat', that information on, exactly? And, what would you conclude, in your example above here?
In this sense, there is not much if anything which can be critiqued because the one telling it has not provided supporting information which can be examined.
Therefore I would simply shrug and not give it any particular relevance. In other words, I would conclude "so what that the personality tells me it is from the future?" or that "space does not expand"?
No. Not sure where you got that from what I wrote.Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:25 pmSo, you do not seek out proof, you just rely or go on what is told to you, right?VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 6:08 pmYes. I critique the information. What is told is not regarded as 'true or false' but whether it fits with other information.That is what I am attempting to ascertain. There are cases where "being told" is done "as if" the information is true, rather than presenting the information as theory (which may or may not be true).Is there any 'actual other information' existing regarding the supposed and alleged 'expansion of space, itself'?
Or, is it just the beliefs and/or presumptions that is what is getting shared, and told, here only?
That depends upon the quality of the information. If someone told me they were from the future I could accept their word at face value as being "true" or "false" thus I accept they have told me they are from the future but the quality of that information is lacking anything which would help me to place it in the probably true or probably false category.So, what would you be able to 'critique', or 'treat', that information on, exactly? And, what would you conclude, in your example above here?
In this sense, there is not much if anything which can be critiqued because the one telling it has not provided supporting information which can be examined.
Therefore I would simply shrug and not give it any particular relevance. In other words, I would conclude "so what that the personality tells me it is from the future?" or that "space does not expand"?
But space is always expanding and contracting in the same moment right here, now.VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:30 pmNo. Not sure where you got that from what I wrote.Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:25 pmSo, you do not seek out proof, you just rely or go on what is told to you, right?VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 6:08 pm
That is what I am attempting to ascertain. There are cases where "being told" is done "as if" the information is true, rather than presenting the information as theory (which may or may not be true).
That depends upon the quality of the information. If someone told me they were from the future I could accept their word at face value as being "true" or "false" thus I accept they have told me they are from the future but the quality of that information is lacking anything which would help me to place it in the probably true or probably false category.
In this sense, there is not much if anything which can be critiqued because the one telling it has not provided supporting information which can be examined.
Therefore I would simply shrug and not give it any particular relevance. In other words, I would conclude "so what that the personality tells me it is from the future?" or that "space does not expand"?
Not necessarily so, but one could look at and see it like 'that'.
I will say and write my definition below here, so one does not have to go looking for it. But my definition does exist in the thread I started named or labeled, 'The Universe'. viewtopic.php?t=41744
What does the space consist of?Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 4:31 am
The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.
So, 'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter, which is obviously always expanding and contracting when matter, and/or particles or objects of matter, move further apart or closer together.
Absolutely nothing.VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:08 pmWhat does the space consist of?Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 4:31 am
The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.
So, 'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter, which is obviously always expanding and contracting when matter, and/or particles or objects of matter, move further apart or closer together.
Why does something, which is not made of anything, supposedly, does not actually exist (as something)?VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:08 pm I see in reading your recent thread which you linked, you write "the only relative thing there is here is the distinction, still, between matter and space, only" my overall impression of your post there is that you think space is not made of matter?
In that sense, something which is not made of anything, does not actually exist (as something) yet clearly the apparently non-existing nothing has to actually exist in order for everything which is something, to appear to be something/everything.
Look, you are absolutely free to look at and see things in absolutely anyway you like.
If you are imagining or believing that what I have said in relation to 'space' between 'matter' as 'infinite', then you could not be and further away from what I have actually said and written here.
I have already explained all of this. Now, if you cannot comprehend and understand what I have said, and just want to continue thinking or believing that what you are saying here is even remotely close to what I have said and written here, then so be it. But, just be forewarned you could not really get much further away or even opposing what I have actually said, written, and meant here.
The 'earth' in relation to the 'Universe', Itself, is nothing but a lepton in size and a planck length in time.
The Mind, Itself, has already understood the 'Universe', you human beings here are just evolving to become aware of this, as well.
Again, you are absolutely free to look at and see things in absolutely anyway you like.VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:08 pm Recently I have been thinking along the following lines.
There is an infinite field of particle X.
A section of this IFX is imaged below.
The dot (circled in red) represents the initial moment of the Big Bang (the universe we minds are within).
Whatever caused that to happen in the IFX can be argued about but for now my focus is on the effects.
As the expansion occurs (due to the force of the Big Bang event) over time (measured within the effect) a bubble is formed in the IFX and the interaction causes that part of the IFX to transform into a number of different substances made up of various combinations, all of which can be reduced to the one particle (IFX) from where they originate.
Now let me remove the boundary representing the section of the IFX being focused upon.
Now one can imagine the bubble of the universe within an infinite field of IFX. The IFX is the "space" and the space is not "nothing" but rather "everything" and "things" which come from the IFX (such as the universe we minds are within) can be sourced or traced to the IFX.
Now even if our universe eventually runs out of momentum and contracts, it will eventually return to its former IFX state.
Or, if the momentum causes it to bubble and appear to disconnect from the IFX...
...again, once we remove the boundary, while that universe is apparently free floating as an individual "thing", it is still within the infinite space of IFX. (The IFX is infinite in every direction.)
You have misunderstood. I am offering what I understand and if it is not the same as what you understand and you want to argue/critique what I offered, then do so. Clearly we have differing understandings and it is a mistake on your part to think that what I was saying here was an attempt by me to be close to what you have said and written here.
Okay.
I can see where and why what you say and claim here does not work.
Okay, Can you prove your views or beliefs here irrefutably True?
Well if there is 'nothing', then yes.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I could say the same of you but so what?
No. Have you, re your own views?have you already obtained the unambiguous irrefutable Facts for what you see, say, and write here?
Are you suggesting that you and "the whole scientific community" have shown that the space between two leptons consists of "nothing"?But, if you want to claim that the 'space' between two 'leptons', for example, consists of 'things', other than 'distance', itself, then please by all means inform 'us' here and the whole 'scientific community' what 'that space' consists of, exactly.
If you think or believe that I am not understanding absolutely anything in regards to why you have said and written here, and you would like me to, then just say what part/s, and why you think or believe I am not understanding those part/s.
Yes.
Well of course we are expressing different views. But, in regards to 'objects', like the Universe, there can only be one real 'view' that is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.
Not in the sense of visually with the human eye/s. As obviously the instruments needed to see that in depth or deeply have not yet been build and constructed.VVilliam wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 5:32 amAre you suggesting that you and "the whole scientific community" have shown that the space between two leptons consists of "nothing"?But, if you want to claim that the 'space' between two 'leptons', for example, consists of 'things', other than 'distance', itself, then please by all means inform 'us' here and the whole 'scientific community' what 'that space' consists of, exactly.