Is our universe alone?

[Age]

That's why I don't compare myself to anybody else but my past self.

BUT, I do NOT see how writing things like; "So if you think I am not superior to you" in any way supports your view here; "I don't compare myself to anybody else but my past self".

Besides the very fact that one of your statements here BELIEVES that you are superior to and thus better than another, the very FACT that it does make COMPARISONS to another means it is in total contradiction of your other statement here that you DO NOT COMPARE yourself to any body else.

The current version of "me" is the best version of me.

BUT, who or what is the 'me'?

Tomorrow "me" will be better than "today" me.

Hopefully, and VERY possible. But that is; only with a change, for the better, it is possible.

Until my mind starts to rot from old age.

Can an emergent property from your brain obtain 'old age'.

For a thing to be able to age it must be made up of physical properties, right?

So, WHAT is that 'emergent property' actually made up of? WHAT does it look like.

ALL of this could be written and explained in a far simpler way and in a way that is far easier to be very simply and easily clearly and fully understood. BUT instead of me TRYING TO prove you wrong, and then, you TRYING TO prove me wrong, and then MY TURN, and then YOUR TURN, forever more, WHY do we NOT instead just come together peacefully, and work together peacefully, to find out WHAT agreement we have and KNOW that is the ACTUALLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT KNOWLEDGE?

[TimeSeeker]

I KNOW that is what you meant. BUT, as I have just pointed out, you NEVER responded to that actual words I write, and meant. What you did was respond to what you THOUGHT I write and meant. I NEVER said being RIGHT was even possible. You just ASSUMED that is what I was saying.

And what you also said is that you send "subliminal messages" in your words. Which, naturally, I can't interpret

I have noticed you do NOT read the actual words I write.

And I have noticed that on one hand you claim that you want to "learn to communicate" and on the other you blame others for misunderstanding you.

You read what you THINK I wrote and meant.

Yes. That's how language works

You have a tendency to see what is NOT there and make up your own narrative from what I am actually writing, saying and meaning.

You mean. I have the tendency to interpret things? Yes! That's how humans work

You see what IS wrong, which is NOT even there, so that you can then appear RIGHT, in front of others. Also, for the buzz, warm fuzzy feeling you get inside you, when you feel you have proved some one else WRONG.

So this ASSUMPTION that I get the "buzz, warm fuzzy feeling when I appear RIGHT" (which I have pointed out for the 4th time now is not the case). Is that true, or did you just see something that's not even there? Did you get a "buzz, a warm feeling" saying that?

And, if we were sure we were WRONG, then we would NOT then express it. Unless of course for some underlying reason.

Yes. The underlying reason is that despite our knowledge being in complete - we must still make decisions and ACT in reality.
Because if we stand idle - we would die So the underlying reason for me saying it is so that OTHERS can correct me.

Also, just because another, of who we look up to and admire, says some thing that in and of itself does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

My experiences say otherwise

By you just displaying that here for all to see just shows who you FOLLOW and look to for guidance and knowledge.

Naturally. You don't follow anyone? Whose language are you speaking now?

The TRUE and RIGHT knowledge is within YOU. You, the human being, does NOT need to look to others for inspiration and/or knowledge. You just need to learn how to find the CORRECT knowledge that is within ALL of YOU.

Yes. You are beginning to sound more and more like a clairvoyant. The TRUE knowledge is within you! If you just ask the right OPEN questions, right?
I bet the right OPEN questions are also WITHIN you

I just proved otherwise.
I wrote: you continually TRY your hardest to be RIGHT?

And I continually correct this misconception.

You responded: I am not trying my hardest to be RIGHT - that is an impossibility.
I responded: How can trying your hardest be an impossibility?
Your response: That's not the impossibility. Being RIGHT is the impossibility.

Can you KNOW notice that I NEVER wrote, said, nor meant being RIGHT was possible. To which that is what you responded to. What I ACTUALLY did write, say, and mean was; You continually TRY your hardest to be RIGHT.

Yes. And I will correct your meaning AGAIN (6th time now?). I TRY my hardest to be LESS WRONG. Which is NOT the same as being RIGHT.

Does this mean I have PROVEN that you are wrong?

They are two vastly different different sentences with two vastly different meanings. If you WANT to KNOW what I actually mean when I write some thing, then just ask for clarification.

If you start making ASSUMPTIONS, like you do, then you will start to SEE things that are NOT even there, which you have just shown that you do do.

OK, can you clarify for me HOW I will KNOW when you mean something other than what I understand you to mean SO that I can ask you for clarification?

EXACTLY. You have to admit the WRONG that you are doing first, in order to be able to change for the better.

I can't admit to a mistake I can't see. And you can't point out a mistake. So that's a dead end...

I have already on a couple of occasions explained WHAT needs to be changed. Because I have already explained the error a couple of times already, it should not be to hard to spot the error now.

And I explained to you why what you see is not an error. It is just you misunderstanding my background knowledge.

I am sure you are already well aware that you have to firstly admit that you have a problem, before you are actually able to fix it.

Naturally. Do you admit that you have a problem clearly communicating your thoughts?

I admit this is the least wrong you can be given the current state of affairs. That current state of affairs, in the HERE and NOW or 'absolute perfection, being you assume that what you already BELIEVE, IS RIGHT. So, really you do not want to be less wrong than you are HERE and NOW.

OK. But I want to be less wrong by tomorrow.

ONLY when you seriously WANT to change, for the better, then that is only when you can, and WILL, begin to change, for the better.

So that started a few decades ago then....

Are the words; "If you think I can be more wrong than I currently am" really what you wanted to write down here?

Yes.

They appear to suggest that you BELIEVE, wholeheartedly, that there is no way that you could NOT be MORE RIGHT than you are NOW. Which is true in a sense. But the 'I am RIGHT, NOT WRONG' superiority complex shines through very blindingly and obviously.

7th correction. I am not RIGHT. I am LESS WRONG.

If you would really like me to point out an error in your reasoning, then that error is having actual BELIEFS and in the making of ASSUMPTIONS. That is where the error in your reasoning IS. Beliefs AND assumptions, themselves, DISTORTS reasoning. There are a few other things, but they are the main ones.

The belief that beliefs distort reasoning is your error. ERRONEOUS beliefs distort reasoning. My beliefs are all rather useful, tried and tested.

Again that trying to be more superior than other human beings attitude coming to light and the fore front. Do you think/believe that 'a scientist' can be any more or less intelligent than any other human being?

I don't know what "intelligence" is and how to measure it. Some would say the IQ test is the best tool we have. It has its limits.

Also I have lost count now of how many times you misunderstand what I actually write, say, and mean.

And I've lost count of the number of times you externalise blame. For somebody who wants to "learn to communicate" you sure expect others to do all the work in understanding you.

For example; just now I ask you a simple question. You have completely dismissed or disregarded that and went off on some other tangent. You went chasing your own THOUGHTS about what you thought I was saying instead of following on with what I was ACTUALLY SAYING.

OK. Then correct the misconception.

Believing you can not prove yourself ANY MORE WRONG, means you BELIEVE you are RIGHT.

No it doesn't. It means I believe that I don't know HOW and WHERE I am WRONG. Because if I knew WHAT my ERROR is - I can correct it. Admitting there is a problem and all that, right?

There is also the other false BELIEF there you can NOT do some thing of which you CAN very EASILY and SIMPLY do.

Which is?

You, BELIEVING.
You, ASSUMING.
You, THINKING.

There is three.

You just described every human on Earth. So how do I STOP believing, assuming and thinking? What do I do INSTEAD of those three things?

By the way WHAT is with you ultimate desire of seeking superiority over others.

I don't have such desire. I want to be the best version of myself.

You, human beings, are ALL the same.

We are the same in some aspects. We are different in other.

Hint, there is NO one better, nor less, than another. There is also NO one with more, nor less, intelligence than another.

And yet Newtons and Einsteins come once in a few centuries.

Which does not really answer my question. I will ask again; What is the word 'possible', in your gloating representation, compared to exactly.

I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. What answer would please you?

In other words; Do you make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible compared to ALL other people

The statement; 'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible' has no bearing or meaning all by its lonesome. It needs to be relative to some other thing in order to then be nonsensical, which it is on its self.

In relation to my former self.

You have again appeared to have completely lost the point and misunderstood what I was asking.

You again blame me for failing to communicate your ideas effectively.

Not one iota.

Sorry. If you could communicate your EXPECTATIONS and NEEDS better, we would move along faster

Yet you could NOT even understand the question prior to this one, which was; What/who are 'you'

Of course I understood the question. That is why I answered it: I am TimeSeeker.
What ANSWER did you EXPECT me to give you?

If that is the best, most reasoned, and sufficient enough answer that you can come up with for now, then that is perfectly fine. If that is all you are capable of understand for now, then that is absolutely perfect, as well.

That is the most concise and complete answer I can give you. I can SAY much more. But only if you tell me EXACTLY what you are asking about me.

Now to see if I have summed you up correctly; 'You' are timeseeker and to timeseeker the 'mind' is the emergent property of your brain that does not approximately work quite like a computer and with the scientific method

Well, "works approximately like a computer, but not quite" is not the same statement as "does not approximately work quite like a computer".
It's more like a computer than not.

Which, until now, timeseeker has not yet explained what exactly is the relationship of timeseeker to that said emergent property of your brain. Is this about right?

TimeSeeker does not care for the question, let alone the answer. So TimeSeeker cares not to explain it. It is not a mystery that bothers me.
It bothers you evidently

To me, it appears very convoluted, and leaving still a lot more unanswered questions to be asked, by me, and clarified and answered, by you.

Naturally. The questions to be asked are endless. The answers we have are rather limited. Best you get comfortable not knowing the answers to every question

[TimeSeeker]

BUT, I do NOT see how writing things like; "So if you think I am not superior to you" in any way supports your view here; "I don't compare myself to anybody else but my past self".

Yes. In the present context. Of being LESS WRONG. Am I superior in being LESS WRONG than you?

Besides the very fact that one of your statements here BELIEVES that you are superior to and thus better than another, the very FACT that it does make COMPARISONS to another means it is in total contradiction of your other statement here that you DO NOT COMPARE yourself to any body else.

It's not a contradiction. You just think in black and white.

BUT, who or what is the 'me'?

I don't have a good answer, but the question doesn't bother me nor interest me.

Can an emergent property from your brain obtain 'old age'.

The body ages. The brain becomes less capable. The mind falters.

So, WHAT is that 'emergent property' actually made up of? WHAT does it look like.

I have conceptualised my mind as a computer. It works for me. You need to find your own answer to that.

ALL of this could be written and explained in a far simpler way and in a way that is far easier to be very simply and easily clearly and fully understood. BUT instead of me TRYING TO prove you wrong, and then, you TRYING TO prove me wrong, and then MY TURN, and then YOUR TURN, forever more, WHY do we NOT instead just come together peacefully, and work together peacefully, to find out WHAT agreement we have and KNOW that is the ACTUALLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT KNOWLEDGE?

OK, but you make no distinction between talking about the world (out there) and talking about metaphysics (your mind, in there).
Talking about metaphysics is not something you should be trying to address on day 1 of school

Learn to communicate first.

[Age]

Learn to communicate first.

Once again you are completely missing the mark.

I have already explained in actual words, for all to see, that I am here to learn how to communicate better.

How long do you think it takes to explain some relatively knew idea and concept to a group of human beings who have not even imagined it yet?

[TimeSeeker]

Once again you are completely missing the mark.

I have already explained in actual words, for all to see, that I am here to learn how to communicate better.

How long do you think it takes to explain some relatively knew idea and concept to a group of human beings who have not even imagined it yet?

Ahhh. I see the problem. You don't even understand what it means to communicate!

You think it means you say what you mean and then OTHER people must magically UNDERSTAND you! I am afraid it's not that easy - much more work on your part is required :/

Communication is more like translation. You must learn to calibrate your language to other people. So that you can translate YOUR IDEA into THEIR language. Once you translate your idea into a common language that most people speak THEN we can determine if it is a new and unimagined idea.

[Age]

Once again you are completely missing the mark.

I have already explained in actual words, for all to see, that I am here to learn how to communicate better.

How long do you think it takes to explain some relatively knew idea and concept to a group of human beings who have not even imagined it yet?

Ahhh. I see the problem. You don't even understand what it means to communicate!

You think it means you say what you mean and then OTHER people must magically UNDERSTAND you! I am afraid it's not that easy - much more work on your part is required :/

Communication is more like translation. You must learn to calibrate your language to other people. So that you can translate YOUR IDEA into THEIR language. Once you translate your idea into a common language that most people speak THEN we can determine if it is a new and unimagined idea.

What language do you suggest?

[TimeSeeker]

What language do you suggest?

One we evolve ourselves from the language we (seem to) already share. By talking to each other and figuring out what the other person means.

It takes a long time

One way that does not require other people to engage you for long periods of time is to read a few books on the topic at hand. So that you can see what thinking/ideas/language already exists on the subject.

[Age]

What language do you suggest?

One we evolve ourselves from the language we (seem to) already share. By talking to each other and figuring out what the other person means.

It takes a long time

One way that does not require other people to engage you for long periods of time is to read a few books on the topic at hand.

But what happens if there are NO books on the topic at hand? It is after-all a relatively new idea. I have NOT yet seen to many books on HOW to create a truly peaceful and pollution free world in harmony. I have also NOT seen to many books on HOW the Universe IS alone, either.

So that you can see what thinking/ideas/language already exists on the subject.

Are there any thinking/ideas/language already existing on the subjects of The Universe can NOT be any thing other than alone, or on, HOW creating a truly peaceful and pollution free world is really rather very simple and easy indeed.

[TimeSeeker]

But what happens if there are NO books on the topic at hand? It is after-all a relatively new idea. I have NOT yet seen to many books on HOW to create a truly peaceful and pollution free world in harmony. I have also NOT seen to many books on HOW the Universe IS alone, either.

That's not what the books are for. The books are for you to learn the 'common language' used by the masses. So that you can translate YOUR idea into that language. And also - so that you can see that other people have been thinking about the problem for a very long time. And haven't been able to come up with very good solutions. Yet. Progress is certainly much slower than we'd like it to be!

There are a bunch of common categories philosophy uses:
Ontology: The nature of reality
Epistemology: The nature of Knowledge
Morality: The nature of Good and Evil

Are there any thinking/ideas/language already existing on the subjects of The Universe can NOT be any thing other than alone, or on, HOW creating a truly peaceful and pollution free world is really rather very simple and easy indeed.

There are MANY books. After you've read at least some of them - you will recognize WHY it's not as simple as you think
What the universe is or isn't is the area of interest for cosmology and physics.

Here is a meme that I came across just last week. I think it's appropriate.

fix society.gif

[QuantumT]

Have you kids finished your tantrums?

[A_Seagull]

Since this thread came from another thread. The same issue still remains; What is the actual definition of the thing being talked about?

The 'thing' being discussed in this thread is the 'Universe'. So, what is the definition of the 'Universe'. When the RIGHT definition is found/given, then the RIGHT answer to the question WILL BE KNOWN.

HOW we will KNOW if we have the 'right' definitions and answers IS when there is NO thing in disagreement with those definitions AND answers. They will be RIGHT because they ALL fit together perfectly to form a perfectly very easy and simply understood and explained 'picture' of the real thing.

So, what is the RIGHT definition for the 'Universe'?

You WILL KNOW when you have the RIGHT answer.

If you would like a suggestion, the I am more than willing to provide one.

I think we need to take a step back and look at what is meant by 'definition'.

How would you define definition?

The problem with defining words is that they can only be defined in terms of other words, and so are ultimately circular and meaningless.

[A_Seagull]

Once again you are completely missing the mark.

I have already explained in actual words, for all to see, that I am here to learn how to communicate better.

How long do you think it takes to explain some relatively knew idea and concept to a group of human beings who have not even imagined it yet?

Ahhh. I see the problem. You don't even understand what it means to communicate!

You think it means you say what you mean and then OTHER people must magically UNDERSTAND you! I am afraid it's not that easy - much more work on your part is required :/

Communication is more like translation. You must learn to calibrate your language to other people. So that you can translate YOUR IDEA into THEIR language. Once you translate your idea into a common language that most people speak THEN we can determine if it is a new and unimagined idea.

This from someone who makes up their own meanings for words?

[TimeSeeker]

This from someone who makes up their own meanings for words?

Yes. Or just invent new words.

This from somebody who only knows how to think from the words they have been GIVEN? That sounds like a very thought-limiting strategy

[Age]

Since this thread came from another thread. The same issue still remains; What is the actual definition of the thing being talked about?

The 'thing' being discussed in this thread is the 'Universe'. So, what is the definition of the 'Universe'. When the RIGHT definition is found/given, then the RIGHT answer to the question WILL BE KNOWN.

HOW we will KNOW if we have the 'right' definitions and answers IS when there is NO thing in disagreement with those definitions AND answers. They will be RIGHT because they ALL fit together perfectly to form a perfectly very easy and simply understood and explained 'picture' of the real thing.

So, what is the RIGHT definition for the 'Universe'?

You WILL KNOW when you have the RIGHT answer.

If you would like a suggestion, the I am more than willing to provide one.

I think we need to take a step back and look at what is meant by 'definition'.

How would you define definition?

Are you asking this from an OPEN perspective and so really wanting me to answer it? Or, are you just asking from the perspective that it is just a waste of time perspective?

The problem with defining words is that they can only be defined in terms of other words, and so are ultimately circular and meaningless.

Is that what the case Is?

In other words are you OPEN to; that if the definition of words, in terms of other words, fit together "perfectly" then they would still be 'circular', which does NOT have to necessarily have to be a bad or negative thing, and then could actually be truly meaning FULL also?

[TimeSeeker]

In other words are you OPEN to; that if the definition of words, in terms of other words, fit together "perfectly" then they would still be 'circular', which does NOT have to necessarily have to be a bad or negative thing, and then could actually be truly meaning FULL also?

Circularity is not meaningful.
Recursion is meaningful. Recursion is Computational complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RE_(complexity)

For your claim: "The universe is absolute perfection"

Read this:
* Brief version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
* Long version: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

Then state your hypothesis in Mathematics.

Thanks, bye