Is our universe alone?

[Age]

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.

Are you NOW going to TRY TO insist your other BELIEF that circularity is NOT meaningful?

We will start again. Just because some thing IS a BELIEF, that in and of itself does NOT make it true, right, nor correct?

Recursion is meaningful.

Is that the same 'recursion' that you use as "logical reasoning" that ALL models are WRONG"?

If yes, then that means that the very thing that use as part of evidence or as proof to show that 'ALL models are WRONG" is the exact same thing that you now say IS meaningful.

Is it just a coincidence that ALL your VIEWS link up perfectly together to from a very unique VIEW of the "world", or the Universe?

It is as if the VIEW you have has been personally designed, created, or made just for you. Luckily!

Just a pity it is such a very narrow or closed VIEW of the Universe, Itself.

Oh, and if your answer was "no", then disregard what I have just written here.

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

When you say "bye", do you mean for good? Or, are you coming back?

I think you must of missed my point, once again. That is; the Universe IS 'absolute perfection', from A perspective.

If you did NOT understand that, then that must be completely My fault, and My fault alone. I, obviously, did NOT make it KNOWN clear enough.

BUT, i, mistakenly, thought that what was THAT obvious, did NOT need to spelt out.

[TimeSeeker]

If yes, then that means that the very thing that use as part of evidence or as proof to show that 'ALL models are WRONG" is the exact same thing that you now say IS meaningful.

Naturally. Because it is a model. And it is self-referential. And self-reference is recursion.

Is it just a coincidence that ALL your VIEWS link up perfectly together to from a very unique VIEW of the "world", or the Universe?

No. It's intentional. Coherence.

Just a pity it is such a very narrow or closed VIEW of the Universe, Itself.

Or it's the broadest view possible. How would we ever tell?

I think you must of missed my point, once again. That is; the Universe IS 'absolute perfection', from A perspective.

Oooh. Well tell me about your reference frame. Lets start with "is it inside or outside" of the universe?

And again. How do I VERIFY that claim? What do I have to ASSUME to be true to GET to your CONCLUSION?

[Age]

Or it's the broadest view possible.

Are you here now trying to suggest that your one and only personal view of the Universe is the broadest view possible?

How would we ever tell?

By comparison.

I think you must of missed my point, once again. That is; the Universe IS 'absolute perfection', from A perspective.

Oooh. Well tell me about your reference frame.

Reference frame for WHAT exactly?

Who/what is the 'your' you are referring to?

Do you KNOW what '"timeseekers" reference frame IS?

Lets start with "is it inside or outside" of the universe?

HOW do you propose the Universe could be inside or outside of Itself?

And again. How do I VERIFY that claim?

It does NOT need VERIFYING.

It speaks for Itself.

What do I have to ASSUME to be true to GET to your CONCLUSION?

That is the WHOLE point. You do NOT have to ASSUME any thing at all EVER, to be able to look at, SEE, and understand EVERYTHING.

[TimeSeeker]

Are you here now trying to suggest that your one and only personal view of the Universe is the broadest view possible?

For me - yes. It cannot be any broader. Because that would require me to see my own gaps in reasoning.

If you can point out errors in my reasoning then that would be evidence for your view being broader.

By comparison.

Better yet! By falsification!

Reference frame for WHAT exactly?

For making assertions about the universe.

Who/what is the 'your' you are referring to?

Do you KNOW what '"timeseekers" reference frame IS?

The same as any quantum physicist. I accept information theory as axiomatic to human experience.

HOW do you propose the Universe could be inside or outside of Itself?

Not the universe. The OBSERVER of the universe.

It speaks for Itself.

No, it doesn't. The phrase 'universe' means 'everything observable'. To call it 'absolute perfection' is to call it pink.

That is the WHOLE point. You do NOT have to ASSUME any thing at all EVER, to be able to look at, SEE, and understand EVERYTHING.

Yes. I SEE! The Universe!

What I don't understand is that extra babble you are throwing in. The 'absolute perfection' part....

[Age]

By comparison.

Better yet! By falsification!

So, to find out and see if you have the broadest view possible you believe falsification is better than just comparing YOUR view to ANOTHER view?

Reference frame for WHAT exactly?

For making assertions about the universe.

Who/what is the 'your' you are referring to?

Do you KNOW what '"timeseekers" reference frame IS?

The same as any quantum physicist. I accept information theory as axiomatic to human experience.

HOW do you propose the Universe could be inside or outside of Itself?

Not the universe. The OBSERVER of the universe.

The Observer IS the Universe. I have ALREADY explained that to you. You must of missed that one also.

I also explained EXACTLY HOW you reach that frame of reference for a True, Right, Correct perspective of things. Did you forget, miss that also?

It speaks for Itself.

No, it doesn't. The phrase 'universe' means 'everything observable'. To call it 'absolute perfection' is to call it pink.

If to you the phrase Universe means the only the slight fraction of the WHOLE Universe, which is observable by you human beings, then that partly explains the reason for WHY you very limited, narrow, and closed view of things.

That is the WHOLE point. You do NOT have to ASSUME any thing at all EVER, to be able to look at, SEE, and understand EVERYTHING.

Yes. I SEE! The Universe!

What I don't understand is that extra babble you are throwing in. The 'absolute perfection' part....

You do not see it because you can not see it because as I have been continually explaining, earlier, those beliefs, which you are dearly holding onto, will NOT let you see it.

By the way if you leave more than just one quote it makes it much easier for observers to reference back, notice, see and understand what is actually going on here.

[TimeSeeker]

So, to find out and see if you have the broadest view possible you believe falsification is better than just comparing YOUR view to ANOTHER view?

I don't know how to compare views because I don't know how to export my brain and your brain in a way that can be compared like apples.

In software engineering we have tools for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff

I am afraid such tool doesn't exist for human minds.

Who/what is the 'your' you are referring to?

This body/meat bag that I am. And all the other anatomical things you expect to find as part of it.

Do you KNOW what '"timeseekers" reference frame IS?

The same as any quantum physicist. I accept information theory as axiomatic to human experience.

The Observer IS the Universe. I have ALREADY explained that to you. You must of missed that one also.

How do you know? Is the universe speaking to you? Did it tell you that? Where did you learn to speak English?

I also explained EXACTLY HOW you reach that frame of reference for a True, Right, Correct perspective of things. Did you forget, miss that also?

Well. I asked if you are human. You didn't answer. I GUESSED that you are human, and so if you are human you probably can't talk to the universe.
So whatever you think is going on - I probably have a better explanation.

If to you the phrase Universe means the only the slight fraction of the WHOLE Universe, which is observable by you human beings, then that partly explains the reason for WHY you very limited, narrow, and closed view of things.

OH, so you AREN'T human. Which galaxy do you come from? Where did you learn to speak English?

You do not see it because you can not see it because as I have been continually explaining, earlier, those beliefs, which you are dearly holding onto, will NOT let you see it.

I don't SEE with my beliefs. I SEE with my eyes. I use my beliefs to make DECISIONS.

[Age]

I don't SEE with my beliefs. I SEE with my eyes. I use my beliefs to make DECISIONS.

And, it is those DECISIONS, made by BELIEFS, which then can negatively effect HOW you look at things, which then effects WHAT you actually SEE.

[TimeSeeker]

And, it is those DECISIONS, made by BELIEFS, which then can negatively effect HOW you look at things, which then effects WHAT you actually SEE.

Can you give me an example in what you perceive as negative effects?

[A_Seagull]

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

You are confusing thought with communication. Have you not thought that there is a significant difference?

[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?

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?

Well I would be open to what you suggest if I could be convinced of it , but I have to admit that I think the chances of that are pretty slim.

From my perspective definitions are only useful for communication so that the speaker and the listener extract pretty much the same meaning from a word.

If you are looking for words to be part of a rigorous logical system where one word is rigorously defined in terms of another word then it is all circular and effectively abstract and meaningless. You could have such a system in a foreign language, say Chinese, it could all be entirely self consistent and rigorous, but to a non-Chinese speaker entirely meaningless.

[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

You are confusing thought with communication. Have you not thought that there is a significant difference?

There is indeed a difference.

If you have done any thinking of your own where did you get the words to communicate your new ideas/conclusions from?

How does language evolve if everybody means the same thing and uses the same words?

[surreptitious57]

How does language evolve if everybody means the same thing and uses the same words ?

Language is a flexible medium in a continual state of evolution but at the same time it has
to have some basic foundation to it otherwise communication can be rendered meaningless

[TimeSeeker]

How does language evolve if everybody means the same thing and uses the same words ?

Language is a flexible medium in a continual state of evolution but at the same time it has
to have some basic foundation to it otherwise communication can be rendered meaningless

Sure, but when I walk off into the Forrest to places you have never been and see things you have never seen, it is difficult to come back and tell you what I have seen and much easier to just show you, no?

We have so many different mediums in 2018. Language is very limiting.

[A_Seagull]

How does language evolve if everybody means the same thing and uses the same words ?

Language is a flexible medium in a continual state of evolution but at the same time it has
to have some basic foundation to it otherwise communication can be rendered meaningless

Its foundation is patterns created from sense data. The patterns are labelled. Some of those labels are communicable.

[TimeSeeker]

How does language evolve if everybody means the same thing and uses the same words ?

Language is a flexible medium in a continual state of evolution but at the same time it has
to have some basic foundation to it otherwise communication can be rendered meaningless

Its foundation is patterns created from sense data. The patterns are labelled. Some of those labels are communicable.

It doesn’t work this way for autodidacts.

I discover patterns far faster than I can find the common labels for them. So I label them myself.

What I gain in learning I lose in communication. No free lunch :/