Is our universe alone?

[Age]

Since even theories which occupy the highest epistemic status there is could be falsified

Theories are the highest epistemic status in science only.

[surreptitious57]

For example I am absolutely certain that one and one is two

I bet you that you cant give me an example of 1 of anything at the scale of human perception

No I cannot because numbers are abstract and not real even though they reference what is real
But one and one is two is true within mathematics which is the only place where it can be true

[TimeSeeker]

For example I am absolutely certain that one and one is two

I bet you that you cant give me an example of 1 of anything at the scale of human perception

No I cannot because numbers are abstract and not real even though they reference what is real
But one and one is two is true within mathematics which is the only place where it can be true

Tautology then

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

[surreptitious57]

Verification does not apply to mathematics even though it is a more rigorous discipline than science
And just because a statement is a tautology does not mean that it cannot be objectively true as well

No theory in science can be said to be objectively or absolutely true
However one and one is two is both objectively and absolutely true

[Age]

Is it possible that you don't understand what "openness" really is?

OF COURSE it is POSSIBLE. Unlike 'you', to Me, any thing IS possible.

Maybe your conception of "openness" is not open enough.

That is very TRUE. But, can there ever be MORE openness, then OPENNESS?

If yes, then HOW?

I have also already explained HOW the True, Right, and Correct definitions of WORDS can be found. Once THAT definition for OPEN and OPENNESS is discovered AND agreed upon by and with EVERYONE, then we can and will SEE if My conception of OPENNESS is OPEN enough or NOT.

(The issue HERE IS I can NEVER be WRONG, for the very OBVIOUS reasons of WHY having ALREADY being stated, and explained, simply. But we will NOT mention this, because of WHERE that will then take this discussion, and then I could be again accused of trying to control the discussion once more.)

You are wrong about never being wrong.

Am I?

Simply because you think in absolutes.

WHAT has 'thinking in absolutes' got to do with that what makes what I said WRONG?

Is thinking 'anything is possible' thinking in 'absolutes'? Some might even say or suggest that that is the exact opposite of 'absolutes'?

Is thinking 'absolute certainty is not possible' thinking in 'absolutes'?

Is thinking 'absolute perfection is impossible' thinking in 'absolutes'?

In the same breath that you claim that “unlike me you believe anything is possible” you also question how there can be anything more open than OPENNESS.

So what if in the same breath I claim that 'anything is possible' and still ask a question for clarification?

The openly asking of questions infers, in itself, that that one is OPEN, and thus also showing OPENNESS.

You always appear to not be able to think openly. You always seem to ASSUME that the one asking the question is seeking some sort of answer.

Has it ever occurred to you that, just like very young children do, asking questions can be done with NO expectation of what the answer IS nor even could BE? In case you are truly unaware some times some of us do ask questions for the pure sake of CURIOSITY.

Which, by the way, the truly amazing art form from which ALL knowledge was gained from, but sadly is a thing long past with some adult human beings. They have been completely stripped bare of any curiosity at all. This is caused because of their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, and, without any more CURIOSITY they are sadly left with their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS only, which they then dearly hold onto, and from them will only seek out to confirm their obviously already obtained biases.

Naturally. OPENNESS + 1.

What is the '1' your are referring to, here?

Is it possible that you are wrong about not being wrong?

WHERE this discussion is now being taken, was very predictable, thus my comment in brackets.

Yes of course it is possible.

But you would NEED to KNOW from what context I was saying that from to be able to fully understand that statement.

[surreptitious57]

They have been completely stripped bare of any curiosity at all . This is caused because of their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS and
without any more CURIOSITY they are sadly left with their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS only which they then dearly hold onto and
from them will only seek out to confirm their obviously already obtained biases

I make a distinction between BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS

BELIEFS can be the foundation of a world view and can be very hard to overcome especially if they pertain to a BELIEF SYSTEM
ASSUMPTIONS are less rigid and so therefore can be more easily overcome because they do not represent any ABSOLUTE TRUTH

[Age]

They have been completely stripped bare of any curiosity at all . This is caused because of their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS and
without any more CURIOSITY they are sadly left with their own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS only which they then dearly hold onto and
from them will only seek out to confirm their obviously already obtained biases

I make a distinction between BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS

BELIEFS can be the foundation of a world view and can be very hard to overcome especially if they pertain to a BELIEF SYSTEM
ASSUMPTIONS are less rigid and so therefore can be more easily overcome because they do not represent any ABSOLUTE TRUTH

I make roughly the same distinction.