Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 reasons

[surreptitious57]

Why are you asking questions like this TO ME ?

Did you not say that the energy that virtual particles borrowed is not something ?
When I asked you you said No but now are you saying the opposite and if so why ?
When you said No what did you mean ? And why did you not explain your reason ?

[Age]

But WHEN has this absolute nothing state ever existed ?

Or is it just an imagined idea ?

Absolute states exist all of the time at the quantum level

I asked when has this 'absolute nothing state' ever existed. You answered by stating; 'Absolute states' exist all of the time ....

Are you implying/inferring that if 'absolute states' exist all of the time, then that means that 'absolute nothing states' exist all of the time also, or some of the time, or some thing else?

Instead of causing more confusion and unnecessary questions, if you just answered the questions asked to you, then this helps tremendously.

Do you have any examples of WHEN 'a state of absolute nothing' has ever existed?

So how then can they be imagined if they actually exist ?

I did NOT say that they could be imagined if they actually exist. Why did you PRESUME I said that?

Besides the fact that things can be imagined even if they exist, I just asked a question about when some thing has ever existed, or, if it has never existed, then is it just an imagined thing. The answer is either one of those two. I was NOT implying any thing at all.

[Age]

So if the classical level is existing then there REALLY is NEVER any absolute nothing state on the quantum level ?

Although human beings can conceptualize it and imagine it there really never is an actual
state like this because there are NO actual separate or different levels of things correct ?

There is absolute nothing at the quantum level

The state does exist but the way it is conceptualised implies that it is separate from the classical
state when the fact of the matter is that every thing ultimately comprises a single unifying state

But how can there be a state of absolute nothing if there is some thing?

[surreptitious57]

Are you implying / inferring that if absolute states exist all of the time then that means
that absolute nothing states exist all of the time also or some of the time or some thing else ?

What I mean is that states of absolute nothing exist all of the time at the quantum level
It is what I said and it is very easy to understand so I do not know why you are asking me

[Age]

So HOW do you think THIS Universe and local cosmic expansion began and WHERE do you think THIS local cosmic expansion began from ?

It began with the expansion known as the Big Bang approximately I4 billion years ago

Also, I asked two questions HOW and WHERE. You attempted to answer the WHERE in the next question but you did NOT answer the HOW.

Saying; "It" began... does NOT say much at all really. That is just repeating and expressing what is ASSUMED to have happened.

Also what you have said now leads me to ask: The 'expansion' of WHAT exactly?

As well as repeat: So, HOW do you think THIS Universe began?

Where it began from is the absolute centre of this Universe which was then quantum

Hang on a Universe can NOT begin at the center of a Universe. If a Universe has NOT yet begun, then there could NOT even be a Universe already for there to be a center of one.

Also, what do you mean when you say a "Universe which was then quantum"?

[surreptitious57]

I am leaving it there for now as you ask too many questions too quickly and I can not answer them as
quickly as you ask them and it is why I do not bother answering many of the ones that you do ask me

[Age]

Because evidence literally is the available body of facts indicating whether a belief or proposition is true

I do not think this but why do you ?

Because I LOOKED IN a dictionary and that is what it more or less said, in that one I LOOKED IN.

Why do you think evidence indicates what you claim it does ?

Because that was my view, and AFTER I LOOKED IN a dictionary it more or less agreed with the view I had. Until I am SHOWN otherwise, then that is what I think and view to be the case.

Is it not possible that evidence does not always indicate whether a belief or proposition is true ?

That all depends on HOW one is LOOKING AT this.

If by the word 'evidence' we are meaning or referring to it as being support for some thing, true or false, then the word 'evidence' could mean to support that what is false also.

But then if we LOOK AT the words 'belief' and 'proposition', on could have a 'belief' or 'propose' that some thing is false, and therefore if they had 'evidence' for this, then that 'evidence' would still be the available body of facts indicating whether that 'belief' or 'proposition' is true.

When I read that dictionaries definition it had the words "or valid" after the word "true". I was going to add it, then decided not to. I was also going to add the words "or NOT true" after the word "true" but also decided not to. I was wondering about whether or not the word 'evidence' if defined as the available body of facts indicating whether a belief or proposition is true, would be in agreement. If you do not accept and disagree with that definition, then that is great. What do you accept is the definition of the word 'evidence'?

Do you think it is possible that evidence does not always indicate whether a belief or proposition is true?

If yes, then will you show some examples?

[Age]

Okay so what would need to be demonstrated that the Universe did NOT have a beginning for you to form and have a fixed opinion about that ?

By the way do you already have a fixed opinion about the Universe having a beginning ?

I would not and do not have a fixed opinion about the Universe having a beginning at all
I think that it did but that is based upon my limited knowledge and is not a fixed opinion

Okay great.

So when I express that the Universe could NOT have a beginning at all, then you are completely fine with that?

[Age]

if posts APPEAR to be too complicated to understand then that is the fault of the writer NOT the reader

If I do not understand something it is because I am not intelligent enough to understand it so has nothing to do with the writer

If you do NOT have any beliefs nor any fixed opinions, then the word 'intelligent' relates more to having the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason.

Now, EVERY human being has the ABILITY to learn, understand, and reason. This ABILITY relates to learning and understanding absolutely EVERY and ANY thing also.

Unfortunately though human beings have a brain that is able to gather, contain, and hold 'that' what is learned, understood, and reasoned. This applies to ALL the WRONG also.

ALL human beings are NEVER NOT 'intelligent' enough to understand some thing. Human beings will only understand what Truly interests them. The brain after all can only hold so much information. Anyway, if you do not YET understand, then that is only because you Truly are NOT interested in it yet.

If there Truly is interest, then there is NOT a thing a human being can not NOT learn and understand.

I am not educated so cannot understand complex subject matter like everyone here can so I must accept responsibility for this

Name one thing that is a SEEMINGLY complex subject here?

I could just about guarantee that i am far less educated than you are, and that i understand far less of what is mostly discussed on philosophy forums than you understand, but the reason WHY 'do not' understand what are perceived to be complex subjects is because you really and truly are NOT that interested in them.

I have found that some of the people who THINK that they are educated like to write in very subjective, complex, condescending, confusing ways so that it MIGHT APPEAR as though they are smarter and more intellectual than "others" are, but this is all just a front and pretense.

"Education" is just about one of the biggest scams that exist. Pay us lots of money and we will teach you what we, ourselves, have been taught, and had to pay for. Passing on of knowledge and skills through word of mouth and actions used to be one of the most treasured but naturally free past times of human beings. Now knowledge and skills is a commodity that will only be sold, unfortunately. The word 'educate' once meant to draw out, as in to draw out the potential within one. This works perfectly because EVERY person naturally has different interests. But now 'educate' means we will teach you things, you will get tested on that, and if you do NOT pass what we say is acceptable, then we will "FAIL" you, (whatever that actually means?). Besides the fact that just about EVERY human being does NOT have any interest whatsoever in ALL of what they are taught, they are expected to "PASS" anyway. And, if you do NOT, then you will be ridiculed and taunted for NOT knowing some thing, which you have absolutely NO interest in knowing anyway.

Now, back to a SEEMINGLY "complex" subject here, can you think of any? If yes, then how much interest do you REALLY have in it? Do you REALLY want to know EVERY and ALL the finer details? Do you REALLY want to know ALL about it? Desires and wishes drive human beings far more than abilities ever do. Adult human beings, for example, have the ability to create a Truly peaceful and loving world for their children. Adults, however, desire and wish to have more money instead.

[Age]

If people do NOT ask clarifying questions or do NOT challenge what I say then that SHOWS me that they really have no curiosity at all

I do not think challenging you all of the time is a good idea at all which is why I try to avoid it if I can
I prefer conversations rather than arguments because I think they are a better form of communication

But conversations can contain 'challenging' as 'challenging' to me is just expressing things like: "Okay that is what you think. I agree with this part of what you think because ... and I do not agree with this part of what you think because ..., and now this is what I think". And so forth back and forth. There is NO 'arguing' in the sense that one is TRYING TO prove that their view is right or worse still that their BELIEF is right.

To me completely Honest, Open forms of communicating is the best form of communicating.

Challenging is also NOT about doing it all of the time, as you said. But doing it when you do NOT agree with some thing. I do this by asking clarifying questions FIRST just to make SURE that the "other" is saying/implying what I think they are saying/implying.

I know you try to avoid challenging, but the way I write I could ramble and waffle on for hours and hours, but if in the very first sentence of what I wrote I have lost you because you did NOT understand me at all, then the rest could just be a complete waste.

I also think you are here to make us better human beings so we should be listening to you rather than asking questions

I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better. Now, let us imagine that what you said here was even somewhat true. IF I was here to make you human beings better and so you "should" be listening to me, rather than asking questions, then would you not feel like I am the PREACHER and that you MUST listen to me? To me, there could NOT be anything more TEDIOUS and UNWANTED than that. Also, as soon as some thing I said was not clear or did not make sense, to you, then is there not some sort of inkling inside of you to ask a question to gain a more thorough or a better understanding?

If not, and you really do prefer to just sit and listen to "others", in order to learn, then this really SHOWS me how much difference there is in human beings. The one writing this does NOT have the patience nor desire for that kind of learning. This probably SHOWS more about us and how we were at school. I literally do NOT recall learning any thing, other than reading and writing and a tiny bit of maths.

[Age]

I have NO credibility at all so besides the fact that i am not worthy of being listened to let alone being given a chance to be heard

This is my view too because I certainly have nothing to say to anyone here but think you do and so what you say is not true for you at all

I have LOTS to say to EVERY one, everywhere, but here in this forum is just NOT the right place for that. I mostly came here, in this forum, because if a person is going to find fault in what another says, then a place where people who are interested in philosophy would be the place to go. I seriously WANT to have EVERY word I write LOOK AT, scrutinized, pulled to bits, and challenged. I want to be SHOWN where I am WRONG, always, and most importantly WHY I am WRONG, that is the way I learn more and thus also learn HOW to communicate better.

I write because that is what I like to do although I am not all that interested in having arguments on the internet with random strangers

The most time consuming thing I have found while having discussions with people, especially not face-to-face, is in gaining a FULL understanding of what they are saying and where they are "coming from" EXACTLY. For example, if and when a person writes, "I am not all that interested in having arguments on the internet with random strangers" I find a very perplexing thing to write. Now, written in other forums this could be understood very easily, but saying that in a 'philosophy' forum especially I find needs to be questioned. The word 'argument', unfortunately like so many words, has more than one definition, and thus many meanings also.

The word 'argument' in other forums would most likely mean 'fight, quarrel, cause conflict, et cetera' but in a philosophy forum it usually means to put a case forward TRYING TO prove ones point of view is true, right, and correct. Both of these situations I do NOT like to participate in also. I, however, use the 'argument' word in the sense of 'logical reasoning' meaning that I WANT to have 'logical reasoning' discussions with random strangers on the internet, because of what can be created from 'logical reasoning'.

Now that was two paragraphs for just one single word, and I still have NOT got YOUR definition of what you were actually saying/meaning with just that one word. Not that it really matters. I was just SHOWING how long it can take to gain FULL understanding of what another is saying. If just one word is taken out of context, misconstrued, and/or misunderstood, then the whole sentence, paragraph, post, or ALL the other word/s that are said can get or be distorted and twisted too.

I like instead to have open ended conversations so that I can learn from everyone here / elsewhere as they know so much more than me

Okay great if we both want to have Truly open ended conversations, and you want to so that you can learn more, then what is it that you would really love to learn more about first?

If you set the goal, we agree on and accept the definitions to the words we use, then I KNOW I can make that goal happen.

[Age]

Remember there are over 7 billion others now that you have to get to understand YOUR meaning that you are using now

Nowhere near that figure because the only ones who need to understand me are those who actually read my posts
Everyone else does not need to understand me as they are never going to be reading me so it makes no difference

Okay, fair enough and very true.

[Age]

Now instead of asking me questions in a disregarding my question fashion please just answer my question

I was actually asking you because I wanted to know what you think and was not being disregarding at all

If you really want to know what I think, then, regarding 'quantum fluctuations' in relation to the Universe, Itself, there is NO use talking about it, for now.

If you really want to know what I think; The Universe, of which there is only One. It has NEVER ended nor will It EVER begin. It exists NOW, in constant-change. It is infinite in "size" and eternal in "time". There could NOT be any thing other than what IS, NOW. It contains absolutely EVERY thing and absolute EVERY thing, besides the Universe, Its Self, together is Everything as One, which is thee Universe. Although the Universe NEVER began, absolute EVERY perceived thing within the Universe has a beginning, exists, and then finishes or ceases to exist anymore. Absolutely EVERY one of these things IS created and evolves. While these things are existing they are interacting with "other" things, with each action causing a reaction and each reaction is just Creation, Itself. The Universe is Creating Itself, NOW. "Always has and always will", some might say. And in "ALL ways" others might add.

This plus countless other things, which fit in perfectly together with the above, with each one helping in explaining each other in greater and in far more detail of HOW this ALL works together perfectly, is what I think.

As for 'quantum fluctuations' if people want to LOOK AT the 'state of play' below the atomic level, assume that just because they SEE nothing in between quarks or leptons, for example, that that then means there is a 'state of absolute nothing' then that just SHOWS human beings are still far from SEEING what is really happening or there just YET. Or, if people want to SAY that there is nothing there but yet say there is a temporary change in the amount of energy, then the contradictory nature of suggesting that there is absolutely nothing but also a temporary change in the amount of energy speaks for itself. Also, if there is space, then there is some thing, and so NOT 'absolutely no thing', obviously.

As long as there is one thing there is thee Universe, which can also be referred to as ALL-THERE-IS. No matter what state ALL-THERE-IS is in, then that is the Universe, Its Self. The Universe could even be in a state of One 'absolute nothing' or a state of One infinite particle of matter. But either way the Universe could NOT change in shape nor form and so would be an absolutely useless and worthless thing. Now, the Universe is NOT like that at all. The Universe at Its most basic fundamental level is made up of two things only. That is; 'physical matter' and 'space'. Space allows ALL physical things to move freely, and physical things reacting with each other is creating the Universe, the way It is NOW. The friction of physical things acting upon each other determines, causes, or creates what WILL happen.

I will stop now or I never will.

[Age]

Have you ASSUMED what my answer WILL BE and thus this question asked this way ?

I asked it that way because I want to understand what you think and why you do too

If you want to understand what I think and why I do too, then what they come from I do NOT know. Why I think this is because I do NOT know because I have NEVER had any interest in really knowing this before.

Firstly I would have to gain a true and clear understanding of what you are saying what a 'quantum fluctuation' IS, then I would probably need to know some more things, then I would be closer to being able to explain to you what I THINK about in regards to where 'quantum fluctuations' come from.

[Age]

Why are you asking questions like this TO ME ?

Did you not say that the energy that virtual particles borrowed is not something ?

Yes, that is correct.

When I asked you you said No but now are you saying the opposite and if so why ?

If YOU go back and LOOK AT your question, and then SEE what I was actually saying no to.

If you are going to ask questions that start with, Did you NOT say ..., like the one in this post above, then they have to be answered with some thought, and the answers need to be given some reflection also.

The answer to your question: Did you not say that the energy that virtual particles borrowed is not something ? IS Yes, that is correct I did NOT say that the energy that virtual particles borrowed is not something.

To me, obviously the ENERGY (that is borrowed or not) IS some thing. Therefore, I am NOT saying the opposite of what I said earlier. Although it may APPEAR so, I think we will find that I am NOT.

By the way people ASSUMING I am saying things that I am NOT, happens to me a LOT.

When you said No what did you mean ?

I meant no, obviously.

And why did you not explain your reason ?

If you ask a Truly OPEN question that only requires a yes or no response, and I give one of those two responses, I did NOT realize that an explanation was necessary.

If you were to ask me a straigh forward clarifying question, for example, like: Do you think that the energy that virtual particles borrow is some thing?, and I said yes, then would I also need to explain my reason?

If you write a question that begins with the words, Do you NOT ..., then the correct answer is usually NOT the one that is expected and can cause confusion, which is WHY I prefer to just ask very simple, straight forward, Truly OPEN clarifying questions instead. The less confusion that can be created the easier is to understand things.

Now, because when you quote in these posts there are NO "arrows" to direct us to the actual post, in question, so I could NOT be bothered going back exploring for the question, and answer, in question.

If, however, you find it and it SHOWS otherwise from what I have been saying here, then so be it. Or, if you are NOT understanding what I am talking about here. Go back and LOOK AT the actual question you wrote, and the actual answer I gave, and then SEE if my actual answer SAYS what you THINK it says. If it does, then direct us all back to that so we can SEE where I have a WRONG and confusing answer.