A World Without Men?

[Age]

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... please clarify that answer. What was the prediction that has subsequently proved accurate?

WHY?

I have ALREADY TOLD you. A FEW TIMES in FACT.

I suggesting READING what you deliberately MISSED previously, then you SHOULD find it. You may also find out some of the other stuff, which you also MISSED.

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... please clarify that answer. Where did you tell us which of your predictions has already come true?

So, AGAIN, you did NOT clarify my question posed to you, but you seem to DESPERATELY WANT me to answer your question, posed to me.

[Age]

I see he was doing those redundant little 3 packs of synonyms even then

This one is my new favourite.

All of which describe him, ken, Age.

It' s a shame, that first post he ever wrote demonstrated that he can compose a coherently structured set of thoughts if he puts his mind to it. Yet more or less everything since is a kaleidoscopic series of deterioration.

Is it a Dr Jekyll / Mister Hyde sort of situation, where the reply with quote button turns him into a gibbering delusional fool?

Yes that IS IT.

Or, ANY of the OTHER near countless REASONS you can come up with WHY it IS the "other" who is ALWAYS the DELUSIONAL FOOL, and NEVER "your self" nor "yourselves".

Perhaps because he doesn't really understand how to relate any of his ideas to those of anybody else.

The reason I am NOT relating my ideas to 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was written, is BECAUSE 'your' internal BELIEFS are, subconsciously, telling and informing 'you' that your OWN IDEAS are ALREADY TRUE, or that you have ALREADY OBTAINED the current BEST KNOWLEDGE, which, subconsciously MEANS that if ANY one says otherwise, then they are thee DELUSIONAL ONE. Also, ALTHOUGH you might CLAIM otherwise, the ONLY ones 'you' are FOOLING are "yourselves".

Understanding and KNOWING thee ACTUAL Truth of WHAT and WHO 'you' ARE, along with HOW thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, HIGHLIGHTS MUCH MORE this FACT.

[Age]

And to make what I am achieving even MORE RELEVANT the MORE 'you' IMAGINE and CONVEY just HOW uneducated I am, in YOUR condescending view and speech of "others", then the MORE this is BENEFICIAL.

Then I am happy to have been of service and thrilled that my small place in history is secure.

So, is that it?

Have you now conceded that BECAUSE you have NO PROOF AT ALL that the Universe IS EXPANDING NOR BEGAN, then therefore the FACT IS; thee Universe ACTUALLY could NOT be expanding and could NOT have begun.

By the way, and for your information, that could mean NOT what you FIRST JUMP to ASSUME it does.

[Age]

I see he was doing those redundant little 3 packs of synonyms even then

This one is my new favourite.

All of which describe him, ken, Age.

It' s a shame, that first post he ever wrote demonstrated that he can compose a coherently structured set of thoughts if he puts his mind to it.

I forgot to remind you and mention that there is NO "his mind", "her mind", NOR "their mind". These misnomers are, by the way, a VERY STRONG REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, were so LOST and so CONFUSED, in those days when this was being written.

Yet more or less everything since is a kaleidoscopic series of deterioration.

Is it a Dr Jekyll / Mister Hyde sort of situation, where the reply with quote button turns him into a gibbering delusional fool? Perhaps because he doesn't really understand how to relate any of his ideas to those of anybody else.

[Age]

I can only give you the facts, that can go some way to curing your lack of education.

You REALLY seem to be NOT YET be ABLE TO UNDERSTAND that the FACT that MORE galaxies are red shifted, from the perspective of earth, which is, so called, "evidence" for some HYPOTHESIS in NO WAY AT ALL means that the HYPOTHESIS is even remotely correct in anyway.

The HYPOTHESIS was ONLY based off, and from, the FACT that there are more red shifted galaxies than blue shifted ones. But the FACT that there are more red shifted galaxies than blue shifted galaxies does NOT mean, with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the Universe IS ACTUALLY EXPANDING.

The IDEA that the Universe COULD BE EXPANDING was based SOLELY on just an INTERPRETATION ONLY, like I have been saying. The red shift data was OBSERVED, and INTERPRETATION was made that this could mean that the Universe EXPANDING. A HYPOTHESIS was born.

So, the HYPOTHESIS was FORMED that the Universe IS EXPANDING, and the evidence for this HYPOTHESIS is the red shift data. Which, it could be argued is just circular reasoning, but this is just the FACT of the matter.

Call me old fashioned, and I am no great philosopher of science, but I was under the impression that if there is a hypothesis of an expanding universe which is called upon to explain observational data that giant parts of it are moving away from each other fast enough to alter the wavelength of light as perceived at a distance... then the bad way to argue against that is to use a religious argument (see your previous references to Galileo), and the good way to argue against it is with an alternative hypothesis that explains the same facts.

'you', "flashdangerpants", are VERY OLD FASHIONED.

If the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe IS EXPANDING, was born BEFORE the red shift data became available, then what was the EVIDENCE for that HYPOTHESIS?

And, what has using a, so called, "religious argument" got to do with absolutely ANY thing I have said?

I do NOT use ANY one "else" arguments nor words for what I have, to SAY.

I will use my OWN WORDS, and if they HAPPEN to be like what ANY one "else" has said previously, then that it just what occurs.

Just like I will NOT use the red AND blue shift data as EVIDENCE for what I will SAY and CLAIM. However, IF the red AND blue shift data JUST HAPPENS to coincide with what I will SAY, then so be it as well. That is just what occurs. And, if what I SAY and CLAIM can be and WILL BE further proved with and by the red AND blue shift data, then, AGAIN, so be it and this is just what WILL OCCUR.

And then I think the next thing that crops is normally to look for the implications of these competing hypotheses and see if one of them also explains some new data which the other cannot, thus empirically falsifying the bad hypothesis.

You seem to VERY QUICKLY thee ACTUAL things I WRITE and SAY. I have SAID, and WRITTEN, that I do NOT do BELIEFS, GUESSES, THEORIES, and/nor HYPOTHESIZES.

This is BECAUSE of what those things ESSENTIALLY ARE. I, INSTEAD, LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS, and then DISCUSS 'that' ONLY.

Perhaps one of those sort of test things that scientists sometimes like to do, an experiment if you will.

But sure. If you think it helps your cause to argue that empirical observations must be interpreted via your personal religious convictions-that-aren't-belief, then go for it. You do you Ken.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What "religious conviction" do you think or BELIEVE I have "flashdangerpants"?

Do 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, REALLY think or BELIEVE that I have some "religious idea" that I am wanting to share?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY, do you think or BELIEVE that IS?

I have NOT GOT ONE so I NEVER even thought ANY one would be thinking or BELIEVING otherwise. So, until 'whatever' one is thinking or BELIEVING here, is WRITTEN DOWN and BROUGHT TO LIGHT, then I, for One, have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what 'it' is that 'you' are SEEING here.

If you need assistance with designing an experiment, I can heartily recommend the assistance of Hedgehog7, he can detect amazing things by simply waving a divining rod at a triangle and experiencing discombobulations in his anus.

You have SAID this BEFORE. But like ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you have SAID so far, it has of been of NO HELP to ANY one.

ALL you are REALLY doing is just EXPRESSING what you BELIEVE is TRUE, but which OBVIOUSLY are NOT necessarily so AT ALL.

[Age]

It' s a shame, that first post he ever wrote demonstrated that he can compose a coherently structured set of thoughts if he puts his mind to it. Yet more or less everything since is a kaleidoscopic series of deterioration.

Is it a Dr Jekyll / Mister Hyde sort of situation, where the reply with quote button turns him into a gibbering delusional fool? Perhaps because he doesn't really understand how to relate any of his ideas to those of anybody else.

Weird isn't it? Psychology isn't my bag, but confirmation bias is widely recognised and no doubt some bright sparks have their names attached to a 'syndrome' or two. It's common enough among the ken's, Can's and Aequitas's of this world to be selective with their data, invent all sorts of bollocks explanations and use Occam's Razor to clean their toenails.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What VIEW do you IMAGINE, think, or BELIEVE that I have, supposedly, got "confirmation bias" towards.

And let us NOT FORGET that it is 'you', "uwot", who ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the Universe IS, ACTUALLY, EXPANDING.

So, it is 'you' who ACTUALLY has a LOT MORE TO LOSE than 'me'. In FACT I have NOTHING TO LOSE here.

Also, let us NOT FORGET that 'confirmation bias' EXISTS far MORE STRONGLY with a BELIEF, than it EVER COULD with just a VIEW. In fact, a VIEW, when expressed PROPERLY and CORRECTLY actually INFERS that the one with the VIEW is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Truly OPEN, while the EXACT OPPOSITE can be said for the one who has the BELIEF. Therefore, who the one is here with the ACTUAL 'confirmation bias' syndrome, can be SEEN MUCH OBVIOUSLY and CLEARER, now.

Besides this you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that ACTUALLY backs up and supports YOUR CLAIM that the Universe IS EXPANDING, other than your OWN INTERPRETATION that the RED shift, in what is ACTUALLY the RED and the BLUE shift data, is "evidence", for the GUESS, or HYPOTHESIS, ONLY.

[Age]

A person who "doesn't give a fuck" shuts up... So if you don't mind, I'll allow myself to continue.

I would have thought it fairly obvious that a person who doesn't give a fuck does as they please.

The data/evidence is the data/evidence.

Yes. Perhaps you'll have more luck than I persuading Age of this truism.

The data is the data. The evidence is the evidence. BUT what the evidence is evidence for, in regards to the red AND blue shift data is NOT YET KNOWN, by 'you'. 'you' and some "others" have just MADE an INTERPRETATION about what the red AND blue shift data is "evidence" for.

'you' have INTERPRETED and DECIDED that the red PART, ONLY, of the red AND blue shift data MEANS that thee Universe IS EXPANDING. While some "others" have INTERPRETED and DECIDED that the red PART of the red AND blue shift data MIGHT mean the Universe MIGHT BE EXPANDING. While some other "others" have INTERPRETED and DECIDED that the red AND blue shift data MIGHT mean other things. While there are even some MORE "others" who just REMAIN Truly OPEN and just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS ONLY, and therefore they have ALREADY SEEN, and thus KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, ALREADY.

The question of import is "What does the data/evidence mean?"

Well yeah, meaning is what people ultimately care about.

AND, SEPARATING the RED, from the red AND blue shift data, so then that 'it' MEANS you ONLY now have, so called, "evidence" for what you HOPE it will, in order to CONFIRM your OWN BELIEF that the Universe IS EXPANDING, is a GREAT EXAMPLE of CONFIRMATION BIAS at its BEST.

What the red AND blue shift, together, ACTUALLY MEANS is NOT necessarily ANY thing that you have even begun to IMAGINE YET.

Does it mean that the universe is expanding?
Does it mean that we are shrinking?

Well, for the latter to obtain, 'we' would have to be the entire galaxy, shrinking while Andromeda is growing, along with roughly 100 other galaxies, while the other trillion galaxies are shrinking at a rate proportional to their distance.

You are STILL MISSING, MISINTERPRETING, and MISUNDERSTANDING, so much, here "uwot".

You'd have to assume

LOL
LOL
LOL

You do NOT 'have to' ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL. But you are, OBVIOUSLY, absolutely FREE to ASSUME, and/or to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL. But you CERTAINLY DO NOT 'have to' ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL.

that gravity only acts at a galactic level, but at least you could dispense with 'dark energy', but wait; that means the rate of shrinkage accelerates proportional to r.

If this what 'you' 'have to' ASSUME, then this PARTLY EXPLAINS WHY you are STILL so LOST and STILL so CONFUSED here.

And the Milky Way would have be at, or very close to the centre of the universe. Nah. The universe is expanding.

LOL

The ABSURDITY and CONFIRMATION BIAS, which can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN here, SPEAKS for ITSELF.

It data/evidence means whichever one you choose it to mean.

Indeed, but not what obtains.

[uwot]

So, is that it?

Have you now conceded that BECAUSE you have NO PROOF AT ALL that the Universe IS EXPANDING NOR BEGAN, then therefore the FACT IS; thee Universe ACTUALLY could NOT be expanding and could NOT have begun.

By the way, and for your information, that could mean NOT what you FIRST JUMP to ASSUME it does.

Frankly Age, if you were a horse, I'd shoot you. I have never claimed to have proof of anything, logic and maths aside. I have presented the evidence I am aware of and explained why I think that supports the hypothesis that the visible universe originated in a single place and has been expanding since. Clearly none of that has sunk in, nor is it likely to. If by some miracle the penny ever drops, perhaps then we can have a grown up conversation.

[FlashDangerpants]

WHY?

I have ALREADY TOLD you. A FEW TIMES in FACT.

I suggesting READING what you deliberately MISSED previously, then you SHOULD find it. You may also find out some of the other stuff, which you also MISSED.

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... please clarify that answer. Where did you tell us which of your predictions has already come true?

So, AGAIN, you did NOT clarify my question posed to you, but you seem to DESPERATELY WANT me to answer your question, posed to me.

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... Where did you tell us which of your predictions has already come true?

[Age]

To paraphrase Feynman.

I can't explain this in any other terms that would be familiar to you - If I were to use a metaphor I would be certainly cheating you and I would get myself in even deeper trouble the sooner you ask me about the relationship between the metaphor and the concept I am trying to explain to you.

For the concept I am explaining is precisely relations. The semantic relation between concepts expressed in the language of English and concepts expressed in the language of Mathematics.

The concept is the same whether you express it in Mathematics or English. You are making a fool of yourself again; if you are aware of any mathematical concept that cannot be expressed in natural language, what is it and how did you learn it?
Back to the earlier point; this sentence:

What is the Mathematical denotation of the English word "expanding" and how is it different to the Mathematical denotation of the English word "shrinking" when translating between the Mathematics and the English of General Relativity?

is word salad and you are a pretentious wanker.

If 'you', "atla", can REALLY NOT work out what is being asked for here, in that very simple CLARIFYING QUESTION, then so be it.

But it is WRITTEN in PLAIN ENGLISH, which 'we' can CLEARLY SEE.

[Age]

So, is that it?

Have you now conceded that BECAUSE you have NO PROOF AT ALL that the Universe IS EXPANDING NOR BEGAN, then therefore the FACT IS; thee Universe ACTUALLY could NOT be expanding and could NOT have begun.

By the way, and for your information, that could mean NOT what you FIRST JUMP to ASSUME it does.

Frankly Age, if you were a horse, I'd shoot you.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is one way to think of, and speak to, "others" in "arguing" one's point in a philosophy forum, but this way is NOT generally what is expected during philosophical discussions.

I have never claimed to have proof of anything, logic and maths aside.

I KNOW, and this is WHY I SAID, WROTE, and used, thee ACTUAL WORDS that I did here.

I have presented the evidence I am aware of and explained why I think that supports the hypothesis that the visible universe originated in a single place and has been expanding since.

Yes I KNOW.

Although you continually keep repeating that the, so called, "evidence" supports the hypothesis, you seem to keep FORGETTING that the hypothesis ONLY came to exist because of the, so called, "evidence". The hypothesis does NOT exist on ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else. So, what is SUPPORTING that hypothesis, itself, is the, so called, "evidence" itself. In other words, without that, so called, "evidence" that hypothesis is supported by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING else and so would and WILL just CRUMBLE and FALL DOWN.

What else is noticed here is that you have CHANGED the wording and are now talking about the "visible, to 'you', human being, PART ONLY of thee Universe, Itself.

So, at least we are FINALLY getting CLOSER to LOOKING AT and thus then SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here.

We WILL FINALLY get there. But, as I say, there REALLY is NO RUSH.

Clearly none of that has sunk in, nor is it likely to. If by some miracle the penny ever drops, perhaps then we can have a grown up conversation.

LOL
LOL
LOL

I WILL get 'you' THERE, to HERE, WHERE I am, soon enough.

You have been CHANGING, since I POINTED OUT your MISTAKES in your first attempt at that comic book of yours, although your CHANGE IS VERY, VERY SLOW, we are GETTING 'you' THERE, from your perspective, and HERE, from my perspective.

[Skepdick]

Great. So why are we arguing? I mean, apart from the fact that you could start a fight in an empty room.

We are? I am recursively expressing things about expression and expressivity.

Why do you see that as an argument?

"Grok"? Must be some pretentious wanker jargon that I am not party to.

On the continuum of "pretentious wanker jargons" methinks "obtains" takes the gold medal and "grok' doesn't even make the podium.

grok.png

Unless it's some pretentious wanker jargon I don't grok, communication is a two way thing.

If by "pretentious wanker jargon" you mean failure to distinguish between different modes of communication - sure.

Simplex communication is a one way thing. Reading a book.
Duplex communication is a two way thing, but one at a time. This very post.
Full duplex communication is a two way thing - both at the same time. Example: my body language in response to your words.

If you don't understand what 'obtain' means in pretentious philosophical wanker jargon, you can say so and I will try to translate into some mutually understood language.

I don't understand what "obtain" means in the pretentious philosophical wanker jargon, but that's not even my first problem.

I don't understand what "understand" means in any jargon except mine.

[Age]

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... please clarify that answer. Where did you tell us which of your predictions has already come true?

So, AGAIN, you did NOT clarify my question posed to you, but you seem to DESPERATELY WANT me to answer your question, posed to me.

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... Where did you tell us which of your predictions has already come true?

At the EXACT SAME PLACE WHERE I INFORMED you LAST TIME.

Have you STILL been UNABLE to FIND it?

Or, do you just KEEP MISSING it when you go LOOKING FOR it?

[FlashDangerpants]

So, AGAIN, you did NOT clarify my question posed to you, but you seem to DESPERATELY WANT me to answer your question, posed to me.

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... Where did you tell us which of your predictions has already come true?

At the EXACT SAME PLACE WHERE I INFORMED you LAST TIME.

Have you STILL been UNABLE to FIND it?

Or, do you just KEEP MISSING it when you go LOOKING FOR it?

CLARIFYING QUESTION .... can you explain please?

[uwot]

On the continuum of "pretentious wanker jargons" methinks "obtains" takes the gold medal and "grok' doesn't even make the podium.

That depends on the pretentious wanker.

I don't understand what "obtain" means in the pretentious philosophical wanker jargon, but that's not even my first problem.
I don't understand what "understand" means in any jargon except mine.

Ah well, pretentious philosophical wankers can have a group wank. A real wanker does it on his own.