A World Without Men?

[henry quirk]

I think it's possible we could get to what is actually true by guessing. We possibly might not know we have an accurate picture of it

sure


will we ever be able to determine if there are multiple universes or just one?

sure (my money is on there's just one)


It might be something that no human will ever know but we can only guess about.

mebbe so, but I think we'll crack it

[Age]

But let us not forget that the definition of the word 'Universe' needs to be discussed, agreed with, and accepted before what is ACTUALLY True can be uncovered and revealed.

That's a fair question.

LOL 'you', human beings, always leave me wondering what you ACTUALLY SEE in MY ACTUAL WORDS and WRITINGS?

There was NO 'question' ANYWHERE there.

Right now science seems to consider the "universe" everything that "exists" (for lack of a better word).

Besides the FACT that you seem to have and use a VERY DIFFERENT definition of the word 'science' that I have ACTUALLY observed ANYWHERE, the definition you provided here could suffice, but one thing would need to be CLEARED UP first.

That which is outside the universe does not exist.

Now you are only making much harder and complex 'that', which is essentially, and could be, EXTREMELY very easy and simple.

But now there are also those who believe there might be multiple universes, in which case it might be more accurate to say, that which is outside A universe does not exist. That which is inside a universe does exist.

WAY TO CONVOLUTED, for me.

I do NOT make what IS, essentially, VERY BASIC, SIMPLE, and EASY, like thee Universe, Itself, convoluted, complex, nor hard.

So, that is YOUR definition for the word 'Universe', and I will leave you with that one.

Also, that definition is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY human beings, in the days when this was written, were STILL SO LOST and SO CONFUSED.

[Age]

But let us not forget that *the definition of the word 'Universe' needs to be discussed, agreed with, and accepted before what is ACTUALLY True can be uncovered and revealed.

That's a fair question. Right now science seems to consider the "universe" everything that "exists" (for lack of a better word). That which is outside the universe does not exist. But now there are also those who believe there might be multiple universes, in which case it might be more accurate to say, that which is outside A universe does not exist. That which is inside a universe does exist.

Well, if we gotta have a mutually agreed upon definition, we'll never get to what is ACTUALLY True.

AND, it is BELIEFS like this one WHY those human beings, in the days when this was written, were STILL LOOKING FOR what IS ACTUALLY True.

Watch all this disagreement with this, for example...

I say the universe or Reality is a big, and I mean BIG, mostly empty, box. Inside this box is a minuscule amount of matter, most of which is simple hydrogen (an electron dancin' with a proton). A tiny percent of that hydrogen is organized into fusing spheres which, over time, produced and produces complex matter. Some tiny amount of that complex matter is animate, and an even tinier amount is animate and self-aware/-directing.

But this can be AGREE WITH, and ACCEPTED, WHEN 'you' are ABLE to back up and support this VIEW and definition.

Are you ABLE TO back up and support this definition?

Depending on your answer here, will depend on whether 'we' proceed or NOT.

[Age]

That's a fair question. Right now science seems to consider the "universe" everything that "exists" (for lack of a better word). That which is outside the universe does not exist. But now there are also those who believe there might be multiple universes, in which case it might be more accurate to say, that which is outside A universe does not exist. That which is inside a universe does exist.

Well, if we gotta have a mutually agreed upon definition, we'll never get to what is ACTUALLY True.

Watch all this disagreement with this, for example...

I say the universe or Reality is a big, and I mean BIG, mostly empty, box. Inside this box is a minuscule amount of matter, most of which is simple hydrogen (an electron dancin' with a proton). A tiny percent of that hydrogen is organized into fusing spheres which, over time, produced and produces complex matter. Some tiny amount of that complex matter is animate, and an even tinier amount is animate and self-aware/-directing.

I think it's possible we could get to what is actually true by guessing.

LOL Well that way has NOT worked up to when this was being written.

WHY NOT just LOOK AT and DISCUSS ONLY what ACTUALLY EXISTS, then 'you' could NOT arrive at ANY thing else other than thee ACTUAL Truth of things, themselves.

OBVIOUSLY, ALL of those 'theories', 'hypothesizes', 'assumptions', and 'presumptions', which are essentially just GUESSES, that you have been making for thousands and thousands of years have NOT got you ANY closer to what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS. In fact in some case you are actually getting further and further away from the ACTUAL Truth of things. This is because those GUESSES and BELIEFS are leading you ASTRAY.

We possibly might not know we have an accurate picture of it,

But 'we' ALREADY HAVE.

And, by the way, it was one of the MOST simplest AND easiest things to do.

though, depending upon whether or not the human mind has the capacity to understand the fundamentals of reality. For example, will we ever be able to determine if there are multiple universes or just one?

YES, ALREADY DONE.

It might be something that no human will ever know but we can only guess about.

And you MIGHT wake up to "your selves" also.

[uwot]

What is your proof that the universe is infinite and eternal?

Just that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an edge, boundary, or limit to the Universe is enough.

Is it impossible that there is an actual number of stars in the universe?

[Age]

What is your proof that the universe is infinite and eternal?

Just that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an edge, boundary, or limit to the Universe is enough.

Is it impossible that there is an actual number of stars in the universe?

No, not at all.

Just as long as you are aware that that number could also NEVER be fixed.

[uwot]

Is it impossible that there is an actual number of stars in the universe?

No, not at all.

Just as long as you are aware that that number could also NEVER be fixed.

Why not?

[Age]

Is it impossible that there is an actual number of stars in the universe?

No, not at all.

Just as long as you are aware that that number could also NEVER be fixed.

Why not?

The answer will depend on what part of my response exactly your clarifying question here is referring to.

[uwot]

The answer will depend on what part of my response exactly your clarifying question here is referring to.

Why at any moment could the number of stars "NEVER be fixed"?

[Skepdick]

Why at any moment could the number of stars "NEVER be fixed"?

Because a "moment" is a duration, not a point.

The number of stars at the beginning of the moment need not be the number of stars at the end of the moment.

A moment is the smallest unit of change.

[uwot]

Why at any moment could the number of stars "NEVER be fixed"?

Because a "moment" is a duration, not a point.

The number of stars at the beginning of the moment need not be the number of stars at the end of the moment.

A moment is the smallest unit of change.

Christ in a bucket Skepdick; it is hard enough getting a straight answer to a 'clarifying question' from Age without you sticking your oar in. If Age wants to describe a moment as "the smallest unit of change", fine and dandy, we can go around the Zeno of Elea stuff. I know you know all this shit, so be a good boy, have a lollipop, sit in the corner and shut the fuck up.

[Age]

The answer will depend on what part of my response exactly your clarifying question here is referring to.

Why at any moment could the number of stars "NEVER be fixed"?

WHY did you add the word 'moment' here now?

OBVIOUSLY, this CHANGES what we WERE talking about, which appears to be a very DEVIOUS tactic.

If you do not want to, or can NOT, concentrate on the ACTUAL WORDS I use and write, then this will take a LOT LONGER than is necessary.

[Age]

Why at any moment could the number of stars "NEVER be fixed"?

Because a "moment" is a duration, not a point.

The number of stars at the beginning of the moment need not be the number of stars at the end of the moment.

A moment is the smallest unit of change.

Christ in a bucket Skepdick; it is hard enough getting a straight answer to a 'clarifying question' from Age without you sticking your oar in. If Age wants to describe a moment as "the smallest unit of change", fine and dandy, we can go around the Zeno of Elea stuff. I know you know all this shit, so be a good boy, have a lollipop, sit in the corner and shut the fuck up.

The reason it ONLY appears "hard enough", for you, getting a 'straight' answer from me to your clarifying questions "uwot" is because you BELIEVE you ALREADY KNOW what is true, right, and correct. Your questioning CLEARLY SHOWS this. Also my answers, which do NOT fit in with, and thus satisfy and suit, your currently held BELIEFS, will NOT appear 'straight', to you.

[Age]

Also "uwot", when you are finished with your line of questioning here I would like to see your come back if I answered yes to your; "Is it impossible that there is an actual number of stars in the universe?" question.

Because I could probably counter that response anyway.

See, because thee Universe IS infinite AND eternal it does NOT matter how I am questioned and/or challenged in regards to this claim, this claim can NOT be refuted.

[uwot]

Also "uwot", when you are finished with your line of questioning here I would like to see your come back if I answered yes to your; "Is it impossible that there is an actual number of stars in the universe?" question.

Since you clearly understand the question, my line of questioning here is finished.

Because I could probably counter that response anyway.

Well Age, if you never answer the question, you'll never know.