No eternal expansion?

[Atla]

Parsimony is the self evident truth. Not the results of using it.

Well a symmetrical universe can easily be finite, and an infinitely expanding universe is well, infinite. Unless time eventually stops or whatever. So symmetry could be the more parsimonious idea.

As your axiom symmetry has more entities in it, by definition, it isn't and can't be.

How does it have more entities in it? Your definition is wrong, it says that a finite value times two (or times some other finite value) is bigger than infinity.

[Atla]

Again, I have never talked about the 'known universe'. I have talked about the 'entire Universe, so that is not what what the 'entire Universe' refers to.


But, again, I have, obviously, not talking about it. I have, obviously, been talking about the 'entire Universe'.

A part of the Universe is really not even worth talking about, here.



But, what the Universe, Itself, fundamentally consists of and is made up of, exactly, I already know. Along with how the Universe, Itself, actually works I already know, as well. Along with the Fact that the Universe is eternal, and infinite, are also already known, by me.

This topic, and science generally, never deals with the entire universe, because it can't.

Ah okay. So, when "atla" says and writes the word 'universe' it is never referring to the 'universe', itself. What "atla" is actually referring to is just a very tiny and very insignificant part of the Universe, Itself, only.

So, if "atla" ever starts a thread called, for example, 'No eternal expansion', "atla" is not actually talking about nor referring to 'an actual eternal expansion' but on about 'an expansion' in a very tiny insignificant part of the Universe, itself. Which obviously would make the 'eternal' word in the thread title completely and utterly redundant.

So what were you criticizing?

It may well appear as 'nothing', now. Considering that you were not even talking about nor referring to an actual 'eternal expansion' at all, after all.

Also, you aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

But, you are about things, here, correct?

Thank you for confirming that you really have no idea about the entire universe vs known universe thing. It also escapes you that sometimes I just quote someone else's definition and don't use my own. You know nothing as usual, so then why are you commenting.

[Age]

This topic, and science generally, never deals with the entire universe, because it can't.

Ah okay. So, when "atla" says and writes the word 'universe' it is never referring to the 'universe', itself. What "atla" is actually referring to is just a very tiny and very insignificant part of the Universe, Itself, only.

So, if "atla" ever starts a thread called, for example, 'No eternal expansion', "atla" is not actually talking about nor referring to 'an actual eternal expansion' but on about 'an expansion' in a very tiny insignificant part of the Universe, itself. Which obviously would make the 'eternal' word in the thread title completely and utterly redundant.

So what were you criticizing?

It may well appear as 'nothing', now. Considering that you were not even talking about nor referring to an actual 'eternal expansion' at all, after all.

Also, you aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

But, you are about things, here, correct?

Thank you for confirming that you really have no idea about the entire universe vs known universe thing.

See, 'this' is the exact issue with 'confirmation biases'. Those with them can only see, and/or hear, what they are 'currently' believing is true.

It also escapes you that sometimes I just quote someone else's definition and don't use my own. You know nothing as usual, so then why are you commenting.

What I have, here, is that I have already shown and proved what I have.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Well a symmetrical universe can easily be finite, and an infinitely expanding universe is well, infinite. Unless time eventually stops or whatever. So symmetry could be the more parsimonious idea.

As your axiom symmetry has more entities in it, by definition, it isn't and can't be.

How does it have more entities in it? Your definition is wrong, it says that a finite value times two (or times some other finite value) is bigger than infinity.

Your two stroke universe is as necessarily as infinite in time, i.e. eternal, as my one stroke. In fact more so. Mine isn't infinite. Yours is. With twice as many entities in expansion and contraction, rather than just expansion, alone. For which there is no requirement whatsoever. Without more entities.

[Atla]

As your axiom symmetry has more entities in it, by definition, it isn't and can't be.

How does it have more entities in it? Your definition is wrong, it says that a finite value times two (or times some other finite value) is bigger than infinity.

Your two stroke universe is as necessarily as infinite in time, i.e. eternal, as my one stroke. In fact more so. Mine isn't infinite. Yours is. With twice as many entities in expansion and contraction, rather than just expansion, alone. For which there is no requirement whatsoever. Without more entities.

Finite expansion and contraction isn't infinite.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

How does it have more entities in it? Your definition is wrong, it says that a finite value times two (or times some other finite value) is bigger than infinity.

Your two stroke universe is as necessarily as infinite in time, i.e. eternal, as my one stroke. In fact more so. Mine isn't infinite. Yours is. With twice as many entities in expansion and contraction, rather than just expansion, alone. For which there is no requirement whatsoever. Without more entities.

Finite expansion and contraction isn't infinite.

Unless it repeats.

[Atla]

Your two stroke universe is as necessarily as infinite in time, i.e. eternal, as my one stroke. In fact more so. Mine isn't infinite. Yours is. With twice as many entities in expansion and contraction, rather than just expansion, alone. For which there is no requirement whatsoever. Without more entities.

Finite expansion and contraction isn't infinite.

Unless it repeats.

That would be symmetrical cyclic universe or eternal return, yes those would be infinite. That's why I reject them, they aren't parsimonious.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Finite expansion and contraction isn't infinite.

Unless it repeats.

That would be symmetrical cyclic universe or eternal return, yes those would be infinite. That's why I reject them, they aren't parsimonious.

And a one-off two stroke cycle is actually infinitely more imparsimonious (my idioslexis, like that is) than either an infinity of two-stroke cycles or, simplest of all, an infinity of one-strokes. Nature blows bubbles.

[Atla]

Unless it repeats.

That would be symmetrical cyclic universe or eternal return, yes those would be infinite. That's why I reject them, they aren't parsimonious.

And a one-off two stroke cycle is actually infinitely more imparsimonious (my idioslexis, like that is) than either an infinity of two-stroke cycles or, simplest of all, an infinity of one-strokes. Nature blows bubbles.

Ok so you really think the infinite is more parsimonious than the finite. You're a funny one.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That would be symmetrical cyclic universe or eternal return, yes those would be infinite. That's why I reject them, they aren't parsimonious.

And a one-off two stroke cycle is actually infinitely more imparsimonious (my idioslexis, like that is) than either an infinity of two-stroke cycles or, simplest of all, an infinity of one-strokes. Nature blows bubbles.

Ok so you really think the infinite is more parsimonious than the finite. You're a funny one.

Really? So is Kolmogorov then?

[Atla]

And a one-off two stroke cycle is actually infinitely more imparsimonious (my idioslexis, like that is) than either an infinity of two-stroke cycles or, simplest of all, an infinity of one-strokes. Nature blows bubbles.

Ok so you really think the infinite is more parsimonious than the finite. You're a funny one.

Really? So is Kolmogorov then?

I doubt he said what you're saying, but if he did, then he was a funny one.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Ok so you really think the infinite is more parsimonious than the finite. You're a funny one.

Really? So is Kolmogorov then?

I doubt he said what you're saying, but if he did, then he was a funny one.

You know all things obviously. So you don't need to read up. Believers don't like him. But sorry, you knew that.

[Atla]

Really? So is Kolmogorov then?

I doubt he said what you're saying, but if he did, then he was a funny one.

You know all things obviously. So you don't need to read up. Believers don't like him.

I asked an AI and according to it Kolmogorov didn't say what you said. He only said that some infinite patterns are more easily described than some finite patterns, which is obviously true and irrelevant.

So help me out here, what did he say?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I doubt he said what you're saying, but if he did, then he was a funny one.

You know all things obviously. So you don't need to read up. Believers don't like him.

I asked an AI and according to it Kolmogorov didn't say what you said. He only said that some infinite patterns are more easily described than some finite patterns, which is obviously true and irrelevant.

So help me out here, what did he say?

So what is simpler? The multiverse blows bubbles, or a universe two-strokes?

[Atla]

You know all things obviously. So you don't need to read up. Believers don't like him.

I asked an AI and according to it Kolmogorov didn't say what you said. He only said that some infinite patterns are more easily described than some finite patterns, which is obviously true and irrelevant.

So help me out here, what did he say?

So what is simpler? The multiverse blows bubbles, or a universe two-strokes?

Actually we were talking about symmetry of one universe, not sure what two-strokes means here. We weren't talking about multiverse. And we really weren't talking about a multiverse blowing bubbles.