Underdetermination, for example:

[attofishpi]

You really needed chat gpt to answer "who knows"? I could have given you that answer.

It gave some scenarios, though. So that's a little more to it. Why the seemingly snarky reply?

Who knows?

Mr BIG NOSE!! <-- note my avatar

(*Je-sus)

[Impenitent]

short memories...

the Shadow knows

-Imp

[Age]

There is only One actual so-called 'possibility' about the True nature of 'Reality', Itself.

Now, of course there may well be an infinite number of, imagined, 'possibilities' of what the actual True nature of 'Reality', Itself, is among you human beings. However, what it takes to find out and discover what the One and only True nature of 'Reality', Itself, is, exactly, is firstly to present the definition of the 'Reality' word.

And, the reason why you human beings, in the days when this is being written, are, still, only pre-assuming and theorizing, is because you have not yet, in agreement, even defined the 'Reality' word.

Also, the link you provided fell to bits at the title of the video.

'Is Our Universe Inside a Black Hole?' is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous question. And, for a couple of reasons.

Now, if any one would like to know what those reasons are, exactly, then let 'us' have a discussion. LOL 'Is our universe inside a black hole?' It is like 'these people' do not yet even know what the word 'Universe' means nor is referring to, exactly.

You're always welcome to just post the reasons in this thread since it is related to the topic of the thread.

But, I already wrote 'the reason', in the actual post of mine, which you are responding to, here.

What 'reasons' are you even talking about and referring to, here, exactly?

Perhaps others will engage your theory (or whatever) and you can defend it in whatever way necessary, and the rest of us can determine what we think of your position or who we think is closer to being correct. Why not give it a go!?

What are you even on about, here, now?

After all of 'this time' are you, still, unaware that I do not do 'theory'. Just like I do not do 'debate'.

I, instead, 'look for', and 'obtain', only 'that', which is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, and then only present 'that', which could not be refuted, nor countered, by absolutely any one.

As can be clearly seen throughout my writings, here.

[Age]

spinning into the black holes...

galactic billiards

-Imp

Or like the spiraling flush of a giant commode. Maybe God got tired of us? Will God keep going until some favored being that God creates gets it right? Will that be the ideal universe, just not ours?

Within the Universe exists 'Intelligence'.

God did not get so-called 'tired' of 'you' human beings. God just waits, patiently, until 'one day' a species, which is created through and by evolution, evolves 'enough' to work out, learn, and/or comprehend, and understand, the sometimes called 'eternal questions'.

How could God not so-call 'keep going'? Also, there is 'no, actual, where' to 'keep going' to. God just exists HERE-NOW, eternally.

Look "gary childress" God does not favor absolutely any thing, over another thing, in the Universe. Every thing, literally, 'plays its part'. Now, if you human beings instead of creating, and living, in peace, for example, and end up blowing "yourselves" up, or creating your own extinction, through your own selfishness, greed, and/or stupidity, then so be it. Do you really think God would care one iota?

you all have 'the chance', and 'the ability', to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any thing and every thing, which, obviously, includes learning and understanding, 'Who 'I' am', and how to live in peace and harmony with 'one another', just to name two out of many other things that the species, human being, could learn. However, instead of achieving and creating what 'it' is that you all Truly want and desire, that is, peace and harmony, and instead go and kill "yourselves" through wars, for example, then so be. Obviously another species will enough intelligence will eventually 'come along'.

Living and existing for eternity means that 'I', or God if you like, have, literally, 'all the time in the world' to just 'sit' HERE, waiting, patiently.

'I' can and will wait, patiently, not for any so-called 'favored one'. But, instead, 'I' will wait, patiently, for 'the species' with enough intelligence, and wisdom, to come 'My way', as some might say.

Now, the so-called 'ideal Universe' is just 'the Universe' in which every one wants to live in, and desires.

And, to know, exactly, what 'that Universe', is, exactly, all one 'has to do' is just ask "them" 'self', 'What is 'it' that 'I' Truly want, and desire?'

And then just find out, and see, if there is anyone else who does not what 'that', exact same thing.

[Age]

So if we do indeed live in a universe that is pulled inside a black hole, would the universe be more or less sphereical?

It is an impossible, and an irrefutable, Fact that the Universe could be 'inside' of a 'black hole' or anything else.

And, as always, if absolutely anyone would like to know why 'this' is an irrefutable Fact, then let 'us' just have 'a discussion'.

But, and again, if no one wants to know 'the Facts', and thus wants to just keep on guessing, assuming, and/or theorizing, here, then by all means, 'please do'.

'you' will be showing, and proving, what 'I' will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work.

Also the rotation of anything going into the black hole would be circular or maybe a cone with a small tip on one end and a wide one on the other?

Again, you made a claim, here, but put a question mark at the end of your claim.

If that is the case, then might we expect Pi to be an important number in many matters having to do with geometry and mathematics in our world?

https://chatgpt.com/share/68583244-0930 ... ba19350ad9

Do not some people already consider 'pi' to be an important, or somewhat important, in many matters have to with geometry and/or mathematics in 'the world', already?

Also, do you readers and posters, of 'the days' when this is being written, ever wonder and/or consider why you adult human beings consider things like 'the world' or 'the Universe', themselves, to be 'yours'?

By the way, why 'you' do will help in 'seeing', crystal clearly, how the G.U.T.O.E. exists and works, exactly, and why 'IT' fits together, perfectly.

[Age]

Could universes inside black holes and black holes inside of black holes have the same, constant laws of physics, or could the laws of physics differ between them?

According to ChatGPT: who knows...

https://chatgpt.com/share/68584422-427c ... 0de3b9eb36

You really needed chat gpt to answer "who knows"? I could have given you that answer.

But, the words, 'Who knows?' is 'a question', and not 'an answer'.

However, if you were claiming that 'you' know 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who knows?' Then 'what' is 'the answer', exactly?

[FlashDangerpants]

But, the words, 'Who knows?' is 'a question', and not 'an answer'.

Who's to say whether a question can also be an answer?

[Alexiev]

Code: Select all

But, the words, 'Who knows?' is 'a question', and not 'an answer'.

Who's to say whether a question can also be an answer?

I?

One Oxbridge writer (I forget which .one) said, "You hear a knock on the door and ask. 'Who is it?' "

"If the knocker answers, "I" he is using correct grammar, but you shouldn't let him in."

[Age]

But, the words, 'Who knows?' is 'a question', and not 'an answer'.

Who's to say whether a question can also be an answer?

Any one, who can speak, can say any thing, so who can say whether a question can also be an answer is any one who can speak.

[Will Bouwman]

At the risk of repearing myself (who am i kidding? It's more of the same.) Anyway, René Descartes is often cited as the father of modern philosophy, thanks in no small to his 'I think, therefore I am'. In a way, that is the product of a process which epitomises underdetermination. Prior to reaching his conclusion, he noted that the things he perceived could have different causes: he might be dreaming, he could be mad, he might be being deceived by an evil dæmon. Descartes claimed that any one of those could cause exactly the same perceptions, so there is no way to tell from the perceptions which, if any, is the actual cause. So it is not a huge stretch to say modern western philosophy begins with underdetermination.
Broadly speaking, there were two responses to Descartes's underdetermination. On the continent (Europe to anyone from a less fortunate place than Blighty), philosophers were generally inclined to follow Descartes and attempt to use reason to discover the cause of perceptions, whereas in the British Isles the tendency was more to stick to the perceptions and accept that we don't really know what causes them, but there are patterns we can discern and exploit. So the big hitter European rationalists, Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza, are set against Locke, Berkeley and Hume. The difference in approach was made explicit by Isaac Newton. People, followers of Descartes largely, had responded to his Principia Mathematica, arguably the most important book in science (its only serious rival is Darwin's On the Origin of Species), by complaining that Newton hadn't explained the cause of our perceptions of gravity. So when Newton published the second edition he included a phrase, "hypotheses non fingo" which, while this is not a literal translation, basically means I don't know and I don't care. What matters is that we can use Newton's approach to 'natural philosophy', science or a large part of its method, to understand and manipulate our environment. With this approach Britain stole a march on the rest of the world, going on to conquer big chunks of it, thanks to its technological advantages.
Anyhoo, that's a different story. Long story short: underdetermination; crucial to modern western philosophy.

[Age]

At the risk of repearing myself (who am i kidding? It's more of the same.) Anyway, René Descartes is often cited as the father of modern philosophy, thanks in no small to his 'I think, therefore I am'. In a way, that is the product of a process which epitomises underdetermination. Prior to reaching his conclusion, he noted that the things he perceived could have different causes: he might be dreaming, he could be mad, he might be being deceived by an evil dæmon. Descartes claimed that any one of those could cause exactly the same perceptions, so there is no way to tell from the perceptions which, if any, is the actual cause. So it is not a huge stretch to say modern western philosophy begins with underdetermination.
Broadly speaking, there were two responses to Descartes's underdetermination. On the continent (Europe to anyone from a less fortunate place than Blighty), philosophers were generally inclined to follow Descartes and attempt to use reason to discover the cause of perceptions, whereas in the British Isles the tendency was more to stick to the perceptions and accept that we don't really know what causes them, but there are patterns we can discern and exploit. So the big hitter European rationalists, Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza, are set against Locke, Berkeley and Hume. The difference in approach was made explicit by Isaac Newton. People, followers of Descartes largely, had responded to his Principia Mathematica, arguably the most important book in science (its only serious rival is Darwin's On the Origin of Species), by complaining that Newton hadn't explained the cause of our perceptions of gravity. So when Newton published the second edition he included a phrase, "hypotheses non fingo" which, while this is not a literal translation, basically means I don't know and I don't care. What matters is that we can use Newton's approach to 'natural philosophy', science or a large part of its method, to understand and manipulate our environment. With this approach Britain stole a march on the rest of the world, going on to conquer big chunks of it, thanks to its technological advantages.
Anyhoo, that's a different story. Long story short: underdetermination; crucial to modern western philosophy.

Will you define what the words, 'modern western philosophy', mean, or are referring to, to you, exactly?

Or, in other words, what is your own personal perception of what 'those words' are meaning, and/or referring to, exactly?

[Will Bouwman]

And then there's the Ancient Greeks. The story goes that Greek philosophy started with Thales of Miletus. He basically ran with the mythology of the time: that gods of water begat gods of soil, who begat gods of air, who begat gods of fire. The difference being that he did away with the gods and sought natural explanations for events.
The Greeks were a bit of an outlier in that earlier civilizations, Mesopotamia and Egypt in particular, had been founded on the flood plains of mighty rivers, their annual flooding leaving a deposit of fresh soil that made agriculture, and thus supportting urban populations viable. The Mesopotamians and Egyptians interpreted this as water turning into soil. Vegetation decaying at the bottom of pools gives off methane that bubbles to the surface, which was interpreted as the marriage of earth and water begatting air, and there are lots of different gods believed to be doing the begatting. Since methane is a flammable gas, it was inferred that air turned into fire, so the Greek elements, earth, water air and fire, are older that Greece. What made Greece different, at least before Thales, was that in the Theogeny, a story about the genealogy of Greek gods, the primordial substance was earth. The Theogeny was written by Hesiod up a mountain, where water springs from the hillside, hence according to Hesiod, the primordial substance was earth. At this point in time, about 600 BCE, there was a concensus that one thing could turn into another; transmutation was a thing. So you have this observable evidence and a broad agreement about what is going on, but there are lots of different gods that explain the same evidence equally well. So within the mythological paradigm, the various myths are underdetermined.
Things weren't much better in Thales new naturalistic paradigm. His immediate followers, Anaximander and Anaximemes had different views. Anaximander was particularly interesting, claiming that what defined the Greek elements was the properties of the underlying substance, which he called the apeiron. The mixture of hot and cold, wet and dry being unique to each with earth cold and dry, water cold and wet, air hot and wet and fire hot and dry. Anaximenes had a more conventional idea, but in his view the primordial substance was air. His evidence was that blowing air onto embers could turn them into flames, while condensation from breath is water. Other philosophers argued for earth or fire. So again, within the Greek naturalistic paradigm, the theories are underdetermined.
So now there are two paradigms, the theistis and naturalistic, both of which explain the same phenomena equally well, which makes them underdetermined. Despite 2 and a half millenia of thinking and experiments, we're still in the same boat.

[Age]

One's own person perspective of 'history' is all well and good, here, but this is a philosophy forum, and not a history forum. and that perspective is just another one that is obviously still underdetermined anyway. What has actually been determined, absolutely, however, is that 'the Universe' in not any ones, nor could It physically nor theoretically fit within any other thing. Although, obviously, some people, here, believe absolutely otherwise.

[Impenitent]

Code: Select all

But, the words, 'Who knows?' is 'a question', and not 'an answer'.

Who's to say whether a question can also be an answer?

I?

One Oxbridge writer (I forget which .one) said, "You hear a knock on the door and ask. 'Who is it?' "

"If the knocker answers, "I" he is using correct grammar, but you shouldn't let him in."

but if they answer "doorbell repairman"...

-Imp

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Code: Select all

Who's to say whether a question can also be an answer?

I?

One Oxbridge writer (I forget which .one) said, "You hear a knock on the door and ask. 'Who is it?' "

"If the knocker answers, "I" he is using correct grammar, but you shouldn't let him in."

but if they answer "doorbell repairman"...

-Imp

Saying 'Royal Mail' will get you in to MI5 wearing a suicide vest.