Philosophy Now Forum

Is "Foxtrot Oscar from my thread" and "Papa Oscar Age" really the language that human beings have eventually evolved into using, in the year when this is written, when just discussing things as simple as the Universe Itself.

The most basic and fundamental thing, as the thing that has CREATED them, human beings can NOT even discuss without inferring that the "other" Fuck Off, and Piss Off, just because that 'i' does NOT like what the "other" is saying, or has NOT even yet said, which is the case here. If what is being said, or ASSUMED is going to be said, goes against every thing that a "mature adult" person has been previously TAUGHT, and which they BELIEVE is the actual and real truth, then the best language that they can come up with is "Fuck Off" and "Piss Off", then human beings really are on their last legs of so called "civilization".

All I am wanting to do is point out HOW the Universe works. (The WHY can, and will, come later.) I am NOT wanting to create conflict, but by just expressing an "idea/point of view" about the Universe Itself, which opposes "other views", it appears by some people's use of language that I could have committed the rape and murder of their own family members. Do they forget that all I have said is just another point of view, which just happens to be contrary to their point of view.

Is the best some can do to express their "point of view", in a 'philosophy forum' of all places, is to tell another to "Fuck Off" and/or "Piss Off"?

To do this in a "secret" way is even worse. If one can NOT be Truly frank and honest, then WHY say it at all?

The examples here SHOWN here of HOW to express, could be SEEN by some as being PROOF or EVIDENCE of one's lack of ability of communicating their point of view on a matter, rather than what they are truly TRYING TO say in "hidden" language, which is; "Go away because I am NOT going to believe any thing that you are GOING to say, which is going to be contrary to what I ALREADY BELIEVE is TRUE".

If you are NOT want to remain completely CLOSED and NOT at all OPEN to things, then so be it, but do you really think that TRYING TO tell me to Fuck Off and/or Piss Off is really going to work?

If you do NOT like what I say, then either refute it with examples and/or evidence or just accept that this is just my view only. My view/s could be completely WRONG, but without any evidence of WHERE and WHY they are wrong, then it is just another view only.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amThere are NO mysteries at all.

The existence of the universe is a mystery. That it can create living beings is a mystery. That some of them are conscious is a mystery. And yet that is pretty much everything we are absolutely certain about.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amIf the Universe had a beginning, then tell us how a "beginning" could even be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in far more detail and expose the real Truth.

I have no idea.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amIf the Universe is expanding, then tell us how "expansion" could even be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in far more detail and expose the real Truth.

In the book, which is the subject of this thread, I go into quite a lot of detail to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding. You can read it here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com Anything you think is obviously the case, has to account for that evidence, or you are wrong.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amIf any thing could be created from one thing, then tell us how "this" could be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in more detail, and expose the real Truth.

It's in the book.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amThere are NO mysteries at all.

The existence of the universe is a mystery.

Maybe TO YOU. But 'you' are NOT Me. I neglected to add the, 'to Me', at the end. My apologies.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 amThat it can create living beings is a mystery.

To "you" maybe. But, to Me, HOW the Universe can, and does, create ANY and ALL living being is NOT a mystery at all.

Physical matter moves around, FREELY, due to the space in between and around matter, interacting with each other creating absolutely EVERY thing the way that it is, including those living human beings. To Me, that is NO mystery at all.

By the way, what is the "it" that you are referring to here? Maybe when, and if, you make things more clearer for your self, then HOW "it" actually creates ALL things may be easier to recognize and SEE, understand. But maybe the "it", which you refer to here, might just cause you more confusion. We will never know until you define what "it" is here.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 amThat some of them are conscious is a mystery.

That some of 'WHAT' exactly are conscious? And, there is NO mystery to Me here. What do you perceive exactly as being a mystery. 'WHAT' living beings do you see as being conscious and what ones do you see as NOT being conscious?

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 amAnd yet that is pretty much everything we are absolutely certain about.

Accurately, 'you' can speak for 'you' and any "other" one that gives you permission to. 'you', however, can NOT speak for Me. 'WHAT' exactly are 'you' referring to, which is "pretty much everything 'you' are absolutely certain about? 'you' really do write in very vague ways. A lot is left to be presumed and/or assumed here. I do NOT like to assume any thing, so your help in clarification would be much appreciated.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amIf the Universe had a beginning, then tell us how a "beginning" could even be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in far more detail and expose the real Truth.

I have no idea.

Thank you. The actual and real Truth of ALL things is ALWAYS SEEN in, and with, Honesty.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amIf the Universe is expanding, then tell us how "expansion" could even be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in far more detail and expose the real Truth.

In the book, which is the subject of this thread, I go into quite a lot of detail to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding. You can read it here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com Anything you think is obviously the case, has to account for that evidence, or you are wrong.

Well that is one very narrow, and literally, very short sighted view of things. I have read your writings, thus the actual feedback I HAVE given you, which has led us to this discussion, now.

The very basic FACT that light diminishes over distance leads to the OBVIOUS FACT that human beings will NEVER be able to SEE far enough, to EVER KNOW FOR SURE if there is NOT another star nor source of light just a bit further away, from their present observable position. NO matter how far forward, into the "future", human beings go and how far more their technological equipment "advances" human being will NOT be able to SEE ALL the way, to EVER KNOW how far the Universe actually extends.

The so called "evidence", which you talk about in your book, clearly SHOWS that parts of the Universe is contracting while parts are expanding. Now, how is that even logically possible, if we are to take the 'Universe' to mean ALL-THERE-IS?

Now again, tell us HOW "expansion" of ALL-THERE-IS could even be possible, and when, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT, in far more detail and expose the real Truth.

The "overwhelming evidence", at one moment in human beings evolution, was that "In the beginning" the Universe began. The "overwhelming evidence" was, 'It was written in a book', which is the exact same proposition that you are making here.

Do you really think that just because a few human beings see a "red and/or a blue shift" through some of the instruments that they, themselves, have devised and created, then that means once and for all the actual and real Truth is; The Universe IS expanding?

If yes, then does/did it help you to BELIEVE this wholeheartedly because these human beings had the label "scientist" attached to them?
If no, then WHAT is the actual and real Truth regarding the Universe, in relation to expanding or not?

Also, you quoted that you "go into quite a lot of detail to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence that the Universe is expanding". Now some might see that as being the Truth IS the Universe is expanding. I, however, see that as you have attempted all you can to outline the BELIEF that have and are clearly dearly holding onto right now.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:00 amIf any thing could be created from one thing, then tell us how "this" could be possible. When, and if, you give an explanation, then we can LOOK INTO THAT in more detail, and expose the real Truth.

It's in the book.

But there is NOTHING I saw in that book that got even close to talking about WHAT exactly could be created from one thing, let alone providing any explanation of how "this" could be possible.

What do you propose has been created from ONE thing?

What do you propose is that ONE thing, which created some thing?

And, HOW can ONE thing create any thing? Or, how could any thing be created from just one thing?

A bit of clarity in regards to these questions while SHINE some LIGHT on and expose what the actual and real Truth IS.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:31 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 amAnd yet that is pretty much everything we are absolutely certain about.

Accurately, 'you' can speak for 'you' and any "other" one that gives you permission to. 'you', however, can NOT speak for Me.

In this one instance, yes I can. Philosophy, at least as it pertains to science, is fundamentally story telling with a few rules of logic thrown in. For over two and a half millennia western philosophers have been creating logically valid stories based on a few premises they take to be true. The trouble is that science keeps coming along and showing that the premises are false - the Earth in not the centre of the universe, nor is it composed of the four 'Greek elements', for example.
In an attempt to get one over on science, philosophers have striven to find premises that science cannot refute. In 2500 years they have found two. More or less at the beginning Parmenides came up with 'being is'. I go into some detail about that in an article I wrote for Philosophy Now, which you can read here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches
Roughly 2000 years later, Rene Descartes comes up with 'I think, therefore I am'. What makes 'being is' and 'I think, therefore I am' special is that they cannot be uttered or even thought, without necessarily being true - there is nothing that science could ever do to refute them. The thing is, as Descartes and Parmenides in particular showed, it is entirely possible to start with logically concrete foundations and still build complete nonsense. My guess is that is where we are heading with your "real Truth".

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:31 amBut there is NOTHING I saw in that book that got even close to talking about WHAT exactly could be created from one thing, let alone providing any explanation of how "this" could be possible.

That's pretty much what the chapter 'The whirlpool and the wave' covers. Have another look: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:12 am Roughly 2000 years later, Rene Descartes comes up with 'I think, therefore I am'. What makes 'being is' and 'I think, therefore I am' special is that they cannot be uttered or even thought, without necessarily being true - there is nothing that science could ever do to refute them.

Descartes said "I think therefore I am". By contraposition: If I don't think therefore I am not. Descartes put his entire existence at risk on the possibility that his ability to think was questioned or falsified. Brave. And foolish.

Yet he could not answer any of these questions: Can you think? What does it mean to think? Is there a right and a wrong way to think? If I stop thinking do I stop being?

Descartes had no model of his own mind, and as per Wittgenstein "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
Descartes said too much.

In 2019 conceptualising and uttering "I" is sufficient.

"I" is self-referential. Self-reference is recursion. Recursion is computation.
Computer science is the (incomplete-but-bounded) theory of minds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science, and of the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amDescartes said "I think therefore I am". By contraposition: If I don't think therefore I am not. Descartes put his entire existence at risk on the possibility that his ability to think was questioned or falsified. Brave. And foolish.

Yet he could not answer any of these questions: Can you think? What does it mean to think? Is there a right and a wrong way to think? If I stop thinking do I stop being?

Well, 'I think, therefore I am' is just the snappy aphorism that is the conclusion of his method of doubt. 'Think' really includes having any sensation whatsoever. You could argue that failure to have any sensation is no more than unconsciousness, but the lack of any potential future sensation is a pretty good definition of being dead.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amDescartes had no model of his own mind...

No. Which was pointed out by Malebranche in the 17th century: "I am unable, when I turn to myself, to recognize any of my faculties or my capacities. The inner sensation which I have of myself informs me that I am, that I think, that I will, that I have sensory awareness, that I suffer, and so on; but it provides me with no knowledge whatever of what I am." (Dialogues on Metaphysics)

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 am...and as per Wittgenstein "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

Yeah, but after ten years Wittgenstein changed his mind when he realised that natural language is far too subjective to be taken literally at all times.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amDescartes said too much.

Well yeah, any philosopher worth her salt will tell you that all you can say without any fear of contradiction is 'There is thought', which confirms Parmenides' observation that there is at least something. Everything else is theory laden.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amIn 2019 conceptualising and uttering "I" is sufficient.

Always has been.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amDescartes said "I think therefore I am". By contraposition: If I don't think therefore I am not. Descartes put his entire existence at risk on the possibility that his ability to think was questioned or falsified. Brave. And foolish.

Yet he could not answer any of these questions: Can you think? What does it mean to think? Is there a right and a wrong way to think? If I stop thinking do I stop being?

Well, 'I think, therefore I am' is just the snappy aphorism that is the conclusion of his method of doubt. 'Think' really includes having any sensation whatsoever. You could argue that failure to have any sensation is no more than unconsciousness, but the lack of any potential future sensation is a pretty good definition of being dead.

Ah, but there is one distinct property of human minds. Ability to trivially sort things into binary buckets. This is Binary classification 101 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification ).

Black vs white.
Thin vs fat
Good vs bad.
Right vs wrong
True vs False

For example:

Given an unnatural death the human mind is very good at determining whether the event is "murder" or "not murder".
And the human mind is very good at classifying things as "right" and "wrong".

X is murder and murder is wrong requires 2 operations by an Oracle machine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine ).
2 bits of information.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amDescartes had no model of his own mind...

No. Which was pointed out by Malebranche in the 17th century: "I am unable, when I turn to myself, to recognize any of my faculties or my capacities. The inner sensation which I have of myself informs me that I am, that I think, that I will, that I have sensory awareness, that I suffer, and so on; but it provides me with no knowledge whatever of what I am." (Dialogues on Metaphysics)

Naturally. The good ole ontological error. "HOW does my mind work?" is a better question than "WHAT is my mind?"

Which is why many a computer scientists are now of the opinion that:
1. Turing machines are the foundations of human thought.
2. Logic (languages for computation) are isomorphic to metaphysics

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 am...and as per Wittgenstein "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

Yeah, but after ten years Wittgenstein changed his mind when he realised that natural language is far too subjective to be taken literally at all times.

Sure. And then Chomsky drew a distinction between natural and rational languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amDescartes said too much.

Well yeah, any philosopher worth her salt will tell you that all you can say without any fear of contradiction is 'There is thought', which confirms Parmenides' observation that there is at least something. Everything else is theory laden.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 amIn 2019 conceptualising and uttering "I" is sufficient.

Always has been.

Yet the ontological question of "What am I? Am I only a mind?" has been elusive to this day.

Only now we have the language/semantics/concepts (a.k.a scientific models) to talk about our minds a.k.a computers. And they are bloody useful!
So useful that even Plato would be proud.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:12 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:31 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:39 amAnd yet that is pretty much everything we are absolutely certain about.

Accurately, 'you' can speak for 'you' and any "other" one that gives you permission to. 'you', however, can NOT speak for Me.

In this one instance, yes I can. Philosophy, at least as it pertains to science, is fundamentally story telling with a few rules of logic thrown in. For over two and a half millennia western philosophers have been creating logically valid stories based on a few premises they take to be true. The trouble is that science keeps coming along and showing that the premises are false - the Earth in not the centre of the universe, nor is it composed of the four 'Greek elements', for example.
In an attempt to get one over on science, philosophers have striven to find premises that science cannot refute. In 2500 years they have found two. More or less at the beginning Parmenides came up with 'being is'. I go into some detail about that in an article I wrote for Philosophy Now, which you can read here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches
Roughly 2000 years later, Rene Descartes comes up with 'I think, therefore I am'. What makes 'being is' and 'I think, therefore I am' special is that they cannot be uttered or even thought, without necessarily being true - there is nothing that science could ever do to refute them. The thing is, as Descartes and Parmenides in particular showed, it is entirely possible to start with logically concrete foundations and still build complete nonsense. My guess is that is where we are heading with your "real Truth".

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:31 amBut there is NOTHING I saw in that book that got even close to talking about WHAT exactly could be created from one thing, let alone providing any explanation of how "this" could be possible.

That's pretty much what the chapter 'The whirlpool and the wave' covers. Have another look: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

AGAIN, 'you' can NOT accurately speak for Me. This 'you' have just proven AGAIN here.

Is there nothing else you want to say in regards to what I have written about HOW the Universe actually behaves/works?

Also, I still could NOT see anything about WHAT could be created from ONE thing, nor WHAT ONE thing could be that could create ANY thing.

Are you able to elaborate on this at all here?

Surely you could just write a response saying what that ONE thing IS that can create some thing else, and, what has been created from just ONE thing.

Maybe you have forgotten what they could be, and just think it is that book?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:23 pmAh, but there is one distinct property of human minds. Ability to trivially sort things into binary buckets.

Frankly, that's all some human minds can do, but even that is beyond a dead one.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:23 pmThe good ole ontological error. "HOW does my mind work?" is a better question than "WHAT is my mind?"

Well, Descartes' point was that his mind was the ontological thingy that works somehow.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:23 pmWhich is why many a computer scientists are now of the opinion that:
1. Turing machines are the foundations of human thought.
2. Logic (languages for computation) are isomorphic to metaphysics

Who knows? Maybe they're right.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 am...And then Chomsky drew a distinction between natural and rational languages.

And still people overwhelmingly communicate in natural languages. Can't see that changing.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:30 pm Frankly, that's all some human minds can do, but even that is beyond a dead one.

Dead/alive. Only a human mind can make this classification

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:30 pm And still people overwhelmingly communicate in natural languages. Can't see that changing.

That can't and shouldn't change.

What needs to change is that people need to learn how to think in rational, not natural languages.

Fundamentally. We should all be (at least) bi-lingual. Language we think in and the language we speak in.

Language and meta-language (thought).

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmAGAIN, 'you' can NOT accurately speak for Me. This 'you' have just proven AGAIN here.

On the contrary. You, in common with everyone else cannot say 'Nothing at all exists', without it necessarily being false.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmIs there nothing else you want to say in regards to what I have written about HOW the Universe actually behaves/works?

You haven't actually said anything about it - just that the 'real Truth' is OBVIOUS.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmAlso, I still could NOT see anything about WHAT could be created from ONE thing, nor WHAT ONE thing could be that could create ANY thing.

As I hope I make clear in the book, I don't pretend to know what the actual conditions prior to the Big Bang were, but it is conceivable that the origin of the universe was a single particle that for reasons unknown has been expanding for the best part of 14 billion years. How this could result in sub-atomic particles and atoms themselves is outlined pages 15-21.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmAre you able to elaborate on this at all here?

Very well. Something (spacetime, a quantum field, the 'inflaton', there's loads of names for it - I just stick with Big Bang stuff) started growing. It's a bit like the Magic Porridge Pot - it just keeps coming. The whirls, waves and eddies get tangled up and form 'material' and 'virtual' force carrying particles. It's much better with pictures though: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmAGAIN, 'you' can NOT accurately speak for Me. This 'you' have just proven AGAIN here.

On the contrary. You, in common with everyone else cannot say 'Nothing at all exists', without it necessarily being false.

I did say WITH PERMISSION before. Meaning without my permission/agreement you can NOT accurately speak for Me.

For example HOW do you KNOW that I can NOT say 'Nothing at all exists', without it necessarily being false?

Are you suggesting that there are some absolute FACTS that ALL can, and/or HAVE TO, agree with and accept as being thee Truth?

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmIs there nothing else you want to say in regards to what I have written about HOW the Universe actually behaves/works?

You haven't actually said anything about it - just that the 'real Truth' is OBVIOUS.

You MUST OF MISSED what I actually wrote then. I did say MORE than what you wrote here.

In fact I said the Universe behaves/works in the EXACT OPPOSITE that you are proposing here, in case you MISSED that.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmAlso, I still could NOT see anything about WHAT could be created from ONE thing, nor WHAT ONE thing could be that could create ANY thing.

As I hope I make clear in the book, I don't pretend to know what the actual conditions prior to the Big Bang were, but it is conceivable that the origin of the universe was a single particle that for reasons unknown has been expanding for the best part of 14 billion years. How this could result in sub-atomic particles and atoms themselves is outlined pages 15-21.

Once again you are SHOWING how your own BELIEFS are getting in the way of SEEING the actual and real Truth of things here.

This explains WHY you MISSED what I actually wrote and only SAW what you WANTED to SEE.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:18 pmAre you able to elaborate on this at all here?

Very well. Something (spacetime, a quantum field, the 'inflaton', there's loads of names for it - I just stick with Big Bang stuff) started growing.

But that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what is in question here.

WHAT can be created from ONE thing, AND, WHAT could ONE thing be that created EVERY thing?

WHAT, supposedly, "started" growing?

'Started' implies beginning. Are you absolutely SURE that the Universe was NOT already existing PRIOR to what you call "started/beginning"?

If you are NOT, then MOST of what you say in the book is based on ONE HUGE ASSUMPTION, which is OBVIOUSLY WRONG.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:58 pm It's a bit like the Magic Porridge Pot - it just keeps coming.

LOL.

Is this really the best you can do to EXPLAIN the so called "scientific" knowledge you have about the Universe, Itself?

I guess the "scientific" knowledge is based on most of what YOUR book is also, that is; just words written in a previous book.

This ALL leads back to the "It is written (in a book)", therefore "it must be true", phenomena. By the way this is happening, literally.

Your book appears to be based on three words written in the bible, which are BELIEVED to be True. Those three words have been misinterpreted, taken out of context, and WRONGLY BELIEVED to be true for millennia. Those words are still completely misunderstood by most people in the days of when this is written.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:58 pm The whirls, waves and eddies get tangled up and form 'material' and 'virtual' force carrying particles. It's much better with pictures though: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

But NO matter what pictures or how many pictures you use, they are all based on ASSUMPTIONS, which are themselves based on YOUR past experiences.

Have you experienced the True, Right, and/or Correct knowledge/information about HOW the Universe works/behaves?
If no or you do NOT know, then WHAT EXACTLY are you basing this "current" knowledge on that you are using?

You have to get past your own BELIEF that the Universe began BEFORE you CAN KNOW if what you WANT to TELL in YOUR book is even close to the Truth or NOT.

Age wrote:
Physical matter moves around FREELY due to the space in between and around
matter interacting with each other creating absolutely EVERY thing the way that it is

Physical matter does not move around freely at all
It is restricted by gravity - electromagnetism - strong nuclear force - weak nuclear force - general relativity - dark energy - mass
For it to move around freely none of these could exist - only an absolute vacuum - but this is not a standard feature of spacetime

Age wrote:
The so called evidence which you talk about in your book clearly SHOWS that parts of the Universe is contracting while
parts are expanding Now how is that even logically possible if we are to take the Universe to mean ALL THERE IS

The Universe is a dynamic system that is in a constant state of motion so is not something fixed and static
The definition of it as ALL THERE IS is still absolutely true even though it is expanding beyond light speed

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:40 am

Age wrote:
Physical matter moves around FREELY due to the space in between and around
matter interacting with each other creating absolutely EVERY thing the way that it is

Physical matter does not move around freely at all
It is restricted by gravity - electromagnetism - strong nuclear force - weak nuclear force - general relativity - dark energy - mass
For it to move around freely none of these could exist - only an absolute vacuum - but this is not a standard feature of spacetime

Fair enough. Good point.

ALL matter is FREE to move because of the space around it.

Is that better?