Philosophy Now Forum

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 10:20 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:20 am The idea that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up is fairly new, it's from 1998 (won the 2011 physics Nobel). Imo we can never make confident claims about the "fate" of the universe, that's just beyond human ability, and yet many people already settled with the view that we are headed for the Big Rip.

Looking at it from a philosophical perspective, I kept saying that the eternal expansion is actually logically impossible (under the best understanding of logic, which is absolute symmetry). If there was some kind of Big Bang in the past, then logically there must be some kind of Big Crunch in the future. And that we already knew that the expansion rate already changed at least 3 times in the past, so it will probably change again in the future, the dark energy may not be a constant.

Well new data shows that dark energy may indeed not be a constant, and may already have started weakening. So maybe we aren't headed for the Big Rip:

https://www.reuters.com/science/evidenc ... 025-03-19/

Om just a bloke on the bus me. I have a post to make on the fallacy of fine tuning. But for now, yes eternal expansion of single diluting observable universes and their unobservable shells (apart from to observers in them) is absurd. But no, logically there is no requirement for a Big Crunch. It's not a two-stroke universe. The accelerating expansion of space means that absent a Big Rip, all matter will degenerate to isolated quanta that aren't in any other's light cone. Space will become meaningless. In ten to the googolplex years. Unless one defines that meaninglessly remote fate as the Big Rip, which sounds more dramatic. More Doctor Who. Or God. New heavens and a new earth. Nah. That's the way the world goes out. Not with a bang but a WIMP, er? Sooner fates are available apparently. The Big Slurp. Dah.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 10:20 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:20 am The idea that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up is fairly new, it's from 1998 (won the 2011 physics Nobel). Imo we can never make confident claims about the "fate" of the universe, that's just beyond human ability, and yet many people already settled with the view that we are headed for the Big Rip.

Looking at it from a philosophical perspective, I kept saying that the eternal expansion is actually logically impossible (under the best understanding of logic, which is absolute symmetry). If there was some kind of Big Bang in the past, then logically there must be some kind of Big Crunch in the future. And that we already knew that the expansion rate already changed at least 3 times in the past, so it will probably change again in the future, the dark energy may not be a constant.

Well new data shows that dark energy may indeed not be a constant, and may already have started weakening. So maybe we aren't headed for the Big Rip:

https://www.reuters.com/science/evidenc ... 025-03-19/

Om just a bloke on the bus me. I have a post to make on the fallacy of fine tuning. But for now, yes eternal expansion of single diluting observable universes and their unobservable shells (apart from to observers in them) is absurd. But no, logically there is no requirement for a Big Crunch. It's not a two-stroke universe. The accelerating expansion of space means that absent a Big Rip, all matter will degenerate to isolated quanta that aren't in any other's light cone. Space will become meaningless. In ten to the googolplex years. Unless one defines that meaninglessly remote fate as the Big Rip, which sounds more dramatic. More Doctor Who. Or God. New heavens and a new earth. Nah. That's the way the world goes out. Not with a bang but a WIMP, er? Sooner fates are available apparently. The Big Slurp. Dah.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 9:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:19 am

What another Truly stupid thing to presume.

What you know in regards to the Universe is obviously not the entire Universe.

But, what is irrefutably known about the entire Universe is that it is a theoretical, and an empirical, impossibility, for the entire Universe to be spinning and expanding, and to have begun, and/or end. Once more, full stop.

Some of these people, back when this was being written, really had the most narrowest and closed visions and perspectives.

That's not what the known universe refers to.

Once again another Truly stupid assumption being made by 'this one'.

I have never talked about what the 'known universe' refers to.

It would be Truly insightful if 'we' could see what you 'see' when you read my words in this forum.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am You also aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

Again, another Truly stupid assumption made by 'this one'.

No one ever thought that i am 'omniscient'.

Also, it is an irrefutable Fact that the 'entire Universe' is infinite and eternal. Full stop.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am Instead you know little to nothing as usual.

If 'this' is what you want to keep believing is absolutely true, then there is no wonder that 'this' is all you actually 'see', here.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am Lately I'm starting to see why a British forum is the only one that wouldn't ban the likes of you.

Okay.

So, I, partly, explain how and why the 'entire Universe' is infinite, and eternal, and 'this one' starts assuming, and believing, that a forum from a particular place is the only one, in the 'entire Universe', that, supposedly, would not ban the likes of 'me'. Whatever 'the likes' of 'me' actually means and refers to, exactly.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:04 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 9:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am
That's not what the known universe refers to.

Once again another Truly stupid assumption being made by 'this one'.

I have never talked about what the 'known universe' refers to.

It would be Truly insightful if 'we' could see what you 'see' when you read my words in this forum.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am You also aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

Again, another Truly stupid assumption made by 'this one'.

No one ever thought that i am 'omniscient'.

Also, it is an irrefutable Fact that the 'entire Universe' is infinite and eternal. Full stop.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am Instead you know little to nothing as usual.

If 'this' is what you want to keep believing is absolutely true, then there is no wonder that 'this' is all you actually 'see', here.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am Lately I'm starting to see why a British forum is the only one that wouldn't ban the likes of you.

Okay.

So, I, partly, explain how and why the 'entire Universe' is infinite, and eternal, and 'this one' starts assuming, and believing, that a forum from a particular place is the only one, in the 'entire Universe', that, supposedly, would not ban the likes of 'me'. Whatever 'the likes' of 'me' actually means and refers to, exactly.

Again, that's not what the known universe refers to.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:04 am Let's see if you can look up on the internet what it refers to, any normally functioning person can easily do that.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:04 am Again, you also aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:36 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:04 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 9:47 am

Once again another Truly stupid assumption being made by 'this one'.

I have never talked about what the 'known universe' refers to.

It would be Truly insightful if 'we' could see what you 'see' when you read my words in this forum.


Again, another Truly stupid assumption made by 'this one'.

No one ever thought that i am 'omniscient'.

Also, it is an irrefutable Fact that the 'entire Universe' is infinite and eternal. Full stop.



If 'this' is what you want to keep believing is absolutely true, then there is no wonder that 'this' is all you actually 'see', here.


Okay.

So, I, partly, explain how and why the 'entire Universe' is infinite, and eternal, and 'this one' starts assuming, and believing, that a forum from a particular place is the only one, in the 'entire Universe', that, supposedly, would not ban the likes of 'me'. Whatever 'the likes' of 'me' actually means and refers to, exactly.

Again, that's not what the known universe refers to.

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.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:04 am Let's see if you can look up on the internet what it refers to, any normally functioning person can easily do that.

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.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:04 am Again, you also aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

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.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:46 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 10:20 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:20 am The idea that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up is fairly new, it's from 1998 (won the 2011 physics Nobel). Imo we can never make confident claims about the "fate" of the universe, that's just beyond human ability, and yet many people already settled with the view that we are headed for the Big Rip.

Looking at it from a philosophical perspective, I kept saying that the eternal expansion is actually logically impossible (under the best understanding of logic, which is absolute symmetry). If there was some kind of Big Bang in the past, then logically there must be some kind of Big Crunch in the future. And that we already knew that the expansion rate already changed at least 3 times in the past, so it will probably change again in the future, the dark energy may not be a constant.

Well new data shows that dark energy may indeed not be a constant, and may already have started weakening. So maybe we aren't headed for the Big Rip:

https://www.reuters.com/science/evidenc ... 025-03-19/

Om just a bloke on the bus me. I have a post to make on the fallacy of fine tuning. But for now, yes eternal expansion of single diluting observable universes and their unobservable shells (apart from to observers in them) is absurd. But no, logically there is no requirement for a Big Crunch. It's not a two-stroke universe. The accelerating expansion of space means that absent a Big Rip, all matter will degenerate to isolated quanta that aren't in any other's light cone. Space will become meaningless. In ten to the googolplex years. Unless one defines that meaninglessly remote fate as the Big Rip, which sounds more dramatic. More Doctor Who. Or God. New heavens and a new earth. Nah. That's the way the world goes out. Not with a bang but a WIMP, er? Sooner fates are available apparently. The Big Slurp. Dah.

I specified which logic I meant.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:27 pm Absolute symmetry. Uh huh. What goes up must come down. How is that the best?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:01 pm The man-child has achieved omniscience....he is certain.
He know how the universe works.
No confirmation bias, there.

It is all known to him.
Another crazy......why is the internet so full of them, these days.

Is that you Ecmandu?
Ecmandu is ILP's man-god...
Has he transported himself across space-time to this local?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:42 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:27 pm Absolute symmetry. Uh huh. What goes up must come down. How is that the best?

Ugh how do I put it.. It's my chosen axiom that symmetry is the best. I can't imagine perfection, completeness without inherent symmetry. Perfection IS symmetry itself imo. I think that without symmetry, nothing makes sense. The known universe is asymmetric and therefore makes no sense by itself, so hopefully it's part of a larger symmetric total universe.

I can be wrong of course, maybe reality is indeed asymmetric. Then all we can do is describe how the known universe behaves, note that it makes no sense, and also note that we can't speculate beyond the known universe.

But if by the word "logical" we just mean how concepts are related to each other, then whatever.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:34 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:42 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:27 pm Absolute symmetry. Uh huh. What goes up must come down. How is that the best?

Ugh how do I put it.. It's my chosen axiom that symmetry is the best. I can't imagine perfection, completeness without inherent symmetry. Perfection IS symmetry itself imo. I think that without symmetry, nothing makes sense. The known universe is asymmetric and therefore makes no sense by itself, so hopefully it's part of a larger symmetric total universe.

I can be wrong of course, maybe reality is indeed asymmetric. Then all we can do is describe how the known universe behaves, note that it makes no sense, and also note that we can't speculate beyond the known universe.

But if by the word "logical" we just mean how concepts are related to each other, then whatever.

Thanks. I sympathise. But I just go with the facts and reason. And speculate accordingly.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:37 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:34 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:42 pm
Ugh how do I put it.. It's my chosen axiom that symmetry is the best. I can't imagine perfection, completeness without inherent symmetry. Perfection IS symmetry itself imo. I think that without symmetry, nothing makes sense. The known universe is asymmetric and therefore makes no sense by itself, so hopefully it's part of a larger symmetric total universe.

I can be wrong of course, maybe reality is indeed asymmetric. Then all we can do is describe how the known universe behaves, note that it makes no sense, and also note that we can't speculate beyond the known universe.

But if by the word "logical" we just mean how concepts are related to each other, then whatever.

Thanks. I sympathise. But I just go with the facts and reason. And speculate accordingly.

And what gave you the impression that I'm not doing that?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:04 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:37 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:34 pm

Thanks. I sympathise. But I just go with the facts and reason. And speculate accordingly.

And what gave you the impression that I'm not doing that?

I thought you said we can't?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:09 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:04 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:37 pm
And what gave you the impression that I'm not doing that?

I thought you said we can't?

Oh sorry, I meant that then we can't speculate based on reason because there is no reason.