Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:
I have provided definitions already but you refuse to even acknowledge them by
asking clarifying questions and / or challenging them let alone then using those definitions

You can just reject My definitions without any response and just keep using your own illogical
definitions but as I say if I want to then I will continue to question you so that the Truth can be revealed

Use those definitions then while continuing to question me on my own definitions if I refuse to use yours

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:21 am

ken wrote:
I can very easily differentiate between the u and the U. But a universe can NOT be within
nor a part of the Universe if the word Universe or universe is going to mean ALL THERE IS

I have asked you previously to explain the difference and what you provided was logically impossible. I have pointed this out to you already by
already showing how illogical it is. Others have shown how it is illogical also. You just refuse to look at what rejects your current point of view

When both terms are being used by me Universe means ALL THERE IS and universe means local cosmic expanse

Yes I KNOW.

And HOW that is illogical speaks for itself.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:31 am

ken wrote:
I have provided definitions already but you refuse to even acknowledge them by
asking clarifying questions and / or challenging them let alone then using those definitions

You can just reject My definitions without any response and just keep using your own illogical
definitions but as I say if I want to then I will continue to question you so that the Truth can be revealed

Use those definitions then while continuing to question me on my own definitions if I refuse to use yours

You have said that you want to learn how the Mind and the brain actually work. You have even said you wanted Me to be forceful for you to understand this, but you are NOT even prepared to look past your own views. I do NOT use force, and I said previously I wait till the right people come along.

ken wrote:
You have said that you want to learn how the Mind and the brain actually work. You have even said you wanted Me to
be forceful for you to understand this but you are NOT even prepared to look past your own views. I do NOT use force

You have to be forceful because that is the best way for me to learn like I said before. And you are already using force and have
been for quite some time now. Obviously you do not think you are but I experience it so know you are but it does not bother me

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:31 am

ken wrote:
You have said that you want to learn how the Mind and the brain actually work. You have even said you wanted Me to
be forceful for you to understand this but you are NOT even prepared to look past your own views. I do NOT use force

You have to be forceful because that is the best way for me to learn like I said before. And you are already using force and have
been for quite some time now. Obviously you do not think you are but I experience it so know you are but it does not bother me

I must not be using to much force as you have not accepted nor agreed with any definition I have given.

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
You have said that you want to learn how the Mind and the brain actually work. You have even said you wanted Me to
be forceful for you to understand this but you are NOT even prepared to look past your own views. I do NOT use force

You have to be forceful because that is the best way for me to learn like I said before. And you are already using force and have
been for quite some time now. Obviously you do not think you are but I experience it so know you are but it does not bother me

I must not be using to much force as you have not accepted nor agreed with any definition I have given

I do not know what definitions you have given so until you tell me I cannot accept or agree with them
I actually have another one which I also use and which is clearer than the one I am already using here

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:28 pm

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

You have to be forceful because that is the best way for me to learn like I said before. And you are already using force and have
been for quite some time now. Obviously you do not think you are but I experience it so know you are but it does not bother me

I must not be using to much force as you have not accepted nor agreed with any definition I have given

I do not know what definitions you have given so until you tell me I cannot accept or agree with them

Are you seriously suggesting that you have not noticed what definition I give for 'Universe', 'Mind', and other words I have expressly defined?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:28 pmI actually have another one which I also use and which is clearer than the one I am already using here

Great, would you like to share it with us?

ken wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that you have not noticed what definition I give for Universe

There is no disagreement between us on the definition of Universe that we define as ALL THERE IS
I remember using it first then you started using it after that and both of us have used it ever since

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:11 pm

ken wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that you have not noticed what definition I give for Universe

There is no disagreement between us on the definition of Universe that we define as ALL THERE IS
I remember using it first then you started using it after that and both of us have used it ever since

I'm responding to those who say a universe is all there is.
We have the concept of a multiverse. Leaving aside the question whether a multiverse exists or can be proven to exist; by denying the existence of a multiverse right off the bat, then those who say the universe is all there is and simultaneously say that a multiverse doesn't exist are contradicting themselves since that means a universe can't be all there is under those terms.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
We have the concept of a multiverse. Leaving aside the question whether a multiverse exists or can be proven to exist by denying the
existence of a multiverse right off the bat then those who say the universe is all there is and simultaneously say that a multiverse does
not exist are contradicting themselves since that means a universe cannot be all there is under those terms

I do not know whether or not a Multiverse exists but if it does then it would be ALL THERE IS
In that scenario there is no difference between Multiverse and Universe as they are the same
And if they are the same it is why I make a distinction between this universe and the Universe

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:36 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:11 pm

ken wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that you have not noticed what definition I give for Universe

There is no disagreement between us on the definition of Universe that we define as ALL THERE IS
I remember using it first then you started using it after that and both of us have used it ever since

I'm responding to those who say a universe is all there is.

What do you say a Universe is?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:36 pmWe have the concept of a multiverse. Leaving aside the question whether a multiverse exists or can be proven to exist; by denying the existence of a multiverse right off the bat, then those who say the universe is all there is and simultaneously say that a multiverse doesn't exist are contradicting themselves since that means a universe can't be all there is under those terms.

PhilX

WHY would you say that defining the 'Universe' as ALL-THERE-IS also says that a multiverse does not exist? To Me, that is completely not true. Multiverse may still exist. Saying 'Universe' is ALL-THERE-IS does NOT simultaneously say that a multiverse does not exist. So, just saying 'Universe' is ALL-THERE-IS, there is NO denying the existence of a multiverse "right off the bat", (as you call it).

'Universe' means every thing is a part of that one Universe. 'ALL-THERE-IS' does NOT mean that, that which is yet unknown but which still exists, is not a part of the one Universe. Whatever there is, known or unknown, IS a part of ALL-THERE-IS, (which just happens to be how the 'Universe' is defined). So, if multiple verses (multiverse) exist, then they are just a part the one Universe, like every thing else IS. The word 'Uni' refers to one, and, the word 'multi' refers to many anyway, so looking at this from this perspective still means, maybe even more so, that there can be a multiple-verse in the one and only Uni-verse.

There can only be one thing that is comprised of ALL things, and the name or label given to that one thing is 'Universe'. Just because new discoveries are made of previously unknown things, that in of it self does not contradict nor change the label given to the thing that by definition is defined as ALL-THERE-IS. 'Universe' can still remain the name given for ALL-THERE-IS under those terms, maybe even more so. There is NO need to change already sound and valid definitions given to names already just because pre-existing things are found or new discoveries are made. Making up new names, for previously unknown things, and giving those new names new definitions can also very easily be done, instead of changing already very reasonable labels and their definitions.

To Me, what appears to be a contradiction is wanting to change the definition of some thing just to fit in with new views, from "new discoveries", that human beings come to have. If these people, who did not see what was already obvious beforehand, want to now change their views and at the same time also change the definitions that they used to use in order to fit in with their new views, and say that 'Multiverse' is now ALL-THERE-IS, then that is fine, but what are they going to change the definition of 'Universe' to now? If pre-existing labels and definitions work fine, then why change them? Why not make up a new definition for the new labels and names? Or, if 'Universe' is not currently defined as ALL-THERE-IS, then what is 'Universe' defined as?

By the way, since you appear to be one of those that do not say Universe is ALL-THERE-IS, how do you define 'Universe' now?

Another contradiction, to Me, is also a person saying some thing like they can make a distinction between this universe and the Universe. I have questioned them about HOW could there be a small u 'universe', which is defined as all-there-is, that is distinct from a big U 'Universe', which is defined as ALL-THERE-IS? But I am not expecting any thing in regards here.

How could there be two distinct ALL-THERE-IS's in regards to Everything. There can ONLY be one word for Everything. It would be like saying there is a distinction between this everything and the Everything. There is a distinction between the words 'this' and 'the', but just adding a capital E to everything does NOT make a distinction in and of itself. So, if any person says they can make a distinction between this universe and the Universe, then please explain HOW you can make the distinction. I would love to know HOW this is possible so that I could do it also.

I have no problem at all in differentiating between this universe and the Universe which is why I use such terms. I have already explained the
difference. This universe means local cosmic expanse and the Universe means ALL THERE IS. I could use other terms for Universe like Cosmos
or Multiverse. But the definition would still be the same and in semantics what is important is clarity of definition. Long as this is sufficiently
rigorous and it is understood too what particular definition is being used if the word has multiple meanings there should not be any confusion

There are other words that have multiple meanings that are contradictory but such meanings are still legitimate in their own right. One such
word is theory. The lay definition and scientific definition of theory do not mean the same thing at all. So some times the wrong definition is
used entirely out of context by those who do not know it is a word with multiple meanings. Such as in relation to evolution when they say its
only a theory. So when one is using a multiple meaning word it is absolutely paramount that everyone understands what particular definition
they are using and also that that definition is sufficiently rigorous

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:26 am I have no problem at all in differentiating between this universe and the Universe which is why I use such terms. I have already explained the
difference. This universe means local cosmic expanse and the Universe means ALL THERE IS. I could use other terms for Universe like Cosmos
or Multiverse. But the definition would still be the same and in semantics what is important is clarity of definition.

If, to you, Cosmos, Multiverse, and Universe have the exact same definition, then that means two of the words are redundant, so then we can get rid two of the unnecessary words completely.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:26 amLong as this is sufficiently
rigorous and it is understood too what particular definition is being used if the word has multiple meanings there should not be any confusion.

Okay, so to avoid any confusion and to see if your definition of 'universe', being local cosmic expanse is rigorous enough, where does this so called local cosmic expanse start and end?

Where are, and what are, the defining points of the so called local cosmic expanse, which separates it from the rest of the Universe?

Is there any scientific evidence that there is even a local cosmic expanse, which is within or which is just a part of the Universe, Cosmos, or Multiverse?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:26 amThere are other words that have multiple meanings that are contradictory but such meanings are still legitimate in their own right. One such
word is theory. The lay definition and scientific definition of theory do not mean the same thing at all. So some times the wrong definition is
used entirely out of context by those who do not know it is a word with multiple meanings. Such as in relation to evolution when they say its
only a theory. So when one is using a multiple meaning word it is absolutely paramount that everyone understands what particular definition
they are using and also that that definition is sufficiently rigorous

Are you aware of just how many words have multiple meanings? You only have to look in any dictionary to find this out.

If, to you, it is absolutely paramount that everyone understands what particular definition is being used, which I do not necessarily disagree with at all, then why do you, and others, complain about or refuse to answer My continual attempts at just trying to gain clarification and thus a better understand from you and others about what it is that you are actually saying?

Have you actually thought about just how much time and how many words that it takes to express some thing so that it is fully understood by all readers? I know you do not care about this, but I do. Even some thing, which is relatively very simple and very easy to say and understand, takes a considerable amount of time and of wording to be understood better by ALL people, especially when what is being expressed has relatively never been heard of before?

Some people complain about how many words I use when I write, but the actual reason I use so many is partly because of the confusion that can be caused, if it is not expressed properly, because so many different people have so many different perceptions of the exact same words in front of them. Learning how to express, especially new ideas or views in a way, which is much better than I can now, that will NOT leave any confusion in any person, takes some time to learn and grasp.

I have found that if people are not at all open, to an idea or view, then finding the right words seems impossible. But I NEVER stop learning how to express better.

Many words is smoke that hides the fire.