Philosophy Now Forum

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 3:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 1:08 pm

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:34 am
Unlike you, I doubt and wonder "Why".

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

What do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that I do NOT doubt and wonder 'WHY', in regards TO, EXACTLY?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:34 am Infinities only exist in mathematics and controversial theories...

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

What 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER one who has become COMPLETELY DISILLUSIONED BY its very OWN BELIEFS.

So what was there before the quantum "fire" ignited, before the hyper-Darwinian process began to bake the Future into Planck's "bricks" of the Past (into cells of aether), before the Hegelian happening began? I believe it was the timeless, formless Hegelian "nothing", the pure Future, Plato's realm of ideas:) It was the same Future we face today...

And, AGAIN, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like "cervany", but, and also again, if what you believe does not fit in with what is actually irrefutable True, and Right, then why believe it?

Now, as for what was actually there 'before', then it was, EXACTLY, what is HERE, NOW, ALWAYS. Which is just the Universe, Itself, but just in a different looking way, hape, or form. The Universe at Its most fundamental level is made up of just 'matter' AND 'space', which is just always in continual motion, creating the continual change, which some just see as and call evolution, itself.

There IS no beginning and there WAS no end.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 3:43 pm @Age, take a pill:)

Why?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 9:41 pm …
And, AGAIN, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like "cervany", but, and also again, if what you believe does not fit in with what is actually irrefutable True, and Right, then why believe it?

Now, as for what was actually there 'before', then it was, EXACTLY, what is HERE, NOW, ALWAYS. Which is just the Universe, Itself, but just in a different looking way, hape, or form. The Universe at Its most fundamental level is made up of just 'matter' AND 'space', which is just always in continual motion, creating the continual change, which some just see as and call evolution, itself.
…

And here is probably the mistake. The mathematician, “influencer” A.E. suggested to you the existence of some ‘space’ – without ‘matter’. But I think that there is only matter that is (Darwinian?) forming into a 4D structure, which can be elastically deformed (physical field) and locally damaged (elementary particles). It is not useless, for simplicity, to imagine a growing, crystallizing 4D sphere (the Past) and its (still hot) 3D surface (the Presence). We know nothing about its surroundings (the Future) Classical physics infers, calculates the “direction” of growth of the crystal of causality, and quantum physics infers, calculates possible changes in its structure.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 9:41 pm …
And, AGAIN, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like "cervany", but, and also again, if what you believe does not fit in with what is actually irrefutable True, and Right, then why believe it?

Now, as for what was actually there 'before', then it was, EXACTLY, what is HERE, NOW, ALWAYS. Which is just the Universe, Itself, but just in a different looking way, hape, or form. The Universe at Its most fundamental level is made up of just 'matter' AND 'space', which is just always in continual motion, creating the continual change, which some just see as and call evolution, itself.
…

And here is probably the mistake.

LOL 'here is 'PROBABLY' 'the mistake'. LOL

Either you KNOW of A MISTAKE, or you DO NOT.

And, if you DO NOT, then I will suggest that it will be BETTER for you to NOT PRESUME nor BELIEF there IS ONE.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:30 am The mathematician, “influencer” A.E. suggested to you the existence of some ‘space’ – without ‘matter’.

That one human being has NOT suggested ANY thing TO 'me'. But even if it DID, then 'that' in NO WAY MEANS ANY thing AT ALL, here.

Also, WHY did you SAY and CLAIM that 'that human being' suggested some thing, to me?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:30 am But I think that there is only matter that is (Darwinian?) forming into a 4D structure, which can be elastically deformed (physical field) and locally damaged (elementary particles).

AGAIN, who CARES what 'you' 'think', here.

What is, OBVIOUSLY, FAR MORE IMPORTANT, and INTERESTING, is what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, here.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:30 am It is not useless, for simplicity, to imagine a growing, crystallizing 4D sphere (the Past) and its (still hot) 3D surface (the Presence).

It might not be 'useless', to you, but it is A COMPLETE WASTE OF 'time' and/or 'energy'. Especially considering what IS ACTUALLY True, here.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:30 am We know nothing about its surroundings (the Future) Classical physics infers, calculates the “direction” of growth of the crystal of causality, and quantum physics infers, calculates possible changes in its structure.

you, and some others, may well know NOTHING, here. But, 'we' know some thing, and thus MORE.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:32 am …
AGAIN, who CARES what 'you' 'think', here.
…

May I ask you not to care about what I think here, please... save your, certainly brilliant, brain for others, they probably might appreciate it more

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:32 am …
AGAIN, who CARES what 'you' 'think', here.
…

May I ask you not to care about what I think here, please... save your, certainly brilliant, brain for others, they probably might appreciate it more

WHY would you even want to TELL 'us' ONLY what you 'think', here, ONLY? Especially when what is KNOWN will ALWAYS OVER RIDE 'that' what you ONLY 'think'.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 9:41 pm …
And, AGAIN, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like "cervany", but, and also again, if what you believe does not fit in with what is actually irrefutable True, and Right, then why believe it?

Now, as for what was actually there 'before', then it was, EXACTLY, what is HERE, NOW, ALWAYS. Which is just the Universe, Itself, but just in a different looking way, hape, or form. The Universe at Its most fundamental level is made up of just 'matter' AND 'space', which is just always in continual motion, creating the continual change, which some just see as and call evolution, itself.
…

And here is probably the mistake. The mathematician, “influencer” A.E. suggested to you the existence of some ‘space’ – without ‘matter’. But I think that there is only matter that is (Darwinian?) forming into a 4D structure, which can be elastically deformed (physical field) and locally damaged (elementary particles). It is not useless, for simplicity, to imagine a growing, crystallizing 4D sphere (the Past) and its (still hot) 3D surface (the Presence). We know nothing about its surroundings (the Future) Classical physics infers, calculates the “direction” of growth of the crystal of causality, and quantum physics infers, calculates possible changes in its structure.

Sorry, perhaps one more clarification: “4D sphere (the Past), where time is a radial (certainly not planar) direction of growth, …”

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:12 pm

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 8:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 9:41 pm …
And, AGAIN, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like "cervany", but, and also again, if what you believe does not fit in with what is actually irrefutable True, and Right, then why believe it?

Now, as for what was actually there 'before', then it was, EXACTLY, what is HERE, NOW, ALWAYS. Which is just the Universe, Itself, but just in a different looking way, hape, or form. The Universe at Its most fundamental level is made up of just 'matter' AND 'space', which is just always in continual motion, creating the continual change, which some just see as and call evolution, itself.
…

And here is probably the mistake. The mathematician, “influencer” A.E. suggested to you the existence of some ‘space’ – without ‘matter’. But I think that there is only matter that is (Darwinian?) forming into a 4D structure, which can be elastically deformed (physical field) and locally damaged (elementary particles). It is not useless, for simplicity, to imagine a growing, crystallizing 4D sphere (the Past) and its (still hot) 3D surface (the Presence). We know nothing about its surroundings (the Future) Classical physics infers, calculates the “direction” of growth of the crystal of causality, and quantum physics infers, calculates possible changes in its structure.

Sorry, perhaps one more clarification: “4D sphere (the Past), where time is a radial (certainly not planar) direction of growth, …”

Are you talking TO ANY one, here?

Also, besides providing 'one more clarification' TO, and FOR, 'you', ONLY, here, there is NOTHING NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED, here, TO nor FOR 'me'.

The Universe, Itself, which NEVER began, NOR ended, EXISTS, ALWAYS, HERE-NOW.

WHAT the Universe is fundamentally made up of is just 'matter' AND 'space', ONLY. These two things CO-EXIST, HERE-NOW, ALWAYS, AS WELL.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:38 pm …
Are you talking TO ANY one, here?
…

I'm just trying to reach out to the thousands of readers of this thread, if even a hundredth of them thought about my opinion, it would serve my purpose. Of course, that's not your case... so, please again, save your breath.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 2:27 pm Where would you draw the line between science and metaphysics?

Science seems to be a subset of metaphysics. One cannot do science without first establishing a metaphysical base, all without proof. Sure, science currently (well, until recently) works under methodological naturalism, which is a metaphysical assumption, and an assumption that has proved far more productive than the alternative. Results speak.

Where does "the concept of spacetime" fit?

Technically, that (and big bang and black holes and all that goes with the spacetime model) is all metaphysics, but again, one relied upon by science (by cosmology anyway, the rest doesn't care much).

The line is more distinct with quantum mechanics, clearly dividing theory (where almost all the work is being done) and metaphysical interpretations, which are largely ignored in both the field and in the classroom. Pop articles are all over it of course, and some of that does make its way into scientific journals, but it's still a side hustle.

I for one, being science minded but not being a scientist, am very interested in the metaphysics and philosophical implications of it all. I don't go around finding new empirical evidence like the scientists are supposed to.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 2:27 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:05 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 1:01 pm That's one hypothesis.

There are others, not all of which support the concept of spacetime. The alternatives deny at least one (typically both) of the premises of SR.

I haven't seen an explanation for how matter/energy curves spacetime. Do you know any hypotheses that posit a mechanism?

That would be metaphysics, and science doesn't particularly get into metaphysics.

Where would you draw the line between science and metaphysics? Where does "the concept of spacetime" fit? Personally, asr a mathematical model, I see it as science. As an ontological hypothesis, it is philosophy.

Notice how these people did not define words, and just spoke to each other with words that they each expected 'the other' to KNOW what their own personal definition is, exactly, and what was actually being meant.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:38 pm …
Are you talking TO ANY one, here?
…

I'm just trying to reach out to the thousands of readers of this thread, if even a hundredth of them thought about my opinion, it would serve my purpose. Of course, that's not your case... so, please again, save your breath.

But, because you will not clarify, FULLY, PRECISELY, and EXACTLY, nor respond in A WAY where you are NOT CONTRADICTING "yourself" or being INCONSISTENT, your OWN opinion, here, is NOT 'carrying any weight', as it is said.

Also, this is a 'philosophy forum' where 'opinions' do not really matter. What, REALLY, matters is what can be backed up and supported, FULLY, with ACTUAL PROOF, empirical OR through sound AND valid arguments.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:21 pm

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:38 pm …
Are you talking TO ANY one, here?
…

I'm just trying to reach out to the thousands of readers of this thread, if even a hundredth of them thought about my opinion, it would serve my purpose. Of course, that's not your case... so, please again, save your breath.

But, because you will not clarify, FULLY, PRECISELY, and EXACTLY, nor respond in A WAY where you are NOT CONTRADICTING "yourself" or being INCONSISTENT, your OWN opinion, here, is NOT 'carrying any weight', as it is said.

Also, this is a 'philosophy forum' where 'opinions' do not really matter. What, REALLY, matters is what can be backed up and supported, FULLY, with ACTUAL PROOF, empirical OR through sound AND valid arguments.

Yeah, you won. That remarkably toxic mix of naivety and stupidity can't be beat :(

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:13 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 2:27 pm Where would you draw the line between science and metaphysics?

Science seems to be a subset of metaphysics. One cannot do science without first establishing a metaphysical base, all without proof. Sure, science currently (well, until recently) works under methodological naturalism, which is a metaphysical assumption, and an assumption that has proved far more productive than the alternative.

Well, what some people interpret as the failure of philosophy is that no one has succeeded in demonstrating a sound argument. Parmenides and Descartes apart, no one has even come up with a sound premise. In my view, beyond 'there is at least one phenomenon', all philosophy and science is without proof.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:13 pmI for one, being science minded but not being a scientist, am very interested in the metaphysics and philosophical implications of it all. I don't go around finding new empirical evidence like the scientists are supposed to.

Do you have an opinion on Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:03 amThat remarkably toxic mix of naivety and stupidity can't be beat

As the great Bill Murray said: “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:21 pm

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:28 pm
I'm just trying to reach out to the thousands of readers of this thread, if even a hundredth of them thought about my opinion, it would serve my purpose. Of course, that's not your case... so, please again, save your breath.

But, because you will not clarify, FULLY, PRECISELY, and EXACTLY, nor respond in A WAY where you are NOT CONTRADICTING "yourself" or being INCONSISTENT, your OWN opinion, here, is NOT 'carrying any weight', as it is said.

Also, this is a 'philosophy forum' where 'opinions' do not really matter. What, REALLY, matters is what can be backed up and supported, FULLY, with ACTUAL PROOF, empirical OR through sound AND valid arguments.

Yeah, you won. That remarkably toxic mix of naivety and stupidity can't be beat

Here, 'we' have ANOTHER ACCUSATION, and CLAIM, from 'this one', now, let 'us' SEE, if 'this one' will back up, support, and CLARIFY "itself", here, this time.

So, what is the, supposed, PRECISE 'remarkably toxic mix of naivety and stupidity, here, EXACTLY?

If you do NOT EXPLAIN, and CLARIFY, then I could just SAY, and REPEAT, the SAME, back to you.