Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[Notvacka]

You are forcing an issue and changing reality to suit your desire.

No, I'm not. I have repeatedly stated that the God I believe in does not exist in physical reality. And I don't think that my beliefs change reality to any extent beyond how I act upon them.

The things is that there will always be a category outside of God, unless you make him truly omnipresent. Reality is one such category. If he is outside that then he is not real, by definition.

I agree. And I do veiw God as omnipresent. In my view, reality is not a category outside of God, but inside of God. There is no contradiction between God being omnipresent in reality while still not existing within reality. Analogy: If you draw a picture on paper, the paper is present in the whole picture, but the paper is not in the picture. The paper existed before the picture, it exists around the picture and through the picture, but not within the picture.

All words are metaphorical in nature. There is an endless regress of ideas and notions. None of them can establish god, just describe and idea.

I agree. And that's what I'm doing; describing the idea and examining its logical implications.

Rubbish impossible things are not possible.

I agree. Some things are physically impossible, though still quite imaginable. Other things are logically impossible and thus unimaginable, like a two-dimensional square circle. (Typist would disagree, of course. But I bet even he can't picture one.) I was merely conceding that if you eschew logic, you can imagine the unimaginable being possible, though it makes no sense.

If you can accept god beyond reality then you have already accepted god beyond logic.

Logic is not confined to physical reality or to that which is the case. A theory based upon faulty assumptions can still be logically sound.

What is god anyway?

As far as this topic is concerned, I suppose God is the creator of reality, a creator which Godfree does not have to believe in even if he were to accept modern science and the universe having a beginning.

All assertions about god are mystical. If you can't accept that then there is no hope.

Allright, I accept that. But not all assertions about God have to be mysterious.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Incorrect, what you mean to say, in order to be truthful, is that anything is possible, The only reason people say otherwise is because of their current limited knowledge, as logic is based upon the premises allowed by the knowledge of the day such that logic can be seen as eschewed from the absolute truth, what ever that may be. In other words your "equally," thus your version of possibility is based solely upon a perspective from the current amount of knowledge that you think you know, and thus doesn't necessarily reflect the truth. Which is the point I've been making all along.

I agree that anything is (at least remotely) possible, including invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and square circles.
You were doing great until you mentioned the square circle, because that one is impossible, as a circle and a square are created by man, and by mans definition they mean what they mean. If the flying spaghetti monster is also invisible then the first two are possible, here on earth.

We can either stop there or move on. Nothing is knowledge. Everything is assumption.
Not exactly, I agree that those things beyond man's microcosm are assumption, but those things within mans realm, that he has invented, and built with his own hands are knowledge, in and of, what they are.

You probably assume that other people exist, for instance. You assume that I am somebody else having a discussion with you, that I'm not just a figment of your imagination. That is not knowledge
No, it is a fact of knowledge that an entity of some sort is responding to my posts, what or who exactly it is, is another thing entirely, because I cannot sense the entity itself.

- solipsism is a distinct possibility.

Let's look at solipsism:

sol·ip·sism /ˈsɒlɪpˌsɪzəm/ [sol-ip-siz-uhm]
noun
1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
Personally I prefer the second def as the reason that you chose it, as it may pertain to you.

Since absolute knowledge and absolute truth are unattainable, we have to settle for something less and move on.
Well, here you and I agree that absolute knowledge and thus truth, for now at least seem to be unattainable, but we don't have to settle, or move on, just put them on the back burner, for a potential time when they can be realized, lest we forget the pursuit of perfection.

Logical truths and truths about the world, about that which "is the case", are different kinds of truth.
OK! I'm with you!

1+1=2 is a mathematical truth. If you have one apple and get another apple, then you have two apples. (I'm sorry, but we need to get to the bottom of this.) The mathematical statement 1+1=2 remains true regardless of how many apples you have. It describes a relationship, and the relationship remains true regardles of what happens to be the case.
OK!

You might maintain that 1+1=3 is possible, because "anything is possible". But 1+1=3 doesn't make sense. You can't picture it. Just like the notion of a (two-dimensional) square circle doesn't make sense. You can't picture it.
Disagree, these things are mans inventions and as such they are exactly what we say they are! They can be no other way, as we defined them.

When I say that the creator of reality must exist outside reality, I'm describing such a logical relationship, the relationship between creator and that which is created. The creator of reality existing within reality doesn't make sense. You can't picture it. (Not unless you redefine the words used to describe the relationship, but then we are talking about something else.)
Not at all, the clock was a bad analogy, I got a much better one. I can build a house around myself, such that when I'm finished I'm within it. Just because the house is incapable of seeing me does not mean that I am not standing right there in it's midst!

One is a fool to base an argument upon something that is unprovable, such is my argument, so as to point you to your failure, in effectively arguing against godfree's universe!

If you put the bar high enough, nothing but your own existence is provable, and even that is only provable to yourself. We either lower our standards and move on, or shut up and remain put.
I disagree, as I lay there inside my wife, afterward, in a state of pure bliss, there is no doubt that we are one, but only in that moment. We are definitely a mated pair as I pat my son on his head, and I know this to be absolutely true as 'all' my senses individually and then together corroborate, as the truth and knowledge that my senses define and allow.

And I'm not arguing against Godfree's universe as such; I'm arguing against the notion that his arguments have anything to do wiht science, and against the notion that the universe having a beginning somehow implicates a creator.
To be honest I was just attempting to run interference for him, not that he necessarily requires it, and not that I necessarily agree with everything he believes, but I always, "ALWAYS," take up for the underdog, especially when they're one, being flanked by the many, which was the case, and everyone appreciates when the cavalry arrives.

While I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, I shall defend his right to say it to the death, such is every man, woman and child's right. Because in the end it really doesn't matter, as we all die! The only thing important is that we all take interest and want to share; that everyone feels accepted for what they are, despite their short comings, such that I try to give a little in the taking (still making a point here or there). And who knows, he may be right. I mean it's great that we take our selves so seriously in order to push that envelope of knowledge. But in the end we're all the same, just varying levels of asking questions to our satisfaction.

Novice, expert, or in between, are all just as important!

[Arising_uk]

What link?

The link to the program you cited. As you seemed loathe to discuss it.

Thanks, I checked it out, but I stopped at the point where he starts taking questions. So? Why did you want me to see it?

So you can see that string-theory pays no part in cutting-edge cosmology.

And to be clear as to what I mean by parroting, it is that many people accept what others say verbatim, in a particular course of study, without question, or since they are learning, the don't know fully what questions to ask, such that if they buy into it without question, they've effectively been programmed, and you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks right? Then they go out into the world and base their arguments against others within the shelter of their programming, which is merely that of the one that got paid to think of only that one thing over and over and over again, of course they tend to think of many questions, thanks to their colleges, and tend to refine their belief system to cover all the common bases before they wrote their papers and gave their lectures.

What subject are you talking about? As if you do this in Philosophy you'll get a third class degree and you'd not be allowed to lecture. You sound like you have an issue with academia and education but the world you describe is not one I've experienced.

These parrots feed their egos with their ability to mimic (simply repeat) what others have said, internally patting themselves on the back, as if in their effective argument, they have really done anything at all, except merely repeat what it is, that they heard in a lecture hall. If they truly knew all the questions to ask, of that so called knowledge, they'd been the ones giving the lecture in that hall. It's a shallow victory, actually no victory at all, to merely repeat what you've heard, and then take credit for it, without fully understanding what it was that you truly said or the implications, ramifications, the dynamics of it, if you will. While hopefully everyone does this from K-12, because it's clearly to be understood in a society that is based upon knowing this information, in order to 'fit in' and 'belong,' and thus 'survive,' because the natural way has been removed by selfish, greedy slave owners. It does not necessarily indicate any truth, it merely indicates that one thinks they know, what it is that the ones that told them what it is knows, as if they do, and could possibly, and that they themselves asked the correct ("all") the questions by which to formulate their hypotheses.

Who are these people you are talking about. I can think that the psychoanalysts may be guilty of this but you appear to put great store in them?

Just because the models seem to point to the observations, doesn't necessarily mean that both aren't tainted with human inabilities, and that it truthfully describes whats actually going on, it merely means that math has been constructed to confirm that which we think we see via our limited set of sensors.

What or who are you talking about? Mathematicians? I think this is your problem, you believe there is an 'absolute' truth out there somewhere hiding away, a 'god' so to speak, and you have a pessimistic view of Man, hence you concentrate upon inabilities rather than abilities and their applicable limits. The whole point of our reason is that due to this and along with our technical capabilities we have extended our senses.

[Godfree]

One is a fool to base an argument upon something that is unprovable, such is my argument, so as to point you to your failure, in effectively arguing against godfree's universe!

If you put the bar high enough, nothing but your own existence is provable, and even that is only provable to yourself. We either lower our standards and move on, or shut up and remain put.

And I'm not arguing against Godfree's universe as such; I'm arguing against the notion that his arguments have anything to do wiht science, and against the notion that the universe having a beginning somehow implicates a creator.[/quote]

Nothing to do with science you say ,Newtons universal law of gravity ,
thats what the galaxy law is based on ,,, not science,,?????
Hubble and other imagery from the likes if Nasa and Oxford university,
not science you say ,,,???
photon decay , published by a physicist , not science you say ,,???
I would say pull your head out of your arse ,
and realize you aren't the authority on what is or isn't science ,,,!!!!

[Notvacka]

When I say that the creator of reality must exist outside reality, I'm describing such a logical relationship, the relationship between creator and that which is created. The creator of reality existing within reality doesn't make sense. You can't picture it. (Not unless you redefine the words used to describe the relationship, but then we are talking about something else.)

Not at all, the clock was a bad analogy, I got a much better one. I can build a house around myself, such that when I'm finished I'm within it. Just because the house is incapable of seeing me does not mean that I am not standing right there in it's midst!

I'm sorry, but that analogy is no better than the first. If you examine it closely, you will see that it's the very same analogy. That you have replaced the clock with a house and changed position makes no diference.

Compare it to this:

In my view, reality is not a category outside of God, but inside of God. There is no contradiction between God being omnipresent in reality while still not existing within reality. Analogy: If you draw a picture on paper, the paper is present in the whole picture, but the paper is not in the picture. The paper existed before the picture, it exists around the picture and through the picture, but not within the picture.

To be honest I was just attempting to run interference for him, not that he necessarily requires it, and not that I necessarily agree with everything he believes, but I always, "ALWAYS," take up for the underdog, especially when they're one, being flanked by the many, which was the case, and everyone appreciates when the cavalry arrives.

A noble sentiment in the scoolyard, perhaps, but this is not a contest and nobody was bullying Godfree.

While I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, I shall defend his right to say it to the death, such is every man, woman and child's right. Because in the end it really doesn't matter, as we all die!

Whoa! Nobody here was infringing on Godfree's freedom of speech. No need to get all pompous about it.

[Notvacka]

I would say pull your head out of your arse, and realize you aren't the authority on what is or isn't science ,,,!!!!

I have repeatedly suggested that you read a few books about modern physics. I referred you to a serious physics forum earlier, but they kicked you out. I'm no scientist, but if you are seriously looking for authority on the subject, it's right there; the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists agree about the big bang. I have nothing further to say about it. You are entitled to your belief, and you may continue to preach it all you want.

[Godfree]

Notvacka , I am not implying that
"somehow the universe having a beginning implicates a creator"
not at all , you missed the point entirely ,
the point is , the religious amongst us realize the need for a moment of creation,
therefore they won't accept one/belief system that doesn't ,
have a moment of creation ,
the idea of a beginning isn't pointing to a creator ,
they believe in a creator so seek a beginning ,
as expressed on a religious site in reference to the steady state idea ,
"in a steady state model , where is there room for devine intervention"
religion wants there to have been a beginning ,,!!!
so a religious country comes up with a "science" theory that has a beginning ,
I appreciate Spheres attempts to create a balanced argument ,
but I think I feel sorry for those who can't/won't see ,
thats why I persist , I can't believe people are so lost ,
and determined to stay lost ,,!!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

What link?

The link to the program you cited. As you seemed loathe to discuss it.
Oh you want proof, wow! Sorry, no I can't remember which show it was now, which is a shame, because I'd like to get a copy of it. But you can take my word for it as I'm not a liar. If I run across it again I'll let you know.

Thanks, I checked it out, but I stopped at the point where he starts taking questions. So? Why did you want me to see it?

So you can see that string-theory pays no part in cutting-edge cosmology.
See you're a parrot!!! I can't believe you. Who died and made him the authority, that stupid assed yank!!!! Actually I thought he was a bit cocky, and a little over sure of himself. He's funny with the jokes though. I have had a problem with the idea of discerning distance using their supposed standard candle. I don't think a standard candle can be realized, I see it as the chicken and egg paradox or better yet the protein and amino acid paradox. He showed me absolutely nothing. Are you one of those fucking 'hero' 'worshipers?'

And to be clear as to what I mean by parroting, it is that many people accept what others say verbatim, in a particular course of study, without question, or since they are learning, the don't know fully what questions to ask, such that if they buy into it without question, they've effectively been programmed, and you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks right? Then they go out into the world and base their arguments against others within the shelter of their programming, which is merely that of the one that got paid to think of only that one thing over and over and over again, of course they tend to think of many questions, thanks to their colleges, and tend to refine their belief system to cover all the common bases before they wrote their papers and gave their lectures.

What subject are you talking about? As if you do this in Philosophy you'll get a third class degree and you'd not be allowed to lecture. You sound like you have an issue with academia and education but the world you describe is not one I've experienced.
Apparently it was over your head, I'm talking about the truth of how humans work within the educational system.

These parrots feed their egos with their ability to mimic (simply repeat) what others have said, internally patting themselves on the back, as if in their effective argument, they have really done anything at all, except merely repeat what it is, that they heard in a lecture hall. If they truly knew all the questions to ask, of that so called knowledge, they'd been the ones giving the lecture in that hall. It's a shallow victory, actually no victory at all, to merely repeat what you've heard, and then take credit for it, without fully understanding what it was that you truly said or the implications, ramifications, the dynamics of it, if you will. While hopefully everyone does this from K-12, because it's clearly to be understood in a society that is based upon knowing this information, in order to 'fit in' and 'belong,' and thus 'survive,' because the natural way has been removed by selfish, greedy slave owners. It does not necessarily indicate any truth, it merely indicates that one thinks they know, what it is that the ones that told them what it is knows, as if they do, and could possibly, and that they themselves asked the correct ("all") the questions by which to formulate their hypotheses.

Who are these people you are talking about. I can think that the psychoanalysts may be guilty of this but you appear to put great store in them?
Parrots!!!!!! People that go to school for a particular subject that ends up not being their profession, like you and I, We're sure as hell not talking about AI here!!! Well not really me, because unlike some I question everything to my satisfaction. But to be honest I'm sure that some parroting has slipped through the cracks.

Just because the models seem to point to the observations, doesn't necessarily mean that both aren't tainted with human inabilities, and that it truthfully describes whats actually going on, it merely means that math has been constructed to confirm that which we think we see via our limited set of sensors.

What or who are you talking about? Mathematicians?
Everyone! But particularly we happen to be talking about scientists that study the cosmos, right, is that not what this thread is all about???

I think this is your problem,
No problem here! Only truth of vision and understanding of mankind.

you believe there is an 'absolute' truth out there somewhere hiding away,
No, I know there is an absolute truth out there, that we'll find one day, if we don't kill ourselves off first, which unfortunately, I feel , is probable.

a 'god' so to speak,
Nope, I'm Agnostic as near as I can figure.

and you have a pessimistic view of Man,
Nope, just an honest view as indicated by evidence! I wasn't always this way, actually I was quite the opposite as a young man, unfortunately wisdom born of experience has shown me otherwise.

hence you concentrate upon inabilities rather than abilities and their applicable limits.
Nope, I only concentrate on what needs changing, no sense in concentrating on what doesn't need changing, as it's best to just enjoy that.

The whole point of our reason is that due to this and along with our technical capabilities we have extended our senses.
Could you please clarify?

[Godfree]

I would say pull your head out of your arse, and realize you aren't the authority on what is or isn't science ,,,!!!!

I have repeatedly suggested that you read a few books about modern physics. I referred you to a serious physics forum earlier, but they kicked you out. I'm no scientist, but if you are seriously looking for authority on the subject, it's right there; the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists agree about the big bang. I have nothing further to say about it. You are entitled to your belief, and you may continue to preach it all you want.

A "serious physics forum"
a one eyed propaganda platform for the bbt ,
and their banned for life , was an extremely emotional response from,
a science forum , why so precious , why so protective of their theory,
can't it stand up to debate and question , is it so flawed as to be easily busted ,
and I'm not looking for authority on the subject ,
I'm looking for reality , the truth , on the subject ,
and you can use any example you like but the "majority "
are almost never on to the truth , almost always floundering in the dark ,
if you want the truth , on any subject ,
you will find it known by only a few , the masses wouldn't know reality ,
if it jumped up and bit them ,
so if you want to rely on what most people think ,
you will be religious , believe in the bbt , smoke tobacco , drink ,
and are obese , how many of those boxes do you tick ,,???

[SpheresOfBalance]

When I say that the creator of reality must exist outside reality, I'm describing such a logical relationship, the relationship between creator and that which is created. The creator of reality existing within reality doesn't make sense. You can't picture it. (Not unless you redefine the words used to describe the relationship, but then we are talking about something else.)

Not at all, the clock was a bad analogy, I got a much better one. I can build a house around myself, such that when I'm finished I'm within it. Just because the house is incapable of seeing me does not mean that I am not standing right there in it's midst!

I'm sorry, but that analogy is no better than the first. If you examine it closely, you will see that it's the very same analogy. That you have replaced the clock with a house and changed position makes no diference.
Yes it does, it's exactly the same as if a god created a universe, not from outside, but from inside his domain.


Compare it to this:

In my view, reality is not a category outside of God, but inside of God. There is no contradiction between God being omnipresent in reality while still not existing within reality. Analogy: If you draw a picture on paper, the paper is present in the whole picture, but the paper is not in the picture. The paper existed before the picture, it exists around the picture and through the picture, but not within the picture.

It makes absolutely no sense as written, I'd have to assume what it is you mean in several areas, and I try my best not to assume, though I still do sometimes.

To be honest I was just attempting to run interference for him, not that he necessarily requires it, and not that I necessarily agree with everything he believes, but I always, "ALWAYS," take up for the underdog, especially when they're one, being flanked by the many, which was the case, and everyone appreciates when the cavalry arrives.

A noble sentiment in the scoolyard, perhaps, but this is not a contest and nobody was bullying Godfree.
You can try and reduce it's significance all you want, but you're the one that bellyached about having spent so much time composing a response to me, imagine the need to do it times 50!

While I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, I shall defend his right to say it to the death, such is every man, woman and child's right. Because in the end it really doesn't matter, as we all die!

Whoa! Nobody here was infringing on Godfree's freedom of speech. No need to get all pompous about it.
Then leave him to his opinions without condescension.

[Notvacka]

Then leave him to his opinions without condescension.

I think I'll leave you both to your opinions, at least as far as this topic is concerned. And I'm sorry if I came across as condescending.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Then leave him to his opinions without condescension.

I think I'll leave you both to your opinions, at least as far as this topic is concerned. And I'm sorry if I came across as condescending.

And I'm sorry if you didn't! Also I've appreciated our thought gymnastics.

Seriously thanks for your time!

[Arising_uk]

Oh you want proof, wow! Sorry, no I can't remember which show it was now, which is a shame, because I'd like to get a copy of it. But you can take my word for it as I'm not a liar. If I run across it again I'll let you know.

I didn't want proof, I wanted a discussion on your claim that physics is looking to a 'creator' or 'god' to solve problems in Physics and how string-theory is connected to this idea as I found both ideas to be dubious. You got all snippy and refused to discuss, so I asked where I could find the program you cited as it may help my understanding of what you were saying. Now you're saying you can't remember the title, if this is the case why should I accept your judgement about the content? If I should then you should be able to answer my objections to what you've said so far.

See you're a parrot!!! I can't believe you. Who died and made him the authority, that stupid assed yank!!!! Actually I thought he was a bit cocky, and a little over sure of himself. He's funny with the jokes though. I have had a problem with the idea of discerning distance using their supposed standard candle. I don't think a standard candle can be realized, I see it as the chicken and egg paradox or better yet the protein and amino acid paradox. He showed me absolutely nothing. Are you one of those fucking 'hero' 'worshipers?'

My oh my, you are a mass of contradiction. You cited physicists in your points but I can't use them!? You use a TV program and I use a lecture and you think yours counts and mine doesn't.

I think he thinks he's is a theoretical astro-physicist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss, i.e. one of those 'cutting-edge' cosmologists you were yakking on about, as such I think his views upon string-theory will be reasonably informed.

"I have had a problem with the idea of discerning distance using their supposed standard candle. I don't think a standard candle can be realized, "LMFAO! You're beginning to sound like Godfree, tell you what, I'll take this thought seriously when you convince the astronomers, cosmologists and astro-physicists that they're wrong about their 'standard candle'.

I think he showed you nothing because you have a closed-mind about such things. Me, I think he explained very well to the layman where the current thoughts of astro-physics lie.

Without doubt the most interesting point for the philosopher of science was the observation that in the very far future astro-physicists will be correct in claiming that they are alone in the cosmos and that there is only one galaxy in creation.

Apparently it was over your head, I'm talking about the truth of how humans work within the educational system.

I think you are talking from your localised cultural experience.

Parrots!!!!!! People that go to school for a particular subject that ends up not being their profession, like you and I, We're sure as hell not talking about AI here!!! Well not really me, because unlike some I question everything to my satisfaction. But to be honest I'm sure that some parroting has slipped through the cracks.

Since Philosophy in the Anglo-Saxon world is pretty much not a profession and academia has been slaughtered with respect to the teaching of philosophy I find it not unusual that I'm not a professonal philosopher.

Although we don't teach it in school? Pretty much everyone who goes to school over here does a broad range of subjects so I'm not surprised they don't end-up in jobs specific to them. What are you talking about? As Physicists work in Finance now-a-days, does that mean they don't understand Physics?

You think on a philosophy forum you are the only one who uses their 'satisfaction' to decide when to stop questioning about a subject!? The difference is that many here will probably be better informed than you, philosophically speaking.

I'll be impressed if you can described what it is to you to be 'satisfied' in the sense you describe.

You parroted in your sense in the post we are discussing.

Everyone! But particularly we happen to be talking about scientists that study the cosmos, right, is that not what this thread is all about???

Are you serious!? You think scientists just 'parrot' what they have been told. You have a limited understanding of them i think and think you have not met many, if any, if you have this view.

No problem here! Only truth of vision and understanding of mankind.

You met them all? I think your view is a local cultural one and based upon not much experience of the things you talk about in reality.

No, I know there is an absolute truth out there, that we'll find one day, if we don't kill ourselves off first, which unfortunately, I feel , is probable.

Many things are probably going to kill us off, 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Of the ten odd species of primate that existed there are only a few left and apart from us the others look to be in trouble.

How can any truth be an absolute one? What do you mean by this? As it sound like epistemological nonsense to me, based upon a misunderstanding of what 'truth' is with respect to Man. You mean you are hoping for an absolute existential truth about everything? A 'god' so to speak?

Nope, I'm Agnostic as near as I can figure.

"... as near as I can figure".

Nope, just an honest view as indicated by evidence! I wasn't always this way, actually I was quite the opposite as a young man, unfortunately wisdom born of experience has shown me otherwise.

You make much of this "honest view", as tho' it has much bearing upon truth? Some people honestly believe they are the next John the baptist, others believe in fairies, ghosts and communicating with the dead. Does their honesty make what they say true about the world, in the sense of these things being real.

Nope, I only concentrate on what needs changing, no sense in concentrating on what doesn't need changing, as it's best to just enjoy that.

Tell me how you think you can change an inability, given that it is an inability that is.

Could you please clarify?

Many of the stars we can see are galaxies and most of the galaxies we can't see. Reason gave us Optics to extend our sense to know this.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oh you want proof, wow! Sorry, no I can't remember which show it was now, which is a shame, because I'd like to get a copy of it. But you can take my word for it as I'm not a liar. If I run across it again I'll let you know.

I didn't want proof, I wanted a discussion on your claim that physics is looking to a 'creator' or 'god' to solve problems in Physics and how string-theory is connected to this idea as I found both ideas to be dubious. You got all snippy and refused to discuss, so I asked where I could find the program you cited as it may help my understanding of what you were saying. Now you're saying you can't remember the title, if this is the case why should I accept your judgement about the content? If I should then you should be able to answer my objections to what you've said so far.

See you're a parrot!!! I can't believe you. Who died and made him the authority, that stupid assed yank!!!! Actually I thought he was a bit cocky, and a little over sure of himself. He's funny with the jokes though. I have had a problem with the idea of discerning distance using their supposed standard candle. I don't think a standard candle can be realized, I see it as the chicken and egg paradox or better yet the protein and amino acid paradox. He showed me absolutely nothing. Are you one of those fucking 'hero' 'worshipers?'

My oh my, you are a mass of contradiction. You cited physicists in your points but I can't use them!? You use a TV program and I use a lecture and you think yours counts and mine doesn't.

I think he thinks he's is a theoretical astro-physicist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss, i.e. one of those 'cutting-edge' cosmologists you were yakking on about, as such I think his views upon string-theory will be reasonably informed.

"I have had a problem with the idea of discerning distance using their supposed standard candle. I don't think a standard candle can be realized, "LMFAO! You're beginning to sound like Godfree, tell you what, I'll take this thought seriously when you convince the astronomers, cosmologists and astro-physicists that they're wrong about their 'standard candle'.

I think he showed you nothing because you have a closed-mind about such things. Me, I think he explained very well to the layman where the current thoughts of astro-physics lie.

Without doubt the most interesting point for the philosopher of science was the observation that in the very far future astro-physicists will be correct in claiming that they are alone in the cosmos and that there is only one galaxy in creation.

Apparently it was over your head, I'm talking about the truth of how humans work within the educational system.

I think you are talking from your localised cultural experience.

Parrots!!!!!! People that go to school for a particular subject that ends up not being their profession, like you and I, We're sure as hell not talking about AI here!!! Well not really me, because unlike some I question everything to my satisfaction. But to be honest I'm sure that some parroting has slipped through the cracks.

Since Philosophy in the Anglo-Saxon world is pretty much not a profession and academia has been slaughtered with respect to the teaching of philosophy I find it not unusual that I'm not a professonal philosopher.

Although we don't teach it in school? Pretty much everyone who goes to school over here does a broad range of subjects so I'm not surprised they don't end-up in jobs specific to them. What are you talking about? As Physicists work in Finance now-a-days, does that mean they don't understand Physics?

You think on a philosophy forum you are the only one who uses their 'satisfaction' to decide when to stop questioning about a subject!? The difference is that many here will probably be better informed than you, philosophically speaking.

I'll be impressed if you can described what it is to you to be 'satisfied' in the sense you describe.

You parroted in your sense in the post we are discussing.

Everyone! But particularly we happen to be talking about scientists that study the cosmos, right, is that not what this thread is all about???

Are you serious!? You think scientists just 'parrot' what they have been told. You have a limited understanding of them i think and think you have not met many, if any, if you have this view.

No problem here! Only truth of vision and understanding of mankind.

You met them all? I think your view is a local cultural one and based upon not much experience of the things you talk about in reality.

No, I know there is an absolute truth out there, that we'll find one day, if we don't kill ourselves off first, which unfortunately, I feel , is probable.

Many things are probably going to kill us off, 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Of the ten odd species of primate that existed there are only a few left and apart from us the others look to be in trouble.

How can any truth be an absolute one? What do you mean by this? As it sound like epistemological nonsense to me, based upon a misunderstanding of what 'truth' is with respect to Man. You mean you are hoping for an absolute existential truth about everything? A 'god' so to speak?

Nope, I'm Agnostic as near as I can figure.

"... as near as I can figure".

Nope, just an honest view as indicated by evidence! I wasn't always this way, actually I was quite the opposite as a young man, unfortunately wisdom born of experience has shown me otherwise.

You make much of this "honest view", as tho' it has much bearing upon truth? Some people honestly believe they are the next John the baptist, others believe in fairies, ghosts and communicating with the dead. Does their honesty make what they say true about the world, in the sense of these things being real.

Nope, I only concentrate on what needs changing, no sense in concentrating on what doesn't need changing, as it's best to just enjoy that.

Tell me how you think you can change an inability, given that it is an inability that is.

Could you please clarify?

Many of the stars we can see are galaxies and most of the galaxies we can't see. Reason gave us Optics to extend our sense to know this.

Sometimes as I read your words, I can do nothing but laugh at I see that they twist my words to fit your presumption. And as I understand that the volume of your misconception shall require just way too much of my time to correct, I don't, knowing that you shall do so again, in a never ending circle.

ROTGLMAO! I think the funniest thing that I see in your arguments, is that you fail to see, that I see all to well, that which you think I don't, and that in such, it actually applies to you more readily, as it applies to everyone, and as such, only a fool, in their spiraling guilt, would bring up such things (projections of self), or rather, if they understood, if they did bring it up, they would supply it, as a cautionary point, indicating that it, is the universal trap, that indeed it is, unless one considers it.
Such that obviously, you are more concerned with blame than with solution.

Your unwise concerns with groupings associated with countries, etc, points to it so clearly, because 'all' is due to Human Psychology, that can be seen equally anywhere you look, nothing more or nothing less! It just depends on the focus of your knowledge.


Largely your points were based upon misconceptions. You see only the few words that I post, failing to see the volumes of possibility that are contained within them, which is what I try and convey, though obviously not to your ability to comprehend.

For instance take this one as example:

Nope, I'm Agnostic as near as I can figure.[/color]

"... as near as I can figure".

Explain as fully as possible why you thought it was funny and I'll prove your presumption, thus misconception, without a doubt, that shall show your laughter is in fact crow that you're chewing on. Oh, and I already know what you're going to say!

[Arising_uk]

Sometimes as I read your words, I can do nothing but laugh at I see that they twist my words to fit your presumption. And as I understand that the volume of your misconception shall require just way too much of my time to correct, I don't, knowing that you shall do so again, in a never ending circle.

How convienent!

ROTGLMAO! I think the funniest thing that I see in your arguments, is that you fail to see, that I see all to well, that which you think I don't, and that in such, it actually applies to you more readily, as it applies to everyone, and as such, only a fool, in their spiraling guilt, would bring up such things (projections of self), or rather, if they understood, if they did bring it up, they would supply it, as a cautionary point, indicating that it, is the universal trap, that indeed it is, unless one considers it.
Such that obviously, you are more concerned with blame than with solution.

More of your psycho-babble.

Where I can I've given the solutions I think might work. Where are yours?

Your unwise concerns with groupings associated with countries, etc, points to it so clearly, because 'all' is due to Human Psychology, that can be seen equally anywhere you look, nothing more or nothing less! It just depends on the focus of your knowledge.

So you think cultures are not different across nations?

Largely your points were based upon misconceptions. You see only the few words that I post, failing to see the volumes of possibility that are contained within them, which is what I try and convey, though obviously not to your ability to comprehend.

That'll be because I'm not a mind-reader, as such I only have your words to go by.

Explain as fully as possible why you thought it was funny and I'll prove your presumption, thus misconception, without a doubt, that shall show your laughter is in fact crow that you're chewing on. Oh, and I already know what you're going to say!

Before I do, why don't you tell me first?

But at your mind-reading abilities. What was it you said about presumption?