Philosophy Now Forum

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:29 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:59 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:20 am 3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition.

Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way?

The only defined spaces we know of seem to be those sections of a more general space that we carve out for particular usage, like the rooms of a house. Or for focused observation, like stars in our galaxy. To my best knowledge, the space that contains the observable universe is not defined, for it has no boundaries.

In effect, I must be using the term in an undefined way, like cosmologists do.

If you do NOT define the words you use, then do NOT expect your concepts to be that well understood.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:29 am Except that I do envision these spaces as having boundaries.

Yes, spaces have boundaries, just like objects have boundaries.

They are both bounded by each other.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:29 am I'm not smart enough to know how to mathematically define those boundaries.

GL

But 'spaces' do NOT need to be bounded by mathematical definitions.

When the word 'space' is defined as; just the distance between objects, then ALL the boundaries are just, naturally, 'mathematically defined', by numbers.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:38 am

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:44 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:54 pmPhilosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor."

The whole point of philosophy is to create a story that fits your experiences and beliefs, much as you have done with your beon hypothesis. If it smoothes your passage from the cradle to the grave, it can be regarded as successful. Anybody who has actually studied philosophy will know that there are any number of stories that can account for exactly the same experiences. It is just a fact that the more elements to a story, the more likely that one of them is wrong.

Agreed. I've proposed that religionists, philosophers, and cosmologists are paid to construct agreeable theories, whereas engineers are paid to make something that works.
GL

Doing things for money has helped in keeping thee Truth hidden.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:56 am I must be. Throughout the process of getting a simple BS in physics I was never introduced to an explanation of space that made an iota of sense. Give me a description of space that somehow differs from modern cosmology's use of "field." and I'll come back as best I can.

The abstract-mathematical one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)

Metaphorically: It's the construct. From The Matrix + some contents.

All roads lead to structuralism, which is tantamount to accepting the identity+univalence axioms.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:29 am the space that contains the observable universe is not defined, for it has no boundaries.

So it's an infinite set.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:38 amI've proposed that religionists, philosophers, and cosmologists are paid to construct agreeable theories, whereas engineers are paid to make something that works.
GL

Yeah, but who wants an ugly bridge?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:39 pmObviously, the 'whole point of philosophy' is NOT this at all, to "others".

Indeed Age, some people are so stupid, ignorant or mental they genuinely believe that philosophy is about discovering thee actual Truth.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:39 pm...'it' could be just completely and utterly WRONG, as well.

Yes Age; grown ups can deal with that.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:39 pmThee actual Truth, Itself, is just plain and simply very easily understood.

Human beings, however, make thee actual Truth WRONG because they do add so many unnecessary elements to what is essentially a VERY BASIC and VERY SIMPLE story.

But not so simple that you can tell us what it is.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:04 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:38 amI've proposed that religionists, philosophers, and cosmologists are paid to construct agreeable theories, whereas engineers are paid to make something that works.
GL

Yeah, but who wants an ugly bridge?

the unaesthetic dentist

(sorry, train of thought thing)

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:11 pmthe unaesthetic dentist

(sorry, train of thought thing)

-Imp

You weren't to know Imp, but having just spent 95 quid having a crown stuck back in (I have eaten my last toffee) dentist jokes aren't fucking funny.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:01 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:56 am I must be. Throughout the process of getting a simple BS in physics I was never introduced to an explanation of space that made an iota of sense. Give me a description of space that somehow differs from modern cosmology's use of "field." and I'll come back as best I can.

The abstract-mathematical one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)

Metaphorically: It's the construct. From The Matrix + some contents.

All roads lead to structuralism, which is tantamount to accepting the identity+univalence axioms.

Thank you! That was interesting and still is. I do not have the math expertise to fully understand it, so it will get more reads. As best I can tell, my use of the term space is a combination of classical and modern mathematical interpretations.

It is apparent that rigorous definitions of "space" will need to be made by someone who interprets my usages and has the expertise needed to express them in mathematical terms. This is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
GL

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:12 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:29 am the space that contains the observable universe is not defined, for it has no boundaries.

So it's an infinite set.

I'm not fond of infinities in physics, though they are inevitable in math. When I was learning what little I know, any exam solution that produced an infinity got an automatic zero.

However, I propose that the space in which we live and breath is defined by dark energy. There is no reason to assume that the density of D.E. is homogeneous throughout the space it defines. What if D.E. density decreases toward the outer reaches of the observable universe, preventing space from being either observed or defined?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:25 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:11 pmthe unaesthetic dentist

(sorry, train of thought thing)

-Imp

You weren't to know Imp, but having just spent 95 quid having a crown stuck back in (I have eaten my last toffee) dentist jokes aren't fucking funny.

condolences

-Imp

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:32 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:39 pmObviously, the 'whole point of philosophy' is NOT this at all, to "others".

Indeed Age, some people are so stupid, ignorant or mental they genuinely believe that philosophy is about discovering thee actual Truth.

And, OBVIOUSLY, this is just ANOTHER ONE, of the VERY MANY DIFFERENT views, ideas and versions, about what the 'whole point of philosophy' is.

But there are actually some people who are so stupid, so ignorant, and so mentally dysfunctional that they actually BELIEVE that what their own version of what the 'whole point of what philosophy is' is the actual One and ONLY True version.

These people can be CLEARLY SEEN, RECOGNIZED, and NOTICED when they write things like;
The whole point of philosophy is to create a story that fits your experiences and beliefs,

OBVIOUSLY this is just A story, for SOME people, ONLY, and thus, NOT the 'whole point of philosophy' at all, to and for "others".

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:32 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:39 pm...'it' could be just completely and utterly WRONG, as well.

Yes Age; grown ups can deal with that.

Well if, and WHEN, 'it' is WRONG, then it is NOT exactly really 'smoothing' the passage at all.

Unless, of course, 'your' passage is smoothed by WRONG and INCORRECT information and knowledge. And, if so, then so be it.

Your stories so far may be "smoothing" the passage to and for you, but that passage is filled with obvious WRONG and INCORRECT knowledge AND information.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:32 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:39 pmThee actual Truth, Itself, is just plain and simply very easily understood.

Human beings, however, make thee actual Truth WRONG because they do add so many unnecessary elements to what is essentially a VERY BASIC and VERY SIMPLE story.

But not so simple that you can tell us what it is.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, enough times now, WHY 'you', adult human beings, up to and in the days of when this is being written, can NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND the SIMPLISTIC BEAUTY of Truth, which lays before 'you'.

Also, I have ALREADY INFORMED, enough times now also, that i am just in the process of learning how to better tell 'you' 'what It is'.

There is absolutely NO rush, as I await patiently for only those who are Truly interested.

I am NOT seeking out those who BELIEVE that they already know what the truth is, and/or who are desperately 'trying to' express their own personal copied or repeated views and stories, as though they are what is actually true, right, and correct.

I am also especially NOT seeking out those who express their own views and stories in statements as though they know what the 'whole point of some 'thing' ' is. These people are obviously NOT capable of SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what thee actual Truth really IS, YET.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:07 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:12 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:29 am the space that contains the observable universe is not defined, for it has no boundaries.

So it's an infinite set.

I'm not fond of infinities in physics, though they are inevitable in math.

Just because you are, or are not, 'fond' of some 'thing' this has absolutely NO bearing on what is actually true, or not.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:07 pm When I was learning what little I know, any exam solution that produced an infinity got an automatic zero.

And thus why you will NEVER learn, in the days of when this is being written, thee actual Truth from any, so called, "educational institution".

A logically 'unbounded area' is infinite.

The solution is so obvious, so simple, AND so easy.

But "educational systems" will teach only 'that', what they have been taught, and repeat only 'that', what they BELIEVE is true. So, the little you know is based solely only on 'that', what has been previously learned, taught, and BELIEVED to be true, by "others", which, obviously, is NOT necessarily what is actually true, right, and/or correct.

Also, "educational institutions" are just places where most people are just 'trying' to look smart, and not necessarily where the most intelligent people are.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:07 pm However, I propose that the space in which we live and breath is defined by dark energy.

When you write and say, "the space in which we live and breath" are referring to earth only?

Also, you can say that ANY 'space' is defined by 'dark energy', but, to you, what, EXACTLY, is 'dark energy'?

If you are 'trying to' propose some thing is defined by some thing else, but you have absolutely NO idea what the some thing else actually IS, then you are just doing what most people in adult educational institutions do, that is; just 'trying to' look smarter than one really is.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:07 pm There is no reason to assume that the density of D.E. is homogeneous throughout the space it defines.

Besides the fact that there is NO reason to assume absolutely any thing at all, there is especially, obviously, NO reason whatsoever to assume absolutely ANY thing about the density of some thing, like 'dark energy', if and when a person can NOT even describe NOR define what 'dark energy' actually IS.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:07 pm What if D.E. density decreases toward the outer reaches of the observable universe, preventing space from being either observed or defined?

What if?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:55 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:32 pm Indeed Age, some people are so stupid, ignorant or mental they genuinely believe that philosophy is about discovering thee actual Truth.

And, OBVIOUSLY, this is just ANOTHER ONE, of the VERY MANY DIFFERENT views, ideas and versions, about what the 'whole point of philosophy' is.

I rest my case.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:19 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:55 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:32 pm Indeed Age, some people are so stupid, ignorant or mental they genuinely believe that philosophy is about discovering thee actual Truth.

And, OBVIOUSLY, this is just ANOTHER ONE, of the VERY MANY DIFFERENT views, ideas and versions, about what the 'whole point of philosophy' is.

I rest my case.

Therefore, and which has now be PROVEN, the 'whole point of philosophy' is NOT what you have claimed it is.

By the way, what was your case?

What you said above here, obviously, has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with me.