Philosophy Now Forum

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:29 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:19 pm

Parsimony is the self evident truth. Not the results of using it.

Well a symmetrical universe can easily be finite, and an infinitely expanding universe is well, infinite. Unless time eventually stops or whatever. So symmetry could be the more parsimonious idea.

As your axiom symmetry has more entities in it, by definition, it isn't and can't be.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:07 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:36 am

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.


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.



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.

This topic, and science generally, never deals with the entire universe, because it can't.

Ah okay. So, when "atla" says and writes the word 'universe' it is never referring to the 'universe', itself. What "atla" is actually referring to is just a very tiny and very insignificant part of the Universe, Itself, only.

So, if "atla" ever starts a thread called, for example, 'No eternal expansion', "atla" is not actually talking about nor referring to 'an actual eternal expansion' but on about 'an expansion' in a very tiny insignificant part of the Universe, itself. Which obviously would make the 'eternal' word in the thread title completely and utterly redundant.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:38 pm So what were you criticizing?

It may well appear as 'nothing', now. Considering that you were not even talking about nor referring to an actual 'eternal expansion' at all, after all.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:38 pm Also, you aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

But, you are about things, here, correct?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:10 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:07 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:38 pm

This topic, and science generally, never deals with the entire universe, because it can't.

Ah okay. So, when "atla" says and writes the word 'universe' it is never referring to the 'universe', itself. What "atla" is actually referring to is just a very tiny and very insignificant part of the Universe, Itself, only.

So, if "atla" ever starts a thread called, for example, 'No eternal expansion', "atla" is not actually talking about nor referring to 'an actual eternal expansion' but on about 'an expansion' in a very tiny insignificant part of the Universe, itself. Which obviously would make the 'eternal' word in the thread title completely and utterly redundant.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:38 pm So what were you criticizing?

It may well appear as 'nothing', now. Considering that you were not even talking about nor referring to an actual 'eternal expansion' at all, after all.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:38 pm Also, you aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

But, you are about things, here, correct?

Thank you for confirming that you really have no idea about the entire universe vs known universe thing.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:10 am It also escapes you that sometimes I just quote someone else's definition and don't use my own. You know nothing as usual, so then why are you commenting.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:55 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:29 pm

Well a symmetrical universe can easily be finite, and an infinitely expanding universe is well, infinite. Unless time eventually stops or whatever. So symmetry could be the more parsimonious idea.

As your axiom symmetry has more entities in it, by definition, it isn't and can't be.

How does it have more entities in it? Your definition is wrong, it says that a finite value times two (or times some other finite value) is bigger than infinity.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 9:12 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:55 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:49 pm

As your axiom symmetry has more entities in it, by definition, it isn't and can't be.

How does it have more entities in it? Your definition is wrong, it says that a finite value times two (or times some other finite value) is bigger than infinity.

Your two stroke universe is as necessarily as infinite in time, i.e. eternal, as my one stroke. In fact more so. Mine isn't infinite. Yours is. With twice as many entities in expansion and contraction, rather than just expansion, alone. For which there is no requirement whatsoever. Without more entities.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:13 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 9:12 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:55 am
How does it have more entities in it? Your definition is wrong, it says that a finite value times two (or times some other finite value) is bigger than infinity.

Your two stroke universe is as necessarily as infinite in time, i.e. eternal, as my one stroke. In fact more so. Mine isn't infinite. Yours is. With twice as many entities in expansion and contraction, rather than just expansion, alone. For which there is no requirement whatsoever. Without more entities.

Finite expansion and contraction isn't infinite.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:13 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 9:12 am

Your two stroke universe is as necessarily as infinite in time, i.e. eternal, as my one stroke. In fact more so. Mine isn't infinite. Yours is. With twice as many entities in expansion and contraction, rather than just expansion, alone. For which there is no requirement whatsoever. Without more entities.

Finite expansion and contraction isn't infinite.

Unless it repeats.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:18 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:13 pm
Finite expansion and contraction isn't infinite.

Unless it repeats.

That would be symmetrical cyclic universe or eternal return, yes those would be infinite. That's why I reject them, they aren't parsimonious.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:18 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:58 pm

Unless it repeats.

That would be symmetrical cyclic universe or eternal return, yes those would be infinite. That's why I reject them, they aren't parsimonious.

And a one-off two stroke cycle is actually infinitely more imparsimonious (my idioslexis, like that is) than either an infinity of two-stroke cycles or, simplest of all, an infinity of one-strokes. Nature blows bubbles.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:02 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:18 pm
That would be symmetrical cyclic universe or eternal return, yes those would be infinite. That's why I reject them, they aren't parsimonious.

And a one-off two stroke cycle is actually infinitely more imparsimonious (my idioslexis, like that is) than either an infinity of two-stroke cycles or, simplest of all, an infinity of one-strokes. Nature blows bubbles.

Ok so you really think the infinite is more parsimonious than the finite. You're a funny one.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:02 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:52 pm

And a one-off two stroke cycle is actually infinitely more imparsimonious (my idioslexis, like that is) than either an infinity of two-stroke cycles or, simplest of all, an infinity of one-strokes. Nature blows bubbles.

Ok so you really think the infinite is more parsimonious than the finite. You're a funny one.

Really? So is Kolmogorov then?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:32 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:02 pm
Ok so you really think the infinite is more parsimonious than the finite. You're a funny one.

Really? So is Kolmogorov then?

I doubt he said what you're saying, but if he did, then he was a funny one.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:32 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:25 pm

Really? So is Kolmogorov then?

I doubt he said what you're saying, but if he did, then he was a funny one.

You know all things obviously. So you don't need to read up. Believers don't like him.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:54 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:32 pm
I doubt he said what you're saying, but if he did, then he was a funny one.

You know all things obviously. So you don't need to read up. Believers don't like him.

I asked an AI and according to it Kolmogorov didn't say what you said. He only said that some infinite patterns are more easily described than some finite patterns, which is obviously true and irrelevant.

So help me out here, what did he say?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:54 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:45 pm

You know all things obviously. So you don't need to read up. Believers don't like him.

I asked an AI and according to it Kolmogorov didn't say what you said. He only said that some infinite patterns are more easily described than some finite patterns, which is obviously true and irrelevant.

So help me out here, what did he say?

So what is simpler? The multiverse blows bubbles, or a universe two-strokes?