Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pm

ken wrote:
If the Universe is infinite then obviously It can NOT expand

Are you absolutely certain of this absolute statement you have made because actually the Universe
could be infinite in two different ways and so if it was only infinite in one way then it could not be
infinite in the other way and so then that would be the way in which it could still become infinite

The Universe could be spatially infinite while expanding temporally
The Universe could be temporally infinite while expanding spatially

The universe can be (and probably is, according to sky map data) spatially infinite and also spatially expanding. This is because the universe is not expanding into anything; expansion just means that the distances between galaxies are increasing.

Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 am

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:45 am
What if I told you I see some thing different than this, which, to Me, has more truth to it? Because "my (for now) truth" does NOT fit in with "your (for now) truth", then does that mean "my truth" is wrong and "your truth" is true and right?

What would 'truth' mean in this context?

Exactly how I was portraying in the way I asked the clarifying question, that is 'truth' is relative.

Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 amIf we are trying to describe the universe, then we would think of any description as true if it fully corresponded with our observations of that universe. If it said something was the case, when it wasn't, we would say that part of the description was untrue.

Some may say, "That part of the description was untrue". Whereas, I would say or imply, "That part of the description TO ME is untrue BECAUSE ...."

Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 amBut on the other hand, if we are describing 'the universe' then we are doing more than describing it one bit at a time. By calling it 'the universe' we are also saying it is all one thing.

Then we have to go back to what is the definition of 'Universe', and if 'Universe' means some thing like ALL-THERE-IS, then there is only 'the Universe'. If, however, we want to define 'Universe' as some thing else, then we need to look at the definition, come to an agreement, and then accept that definition for the rest of the discussion.

Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 am So it isn't enough that we describe each bit accurately; the terms in which we describe each bit have to be able to describe every other bit. So any words we use as descriptions have to be related to each other. In other words, if I describe X in terms of atoms, then 'atoms' cannot just be a description only of X; 'atoms' must be part of a more general theory that describes everything.

I do not see any thing wrong nor incorrect here.

Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 amSo, what we mean by 'atoms' must be consistent with what we mean by 'mass' and 'light' and 'time' etc.

This is easily solved by just coming together in agreement and acceptance of what each word means before we have a discussion. Although very easy to do, it takes some time and can be very tedious to do so.

Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 am Ultimately, all these descriptions take their meaning from each other. So when you write: So, when you say 'my (for now) truth" does NOT fit in with "your (for now) truth", then does that mean "my truth" is wrong and "your truth" is true and right', the answer is 'Yes', the reason being that the words you use take their meaning from a system as a whole. It is like saying '2 = 2 might equal 6' To which we would reply 'No it can't, not if you correctly understand the meaning of those symbols'. Similarly, when you question the speed of light, say, you are questioning not a fact but what we mean by 'light'.

A huge reason human beings disagree, dispute, fight, and even kill each other is just over the perceived meaning of a word or words.

What I said was not really like saying 2=2 might equal 6 because what I want to say is not really that different from what people already observe. What I was saying was what I observe is different from what you observe but if I was to think that what I observe is true and what you observe must be wrong, then that is ignoring the very actual true fact. That is what we individually, and collectively, observe may not be the actual truth. So, if I was to believe that what I think and see is true, is true, then I would be missing the correct point of view, which allows being able to find and see the real and actual truth.

You could do this, you could have a completely different explanation of the universe, in which a word like 'light' meant something different. But it would necessarily be a complete alternative; because if 'light' meant something different, then so would 'time', 'space', 'mass' and all the rest. Then we would then judge its truth in the way described above, for example 'Does it correspond with our observations? Does it have an internal consistency?'

Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 amSo, pending such a general explanation, we could say that 'your truth' about 'light' (say) is wrong because it does not fit into any system (that you have yet explained), so we cannot know what you are saying.

EXACTLY.

I have NOT even really begun to explain what I observe yet.

And, the ONLY true way to understand another's point of view is to ask clarifying questions of them about what it is that they are actually saying, and then challenge them if there is any disagreement. But what happens mostly now is people are very quick to challenge or usually more often just dismiss or reject any thing that is seen to be a different, a new, or an opposing perspective or point of view.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:41 pm

ken wrote:
Most times I comment is when absolute statements are made

Can these so called absolute statements be regarded as absolute when the one making them [ me ] cannot know for certain if they are absolute

So, could you pose them in a way that shows this, instead of posing them as though they are the absolute truth? Like for example, if you wrote, "This is my view ...", "In my view ...", or "This is how I see (things) ...", then would that be an absolute true statement or just a view you have?

Now, this being a philosophy website the general rule is to be able to back up your view with proof and/or evidence. Without that support your view is nothing more than just 'a view', which, at the moment, is just one of about 7 billion or so different views. None of these views is "wrong", in their own right, but each view could be wrong in the big scheme of things.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:41 pmFor are not all statements I make based upon my knowledge which is always going to be limited because I cannot store all existing knowledge in
my memory and after I die I will not be able to acquire any new knowledge. I only know very little which is nothing at all in mathematical terms
Now I think what I say is true but I cannot be certain if it is absolutely true and so less I can live forever then how would I actually know if it was

By saying, "I think this .... is true" or "I observe this .... as being true", are absolute true statements, which I would NOT challenge. I may, however, clarify with you about what you actually mean and/or are saying but they are not absolute statements that I would comment on. There is a way to pose statements in an absolute way. But when absolute statements are made, which are clearly not true or that person would have no actual knowledge of that, then I will usually comment, and especially in a philosophy forum.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:19 pm

ken wrote:
Has any person seen ALL the objects of the Universe
If not then how do you KNOW what is right or what is not right to say about what is happening in ALL parts of the Universe

No one has seen everything in the Universe but is it actually necessary to see everything in it to know what is happening in
it or cannot other methods of knowledge be used instead

'See' can also mean understand, as any human body with eyes that do not function can and does still see, understand, and know things will attest to this.

Just about ALL methods of knowledge end up being 'seen', understood and known within, by the person.

No matter what method (or technology) human beings use to gather more knowledge, the information they gather comes through the body through any of the five sense and is 'seen' from within, in the sense of understanding and/or knowing.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pm

ken wrote:
If the Universe is infinite then obviously It can NOT expand

Are you absolutely certain of this absolute statement you have made

The word 'if', that i used, avoided absolute certainty and therefore also avoided an absolute statement.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pmbecause actually the Universe
could be infinite in two different ways

Although this may be true, did you think to clarify, with Me, what I meant first?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pm and so if it was only infinite in one way then it could not be
infinite in the other way and so then that would be the way in which it could still become infinite

But I did not say infinite in one or another way. I said infinite, so that would imply in ALL ways.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pmThe Universe could be spatially infinite while expanding temporally
The Universe could be temporally infinite while expanding spatially

This could be true, but not really necessary to look at as I said, "If the Universe is infinite, ..."

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:50 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pm

ken wrote:
If the Universe is infinite then obviously It can NOT expand

Are you absolutely certain of this absolute statement you have made because actually the Universe
could be infinite in two different ways and so if it was only infinite in one way then it could not be
infinite in the other way and so then that would be the way in which it could still become infinite

The Universe could be spatially infinite while expanding temporally
The Universe could be temporally infinite while expanding spatially

The universe can be (and probably is, according to sky map data) spatially infinite and also spatially expanding.

Very ambiguous and does not clear any thing at all up really.

It is a bit like saying, the Universe can be (and probably is, according to the bible) everything but also be created by some thing else.

There is nothing like a belief in some book to allow one to show complete ignorance in other things that might hold or possibly be the actual truth of things.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pm This is because the universe is not expanding into anything; expansion just means that the distances between galaxies are increasing.

Although it is also said and noted that the distances between some galaxies are decreasing. But this gets easily overlooked when and if we want to believe some thing else is true.

If the Universe is, infinite spatially, then it can NOT get any bigger, obviously.

Also, if only a part of the Universe is observable, then what is past the observable limit can NOT be measured, and is therefore UNKNOWN. So, what evidence is there that there is expansion out past the, at the moment, observable and measured limits of the Universe?

Light diminishes over distance, so there is NO knowing of what is "out there", yet.

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
Most times I comment is when absolute statements are made

Can these so called absolute statements be regarded as absolute when
the one making them [ me ] cannot know for certain if they are absolute

So could you pose them in a way that shows this instead of posing them as though they are the absolute truth

I say what I think is true based upon the knowledge that I possess at the time but nothing I say should be taken to
be an absolute truth even when I might be referencing something as if were because how could I be certain of this

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:45 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Can these so called absolute statements be regarded as absolute when
the one making them [ me ] cannot know for certain if they are absolute

So could you pose them in a way that shows this instead of posing them as though they are the absolute truth

I say what I think is true based upon the knowledge that I possess at the time but nothing I say should be taken to
be an absolute truth even when I might be referencing something as if were because how could I be certain of this

So then do you have any issue in regards to Me commenting on when you make statements that appear as absolute statements?

If so, then why?

If not, then there is no issue, right?

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
So could you pose them in a way that shows this instead of posing them as though they are the absolute truth

I say what I think is true based upon the knowledge that I possess at the time but nothing I say should be taken to
be an absolute truth even when I might be referencing something as if were because how could I be certain of this

So then do you have any issue in regards to Me commenting on when you make statements that appear as absolute statements

You can say whatever you want to but if you carry on claiming that I make absolute statements you will be corrected by me
I am not God and so do not possess absolute knowledge and therefore cannot make absolute statements even if I wanted to
Do you also think I could make absolute statements when I really know nothing at all as I have already told you three times

!. It is an empirical fact that the universe is expanding.

2. We have satellite data (empirical) from the last decade checking the “flatness” of the universe. The data indicate to a high degree of probability that the universe is “flat” beyond the Hubble Volume (the observable universe). A “flat” universe means a spatially infinite universe.

3. A spatially infinite universe can expand forever in the sense that the distances between galaxies become greater over time.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:18 pm !. It is an empirical fact that the universe is expanding.

2. We have satellite data (empirical) from the last decade checking the “flatness” of the universe. The data indicate to a high degree of probability that the universe is “flat” beyond the Hubble Volume (the observable universe). A “flat” universe means a spatially infinite universe.

3. A spatially infinite universe can expand forever in the sense that the distances between galaxies become greater over time.

1. It is an actual true fact that some people believe whatever the current knowledge is, while ignoring the fact that current knowledge is NOT always as correct as some people want to believe it is. If 'Universe' means ALL-THERE-IS, then It can NOT expand for the obvious reason that ALL-THERE-IS can NOT get any bigger.

2. A "high degree of probability" does NOT mean it is what it is proposed to be. Also, satellite data is NOT needed in order to already be able to see if the Universe is spatially, and temporally, infinite or not. The answer is already obvious.

3. If you are basing the supposed expansion of the Universe on the distances between galaxies becoming greater over time, then what does it mean to you if and when the distances between galaxies become lesser over time? Are you aware that the distances between some galaxies become closer over time?

When human beings stop looking at the Universe being limited, spatially and/or temporally, only and look at what IS, then they will be able to see the obvious contradictions that they express when trying to find evidence for what they already believe is to be true.

Being able to see the full picture of some thing as big the Universe from the limited perspective of the brain only, then human beings will continue to do what they have been doing for centuries now, and that is they just look for evidence that will support their already held views and beliefs.

It is nonsensical to think that ALL-THERE-IS could expand or shrink. ALL-THERE-IS just changes in shape and form, naturally forever.

Also, If a human being sees, from empirical data, and believes that galaxies, which are relatively far away from them now, are expanding would also be the same human being who if they were observing from those apparently "expanding" galaxies would be the same ones who see, from "empirical data", and believe that galaxies, which are relatively far away from them now, like the milky way and andromeda galaxies are also expanding. The reason human beings see things differently depending on where they observing from is obvious. Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, but some human beings can not see nor comprehend this because of the way they observe things from a limited or unseeing perspective.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:05 am

If you are unable to, or do not want to, read and reply, then so be it. What this actually shows becomes more obvious each time it is done.

The more incapable one is of answering very simple and straight-forward questions, the more the question is actually revealing.

ken wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:52 am Exactly how I was portraying in the way I asked the clarifying question, that is 'truth' is relative.

So it is, but that isn't the same as saying 'anything can be true'. It is relative - to our other beliefs. And it can fail to be relative - it may be that it is inconsistent with our other beliefs. In that case, we would be saying something was both true and false at the same time i.e. not making an assertion of truth at all.

Some may say, "That part of the description was untrue". Whereas, I would say or imply, "That part of the description TO ME is untrue BECAUSE ...."

I would see that as contradictory. If there is a 'BECAUSE' then that says there are reasons you think as you do, reasons that can be explained to other people. But 'TO ME' is subjective, it describes your state of mind. If I say something is true FOR ME then it is necessarily true (assuming I am being honest about my opinions).

Then we have to go back to what is the definition of 'Universe', and if 'Universe' means some thing like ALL-THERE-IS, then there is only 'the Universe'. If, however, we want to define 'Universe' as some thing else, then we need to look at the definition, come to an agreement, and then accept that definition for the rest of the discussion.

Indeed. What else might 'the universe' describe? If we do not mean 'everything', then some things would be outside the universe, in which case where are they?

This is easily solved by just coming together in agreement and acceptance of what each word means before we have a discussion. Although very easy to do, it takes some time and can be very tedious to do so...

A huge reason human beings disagree, dispute, fight, and even kill each other is just over the perceived meaning of a word or words.

But that is not the case with science. Science deals with the measurable, so words have a precise meaning. And because things must be measurable, then they must all stand in relation to each other. As you say above, 'truth is relative', so what we mean by 'light' is relative to everything else in science. That means we cannot extract 'light' from our understanding of everything else.

What I said was not really like saying 2=2 might equal 6 because what I want to say is not really that different from what people already observe. What I was saying was what I observe is different from what you observe but if I was to think that what I observe is true and what you observe must be wrong, then that is ignoring the very actual true fact. That is what we individually, and collectively, observe may not be the actual truth. So, if I was to believe that what I think and see is true, is true, then I would be missing the correct point of view, which allows being able to find and see the real and actual truth...

EXACTLY.

I have NOT even really begun to explain what I observe yet.

And, the ONLY true way to understand another's point of view is to ask clarifying questions of them about what it is that they are actually saying, and then challenge them if there is any disagreement. But what happens mostly now is people are very quick to challenge or usually more often just dismiss or reject any thing that is seen to be a different, a new, or an opposing perspective or point of view.

Then I should ask; What is it that you have observed?

Or more precisely; 'What is your theory?' Because an observation is meaningless without a theory. Or even more precisely, since no observation can verify a theory; 'What hypothesis does your observation show to be invalid?'

the Unknown appears as the known,
Being appears as becoming,
the Changeless appears as change,
Oneness appears as multiplicity,
the Self appears as individual egos,
the Boundless appears as the limited.

I do not negate the world.
I see it as appearing in consciousness,
which is the totality of the known
in the immensity of the Unknown.

.