Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote:
Also if quantum fluctuations cause virtual particles to come into existence WHERE do quantum fluctuations come from ?

And are you TRYING TO suggest that if any thing causes virtual particle to come into existence that means these particles came from NOTHING ?

Do quantum fluctuations come from nothing ? Do virtual particles come into existence by borrowing energy ? And is that energy not something ?

Age wrote:
You said that quantum fluctuations violate such a state of absolute nothing but then said that absolute nothing is a TEMPORARY quantum state

Absolute nothing is a temporary quantum state BEFORE it is violated by quantum fluctuations

Age wrote:
What is the difference ?

Quantum level is below the atomic level and classical level is above it [ the one we experience ]
There is actually only one level but it is however compartmentalised for reasons of practicality

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:53 am

Age wrote:
What size does local cosmic expansion relate to ?
How do you define / explain the words local cosmic expansion ?
What IS or is in the Multiverse ? What is It made up of / look like ?
Why did the words ALL THERE IS which were once used for and to describe
the word Universe which used to be the one and only Universe now change ?

The size of this Universe which is I4 billion years in time / 46 billion light years in distance

This is just an ASSUMPTION, made by human beings, correct?

Also, if light diminishes, then distance is completely UNKNOWN, correct?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:53 amEverything that has been happening for the last I4 billion years within this Universe

Of which, if I recall correctly, "you" have observed and experienced between about 5 to 8 decades of, correct?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:53 amOther Universes exist in the Multiverse / what they look like is completely unknown

Did you not just say: I prefer Universe despite the obvious confusion when I asked you: Why NOT just say multiverse instead?

Do these imagined "other" universes exist at the same time as what you refer to as "local cosmic expansion" or after what you call "local cosmic expansion dies?"

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:53 amThey changed because the idea of the Multiverse came into existence within physics

So, unlike when priests/religious people are asked to explain what they are actually talking about, they just say some things are "unknown", scientists/scientific people do roughly the same thing but also change things/ideas around either to sound to confusing or "beyond others" ability to understand or say things to sound like they know what they are talking about.

The brain of THINKING people: When we find out that the things we THINK are true are NOT TRUE, then we change things around so that they will now "fit in" with what we now THINK is true.
The brain of BELIEVING people: We do NOT find out that the things we BELIEVE are true are NOT TRUE, because THEY ARE TRUE.

When asked to explain HOW the Universe/ALL-THERE-IS is created, when people say 'In the beginning', they ALL either change their views/ideas/words around or just say 'that is how it is'.

Also, just because an "idea" came into existence within physics that in NO way infers that the "idea" is NOT as silly an idea as any "idea" is that comes into existence with religion, when the 'In the beginning" "idea" is questioned.

The actual Real Truth of things is FAR SIMPLER and EASIER to UNDERSTAND than ALL of these ridiculous "ideas" that human beings keep MAKING UP and TRYING TO portray as being the Truth.

For starters get rid of the IDEA/BELIEF that 'In the beginning' actually has any real reference to ALL-THERE-IS.

If human beings did that, then they would at least STOP trying to change things, to fit in with and suit that most STUPID of THOUGHT, "In the beginning".

If one BELIEVES that there was a "beginning", then they will NEVER stop searching.

'In the beginning' in reference to thee Truth refers to NOTHING whatsoever to what human beings THINK/BELIEVE, in the days of when this is written.

When the words "In the beginning" are STOPPED being VIEWED as referring to the Universe, then silly "ideas", to TRY TO justify that position, will CEASE also.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:45 am

Age wrote:
What is quantum fluctuations in relation to thee Truth of things

Do you think quantum fluctuations should provide Truth ?

NO. No one thing in particular "should" provide Truth. Truth is in ALL things.

Truth, speaks for Itself, it could be said. Truth is observed and SEEN. Truth is NOT observed and SEEN by studying or LOOKING AT one minute particular thing/s.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:45 amWhat is this thing called Truth and why mention it here ?

I asked you; What evidence is there (regarding some thing)?
You said; Quantum fluctuations violate (that thing).

Is not 'evidence' a fact or a truth over a matter?

'Truth' is THAT what ALL agree with.

Age wrote:
For starters get rid of the IDEA / BELIEF that In the beginning actually has any real reference to ALL THERE IS

How can there be a beginning if ALL THERE IS never had a beginning and so has always existed ?
I do not think that the beginning of THIS Universe is the absolute beginning of every thing at all

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:02 am

Age wrote:
What I also am now wondering is if a person THINKS some thing is true and how much this could hinder a truly open discussion or not at all

I avoid having a fixed opinion on anything at all unless the thing in question can be demonstrated to be true or false

Okay great. Does just reading some thing such as a highly peered reviewed scientific magazine demonstrate enough for you to then form and have a 'fixed opinion'?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:02 amI am surrounded by people who know way more than me and so that is another reason why I avoid absolute certainty

I wonder if they really "know" more or just like to appear as though they do.

Age wrote:
Is not evidence a fact or a truth over a matter ?

Truth is THAT what ALL agree with

Why do you think that evidence is a fact or a truth ?
And why does truth require any agreement at all ?

Age wrote:
Does reading some thing such as a highly peered reviewed scientific magazine demonstrate enough for you to then form and have a fixed opinion ?

No it does not not even if I were to read every single peer reviewed scientific magazine there is
I would certainly learn more but learning is however not the the same as having a fixed opinion

Age wrote:
I wonder if they really know more or just like to appear as though they do

Every one on this forum knows more than me because their posts demonstrate this
There are posts here I cannot understand at all as they are too complicated for me

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:11 am

Age wrote:
You are aware that you do sound like that you do KNOW what will happen in the future right ?

But I do not KNOW what will happen in the future as I have already told you before so why mention this ?

The reason I ASK this question is because when you say things like: WHEN the Universe dies, not ALL the physical parts will remain after heat death occurs and a maximum state of entropy has been reached I wonder if you are aware of just how much this sounds like one who predicts the future. I can only KNOW what the answer IS by asking you are Truly OPEN question.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:11 amI am only going on the very limited knowledge that I have so I am not claiming to know what will happen

What is that limited knowledge actually based upon. These things that you propose WILL HAPPEN, have NOT happened in "your" lifetime, obviously, so what actual KNOWING or knowledge do you have that this WILL HAPPEN.

I know very little so it might be a good idea for you to stop reading my posts and asking me any more questions

Now that is one way to get rid of a person who asks a person to explain themselves better when they are expressing what they say is the truth of things.

I wish people would question and challenge me when I am expressing when I say what the Truth of things are.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:11 amBecause I cannot give you any definitive answers so why not ask them of others here who know more than me ?

Because they also do NOT know.

People only THINK they know the answers to these questions.

As I have said previously if people are going to portray that they KNOW things, then I will question them about it. To me you appear to be a fairly well read person but when the readings do NOT fill in the MANY gaps that there are, you just make up stories that SEEM to work for you. I just ask questions to gather more clarity around this.

Hey I just wondered has it ever occurred to you that 'I' ALREADY KNOW what the actual Real and True answers ARE to the questions I ask?

Or, do you just think that I am asking questions out of pure curiosity for answers?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:17 am

Age wrote:
You come across as though you KNOW this to be an absolute True fact which could NOT be refuted

Once again you say this about me and once again I have to correct you so why do you keep doing this ?

I just express how you come across to me because this is what I want people to do for me.

I can NOT change nor learn how to communicate better if people do NOT tell how I come across to them. Nor can I learn how to communicate better if they do NOT question nor challenge me about the actual words I write.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:17 amI know very little and have told you twice now in this thread alone so why do you keep implying I do ?

Well firstly you have to give me a chance to at least read, and then respond to the first time you told me, before you ask me WHY I keep implying this.

Also, I am NOT implying anything. I am just expressing how you come across to me. What I have said has NEVER been about how much you know. It has just been about how your words appear to me. They some times come across as they you KNOW of things that are impossible to KNOW.

I can SEE how these things you say are how you VIEW things WILL HAPPEN. But I can also SEE the actual absurdity of this also.

I have expressed that the actual and Real Truth of things can be easily SEEN and KNOWN. But you have also expressed, if I recall correctly, that you have NO real interest in that at all.

Age wrote:
I wish people would question and challenge me when I am expressing when I say what the Truth of things are

Most of the time I do not want to question and challenge you but why do you want people to do it any way ?
Is it not better for them to just read your posts and try to understand what it is that you are actually saying ?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:27 am

Age wrote:
Now what do you call this place where there are still some physical parts remaining ?

When EXACTLY does one universe supposedly die and another one supposedly begin ?

What is the differential line / demarcation between the two ?

I do not know if there is a name for such a place / but what would it be if there was one ?

I can NOT yet SEE how such a place could exist if it was NOT still the Universe, Itself.

The name I would give it is the 'Universe', because that is what It IS, to me.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:27 amIs there an EXACT point in time between one Universe dying and one other one beginning ?

Besides the fact that I say there is NO such thing as 'time' itself anyway, and that I can NOT yet SEE how there could be more than one "infinite/eternal" Universe, you are the one making up this story about one Universe dying another one beginning, so either way there is NO point at all between any thing at all, from my perspective. There is only One, which has been compartmentalized into countless things by the human brain. This is YOUR story, so only you KNOW if there is an EXACT point in time between the so called "two Universes" or not.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:27 amIs there a demarcation line between the two ?

If there is one Universe and then another one, then there would have to be. Is there more than one Universe?

You are MAKING UP this story about one Universe dying and another one beginning so you would have to TELL us where that is, if there is a demarcation line. The very reason WHY I questioned you; What is the differential line / demarcation between the two Universes, which you say exist? is because this is what YOU say HAPPENS.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:27 am Is it as simple as that or is it more complex ?

Is what as simple as what?

The Truth of things (ALL-THERE-IS) is REALLY extremely SIMPLE, and just as EASY, to UNDERSTAND. Unfortunately though, human beings BELIEVE otherwise.

HOW (and even WHY) the Universe exists, the way It does, is probably about one of the most simplest and easiest things to discover, learn about, and UNDERSTAND. But while this is NOT believed to be true, human beings will just keep carrying on the way they have been for millennia. That is; confused, bewildered, and wondering.

By the way there is NO thing that is complex nor hard in Life. (Even though human beings BELIEVE and SAY otherwise.)

Age wrote:
Hey I just wondered has it ever occurred to you that I ALREADY KNOW what the actual Real and True answers ARE to the questions I ask ?

Or do you just think that I am asking questions out of pure curiosity for answers ?

No it has not occurred to me that YOU already know what the actual answers are to the questions you ask here
No I do not think you are asking questions out of pure curiosity for the answers absolutely not why would you ?