Philosophy Now Forum

Tilling.

Belief.
That which has evidence but not enough to pass above the bar of repeatability.
Example: I believe singularities exist. There is verification in astrophysical observation and the science underlying stellar dynamics and gravitics.
Yet you would need to be in accretion disk before you had repeatable evidence of gravity gradient.
Ockhams razor.
And thus As observation can be conceived [and required]. it is physics.

"Well it's a quirk of logic that the fact that it isn't necessarily true means it is necessarily true."
Is that like a near hit?

PS

Lot of work in your post [well for me im a 2 finger typer]

good stuff.

is simply not possible ,,..
But I find it strange that you see one of the possibilities as more believable than the other, as I find them equally troublesome. I truly do not see one as more probable than the other. I also see why people accuse you as being a believer in a god, because like your version of the universe, god is infinite. They just see that you've replaced 'their' (the one in their bible) god with your 'universe god' Same idea, different substance.

[/quote][/quote]
Now this is where we are poles apart ,
The Ability To Draw Conclusions , to stand up and be counted , to step out of line and challenge authority ,
I at 56 have realized we are not going to fix things by bowing down to the existing philosophies ,
thats how we got in the crap we are in now ,so , things have got to change ,
I am not in favour of the status quo , they have got a lot of things wrong ,
and one of them is to tolerate religion , and continue to claim we can't prove it's a load of crap ,
and to that I say CRAP we can prove it and from scientific point of view it is obvious ,
so why it is still being protected and funded by western governments is beyond me ,

And the bbt is no different , sciences version of creation ,
a popular myth to appease the masses , a load of crap in other words ,,!!!,
"Can't tell the difference " SOB , that sounds like a cop-out , like a true Skeptic ,
and if you will recall my first thread here , Atheist vrs Skeptic ,
the Skeptic will always be skeptical of the truth ,
until the collective agrees it is the truth ,
are you a man , or a wimp ,
are you politically correct so as to not offend anybody/the authorities , are you speaking freely ,
or will you always sit on the fence , because that doesn't start wars ,,???

mid 50's philosophy.. greetings from 1959 a hundred forums and 5000 books in.. we feel we have a handle..
What i think is we have 1/2 a handle.

Those prodigal sons at age 12 who out think everyone. the horror.
remember
Life's but a walking shadow. A poor player who struts and frets his
hour appon the stage,and then is heard no more.
A tale told by and idiot,all sound and fury, signifying nothing

i would NEVER say its simply not possible..only children deal in absolutes.
beyond the one absolute 'reality is'

Godfree wrote:is simply not possible ,,..
But I find it strange that you see one of the possibilities as more believable than the other, as I find them equally troublesome. I truly do not see one as more probable than the other. I also see why people accuse you as being a believer in a god, because like your version of the universe, god is infinite. They just see that you've replaced 'their' (the one in their bible) god with your 'universe god' Same idea, different substance.

[/quote]
Now this is where we are poles apart ,
The Ability To Draw Conclusions , to stand up and be counted , to step out of line and challenge authority ,
I at 56 have realized we are not going to fix things by bowing down to the existing philosophies ,
thats how we got in the crap we are in now ,so , things have got to change ,
I am not in favour of the status quo , they have got a lot of things wrong ,
and one of them is to tolerate religion , and continue to claim we can't prove it's a load of crap ,
and to that I say CRAP we can prove it and from scientific point of view it is obvious ,
so why it is still being protected and funded by western governments is beyond me ,

And the bbt is no different , sciences version of creation ,
a popular myth to appease the masses , a load of crap in other words ,,!!!,
"Can't tell the difference " SOB , that sounds like a cop-out , like a true Skeptic ,
and if you will recall my first thread here , Atheist vrs Skeptic ,
the Skeptic will always be skeptical of the truth ,
until the collective agrees it is the truth ,
are you a man , or a wimp ,
are you politically correct so as to not offend anybody/the authorities , are you speaking freely ,
or will you always sit on the fence , because that doesn't start wars ,,???[/quote]
Look, I never said I agreed with others, just pointing out why they say as they do.

And you should know by now that I don't really care, necessarily, about making friends in the face of what I see as truth, as I've had more that a few nasty exchanges here at PNF. So not afraid to offend any man, are you kidding me, at least not for the sake of truth, but rather truth is that which I fear offending. So I guess in a way, you're correct, as I don't want to offend myself, as that is where my truth lies. And no, that last is not a Freudian slip, but I do like that it sounds that way, almost seems poetic, in keeping with Socrates.

In other words, I don't mind making hypotheses, as long as they're supportive of all that I know, and I know that I can't make that leap of faith, I am no man of faith, only fact! Though it's true that I tend to believe that the universe is infinite in size, I always have, but also see that it's a remnant of an impressionable childhood.

I see that, your taking that leap of faith, as to the universe, and not believing in the possibility of a creator, is inconsistent, as if you believed in a creator, then you might believe, that it is where you get this idea of infinity from, as you felt it contained in the forces that be, as being a part of the cosmos yourself, and therefore need no further proof.

It's true, that I'm probably as closest you'll come, to someone believing in an infinite universe, in this day and age. Can you watch Yank TV over there? Have you ever seen, "The Big Bang Theory," a sitcom on US TV. Really funny show, I think it's supposed to be the no. 1 comedy these days. Propaganda? Who knows? I guess one could also see it the other way as well, that, "The Big Bang Theory" is laughable.

I came home with a nice girl night before last.. the universe expanded for me.
Its called getting in the last 'licks' berfore the end..

mmmmm

Hjarloprillar wrote:I came home with a nice girl night before last.. the universe expanded for me.
Its called getting in the last 'licks' berfore the end..

mmmmm

Hjarlo , , I'm trying to get the point across that , for the universe to be expanding ,
it must be finite to begin with , do you see the logic ,??
if the universe is expanding then it's not infinite
an infinite universe is already there so it would be expanding onto itself ,
so that doesn't make any sense ,
so our choice is simple , infinite universe , not expanding ,
finite universe , which is impossible in my opinion , could be expanding ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:finite universe , which is impossible in my opinion , could be expanding ,,!!!

You may be right, but why do you think a finite universe is impossible?

We could add that some physicists think they have a model of an infinite bounded universe, Hawkins if I read his book right.

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:finite universe , which is impossible in my opinion , could be expanding ,,!!!

You may be right, but why do you think a finite universe is impossible?

A lot of people think we can have a finite universe and outside that is "nothing"
that is not a description or explanation , that is saying we don't know ,
which is entirely different to claiming the universe to be finite ,
the only claim to proof that I know of is ,
Olbers Paradox
the night sky is not a blanket of white so therefore according to the theory ,
the universe must be finite ,????
does that make any sense to you ?, we know why the night sky is not a blanket of white ,
and it has got nothing to do with the size of the universe,
light decays into the invisible spectrum , that is the explanation ,
Olbers Paradox is a piece of feaces ,
So the finite universe is impossible because ,
1 ,, there is no physical barrier out there stopping the universe from being bigger ,
2 ,, " nothing "is impossible ,
3 ,, there is no such thing as nothing , there is always something ,
4 ,, when someone can describe what exists outside a finite universe ,
and it makes sense I will applaud ,
give it a go and you will see how ridiculous it is ,
imagine you have this ball in your hand and it's called the finite universe ,
so without using the word nothing describe how that could be ,
how a limit to the size of the universe could be possible ,
I say it's impossible , because there is no rational explanation of finite,
finite and then "nothing" is bullshit , thats not an explanation ,
and I'm not into blind faith ,
unless you are talking about Eric Clapton Ginger Baker Stevie Windwood , and Jack Bruce ,
they were awesome ,
so try and visualize nothing , are you seriously telling me you have no problems with nothing ,,???

Arising_uk wrote:We could add that some physicists think they have a model of an infinite bounded universe, Hawkins if I read his book right.

Well rather than just put it out there , you could offer an explanation of what that means to you ,?
an infinite bounded universe , sounds like fudge to me ,
Hawkins did at one point believe that ,
when the expanding universe slowed down and eventually stopped expanding ,
it would then begin to contract and at that point time would start to go backwards ,,???
Kangaroos in the top paddock , a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic ,,??
some physicists bore me , but I'm interested in Arising_uk's opinion ,
describe your model of the universe , for me it's easy and I try and shorten the definition ,
A , infinite steady state universe ,,!!!
because if you choose infinite , and expanding universe ,???
they are not compatible , so if you want your universe to be expanding ,
then you must chose finite and bb ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:finite universe , which is impossible in my opinion , could be expanding ,,!!!

You may be right, but why do you think a finite universe is impossible?

A lot of people think we can have a finite universe and outside that is "nothing"
that is not a description or explanation , that is saying we don't know ,
which is entirely different to claiming the universe to be finite ,
the only claim to proof that I know of is ,
Olbers Paradox
the night sky is not a blanket of white so therefore according to the theory ,
the universe must be finite ,????
does that make any sense to you ?, we know why the night sky is not a blanket of white ,
and it has got nothing to do with the size of the universe,
light decays into the invisible spectrum , that is the explanation ,
Olbers Paradox is a piece of feaces ,
So the finite universe is impossible because ,
1 ,, there is no physical barrier out there stopping the universe from being bigger ,
2 ,, " nothing "is impossible ,
3 ,, there is no such thing as nothing , there is always something ,
4 ,, when someone can describe what exists outside a finite universe ,
and it makes sense I will applaud ,
give it a go and you will see how ridiculous it is ,
imagine you have this ball in your hand and it's called the finite universe ,
so without using the word nothing describe how that could be ,
how a limit to the size of the universe could be possible ,
I say it's impossible , because there is no rational explanation of finite,
finite and then "nothing" is bullshit , thats not an explanation ,
and I'm not into blind faith ,
unless you are talking about Eric Clapton Ginger Baker Stevie Windwood , and Jack Bruce ,
they were awesome ,
so try and visualize nothing , are you seriously telling me you have no problems with nothing ,,???

Yeah..... "I can't find my way home"

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:finite universe , which is impossible in my opinion , could be expanding ,,!!!

You may be right, but why do you think a finite universe is impossible?

I think he'd like you to define this finite universe, if you can, in any real kind of way, that conforms to the physics, of which we're aware, with certainty. In other words, please leave your theories parked outside the door. Something that makes sense to you the man, and not merely the ideas of possibility, of another that you may or may not necessarily understand, completely.

Yeah..... "I can't find my way home"[/quote]

well I'm sorry Mr Fantasy I don't want you to tell us something to make us all feel happy ,
I WANT REALITY

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:finite universe , which is impossible in my opinion , could be expanding ,,!!!

You may be right, but why do you think a finite universe is impossible?

I think he'd like you to define this finite universe, if you can, in any real kind of way, that conforms to the physics, of which we're aware, with certainty. In other words, please leave your theories parked outside the door. Something that makes sense to you the man, and not merely the ideas of possibility, of another that you may or may not necessarily understand, completely.

I can't describe a finite universe using the existing physics ,
I am yet to hear an explanation of the nothing that makes any scientific sense ,
thats the point , we hint at suggest things might could be maybe , on and on the possibilities go ,
not into possibilities , probabilities , the most probable to be precise ,
to my mind the most probable model is not a finite universe ,
so how would I know what one is like ,
you would be asking me to invent it , to make it up ,
like all the other finite universe rubbish we hear ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:We could add that some physicists think they have a model of an infinite bounded universe, Hawkins if I read his book right.

Well rather than just put it out there , you could offer an explanation of what that means to you ,?
an infinite bounded universe , sounds like fudge to me ,
Hawkins did at one point believe that ,
when the expanding universe slowed down and eventually stopped expanding ,
it would then begin to contract and at that point time would start to go backwards ,,???
Kangaroos in the top paddock , a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic ,,??
some physicists bore me , but I'm interested in Arising_uk's opinion ,
describe your model of the universe , for me it's easy and I try and shorten the definition ,
A , infinite steady state universe ,,!!!
because if you choose infinite , and expanding universe ,???
they are not compatible , so if you want your universe to be expanding ,
then you must chose finite and bb ,,!!!

I second the motion, it's easy to simply site another's accomplishments, supposedly of authority, without expounding, as if you've actually said something of significance. But at least I sensed some amount of honesty as to it's understanding, a good step in the right direction.