Philosophy Now Forum

Another Interpretation

The Universe and how It works.

All of the Universe is so fundamentally basic and very easy to comprehend and understand that expressing all of it in an explicable language that is comprehensible to just about everyone is very simple.

The word 'Universe' when defined as, totality; all there is; everything, then the Universe is, has to be, and can only ever be infinite and eternal, always.

Now, the Universe, Itself, could never ever be smaller than the size of an atom, a grain of rice, nor smaller than what it is NOW, and there is absolutely no actual evidence that the Universe was smaller than It is NOW. Although some narrowed viewing people believe otherwise.

All of the matter within the Universe, of course, could be compressed down to just one single particular size, also known as singularity. But, this is just the matter within the Universe, and not the Universe, Itself.

What is involved during the process of matter being infinitely compressed into singularity is just 'the space', which is just 'the distance' between and around matter, is compressed out, until what remains is just one single piece of matter, with obviously the 'space', or 'the distance', still, surrounding the singularity. Now, obviously, there is no boundary to 'space', nor to the 'distance', itself, outside of singularity, itself.

Also, when one looks out into the Universe, from anywhere in the Universe, the observable universe is a certain size, but no matter how far one looks out the only actual boundary, or end, could be, and is, is a conceptual one, only. Even if one imagines that they could see the furthest objects out from where they are the only boundary that could exist would be an imaginable line in between each of the furthest objects. And, no matter what shape the Universe is there is no actual end nor boundary, spatially. For what 'the space', or 'the distance', between the furthest objects is made out of, there is no difference anywhere there. So, what 'the distance' between 'matter/objects' here, near earth, it is the exact same 'stuff' between the furthest objects of 'matter' is made up of. Which, obviously, there is no actual 'one side' and 'another side' of.

And, if 'the space', and/or 'the distance', is within an imagined line between two furthest, then so is 'the same' past that imagined line, only. And, because of the very nature of 'space', itself, there, literally, could not be an end nor boundary to it, except, of course, with 'matter', itself. And, if there is a wall or boundary of matter around the whole Universe, then either that wall or boundary is infinite in size, on the 'other side', or the wall or boundary is of some length of thickness. Of which then what is on the 'other side', which obviously has to be some thing, even if it is, literally, just so-called 'empty space'. And, as the Universe is, literally, every thing, then 'that space', which would have to go in infinitely, literally spatially, if there was no matter 'there', is obviously also just a part of the Universe, Itself.

Therefore, it is irrefutable that the Universe is infinite, and eternal, as well.

(And, if any of the above is not enough 'proof' for some one, then there is more if any one would like.)

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:49 am
The word 'Universe' when defined as, totality; all there is; everything, then the Universe is, has to be, and can only ever be infinite and eternal, always.

According to word definitions, sure.

Everything that is, for Age, is everything that Age has experienced, thought, read, dreamed, witnessed, or been told.

To assume that there is more is a reasoned assumption. It’s a good assumption backed up by every time you learn something new, if you still do, but it’s still an assumption that more lies beyond everything that is, for Age.

Blame the FSK* of no end, on mathematical infinity, because as far as we know, there’s always one more.


* Credit the concept of FSK to Veritas Aequitas, from what I gathered of it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:49 amNow, obviously, there is no boundary to 'space', nor to the 'distance', itself, outside of singularity, itself.

Here's the thing Age; it might feel intuitively certain that empty space must go on for ever, but empty space is still space. It could be that not even that existed before the singularity. For that reason when people who actually know what they are talking about refer to the universe, they mean all the matter that began with the big bang.

Yes it’s an interpretation and that’s all it ever was, is, and will be.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:49 am
The word 'Universe' when defined as, totality; all there is; everything, then the Universe is, has to be, and can only ever be infinite and eternal, always.

According to word definitions, sure.

Well what else can 'we' go on, or go off, if not 'word definitions'?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:05 pm Everything that is, for Age, is everything that Age has experienced, thought, read, dreamed, witnessed, or been told.

What are you on about here?

'Everything' is EVERY thing. Which includes everything that "age" has experienced, thought, read, dreamed, witness, or be told, AND THE REST.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:05 pm To assume that there is more is a reasoned assumption.

Maybe so, but it is just a/nother, COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, 'assumption'. Especially considering that 'there is MORE' is OBVIOUSLY just an IRREFUTABLE Fact anyway.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:05 pm It’s a good assumption backed up by every time you learn something new, if you still do, but it’s still an assumption that more lies beyond everything that is, for Age.

you are going on for quite a while here about some thing that is just an IRREFUTABLE Fact, which NO one has said nor even implied otherwise anyway.

So, why are you going on about 'this' for, exactly, anyway?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:05 pm Blame the FSK* of no end, on mathematical infinity, because as far as we know, there’s always one more.

As far as you, and some others, know, there is, supposedly, always more of 'what', exactly?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:05 pm * Credit the concept of FSK to Veritas Aequitas, from what I gathered of it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:49 amNow, obviously, there is no boundary to 'space', nor to the 'distance', itself, outside of singularity, itself.

The boundary exists within the context of it’s conception. The duality of inconceivable conception.

There is no space without an object and there’s no object without space. Both space and object are bound together inseparably, like conjoined twins..both define the other’s seemingly dual non-existence as one seamless infinity, thus any boundary is illusory.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:49 amNow, obviously, there is no boundary to 'space', nor to the 'distance', itself, outside of singularity, itself.

Here's the thing Age; it might feel intuitively certain that empty space must go on for ever, but empty space is still space. It could be that not even that existed before the singularity.

you REALLY DO have the MOST LIMITED, NARROWED, and/or CLOSED view and perspective of things here.

Has absolutely ANY one here even implied, let alone said, that so-called 'empty space' was not still 'space'?

If no, then WHY did you mention and say, 'but empty space is still space', for, exactly?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:05 pm For that reason when people who actually know what they are talking about refer to the universe, they mean all the matter that began with the big bang.

But, quite conveniently, 'those people', (which you "will bouwman" claim that they, actually, know what they are talking about), DISREGARD and IGNORE 'space', itself, which, OBVIOUSLY, makes up and IS a PART OF the Universe, Itself.

Now, what 'we' can CLEARLY SEE here is "will bouwman" 'TRYING' Its HARDEST to fight and argue for its False and Wrong 'current' BELIEF here, just like those ones who 'TRIED' their HARDEST to fight and argue for their False and Wrong 'current' BELIEF as well. Those one's just would NOT LET GO OF their BELIEF that the earth was at the center of the Universe. And, 'we' all KNOW how that turned out for them.

Again, I will here suggest that you adult human beings begin to start SAYING what you MEAN, and, MEAN what you SAY.

But anyway, there was NO matter that BEGAN with the so-called 'big bang'. And, to PRESUME or BELIEVE that there was, is AS FOOLISH and AS STUPID as PRESUMING or BELIEVING that ALL the 'matter' BEGAN with a 'male gendered God'. Actually, considering that the people that "will bouwman" mentioned and talked about above here consider "themselves" to be MORE smarter or MORE intellectual than others, then for them to PRESUME or BELIEVE that 'all the matter', LAUGHINGLY, BEGAN with the big bang is even MORE STUPID and MORE FOOLISH than God BELIEVERS.

Now, here is the thing "will bouwman"; it might well feel intuitively certain to you that the Universe, or all the matter, began with the big bang, but thinking or BELIEVING this is ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, and NONSENSICAL, especially when the ACTUAL Truth REFUTES that ABSURD NOTION, ABSOLUTELY.

And, AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one would like to DISCUSS this, or to 'TRY TO' CHALLENGE, and/or QUESTION me over ANY of this, then let 'us' PLEASE DO.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:49 amNow, obviously, there is no boundary to 'space', nor to the 'distance', itself, outside of singularity, itself.

The boundary exists within the context of it’s conception. The duality of inconceivable conception.

There is no space without an object and there’s no object without space.

EXACTLY.

And, because one exists, so too does the other. And, because they 'both' co-exist, and HAVE TO EXIST, co-dependently, TOGETHER, as One, this means that this One, and ONLY, Universe could have only ever been in 'the way' that It is HERE, NOW.

If absolutely any one would like the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the Universe could have ONLY ever exist/ed as It is NOW, HERE, then just let me know.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am Both space and object are bound together inseparably, like conjoined twins.

ABSOLUTELY VERY True.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am .both define the other’s seemingly dual non-existence as one seamless infinity, thus any boundary is illusory.

I agree, except I would clarify that the only boundary to 'space' is 'matter', and, the only boundary to 'matter' is 'space'. Although defining where, EXACTLY, that apparent 'separation' is, EXACTLY, might well be MUCH HARDER than some/a lot imagine it would be to do.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:57 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 10:49 amNow, obviously, there is no boundary to 'space', nor to the 'distance', itself, outside of singularity, itself.

The boundary exists within the context of it’s conception. The duality of inconceivable conception.

There is no space without an object and there’s no object without space.

EXACTLY.

And, because one exists, so too does the other. And, because they 'both' co-exist, and HAVE TO EXIST, co-dependently, TOGETHER, as One, this means that this One, and ONLY, Universe could have only ever been in 'the way' that It is HERE, NOW.

If absolutely any one would like the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the Universe could have ONLY ever exist/ed as It is NOW, HERE, then just let me know.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am Both space and object are bound together inseparably, like conjoined twins.

ABSOLUTELY VERY True.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am .both define the other’s seemingly dual non-existence as one seamless infinity, thus any boundary is illusory.

I agree, except I would clarify that the only boundary to 'space' is 'matter', and, the only boundary to 'matter' is 'space'. Although defining where, EXACTLY, that apparent 'separation' is, EXACTLY, might well be MUCH HARDER than some/a lot imagine it would be to do.

Perfectly interpretated!

Well done, and thanks for all your hard work.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 2:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:57 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am
The boundary exists within the context of it’s conception. The duality of inconceivable conception.

There is no space without an object and there’s no object without space.

EXACTLY.

And, because one exists, so too does the other. And, because they 'both' co-exist, and HAVE TO EXIST, co-dependently, TOGETHER, as One, this means that this One, and ONLY, Universe could have only ever been in 'the way' that It is HERE, NOW.

If absolutely any one would like the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the Universe could have ONLY ever exist/ed as It is NOW, HERE, then just let me know.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am Both space and object are bound together inseparably, like conjoined twins.

ABSOLUTELY VERY True.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:23 am .both define the other’s seemingly dual non-existence as one seamless infinity, thus any boundary is illusory.

I agree, except I would clarify that the only boundary to 'space' is 'matter', and, the only boundary to 'matter' is 'space'. Although defining where, EXACTLY, that apparent 'separation' is, EXACTLY, might well be MUCH HARDER than some/a lot imagine it would be to do.

Perfectly interpretated!

Well done, and thanks for all your hard work.

There is no 'hard work', well not on my part anyway. I am just committed to learn how to communicate better, (with human beings).

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:22 am

Age, because you can’t ask questions of dead philosophers, how are you ever to know what they said?

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 10:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:22 am

Age, because you can’t ask questions of dead philosophers, how are you ever to know what they said?

ASK 'them' BEFORE they, so-called, DIE, OBVIOUSLY.

And, just as OBVIOUS is it is TOO LATE to ASK 'them' AFTER. So, just 'TRYING TO' GUESS what they were ACTUALLY meaning or intending is, really, just a 'waste of time', as some would say.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 7:29 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 2:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:57 am

EXACTLY.

And, because one exists, so too does the other. And, because they 'both' co-exist, and HAVE TO EXIST, co-dependently, TOGETHER, as One, this means that this One, and ONLY, Universe could have only ever been in 'the way' that It is HERE, NOW.

If absolutely any one would like the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the Universe could have ONLY ever exist/ed as It is NOW, HERE, then just let me know.



ABSOLUTELY VERY True.


I agree, except I would clarify that the only boundary to 'space' is 'matter', and, the only boundary to 'matter' is 'space'. Although defining where, EXACTLY, that apparent 'separation' is, EXACTLY, might well be MUCH HARDER than some/a lot imagine it would be to do.

Perfectly interpretated!

Well done, and thanks for all your hard work.

There is no 'hard work', well not on my part anyway. I am just committed to learn how to communicate better, (with human beings).

Well good luck with that endless tail chasing mis-ad-venture.

"The false Dharma is gain, the true Dharma is loss"

In other words, don't bother to learn how to communicate with others, just post the truth, because the truth is recognised by everyone who reads it. You don't even have to make any effort when it comes to truth sharing, it's a completely effortless show for all to see.
Because we are the truth. There is only the truth. And the truth will set you free. Free from ever having to explain yourself to anyone else.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:23 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 10:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:22 am

Age, because you can’t ask questions of dead philosophers, how are you ever to know what they said?

ASK 'them' BEFORE they, so-called, DIE, OBVIOUSLY.

And, just as OBVIOUS is it is TOO LATE to ASK 'them' AFTER. So, just 'TRYING TO' GUESS what they were ACTUALLY meaning or intending is, really, just a 'waste of time', as some would say.

If you asked questions of a philosopher before he died, then he would not be a dead philosopher to ask questions of, would he. Of course not. If you look more closely, and you can always look more closely, you will find that was the context of question asking.

The context of question asking was not about understanding a live philosopher via questions. The context was about understanding a dead philosopher without the aid of questions.

If you require a live, question-answering philosopher in order to understand, then obviously you don’t understand all the philosophers who died before you were born because they are not available for questioning, and it’s likely that sampling is most of the philosophers and philosophies that ever there was.

And you can’t understand any of them because you can’t ask your questions.

So at this moment in time, without asking a question, do you understand?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:51 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 7:29 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 2:15 pm


Perfectly interpretated!

Well done, and thanks for all your hard work.

There is no 'hard work', well not on my part anyway. I am just committed to learn how to communicate better, (with human beings).

Well good luck with that endless tail chasing mis-ad-venture.

"The false Dharma is gain, the true Dharma is loss"

In other words, don't bother to learn how to communicate with others, just post the truth, because the truth is recognised by everyone who reads it.

But the point is those with beliefs, and, to a lesser extent, those with presumptions do not recognise the Truth, when the Truth is opposing or differs from their person truth. Now, obviously once one is Truly open then they will see and recognize this Truth just about instantaneously. However, for the rest, again, their own personal beliefs, presumptions, and thus truths are not allowing them to recognize, and see and understand, this irrefutable Truth.

See, what I want to learn how to communicate to, human beings, is the knowledge of how to get rid of, and lose, all presumptions and beliefs, or in other words, how to let go of 'self' completely, then, as you pointed out, and were alluding to, that is; what the actual Truth is, exactly, can then be and will be recognised by every one.

Until then you human beings will not 'see' clearly, enough, to recognise and thus know the Truth in Its entirety. Again, that is until you learn and understand who the False 'self', and illusory 'i' is, exactly, which just needs to be 'let go off', also in its entirety.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:51 pm You don't even have to make any effort when it comes to truth sharing, it's a completely effortless show for all to see.

Yes, again, you express another Truth. However, it are the things that are preventing and blocking the older human beings from recognizing, seeing, comprehending, and understanding the actual Truth of things, which I want to express and explain how to remove, and let go, completely.

But, and again, nothing can be taught to one who does not want to learn. For example, I can NOT teach "will bouwman" that the Universe was not smaller and did not begin, once upon a time, and is not expanding, now, while;

1. "will bouwman" does not want to learn and understand what the actual irrefutable Truth is.

2. "will bouwman" believes that the Universe was smaller, began, and is expanding, now.

See, I can provide actual irrefutable proof and explanations of HOW and WHY while one has pre-existing beliefs and assumptions regarding preconceived truths, like "will bouwman" and others have here, they are NOT OPEN, and so are NOT ABLE to recognise and see the actual Truth of things. And, I can even use and provide irrefutable examples of human beings doing the very thing, which was what was preventing and stopping them, in the past, from recognizing and seeing the actual irrefutable Truth if things. Just think of all of those human beings who just believed and presumed that the earth was at the centre of the Universe. However, I can NOT make absolutely ANY one LEARN what they just do not want to learn.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:51 pm Because we are the truth.

'We', or 'I', collectively, ONLY, as One, may well be the Truth. But, as 'you' have kept pointing out, throughout this forum, 'i', the individual 'selves', are each just an illusory 'self', only.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:51 pm There is only the truth.

There are what you individual human beings presume and/or believe is true. And then there is the Truth.

And, LEARNING HOW to recognize, see, and SOIT the difference, almost instantaneously, is NOT some thing that you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have, YET, mastered.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:51 pm And the truth will set you free.

Again, this may well be True. But, first 'the self' has to be 'let go of', that is: the invisible held onto thoughts, [views, beliefs, presumptions], which has been what has been holding you human beings 'back'.

Before the actual Truth, Itself, can Truly set you human beings, individually, and collectively, absolutely FREE, you human beings just have to STOP presuming and believing that you already know the Truth.

And, do not forget, just saying and claiming that you do not already know the Truth, but while, unconsciously or subconsciously, expressing your pre-existing beliefs and/or assumptions, as though you do already know the Truth, is being hypocritical, and contradictory.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:51 pm Free from ever having to explain yourself to anyone else.

I, certainly do NOT ever 'have to' explain ANY thing here, especially to explain some absolutely oxymoronic, and contradiction in terms, phrase like "myself". However, I do like to explain things, for those that, REALLY, do want to learn, and understand.

And, for those who are SEEKING the Truth, and, REALLY, do want to learn, and understand, HOW they can find ALL of the Truly meaningful answers, and solutions, in Life, by, and for, "themselves", then those are the one ones who 'I' am searching for, and for who my writings here have always been INTENDED FOR.

See, I have just been wanting to LEARN HOW to communicate better, with you human beings, who want to continue to keep LEARNING MORE, and/or ANEW.

If ANY one does NOT want to just LEARN 'another interpretation', and wants to just keep expressing their 'own interpretation' as though 'their own interpretation' was the true and right one, then so be it. They are PERFECTLY FREE to do so. They, however, were just NEVER my intended audience, here.