Is Causality a Mental Framework Rather Than an Objective Feature of Reality?

[Materialist]

@ages

But what has ‘relations between types of things’ got to do with anything here?
I was asking you if you could, and if yes, then will you explain what the ‘physical thing’, itself, is or even ‘could be’, exactly, which could be considered ‘causality’, itself.

Here’s a brief description of the ontology:
Everything that exists is a state of affairs (SOA) composed of 3 sets of constituents: a “thin” particular, a set of intrinsic properties, and a set of relations to other SOAs. The individual constituents do not exist independently of SOAs; they exist immanently in a SOA.

Example: -1 electric charge, as a property of an electron. The charge is not an object itself, but it exists immanently in particular electrons. A proton has a +1 charge. There is an attraction relation between a proton and electron because of the opposite electric charge. The “law” is the attraction relation between the +1 charge property and the -1 charge property: it’s a relation between properties. It exists between any pair of objects with opposite charges. Objects with a -1 charge are a type of object, same with objects of +1 charge. Hence a law is a relation between types of objects. The attraction relation causes the objects to move toward each other. The causality is not due to a “thing” because thing=SOA. It is due to a relation between types of things. A type of thing is a universal. Every property corresponds to a type of thing, so we can also say that a property is a universal. So universals exist immanently in states of affairs, not as independent things.

I’ve outlined the nature of intrinsic properties and relations. The “thin particular” = that to which the properties and relations attach. Again, “thin particulars” do not have independent existence. This is equvalent to saying that every existent has properties.

It’s called a “thin particular” to distinguish it from an actual particular: a SOA. SOA=thing=existent=particular.

@ages

‘What’, exactly, is now supposedly a so-called ‘explanatory hypothesis’?

The State of Affairs ontological theory, of which I’ve barely scratched the surface with my description. It’s a comprehensive theory devised by David Armstrong, but with variations by other philosophers. If you really want to understand it, read Stephen Mumford’s book, "Armstrong . Armstrong’s theory was his life’s work. He wrote books on major components (e.g. universals, laws of nature, truthmaker theory of truth, theory of mind). Mumford’s summary is a good overview.

@ages

‘We’ would have to first ‘look at’ what ‘explanatory hypothesis’ that you have and are referring to here, before ‘we’ could present ‘an alternative theory’, which you claim you are open to considering.

Of course, but that would take a good bit of time to study the theory. Again, start with Mumford.

Or…you could just present an alternative theory.

@ages

So, for example, when ‘we’ human beings were killing what ‘we’ called “witches” was this ‘reality’? Or, when ‘we’ adults are abusing children ‘nowadays’, is this also ‘reality’?
Now, considering that “witches” are not being killed ‘these days’, and that children will stop being abused in the future, then which one is ‘reality’, exactly? The ’ killing of “witches”,’ or the non-killing of “witches”? And, it the ‘abuse of children’ reality, or the ‘non-abuse of children’ reality, for example?

Good question. I’ll relate this to Armstrong’s theory of truth: truthmaker theory. A proposition is true if it has a truthmaker anywhere in the past, present or future in any universe, or in any plain of reality, that exists. It’s a viable theory of truth even if materialism is false.

We believe the stories in history books about killing “witches” are true. As such, the truthmaker is the actual events that occurred. Same with reports of child abuse.

@ages

Why did you jump to this conclusion and presume or believe that I have ‘jumped to conclusions’ here, exactly?

Because you said, “your ‘current’ point of view and world view could NEVER allow you to see or believe things are any other way.”

You were wrong, and I described one way you were wrong: the belief in this metaphysical theory is the “best explanation” is defeasible. In addition, I’m capable of entertaining possibilities that are inconsistent with my own views. But the issue I tend to bring up is that possibility is cheap, because they are infinite. More than possibility is needed to accept it.

@ages

I had already. I then realised that you could not have. This is because of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of, exactly.
Now, and as always with ‘my views and claims’, if you, or anyone else, would like to the proof for my views and claims, then let ‘us’ begin and have a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned peaceful discussion.

It sounds like you have an ontological theory, and are judging my position irrational because I have not considered it. Or, perhaps, because you believe you can actually prove your theory is necessarily true.

If I’m right on either of these possibililities, it suggests you are conflating being right with being rational. Two people with opposing views could both have arrived at those views rationally-i.e. without errors in reasoning. We aren’t omniscient.

@ages

why believe something is true before you have even obtained the proof for its truthfulness?

Couple issues.

People use the word “believe” differently, and this leads to drawing incorrect conclusions and talking past each other. You said:

@ages

To me, believing something is true while also claiming to be open to ‘it’ being false seems very contradictory.

Right- you use the word differently. This is the problem with this assertion you made:

@ages

1. The reason WHY you believe what you do does not matter one iota here. Once a person believes, or disbelieves, something to be true, then they are closed or narrowed, because they are NOT as open as they could be.

As I said, I consider this materialistic theory the “best explanation”. That is what I believe. I also believe the actual ontology of the world is unknowable- it can never be proven. Even scientific theories aren’t provable. Very few things are provably true in the strictest sense. Nevertheless, we draw comclusions on sparse evidence every day - most of our beliefs about everyday life are like this. When we’re careful, we strive for inference to best explanation- because that’s usually the best we can do.

Your admitted lack of openness to being wrong in your beliefs seems odd to me, because you can’t possibly prove all your beliefs are necessarily true. But perhaps you only use “belief” to the things you CAN prove. I can only speculate. I just ask that you recognize that we have a different framework, so it’s erroneous to draw conclusions by applying your framework to my statements of belief.

@ages

If, and when, the proof is presented that demonstrates and proves that ‘All that exists’ is NOT just ‘material’ only, then that is NOT just a ‘possibility’, but is an actual, as some would call it, ‘reality’, and would that and does that ‘undercut’ ‘your belief’ here?

Sure- if your proof is based on agreed premises. Here’s my caution:

I’ve had discussions with “Thomists” (those who belive the metaphysical theory of Thomas Aquinas). Their tendency is to “prove me wrong” on the basis that my theory doesn’t account for potententiality, or essence. IOW, their “proof” is based on a Thomist framework. The Thomist framework is a premise. You can’t disprove one metaphysical theory false, on the basis of it being inconsistent with another metaphysical theory.

@ages

To you, what is between and around objects and particles of ‘matter’, exactly?
What is ‘that thing’ or ‘those things’ made up of, exactly?

That’s a physics question. Under Quantum Field Theory, ordinary objects of experience are composed of particles. Particles are quanta of quantum fields, and the quantum fields exist at every point of space. So it is quantum fields that are “around” everything, but they also comprise everything.

@ages

If the whole entire Universe, what you call ‘reality’, or in words and a term ‘we’ both agree with and accept here, ‘All that exists’, there is only ‘matter’, and ‘matter’ ONLY, then there would be just one singular piece of ‘matter’ ONLY. Which is sometimes referred to and known as ‘singularity’.

Non sequitur. It’s possible that the quantum fields are fundamental- not decomposible into some common thing. You can nevertheless propose monism as a metaphysical theory.

What is a “singularity”,in your theory? I relate the term to the mathematical singularity that arises when usuing general relativity to calculate the density of the universe at time t0- it’s a mathematical singularity because it entails dividing by zero. It doesn’t correspond to an actual state of the universe at a point of time; rather, physicists consider it a sign that general relativity is inapplicable.

So please clarify your use of the term.

@ages

In between and surrounding ‘matter’ there is a thing called ‘space’. Which, to me, that word refers to the distance between and around matter. If this were physical matter itself, thus ‘the same thing’ as ‘it’ is in between and surrounds, then ‘space’ would also be ‘matter’, and thus would not be separated from ‘matter’.

Your theory sounds inconsistent with quantum field theory. That’s sufficient reason for me to reject it. A scientific theory isn’t provably true, but the epistemic support is superior to a metaphysical theory.

@ages

M: “But typically, people just bring up logical possibilities.”

Well, I have not here.

Yes, you did- unless you can reconcile it with quantum field theory, and conclusively prove monism is true.

@ages

And, again, for all of those who class “themselves” as, or call “themselves”, “materialists”;
How could there logically be just ‘material’ ONLY, exactly?

I define “material” with an epistemological constraint:

Material = That which exists (has existed, or will exist) including ourselves, everything that is causally connected to ourselves, and anything not causally connected (such as alternate universes) that is inferred to exist, to have existed, or that will exist, through analysis of our universe.

[Materialist]

@noAxioms

That’s circular. You’ve only declared the two words to essentially be synonymous, but doesn’t define how you actually use the word.

Does a live T-rex exist? Unicorn? Number 13? Marxism? Gravity?

Circular? I drew no conclusions, so it’s not circular reasoning. Sure, the terms are synonymous.

No T-Rex exists today, but they did exist in the past. Unicorns do not exist in the world, and never have. Marxism exists as a school of thought - memories and thoughts in the minds of various people. Gravity is a law of nature, and therefore exists imminantly in the states of affairs that exhibit it.

@noAxioms

What is the bound of the universe, after which it would be considered part of another universe?

I regard the universe to be the causally connected stars, galaxies, dark matter (and everything within and between) whose state is a consequence of the big bang that physicists discuss and research. This would preclude an arbitrary division. I defer to physicists.

@noAxioms

Without realizing it, almost all such definitions of ‘reality’ are mind dependent. The typical person presumes something like ‘all that concerns me’ without being explicit about it. So a unicorn is not real mostly because we don’t see one and thus has not received our mental designation of ‘is real’.

How could a definition NOT be mind dependent?

I regard unicorns as unreal (except as fictions) because, to the best of my knowledge, they are literary inventions. If a fossil were dug up of a horse-like animal with a forehead horn, that would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not correspond to the literary invention, “unicorn” irrespective of whether or not that monicker were given to it.

[FlannelJesus]

Oh no, you found your way to this forum
That’s not good news.

[FlannelJesus]

@ages you’ve had this kind of feedback about your communication style consistently, from many people across numerous forums. It would be amazing if you took the change to consider the constructive criticism and try to do better.

[ages]

@Materialist

@ages

But what has ‘relations between types of things’ got to do with anything here?
I was asking you if you could, and if yes, then will you explain what the ‘physical thing’, itself, is or even ‘could be’, exactly, which could be considered ‘causality’, itself.

Here’s a brief description of the ontology:
Everything that exists is a state of affairs (SOA) composed of 3 sets of constituents: a “thin” particular, a set of intrinsic properties, and a set of relations to other SOAs. The individual constituents do not exist independently of SOAs; they exist immanently in a SOA.

Example: -1 electric charge, as a property of an electron. The charge is not an object itself, but it exists immanently in particular electrons. A proton has a +1 charge. There is an attraction relation between a proton and electron because of the opposite electric charge. The “law” is the attraction relation between the +1 charge property and the -1 charge property: it’s a relation between properties. It exists between any pair of objects with opposite charges. Objects with a -1 charge are a type of object, same with objects of +1 charge. Hence a law is a relation between types of objects. The attraction relation causes the objects to move toward each other. The causality is not due to a “thing” because thing=SOA.

Okay. Thank you. To you, ‘causality’ is not due to a thing.

@Materialist

It is due to a relation between types of things.

Now, ‘causality’, to you, is due to a ‘relation’ between types of things. So, is this ‘relation’ physical or not, to you, exactly?

@Materialist

Every property corresponds to a type of thing, so we can also say that a property is a universal.

We could also say every thing corresponds to a type of property, so we can also say that a thing is a universal, as well.
But, just like what you said and claimed here, ‘we’ are both not really saying anything much at all.

@Materialist

So universals exist immanently in states of affairs, not as independent things.

But, and again, is ‘causality’ itself independent and/or physical, exactly?

@Materialist

I’ve outlined the nature of intrinsic properties and relations. The “thin particular” = that to which the properties and relations attach. Again, “thin particulars” do not have independent existence. This is equvalent to saying that every existent has properties.

It’s called a “thin particular” to distinguish it from an actual particular: a SOA. SOA=thing=existent=particular.

And what is ‘causality’ itself, exactly?

@Materialist

@ages

‘What’, exactly, is now supposedly a so-called ‘explanatory hypothesis’?

The State of Affairs ontological theory, of which I’ve barely scratched the surface with my description. It’s a comprehensive theory devised by David Armstrong, but with variations by other philosophers. If you really want to understand it, read Stephen Mumford’s book, "Armstrong .

Again, I do not do ‘theory’, as what the actual Truth is already HERE before ‘us’. So, ‘we’ can just ‘look at’ and study the Truth of things, instead of presuming and guessing what ‘they’ might or could be.

@Materialist

Armstrong’s theory was his life’s work.

So what?

@Materialist

He wrote books on major components (e.g. universals, laws of nature, truthmaker theory of truth, theory of mind). Mumford’s summary is a good overview.

Again, so what? What you are referring to is just ‘another theory’ only. Which again will always remain essentially just ‘a guess’, only.

@Materialist

@ages

‘We’ would have to first ‘look at’ what ‘explanatory hypothesis’ that you have and are referring to here, before ‘we’ could present ‘an alternative theory’, which you claim you are open to considering.

Of course, but that would take a good bit of time to study the theory. Again, start with Mumford.

Or…you could just present an alternative theory.

Again, I do not do theory. I prefer to just ‘look at’ what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct only, and then ‘discuss that’ only.
So, I have absolutely NO interest in reading just ‘another theory’ and formulating and presenting an alternative theory.

@Materialist

@ages

So, for example, when ‘we’ human beings were killing what ‘we’ called “witches” was this ‘reality’? Or, when ‘we’ adults are abusing children ‘nowadays’, is this also ‘reality’?
Now, considering that “witches” are not being killed ‘these days’, and that children will stop being abused in the future, then which one is ‘reality’, exactly? The ’ killing of “witches”,’ or the non-killing of “witches”? And, it the ‘abuse of children’ reality, or the ‘non-abuse of children’ reality, for example?

Good question. I’ll relate this to Armstrong’s theory of truth: truthmaker theory. A proposition is true if it has a truthmaker anywhere in the past, present or future in any universe, or in any plain of reality, that exists. It’s a viable theory of truth even if materialism is false.

But there is only what is true or what is True. What is ‘true’ is only to some, while what is ‘True’ is to all.
And, all ‘truth’ and even all ‘Truth’ is always dependent upon agreement and acceptance. As the facts show and prove.
There is also only One Universe only. As the facts show and prove.
And, there is only One Reality, as well. As the facts show and prove also.
Which, by the way, these facts align to show and prove the G.U.T.O.E.

@Materialist

We believe the stories in history books about killing “witches” are true.

‘you’ may well believe this.

@Materialist

As such, the truthmaker is the actual events that occurred.

Which ‘you’ obviously do NOT know, for sure, but only presume and/or believe occurred.
Once again, what ‘we’ can see here is how ‘these people’ will believe stories, even when they do not yet have any actual proof. ‘They’ would literally believe many, many unverified and unproven things.
LOL ‘They’ even choose to assume ‘some stories’ to be true and believe ‘those stories’, just because those stories are called ‘history’, and all dependent upon their own personal Past Experiences, of course.

@Materialist

Same with reports of child abuse.

Well, the fact that ALL adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, abuse children can also be shown and demonstrated with irrefutable proof.

@Materialist

@ages

Why did you jump to this conclusion and presume or believe that I have ‘jumped to conclusions’ here, exactly?

Because you said, “your ‘current’ point of view and world view could NEVER allow you to see or believe things are any other way.”

You were wrong,

@Materialist

@ages

Why did you jump to this conclusion and presume or believe that I have ‘jumped to conclusions’ here, exactly?

Because you said, “your ‘current’ point of view and world view could NEVER allow you to see or believe things are any other way.”

You were wrong,

If this is what you really want to choose to believe is absolutely true, then okay.
Do you believe that absolutely everything in the whole entire Universe is ‘material’?
Once you answer this clarifying question honestly, then 'we can proceed to see if I have actually jumped to a conclusion or just presented an actual True and Right conclusion, instead.

@Materialist

You were wrong, and I described one way you were wrong: the belief in this metaphysical theory is the “best explanation” is defeasible. In addition, I’m capable of entertaining possibilities that are inconsistent with my own views. But the issue I tend to bring up is that possibility is cheap, because they are infinite. More than possibility is needed to accept it.

Okay.
Would you present what you believe to be true, and then ‘we’ can find out how capable you are of entertaining possibilities that are inconsistent with them.

@Materialist

It sounds like you have an ontological theory,

Okay, but I am not sure how many times I do not have nor do theory before you will come to understand this fact.

@Materialist

It sounds like you have an ontological theory, and are judging my position irrational because I have not considered it. Or, perhaps, because you believe you can actually prove your theory is necessarily true.

Now, just like I do not have nor do theory, I also do not have nor do belief as well.

@Materialist

If I’m right on either of these possibililities, it suggests you are conflating being right with being rational.

The only one conflating things here is you now. And, you are conflating on things that do not even exist.

@Materialist

Two people with opposing views could both have arrived at those views rationally-i.e. without errors in reasoning.

Irrelevant, as I was not conflating being right with being rational at all.

@Materialist

We aren’t omniscient.

Who and/or what is the ‘we’ word here referring to, exactly?

@Materialist

@ages

why believe something is true before you have even obtained the proof for its truthfulness?

Couple issues.

People use the word “believe” differently, and this leads to drawing incorrect conclusions and talking past each other.

Very, very True. So, why did you not ask me to clarify what I meant, exactly, when I used the ‘believe’ word here?

By the way, people use just about all words differently, and this leads to not just drawing incorrect conclusions and talking past each other but also leads to misunderstanding, which is where just about ALL quarrelling, bickering, fighting, conflict, and warring arises from.
Whereas, ‘understanding’ itself leads to the exact opposite and even to causing and living in a Truly Peaceful and Harmonious world with and for everyone.

@Materialist

You said:

@ages

To me, believing something is true while also claiming to be open to ‘it’ being false seems very contradictory.

Right- you use the word differently.

See HOW when clarification is provided, then clarity and understanding can become KNOWN, and then understanding, Peace and Harmony can more easily and simply ensue.

Also, ‘I’ use ‘that word’ differently from who, exactly?

@Materialist

This is the problem with this assertion you made:

1. ‘you’ use the ‘problem’ word differently from how ‘I’ do.
2. you used the ‘this’ word here. So, what is the ‘this’ word here referring to, exactly?

@Materialist

@ages

1. The reason WHY you believe what you do does not matter one iota here. Once a person believes, or disbelieves, something to be true, then they are closed or narrowed, because they are NOT as open as they could be.

As I said, I consider this materialistic theory the “best explanation”.

If you ‘consider’ that ‘materialistic theory’ the ‘best explanation’ (in regard to ‘what’ I do not know), then okay.

@Materialist

That is what I believe.

I am not sure why you want to even believe that you consider some theory the best explanation, but, if that is what you believe, then okay.
Out of curiosity, why do you ‘believe’ that you consider …[such and such]? Would you not just already ‘know’ what you consider to be ‘the theory’ with the ‘best explanation’?

@Materialist

I also believe the actual ontology of the world is unknowable- it can never be proven.

Again, WHY would you want to believe something to be true when you have absolutely NO proof for the belief at all?

@Materialist

Even scientific theories aren’t provable.

That is another reason why I do not have nor do ‘theory’.

@Materialist

Very few things are provably true in the strictest sense.

Okay, but yet you still believe some things to be true, even when you do not have no proof for them.

@Materialist

Nevertheless, we draw comclusions on sparse evidence every day

‘you’ may well do this.

@Materialist

- most of our beliefs about everyday life are like this.

Thus why I do not have nor do beliefs as well.

@Materialist

When we’re careful, we strive for inference to best explanation- because that’s usually the best we can do.

But ‘we’ can do, and ‘I’ already do do, better than what you claim is “the best we can do”.
you might strive for inference to best explanation, but I do not do this.

@Materialist

Your admitted lack of openness to being wrong in your beliefs seems odd to me,

Here is another prime example of one who has absolutely NO idea NOR clue here, again because they never stopped to seek out clarification and obtain actual clarity first.
I will repeat and say this again, but I am not sure if it will be heard, but I do not have any beliefs; therefore, there are NO beliefs of mine that could be wrong, obviously.

@Materialist

But perhaps you only use “belief” to the things you CAN prove.

But I NEVER use beliefs in regard to me having any.

I either ‘think’ something is true, or I ‘know’ something is true. Everything I ‘think’ could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, or partly false, wrong, inaccurate, or incorrect. And, what I ‘know’ is true because I have already obtained the proof for. Which also means that I do not have to ‘believe’ it is true because I already ‘know’ for sure, that it is true.

@Materialist

I can only speculate.

And, like presuming and believing, ‘speculating’ is essentially just guessing.
Also, if one never seeks out to obtain clarification, and clarity, then they will never know what they are, essentially, just guesses is true or not.
By the way, you can do far, far more than only speculating; you could actually seek out clarification until you have obtained full clarity, that way you will not be confused and presenting misunderstandings like you are here

@Materialist

I just ask that you recognize that we have a different framework, so it’s erroneous to draw conclusions by applying your framework to my statements of belief.

‘We’ will have to wait to see if I am Wrong or not.

@Materialist

Sure- if your proof is based on agreed premises.

Great.

[ages]

@Materialist

Here’s my caution:

I’ve had discussions with “Thomists” (those who belive the metaphysical theory of Thomas Aquinas). Their tendency is to “prove me wrong” on the basis that my theory doesn’t account for potententiality, or essence.

Who cares? This has absolutely nothing at all to do with me nor with my words.
Also, every ‘ist’ reveals what that human being believes is true.

@Materialist

IOW, their “proof” is based on a Thomist framework.

Okay. But so far it does not sound like actual proof at all

@Materialist

The Thomist framework is a premise.

Who cares?

@Materialist

you can’t disprove one metaphysical theory false, on the basis of it being inconsistent with another metaphysical theory.

Again, who cares?
This has absolutely nothing at all with anything I have been saying, and nor even thinking.

Once again, for those who are not yet aware, I make ‘my claims’ because I already have the proof for them.
So you are aware I do not have nor do theory. Therefore, I do not even try to disprove any theory, nor do I provide any theory.

@Materialist

@ages

To you, what is between and around objects and particles of ‘matter’, exactly?
What is ‘that thing’ or ‘those things’ made up of, exactly?

That’s a physics question.

Who cares? ‘We’ are in a thread about ‘causality’, and whether it is an objective feature of reality or not.

@Materialist

Under Quantum Field Theory,

Maybe you missed the part where I said and wrote, “To you, …”.

@Materialist

Under Quantum Field Theory, ordinary objects of experience are composed of particles. Particles are quanta of quantum fields, and the quantum fields exist at every point of space. So it is quantum fields that are “around” everything, but they also comprise everything.

Okay. So ‘now’ ‘we’ are aware of what your interpretation of ‘quantum field theory’ is here.

@Materialist

@ages

If the whole entire Universe, what you call ‘reality’, or in words and a term ‘we’ both agree with and accept here, ‘All that exists’, there is only ‘matter’, and ‘matter’ ONLY, then there would be just one singular piece of ‘matter’ ONLY. Which is sometimes referred to and known as ‘singularity’.

Non sequitur.

It might be under your use of that term, but how are you using that term here, exactly?

@Materialist

It’s possible that the quantum fields are fundamental- not decomposible into some common thing. You can nevertheless propose monism as a metaphysical theory.

you really are STUCK on and in ‘theories’. Which, again, essentially are just guesses only.

@Materialist

What is a “singularity”,in your theory?

Once more, I do have a theory and I do not do theories at all.

@Materialist

I relate the term to the mathematical singularity that arises when usuing general relativity to calculate the density of the universe at time t0- it’s a mathematical singularity because it entails dividing by zero.

I relate that term to an infinite compression of matter.

@Materialist

It doesn’t correspond to an actual state of the universe at a point of time;

What is ‘time’, exactly, in your theory?

@Materialist

; rather, physicists consider it a sign that general relativity is inapplicable.

you speak as though if one is a so-called “physicist” they must therefore have an ‘authority’ here.

@Materialist

So please clarify your use of the term.

Already done.
Will you please clarify your use of the term ‘time’?

@Materialist

@ages

In between and surrounding ‘matter’ there is a thing called ‘space’. Which, to me, that word refers to the distance between and around matter. If this were physical matter itself, thus ‘the same thing’ as ‘it’ is in between and surrounds, then ‘space’ would also be ‘matter’, and thus would not be separated from ‘matter’.

Your theory sounds inconsistent with quantum field theory.

1. Quantum field theory has not been verified.
2. I do not have a theory.

Now, if you want to believe that in between and surrounding ‘matter’ there is not (a) ‘space’, then okay.

@Materialist

That’s sufficient reason for me to reject it.

@Materialist

That’s sufficient reason for me to reject it.

But, the only thing ‘you’ are rejecting here is what you imagine and believe exists. Because, once again, there is NO ‘theory’ that you could even logically reject.

@Materialist

A scientific theory isn’t provably true, but the epistemic support is superior to a metaphysical theory.

Who cares?
Once again, ‘this’ has absolutely nothing to do with me nor my words.

@Materialist

@ages

M: “But typically, people just bring up logical possibilities.”

Well, I have not here.

Yes, you did- unless you can reconcile it with quantum field theory, and conclusively prove monism is true.

1. I have not.
2. you speak as though if something does not reconcile with quantum field theory, then it MUST BE ‘that thing’ that is wrong, inaccurate, or incorrect. JUS MAYBE there is something wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect in quantum field theory. Have you ever considered that?
3. ‘you’ “materialist” are the one who believes that the whole entire universe is made up of ‘material’ or ‘matter’ only, which therefore it is ‘you’ who believes ‘monism’ is true.

@Materialist

@ages

And, again, for all of those who class “themselves” as, or call “themselves”, “materialists”;
How could there logically be just ‘material’ ONLY, exactly?

I define “material” with an epistemological constraint:

Material = That which exists (has existed, or will exist) including ourselves, everything that is causally connected to ourselves, and anything not causally connected (such as alternate universes) that is inferred to exist, to have existed, or that will exist, through analysis of our universe.

1. What is this so-called ‘our universe’, exactly?
2. your own personal version of ‘material’ is more or less exactly like your own personal version of ‘reality’. Which, both, by the way, do not and could not fit in at all with the G.U.T.O.E.

[ages]

@Materialist

No T-Rex exists today, but they did exist in the past.

This is another presumption again, which you believe is true, based on your theory.

@Materialist

Unicorns do not exist in the world, and never have.

Are you absolutely sure of this?
Could you be Wrong in anyway here at all?

@Materialist

Marxism exists as a school of thought - memories and thoughts in the minds of various people.

What are these ‘minds’, which you speak of here, exactly?

@Materialist

Gravity is a law of nature, and therefore exists imminantly in the states of affairs that exhibit it.

Is there anything that does not exhibit gravity, or, maybe better worded, exhibit an effect of gravity?

you have used the word ‘imminantly’ a few times now, what does that term mean to you, exactly?

@Materialist

@noAxioms

What is the bound of the universe, after which it would be considered part of another universe?

I regard the universe to be the causally connected stars, galaxies, dark matter (and everything within and between) whose state is a consequence of the big bang that physicists discuss and research. This would preclude an arbitrary division. I defer to physicists.

Who and/or what does the term “physicists” refer to, exactly?

[ages]

@FlannelJesus

Oh no, you found your way to this forum
That’s not good news.

WHY?
Is ‘your life’ going to be ruined just because ‘I’ so-called ‘found my way to this forum’?

It is like some of ‘these people’s lives’ are based upon or are centred ‘around me’ somehow.

@FlannelJesus

you’ve had this kind of feedback about your communication style consistently, from many people across numerous forums.

LOL, LOL, LOL.
What are you even referring to, exactly, “flanneljesus”?

LOL your own prior response? Or, is this something else, exactly, that your claim, “you’ve have ‘this kind of feedback’ about your communication style consistently, …”.

So, ‘what and which feedback’ are you referring to, EXACTLY, “flanneljesus”?

And, why did you only just notice, when you did, that ‘I’ am in here.
If I recall correctly you were previously discussing with me here.

@FlannelJesus

It would be amazing if you took the change to consider the constructive criticism and try to do better.

Will you name ONE or preferably MORE, if there are, things said and written, which you believe were so-called ‘constructive criticism’?

If you do not, then why not?

In fact, why do you not also provide ‘the examples’ of what you consider is Wrong or lacking in my communication style in this forum.

Also, and by the way, WHY are you still communicating in the same old style. Have you not been provided constructive criticism for it already?

[FlannelJesus]

Write less, focus more. Most of your words are just not doing anything useful, just yapping.

Wayfairer said “Too many questions and assertions to field here, I’m sorry. You’ll need to regulate your output a little if you’re going to get the best out of this forum.” – take the feedback, try to apply it.

[Materialist]

@ages

I make ‘my claims’ because I already have the proof for them.
So you are aware I do not have nor do theory. Therefore, I do not even try to disprove any theory, nor do I provide any theory.

Present the proof.

@ages

So ‘now’ ‘we’ are aware of what your interpretation of ‘quantum field theory’ is here.

It’s a standard interpretation, and it appears to be inconsistent with your description of the universe. If you can prove your description is correct, as you say, then the community of theoretical physicists needs to be made aware so they stop wasting their time on it.

@ages

1. Quantum field theory has not been verified.

You claim to be able to “prove” your theory. This creates a burden for you to prove it false, if it’s inconsistent with your theory.

@ages

2. you speak as though if something does not reconcile with quantum field theory, then it MUST BE ‘that thing’ that is wrong,

Nope. See above.

@ages

you really are STUCK on and in ‘theories’. Which, again, essentially are just guesses only.

It’s naive to claim a scientific theory is just a guess.

@ages

I relate that term to an infinite compression of matter.

How is “an infinite compression of matter” even possible? If it’s a premise in your “proof” then you need to prove an “infinite compression of matter” is possible.

@ages

What is ‘time’, exactly, in your theory?

A relation between states. What’s time in yours? If your “proof” depends on it, then prove your view is true.

I’m not going to waste my time answering all your questions about my theory, because when I answer, you tend to reply “who cares?” Besides, once I see your proof, I’ll have to drop my unprovable theory. I await your proof.

[Materialist]

Why do you ask? Why should I consider answering?

I answered those questions just to demonstrate that they are answerable under my theory. If I couldn’t provide answers, that would be a strike against the theory.

But my theory is surely irrelevant in the face of the proof you say you have. Once I see your proof, I’ll obviously have to abandon my theory.

[PatternChaser]

@Materialist

@PatternChaser

So we can be fairly confident that causality — or something that looks A LOT like it — exists in the real world, and that it might apply to all events

Yes, it is at least logically possible, but because there’s no evidence to the contrary, it is more justified to believe it applies to all events.

Logic failure alert!!!

A lack of evidence can never be a conclusive argument, yes? If there is no justification, there is no logical reason to reach a conclusion. In fact, I would say that, in the absence of conclusive evidence or argument, 🅛🅞🅖🅘🅒 dictates that we MAY and MUST NOT reach such a conclusion. Yes?

[noAxioms]

@Materialist

Circular? I drew no conclusions, so it’s not circular reasoning.

I didn’t say circular reasoning, just circular definition. X is synonymous with Y, but that leaves zero clue as to the definition of either.

I did not ask if a T-Rex exists today, if the unicorn exists in this world. I asked if they exist, if they’re real.
OK, you seem to imply that Marxism and gravity exist and are real, so having a location in space isn’t a requirement.

@Materialist

I regard the universe to be the causally connected stars, galaxies, dark matter (and everything within and between) whose state is a consequence of the big bang that physicists discuss and research.

OK. That includes an awful lot that you don’t see, including the first three of Tegmark’s 4 levels of multiverse, including the unicorn, so if the unicorn isn’t real, then parts of the universe are not real. If ‘past’ things like the T-Rex are not real, then that’s more parts of the universe (very much a consequence of the big bang) that are not real.

Some things like the number 13 are not part of the universe, and questionably ‘exist’, per opinions.

I usually define ‘our universe’ to be the naive classical ‘all that has coordinates relative to Earth’ which includes places beyond the visible universe, but not levels II and III (worlds with different fundamental constants, and worlds that collapsed differently, respectively).

And that brings me to my ‘opinion’, which is that ‘existence’ and being ‘real’ are in the end language constructs, applied where we feel appropriate and not applied where not. Hence something existing is a choice, a mental designation. It fully embraces mind dependent ontology without in any way embracing idealism which might suggest that there’s not a difference between a thing and the concept of a thing. Forgive me if I’m misrepresenting idealism. I don’t understand it well.

@Materialist

If a fossil were dug up of a horse-like animal with a forehead horn, that would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not correspond to the literary invention, “unicorn” irrespective of whether or not that monicker were given to it.

Good point. However much a fitting animal exists, it and the myth are arguably not the same thing. Likely nothing around the unicorn names it that, if things are named at all. You speak of fossils, but any ‘real’ (whatever that means) unicorn is likely on another planet somewhere, as are other humans, even if they don’t call themselves that.

@Materialist

How could a definition NOT be mind dependent?

The defining of anything is a mind dependent task, sure, but the definition itself may or may not be dependent on anything mental. E.g. Me saying that a rock making a splash in the water is not an expression of a mind dependent relationship between the two. Those two relate like that, regardless of humans ever being around to name them or observe. The rock is more dense than water. That’s predication without existence, since nothing ever designated either as something existing. So I’ve defined sort of mind independent relationships between rock and water.

@FlannelJesus

Oh no, you found your way to this forum
That’s not good news.

@ages

Again, I do not do ‘theory’, as what the actual Truth is already HERE before ‘us’.

Well put. You go straight to asserting random things without backing any of it up. Noise without meat.

[ages]

@Materialist

@ages

I make ‘my claims’ because I already have the proof for them.
So you are aware I do not have nor do theory. Therefore, I do not even try to disprove any theory, nor do I provide any theory.

Present the proof.

If you really want me to present the proof, then, if you ask, instead of demand, then you will get a different outcome.
Also, if you would like me to present the proof for something, then I will suggest you are specific in what you are seeking out and asking for.

@Materialist

@ages

So ‘now’ ‘we’ are aware of what your interpretation of ‘quantum field theory’ is here.

It’s a standard interpretation,

Who cares? I ask, “To you, what exists?”

@Materialist

It’s a standard interpretation, and it appears to be inconsistent with your description of the universe.

In what way, to you, does it appear to be inconsistent with my description of the Universe, exactly?
Also, how have you interpreted my description of the Universe, exactly?

@Materialist

If you can prove your description is correct, as you say, then the community of theoretical physicists needs to be made aware so they stop wasting their time on it.

1. I have already informed you human beings about HOW you can stop wasting ‘your time’, so the rest is up to you.
2. Those human beings who have the moniker and label did not need to be made aware of anything.
3. I have claimed I already have the proof. Again, I now wait, patiently.

@Materialist

@ages

1. Quantum field theory has not been verified.

You claim to be able to “prove” your theory.

Now you are showing you have not been reading and hearing, and so are ignorant, or maybe you have just forgotten already, but I do not have a theory.

@Materialist

This creates a burden for you to prove it false, if it’s inconsistent with your theory.

Obviously, quantum field theory is inconsistent with ‘Reality’ and/or the Universe Itself, as you people still have not yet been able to unify it with that other theory and guess you people have made up, - the classical interpretation or theory.

By the way, I am not here to prove anything false. I just do not see where those two theories are inconsistent with each other like you people do.
When people talk about both of those interpretations, I recognise and see where the Truths and where the Falsehoods are in both of them.

@Materialist

@ages

2. you speak as though if something does not reconcile with quantum field theory, then it MUST BE ‘that thing’ that is wrong,

Nope. See above.

Again, note how when people believe something is true when anything is presented that is inconsistent, in opposition, or is contrary to their belief, then it MUST BE the ‘other’ that is false, wrong, inaccurate, or incorrect.

@Materialist

It’s naive to claim a scientific theory is just a guess.

Some say it is more naive to believe that the whole of a scientific theory is not more than just a guess.
If people do not want to break down ‘a theory’ and discuss the parts of ‘that theory’ that are or could be inconsistent with the actual One Universe, and just want to talk about ‘the theory’ as a whole, then again, to some, this is being very naive. It could also be said that those who believe that if another view is inconsistent with ‘a theory’, then it MUST BE the other view that is wrong, then the naivety of this speaks very loud and clear. Well,to some anyway.

@Materialist

@ages

I relate that term to an infinite compression of matter.

How is “an infinite compression of matter” even possible?

Very, very easily and simply, and a great question if and when anyone wants to discuss things like black holes and bangs, or the big bang specifically.
HOW ‘an infinite compression of matter’ is both theoretically and empirically possible is when the ‘space’ between and around ‘matter’ is ‘removed’, for lack of a better word here. When objects of matter are sucked or drawn into a black hole, for example, and it is said that if there is a singularity in the centre or at the end of a black hole, then, from the strength of the gravitational energy, it forces all the matter that entered to be compressed together into one, singular, piece of matter. The more matter that is compressed together, by the way, the stronger the gravitational pull.
The term ‘singularity’ when defined as an infinite compression of matter, refers to when the ‘space’ or ‘distance’ between and around is ‘compressed out’, or removed, so that when ‘matter’ is combined with itself, the size of that one singular piece of matter grows in size. That is, there is no ‘space’ within, either at what you people call the ‘quantum level’ or ‘classical level’.

This ‘singularity’, by the way, is created in the exact same way as the one some people say was at what some people call the big bang.

Now, and as always, for any information about these bangs or more specifically, the one called as the big bang, or for any other information and proof here, then let ‘us’ have a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned, peaceful discussion.

But, essentially, HOW ‘an infinite compression of matter’ is possible is just through the action and reaction process of ‘objects or particles’ of ‘matter’ interacting with ‘itself’ in a way that all of the ‘space’ and ‘distance’ between ‘matter’ is compressed out and removed from within. Which is said to be what happens and occurs at the centre or end of black holes. Which, by the way, once matter is compressed together infinitely, that is, with no space within, no reaction is occuring so light is being emitted as well.

@Materialist

If it’s a premise in your “proof” then you need to prove an “infinite compression of matter” is possible.

Okay.

@Materialist

@ages

What is ‘time’, exactly, in your theory?

A relation between states. What’s time in yours?

How many times does a person need to be told that I do NOT have a theory before they come to comprehend and accept this Fact?

The word ‘time’, to me, refers to the duration between two ‘perceived’ events.
And, like ‘gravity’ and ‘causality’, ‘time’ is not some physical thing that exists.

@Materialist

If your “proof” depends on it, then prove your view is true.

Once more, for those who are really hard of hearing and seeing, The proofs for WHAT the One and only eternal and infinite Universe is made up of, exactly, and for HOW the Universe works, exactly, is NOT ‘my proof’.
Also, to understand the G.U.T.O.E., properly, Correctly, and fully, of course, what the ‘thing’ is, exactly, that the word ‘time’ refers to will have to be explained and understood.

@Materialist

I’m not going to waste my time answering all your questions about my theory,

Why would ‘you’ be any different? Most people who do not fully understand ‘their chosen theory’ to believe is the true and/or right one do eventually try to “run away” and hide when they are questioned and/or challenged over what they actually do understand and know regarding ‘that theory’.
As the question goes, ‘If you cannot explain something simply, then how well do you really understand and know it?’

@Materialist

because when I answer, you tend to reply “who cares?”

If you were answering and clarifying the actual question I posed, and asked to you, then I would not write, ‘Who cares?’

I write, ‘Who cares?’ when you reply with something about something that I was NOT asking about.

Just because you may well have ‘replied’ to a question of mine does not necessarily mean that you are actually ‘answering’ that posed question of mine.

@Materialist

Besides, once I see your proof, I’ll have to drop my unprovable theory.

Once more, ‘it’ is NOT ‘my’ proof.

And, by the way, it does not make logical sense, well, to me anyway, that you would ‘have to’ drop ‘your unprovable theory’ on the reason ‘once you see (what you call) my proof’.

But, if you believe that you ‘HAVE TO’, then okay.

@Materialist

I await your proof.

Okay, but, again, I wait, patiently, until I receive specific questions, requests, and/or challenges before I present proofs for ‘my claims’.

[Materialist]

@ages

When people talk about both of those interpretations, I recognise and see where the Truths and where the Falsehoods are in both of them.

Your are either delusional,brilliant, or ignorant. But you are most certainly arrogant. I have no interest in engaging with with someone so arrogant. Have a nice day.

[Materialist]

@noAxioms

I did not ask if a T-Rex exists today, if the unicorn exists in this world. I asked if they exist, if they’re real.

It would have been misleading to say they don’t exist.

@noAxioms

, you seem to imply that Marxism and gravity exist and are real, so having a location in space isn’t a requirement

I think all existents are located in time and space (pending new theories about space or time being emergents of something more fundamental).

Marxism connotes a set of beliefs that many people hold. I beleve beliefs are encoded in physical structures in the brains of these people.

Re: Gravity- Theories of gravity are beliefs, like Marxism. But gravity also refers to a law of nature, that exists independently of minds.

@noAxioms

That includes an awful lot that you don’t see, including the first three of Tegmark’s 4 levels of multiverse, including the unicorn, so if the unicorn isn’t real, then parts of the universe are not real. If ‘past’ things like the T-Rex are not real, then that’s more parts of the universe (very much a consequence of the big bang) that are not real.

I’m unfamiliar with Tegmark’s framing, but it sounds like something I’d disagree with. I described my view of unicorns - they are fictions, not animals that exist, existed in the past, or will exist in the future.

You seem to be using “real” differently than I do. I simply believe that true statements can be made about the past and future. “T-rex existed” is a true statement. They don’t exist today. T-rexes are not fictions. If we defined “real” as “not fictitious”, I could go along with that.

@noAxioms

Some things like the number 13 are not part of the universe, and questionably ‘exist’, per opinions.

My view is that 13 is an abstraction, existing in minds, but is also a universal: a property that exists in collections of 13 objects.

@noAxioms

I usually define ‘our universe’ to be the naive classical ‘all that has coordinates relative to Earth’ which includes places beyond the visible universe, but not levels II and III (worlds with different fundamental constants, and worlds that collapsed differently, respectively).

Sounds fine to me. It leaves room for a multiverse of multiple universes. Same with your discussion of “real” and “existing”. We’re aligned on a lot, I think.

@noAxioms

any ‘real’ (whatever that means) unicorn is likely on another planet somewhere, as are other humans, even if they don’t call themselves that.

My view is that “unicorn” refers to a literary creation. An actual beast on another planet would not be a literary creation, and therefore not a unicorn. You may use the term differently, but if an exterresterial beast could fit your concept of unicorn, I’d guess a fossil that fits the description would also.

@noAxioms

The defining of anything is a mind dependent task, sure, but the definition itself may or may not be dependent on anything mental. E.g. Me saying that a rock making a splash in the water is not an expression of a mind dependent relationship between the two.

The mind independent relationship is ontological. When we correctly describe some ontological relationship, our mental constructs are corresponding to the world; i.e. the statements are true.

[ages]

@Materialist

Why do you ask?

I asked you six questions, are you referring to one, some, or all?
And, why do I ask open clarifying questions is so that if you answer and clarify, then I will obtain and gain more clarity.

There is NO ‘should’ here.
If you want to answer and clarify, or not, is ‘your’ choice alone. Even if you want to just consider to whether answer and clarify, or not, is also ‘your’ choice alone as well.

@Materialist

I answered those questions just to demonstrate that they are answerable under my theory.

What questions are you referring to here, exactly?

@Materialist

If I couldn’t provide answers, that would be a strike against the theory.

Okay, but let ‘us’ not forget that you have also admitted and wrote;
“I’m not going to waste my time answering all your questions about my theory, … [for the reason you provided]”, which, as I already explained, was also Incorrect.

@Materialist

But my theory is surely irrelevant in the face of the proof you say you have.

I was not aware that ‘you’ had ‘your own theory’, but anyway, obviously if ‘any theory’ is not in line with the proof and facts that exist, itself, then ‘that theory’ could be considered ‘irrelevant’, as you say here. Well, at least ‘the parts’ of ‘the theory’ that are not aligned with proof and facts anyway.

@Materialist

Once I see your proof, I’ll obviously have to abandon my theory.

Once again, proof is NOT ‘my proof’.

[ages]

@noAxioms

@ages

Again, I do not do ‘theory’, as what the actual Truth is already HERE before ‘us’.

Well put. You go straight to asserting random things without backing any of it up. Noise without meat.

Once again for the DEAF and BLIND. I wait for those who show interest. If people have any curiosity left within them, then they are the ones who will show interest. As for the rest, then I let and leave them be.

[Moliere]

@ages

How many times does a person need to be told that I do NOT have a theory before they come to comprehend and accept this Fact?

It’d be easier if you didn’t immediately follow up with:

@ages

The word ‘time’, to me, refers to the duration between two ‘perceived’ events.
And, like ‘gravity’ and ‘causality’, ‘time’ is not some physical thing that exists.

Which is a theory.

Or:

@ages

But, essentially, HOW ‘an infinite compression of matter’ is possible is just through the action and reaction process of ‘objects or particles’ of ‘matter’ interacting with ‘itself’ in a way that all of the ‘space’ and ‘distance’ between ‘matter’ is compressed out and removed from within. Which is said to be what happens and occurs at the centre or end of black holes. Which, by the way, once matter is compressed together infinitely, that is, with no space within, no reaction is occuring so light is being emitted as well.

Which is also a theory.

It’s not like the people presenting other theories believe that their theories are wrong. They believe that they are the truth, but also know that there is no such thing as proving reality.

Proof is in the realm of logic and thought. Reality doesn’t care about logic or thought. These are not proven as much as taken for granted by me as a basis to work towards a possible collective understanding.

But notice that I’m not claiming to have seen the light outside of the cave here. I’m rather doubtful that you have a proof, though. If you present it you’d have a pretense for all of your questions, but if not then what are the theorists answering for if you have a proof?

[ages]

@Moliere

@ages

How many times does a person need to be told that I do NOT have a theory before they come to comprehend and accept this Fact?

It’d be easier if you didn’t immediately follow up with:

@ages

The word ‘time’, to me, refers to the duration between two ‘perceived’ events.
And, like ‘gravity’ and ‘causality’, ‘time’ is not some physical thing that exists.

Which is a theory.

NO IT IS NOT. But, as always, ‘you’ are absolutely free to see and believe whatever ‘you’ like..

Once more, after one has obtained proof for something, then ‘it’ is NOT ‘a theory’, ‘it’ is a Fact, which is, again, irrefutable because the proof for it demonstrates and makes ‘it’ an irrefutable Fact.

Again, how many times do people have to be informed of something before they come to comprehend and accept Facts?

I have proof of how those words are referring to things that are not physical. Therefore, ‘it’ is NOT ‘a theory’.

@Moliere

@ages

But, essentially, HOW ‘an infinite compression of matter’ is possible is just through the action and reaction process of ‘objects or particles’ of ‘matter’ interacting with ‘itself’ in a way that all of the ‘space’ and ‘distance’ between ‘matter’ is compressed out and removed from within. Which is said to be what happens and occurs at the centre or end of black holes. Which, by the way, once matter is compressed together infinitely, that is, with no space within, no reaction is occuring so light is being emitted as well.

Which is also a theory.

To ‘you’ maybe.
But, if ‘it’ is a provable Fact, then why do you call ‘proved Facts’ ‘theories’?

Just because ‘you’ have not yet become aware of an already ‘proved Fact’, like, for example, while ‘you’ believe that the sun revolves around the earth, and ‘another’ is saying and claiming that actually the earth revolves around the sun, and I have the proof that makes ‘this’ a factual Truth, then just because ‘you’ keep saying “But it is a theory”, never means that the ‘already proved Fact’ is ‘a theory’.
Again, ‘you’ have just not yet become aware of how ‘it’ is ‘an already proved Fact’. Sure, to ‘you’ ‘it’ may well still be just ‘a theory’, which ‘you’ would love to be Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect because ‘you’ are still believing that what is true is the sun revolves around the earth, and not the other way around, but this in and of itself never means that the ‘already proved Fact’ is ‘a theory’.

Hopefully ‘this’ is starting to be understood, well by some at least.

@Moliere

It’s not like the people presenting other theories believe that their theories are wrong.

If other people ‘have theories’, then so be it. I do not.

Instead, I have facts that back up and support what I am saying and claiming here.

Now, if ‘you’ really want to believe, absolutely, that there is NO such thing as proving ‘reality’ in absolutely any way at all, and that ‘this’ is ‘your reality’, then okay. That is what you believe to be absolutely true, but just because ‘you’ believe something to be true, does that belief make it so?

@Moliere

Proof is in the realm of logic and thought. Reality doesn’t care about logic or thought.

Do you have proof for these two claims of yours here?

@Moliere

These are not proven as much as taken for granted by me as a basis to work towards a possible collective understanding.

Okay, now that you just take your claims here ‘for granted’, and cannot prove them to be true, ‘we’ can together still work towards what you call a ‘possible understanding’.
So, is there anything I have said and written here that you do not yet understand or do not agree with and accept?

See, for ‘us’ to work towards a ‘possible understanding’, ‘you’ will have to inform ‘me’ of what you do not yet understand, and vice-versa.

@Moliere

But notice that I’m not claiming to have seen the light outside of the cave here. I

Yes, I already noticed, and noted, this.

@Moliere

I’m rather doubtful that you have a proof, though.

Okay. Again, you are absolutely free to believe or doubt absolutely anything you like.

@Moliere

If you present it you’d have a pretense for all of your questions, but if not then what are the theorists answering for if you have a proof?

WHY human beings, which ‘you’ are calling and have labelled as “theorists” here, create and formulate ‘theories’, or essentially just ‘make guesses’, about ‘what could be true’ is because they do not yet know, for sure.

Just like people ‘theorised’, and presumed or believed, that the sun revolved around the earth, before someone presented the proof that supported the Fact that it is actually the earth that revolves around the sun, instead.