Exactly.
And, you cannot so-call ‘shoot down’ anything that you have not, yet, seen nor heard also, correct?
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that it would be difficult to find any or many errors in so-called "einstein’s relativity’?
Yes please.
And, as expected, ‘this one’ has just revealed its inner assumptions and beliefs.
Now, ‘you’ have just made ‘the claim’ that what I helped ‘you’ to KNOW ‘where I stand’.
So, where, exactly, do ‘I’ stand, to ‘you’, “noaxioms”?
Show the readers here WHERE ‘you’ believe ‘I’ stand. Will ‘you’ do this. After all, you have made a claim, do you believe that ‘this claim’ is also a ‘justifiable claim’?
Obviously. So, when the premises are irrefutable facts or have already been proved, then the proof is valid, as well as sound.
Which, the proof that the Universe is eternal and infinite, with an infinite causal link, is irrefutable, sound and valid. And, even provable, although you obviously believe otherwise.
So, are you here saying and claiming that you would hesitate in asserting that ‘evidence’ or ‘interpretations’ are open to being refuted?
The Fact that ‘evidence’ can have multiple interpretations is, well, to me anyway, a very strong sign to always be absolutely completely open to them being wrong or false and thus refutable.
Whereas, ‘proof’ obviously cannot be false, wrong, nor refuted.
Are you here saying and claiming that “einstein” was so CLOSED that it actually believed that it could not be wrong?
Great.
Now, if the Universe did begin, then has anyone offered an explanation of HOW the Universe, and Everything all at once, could have
Logically begun?
Physically begun?
If there are any explanations of HOW the Universe could have theoretically and empirically begun, then ‘we’ will have something to ‘look at’ and ‘discuss’ as to then there at least being A possibility that the Universe begun.
Just like to other people in other ‘olden days’ also believed and ‘tried to’ claim that there as also just an awful lot of evidence that the sun revolves around the earth and/or that the earth is flat. And, we all know how well that "awful lot of evidence’ turned out for those believers.
Now, if you seriously want to claim that there is a so-called “awful lot” of ‘evidence’ that the Universe began from absolutely nothing, and/or is expanding, then will you present some or all of it here please?
Because, and obviously, what some people believe and claim is ‘evidence’ is not necessarily so at all.
By the way, there is already proof that the Universe is infinite and eternal, just like when only one was also saying and claiming that there is already proof that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Although many upon many believed and keep asserting otherwise.
This is ‘another claim’. Can you ‘justify’ this one?
What size is a so-called ‘meaningful size’, and what size is not a ‘meaningful size’, exactly?
Okay. But if this were true, then some might wonder why the so-called “experts” claim that the Universe is expanding or growing larger.
Then WHY introduce and talk about it here, exactly?
LOL, LOL, LOL
So, once more, ‘we’ have here ‘another one’ who has absolutely NO idea nor clue as to whether the Universe began or not, but laughably believes that it is ‘less fallible’.
Just ‘less fallible’, correct?
Didn’t you just acknowledge that no one you know knows whether the Universe began or not?
So, ‘who’ would be a candidate for ‘one who knows their stuff’ here, exactly?
Is there absolutely any possibility that ‘I’ could have obtained the proof that the Universe is, in fact, actually infinite and eternal?
Why do so many people who have gone through the laughably called “education system” frequently announce that they are somehow qualified, as though doing so gives ‘more weight’ to what they say, and believe and claim, is ‘the truth’?
I take ‘the words’ that you speak and write for what ‘they are’. What ‘that body’ has done in its very, very minuscule time in Existence has no importance at all here really.
There is an infinite causal link, which exists NOW, eternally.
For those who would like the proof for this, then they will seek it out. For the rest, they will not accept anything that is laughablly called ‘not peer reviewed’ or anything that goes against what they are ‘currently’ believing is true.
Only the wisest, on the other hand, are able to have a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned discussion to find out what the actual irrefutable Truth really is here.
Also, being involved in anything “science” oriented, one might have expected far more curiosity and interest, rather than resistance and wanting to ‘be right’.
Once again, this one jumps to a conclusion, based upon nothing more than its own pre/assumptions.
LOL Once again,
Asserting something that one already has the proof for is nothing wrong with at all.
I am waiting for something to come along who WANTS to have a logically reasoned discussion.
It is impossible to have a logically reasoned discussion with people while they are believing that they already know what is true and/or right, when they do NOT already have the proof for what they believe, or believe that ‘evidence’ overrides ‘proof’. For example, anyone who comes back with something like, “The best current model …,”, or “The evidence suggest …”.
To have a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned discussion the ones involved NEED TO BE open and honest to begin with.
So, ‘this one’ would prefer to ‘sit with’, even till its death, some thing that ‘suggests’ some thing or other, rather than spend any real time ‘looking at’ what could in fact be the actual proof.
What “noaxiom” is doing here is exactly what the ones who believed that the sun revolves around the earth were doing, and again, because ‘the evidence’ suggests and told them that it did.
Some of them also “died” without ever coming to learn and understand what the actual Truth was all along either.
Now, you have made ‘another claim’ here. So, what supposded ‘evidence’ suggests that the Universe began and that causal links are finite, exactly?
Until you present ‘the evidence’ what you say and claim here is just your opinion only, obviously.
If this is what you want to absolutely believe is the absolute truth, then you are absolutely free to do so.
Again, at their very essence, ‘theories’ are nothing more than just ‘another guess’ of what ‘might be’ or ‘is’ true and right.
LOL Next it will use the old ‘justified true belief’ claim.
If a ‘theory’ can be ‘wrong’, then it was, essentially, just ‘a guess’, obviously.
you can ‘try to’ ‘justify’ anything at all.
But, if something can be wrong, then it was a ‘wrong guess’.
‘This one’ is speaking like those who believed, absolutely, that the sun relvolves around the earth would have been speaking like.
LOL ‘The one’ explaining that ‘I have the proof’ that the earth revolves around the sun, instead of the other way around, was probably met with the same “kind of logic”, “And yet no other description seems to offer an alternative”. Yet, ‘the one’ saying and claiming that it has ‘the proof’ is NOT listened to NOR given the opportunity to express ‘the description’, and ‘the alternative and proof’.
Also, notice how “noaxiom” still believes that because it has personally not yet read or heard ‘a description’ that offers an 'actual alternative ', it seems to believe that none are already existing or that I certainly could not have one on me here now.
Here is another prime example of ‘confirmation bias’. ‘This one’ is more and more only “seeing” and “hearing” only what it wants to ‘see’ and ‘hear’.
Now, HOW singularity/big bang and black holes are NOT ‘bounds’ is really very easy and simple to explain. Even how ‘red shift’ contrary to the people of ‘these days’ beliefs, is actually further proof of the infinite and eternal Universe is also really very simple and easy to explain and understand as well. The actual hardest thing here in ‘these days’ is finding those without very strong beliefs and who still have some curiosity and interest in wanting to learn more and/or anew.
But see how if I just use a word like ‘certainty,’ people like “noaxiom” will jump to a conclusion, based solely on nothing but its own ‘current’ beliefs, presumptions, prejudices, and/or preconceptions, only or mostly.
Here ‘we’ have another example of ‘another claim’, which is believed to be true, but which is based upon nothing but ‘that one’s’ own preconceptions and presumptions.
What ‘we’ have here is another example of ‘confirmation bias’.
I am, personally, certain of this because I, already, have the proof for this.
Just like the one was, personally, certain that the earth revolves around the earth, also, because they, already, had the proof for that, as well.
And, once more, the very reason WHY these people are taking so, so very long is presented out in another perfect example.
LOL ‘We’ do not believe you, so what you are saying and claiming is a guess, and ‘to us’ it is only an opinion that ‘we’ are not even going to bother ‘looking at’.
And, ‘they’ wondered WHY the Truth of things took so long to come to be known.
Also, I have absolutely NO ‘need’ to justify anything. I know that ‘the claim’ stands on its own and is irrefutable. I just wait for those who are True “scientists” and True “philosophers”, or in other words those who have True curiosity and Truly do want to learn, understand, and know more and anew.
What I was referring to was ‘your claim’. But, if you do not want to provide anything here, then okay.
For a radioactive decay of a nucleus to occur, then prior things are needed. For these prior things to already exist, prior events were also needed.
Why do you believe and/or claim that for a radioactive decay of a nucleus to occur, this could happen with no cause and/or no prior event causing this?
To you, are things needed for radioactive decay to occur, and every one of these things was caused by at least two prior things coming together, also known as prior events?
Are not unstable nuclei emitting energetic particles, with some particles known as ionizing particles, needed to cause the radioactive decay itself?
As for ‘virtual pair production’, are there not things already existing that caused ‘this production’ to happen and occur?
Or, do you believe that like absolutely Everything, also known as the Universe, Itself, they just happen and appeared from absolutely nothing at all?
Now, people can ‘interpret’ absolutely anything. For example, some people ‘interpret’ that the whole entire Universe came from absolutely nothing, and there are non-deterministic interpretations that “allow” this.
Too bad philosophynow died. It was a better home for you, completely lacking in moderation.
Agree, but yet again:
Asserting something has been proven does not constitute a proof.
Asserting something is fact does not make it fact.
Asserting an interpretation is valid is not what makes it valid.
Asserting that you have refuted something does not constitute a refutation.
You will continue with the assertions, and never actually go further. I see little point in responding to all the blather. You have no intention of this:
open and honest, logically reasoned discussion
Nothing you have posted has been logically reasoned. I suspect some of it is honest, but I’ve thin evidence of even that.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere (never to me) you define ‘universe’ to mean Everything; All there is: Totality. Then by definition (and only by definition), there is not more than the universe. But none of the ‘multiverse’ types (all 9 of them) posit otherwise. So your definition does not contradict any of them.
Given that definition of ‘universe’, what do you call the part we live in, all of our space and the stuff in it. You’ve defined away ‘universe’ to describe that, so you need a new word to describe that.
So your assertion would be true only by that one definition, but not in any way a proof that a view concluding other worlds (of any kind) is false.
Your definition very much contradicts your own assertion of the universe being eternal, since if the universe existed for all time, it would be contained by time, meaning time isn’t part of the universe. Maybe ‘all there is’ is an empty set, but then it turns into an assertion that the empty set is eternal, meaning time exists, making it not empty. You can’t prove that you are part of the universe, given your definition.
It’s incomplete. A unified field theory would unite it with quantum mechanics.
You’ve gone too far. To be sound, there has to actually be something. So far it’s only assertions, just fluff.
Yes, evidence can have multiple interpretations. Your ‘them’ was ambiguous, but yes, the interpretations usually cannot all be correct. But if they’re valid, they’re not refutable, even if wrong. You should know this, but apparently not. What refutes an interpretation is demonstration of invalidity, not demonstration of unsoundness.
No, I didn’t say that. It said that one bit of evidence is all that is needed to take the theory down, and so far, no such evidence has been found. The ‘100 authors’ apparently were perhaps offended that their intuitions were violated, much like how you work. I’ve not read the book.
The question is worded in A-series language, exposing a bias that indeed requires explanation. More properly worded, the universe (the common definition, not the one you gave) has a lower bound on time; it has a beginning, an initial state.
Some views about this make it out to be a collapsed state from a more general state where space, time, and all the constants are not. So it’s not something that ‘happened’ or ‘began’ because time was not yet defined in the uncollapsed state. An in keeping with the simplest views, the general state didn’t ‘collapse’, it just has multiple solutions, only some of which yield observers.
As for the source of this ‘uncollapsed state’, that’s likely a problem for the realists to sort out. Science cares little about such philosophical questions, so realism doesn’t bother them. It bothers me.
Similarly, asserting that ‘everything that is’ always ‘was’ doesn’t answer the question of why/how it is. So much that arguably ‘is’ isn’t causal, so saying those things were caused is contradictory. How do you explain the existence of anything, even if you manage to bat away the problem of ‘the first thing’?
Few claim that, certainly not me or physics community.
Actual cosmologists. I’m not one.
For that to happen, 1) there needs to be such a proof somewhere, and 2) it somehow gets into only your possession, and 3) you withhold it.
While 3 is plausible, 1 and 2 are both of negligible probability.
I never claimed that, but your assertions are apparently 0 for 3. You don’t justify them, they’re not true, and I suspect you don’t even believe them because you admit that the beliefs are based on known lies.
Necessary but insufficient cause. If it was sufficient, all unstable nuclei would decay immediately.
Too bad people like you exist when those who are just trying to express the Truth of things are continually ‘shut up’.
LOL It is only when those like you are put in your place that the actual Truth starts to come to light and be realised.
Of course not. one would have to be a complete idiot to even begin to think this. So, what reason do you have for thinking this and then saying this, exactly?
Again, of course not.
So, once more, WHY are ‘you’ thinking along these lines?
What has got ‘you’ thinking in these ways?
If this is what you believe is absolutely true, then this is exactly what you will only “see” and “hear”.
people like ‘you’ “noaxioms” are so predictable.
This is because you cannot respond logically and rationally.
LOL All you “see” here is “blather”. But, you fail absolutely to ‘see’ in ANY in your own beliefs and writings.
Once more, if absolutely anyone would like to have a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned discussion, then by all means let ‘us’ have one.
But, obviously, if people already have and hold beliefs, which they have NO proof for at all, then this will NOT occur.
LOL Coming from ‘the one’ who claims the Universe - absolutely Everything - began, from absolutely nothing at all, and that only a ‘finite causal link’ exists.
Talk about a prime example of one who has NOT logically thought nor logically reasoned through this here.
Again, I can show and present the proof that already exists for HOW and WHY the Universe is infinite and eternal.
Nothing like ‘trying one’s hardest’ to get the insult in, while ‘trying to pretend’ that they are superior at the same time.
Which is really extremely to watch, from ‘the one’ who claims there the entire Universe began all at once.
I see you have not thought this through at all either.
So, well to you anyway, there can be multi unverses AND One and only One Univserse at the exact same time, and that this is somehow supposedly not a contradiction.
Also, and again, if you want to be one of those ones who claims that ‘multiverse’ could exist, then answer and clarify the questions I posed and asked for clarification.
One reason WHY open and honest, logically reasoned discussions do not take place is that when people are just asked to clarify ‘their position, views, and/or beliefs’, they do not, but they want to keep assertion that their position, views, or beliefs are still possible.
Also, if you ever did get into a Truly open and honest, logically reasoned discussion, I can and would show you exactly WHY interpretations of the ‘multiverse’ versions, as long as they are not claiming many different universes, is NOT inconsistent nor contradictory with the proof that the Universe, Itself, is actually infinite and eternal.
Again, just like there is NO such thing as ‘our universe’ there is NO such thing as ‘our space’ either. And, the ‘stuff’ in ‘this area’(pick absolutely any size you like) of this Universe is the exact same ‘stuff’ in EVERY part of the Universe. In fact, what the Universe is made up of exactly, at the fundamental level, is ALL just the exact same ‘stuff’.
And, once these ‘things’ are understood and known, then HOW the Universe works, exactly, becomes far easier and simpler to understand, as well.
What are you even blithering on about here, exactly?
I have NOT so-called “defined away” ‘Universe’ at all.
If the ‘Universe’ word is NOT as defined as Everything; All there is; Totality, then ‘what word’, exactly, do ‘you’ want to use here that has that definition?
As for what you are talking about and referring to by your use of the ‘that’ word, I have absolutely no idea at all.
What do you mean by, " to describe ‘that’,", exactly?
Are you talking about ‘our space’, (whatever that means also), or are you talking about something entirely and exactly?
What ‘assertion’ are you now imagining and/or talking about exactly?
And, how many times do you need to be informed that ‘an assertion’ is NOT ‘a proof’ before you understand this?
Saying ‘for all time’ does not make sense, in ‘my assertion’ that the Universe is eternal.
you really do not to become more familar with what the words and terms I use mean, exactly.
Otherwise, you will end up like those other people who claim to know things about ‘space’, ‘matter’, and/or ‘time’ but who end up quarreling and/or fighting with each other, and when I question them as to what they are actually really meaning and/or referring to, come back with things like “we don’t know” or “we are not sure”.
Again, you have used the ‘time’ word on two more occasions here. Now, since you want to use the ‘time’ word and talk about ‘time’, what even is ‘time’, to you, exactly?
I am pretty sure the readers here, and “scientists” worldwide, would be very interested in finding out, once and for all, what ‘time’ really is, exactly.
So, ‘we’ await your clarification and clarity here.
Talk about another example of one getting side-tracked and going off topic, completely.
If ‘this’ is what you really want to believe is the absolute truth here, then please, by all means, keep believing ‘this’ if you want to.
But, and obviously, ‘you’ are not having a logically reasoned discussion ‘with anyone’. ‘you’ are just expressing ‘your beliefs’ in a publicly visible forum.
But, they have already been united. In fact, there was nothing actually separating them. Other than, of course, some people’s preconceptions, presumptions, and beliefs.
WHY do you believe, ABSOLUTELY, that there is NOT something?
LOL What ‘we’ have here is another prime example of someone who believes that because they have not directly seen/experienced something, this means that ‘thing’ does not exist.
you are obviously not going far enough “noaxioms”.
So, and again, I suggest being open, always, to evidence and interpretations could be wrong, right, or partly wrong and right. In fact, I will again suggest just being open ALWAYS.
What?
Something has to be ‘valid’ AND ‘sound’ to be irrefutable. Even the conclusion following Wrong or False premises can be ‘valid’. And, obviously, that conclusion could be refuted, and very easily and very simply I will add.
So, are you here saying that if a Wrong conclusion is made from Wrong premises, then because the structure was ‘valid’ in forming and making this Wrong conclusion, then the Wrong interpretations, evidence, and/or premises can NOT be refuted?
If this is not what you are saying here, then what are you saying, exactly?
So, once more, the “I have been to university or school, therefore I know more than you do, which makes ‘me’ better than ‘you’ are,” attitude HAS TO come out and ‘raise its ugly head again’, as some would say.
These people with 'superiority complexes" appear to not be able to just keep them within “themselves”.
I could also say and claim, “you should know, already, that the Universe is infinite and eternal”. But I wlll not.
If it is sound AND valid, then it just cannot be refuted in any way. Anyhow, until you provide ‘your interpretations’ of what you call ‘evidence’ I cannot demonstrate HOW and WHY of their invalidity, if there is any.
you just saying and claiming things like there is ‘evidence’ that the Universe began and has finite causes is ‘just fluff’, as you would call it.
GREAT, I did not think that you were ‘that stupid’ here.
WHY, where ‘you’ come from, ‘evidence’ has some overriding power over things?
I thought you already knew that ‘evidence’ can be demonstrated and proved Wrong. Are you here saying that ‘evidence’, itself, cannot be demonstrated nor proved to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect?
Once again, the ‘superiority complex’ just cannot remain hidden.
Now, since ‘you’ believe, with absolute certainty, that I could not produce a ‘single thing’ that could demonstrate absolutely anything wrong, or inconsistent, or contradictory in the theory of relativity or the claim that the Universe began, I shall leave what you said and wrote here to speak for itself, and for about who ‘you’ really are.
Once more, ‘we’ have ‘another one’ who, laughably, beleives that the definitions that it uses and has for words are the LOL “the common definition”.
‘These people’ really and Truly do not realize how narrowed and closed they really do come across as.
LOL So, once again, “noaxioms” if the Universe word has ‘now’ changed to NOT mean Everything; All there is; Totality, then what word is used in its place, exactly?
LOL, LOL, LOL, if you really want to ‘now’ use the definition of “it has a beginning, an initial state”, then OBVIOUSLY ‘that universe’ is NOT infinite NOR eternal.
So, let ‘us’ now begin, AGAIN.
The ‘thing’ that is said to have a beginning, an initial state, could NOT have a beginning, nor an initial state, because it is absolutely impossible for ANY thing to just come from absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.
Unless, of course, ANY one can provide a logical and physical example of HOW any thing ‘could’ just arise from nothing at all.
Once someone/anyone demonstrates HOW it ‘could be’ theoretically and physically possible for something, let alone the entire universe, to arise out and begin, from nothing, (or if they want from something else), then, and only then, ‘we’ can start looking at discussing HOW ‘this’ could have become an actuality.
WHY people want to insist on believing that something from nothing is what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, when there is NOT a shred of evidence, let alone actual proof, that it is even a possibility, let alone able to be an actuality, only ‘they’ would really know.
But, anyway, ‘this’ is what some people have really chosen to believe is true.
Again, you people can have absolutely ANY view that you want to have.
Yes, I have heard this same very old stuff over and over again. Some view that ‘God’ created and caused it all. And, the way you are going here, those ones, laughably, sound like they are closer to the actual Truth.
And, add ‘this view’ to the other uncountable views that have existed over human beings lifetime, you people are still none the wiser. After all, ‘you’ are still stuck at, “We do not know”, correct?
Is that the same “science” which is still unable to define what ‘space’, ‘time’, and ‘spacetime’ are EXACTLY?
you speak as though you already KNOW ‘the answer’, but since you do NOT know ‘the answer’, HOW could you ever be able to tell WHEN ‘you’ have ‘the answer’, exactly?
‘The answer’, by the way, was NOT really very hard to find and know at all.
HOW the Universe exists. WHAT the Universe is made up of fundamentally, And, WHY the Universe even exists is, also, already KNOWN.
As the proof showed and demonstrated.
This is ‘another way’ for one to ‘try to’ FOOL “itself” that there was NO “first cause”, and that the whole entire Universe ‘just began’ (again from absolutely nothing at all).
There is nothing these types of people will ‘try to’ do to fit the WHOLE Universe into their own ‘current’ little belief.
Again, also VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.
How do you keep managing to keep ‘the belief’ that there was a ‘first thing’?
GREAT. I was hoping that ‘you’ and ‘they’ were not ‘that stupid’. So, now what is ‘it’, exactly, that ‘you’ and ‘they’ claim, exactly?
LOL, LOL, LOL
So, now supposedly those who call “themselves” “cosmologists” would know if the Universe began or not. LOL And WHY supposedly would they know this, exactly?
Well, 1) OBVIOUSLY, there is proof, as you call ‘it’ ‘somewhere’. After all, the proof for what is True and Right is somewhere, clearly. In fact, even the proof for what is False and Wrong is somewhere, as well.
LOL So do you really believe that it is only a negligible probability that there is proof that the Universe began or not?
Obviously, the proof of whether the Universe began or exists, in or at the beginning or non beginning.
By the way, HOW to find that proof, along with a LOT of another answers you people are looking for is very, very easy and simple to learn
And, I never claimed that you did, obviously.
If you say and believe so.
you could not have got anything more Wrong and Incorrect, here.
“Insufficient” to who and/or what, exactly?
Obviously, if decay is occurring, then sufficiency exists.
So, once again, ‘we’ have ‘another example’ of ‘another human being’ who expects the Universe to react and behavior in ‘the way’ its presumes and intuits the Universe should.
If you cannot objectively prove which cause caused you to believe such a thing as you are here, then could what caused you to believe such a thing just a personal subjective opinion of yours only?
/quote
Some event’s cause can be proved perhaps. But not all. The causes that you can prove could be the events which were observable empirically and repeatedly with the same effects from the same causes.
You need to understand the definition of cause here. Cause doesn’t mean some random fluke chain effect.
/quote
you need to understand that EVERY thing has a cause. The Fact that you cannot prove some of those causes does NOT mean that there is a so-called “initial state” or some event that was not caused.
quote="Corvus, post:97, topic:1997"
Cause means a concrete concept established from the repeated observation of event1
/quote
Well, since human beings have only existed for a few miserable million or so years, and thus there is NO so-called ‘concrete concept established cause’ prior to some so-claimed 'repeated observation of event 1 and event 2, this also does NOT mean that there was an event that was not caused.
quote="Corvus, post:97, topic:1997"
Hence having the idea of cause of event1 means you can predict the event2. If this is not the case, then you are talking about a simple fluke chain effect.
/quote
Introducing the word ‘fluke’ now does not provide ‘more weight’ or take away absolutely anything here, just like you introducing the word ‘random’ did not also.
Look, EVERY event had A ‘cause’ be-cause there is NO event that could not come from at least prior things coming together. Every action has a reaction, and every reaction is just another action. This is HOW the eternal Universe is in One constantly evolving creation process.
Every action is the result of a previous reaction, which are ALL pre-determined events that has and is always creating the ‘determined’ Universe, in the eternal NOW.
To me, I did not.
Did, to you, I just prove the claim that ‘everything has a cause’ is false?
If yes, then how, exactly, did I just prove ‘this’, to you?
You claimed everything has cause. So I asked you what the true first cause would be. You confirmed you don’t know. If there were the true first cause, you would have known. But your confession that you don’t know proves, your claim was false. Does it make sense?
As can be very clearly seen and proved above here.
you then asked me;
To which I replied;
So that ‘we’ are open and honest here, what actually happened and occurred is when I confirmed that ‘I don’t know’ that this confirmation was in regard to your question, “How many possible first causes have been inferred, and put forward as the truths by scientists, theologians and philosophers?”
And, again I will confirm I have absolutely no idea at all.
Now that ‘that’ is finally settled, let us move along here.
Which implies that since I do not know of any such claimed “true first cause” nor of even any “first cause” at all, (in ‘the way’ you are meaning and referring to here), there is actually no so-called “true first cause” at all, correct?
If ‘this’ is, REALLY, what has been proved, to you, here, then what ‘we’ have here is another prime example of ‘confirmation bias’ at work and at play here.
Not even in the slightest.
I suggest you read through our discussion again and see where you have gone astray.
You seem to be keep claiming something is the case on the facts you don’t know, and without supporting evidence or arguments. The character of your postings results inconsistency and confusion. That is my impression from your postings.
If that is what it seems, to you, then okay.
But again, there was NO so-called “first cause”, then ‘the way’ you are imagining and envisioning here, and this is because the Universe being eternal and infinite is a Fact, which, again, has already been proved and verified.
you claiming that I claimed and proved things that I absolutely did not is not helping ‘your case’ here at all.
But there is not one thing that I have said that is inconsistent nor confusing once one seeks out clarification and obtains clarity.
Which is fair enough, and thank you very much for your honesty and clarity here.
I’m new here, I know. And I left the last forum I frequented because I was accused of lying, so that my words were not believed. This is the sort of rejection that cannot be borne.
Your words above clearly imply that your correspondent is dishonest — a liar. But, as is usual with implication, the exact interpretation is not explicitly stated, and therefore is deniable.
One’s correspondents can be wrong, of course, but it is incumbent upon us all to accept, at the least, that they speak/write the truth as they believe it to be. Without this, there is no communication; without communication, there is no philosophy.
Please don’t tell me I have to start searching, again, for a forum that is conducted courteously. That would be a great shame.
To be clear, determinism does not imply predictability, but you have to understand exactly what is meant by ‘predictable’ in order to understand why. A lot of people intuit that perfect determinism implies perfect predictability, and it makes sense why they do, but there’s something lost in translation a little bit when people disagree on this.
The main thing I think it’s important to understand is, if we’re inside the thing we’re trying to predict, that fundamentally and intractably complicates predictions.
Let’s imagine we lived in a world where Quantum Physics weren’t true, it was purely classical, physics was merely little atomic balls bouncing around. Imagine you’re in a room and in this room you have a computer that you can program to simulate physics, and you know that nothing outside the room will interact with anything inside the room (we’re stipulating this to keep it rather simple - obviously in reality this stipulations wouldn’t be true). What you want to do is use this computer to predict what the state of the room will be like, say, 10 minutes from now. Can you do it?
You might be surprised to learn that even in a very simple universe that follows very simple laws of physics, the answer is always NO. Why? Because the computer has to account for itself. For this computer to perfectly simulate the physics of the room its in, it needs to store and compute the location and velocity of every single atom in the room, which includes every single atom inside the computer. How many atoms do you think it takes to store the location and velocity and other relevant variables of a single atom? I can assure you, it takes more than one atom to do that.
Which means a computer is physically incapable of predicting the future of the room its in perfectly, because it’s incapable of simulating its own self. So predicting the future of a system that you yourself are inside of is fundamentally impossible.
But it’s still deterministic. The room is still such that if you rewound the state to exactly what it was, the same thing would happen every time.
But just as obvious is ‘determinism’ implies that if things/events are determined to happen and occur because of preexisting things/events, which it could then be said and argued all things/events were pre-determined, then being able to predict what things/events will follow on would be possible.
What is the ‘why’ even in relation to, exactly?
Also, just because one might understand, exactly, what is meant by ‘predictable’, then HOW, exactly, does one then just automatically understand WHY (whatever the ‘why’ is even in relation to here).
What is ‘this something’ that you believe gets lost in translation, by just a ‘little bit’, when people disagree on ‘this’, (again whatever ‘this’ in reference to, exactly?).
Okay, but so what?
Are you saying or suggesting that if ‘you’ are inside ‘your own thinking’, for example, then this means that fundamentally and intractably complicates predictions about ‘you’ and/or ‘your thinking’?
Okay.
But when ‘I’ imagine what you said to imagine here, ‘I’ realised there would be NO ‘me’, ‘room’, nor ‘computer’.
No, because, again, there would be NO computer, NO room, and NO me.
So, are ‘you’ saying that ‘I’ can be rest assured ‘now’?
Yet, some human beings say and believe that they can create clones of “themselves”, among other things as well.
Okay. So, it ‘this’ settled once and for all ‘now’?
But, ‘what’ is, supposedly, still deterministic, exactly?
And, what do ‘you’ even mean by ‘deterministic’, exactly?
How could ‘it’ be any other way?
Why would anyone even think that ‘it’ could have been any other way?
Therefore, why did you even feel the ‘need’ to mention and say ‘this’ to begin with?
If you cannot pick out one or two things to focus on, either because it is too much effort for you or you cannot, then okay. But if you just do not want to, then why bother writing what you did here?
You’ve had feedback from multiple people that your approach of replying with 20 little tiny points is not working for them. You’ve had that feedback on other forums, and you’ve had that feedback at least twice here. Learn from it. Focus on something. Everyone else can. Why can’t you?