Sombra

Praxus, you demonstrate again and again why modern philosophy is worthless in IMHO.

The old Greeks at least tried to explain life the universe and the rest.

When we learned something from them, it is that the bases for our conclusions (axioms) have to be chosen very carefully if not all your deductions become meaningless.

You use quite a lot of axioms which are questionable:

- Time is a constant
- Space (you call it room) is a constant
- Length is always finite
- Your meaning of the word universe is accepted by everyone.

Sorry, therefore your masterful use of words is simply that. Masterful use of words.

Anoop C

Let me offer a different logic:

To 'be' is simply to 'be'. 'Something', 'Anything', 'Everything', 'Nothing' are concepts that follow from 'be', not the other way around. The Universe is, so it is. It could be finite, infinite, bounded, unbounded. To determine such attributes of the Universe require the invention, elucidation and mutual acceptance of meaning of these concepts of finite, infinite, boundedness, unboundedness. Otherwise we are talking past each other in different languages that the other cannot understand.

Ah, but it is not yet proven that the "Universe" is "unbounded" or that it is "bounded"!

But I didn't assert that "boundedness" does not imply "finiteness". I was seeking clarification for why, in your argument, "unboundedness" implies "finiteness".

You ought to have heard what the ancient Hindu sages had to say on that one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we will end up with word play here without advancing understanding, so I might have to retire from the discussion and let you have the last word.

Praxus

The Galaxies are spreading apart...

Like I've said about 19 times.

Praxus

What do you think we're doing here?

I agree.

They are not axioms, they are deductions from a particular axiom - the law of identity.

Time, Space, and Length are relationships! To possess any meaning there must be a start point and an end point. To say that size is "infinite" is to say that it is not any particular size. It is denying the concept of size and accepting it in the same sentence.

I never claimed this to be an axiom, either.

highsea

Can you really be sure of this? After all, your measuring instruments are made of atoms and molecules too. They could be expanding at the same rate as what you are measuring.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Praxus

[quote=Anoop C]Let me offer a different logic:

I don't know what your arguing against, because I never claimed that the concept of existence follows the concept of identity. In order to be 'something', it must first exist. Which is why the axiom of existence comes prior to the axiom of identity.

In order for something to be something, it must first be. That is absolutely correct.

My statement: "existence implies identity" is the next step, after the first axiom. If something exists it must have a certain nature, a nature which differentiates it from every other existent. Even if two planets were identical on the atomic and subatomic level their natures would still differ, in the fact that they are in different locations. Simple observation can bring one to this conclusion.

The Universe is everything that exists. Existence (the Universe) certainly falls under the concept of a 'something'. Ergo, to be, is to be something in particular.

I can't go any further, because they are axioms. They are self-evident, you have to discover them, and accept them for yourself, using your reason.

That certainly makes things easier.


Read what I wrote after that.

I never made that argument.

My argument was as follows: that it's existence implies it is finite.

Which it is why it is proper to agree on definitions that may be in contention, up front.

Praxus

LOL

That would be an arbitrary claim

dalem

It is, to me, the weirdest concept for me to get my head around. Some QM things are so strange that I don't even bother, some are pretty "ho hum". But the Double Slit? I am with you in that it seems as if it indicates a bit of a hole in our understanding.

And you know that they've actually done it with electrons now? I mean, it's not just theoretical - it's a real phenomenon with massy particles as well as photons.

-dale

dalem

Okay, you have acknowledged the observational evidence, that's an excellent first step.

Now, please give your opinion on why they are spreading apart.

-dale

Anon

Nor is it likely to EVER be answered, and most assuredly, NOT in our lifetimes.

That is one of the most abstract of all the questions we can even ask intelligently at this time, and really, one totally without point.

Praxus

You are absolutely disconnected from reality. I answered that question numerous times, in previous posts. You should take the time to read the entirity of my posts, instead of looking at tiny sections out of context.

Don't try to attack my character, with snide comments like the one you made at the beginning of this post. Not only is it a non-sequitor, it is also pathetically immature.

Praxus

You can't get your head around them, because their interpretations have nothing to do with the real world.

Anon

Now there's an accurate statement.

Your observations are not related to reality.

dalem

1) I'm not attacking your character, I'm attacking your continued wild cosmological pronouncements in the face of your demonstrated ignorance of the topic.

2) In this thread I've asked you several times in various ways what your opinion is regarding the Red Shift and the movement of all distant galaxies away from us in all directions. These are the various answers you've given:

Not a one of them is really an answer except for possibly your hint that the Red Shift may not be caused by recession velocities but by something else instead. That was at least a line of valid inquiry but you quickly backed away from your Lerner example and fell back to your acceptance of the evidence of receding galaxies via Red Shift.

So you have still not answered my question. What do you believe is the cause of the "spreading apart" of all distant galaxies from our point of view? What can account for it in your opinion?

-dale

dalem

I'd say that the diffusion patterns have a great deal to do with the real world, even if they are almost intolerably bizarre.

Do you know what the Double Slit experiment refers to?

-dale