Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[creation]

Of course, we see from moment to moment things change form, but never cease to exist or pop into existence.

Hi Ensrick.

Given that we do indeed see what you've described above, what might you conclude about such physical principles as conversation of matter, conservation of mass/energy and conservation of energy? It seems to me that these conservation laws are Inductive: generalizations derived from patterns that we note in things that we see. i.e we make the observation:

"Nobody has ever experienced an object to disappear or to be created ex nihilo."

Some of us have.

We conclude:

"Objects never have and never will disappear or be created ex nihilo."

Not all conclude this, just because of the former.

Some conclude this because it is factually true.

i.e. we go from an observation of a finite number of cases to a proposition about an indefinitely large/potentially infinite number of cases: Induction.

When you say, " 'we' go from ..." I would just like to correct you in that your 'we' does NOT refer to every one, as some obviously have gone from experiencing the observation of an object being created from "nothing" to disappearing back into "nothing", to the conclusion that objects never have and never will disappear into, nor be created from, "nothing".

So, what you have observed and say here that 'we' do, is just plain wrong.

What can be clearly seen is you are just basing your own conclusion here off of your own observations only, and your own assumptions and/or beliefs about what is true.

Do you agree?

The reason I ask is that some people disagree with this. Some people think that this principle of conservation, the notion that things can change form but can't cease to exist or pop into existence, is not an Inductively derived law, as I've suggested here, but is a logical principle that it would be self-contradictory to deny. As such, they would say that it's not actually necessary to see what you've described in the quote above. They know that that proposition is true simply by thinking about it. What do you think?

But that conclusion although is obviously a logical principle, which cannot be refuted logically and reasonably, anyway, can also be and was inductively derived, as well. That conclusion was also found through deductive reasoning. This can be proven through and with a sound and valid argument.

[creation]

It depends which phenomena you're referring to. If you're only referring to standing and watching that meteor at that moment, and to no other experiences that you might have, you're right. I just looked out of my window and saw a person walk past. He's gone now. If I only refer to the phenomena I experience while sitting in this chair and not, for example, while opening the door and looking down the street, that person ceased to exist.



On what basis do we hold those theories to be true?

Especially your last question might be worth talking about, but I don't want to sidetrack things with that.

Since when have you not wanted to "sidetrack things", here in this forum?

You have even informed us that you do not necessary stick to the thread topic and just go anyway the discussion goes.

Was that clarifying question to you just a bit too much for you?

I think at this point it's just important in the conversation that we understand that per phenomenal experience, we don't actually have a basis for saying that things don't simply pop in and out of existence. (And it's important to understand that because it had been claimed otherwise.)

[creation]

I should've prefaced my example with the conservation of energy or at least some thoughts on direct observation. I would like to avoid the whole, "If a tree falls.." questions on observation but I'll address some thoughts on this below to argue against things not existing prior to, or after being observed.

I would say of the two claims, that things observed can pop in and out of existence and that things observed always existed and only change, that the latter makes fewer assumptions about reality.

How can things always exist?

How many things have always existed, and what are they?

If you no longer witness something you have seen, then it's an assumption to say it lost the property of existence when you had direct eye witness evidence to the contrary; likewise, if you see an object in existence it's an assumption to say it gained the property of existence.

I would NEVER assume such a thing.

The claim that makes the fewest assumptions is that if you can observe it, it has always existed in some form or another.

'it' changes in shape and form, but 'it' usually has not always existed in some form or another. If 'it' is not in the shape and form of what 'it' is, then 'it' is some thing else.

Of course, the Universe, Its Self, has always existed in some form or another, and is in continual changing of Its Self in shape and form, but just about every thing else does not always exist. Every 'thing' else is just some thing that is a part of the Universe, and which has just had a label put on 'it'.

@Terrapin Station, you like Bertrand Russel and so do I. Being familiar with Russel's Teapot, you know that the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. In this instance the claim that things can pop in and out of existence requires evidence. Not observing something doesn't count as reasonable evidence that it no longer exists because that would require an unobserved force to be acting upon it in order to change it's metaphysical property of existence. Of course, it's hypothetically possible, but that's a much greater leap than saying it retains the property of existence until we know of an observed force that can alter properties of existence.

[Steve3007]

I would say of the two claims, that things observed can pop in and out of existence and that things observed always existed and only change, that the latter makes fewer assumptions about reality.

If you no longer witness something you have seen, then it's an assumption to say it lost the property of existence when you had direct eye witness evidence to the contrary; likewise, if you see an object in existence it's an assumption to say it gained the property of existence. The claim that makes the fewest assumptions is that if you can observe it, it has always existed in some form or another.

So would you say that you're appealing to a principle of simplicity/economy? Perhaps a bit like an appeal to Occam's razor? If so, then this seems to me a bit like an appeal to the concepts of pattern, symmetry and repetition in Nature.

[Ensrick]

Is 'special relativity' open to be questioned, or is 'it' already settled?

As a skeptic I'm not going to tell you any scientific theory is set in stone.

[…] a singularity is defined as infinite heat, density and mass.

That is but one definition.

I'm aware and you're not contributing to any counter-argument by making that known. Lacking a unified theory of physics there are competing theories, mainly quantum physics and general relativity.

That is right. From the nearest window, when I look out, I observe the Universe infinite and eternal. I can see past the so called "big bang" and past the so called "observable Universe" where the Universe is still existing.
What do you observe when you look out of the nearest window?

I find this lacking as a counter-example but I think I know what you're getting at. By the way an attempt at witticism doesn't constitute a counter argument; although, I am aware it may be more effective at swaying some but you'll not find that the case here. Please do me the courtesy of sharing your thoughts.

Since, it seems you might be missing the point, In the simplest terms I can explain, consider conservation of energy and direct observation: observe an entity to exist and the evidence now favors it's existence. Not constantly observe the entity in question as existing does not count as evidence against it's existence; that's an assumption.

So would you say that you're appealing to a principle of simplicity/economy? Perhaps a bit like an appeal to Occam's razor? If so, then this seems to me a bit like an appeal to the concepts of pattern, symmetry and repetition in Nature.

Like Occam's razor but here, but consider where the evidence lies. If something is observed to exist, I'll take that as evidence of it's existence. I don't think not observing something is evidence that it no longer exists or did not exist.

[Ensrick]

creation I responded to a few posts but the latency hasn't allowed me to address the most recent post.
To be more concise and answer your questions, I'm going to summarize a bit.

If I'm trying to avoid unfalsifiable claims while taking direct observation of something as evidence of existence. If I observe an entity to exist, I can't reasonably claim it did not exist or doesn't exist when it's beyond my ability to observe. How can things always exist? I have a few answers, but I think a better question is, how can things I observe to exist not exist prior to or after I observe them?

[…]'it' changes in shape and form, but 'it' usually has not always existed in some form or another. If 'it' is not in the shape and form of what 'it' is, then 'it' is some thing else.

To me, this is just semantics. Have you heard of The Ship of Theseus? I'm talking in very basic physical terms -- form is a conceptual metaphysical construct. For practicalities sake we use concepts and assign meaning to objects as they change form, but you wouldn't say that a sandwich disappear from existence if you digested it; perhaps prior to molecular physics people would.

[Terrapin Station]

Since when have you not wanted to "sidetrack things", here in this forum?

"With that."

The reason why is given in the next sentence: "I think at this point it's just important in the conversation that we understand that per phenomenal experience, we don't actually have a basis for saying that things don't simply pop in and out of existence. (And it's important to understand that because it had been claimed otherwise.)"

The whole reason that I ignore the bulk of long posts is because I think it's important to focus on one thing at a time. I hate arguing. I hate having to repeat things. My goal is to focus on something--one small thing at a time, so that it's settled and we don't have to go over it again.

[gater]

You aren't trying to learn anything, you just try to catch others making a contradiction.

What do you think I am wanting to learn here?

I already learned what you are saying here years ago, and then I progressed past that stage, and continued to progress and learn more and anew.

If my truly open very simple clarifying questions are catching you out, then so be it. Your contradictions are very obvious to me.

By the way, what I want to learn here is nothing what is wanting to be taught by anyone here.

Without time, there would be no movment - since it's impossible for all matter to stop - we know that time never stops, it can't stop.

This is another contradiction, and, just re-repeating the same things over and over does not teach people anything.

People only learn things if what is being said makes sense, does not contradict itself, and/or people are open to it.

Some of what you say does not make sense, does contradict itself, and most people are not at all open to what you say anyway. They, like you, believe that they already know the truth.

4 lines are too long? Coming from the guy that can't post anything without writing a half a page? Im sorry that you had to suffer though that.
People can offer opinions, since no one knows for sure how man started labeling time.
You need to back up your statements - prove that you understand the Universe, since it's so simple.

The Universe just consists of two fundamental things; space and matter. That is what the Universe IS.

The two things of space and matter co-exist always. That is how the Universe works.

Is that simple enough for you? Or, do you need more? Would "half a page" be enough, or is that not enough, or would that be too much, for you?

I can provide as little and as much as you like.

You wrote - "I already learned what you are saying here years ago, and then I progressed past that stage, and continued to progress and learn more and anew." - Sure you did, did you make any effort to let anyone know that the Big Bang Theory is false? Just let me know where and when you posted that.

Then you wrote - "If my truly open very simple clarifying questions are catching you out, then so be it. Your contradictions are very obvious to me." - Catching me out? - where are you from?
Name a contradiction that I made, that I couldn't clarify - if you can.

Then - "By the way, what I want to learn here is nothing what is wanting to be taught by anyone here." - How would you know unless you ask? There might be someone in the group that understands the topic, but you aren't really looking for answers are you?

Finally - "The Universe just consists of two fundamental things; space and matter. That is what the Universe IS. The two things of space and matter co-exist always. That is how the Universe works." - You left out time, why don't you explain what time is? My 1st post on this site was "The Infinite Universe" - so you're not telling me anything I didn't already know. In fact you probably learned it from me, didn't you?

[creation]

Is 'special relativity' open to be questioned, or is 'it' already settled?

As a skeptic I'm not going to tell you any scientific theory is set in stone.

Okay then that is great. Some people, unfortunately, do like to insist that they are.

[…] a singularity is defined as infinite heat, density and mass.

That is but one definition.

I'm aware and you're not contributing to any counter-argument by making that known.

Was there anything here to counter, or needed to be countered?

Lacking a unified theory of physics there are competing theories, mainly quantum physics and general relativity.

I am aware and you are not contributing to unifying these supposed "competing theories".

By the way, they are only "competing" because there are two different made up theories. There is no competition in the correct view of what actually exists.

Unifying these two made up obviously different "competing theories" can be very easily resolved, when what the actual discrepancies and contradictions are revealed.

I do not see any conflict nor discrepancies anywhere, other those made up by human being ones. But, I do look at and see things very differently than most people.

By the way, the main reason why what is actually unified, and which is only separated into conflicting ideas, theories, and views, is because of the way people define words differently, like you have shown with the 'singularity' word, for example. Once a unified agreement and acceptance on what the words used in a discuss will actually mean and be defined as, then competing theories and views naturally just become unified once again. What will also appear to happen is the actual single Truth of things comes to light.

That is right. From the nearest window, when I look out, I observe the Universe infinite and eternal. I can see past the so called "big bang" and past the so called "observable Universe" where the Universe is still existing.
What do you observe when you look out of the nearest window?

I find this lacking as a counter-example but I think I know what you're getting at.

I said, 'That is right', meaning I was not disagreeing, and therefore was not providing a "counter-example".

What do you think it was I was 'trying to' "counter-example"?

By the way what do you think I was getting at?

By the way an attempt at witticism doesn't constitute a counter argument; although, I am aware it may be more effective at swaying some but you'll not find that the case here. Please do me the courtesy of sharing your thoughts.

I do not even know what you thought was an attempt at "witticism", which was supposedly a "counter argument" for exactly, let alone know what thoughts of mine you want me to share.

Maybe if you explain what you thought I was "getting at" exactly, then we will be able to see what thoughts you have.

I also specifically asked you; What do you observe when you look out of the nearest window?", which you did not share. So, I do not even yet know what you think I am meant to supposedly "countering".

I was, literally, just sharing my thoughts and observations, and was not necessarily "countering" anything. Obviously, until you express and share your observations and thoughts I do not even know what to counter or agree with.

Since, it seems you might be missing the point, In the simplest terms I can explain, consider conservation of energy and direct observation: observe an entity to exist and the evidence now favors it's existence. Not constantly observe the entity in question as existing does not count as evidence against it's existence; that's an assumption.

That point was obvious ages ago, is an old point, and still is obvious, but which I was just attempting to move past from.

I moved on past that way of thinking and just expressed what I observe. I also asked you to clarify what you observe, which I am still obviously waiting for.

So would you say that you're appealing to a principle of simplicity/economy? Perhaps a bit like an appeal to Occam's razor? If so, then this seems to me a bit like an appeal to the concepts of pattern, symmetry and repetition in Nature.

Like Occam's razor but here, but consider where the evidence lies. If something is observed to exist, I'll take that as evidence of it's existence. I don't think not observing something is evidence that it no longer exists or did not exist.

[creation]

@creation I responded to a few posts but the latency hasn't allowed me to address the most recent post.
To be more concise and answer your questions, I'm going to summarize a bit.

If I'm trying to avoid unfalsifiable claims while taking direct observation of something as evidence of existence. If I observe an entity to exist, I can't reasonably claim it did not exist or doesn't exist when it's beyond my ability to observe.

Okay, that is well and fully understood.

Does anyone claim that some thing did not exist or does not exist when it is beyond their ability to observe?

If yes, then why do they claim this?

How can things always exist? I have a few answers,

Great, I will await all of those answers.

but I think a better question is, how can things I observe to exist not exist prior to or after I observe them?

But that question has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

The answer, by the way, to your question is; 'Things exist prior to or after you observe them, that is; if they actually still do'. See, you might just coincidentally start observing them, when they begin, and/or you might just coincidentally stop observing them, when they end. However, why would a question like; 'How can things you observe to exist 'not' exist prior to or after you observe them?' even come into being a question, especially in light of the question I asked you?

You said;
"... that things observed always existed and only change,"

I asked;
"How can things always exist?

How many things have always existed, and what are they?"


My question is in relation to your use of the 's' at the end of the 'thing' word, and in relation to your use of the 'always' word.

If you can explain and have answers to the clarifying question; How can things with an 's' always exist, which means individual separate things forever and eternally, then I would really love to see that explanation and those answers.

If instead of saying and meaning, "things observed always existed", you actually just meant, "things you observe existed prior to you observing them and will exist after you stop observing them", then that is a whole different issue and matter. I have no clarifying questions if that is what you actually meant and wanted to say.

My questions are just asked in relation to the actual words and letters that you used and will use.

[…]'it' changes in shape and form, but 'it' usually has not always existed in some form or another. If 'it' is not in the shape and form of what 'it' is, then 'it' is some thing else.

To me, this is just semantics. Have you heard of The Ship of Theseus?

No.

Also, why is it that when some people say things, which they do not actually mean, and this is pointed out directly to them, or they are just not able to answer the very open clarifying question posed to them in relation to the very actual words they used, then they frequently turn to the "this is just semantics", response, and excuse?

This is a philosophy forum where the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is best expressed, and/or where whatever is claimed is best done with actual evidence and proof for, this entails having at least some thing to back up and support the claim being made. For example, if one was to claim, and express as being the truth, that; "things observed have always existed and only change", then I would like to see some actual evidence and proof for this. Of course, there is One 'thing', which has actually always existed and changes, but that is the only thing, with no 's', that I know of anyway. There may be other things, with 's' that I am just yet not aware of. Also, every thing else, it could be argued, does pop into and out of existence, but this is only because they transform from one named thing, and/or into another named thing.

I'm talking in very basic physical terms -- form is a conceptual metaphysical construct. For practicalities sake we use concepts and assign meaning to objects as they change form, but you wouldn't say that a sandwich disappear from existence if you digested it; perhaps prior to molecular physics people would.

I would just say that that sandwich transformed into some thing else. But, that is only what I would say in a philosophy forum. Outside of a philosophy forum I would probably say some thing like; "That sandwich disappeared down my throat", if asked where did that sandwich go? after I ate it.

I think you have just misconstrued what I was actually asking you from the outset. But, this is not your fault, as this is all my fault because I am just here, in this forum, learning how to communicate with human beings better, in and on their terms.

[creation]

Since when have you not wanted to "sidetrack things", here in this forum?

"With that."

The reason why is given in the next sentence: "I think at this point it's just important in the conversation that we understand that per phenomenal experience, we don't actually have a basis for saying that things don't simply pop in and out of existence. (And it's important to understand that because it had been claimed otherwise.)"

The whole reason that I ignore the bulk of long posts is because I think it's important to focus on one thing at a time. I hate arguing.

Can you see the irony of saying this in a philosophy forum?

Also, the obvious different and exact opposite meanings that some words have is the main reason why many so called "philosophical discussions" have been going for thousands and thousands of years without any apparent resolution at all.

I could ask you to clarify what you actually mean when you write; "I hate arguing", but then again I do get accused of being an "argumentative buffoon", who is probably an "aspie", a "moron", and/or just a "troll", so some times I do not clarify. And, what happens when people do not gain clarity, then make assumptions, which can be absolutely and utterly false, wrong, and/or incorrect.

I hate having to repeat things. My goal is to focus on something--one small thing at a time, so that it's settled and we don't have to go over it again.

The issue is that most things never get settled, especially in philosophy forums or in so called "philosophical discussions", just use the last couple of thousand years or so for evidence for the latter one. Most people believe what they do and will never come around to seeing and understanding the supposed "other side". So, eventually what usually happens is people just end up repeating, or having to repeat, the exact same things. For example, you might say that 'space' is some thing, whereas I might say that 'space' can be seen as and understood as no thing, to which you might never agree that there can not be no thing or nothing existing. So, nothing is actually ever really settled, and therefore we do unfortunately go over the same things again. We might not 'have to' go over the same things again, but some times we just inevitably do. No matter how much we might like to focus on something -- one small thing at a time, it never gets settled. This is because of what I have been saying; assumptions and beliefs will distort, prevent, and/or block people from seeing what thee actual Truth of things IS.

[creation]

What do you think I am wanting to learn here?

I already learned what you are saying here years ago, and then I progressed past that stage, and continued to progress and learn more and anew.

If my truly open very simple clarifying questions are catching you out, then so be it. Your contradictions are very obvious to me.

By the way, what I want to learn here is nothing what is wanting to be taught by anyone here.



This is another contradiction, and, just re-repeating the same things over and over does not teach people anything.

People only learn things if what is being said makes sense, does not contradict itself, and/or people are open to it.

Some of what you say does not make sense, does contradict itself, and most people are not at all open to what you say anyway. They, like you, believe that they already know the truth.



The Universe just consists of two fundamental things; space and matter. That is what the Universe IS.

The two things of space and matter co-exist always. That is how the Universe works.

Is that simple enough for you? Or, do you need more? Would "half a page" be enough, or is that not enough, or would that be too much, for you?

I can provide as little and as much as you like.

You wrote - "I already learned what you are saying here years ago, and then I progressed past that stage, and continued to progress and learn more and anew." - Sure you did, did you make any effort to let anyone know that the Big Bang Theory is false?

No. What is the point of doing that. People will only accept and believe whatever they want to accept and believe. And, as I have said, while someone is believing some thing to be true, then there is absolutely nothing in the Universe that can show them otherwise.

Also, I am not in the process of letting anyone know what is true or false. I am just in the process of learning how to explain HOW they can find what thee actual Truth of things ARE all by their own selves, and for their own selves.

Just let me know where and when you posted that.

But I have not posted that and I have no intention to post anything like that.

It is not my goal nor has it ever been my intention to inform people of what is false and what is not.

Then you wrote - "If my truly open very simple clarifying questions are catching you out, then so be it. Your contradictions are very obvious to me." - Catching me out? - where are you from?
Name a contradiction that I made, that I couldn't clarify - if you can.

You said that; "space is infinite" but then you say "but there is also matter", which is a contradiction. I have asked you to clarify; How could space be infinite if there is matter also?, which you have not or could not clarify.

You also said that;
"1 Time can not stop, it can not slow down, or speed up. The rate of passing time never changes.
2 The entire Universe has the same time, it's always now, everywhere.
3 There was no beginning of time, because time can't stop or start - it's a constant. Since there was no beginning of time, there also was no beginning of the Universe.

I believe Man started labeling time with days, because of the position of the Sun. Then years, because of the pattern of the seasons. Egyptians invented the 24 hour day, no one knows for sure who invented the Sun dial, but they used one to measure and to label time. They divided daytime into 10 units, 2 units of twilight, and 12 units of night, based on the position of stars.

4 Without time there would be no movement."

I then asked you at least seven clarifying questions"
Does number 4 contradict 1 through to 3? It sure appears that way to me.

For example, If the rate of passing time never changes, anyway, then why without 'time' would there be no movement?

What exactly is 'time', that if without that 'thing' there would be 'no movement'?

If the rate of passing time, itself, never changes, then how exactly could 'time' supposedly cause movement?

If everywhere in the whole Universe has the exact same time of, always, 'now', then how could this constant cause movement?

If 'time' is just always constantly 'now', they why without this constant 'now' there would be no movement? Some might argue that 'time' would have to be changing, and not always 'now', for there to be movement. They might say something like:

For there to be movement, then there has to be change.
If the rate of passing time never changes, then there would be no movement.
There is movement.
Therefore, time would have to change.

How would you overcome this argument?

Or, some might just say; 'That to say, "The rate of passing time never changes" completely contradicts "Without time there would be no movement". Again, are you able to clarify this apparent absurdity and contradiction?

By the way, the middle part of what you wrote was, to me, 'too long' as well as being just completely unnecessary. What you believe humans started doing has no actual relevance on whether what you say is true or not."

Which you have not or could not clarify.

Is that enough naming of contradictions that you made, that you could not clarify? If they are not contradictions, then explain WHY. I explained WHY they appear as contradictions, to me. And, I asked you a series of clarifying questions. So, now you can either clarify things by clearing up the apparent contradictions I see, or you cannot or will not, and so what you said here will continue to remain as contradictions to me. I have helped you out enough and about as much as I can here for now.

Then - "By the way, what I want to learn here is nothing what is wanting to be taught by anyone here." - How would you know unless you ask?

But I have asked. Look at just how many clarifying questions I ask, compared to anyone else here.

There might be someone in the group that understands the topic, but you aren't really looking for answers are you?

I am NOT looking for answers in regards to this topic. I already KNOW what the answers ARE, regarding this topic.

I really do suggest you STOP assuming things, BEFORE you ask clarifying questions, and therefore gain CLARITY, first.

Finally - "The Universe just consists of two fundamental things; space and matter. That is what the Universe IS. The two things of space and matter co-exist always. That is how the Universe works." - You left out time, why don't you explain what time is?

Because it was not needed here now. Although, I have ALREADY explained what 'time' IS. 'Time' is just a human made up word used in relation to when the duration between agreed upon supposed events are being talked about.

See, thee Truth IS there are no actual different and separate events, with an 's', occurring. There is, however, just One event in continual change. This event happens and occurs NOW, eternally.

My 1st post on this site was "The Infinite Universe" - so you're not telling me anything I didn't already know.

I KNOW, and I have KNOWN this all along in this thread and in the other threads.

Either I have led you along and making you assume things, by the way I write, which are not even here, or, you are just making up assumptions on your own, and jumping to wrong conclusions based off of those assumptions of yours. Either way, what I have sought in accomplishing I have already done, a few times already I might add.

In fact you probably learned it from me, didn't you?

LOL. No. One only has to look back at my writings to work out what thee actual Truth IS.

I have been saying that the Universe is infinite and eternal well before I noticed you have, and, I have informed you of WHY your explanation of time and space does not work with thee infinite and eternal Universe. You have just been assuming that I having been saying that the Universe is finite and/or began, which I have let you believe, and/or led you to believe. But what can be CLEARLY SEEN in any and all of my writings is any such thing as this.

[gater]

You wrote - "I already learned what you are saying here years ago, and then I progressed past that stage, and continued to progress and learn more and anew." - Sure you did, did you make any effort to let anyone know that the Big Bang Theory is false?

No. What is the point of doing that. People will only accept and believe whatever they want to accept and believe. And, as I have said, while someone is believing some thing to be true, then there is absolutely nothing in the Universe that can show them otherwise.

Also, I am not in the process of letting anyone know what is true or false. I am just in the process of learning how to explain HOW they can find what thee actual Truth of things ARE all by their own selves, and for their own selves.

Just let me know where and when you posted that.

But I have not posted that and I have no intention to post anything like that.

It is not my goal nor has it ever been my intention to inform people of what is false and what is not.

Then you wrote - "If my truly open very simple clarifying questions are catching you out, then so be it. Your contradictions are very obvious to me." - Catching me out? - where are you from?
Name a contradiction that I made, that I couldn't clarify - if you can.

You said that; "space is infinite" but then you say "but there is also matter", which is a contradiction. I have asked you to clarify; How could space be infinite if there is matter also?, which you have not or could not clarify.

You also said that;
"1 Time can not stop, it can not slow down, or speed up. The rate of passing time never changes.
2 The entire Universe has the same time, it's always now, everywhere.
3 There was no beginning of time, because time can't stop or start - it's a constant. Since there was no beginning of time, there also was no beginning of the Universe.

I believe Man started labeling time with days, because of the position of the Sun. Then years, because of the pattern of the seasons. Egyptians invented the 24 hour day, no one knows for sure who invented the Sun dial, but they used one to measure and to label time. They divided daytime into 10 units, 2 units of twilight, and 12 units of night, based on the position of stars.

4 Without time there would be no movement."

I then asked you at least seven clarifying questions"
Does number 4 contradict 1 through to 3? It sure appears that way to me.

For example, If the rate of passing time never changes, anyway, then why without 'time' would there be no movement?

What exactly is 'time', that if without that 'thing' there would be 'no movement'?

If the rate of passing time, itself, never changes, then how exactly could 'time' supposedly cause movement?

If everywhere in the whole Universe has the exact same time of, always, 'now', then how could this constant cause movement?

If 'time' is just always constantly 'now', they why without this constant 'now' there would be no movement? Some might argue that 'time' would have to be changing, and not always 'now', for there to be movement. They might say something like:

For there to be movement, then there has to be change.
If the rate of passing time never changes, then there would be no movement.
There is movement.
Therefore, time would have to change.

How would you overcome this argument?

Or, some might just say; 'That to say, "The rate of passing time never changes" completely contradicts "Without time there would be no movement". Again, are you able to clarify this apparent absurdity and contradiction?

By the way, the middle part of what you wrote was, to me, 'too long' as well as being just completely unnecessary. What you believe humans started doing has no actual relevance on whether what you say is true or not."

Which you have not or could not clarify.

Is that enough naming of contradictions that you made, that you could not clarify? If they are not contradictions, then explain WHY. I explained WHY they appear as contradictions, to me. And, I asked you a series of clarifying questions. So, now you can either clarify things by clearing up the apparent contradictions I see, or you cannot or will not, and so what you said here will continue to remain as contradictions to me. I have helped you out enough and about as much as I can here for now.

Then - "By the way, what I want to learn here is nothing what is wanting to be taught by anyone here." - How would you know unless you ask?

But I have asked. Look at just how many clarifying questions I ask, compared to anyone else here.

There might be someone in the group that understands the topic, but you aren't really looking for answers are you?

I am NOT looking for answers in regards to this topic. I already KNOW what the answers ARE, regarding this topic.

I really do suggest you STOP assuming things, BEFORE you ask clarifying questions, and therefore gain CLARITY, first.

Finally - "The Universe just consists of two fundamental things; space and matter. That is what the Universe IS. The two things of space and matter co-exist always. That is how the Universe works." - You left out time, why don't you explain what time is?

Because it was not needed here now. Although, I have ALREADY explained what 'time' IS. 'Time' is just a human made up word used in relation to when the duration between agreed upon supposed events are being talked about.

See, thee Truth IS there are no actual different and separate events, with an 's', occurring. There is, however, just One event in continual change. This event happens and occurs NOW, eternally.

My 1st post on this site was "The Infinite Universe" - so you're not telling me anything I didn't already know.

I KNOW, and I have KNOWN this all along in this thread and in the other threads.

Either I have led you along and making you assume things, by the way I write, which are not even here, or, you are just making up assumptions on your own, and jumping to wrong conclusions based off of those assumptions of yours. Either way, what I have sought in accomplishing I have already done, a few times already I might add.

In fact you probably learned it from me, didn't you?

LOL. No. One only has to look back at my writings to work out what thee actual Truth IS.

I have been saying that the Universe is infinite and eternal well before I noticed you have, and, I have informed you of WHY your explanation of time and space does not work with thee infinite and eternal Universe. You have just been assuming that I having been saying that the Universe is finite and/or began, which I have let you believe, and/or led you to believe. But what can be CLEARLY SEEN in any and all of my writings is any such thing as this.

You have informed me of WHY my explanation of time and space does not work? Remind me of what you said.
Where can I find your writings? When someone knows the truth, they want to share it. You turn your version of truth into some sort of riddle. Instead of saying what this truth is, you just say it "can be CLEARLY SEEN in any and all of my writings" - you don't really want anyone to know what you believe, because you know that you may be wrong. If there's a flaw in your logic, i'll find it.
If you know some truth - say it, clearly - dont hide it.
I'll attempt to answer your long list of confusions, as soon as you explain this TRUTH of yours.

[Steve3007]

Like Occam's razor but here, but consider where the evidence lies. If something is observed to exist, I'll take that as evidence of it's existence. I don't think not observing something is evidence that it no longer exists or did not exist.

I agree. I'm trying to work out whether this is essentially saying the same thing, but from a different point of view, to what I said here:
viewtopic.php?p=354287#p354287
...or whether it's completely different.

My own point in that post was that we use patterns in our observations to predict what will happen next, by making the assumption that the pattern will continue. I think this probably boils down to being the same as what you said above, and I think both viewpoints are essentially about economy; the economy of ideas. i.e. it would be "uneconomical" to hold that when something is no longer being observed it ceases to exist. It would add unnecessary complexity to our worldview.

I think this is different from the idea, held by some people, that the idea of something disappearing or popping into existence is logically self-contradictory. I think there is a genuine divide there.

[Terrapin Station]

"With that."

The reason why is given in the next sentence: "I think at this point it's just important in the conversation that we understand that per phenomenal experience, we don't actually have a basis for saying that things don't simply pop in and out of existence. (And it's important to understand that because it had been claimed otherwise.)"

The whole reason that I ignore the bulk of long posts is because I think it's important to focus on one thing at a time. I hate arguing.

Can you see the irony of saying this in a philosophy forum?

Also, the obvious different and exact opposite meanings that some words have is the main reason why many so called "philosophical discussions" have been going for thousands and thousands of years without any apparent resolution at all.

I could ask you to clarify what you actually mean when you write; "I hate arguing", but then again I do get accused of being an "argumentative buffoon", who is probably an "aspie", a "moron", and/or just a "troll", so some times I do not clarify. And, what happens when people do not gain clarity, then make assumptions, which can be absolutely and utterly false, wrong, and/or incorrect.

I hate having to repeat things. My goal is to focus on something--one small thing at a time, so that it's settled and we don't have to go over it again.

The issue is that most things never get settled, especially in philosophy forums or in so called "philosophical discussions", just use the last couple of thousand years or so for evidence for the latter one. Most people believe what they do and will never come around to seeing and understanding the supposed "other side". So, eventually what usually happens is people just end up repeating, or having to repeat, the exact same things. For example, you might say that 'space' is some thing, whereas I might say that 'space' can be seen as and understood as no thing, to which you might never agree that there can not be no thing or nothing existing. So, nothing is actually ever really settled, and therefore we do unfortunately go over the same things again. We might not 'have to' go over the same things again, but some times we just inevitably do. No matter how much we might like to focus on something -- one small thing at a time, it never gets settled. This is because of what I have been saying; assumptions and beliefs will distort, prevent, and/or block people from seeing what thee actual Truth of things IS.

What happens in academic philosophy contexts is nothing like what happens on this board. And what happens on this board re having to repeat things over and over is not something I've seen, at least not anywhere to the same extent, on other boards.

"Settling" something doesn't amount to reaching an agreement on it so that people have the same views. It simply requires understanding--understanding why and how something works under a particular umbrella, at least (which also requires that folks can and are willing to explain as much in detail when asked), so that a particular bit can be moved past without having to rehash it, without resorting to straw men, etc.