Philosophy Discussion Forums

Infinity is Mathematical Fiction. Infinity is a Mathematical deal breaker and requires special treatment. Mathematicians hate Infinities. Infinities are the hidden Gremlins of Mathematics. This is because Infinity with regard to Phenomena in Physics is an Absurdity. There can be no Infinite anything. No Infinite Space, no Infinite Time (there actually is no such thing as Time), no Infinite points on a line segment, and no Infinite etc. Any analysis of anything Infinite leads to serious problems and Absurdities.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 24th, 2022, 7:57 am Infinity is Mathematical Fiction. Infinity is a Mathematical deal breaker and requires special treatment. Mathematicians hate Infinities. Infinities are the hidden Gremlins of Mathematics. This is because Infinity with regard to Phenomena in Physics is an Absurdity. There can be no Infinite anything. No Infinite Space, no Infinite Time (there actually is no such thing as Time), no Infinite points on a line segment, and no Infinite etc. Any analysis of anything Infinite leads to serious problems and Absurdities.

What do you think of Terrapin Station's reference of time as Tn (a change state)? Is the concept actual infinity not applicable to time and thus, would you argue that time must have had a beginning?

Example:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 1975, 7:23 am... if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

... To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

The paper specifically addresses claim posed by the Kalām cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning and it ends with the following:

Alex Malpass / Wes Morriston / Endless and infinite wrote:There are, of course, other arguments for the finitude of the past that we have not discussed – most notably, perhaps, the one based on the supposed impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’. We shall have to leave them for another occasion.

Follow up of the paper Endless & infinite, published in Oxford's Mind journal in March 2021:

All the time in the world
My paper on the Kalam and successive addition argument came out in the journal Mind today. You can read it here:
https://academic.oup.com/mind/advance-a ... a2mzcxC0VY

Source: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2021/ ... the-world/

All the time in the world wrote:Proponents of the Kalām cosmological argument (henceforth the 'Kalām'), in particular William Lane Craig (1979), seek to show that the past must have had a beginning, a moment of creation.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 9th, 2022, 8:14 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 24th, 2022, 7:57 am Infinity is Mathematical Fiction. Infinity is a Mathematical deal breaker and requires special treatment. Mathematicians hate Infinities. Infinities are the hidden Gremlins of Mathematics. This is because Infinity with regard to Phenomena in Physics is an Absurdity. There can be no Infinite anything. No Infinite Space, no Infinite Time (there actually is no such thing as Time), no Infinite points on a line segment, and no Infinite etc. Any analysis of anything Infinite leads to serious problems and Absurdities.

What do you think of Terrapin Station's reference of time as Tn (a change state)? Is the concept actual infinity not applicable to time and thus, would you argue that time must have had a beginning?

Example:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 1975, 7:23 am... if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

... To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

The paper specifically addresses claim posed by the Kalām cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning and it ends with the following:

Alex Malpass / Wes Morriston / Endless and infinite wrote:There are, of course, other arguments for the finitude of the past that we have not discussed – most notably, perhaps, the one based on the supposed impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’. We shall have to leave them for another occasion.

Follow up of the paper Endless & infinite, published in Oxford's Mind journal in March 2021:

All the time in the world
My paper on the Kalam and successive addition argument came out in the journal Mind today. You can read it here:
https://academic.oup.com/mind/advance-a ... a2mzcxC0VY

Source: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2021/ ... the-world/

All the time in the world wrote:Proponents of the Kalām cosmological argument (henceforth the 'Kalām'), in particular William Lane Craig (1979), seek to show that the past must have had a beginning, a moment of creation.

Not only is there no Infinite Time but there is no such thing as a Time Phenomenon in the first place. Time is a relationship between Objects and Processes. Before the Big Bang there was no Universe. There was no Matter, no Energy, and even no Space. There was certainly no Time because there were no Objects or Processes that could have Time relationships. Time is always Relative between Objects and Processes. There is no Absolute Time Phenomenon that is always running somehow. So, before the Big Bang there was not an Infinite past, not even a Million year past, or a Second past. There is no Absolute Time like that.

psyreporter wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 3:18 am

Block universe theory (time slices in a circle shape)
block-universe.jpg (17.05 KiB) Viewed 2178 times

(2018) Block universe theory: Past, present, future exist simultaneously
In the block universe, there is no “now” or present. All moments that exist are just relative to each other within the three spacial dimensions and one time dimension. Your sense of the present is just reflecting where in the block universe you are at that instance. The “past” is just a slice of the universe at an earlier location while the “future” is at a later location."
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/a-con ... same-time/

Atla wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2022, 10:09 am

If 'no change' is applicable within a finite amount of time slices of a block universe, one would be obligated to ask the questions: why such time slices, why a certain amount of time slices, why the specific content of time slices (i.e. conscious experience such as writing about the block universe on this forum) that 'never changes'?

Not sure what you mean. Humans are also finite, aren't we then also obligated to ask why?

Finitude is not something of substance. Finitude as a concept originates from pattern recognition. A pattern is the foundation of the concept finitude by the "begin" that is introduced by an observer (the observing mind). Finitude requires activity of an observer before it can be considered.

Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin. A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.

1. a pattern is necessarily meaningful (without meaning a pattern is not possible)
2. a pattern is signified by perception (signification provides a pattern with meaning)
3. as representative of meaning perception-as-signifier must precede a pattern on a fundamental level

The logic indicates that perception-as-signifier (observer) must precede a pattern on a fundamental level because as signifier it represents ‘pure meaning’ that cannot be a pattern.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality.

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

How observers create reality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06774.pdf

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 9th, 2022, 8:52 am Not only is there no Infinite Time but there is no such thing as a Time Phenomenon in the first place. Time is a relationship between Objects and Processes. Before the Big Bang there was no Universe. There was no Matter, no Energy, and even no Space. There was certainly no Time because there were no Objects or Processes that could have Time relationships. Time is always Relative between Objects and Processes. There is no Absolute Time Phenomenon that is always running somehow. So, before the Big Bang there was not an Infinite past, not even a Million year past, or a Second past. There is no Absolute Time like that.

The Doppler interpretation of redshift is highly questionable and some scientists argue that the Big Bang theory is a religion.

What do you think about the Tired Light theory that indicates that the Universe is infinite?

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang
More and more problems related to Big Bang have been appeared in recent years. All the problems are due to the Doppler interpretation of redshift.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/64538

Tired Light refutes the big bang theory
https://tiredlight.net/

New Tired Light Theory
http://tiredlight.org/

New Tired-Light Theory Explains Redshift and CMB in ab Infinite Universe
http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/Ashmore.pdf

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 10th, 2022, 3:59 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 9th, 2022, 8:52 am Not only is there no Infinite Time but there is no such thing as a Time Phenomenon in the first place. Time is a relationship between Objects and Processes. Before the Big Bang there was no Universe. There was no Matter, no Energy, and even no Space. There was certainly no Time because there were no Objects or Processes that could have Time relationships. Time is always Relative between Objects and Processes. There is no Absolute Time Phenomenon that is always running somehow. So, before the Big Bang there was not an Infinite past, not even a Million year past, or a Second past. There is no Absolute Time like that.

The Doppler interpretation of redshift is highly questionable and some scientists argue that the Big Bang theory is a religion.

What do you think about the Tired Light theory that indicates that the Universe is infinite?

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang
More and more problems related to Big Bang have been appeared in recent years. All the problems are due to the Doppler interpretation of redshift.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/64538

Tired Light refutes the big bang theory
https://tiredlight.net/

New Tired Light Theory
http://tiredlight.org/

New Tired-Light Theory Explains Redshift and CMB in ab Infinite Universe
http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/Ashmore.pdf

The Tired Light Theory was first proposed back in the 1920's and is a Fringe theory according to most Scientists. It supposedly presents an alternate explanation of the Red Shift, eliminating Expansion of the Universe as the cause of the Red Shift. The Tired Light Theory fails to explain as many things as Expansion of the Universe. A problem with it is that it predicts that Images from distant objects would be blurry because of the Tired Light mechanism. But Images are not Blurry. There are other problems. Anyway, can't get too excited about a theory that has so little support and so many flaws.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 10th, 2022, 12:57 amFinitude is not something of substance. Finitude as a concept originates from pattern recognition. A pattern is the foundation of the concept finitude by the "begin" that is introduced by an observer (the observing mind). Finitude requires activity of an observer before it can be considered.

Every human thought is introduced by thinking humans, so that's a non-argument.

Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin.

Humans are born and humans die. Their parents kinda caused that.

A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation.
a pattern is necessarily meaningful (without meaning a pattern is not possible)
a pattern is signified by perception (signification provides a pattern with meaning)
as representative of meaning perception-as-signifier must precede a pattern on a fundamental level
The logic indicates that perception-as-signifier (observer) must precede a pattern on a fundamental level because as signifier it represents ‘pure meaning’ that cannot be a pattern.

Humans think in patterns and those patterns are sometimes derived from the natural world, which was already there before humans. Meaningfulness is irrelevant.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality.

Not true, even your own link disagrees with you.
Not true even on a different level, quantum observers and human observers are probably two different things in the first place, that may sometimes partially coincide in some sense.

What is this?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 10th, 2022, 7:37 amThe Tired Light Theory was first proposed back in the 1920's and is a Fringe theory according to most Scientists. It supposedly presents an alternate explanation of the Red Shift, eliminating Expansion of the Universe as the cause of the Red Shift. The Tired Light Theory fails to explain as many things as Expansion of the Universe. A problem with it is that it predicts that Images from distant objects would be blurry because of the Tired Light mechanism. But Images are not Blurry. There are other problems. Anyway, can't get too excited about a theory that has so little support and so many flaws.

Status quo of science also claims that the Universe began in a Big Bang while many scientists are complaining that the Big Bang theory is a religion.

The Big Bang theory was originally named "Cosmic Egg theory" and that was proposed by a Catholic priest for "a day without a yesterday" in line with the book of Genesis of the Bible.

Albert Einstein originally had an opposing theory for an infinite Universe. All of the sudden, he called his own theory his 'biggest blunder' and started to actively promote the Big Bang theory.

Albert Einstein wrote:With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.

Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux ... -big-bang/

One of the main arguments for why Albert Einstein gave up his theory for an infinite Universe is that Edwin Hubble showed that the Universe was expanding (Doppler interpretation of Red Shift), forcing Albert Einstein to recognize that he was wrong.

However, history shows that Albert Einstein did not take Hubble seriously.

Mysteriously lost scientific papers by Albert Einstein that he submitted to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin were found in Jerusalem in 2013. Those papers show that Albert Einstein actively attempted to restore his theory for an infinite Universe in the years after the discoveries made by Edwin Hubble and in those papers he appeared to deliberately misspell the name of Edwin Hubble, calling him "Hubbel" repeatedly. That could be an indication that something was going on, perhaps ecclesiastical influence.

Getting Einstein to Say "I Was Wrong"
https://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/ ... wrong.html

Recovered document wrote:It's interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet with Hubble in person? We don't know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble's discovery serious.

April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.

If Albert Einstein was not forced by Hubble's discoveries to give up his theory for an infinite Universe, then why?

At the time of Albert Einstein, the Tired Light Theory was an alternative theory for redshift that according to some scientists today, is the most plausible theory.

With regard complaints about the theory. The theory has been renamed to New Tired Light Theory (NTL). Perhaps it causes confusion with regard scientific criticism. According to several studies that I noticed, the theory is being proven valid.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 6:08 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 10th, 2022, 7:37 amThe Tired Light Theory was first proposed back in the 1920's and is a Fringe theory according to most Scientists. It supposedly presents an alternate explanation of the Red Shift, eliminating Expansion of the Universe as the cause of the Red Shift. The Tired Light Theory fails to explain as many things as Expansion of the Universe. A problem with it is that it predicts that Images from distant objects would be blurry because of the Tired Light mechanism. But Images are not Blurry. There are other problems. Anyway, can't get too excited about a theory that has so little support and so many flaws.

Status quo of science also claims that the Universe began in a Big Bang while many scientists are complaining that the Big Bang theory is a religion.

The Big Bang theory was originally named "Cosmic Egg theory" and that was proposed by a Catholic priest for "a day without a yesterday" in line with the book of Genesis of the Bible.

Albert Einstein originally had an opposing theory for an infinite Universe. All of the sudden, he called his own theory his 'biggest blunder' and started to actively promote the Big Bang theory.

Albert Einstein wrote:With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.

Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux ... -big-bang/

One of the main arguments for why Albert Einstein gave up his theory for an infinite Universe is that Edwin Hubble showed that the Universe was expanding (Doppler interpretation of Red Shift), forcing Albert Einstein to recognize that he was wrong.

However, history shows that Albert Einstein did not take Hubble seriously.

Mysteriously lost scientific papers by Albert Einstein that he submitted to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin were found in Jerusalem in 2013. Those papers show that Albert Einstein actively attempted to restore his theory for an infinite Universe in the years after the discoveries made by Edwin Hubble and in those papers he appeared to deliberately misspell the name of Edwin Hubble, calling him "Hubbel" repeatedly. That could be an indication that something was going on, perhaps ecclesiastical influence.

Getting Einstein to Say "I Was Wrong"
https://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/ ... wrong.html

Recovered document wrote:It's interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet with Hubble in person? We don't know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble's discovery serious.

April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.

If Albert Einstein was not forced by Hubble's discoveries to give up his theory for an infinite Universe, then why?

At the time of Albert Einstein, the Tired Light Theory was an alternative theory for redshift that according to some scientists today, is the most plausible theory.

With regard complaints about the theory. The theory has been renamed to New Tired Light Theory (NTL). Perhaps it causes confusion with regard scientific criticism. According to several studies that I noticed, the theory is being proven valid.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that the Universe is not expanding?

Based on simple logic, the begin that is introduced by an observing mind is logically the begin of the Universe itself. The origin of the observer cannot have a begin or cause, therefore what is named 'the Universe' is a totality that originates from an observer and on a fundamental nature level it would be actual infinite (beginning-less).

New Tired Light Theory would be a theory that provides the basis for an infinite Universe, which is why it might be interesting.

What do you think of Albert Einstein's story that I shared? Does it not provide a reason to look a bit closer at the validity of the Big Bang theory?

A quote by a scientist:

Sabine Hossenfelder wrote:[url="http://sabinehossenfelder.com/"]Sabine Hossenfelder[/url], theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics: You will find the three main problems of the Big Bang theory religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 9:22 am Based on simple logic, the begin that is introduced by an observing mind is logically the begin of the Universe itself. The origin of the observer cannot have a begin or cause, therefore what is named 'the Universe' is a totality that originates from an observer and on a fundamental nature level it would be actual infinite (beginning-less).

New Tired Light Theory would be a theory that provides the basis for an infinite Universe, which is why it might be interesting.

What do you think of Albert Einstein's story that I shared? Does it not provide a reason to look a bit closer at the validity of the Big Bang theory?

A quote by a scientist:

Sabine Hossenfelder wrote:[url="http://sabinehossenfelder.com/"]Sabine Hossenfelder[/url], theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics: You will find the three main problems of the Big Bang theory religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.

I agree that the Inflationary theory was a huge adlib to make the Universe make sense. But I don't think many Scientists think the Universe is not expanding. At least I think we can say that Science knows that all Matter in the Universe seems to be moving away from all other Matter in the Universe. Either the Matter is repelling itself away from itself or there is some other force pushing the Matter away from itself (Dark Energy), or the Universe is just Expanding for some other reason (Like Quantum Fluctuations in all of Space). It does not necessarily mean that the Universe is Expanding, but the movement of the Matter away from itself will manifest as a Red Shift. Science absolutely knows the Matter is moving away from itself and the Red Shift corresponds to this movement. There is no need for a Tired Light Theory, either New or Old.

Einstein came up with a great theory, that ended up explaining a lot about the Universe, but he did not know everything. He rejected a parameter in his theory and said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. But it turns out that modern views of the Universe showed that Einstein was premature in rejecting that parameter in the theory.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 11:15 amScience absolutely knows the Matter is moving away from itself and the Red Shift corresponds to this movement. There is no need for a Tired Light Theory, either New or Old.

On what level would that be the case? Merely galactic level Matter (galaxy level) or is your assertion based on knowledge of Matter at the atomic level?

Observations of distant galaxies provide stunning new evidence that the Universe is not expanding
Oxford University societies hosted two presentations by LPPFusion President and Chief Scientist Eric Lerner in May. The Oxford University Space and Astronomy Society also invited Lerner to speak about his and his colleagues’ new paper on the non-expansion of the universe.

In a startling challenge to the widely-popular Big Bang theory, new evidence, published online May 2 in the International Journal of Modern Physics, D, (and posted to Arxiv) indicates that the universe is not expanding after all. The evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, adds to a growing list of observations that contradict the predictions of the increasingly complex Big Bang model.

Therefore if the universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena-something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space. "We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light," explains Lerner.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs ... 1814500588

Do you have a theoretical basis for the idea that the Universe is physically finite? Can it be said that it is merely based on criticism of the concept actual infinite based on logic pertaining to mathematical (potential) infinity?

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 17th, 2022, 3:22 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 16th, 2022, 11:15 amScience absolutely knows the Matter is moving away from itself and the Red Shift corresponds to this movement. There is no need for a Tired Light Theory, either New or Old.

On what level would that be the case? Merely galactic level Matter (galaxy level) or is your assertion based on knowledge of Matter at the atomic level?

Observations of distant galaxies provide stunning new evidence that the Universe is not expanding
Oxford University societies hosted two presentations by LPPFusion President and Chief Scientist Eric Lerner in May. The Oxford University Space and Astronomy Society also invited Lerner to speak about his and his colleagues’ new paper on the non-expansion of the universe.

In a startling challenge to the widely-popular Big Bang theory, new evidence, published online May 2 in the International Journal of Modern Physics, D, (and posted to Arxiv) indicates that the universe is not expanding after all. The evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, adds to a growing list of observations that contradict the predictions of the increasingly complex Big Bang model.

Therefore if the universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena-something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space. "We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light," explains Lerner.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs ... 1814500588

Do you have a theoretical basis for the idea that the Universe is physically finite? Can it be said that it is merely based on criticism of the concept actual infinite based on logic pertaining to mathematical (potential) infinity?

If the Universe was not Expanding, then it must be Contracting due to the attraction of Gravity. If the Universe was Static, it means there must be a counter acting force to keep the Universe from collapsing in on itself. Or maybe there would have to be just enough Expansion to counteract the motion that the force of Gravity imparts to the Matter. This seems unlikely, so then if the Universe was not Expanding, we have to assume that it is Contracting. This would give Light a Blue Shift. Now it gets harder because we will have the Red Shift of the Tired Light being compensated by the Blue Shift of Contraction. This is just too messy to be true, but anything is possible.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 17th, 2022, 7:18 amIf the Universe was Static, it means there must be a counter acting force to keep the Universe from collapsing in on itself. Or maybe there would have to be just enough Expansion to counteract the motion that the force of Gravity imparts to the Matter. This seems unlikely...

Likely in my opinion, is that the qualitative properties that are visible in life are applicable in the Universe.

(2022) The most complex thing in the universe
Biocosmology: the birth of a new science? We went from the commonly-held perspective that the cosmos has the biggest contribution to entropy and diversity, with our planet contributing effectively nothing, to instead seeing the entropy and diversity embedded in life on earth as dwarfing the contribution from cosmological entities.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-most-comple ... -auid-2110

On what basis would you consider a force such as Gravity to stand on its own (i.e. purely physical) and thus a factor by which 'all' (the Universe as a finite totality) expands or collapses?

You specifically mention that you do not subscribe to a physicalist (materialism) perspective, however, you did write the following as ground for an explanation of sensory conscious experience:

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 18th, 2022, 8:25 am"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."
...
The reality of the situation is that the Neural Activity in the Brain causes or produces in some way the Redness Experience.

The Big Bang theory (originally named Cosmic Egg theory) implies that the finite Universe has a start in time as if it came from a cosmic egg, corresponding with a moment of creation.

Albert Einstein mentioned the following about it:

"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.

Albert Einstein's theory provided a basis for an infinite Universe.

Albert Einstein Debunked the Big Bang Theory
A document that was recently recovered in Jerusalem shows that Albert Einstein debunked the idea of Big Bang theory and initially believed that, in an expanding universe, the density of the matter must be constant, resulting in an actual infinite Universe without a begin.
https://guardianlv.com/2014/03/albert-e ... ng-theory/

The official story (in magazines) is that Albert Einstein was not a fan of his theory and was forced to admit that he made a mistake due to observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The existence of an alternative theory for explaining redshift combined with the recently recovered papers that show that he actively tried to restore his theory for an infinite Universe (and in which he habitually misspelled the name of Edwin Hubble as Hubbel in 1931, two years later) could refute that.

The official story does not seem to be correct.

If Albert Einstein was not forced by Hubble's discoveries to give up his theory for an infinite Universe, then why?

What might have been Albert Einstein's motive for doing the following:

- come up with a theory for an infinite Universe that has now been shown to be correct
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and help promote the theory of a Catholic priest friend who states that the Universe began in a "Cosmic Egg".

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right
https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-big ... turns.html

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 3:12 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 17th, 2022, 7:18 amIf the Universe was Static, it means there must be a counter acting force to keep the Universe from collapsing in on itself. Or maybe there would have to be just enough Expansion to counteract the motion that the force of Gravity imparts to the Matter. This seems unlikely...

Likely in my opinion, is that the qualitative properties that are visible in life are applicable in the Universe.

(2022) The most complex thing in the universe
Biocosmology: the birth of a new science? We went from the commonly-held perspective that the cosmos has the biggest contribution to entropy and diversity, with our planet contributing effectively nothing, to instead seeing the entropy and diversity embedded in life on earth as dwarfing the contribution from cosmological entities.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-most-comple ... -auid-2110

On what basis would you consider a force such as Gravity to stand on its own (i.e. purely physical) and thus a factor by which 'all' (the Universe as a finite totality) expands or collapses?

Gravity is a force that exists between all Matter with any other Matter. Nobody knows the Deep meaning (Basis?) of what Gravity is. All we know is that it does exist. Gravity might not be an actual force but could just be a side effect of the warping of Space between Matter and Matter.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 3:12 am You specifically mention that you do not subscribe to a physicalist (materialism) perspective, however, you did write the following as ground for an explanation of sensory conscious experience:

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 18th, 2022, 8:25 am"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."
...
The reality of the situation is that the Neural Activity in the Brain causes or produces in some way the Redness Experience.

All we know is that certain kinds of Neural Activity results in Conscious Experience. Conscius Experience does not result in Neural Activity as if the Experience caused the Neural Activity, which is what the Idealists believe.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 3:12 am The Big Bang theory (originally named Cosmic Egg theory) implies that the finite Universe has a start in time as if it came from a cosmic egg, corresponding with a moment of creation.

Albert Einstein mentioned the following about it:

"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.

Albert Einstein's theory provided a basis for an infinite Universe.

Albert Einstein Debunked the Big Bang Theory
A document that was recently recovered in Jerusalem shows that Albert Einstein debunked the idea of Big Bang theory and initially believed that, in an expanding universe, the density of the matter must be constant, resulting in an actual infinite Universe without a begin.
https://guardianlv.com/2014/03/albert-e ... ng-theory/

The official story (in magazines) is that Albert Einstein was not a fan of his theory and was forced to admit that he made a mistake due to observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The existence of an alternative theory for explaining redshift combined with the recently recovered papers that show that he actively tried to restore his theory for an infinite Universe (and in which he habitually misspelled the name of Edwin Hubble as Hubbel in 1931, two years later) could refute that.

The official story does not seem to be correct.

If Albert Einstein was not forced by Hubble's discoveries to give up his theory for an infinite Universe, then why?

What might have been Albert Einstein's motive for doing the following:

- come up with a theory for an infinite Universe that has now been shown to be correct
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and help promote the theory of a Catholic priest friend who states that the Universe began in a "Cosmic Egg".

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right
https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-big ... turns.html

I cannot peer into the Mind of Albert Einstein.