Philosophy Discussion Forums

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 7:23 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 3:12 amThe 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".

I cannot peer into the Mind of Albert Einstein.

It might be an important question.

If there was a motive for Albert Einstein to promote the Big Bang creation story while rejecting his theory for an infinite Universe by naming his theory the 'biggest blunder' of his career, what could that have been?

If he wished to withhold the truth for the sake of social interests, what interests might they be and may they be relevant today? Why could the idea of an infinite Universe adversely affect humanity?

The idea that the Universe is finite of nature is nonsensical in my opinion. There are indications that the Big Bang theory is actively protected as of 2022, seemingly for financial or other yet unknown interests. I was recently banned on Space.com for questioning the Big Bang theory, among other things.

In June 2021, a decent written post about the fact that the Big Bang theory is considered a religion by an increasing amount of scientists that received several serious replies, was deleted for questionable motives.

Topics are normally ‘closed’ and remain readable but the moderator deleted the topic.

Moderator Space.com wrote:This thread has runs its course. Thank you to those who contributed. Closing now.

In February 2021, on philosophy.stackexchange.com a question related to Neutrino-biological cell theory of life (the idea that consciousness originates from the Sun) was closed as being ‘off-topic’.

It seemed an odd action since the topic concerned a philosophical question related to a potential origin for consciousness and there were already several serious replies.


What could be a motive to aggressively protect the Big Bang theory (idea that the Universe is finite of nature)? Big Pharma + psychiatry is founded on the idea, and synthethic biology (GMO) is dependent on the idea as well, which is a trillion USD financial profit interest. But might there be other motives/reasons? Why would Albert Einstein have cooperated, for example?

In my opinion the question why Albert Einstein called his own theory for an infinite Universe his 'biggest blunder' to then actively promote the Big Bang theory after 'listening' to a "beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation" of a Catholic priest friend is interesting.

Would you be open for the idea that the Universe is actual infinite (no beginning)? Would the idea be incompatible with the Inter Mind theory?

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 4:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 7:23 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 3:12 amThe 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".

I cannot peer into the Mind of Albert Einstein.

It might be an important question.

If there was a motive for Albert Einstein to promote the Big Bang creation story while rejecting his theory for an infinite Universe by naming his theory the 'biggest blunder' of his career, what could that have been?

If he wished to withhold the truth for the sake of social interests, what interests might they be and may they be relevant today? Why could the idea of an infinite Universe adversely affect humanity?

The idea that the Universe is finite of nature is nonsensical in my opinion. There are indications that the Big Bang theory is actively protected as of 2022, seemingly for financial or other yet unknown interests. I was recently banned on Space.com for questioning the Big Bang theory, among other things.

In June 2021, a decent written post about the fact that the Big Bang theory is considered a religion by an increasing amount of scientists that received several serious replies, was deleted for questionable motives.

Topics are normally ‘closed’ and remain readable but the moderator deleted the topic.

Moderator Space.com wrote:This thread has runs its course. Thank you to those who contributed. Closing now.

In February 2021, on philosophy.stackexchange.com a question related to Neutrino-biological cell theory of life (the idea that consciousness originates from the Sun) was closed as being ‘off-topic’.

It seemed an odd action since the topic concerned a philosophical question related to a potential origin for consciousness and there were already several serious replies.


qm-biology-stackexchange.jpg


What could be a motive to aggressively protect the Big Bang theory (idea that the Universe is finite of nature)? Big Pharma + psychiatry is founded on the idea, and synthethic biology (GMO) is dependent on the idea as well, which is a trillion USD financial profit interest. But might there be other motives/reasons? Why would Albert Einstein have cooperated, for example?

In my opinion the question why Albert Einstein called his own theory for an infinite Universe his 'biggest blunder' to then actively promote the Big Bang theory after 'listening' to a "beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation" of a Catholic priest friend is interesting.

Would you be open for the idea that the Universe is actual infinite (no beginning)? Would the idea be incompatible with the Inter Mind theory?

You would have to go back to the time of Einstein to understand the thinking that was going on. They were only just beginning to understand these things. I don't think Einstein's flip flop means anything other than a lack of confidence in his own theory. He was probably not really sure he was right and in fact it would take research happening way after his death to nail a lot of these things down.

Do you really think you can understand an Infinite Universe? I am of the opinion that Infinity cannot exist because it is an Absurdity when applied to any Physical situation.

The Inter Mind theory would be completely compatible with an Infinite Universe, if you could explain what such a thing could be. The Inter Mind Connects Physical Space to Conscious Space. Conscious Space has no Dimensions and no Time and does not care what the Physical Space is doing. Even if the Universe collapses back in on itself, Conscious Space will still be there and will be unaffected by the Collapse.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 7:51 am Do you really think you can understand an Infinite Universe? I am of the opinion that Infinity cannot exist because it is an Absurdity when applied to any Physical situation.

A recent study discovered that all particles in the Universe are entangled by 'kind'. This would have implications for physical reality as a whole and it would imply that on a fundamental level, the Universe is actual infinite (beginning-less).


(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

What do you think of the idea that particles in the Universe are entangled purely on the basis of their 'kind'?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 7:51 amDo you really think you can understand an Infinite Universe? I am of the opinion that Infinity cannot exist because it is an Absurdity when applied to any Physical situation.

I previously asked the following question: "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?"

You seem to apply logic pertaining to mathematical (potential) infinity to the concept actual infinity.

Actual infinity doesn't have a begin and cannot be counted. Mathematics would not be applicable and that would include the potential for mathematical absurdities.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 7:51 amThe Inter Mind theory would be completely compatible with an Infinite Universe, if you could explain what such a thing could be.

Does the Inter Mind Theory presuppose the Universe to be a (finite) thing? It does appear so from the following reasoning:

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.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 1:40 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 7:51 am Do you really think you can understand an Infinite Universe? I am of the opinion that Infinity cannot exist because it is an Absurdity when applied to any Physical situation.

A recent study discovered that all particles in the Universe are entangled by 'kind'. This would have implications for physical reality as a whole and it would imply that on a fundamental level, the Universe is actual infinite (beginning-less).


entanglement.jpg


(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

What do you think of the idea that particles in the Universe are entangled purely on the basis of their 'kind'?

I think you are referring to Quantum Field Theory which says for example there is only one Quantum Electron Field and all Electrons come from this single field. But it is a Mathematical Guess. It seems to work for a lot of experimental results but nobody can prove the actual existence of such fields. I don't take any of these kinds of Models to reveal anything about the Deep reality of things. Maybe they do reveal something, but way more work will need to be done before I completely buy into it. Nice Mathematical toys to play with, is how I look at it.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 11:04 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 7:51 amDo you really think you can understand an Infinite Universe? I am of the opinion that Infinity cannot exist because it is an Absurdity when applied to any Physical situation.

I previously asked the following question: "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?"

You seem to apply logic pertaining to mathematical (potential) infinity to the concept actual infinity.

Actual infinity doesn't have a begin and cannot be counted. Mathematics would not be applicable and that would include the potential for mathematical absurdities.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 7:51 amThe Inter Mind theory would be completely compatible with an Infinite Universe, if you could explain what such a thing could be.

Does the Inter Mind Theory presuppose the Universe to be a (finite) thing? It does appear so from the following reasoning:

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 theoretical basis is from what Science says about the Universe. But I do reject an Infinite Universe based on Absurdity arguments.

The Inter Mind does not presuppose that the Universe is finite. Could be Finite (Understandable), or Infinite (Not Understandable).

I don't understand how the Causality Trajectory argument leads you to think I am implying some sort of Infinity. I guess it is because I don't understand an Infinite anything in the Physical Universe.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 27th, 2022, 7:34 am The theoretical basis is from what Science says about the Universe. But I do reject an Infinite Universe based on Absurdity arguments.

The Inter Mind does not presuppose that the Universe is finite. Could be Finite (Understandable), or Infinite (Not Understandable).

Science is empirical which is at most a retro-perspective. On what basis would it be valid to assume that it can explain the fundamental nature of reality?

The Absurdity arguments that you mention, can it be said that it pertains to mathematical potential infinity? (the attempt to 'count' within the scope of the idea infinity?) Can you please answer this question?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 27th, 2022, 7:34 amI don't understand how the Causality Trajectory argument leads you to think I am implying some sort of Infinity. I guess it is because I don't understand an Infinite anything in the Physical Universe.

When non-locality is applicable to reality itself, the physical cannot be the origin of reality. That indicates that actual infinity is applicable on a fundamental level.

A user on this forum once mentioned the following with regard the basis for the idea that physical reality (Physical World) is 'real'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 26th, 2021, 11:29 am First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Would you share that perspective?

My reply: Because without knowledge of 'why' reality exists, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

What would be the basis for your idea that a 'Physical Universe' exists as a finite 'thing' separated from and causally primary of Conscious World? Would it merely be based on the idea of infinity?

It appears that you make the mistake to factor our the observer from consideration.

Could you please answer the marked in blue questions?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 9:37 amI'm an atheist.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

As can be seen in the topic about the Infinite monkey theorem, the factoring out of the observer (perception) results in the idea that mathematical potential infinity can be applicable to reality.

When it concerns actual infinity it concerns an aspect that precedes the potential for a begin (of a pattern) to be possible, which is logically introduced by an observer. On a fundamental level, a begin would not be possible which gives rise to the idea of infinity.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 27th, 2022, 7:34 am The theoretical basis is from what Science says about the Universe. But I do reject an Infinite Universe based on Absurdity arguments.

The Inter Mind does not presuppose that the Universe is finite. Could be Finite (Understandable), or Infinite (Not Understandable).

Science is empirical which is at most a retro-perspective. On what basis would it be valid to assume that it can explain the fundamental nature of reality?

Because Science has been pretty good at explaining a lot of things. Science will probably not explain everything without a change of Perspective and some new Scientific Principles.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 am The Absurdity arguments that you mention, can it be said that it pertains to mathematical potential infinity? (the attempt to 'count' within the scope of the idea infinity?) Can you please answer this question?

I think, for example, that there are an Infinite number of integers. But this is a purely Mathematical proposition and is a statement of fact. You cannot specify what the largest integer is because there is no largest integer. But this is a different thing than saying that Space is Infinite. Space is a Physical thing (Can't be Infinite), Integers are non Physical Mathematical things (Can be Infinite). Mathematical Space can be Infinite because you say it is. But a Mathematical Space is not really a Physical Space.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 27th, 2022, 7:34 amI don't understand how the Causality Trajectory argument leads you to think I am implying some sort of Infinity. I guess it is because I don't understand an Infinite anything in the Physical Universe.

When non-locality is applicable to reality itself, the physical cannot be the origin of reality. That indicates that actual infinity is applicable on a fundamental level.

A user on this forum once mentioned the following with regard the basis for the idea that physical reality (Physical World) is 'real'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 26th, 2021, 11:29 am First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Would you share that perspective?

I believe I agree with that.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 am My reply: Because without knowledge of 'why' reality exists, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

But not knowing the Cause of Reality does not prohibit you from knowing that there is a Reality.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 am What would be the basis for your idea that a 'Physical Universe' exists as a finite 'thing' separated from and causally primary of Conscious World? Would it merely be based on the idea of infinity?

My basis for all the things I write comes from trying to understand How we See. I am an Engineer and I use a Systems Engineering approach to try to see what is missing in the the Processing Flow diagram of Seeing. There is the classic Explanatory Gap of explaining how that beautiful Wide Screen Full Color Visual Experience is embedded in the front of our faces to show us the External World. As an Engineering problem there has to be a stage of Conversion from the Neural Activity to the Conscious Visual Experience. After a Hundred years of trying, Science cannot find this Visual Experience in the Neurons or as a result of any kind of Neural Activity. They have tried mightily. The question then arises: What if the reason Science cannot find Conscious Experience in the Neurons is because it is not in the Neurons? I decided that that was the answer. Conscious Experience must be in some other Realm or Something. I call that Something Conscious Space.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 am It appears that you make the mistake to factor our the observer from consideration.

Could you please answer the marked in blue questions?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 9:37 amI'm an atheist.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

I would have to say No and No. We are nothing without Mind. We are Mind. Mind does not cause Physical Reality. Mind Connects to Physical Reality.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am As can be seen in the topic about the Infinite monkey theorem, the factoring out of the observer (perception) results in the idea that mathematical potential infinity can be applicable to reality.

I disagree.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am When it concerns actual infinity it concerns an aspect that precedes the potential for a begin (of a pattern) to be possible, which is logically introduced by an observer. On a fundamental level, a begin would not be possible which gives rise to the idea of infinity.

Don't understand your logic here.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 amScience is empirical which is at most a retro-perspective. On what basis would it be valid to assume that it can explain the fundamental nature of reality?

Because Science has been pretty good at explaining a lot of things. Science will probably not explain everything without a change of Perspective and some new Scientific Principles.

That would mean that you use a loose probability argument to argue that science might be capable of explaining the fundamental nature of reality. The fact that science is at most a retro-perspective however, indicates that it is impossible. The fact that science has been unable as of today to grasp or explain meaningful experience (consciousness) is also an indication that science has a limit and any limit would be applicable to the ability to explain the fundamental nature of reality.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 am I think, for example, that there are an Infinite number of integers. But this is a purely Mathematical proposition and is a statement of fact. You cannot specify what the largest integer is because there is no largest integer. But this is a different thing than saying that Space is Infinite. Space is a Physical thing (Can't be Infinite), Integers are non Physical Mathematical things (Can be Infinite). Mathematical Space can be Infinite because you say it is. But a Mathematical Space is not really a Physical Space.

You seem to hold the same idea as a user on this forum who believes that physical reality is 'really real' (that it exists outside the scope of a perspective) and that mathematical infinity is therefore applicable to space and time.

A user on this forum mentioned the following:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

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.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am The whole point is that 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.

Would you agree with his reasoning and do you believe that time necessarily has a begin?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 amBut not knowing the Cause of Reality does not prohibit you from knowing that there is a Reality.

I would not agree with that. One has merely one's own meaningful experience as evidence for such a claim, which - as a product of senses - is at most a retro-perspective and therefore cannot be evidence of anything physically 'real'.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 amMy basis for all the things I write comes from trying to understand How we See. I am an Engineer and I use a Systems Engineering approach to try to see what is missing in the the Processing Flow diagram of Seeing. There is the classic Explanatory Gap of explaining how that beautiful Wide Screen Full Color Visual Experience is embedded in the front of our faces to show us the External World. As an Engineering problem there has to be a stage of Conversion from the Neural Activity to the Conscious Visual Experience. After a Hundred years of trying, Science cannot find this Visual Experience in the Neurons or as a result of any kind of Neural Activity. They have tried mightily. The question then arises: What if the reason Science cannot find Conscious Experience in the Neurons is because it is not in the Neurons? I decided that that was the answer. Conscious Experience must be in some other Realm or Something. I call that Something Conscious Space.

Why would Physical Reality remain primary and why would neurons develop independently to later - after millions of years 'evolution' - Connect to non-physical Conscious Space?

How would it be possible for something that is non-physical to stand in a plural relationship? Do you consider Conscious Space to be a 'thing'?

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 9:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 1:14 amScience is empirical which is at most a retro-perspective. On what basis would it be valid to assume that it can explain the fundamental nature of reality?

Because Science has been pretty good at explaining a lot of things. Science will probably not explain everything without a change of Perspective and some new Scientific Principles.

That would mean that you use a loose probability argument to argue that science might be capable of explaining the fundamental nature of reality. The fact that science is at most a retro-perspective however, indicates that it is impossible. The fact that science has been unable as of today to grasp or explain meaningful experience (consciousness) is also an indication that science has a limit and any limit would be applicable to the ability to explain the fundamental nature of reality.

The reason that Science has trouble explaining Conscious Experience is that Science insists that it is in the Neurons or is Emergent from the Neurons. They are stuck on Physicalist Dogma. They need to get out of the Physicalist Box and just admit that Conscious Experience is something outside of what they can explain with Physicalist Phenomena.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 9:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 am I think, for example, that there are an Infinite number of integers. But this is a purely Mathematical proposition and is a statement of fact. You cannot specify what the largest integer is because there is no largest integer. But this is a different thing than saying that Space is Infinite. Space is a Physical thing (Can't be Infinite), Integers are non Physical Mathematical things (Can be Infinite). Mathematical Space can be Infinite because you say it is. But a Mathematical Space is not really a Physical Space.

You seem to hold the same idea as a user on this forum who believes that physical reality is 'really real' (that it exists outside the scope of a perspective) and that mathematical infinity is therefore applicable to space and time.

It is an Incoherent conclusion to say that just because Physical Reality is Real, that Mathematical Infinity applies to Physical reality.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 9:30 am A user on this forum mentioned the following:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

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.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am The whole point is that 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.

Would you agree with his reasoning and do you believe that time necessarily has a begin?

All are perfect examples of why Infinities always result in Absurdities.
There are no Infinite Physical things, whether it's Space, Time or Energy.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 9:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 amBut not knowing the Cause of Reality does not prohibit you from knowing that there is a Reality.

I would not agree with that. One has merely one's own meaningful experience as evidence for such a claim, which - as a product of senses - is at most a retro-perspective and therefore cannot be evidence of anything physically 'real'.

When you consider the process of Sensory Experience (You need to really study it, it takes work) it is perfectly reasonable that it is very good Evidence for an External Physical world. In the specific case of the Visual Experience, we realize that what we See is our own Conscious Minds ability to Detect the External World. The Light we See is generated inside our Minds and is a Surrogate for what is happening in the Outside World. It is a Huge Mistake that Idealists make when they realize they Experience a Surrogate for the External World in their Visual Experience and then conclude that there is no External World but only the Experience. This is an Incoherent conclusion and there is purely a Belief without any chain of Logic to back it up.

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 9:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 8:55 amMy basis for all the things I write comes from trying to understand How we See. I am an Engineer and I use a Systems Engineering approach to try to see what is missing in the the Processing Flow diagram of Seeing. There is the classic Explanatory Gap of explaining how that beautiful Wide Screen Full Color Visual Experience is embedded in the front of our faces to show us the External World. As an Engineering problem there has to be a stage of Conversion from the Neural Activity to the Conscious Visual Experience. After a Hundred years of trying, Science cannot find this Visual Experience in the Neurons or as a result of any kind of Neural Activity. They have tried mightily. The question then arises: What if the reason Science cannot find Conscious Experience in the Neurons is because it is not in the Neurons? I decided that that was the answer. Conscious Experience must be in some other Realm or Something. I call that Something Conscious Space.

Why would Physical Reality remain primary and why would neurons develop independently to later - after millions of years 'evolution' - Connect to non-physical Conscious Space?

How would it be possible for something that is non-physical to stand in a plural relationship? Do you consider Conscious Space to be a 'thing'?

A more relevant question would be: Why is there anything at all?

A) The extreme of a pole coincides with the opposite pole, that is, the null reference of matter. Life is born from the cyclic dichotomy pulsation, between the above reference and its opposite pole. That is, where matter takes shape. [06/09/19].

Z) Although a limit is inducible in the limitlessness, the opposite is impossible determine in the limit itself. [06/09/19].

Nightmare wrote: ↑April 30th, 2022, 4:30 am A) The extreme of a pole coincides with the opposite pole, that is, the null reference of matter. Life is born from the cyclic dichotomy pulsation, between the above reference and its opposite pole. That is, where matter takes shape. [06/09/19].

Z) Although a limit is inducible in the limitlessness, the opposite is impossible determine in the limit itself. [06/09/19].

Without B through Y, how can we know what you are trying to say?

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 29th, 2022, 10:01 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 9:30 am A user on this forum mentioned the following:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

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.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am The whole point is that 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.

Would you agree with his reasoning and do you believe that time necessarily has a begin?

All are perfect examples of why Infinities always result in Absurdities.
There are no Infinite Physical things, whether it's Space, Time or Energy.

Where is the Observer in your reasoning? Is it not the Observer that would be counting physical things into infinity? If the Observer would cause the mentioned Absurdities, how can it be said to apply to what you indicate to be physical reality?

As it appears you make the mistake to exclude the Observer from consideration. Is that correct?

psyreporter wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2022, 11:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑April 29th, 2022, 10:01 am

psyreporter wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 9:30 am A user on this forum mentioned the following:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

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.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am The whole point is that 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.

Would you agree with his reasoning and do you believe that time necessarily has a begin?

All are perfect examples of why Infinities always result in Absurdities.
There are no Infinite Physical things, whether it's Space, Time or Energy.

Where is the Observer in your reasoning? Is it not the Observer that would be counting physical things into infinity? If the Observer would cause the mentioned Absurdities, how can it be said to apply to what you indicate to be physical reality?

As it appears you make the mistake to exclude the Observer from consideration. Is that correct?

Infinities always lead to Absurdities, Observer or no Observer.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2022, 1:15 pm Infinities always lead to Absurdities, Observer or no Observer.

There are two types of infinities (referenced as endless and infinite).

1. potential infinity which has a begin introduced by an Observer (mathematics) and that is merely to be considered endless.
2. actual infinity that does not have a begin (beginning-less).

How is an infinity absurd other than when an Observer is attempting to count it?

Wouldn't it be absurd to consider physical Objects to be intrinsically finite of nature and that an Observer is a posteriori able to count them?

What is a begin - the fundamental nature of finitude - otherwise than the begin of pattern recognition by an Observer?