Survival and reproduction don't exist. They are only concepts in your consciousness.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 2:35 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote: > First of all, you talk about space as if it is some obvious concept. But > is not obvious at all. As a quale in consciousness, space is a particular > meaning that ended up in our consciousness for evolutionary reasons: this > quale helped us survive and reproduce. Is identical to the quale of "sexy > woman". That sexiness that you feel when you look at a woman, is a quale in > your consciousness designed to facilitate reproduction. Space is identical > to sexiness: is a quale designed to facilitate survival and reproduction. > Yes, it feels as if it has nothing to do with such matters, it feels as if > it is some pre-existing stage in which consciousnesses only later appeared > and only based on this pre-existing stage did they partake in the processes > of survival and reproduction. But this feel is misleading. The quale of > space itself is involved in survival and reproduction directly. Given this > true nature of what space actually is, your questions become simple > nonsense, random mumbling, no different that the angels on a needle. Do you > understand now how deep the rabbit hole goes ? > > And also as I bonus, sometimes when I'm tired and I sit in bed at night, I > experience 4D space. How that 4D feels like is as if I'm seeing an object > both all-around and inside. So where does that 4D space reside if not > solely in my consciousness ? > > On Thursday 3 October 2024 at 20:25:14 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > >> On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 11:19:20 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: >> >> The very words that you use have no meaning. So how can any conversation >> be had ? Is like wanting to debate how many angels fit on the head of a >> needle. Sure, it has the appearance of a well formulated question, but it >> is actually meaningless. >> >> >> You're entitled to your opinions, but I'm seeking substantive responses, >> so please refrain from posting on this thread. AG >> >> >> On Thursday 3 October 202 Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 9:50:12 AM UTC-6 >> Cosmin Visan wrote: >> >> You can only ever observe yourself. So by unobservable you mean the minds >> of other consciousnesses ? >> >> >> I'm seeking substantive responses, so please refrain from posting on this >> thread. AG >> >> >> On Thursday 3 October 2024 at 17:21:28 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> To recapitulate and clarify the argument: >> >> Firstly, by "universe" (our "bubble"), I mean the observable *and* >> unobservable regions defining our expanding universe. >> >> Secondly, since our universe is expanding, we could run the clock >> backward to any earlier time, and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, >> establishing that the observable region is finite in spatial extent. (It's >> actually measured to have a radius of 46 BLY.) >> >> Thirdly, concerning the *un*observable region, let's assume it's >> infinite in spatial extent. If so, this couldn't have occurred in stages, >> say by spatial expansion, since no matter how fast it might expand, or for >> how long a length of time, it would remain finite throughout, and could >> never achieve infinite status. Hence, the only way it could be infinite in >> spatial extent, would be for it to be either *UN*-*created*, or if it >> had a beginning it must have expanded *instantaneously* to infinity in >> spatial extent. These options are falsified in two ways; first by the CMBR, >> which is predicted by the Big Bang. That is, empirical evidence affirms it >> had a starting time. And second, as previously argued, if it is now >> infinite in spatial extent and had a beginning, it would have had to expand >> *instantaneously* to infinity. Since I consider this physically >> impossible -- which is my unproven and likely unprovable assumption -- by >> two lines of argument our universe must be finite in spatial extent. >> >> Final conclusions:, being *finite* in spatial extent, *it cannot be flat* >> (despite the consensus view), since that implies infinite in spatial extent >> (assuming it's not toroidal). And there is no need to do any measurements. >> Using a purely logical argument, our universe is finite in spatial extent >> and cannot have a flat global geometry. Its likely global geometry is >> approximately spherical, since it's expanding in all directions from every >> point in spacetime and is approximately isotropic. What could be *uncreated >> and infinite in space and time*, is the substratum from which our >> universe emerged. >> >> QED, AG >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2dd3585c-0abf-44f3-84b3-77289f5ce55cn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2dd3585c-0abf-44f3-84b3-77289f5ce55cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA9jKaZMDOVi5ATAp2DgLrYqG8W9M9ZWw0LMbnYsVF2ZFw%40mail.gmail.com.
