On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 12:26:49 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:
@Alan. Yes, you said right: you see it, so it is an experience in consciousness. But is identical to seeing the duck-rabbit. You see it as a duck, someone else sees it a rabbit and then you fight with him that he doesn't understand the properties of duck and he tells you that is your fault, that you don't understand the properties of rabbit. You should both understand that both your duck and his rabbit are ideas in consciousness and stop wasting your life in illusory debates. If you want to debate something, debate consciousness, figure out how you as God imagine this world as ideas in your mind. Way too much is hidden to have a meaningful discussion. You apparently think otherwise. But what you call our imagination is overwhelmingly hidden. So I decline your offer. AG On Monday 7 October 2024 at 00:02:42 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, October 6, 2024 at 1:36:59 PM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: @Alan. Is funny how you can talk about "space" without even having a definition of it. How does your talk differentiate from a delirium then ? For example, is the "space" that you talk about the newtonian one ? Is it the einsteinieu know what it is when you see it, but virtually impossible to define "exactly". AG n one ? Is some new graysonian one ? What exactly is it ? *Space is like pornography. You know what it is when you see it, but virtually impossible to define "exactly". AG * On Sunday 6 October 2024 at 21:01:54 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: On Sunday, October 6, 2024 at 12:28:44 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, October 5, 2024 at 7:55:40 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, October 5, 2024 at 7:43:03 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, October 5, 2024 at 7:25:19 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/5/2024 4:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: The evidence you claim which seems to indicate an infinite universe is, IMO, underwhelming. It seems to indicate a flat universe, and thus infinite in spatial extent. However, there is a small error in the measurement, which is what one would expect if the size of the universe is exceedingly huge and and approximately spherical. That's a troll's remark. One expects error in any empirical measure. The best estimate combining various sources in 2013 for the deviation from flatness was Omega_k=0.002*+*0.009. And the WMAP7 and supernova data implied -0.12<Omega_k<0.01; so the greater deviation was in the negative, open infinite universe direction. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3000 Name calling will get us nowhere. Yes, there are always measurement errors. I should have noted that fact. But another fact is that if the unobservable universe is sufficiently large, it will be impossible to distinguish flat from slightly spherical. AG Moreover, if we run the clock backward, ostensibly, the observable universe is smaller in the past than at present, Bullshit. That's assuming what is to proven. If it's infinite then it was always infinite. You can't even keep you logical inferences straight. I was explicitly referring to the *observable* universe, which is definitely finite with a measured distance to the horizon of 46 BLY. Moreover, since the observable universe is expanding, and there's ample evidence for that, think cosmological redshift, then if we run the clock backward, it will be smaller. That's what all the diagrams show, and it's indisputable. I don't have a clue why you characterize that as BS, or that I'm assuming what you think should be proven. AG Brent and had a beginning as evidenced by the CMBR. Applying the Cosmological Principle, there's no apriori reason to assume the unobservable universe behaves differently. That is, smaller and finite, and will come into view as we go backward in time. OTOH, I do believe the underlying substratum from which our bubble emerged, is likely infinite in spatial extent. AG While the data you reference does have a bias to support your argument, the fact that the observable universe had a beginning, and therefore the unobservable as well, I find it hard to believe that the unobservable part began as spatially infinite. I think we need new physics to explain that, or maybe magic. AG You should keep in mind that there's a generally held belief in the physics community that when a theory contains or implies an infinity, there's something awry; that is, something is not right with the theory. Your theory of the origin of our universe contains such an infinity, aka a *singularity*, where at its origin point or time, it instantaneously expands to, or reaches infinity of spatial extent. So, regardless of the fact that data from the Planck satellite tends to support your theory, I remain seriously doubtful. AG Note that in the case of S's cat, it is allegedly in the simultaneous state of |alive> and |dead> only when the box is closed, so the *unintelligible* claim is *unverifiable*. I think the same applies to your claim as well for superposition. 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/747e8d75-f570-4f52-ad19-7d6750209e4fn%40googlegroups.com.
