A cosmological ponder for the weekend.

“The Universe” is a humanly devised concept usually meaning “the totality of all things” which is clearly not a physical perspective anyone or anything can actually ever attain. More seriously, it’s conceived by physicists as some sort of meaningful “system” whose nature can maybe one day be unravelled and mathematically modelled.

Thus, so far at least, “The Universe” is essentially imaginary. All we really have to observe are local conditions, stretching as far as our empirical resources can extend. And it seems that those resources will inevitably fall far short of ever revealing a “Universe”.

So is the concept itself actually misguided? Is it perhaps preferable to think of reality as encompassing that which we can perceive, and not attempt to “reduce” the unknown to this or that speculative theory conforming to a “Universe” concept?

It’s entirely possible that all that really exists are “local conditions” as far as any cognitive being can ever explore. Is the “Universe” an example of humans over-confidently misreading the nature of reality?

Good Q – the limits of the graspable (awareness of and how it lends to enquiry, answer-finding etc) bring much within comprehension or part so. The representations worked with, put to work.

There’s little deviation from all of what is understood being representation, so the work is of conversion really.

Scale conversion, or span of mulitiple scales worked requires abstraction, something of a requirement in dealing with practical things dealt with every day, not just the big cosmological indulgences.

Perhaps by way of a less practical thought experiment, take for example the history of all the oxygen and hydrogen atoms making for a glass of water, consumed, then part of transiently occupy the neural mass for some period of the entity that identifies itself as “Bubblecar”, later excreted in large part courtesy of the entities kidneys then exiting via the big fella’s big fella to evaporate and some of it lands in someones morning coffee cup, later some of those atoms finding their way into the brain of a dehydrated donkey in Uzbekistan.

I am not sure there really is a donkey.

“The universe” in large part is an exhalation of air through things similarly given a nuanced grunt through an exhalation of air via something called “vocal cords”, along with some gymastics involving placement of the tongue in the mouth, encoded, then decoded, involving attributions of a composite of possibly more literal meaning, + intention and possibilities regards where those two depart, or converge. Or, things can be written down, as here, eliciting implementation of word-concept decodings, analysis of word formulations, and more, requiring book-length explanations to get to the bottom of what appears to come so easy and maybe largely taken for granted.

The answer I believe is in the prosposition of the donkey that doesn’t really exist.

Yea, my house doesn’t exist when I’m not here.

On a more serious note, now that i’m on my second or third coffee, is “universe” at risk of being an overstretched construction of some sort, ‘overdetermined’ maybe loosely speaking (given it’s a shared concept). Doubtful, but there is the point the concept is being generated locally, in the brain, or mind I like to call it, there is also the desires an dprocesses involved in comprehending it being injected into whatever representation or construction, which no doubt distorts the picture, but as it happens not all incompleteness or even distortion is without utility.

Is there an outside perspective, or above perspective of “universe”, given we evolved within this universe and all. Lucky it is confining maybe, not sure any perspective at all would be possible without those ‘confines’. In a way it maybe what disconnects this world from whatever it originated that were extinguished that gives us this world and its characteristic thermodynamics.

This idea of something emerging and extinguishing it’s origin, along with it the usual causal chain we’d reverse engineer, thought experiment-like, to me is interesting.

Back to the more local distortions of considering the ‘infinity’ I’ll call it, and the question of practicalities of holding such a concept internally, and how it maybe at variance with the real thing, and I suppose the displacement of the real thing with the computational work, so to speak, this is probably an interesting area of thought.

It reminds me somewhat of the dilemma of anthropogenic global warming (conceptualizing it), the shift to humans not only in practice becoming a force of nature, but accepting they are (in a ‘dominant’ way perhaps), which tends what I’d call ‘anthropogenicism’ (apologies for the “ism”, I despise them as a rule).

This ‘anthropogenicism’ is creeping into news and weather reporting. Like ‘the rain helped fire fighters put out the fire’, and ‘the fire consumed thousands of hectares of land’. it’s almost got to the stage that humans (unconsciously believe) they cause the weather, including the rain, and summon it or it comes along and helps them do what they do, particularly of the field of social constructions. Apparently the weather we probably caused burnt a black hole in the earth then the rain was brought into existence by our thoughts or behaviours and helped us, make up some bullshit media representation (and viewers are stupidly being trained). It’s like the weather has become a mental contruction socially constructed.

Summer seems not to be able to go by now without reference to ‘highest temperatures on record’, and even when they don’t go there everything is leaning toward its going to go there.

“devoured” may have been the word used on the ABC

poikilotherm said:

Yea, my house doesn’t exist when I’m not here.

As I understand it, the rooms and chairs still exist, even when there’s no-one there.

morrie said:

poikilotherm said:

Yea, my house doesn’t exist when I’m not here.

As I understand it, the rooms and chairs still exist, even when there’s no-one there.

Only is it’s a wooden house & furniture made from a tree which fell when there was someone to see it fall.

transition said:

This ‘anthropogenicism’ is creeping into news and weather reporting. Like ‘the rain helped fire fighters put out the fire’, and ‘the fire consumed thousands of hectares of land’. it’s almost got to the stage that humans (unconsciously believe) they cause the weather, including the rain, and summon it or it comes along and helps them do what they do, particularly of the field of social constructions. Apparently the weather we probably caused burnt a black hole in the earth then the rain was brought into existence by our thoughts or behaviours and helped us, make up some bullshit media representation (and viewers are stupidly being trained). It’s like the weather has become a mental contruction socially constructed.

Summer seems not to be able to go by now without reference to ‘highest temperatures on record’, and even when they don’t go there everything is leaning toward its going to go there.

Everything shall be that with which we work, or that which we work upon.

“Indeed, are there not certain sects of holy men in the East who are convinced that nothing exists outside their minds except for the Oyster Bar at Grand Central Station?” – Woody Allen, ‘Notes from the Overfed’.

How would we set about testing this hypothesis?

dv said:

How would we set about testing this hypothesis?

Well that’s what I’m asking. Most conceptions of “the universe” are apparently not really testable. So how useful is the concept?

It’s not, as poik misinterpreted, a matter of dismissing things that we can’t see. What I’m referring to as the “universe” is the idea that there is a “whole thing” that represents a self-contained system with a traceable history etc. This may not be the case and even if it is, we’ll likely have no way of actually knowing.

>Everything shall be that with which we work, or that which we work upon.

Nicely put.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

How would we set about testing this hypothesis?

Well that’s what I’m asking. Most conceptions of “the universe” are apparently not really testable. So how useful is the concept?

It’s not, as poik misinterpreted, a matter of dismissing things that we can’t see. What I’m referring to as the “universe” is the idea that there is a “whole thing” that represents a self-contained system with a traceable history etc. This may not be the case and even if it is, we’ll likely have no way of actually knowing.

Well, I see your point. The universe is best considered a “model” to account for what we observe, as we call them, rather than a thing that exists.

Isn’t saying that what we can’t experience for ourselves to be there, not there, a kind of collective solipsism?

Are you thinking of the search for a unifying theory, Master Car.

I’m just sceptical that there is a “universal” perspective available to anyone or anything.

It’s entirely possible that all that really exists are “local conditions” as far as any cognitive being can ever explore. Is the “Universe” an example of humans over-confidently misreading the nature of reality?

—-

Define the “nature of reality”…

>I’m just sceptical that there is a “universal” perspective available to anyone or anything.

I think it means “all”, both known of and unknown and changing (and unchanging I suppose if there’s any of that happening, sorry not happening).

On that question, while you’re in the mood for such things, is an example of something ‘unchanging’ an example of happening, or is it an unhappening?

Just fucking with your head fella.

On the subject of the history of relational forces that might tend what we call a system, say like ‘solar system’ (for example, scaled up for the many), the accretional forces and much more, how the apparent order (and structure) maybe came about, you know like are these to some extent the ‘product’ of expansion somehow, this ‘coalescing’ so to speak, and how we might see the bigger picture from this little isolated pocket of apparent negentropy here on planet earth defying heat-death for the moment, us being an emergent aspect of and all evolved here in the ‘local conditions’ – what of it?

The situation is probably that some forces that are physical that are not material (to us) are involved in a dimensional relationship between what can be known and what can’t be known, the latter making the former knowable (paradoxically maybe to the immediate senses making some conception possible).

“Universe” simply means the conjectured ‘allness’ of some all, it’s not meant to be (necessarily) complete, it’s the verbal equiv’ of ‘infinity’, more a quality than a quantity, ‘verbalese’ you might say, like so much we rattle off between our lips.

I think when many people use the word they are speaking in-large-part of the unknown and unknowable also, fairly much comes with the word-concept associated.

You know it’s there, like if I say ‘how are things in your universe, Car?’, you know what I mean, so you are toying with stretching literalism a bit I think, semantics maybe. And perhaps at the same time – analogy following – wandering into the asylum and announcing mental illness no longer exists and everyone can go off their medication, so delusion reigns.

On the subject of to what extent ‘universe’ lends itself to ‘easy-think’, you know the avergae persons’ toolbox of comprehension, appealing notions etc, shared even or particularly of, well most of us to some extent exist in a sort of ideological suspension.

Maybe not ‘God’ being our parent, but ideology all the same.

Depends what road you take, there is a type of ‘modestification’ in ‘we all mostly what we don’t know’, or ‘I am mostly what I dont know’. Imagine that, awareness of being mostly what is not known, contradictory as it is in some ways, sort of the flipside to the social constructionist way (not their flipside maybe), but you may get what I mean.

‘we all mostly what we don’t know’ should read ‘we are mostly what we don’t know’

The whole universe is inside a small computer chip which exists in its own large universe and that too exists in a computer chip…..

Old motherboard looks like Ancient Greece

runs away…..

CrazyNeutrino said:

The whole universe is inside a small computer chip which exists in its own large universe and that too exists in a computer chip…..

Old motherboard looks like Ancient Greece

runs away…..

no different from the “our universe is an atom” theory.

The cerebral version of twinkle twinkle little star

>It’s entirely possible that all that really exists are “local conditions” as far as any cognitive being can ever explore. Is the “Universe” an example of humans over-confidently misreading the nature of reality?

Doubtful. Just like most of us don’t expect to have a complete or near complete picture, in fact most are probably more reconciled with a sketchy picture, with misconceptions and errors, but really car is it much different to you being the product of millions of years of evolution , that you have and can’t reverse-engineer with any or great accurancy the biohistory and social aspects of environments past that part-tended you to ask this question – the best you can do is some speculation really – is it really so different to you being in-great-part what you don’t know, that you car are what you mostly don’t know? Of course being what you don’t know may be liberating, awareness of it may be what generates consciousness in some peculiar way. On that subject give us an insight of how you weight for unknowns, or even unknowables, as I gather you do.

is it really so different to you being in-great-part what you don’t know, that you car are what you mostly don’t know? Of course being what you don’t know may be liberating, awareness of it may be what generates consciousness in some peculiar way. On that subject give us an insight of how you weight for unknowns, or even unknowables, as I gather you do.

—-

Careful….we are entering into the territory of the great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld

transition said:

>It’s entirely possible that all that really exists are “local conditions” as far as any cognitive being can ever explore. Is the “Universe” an example of humans over-confidently misreading the nature of reality?

Doubtful. Just like most of us don’t expect to have a complete or near complete picture, in fact most are probably more reconciled with a sketchy picture, with misconceptions and errors, but really car is it much different to you being the product of millions of years of evolution , that you have and can’t reverse-engineer with any or great accurancy the biohistory and social aspects of environments past that part-tended you to ask this question – the best you can do is some speculation really – is it really so different to you being in-great-part what you don’t know, that you car are what you mostly don’t know? Of course being what you don’t know may be liberating, awareness of it may be what generates consciousness in some peculiar way. On that subject give us an insight of how you weight for unknowns, or even unknowables, as I gather you do.

Yes, it’s very different to that.

>Yes, it’s very different to that.

I am not sure.

transition said:

>Yes, it’s very different to that.

I am not sure.

Well in the one case, it seems to me, although we can never know the details, we can make reasoned (and at least to some extent testable) hypotheses about the general course of events, and the mechanisms involved.

In the other we have absolutely know information, no basis for any hypothesis, and nothing that can be tested. So it does seem very different to me.

>Well in the one case, it seems to me, although we can never know the details, we can make reasoned (and at least to some extent testable) hypotheses about the general course of events, and the mechanisms involved.
In the other we have absolutely know information, no basis for any hypothesis, and nothing that can be tested. So it does seem very different to me.

Well of course you are right, say birth of universe and birth of organic life, though neither to this day are really explained. In a sense I think car is playing with things like the universe has no ‘outside’, which messes with the construction it ‘contains’ anything. But, if he is, I can’t see that a problem, I mean take a diagram of a circle, the abstraction as might apply to whatever, you can sort of conceptualize it in many ways, not that the universe is necessarily a circle, or sphere. I suppose he could be playing with the intention employed in the work done of mental constuctions representative of whatever, the so-called ‘universe’ as per the example.

Is there utility about trying for a universe? I think so. Do our conceptions of it overshoot what really exists, I doubt that possible. Are our conceptions paltry, hoplessly bereft of any reality to the point of being of limited use. Thing is the universe project itself is magnificently humbling, probably a wonderful humiliation even, that sort of imposes a modesty of any construction.

I don’t see it as being a work much different really to giving consideration to what some other person might be doing at any moment, like to generalize anticipating other humans behaviour, of the generalities and details, or for that matter considering all the chance events of biohistory, the happened upon.

Much of life and all else is out of the range of computation, or computational representation, there are however the real things themselves, fortunately. That most of everything is out of the range of computation, out of the range of comprehension even (in detail, quantity and scales and all) is in large part what provides certainty, we can’t ‘configure’ it, and mess it up, or have it submit to a labyrinthian contruction that needs be held together by our efforts – our ‘designs’.

Maybe this question can be resolved by ignoring the idea of a shared universe, that every individuals universe is different, so I say I have my own individual personalized universe.

transition said:

Maybe this question can be resolved by ignoring the idea of a shared universe, that every individuals universe is different, so I say I have my own individual personalized universe.

How does that resolve the question?

>How does that resolve the question?

Very easily as it goes. Bit PM maybe, but reckon Car’s there anyway.

transition said:

>How does that resolve the question?

Very easily as it goes.

Great.

So you’ll have no trouble explaining it to us.

>Great.
So you’ll have no trouble explaining it to us.

Alright, I’ll let you intrude and impose your self for a moment in my universe.

It’s a slightly but not much more advanced version of what follows.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. When the blazing sun is gone, When he nothing shines upon, Then you show your little light, Twinkle, twinkle, all the night. Then the traveller in the dark, Thanks you for your tiny spark, He could not see which way to go, If you did not twinkle so. In the dark blue sky you keep, And often through my curtains peep, For you never shut your eye, ‘Till the sun is in the sky. As your bright and tiny spark, Lights the traveller in the dark. Though I know not what you are, Twinkle, twinkle, little star. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. How I wonder what you are.

Oh dear.

;)

Let me have my bit of fun, you know this being all grown up all the time can be wearingly dull.

poikilotherm said:

Oh dear.

indeed

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Maybe this question can be resolved by ignoring the idea of a shared universe, that every individuals universe is different, so I say I have my own individual personalized universe.

How does that resolve the question?

And how do you explain the many apparent correlations between our personalized universes without invoking some higher-order “metaverse” that co-ordinates the personalized universes?

PM 2Ring said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Maybe this question can be resolved by ignoring the idea of a shared universe, that every individuals universe is different, so I say I have my own individual personalized universe.

How does that resolve the question?

And how do you explain the many apparent correlations between our personalized universes without invoking some higher-order “metaverse” that co-ordinates the personalized universes?

None of you are real.

Bubblecar said:

Thus, so far at least, “The Universe” is essentially imaginary. All we really have to observe are local conditions, stretching as far as our empirical resources can extend. And it seems that those resources will inevitably fall far short of ever revealing a “Universe”.

Fair enough. Science invokes Occam’s Razor when it claims that local conditions are the result of the operation of global laws. I suspect that a science built on non-universal laws would be possible, but messier as well as philosophically less satisfying.

I suppose part of the motivation to frame the universe is a unified entity with global laws comes from the West’s religious / philosophical heritage. By way of contrast, in the Hindu philosophical tradition it is taught that the world experienced by the senses is maya (illusion), and while there are some obvious patterns in empirical data, it’s not possible for tiny little human minds to pierce the veil of maya and understand the true nature of reality. It is significant (IMHO) that India did not develop the scientific method. :)

We can’t rule out that the world is an illusion / simulation, or that it was created last Thursday . But it’s easier to do science if we assume that it isn’t like that. As Einstein said “Subtle is the Lord, but not malicious”. ;-)

Angus Prune said:

PM 2Ring said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How does that resolve the question?

And how do you explain the many apparent correlations between our personalized universes without invoking some higher-order “metaverse” that co-ordinates the personalized universes?

None of you are real.

I don’t know if Onty is invoking solipsism, though, since that only requires one personalized universe, not a multiplicity of them.

>And how do you explain the many apparent correlations between our personalized universes without invoking some higher-order “metaverse” that co-ordinates the personalized universes?

Well of course it has commonalities of experience, there is the thing (expanding and changing apparently too) really out there, it gives us our local physics (thermodynamics too) which our ancestors evolved within, and from.

I allowed for individual perspective, which from the view of acknowledging the cognitive, the representational, is required given this work is injected into any conceptions employed to describe it.

Is there a ‘stereotype universe’, I doubt it and see no evidence for that, none whatsoever. And if there were I’d ask whose stereotype, yours, mine, BubbleCars etc, you’d get the gist likely.

transition said:

>And how do you explain the many apparent correlations between our personalized universes without invoking some higher-order “metaverse” that co-ordinates the personalized universes?

Well of course it has commonalities of experience, there is the thing (expanding and changing apparently too) really out there, it gives us our local physics (thermodynamics too) which our ancestors evolved within, and from.

I allowed for individual perspective, which from the view of acknowledging the cognitive, the representational, is required given this work is injected into any conceptions employed to describe it.

Is there a ‘stereotype universe’, I doubt it and see no evidence for that, none whatsoever. And if there were I’d ask whose stereotype, yours, mine, BubbleCars etc, you’d get the gist likely.

This “the thing really out there” sounds a lot like an objective reality to me… But if you wish to claim that there’s no way for a finite mind to directly perceive the true nature of that objective reality, I’m quite ok with that.

BTW, what colour is your beret?

:)

>This “the thing really out there” sounds a lot like an objective reality to me… But if you wish to claim that there’s no way for a finite mind to directly perceive the true nature of that objective reality, I’m quite ok with that.

There are of course functional (limitations, but potentialities too) realities about cognition and forming and putting conceptions to work, the ‘conceptional work’ if you like, so you know there’s the realities of the organism and what works for the organism, then there’s what is really out there (which doesn’t give a shit mostly), then there’s the relationship of the two, not all of which is known but some tends to unfold as things happen, or doesn’t happen, or may even tend what may happen no matter how apparently unlikely.

On a slightly related matter, you know sometimes you have to know more about something to decide if you want to know more, or you may find that after you know more you realize you want to know less or may not want to know much about it at all.

once again wookiemeister man triumphs against evil and the evil nuclear man given an atomic wedgie

hand on the flag in the sunset he stands ever vigilant and always watching

thank you and good night

Goodnight stout yeoman.

transition said:

>Great.
So you’ll have no trouble explaining it to us.

Alright, I’ll let you intrude and impose your self for a moment in my universe.

It’s a slightly but not much more advanced version of what follows.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. When the blazing sun is gone, When he nothing shines upon, Then you show your little light, Twinkle, twinkle, all the night. Then the traveller in the dark, Thanks you for your tiny spark, He could not see which way to go, If you did not twinkle so. In the dark blue sky you keep, And often through my curtains peep, For you never shut your eye, ‘Till the sun is in the sky. As your bright and tiny spark, Lights the traveller in the dark. Though I know not what you are, Twinkle, twinkle, little star. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. How I wonder what you are.

What’s your point?

>What’s your point?

That’s a question you should ask “The Car”, he obviously has some personal answers of his own, otherwise he couldn’t have formulated the questions.

I think I’ve put my two cents worth in, so back to “The Car”

talking strange concepts

i remember dreaming one morning just before i woke

i was dreaming about something or the other then the dream ended – i found myself in the darkness neither dreaming nor awake, i saw a series of strange symbols appear as if in a count down and i was or had been watching a tape of a dream , those symbols then ended and i was back to the darkness again – then i awoke.

i sat up and pondered

what if we were actually just somehow living inside a programme rather than an entire universe? our dreams and other functions being handled by some hidden hand.

the universe existed but not in the form as we thought

maybe the universe ended years ago and we are actually living in a gigantic computer that has somehow removed itself from the dying universe, for what purpose is unknown only to the machine.

PM 2Ring said:

Bubblecar said:

Thus, so far at least, “The Universe” is essentially imaginary. All we really have to observe are local conditions, stretching as far as our empirical resources can extend. And it seems that those resources will inevitably fall far short of ever revealing a “Universe”.

Fair enough. Science invokes Occam’s Razor when it claims that local conditions are the result of the operation of global laws. I suspect that a science built on non-universal laws would be possible, but messier as well as philosophically less satisfying.

I suppose part of the motivation to frame the universe is a unified entity with global laws comes from the West’s religious / philosophical heritage. By way of contrast, in the Hindu philosophical tradition it is taught that the world experienced by the senses is maya (illusion), and while there are some obvious patterns in empirical data, it’s not possible for tiny little human minds to pierce the veil of maya and understand the true nature of reality. It is significant (IMHO) that India did not develop the scientific method. :)

We can’t rule out that the world is an illusion / simulation, or that it was created last Thursday . But it’s easier to do science if we assume that it isn’t like that. As Einstein said “Subtle is the Lord, but not malicious”. ;-)

I think Bubblecar’s point in this context is that Occam’s Razor is not applicable, and is less philosophically satisfying than recognising that there are things we cannot know.

I don’t think that the possibility of the world being an illusion and/or simulation is really relevant to this discussion.

transition said:

>What’s your point?

That’s a question you should ask “The Car”, he obviously has some personal answers of his own, otherwise he couldn’t have formulated the questions.

I think I’ve put my two cents worth in, so back to “The Car”

I think you probably know what your point is better than Mr Car.

everything we know of the universe is only something that we construct in our minds – how it works in its entirety is unknown and shrouded from us. we only know what we can measure and guess at. sure we can think and can measure but ultimately reality and the universe are only constructs in our heads and we are trapped within them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>Great.
So you’ll have no trouble explaining it to us.

Alright, I’ll let you intrude and impose your self for a moment in my universe.

It’s a slightly but not much more advanced version of what follows.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. When the blazing sun is gone, When he nothing shines upon, Then you show your little light, Twinkle, twinkle, all the night. Then the traveller in the dark, Thanks you for your tiny spark, He could not see which way to go, If you did not twinkle so. In the dark blue sky you keep, And often through my curtains peep, For you never shut your eye, ‘Till the sun is in the sky. As your bright and tiny spark, Lights the traveller in the dark. Though I know not what you are, Twinkle, twinkle, little star. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. How I wonder what you are.

What’s your point?

My point is that the loonys seem to appear about the same time every day.

>..our dreams and other functions being handled by some hidden hand.

I suppose, of the latter contributing to the former, that experience of that external, of the world, of the organism acting within and upon that external, that we have to ‘bring it home’ so to speak, ‘integrate’ it, the fleshy workings, the fleshy mass dictates that to great extent. Being organic is a fleshy experience, this itself has peculiarities.

>I think you probably know what your point is better than Mr Car.

Alright, point taken, what exactly do you want to know of my view, be specific.

jjjust moi said:

My point is that the loonys seem to appear about the same time every day.

Does that sort of comment help you feel better about yourself?

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

My point is that the loonys seem to appear about the same time every day.

Does that sort of comment help you feel better about yourself?

Same arrogance, eh Rev?>

transition said:

>I think you probably know what your point is better than Mr Car.

Alright, point taken, what exactly do you want to know of my view, be specific.

I want to know what your reasoning is for the statements you have made, which you have said is very simple.

Shouldn’t be too hard.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

My point is that the loonys seem to appear about the same time every day.

Does that sort of comment help you feel better about yourself?

Same arrogance, eh Rev?>

Your comment did seem quite arrogant, yes.

>I want to know what your reasoning is for the statements you have made, which you have said is very simple.

Find a particular statement and quote it and i’ll elaborate on aspects that you want to know about, otherwise I’m left guessing, not that I mind guessing I mean I’ve covered a lot or territory.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>Great.
So you’ll have no trouble explaining it to us.

Alright, I’ll let you intrude and impose your self for a moment in my universe.

It’s a slightly but not much more advanced version of what follows.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. When the blazing sun is gone, When he nothing shines upon, Then you show your little light, Twinkle, twinkle, all the night. Then the traveller in the dark, Thanks you for your tiny spark, He could not see which way to go, If you did not twinkle so. In the dark blue sky you keep, And often through my curtains peep, For you never shut your eye, ‘Till the sun is in the sky. As your bright and tiny spark, Lights the traveller in the dark. Though I know not what you are, Twinkle, twinkle, little star. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky. Twinkle, twinkle, little star. How I wonder what you are. How I wonder what you are.

What’s your point?

My point is that the loonys seem to appear about the same time every day.

does a little jig slapping spoons on my arms and legs

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does that sort of comment help you feel better about yourself?

Same arrogance, eh Rev?>

Your comment did seem quite arrogant, yes.

That is the same childish response I would have heard in grade five.

Shirley you can do better?

transition said:

>I want to know what your reasoning is for the statements you have made, which you have said is very simple.

Find a particular statement and quote it and i’ll elaborate on aspects that you want to know about, otherwise I’m left guessing, not that I mind guessing I mean I’ve covered a lot or territory.

I ask a specific question about a specific point, you quote a nursery rhyme in response, then you ask me to be more specific?

oh that’s right drag Shirley into this

typical

>I ask a specific question about a specific point, you quote a nursery rhyme in response, then you ask me to be more specific?

Fair enough.

It was a way of reminding of the raw senses a child experiences the world through, which we carry through into adulthood, gives us wonder etc, but was also a reminder of the practical utility in experience every moment of such tried-and-tested raw senses.

You know that light from stars, there’s a lesson or three about the world and other solar system in that, there’s stars that we can see easily, dim stars, and presumably stars we can’t see.

It was also to remind that our grown-up conceptions of the universe may not be that much better or worse than a childs experience, not at all a bad thing IMO.

So, no, you can’t be expcted to read my mind, true enough, but do take what I say in the most positive lighthearted way, I am child at heart.

The universe itself is a complete set of information, it seems we will only ever have a fragmentary view of information that belongs to a whole

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think Bubblecar’s point in this context is that Occam’s Razor is not applicable, and is less philosophically satisfying than recognising that there are things we cannot know.

I don’t think that the possibility of the world being an illusion and/or simulation is really relevant to this discussion.

Why do you say that Occam’s Razor is not applicable in this context? Occam’s Razor doesn’t say that the simplest theory that explains the empirical data is correct, just that it’s more economical than a more complex theory. A theory that says that the laws of physics that we know only apply locally and that other laws may apply beyond our observable universe is more complex than one that posits universal laws.

Sure, that more complex theory may be true, but modern science isn’t really concerned with the Truth – it’s only in the business of making models that are useful.

I mentioned illusion and/or simulation because if we assume that our apparently universal laws of science are actually only applicable in a limited domain, then the universe is less regular than it appears to be, and everything we know could change without notice at any moment. It would be much harder to do science in such a place!

Rev’s probably bit like myself and doesn’t like everything being Occamed to death, that consigned to the oblivion stealthily making the other real.

Me, I inhabit the oblivion.

My scientific explanation for the universe and life in general is that we are just part of the whole, we are like cells that die and are discarded and replaced by new cells but we make up the whole, we are down at a very very local level, however our own cells are even more local.

But that’s my little scientific theory of life but to grapple with the really big picture we need to leave the mortal field of science and philosophy and step into the realm of the spirit world, the ANCIENTS knew of it, Shakespeare spoke of it and traditional native tribes are in awe of it, it is a known unknown, the essence of the cosmos.

Peak Warming Man said:

My scientific explanation for the universe and life in general is that we are just part of the whole, we are like cells that die and are discarded and replaced by new cells but we make up the whole, we are down at a very very local level, however our own cells are even more local.

But that’s my little scientific theory of life but to grapple with the really big picture we need to leave the mortal field of science and philosophy and step into the realm of the spirit world, the ANCIENTS knew of it, Shakespeare spoke of it and traditional native tribes are in awe of it, it is a known unknown, the essence of the cosmos.

you should write perfume adverts

actually I just remember another really strange dream I had a few days ago

I was riding on some kind of pope mobile type vehicle and the Israeli president Benjamin yahoo or whatever his name is was riding along next to me. he was blissfully asleep with his mouth wide open snoring – I thought this a little strange even in the dream.

wookiemeister said:

actually I just remember another really strange dream I had a few days ago

I was riding on some kind of pope mobile type vehicle and the Israeli president Benjamin yahoo or whatever his name is was riding along next to me. he was blissfully asleep with his mouth wide open snoring – I thought this a little strange even in the dream.

I’ve often been woken by my own snoring.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

actually I just remember another really strange dream I had a few days ago

I was riding on some kind of pope mobile type vehicle and the Israeli president Benjamin yahoo or whatever his name is was riding along next to me. he was blissfully asleep with his mouth wide open snoring – I thought this a little strange even in the dream.

I’ve often been woken by my own snoring.

I’ve woken up snoring a few times, you know the kind of snore where you actually woke up with a snort

the most blissful sleep can come from listening to TAFE teachers talking about the AS3000 (the electricians rule book).. now then chapter 5, clause XXXX ,note A …………. there was one teacher I should have recorded and sold it for insomniacs.

watching maths videos has the same effect, you know you should really watch them, to learn something, then the next thing you know – darkness

And how dare car question the existence of the universe ;).

Fortunate something allows the ‘freedom’ to do that, now I wonder what that could be.

Milos Meier raging the headphones here.

transition said:

>I ask a specific question about a specific point, you quote a nursery rhyme in response, then you ask me to be more specific?

Fair enough.

It was a way of reminding of the raw senses a child experiences the world through, which we carry through into adulthood, gives us wonder etc, but was also a reminder of the practical utility in experience every moment of such tried-and-tested raw senses.

You know that light from stars, there’s a lesson or three about the world and other solar system in that, there’s stars that we can see easily, dim stars, and presumably stars we can’t see.

It was also to remind that our grown-up conceptions of the universe may not be that much better or worse than a childs experience, not at all a bad thing IMO.

Thanks for that.

I have some idea of what you were getting at now :)

transition said:

So, no, you can’t be expcted to read my mind, true enough, but do take what I say in the most positive lighthearted way, I am child at heart.

I’ll do my best :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>I ask a specific question about a specific point, you quote a nursery rhyme in response, then you ask me to be more specific?

Fair enough.

It was a way of reminding of the raw senses a child experiences the world through, which we carry through into adulthood, gives us wonder etc, but was also a reminder of the practical utility in experience every moment of such tried-and-tested raw senses.

You know that light from stars, there’s a lesson or three about the world and other solar system in that, there’s stars that we can see easily, dim stars, and presumably stars we can’t see.

It was also to remind that our grown-up conceptions of the universe may not be that much better or worse than a childs experience, not at all a bad thing IMO.

Thanks for that.

I have some idea of what you were getting at now :)

transition said:

So, no, you can’t be expcted to read my mind, true enough, but do take what I say in the most positive lighthearted way, I am child at heart.

I’ll do my best :)

Through the eyes of a child, you will see.

Moody Blues, To Our Childrens Childrens Children.. 1969