Fair enough. But do you understand how the universe is both finite and infinite at the same time
CCoburn said:
Let's save some for later. First, let's make a distinction between
infinity and eternity. Infinity is unbounded quantity or endless
extension in a spatial sense while eternity can be thought of as endless
extension in a temporal sense. Eternity could also be thought of as a
state absent time.
The Universe is spatially finite. We know it's expanding, so it can't be
infinite, but it's encapsulated by eternity which has no temporal
constraints. This model implies an endless chain of universes as opposed
to any multiverse theories.
You know what that would mean? It would be breaking Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction (PNC): the principle that the same thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect at the same time.
In his Metaphysics, he called it the most certain of all principles.
For example, Schrödinger's cat in the box breaks the PNC, since it is both alive and dead at the same time.
It would actually be a really good story idea – to break the PNC – for
example whenever you have a character that is both alive and dead at the
same time. Or – a man on trial for murder is both innocent and guilty.
Or – a love-hate relationship?
CCoburn said:
The 'absurdities' usually come to surface when you start hypothesizing
about space and time, and this is likely due to the fact that they are
creations as opposed to absolutes. The 'all-encompassing point' is a
cosmological construct that also violates this "PNC": omni centric: a
single point that concurrently represents all space.
When you remove time from the equation you end up with a static record
of everything. To evoke time, you simply manipulate the stylus to some
arbitrary point on the metaphorical eternal record and play a universe...
Generic Feminine Brain Bleed Exudes Scientific Knowledge:
But all assumptions fall short of evidence - upon which scientific knowledge rests.
The analogy of brain/mind as cart and horse does not work for me.
Evolution produced a grand diversity of life, and with it a whole range of organs. Each organ has a structure and a function. Structure determines the function. Muscles produce movement, epithelial cells protect, and the brain produces the mind - consciousness.
To imagine that the organ we know as the brain somehow captured some outside "eternal force" defies logic, common sense, and scientific knowledge.
it's important to note that a 'scientific theory' is something different from the way the word "theory" is used in everyday language.
A scientific theory is not a "hunch" - but a set of statements based on accumulated evidence from a great number of scientific investigations.
CCoburn said:
In order for evolution to occur you need to have a stable system. A system that might require eons for meaningful evolution to occur. You have to understand what the word 'existence' actually means and you need to completely understand what the dimensions of existence are and what happens when you start removing them (to regress) or adding them (to progress). Otherwise, I would ask you to define the existential context in which this "evolution" takes place?
You and your "science" are talking about "brains" and "evolution" from within a framework of stability that has already been established for you. Maybe you take foundational parameters of existence for granted or believe they 'just happen' and that is where the inquiry begins and ends for you because you don't have any answers and science won't tell you. This is relative to the point I was making, and the reason why these types of discussions always go in circles or result in dead ends because nobody knows or if they think they know have no way of proving it that would be scientifically acceptable. Sometimes theories and hypotheticals are all we have because that is all we are capable of having, and if you don't wish to go that route then the solution is simple: just ignore it and go about talking about your "brains" and "evolution" after the fact as if that is actually explaining anything.
You are talking about poetry and I'm trying to establish the poet, or maybe there is no poet and somehow the poetry 'just happens',or, the trees, greenery, and flowers in this landscape are quite striking I wonder who the artist might be? Is there an artist? Well, we can't really say one way or the other and it cannot be proven anyway, so we'll just talk about the poetry and the flowers...
The principle of parsimony is also known as “Occam’s razor” – which basically says that we shouldn’t go looking for more complex answers when simple ones will do. What that really means is that we should rely on the weight of evidence, and scientific knowledge is the only substantiated knowledge we have.
CCoburn said:
Oh, you mean like M-theory and its 11 dimensions including micro-dimensional calabi-yau manifolds and an infinite uncreated spatial container as opposed to emergence from a singular source ultimately resulting in our 4-dimensional spacetime? I'm pretty sure that "parsimony" would favor the latter, and that's what I'm talking about. Not to mention the fact that it aligns with the most renown contemporary cosmological model.
Occam's Singularity
A singularity is like "Occam's Razor" on steroids. When you apply the d=m/v formula (density equals mass over volume) to an existential singularity it results in virtually infinite informational density that unfolds from within a construct that has no spatial dimensions.
How's that for a lean and mean Occam's Razor type of existence? It's not an "assumption". It's what happens when you apply mathematics to various stages of existence...
A record of the anomaly that is neither nothing nor something, yet from which both arise
I. Seed Crystal — Nothing
Before all measures, before all frames, there is the pure absence:
no space, no time, no potential, no witness.
Not empty — for emptiness is already a kind of thing —
but the unconditioned no‑thing.
II. The Anomaly — Something
Without cause, without tilt, without reason,
the balance shifts.
Something is.
Not summoned, not required, not inevitable —
yet here.
III. The Unknown
We can name its edges,
walk its perimeter,
feel its gravity —
but the core remains sealed.
Every answer is already part of the thing we question.
IV. The Absolute
It does not require any type of existence for its own existence.
It stands outside cause and effect,
outside “inside” and “outside,”
needing no stage to appear upon.
V. The Three‑Way Impasse
1. Pure chance — the coin lands on existence.
2. Causation — something prior, which itself exists.
3. Inevitability — nothingness was never possible.
Each path ends at the same wall:
It is here.
VI. Behind the Curtain
No levers, no operator —
yet the lights are up, the stage is set,
and the play has already begun.
The magic is not in the trick,
but in the fact that it happens at all.
VII. Recognition
We found it.
We know it’s there.
And in not knowing what it is,
we keep it whole.
VIII. Naming
Not god, not law, not mind —
but The Primordial:
the anomaly that is neither nothing nor something,
