Viability of foreverness

@Frank Apisa,

Essays ?

You ain't seen nothing and are unlikely to !
Try teaching golf to a guy who refuses to take his hands out of his pockets !

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I disagree. I know there are much bigger ones (some bigger than Saturn's orbit in fact). But the average star is still much smaller than ours.

Really?

You know that...or you are just guessing?

I suspect the truth is that Sol is an average-sized star--with the average star being about its size, not "much smaller"...and not bigger.

Of course, if you want to get into the collapsed stars being smaller bringing the average size down, I suppose you could work up a scenario where the average star is much small than ours...but from what I have been reading, the average star is not much smaller than Sol.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I'll get back to ya on this, Fresco. Gotta take my two elderly aunts food shopping...and then I've got to visit a shut-in friend.

But I do want to discuss your disdain and contempt for me and my posts in greater detail. I want to understand it a bit.

I appreciate you continuing to engage in conversation with me so that I can do this.

Later!

f.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not know the true nature of REALITY...really! And I readily acknowledge that I do not. That is in sharp contrast to folk like you, Fresco, who pretend that they know all sorts of things...and refuse to acknowledge that most of the supposed knowledge is little more than blind guessing.

Everyone does this. Though the guesses are not always blind. They can be educated too. I suspect Fresco knows the limits of his ideas. Who's to say that you aren't just assuming that he oversteps with his knowing?
Is knowledge based on reality, or on premises? I say the latter. If we are true to the premise, our knowledge is good.
Sadly, many people forget about premises, and think of knowledge as free-standing packets of information whose truth is absolute. It believe it's sometimes called naive-realism, and I think it's the closest one can come to seeing science as religion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I disagree. I know there are much bigger ones (some bigger than Saturn's orbit in fact). But the average star is still much smaller than ours.

Really?

You know that...or you are just guessing?

I suspect the truth is that Sol is an average-sized star--with the average star being about its size, not "much smaller"...and not bigger.

Of course, if you want to get into the collapsed stars being smaller bringing the average size down, I suppose you could work up a scenario where the average star is much small than ours...but from what I have been reading, the average star is not much smaller than Sol.

The average star is a red dwarf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

Given their extreme lifespan, once humanity ventures out among the stars, we would do well to consider colonizing such star systems.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Ora I’m unfamiliar with the technical language but what’s meant by “flat” and why is it unlikely

Quote:

A closed universe is one with enough gravity to eventually reverse its expansion and collapse in on itself.

The Big Crunch, Hope against Hope

Quote:

An open universe is one where the expansion will accelerate faster and faster.

That’s supposedly true Ora but wouldn’t that assume the visible Universe to be alone in an already infinite space; somewhat presumptive to say the least

Quote:

And a flat universe is one that never stops expanding, but the rate of expansion gets slower and slower without ever stopping.

I’m hoping it eventually stops, then the Big Crunch; ei, Serial Universes

.......or is it “ie"

Quote:

Of course, in addition to being flat, the universe also has a cosmological constant, so our expansion is accelerating anyway.

I never understood that (there’s a lot The Average Clod [me)] doesn’t understand as I’m sure you will agree)

Quote:

It is unlikely for a flat universe to be finite, because the mathematics of a flat universe are much more straightforward if the universe is infinite.

Okay that makes sense but then if the rules are the same throughout doesn’t that mean (assuming that anything that can happen, will) that at each and every moment there are an infinite number of every possible visible Universe, galaxy, etc, and doesn’t that idea bother you

Quote:

dalehileman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
When we venture out of the solar system and colonize the galaxy,

Given certain limitations such as the size of the galaxy and the speed of light, how do you suppose this will be accomplished

Quote:

One way trips. Time dilation will make the trips manageable for the colonists,

That’s assuming they’d be able to carry the amount of fuel required to accelerate to c and then later decelerate at their destination

..but interesting nonetheless to discuss

Quote:

Presumably unmanned probes will investigate the star systems before any mission to colonize is launched.

Well the best of luck

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yes. What Frank has never understood is that what we call "scientific knowledge" historically proceeds by conjecture(aka "hypothesis") which directs subsequent observation. Sometimes the data GENERATED (NOT merely "observed") are only statistically supportive of the conjecture, and sometimes they support it completely even though the conjecture is later rejected by other paths (I'm thinking here of the rejection of "the ether" despite Maxwell's successful equations being generated on the basis of "the existence of ether").
It follows that what we call "reality" and "knowledge" thereof, is transient and paradigmatically negotiable. And it would appear that this "truism" will forever be the case as paradigms evolve and replace each other according to their continued utility or otherwise. Epistemology is an expanding spiral limited only by the physiological and social constraints of observers. It would also seems to be a truism that what we call "existence" necessarily involves our own "existence" or that of some other hypothetical observer without whom there could be no "data" in support of such existence.
Those who would like the certainty of an "independent ultimate reality" are logically forced into the evocation of "an ultimate observer" (a deity), as was the case with Berkeley.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Those who would like the certainty of an "independent ultimate reality" are logically forced into the evocation of "an ultimate observer" (a deity), as was the case with Berkeley.

Does it have to be either or? As you know I've been pondering the issue of observation and awareness in my own layman's way. In my experience, most people are reluctant to entertain the notion of 'awareness without mind', but it seems to me that if the boundaries of my self are arbitrarily established based on the context I am in, then mind is a result of awareness, not a cause for it.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

As you know I've been pondering the issue of observation and awareness in my own layman's way.

The Average Clod (me) thanks you Cyr most profusely

Quote:

reluctant to entertain the notion of 'awareness without mind'

Something I’ve long contemplated, the Reality of the Abstract; the Ultimate Abstract, of course, being She, Us, It. For instance Her body is the Universe and all the activity is Her, thinking

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Philosophical opinion is divided regarding the status of what we might call "holistic consciousness". Systems theorists like Bernard Clark argue that understanding or awareness of such "a level" neither supports nor precludes the concept of an ultimate level which some might associate with"an impersonal pantheistic deity". Others, like Derrida argue that such awareness is "a myth" (reference Derrida's rejection of "the metaphysics of presence" in which he follows Heidegger's analysis of "being".) because what we call "awareness" is always ephemeral and "language dependent" ( and here we need to understand his point that our concept of "ineffability" is also language dependent `in that its meaning resides solely in the antithesis of "language" per se....this is a subtle point equivalent to saying "atheism" is dependent on "theism" etc). And further to this point, Derrida, like Maturana considers language purely as a form of "behavior" with "consciousness"and "self awareness" as its epiphenomena.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Helo test

1234

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Something I’ve long contemplated, the Reality of the Abstract; the Ultimate Abstract, of course, being She, Us, It. For instance Her body is the Universe and all the activity is Her, thinking

This is what I mean. It's hard to resist taking that step and saying Him or Her or It or whatever we come up with. I think it's a good way to understand the concepts 'god' or 'deity', but that makes it 'awareness with mind'. I think we do it because we are so entrenched in thinking that awareness requires someone being aware. To us, the idea of a thought so strongly implies a mind to think it, that when contemplating awareness, we automatically add something or someone that is being aware, even when we try to relate to 'awareness without mind'.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyr well put indeed

0 Replies

@fresco,

Hey Fresco…back at the keyboard. My aunts have their food supply for the next week…and my friend Randy (bedridden with advanced MS) had a short visit from me to discuss why we each thought the GIANTS played such a lousy game of football against Dallas last night. Good deeds all seen to.

As I mentioned, I am trying to understand your disdain for me. The contempt, scorn, and general displeasure you have for me is a mystery—and I would like to see if I can understand your motivation better so as to improve the situation if possible.

I will acknowledge at the outset that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed…not the brightest lamp on the tree. I managed to get through college (majors Economics, Philosophy, and Religion) and Grad School (Psychology)…but that was a long time ago. I try to keep my mind active by being physically active (I am a very, very active 76 year old) and by actively challenging my mind doing a Sunday sized crossword, a super Sudoku, and solving the Rubik’s cube each and every day. I also participate in discussions on the Internet in this forum and others. Not many years back I exercised my mind further by writing (and having published) hundreds of op ed pieces on a variety of subjects…in local newspapers; some of the top newspapers across the United States and England, and in national magazines.

You call me ignorant often…a philosophical ignoramus…boring…monotonous…simplistic…intellectually lazy…shallow…a committer of intellectual felonies (!)…and that I stick my fingers in my ears rather than listen to what you say.

I see you doing this same kind of thing to others—often sending scorn and contempt toward people who displease you.

Look, Fresco, there are many here who do that sort of thing—some who do it damn near every post…and to damn near every respondent. You all are free to do so. But most of the others do not seem to be of the same intellectual caliber as you. I can see them doing it without being nearly as amazed as when I see you doing it.

Why do you do it? What, in particular, is so loathsome about me that you feel it appropriate to engage in this kind of thing as often as you do?

Don’t get me wrong…I am not pleading with you to stop it. I can take it—make no mistake about that. I can take a good deal more than you can dish out. I laugh stuff like that off with a hearty and genuine laughter.

But I do want to understand it.

My penchant for asking questions…especially the one about whether a particular assertion is knowledge or a guess…seems to me to be more indicative of positive intellectualism than is the need you and others have to constantly derogate discussion partners.

Discuss it with me, Fresco.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The average star is a red dwarf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

Really?

Where do you get this stuff from, Oralloy?

Here are some links that state that Sol is an average sized star. Sol is classified as a G2 Dwarf star. The only way to reasonably suggest that it is larger than average is to include dead and collapsed stars. And I am hoping you have more integrity than that.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_size_of_a_star

http://www.universetoday.com/25331/size-of-stars/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081029235622AAhsJlB

http://nfo.edu/astro/sun.htm

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The average star is a red dwarf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

We were discussing sizes of stars...and nothing in that article indicates that red dwarfs are the average sized stars.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I feel much the same way about Im and I’d defend myself likeweise if I had your turn of phrase

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry Frank but I have no intention of becoming part of your intellectual work-out regime for seniors. I suggest you stick to the crossword. If you read my responses to Cyr above you should be able to understand that usage of phrases like "true nature of reality" whilst at the same time promoting agnosticism, is worthy of intellectual scorn. If you do not understand it by now you never will.

Philosophy has moved on since you did your courses especially in the wake of acclaimed geniuses like Wittgenstein who shook the subject to its foundations. Unless you are prepared to familiarize yourself with some of these developments you will be inevitably be side-lined by those who have made the effort.

Your so called "penchant for asking the single question" (how do you know that) amounts to behavior of the annoying child indulging in an infinite regress game of "why?" And you, like the child are interested in the game, not the answer , nor any suggestion that post-Wittgenstein, the question (that epitome of your self-image as the "wise Frank") may amount to meaningless clap-trap.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Thank you for your response, Fresco.

Quote:

If you read my responses to Cyr above you should be able to understand that usage of phrases like "true nature of reality" whilst at the same time promoting agnosticism, is worthy of intellectual scorn. If you do not understand it by now you never will.

Well, I do not understand it...and I really wish you would put the snit on hold and explain it to me.

Quote:

Your so called "penchant for asking the single question" (how do you know that) amounts to behavior of the annoying child indulging in an infinite regress game of "why?" And you, like the child are interested in the game, not the answer , nor any suggestion that post-Wittgenstein, the question (that epitome of your self-image as the "wise Frank") may amount to meaningless clap-trap.

I really don't think it is a childish game to ask if an individual making an assertion actually "knows" the material being asserted or if he is just sharing a guess. Not sure why you do. Would you be willing to explain yourself in that regard?

For you to suggest that I am "interested in the game"...when I am not even playing a game makes no sense either. I am very interested in the answers when I ask the question...which I have of you on several occasions. But you seem to tend toward simply asserting without foundation.

That is actually why I ask.

Why are you so anxious to consider me ignorant? And why would you bother with me and the many other people I've heard you call ignorant? Why are you here if the people who are here are so beneath you...and you have all those intellectuals at your disposal for conversation?

C'mon, Fresco...take the chip off your shoulder and try to be civil and reasonable.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Dale, as you can see from Fresco's response to me...some people cannot even make an effort to calm things down and be reasonable.

Amazing the need to demonize and derogate for some people. What do you think makes them do it? Why do you think Fresco is acting the way he is...and responding you my comments the way he is? Any ideas?

1 Reply

Viability of foreverness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know