21
   

The Half-life of Facts.

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 02:24 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Supposing that space and time have the property of themselves growing without a medium is a fairly gratuitous assumption. There are no observations of growth anywhere with no medium to grow. In fact assuming space grows outwards its boundaries begs the question of requiring more space for space itself to grow. Otherwise someone ought to properly clarify what growing into nothingness intends to mean. I never seen anywhere so far the slightest attempt to shred some light into this puzzle.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 02:33 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Regarding change, the right question to be asked is why space expands into nothingness once that is the original assumption and from there to question if expanding into nothingness makes any sense at all...
Precisely because I think it doesn't make the slightest sense that anything outside space time can happen including the very expansion of space time I rather think of space time expansion (with all that there is inside) as an effect we experience like characters in a film jumping from frame to frame instead of supposing the "film" grows into nothingness which is absurd.
From this perspective there is no real expansion happening as the whole film exists already with all space time cycle, although we as the characters inside the film, inside space time, have the experience of expansion and change being at work.
Now many of you may think this is bold speculation but to my view it is far less bold then supposing space can grow into nothingness.
Note please, don't confuse, I am not saying matter and inflation are not pushing space time outwards, what I am saying is that expansion itself is something else, I am saying that the experience of motion through space time and of space time itself is not what it seams.

Its not free movement, but rather movement inside a whole which is established already[/u].
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 07:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Its not free movement, but rather movement inside a whole which is established already[/u].

Taking an overall view of all your recent posts... I'd say:

You seem to be saying that the true nature of reality can be both permanent and impermanent at the same time... if that is what you're saying, then that seems impossible to me. You need to describe the fundamental characteristics of 'the whole' and what moves and how it moves. If you can't then it could be just your mind creating a complex fantasy that satisfies only you but doesn't having any meaning outside of that fantasy.

By the way thanks for your link to the video on the boy savant.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 08:48 am
@igm,
What I am saying is that it is a looping cycle of spacetime where the end meets the beginning...
There is no change at all as there is no change in the frames of a complete film. They form a whole, a sequence of frames that never changes.
Change is experienced from the inside perspective where you don't have access to the 4D geometry, but only to the here and now moment by moment.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 11:41:30