Twenty Second Century Universe: In Philosophy

As you claim, he may be an alien. His language problems is the first clue.

Yes indeed. Possibly from the Arcadian planetary system. It appears that his home world language is obscure and verbose. (But, he hints that his message might not be hidden as well as we may think it is ... all we have to do is sit back quietly and drink in the presentation and all will be revealed perhaps through a process similar to osmosis. This is so exciting! )

Do have to stay up until the next comet passes planet earth?

I'm keeping my feet firmly planted on Planet Earth. I don't think I'll be riding to heaven on a comet during some possible rapture event. How about you? I'm going to finish watching Project Runway, then going to bed early. I babysit tomorrow for my great-nephews. Big day tomorrow with plans for helping one-year old ride his trike and play patty cake and consoling his jealousy while I feed 2-month-old his bottle. It's really cool that I have 2 handsome boys competing for my attention.

At the moment...YES, you are.

(You would do better to refrain from thinking you can speak for a "we" here...and confine your opinions to what you, personally, opine...and start to write with some clarity of coherence. )

I keep reading everything that Arcades writes...hoping at some point he will become coherent. Some of his lesser comments show that he is capable of being very, very clear.

But when he gets to that notion of his...it becomes a blur. I suspect that is because it is a blur.

I have challenged him to offer it in small pieces...with the single most important piece as a separate item for inspection and consideration.

Let's see if he does it.

WITHOUT ALL THE NONSENSE.

Good grief, Frank! Did you have to quote the whole thing?

Nothing is worse
And worthy of curse
Than a writer not terse

And remember
As I wax poetic

Its never too late
To obfuscate

Can anyone give me an agreed upon definition of infinity ?

Continuing from the theoretical base that I am detailing: the expansion of the so-called universe is true analogically, but ultimately subjective. The collective temporality of humanity, that is the complexest material resonance in the 'universe', must now be seen more logically as the only rational ' expandability' in reality.

Inherently, the material source of universal visceralization(temporality) is a supreme complexity . To show us a 'reality' , temporality, especially for the lack of determinable differentiation between it and the rest of the universe( materiality is the definitive claim acrossboard ) would have to be placed as the forefront of any rational expansion that we can determine. The logicalest expansion is not viewed by, but is the material systemization that is the human collective temporality.

Human cognitive evolution demarks the 'expanding circumference' of the supposed universe .it is not about more space ( reality doesn't grow), but the 'capacity' for better interpretation that enlarges reality.
The source of the visceralization is paramount and not the result, therefore the belief that reality is ever largening , by way of an outer or inner spatial circumference gaining on oblivion , is most illogical , most analogically grounded. Remember that reality didn't actually start, and thus is not in progress actually.

The expansion of the universe is not 'subjective.' The measurements of the stars and galaxies proves the expansion.

There is no way that they would not. This has always been my position, indicated by me declaring that the big bang is fact, analogically.

Whose talking about the 'big bang?' You said expansion was subjective. It's not!

More nonsense...and an even more incoherent "explanation" than earlier attempts.



Really! You want us to take you seriously on this difficult subject...and you use a word like "complexest?" Try "most complex" next time.

And you might want to rethink any comment you are making about what is (or is not) the most complex thing in the universe. Explaining how you know everything in the universe can be a bitch.



"Logicalest!!!???"

From someone attempting to explain something complex!

C'mon!

Stop trying to sound intelligent by using big words and complex word patterns...and start actually posting intelligently.

The honesty of Frank Apisa everyone. The intellectual mystic goes for the heart but instead pokes a hole through my T-shirt .
Good afternoon Frank.

Alright . Onwards..............

Okay.

Slow...and with some clarity, if you can.

The best I can muster is the length of time it would take to figure out what the heck you are talking about.

Infinity is postulated as being. Increase without end (mathematical , spatial, and nonspatial) but this is a classical description, interpretation, a compensation for arriving at the limit of our former dimensional thetic for reality: three-dimensionality being an autonomous coherence. Invariably we would. Have to compensate in this way.
In actuality , there cannot be unlimited potential in the universe - to go infinitely you can only use up all potential variables in space, and or time , then you find yourself back at the first variable invariably . This immediately leaps beyond our concept of the continuously expanding universe- three-dimensionally, analogically , we must observe, and be able to prove that the universe is expanding; but ultimately, emerging facts must show that this is incomplete.
Figure the thesis of potential , again this is one of our concepts that we classically require to be true , for energy, for the binding of particles into kogically specific objects based in the principles of the conservation laws , systematical potential already existent in the binding particles, and for a rational concept of space: if you are standing at one point in space, every other point , in time , must be at a potential for your presentation, but this is not the hinge of the argument , space has to come under the standards of potential given that it expands in time. Time holds it subject to what is perceived as existing systematics of the universe- each Circumference of expansion(inward or outward) must come from existing potential state, as energy cannot actually be created nor destroyed. Energetic potential has remained constant from the big bang, we cannot simply ascribe a separate formality for spacetime where it can increase , make circumferential gains onto a vague nothingness region that remains just beyond the reach of our universe's size.
Increasing potential is an irrational concept. Potential can only be logically presented as an inherently complete scope of reference .
We cannot move from one place to the next must take place in time . In the expression of possibility from potential ; potential also prevents objects from being in two places at the same time ( the observation of the electron Being multiple places at the same time is based on our insistence that the universe is an autonomous structure and therefore also our contemporary expectations of what we find "having" to be interpreted a specific way). Therefore space must conform to to potential; space cannot actually be expanding, but an " already completed state"

So, I'm right. Eh?