the universe and space....?

Frank Apisa wrote:

"If SATOOU contains zero stuff, time cannot exist in it."

In this case, Ican took a bit of conjecture he pulled out of the air -- disregarded arguments that called that conjecture into question -- and now posits it as a fact.

If you let him get away with this kind of thing -- no matter how seemingly innocent it may seem -- he'd be able to show a high probability that the Tooth Fairy exists -- and that it is disguised as a favorite old aunt of his.

Ican

Unless you can PROVE that time cannot exist in an environment with "zero stuff" -- I suggest that it is illogical to posit it as a fact.

Frank you are a pleasant. <pleasant> isn't a noun is it? Oh well!

Try this time to read with understanding what I actually wrote:

" THEORY: PROBABLY IOU INFLUENCES THE EVOLUTION OF OOU AND PROBABLY IOU ITSELF.

(Note: The word <probably> as used here means <more likely than not>) "

Note the word PROBABLY and its explanation <probably>

I AM REPORTING, YOU DECIDE

OOU = Our Observable Universe = all that which we can observe (one way or another) and all that we can validly infer from what we observe.

SATOOU = Something Additional To OOU = That which is not in OOU.

IOU = The Intelligence Of OOU, if there be any such intelligence.

stuff = (matter and energy)

If SATOOU contains zero stuff, time cannot exist in it.

Surely, you are not so far gone that you actually think I am claiming <proof> of anything.

I suggest this statement of yours is not relevant to what I have actually posted:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Unless you can PROVE that time cannot exist in an environment with "zero stuff" -- I suggest that it is illogical to posit it as a fact.

Time's existence in reality probably needs some kind of reference basis to discern it, if it exists in reality.

I think it does exist in reality, but I do not know that for certain. I think that times reference basis is probably stuff. Many a physicist has collected data implying that the passage of time is dependent on the strength of the gravitational field (i.e., gravity of stuff's field) in which it occurs plus the speed and acceleration that same stuff is traveling. So I think it probably a good gamble that time exists if stuff exists, and time does not exist if stuff doesn't exist.

I suggest your suggestion is probably illogical in that it is probably based on your hopes and not your logic. I encourage you to re-examine your logic and your hopes, too.

A second other thing. However, please continue to misrepresent what I write in order to attempt PROOF of those BELIEFS of yours that you claim not to have, and to hold on to your insecurely adopted faith based mythology that you CLAIM to have securely adopted. It's all as plain as that beard on your face----you better hide it from view here because it is a constant reminder of your program. Hereinafter, I'll trust others to decide for themselves without your bunkum prompting, or my POLITE reminders.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you were truly an investigator seeking truth -- rather than trying to find some way to muscle your pet theories on reality onto others (always disguising it as trying to convince yourself) -- you would look at the evidence without those preconceptions and see where it leads.

I KNOW where it leads.

It leads to agnosticism.

Something wrong with that?

Quote:

Quote:

We do not know the nature of reality nor the answers to Ultimate Questions -- and there simply is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make meaningful guesses.

Hmmmmm

Frank Apisa wrote:

I KNOW where it leads.

It leads to agnosticism.

Hmmmmm

Something wrong with that?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I KNOW where it leads.

It leads to agnosticism.

Something wrong with that?

That was a bunch of useless drivel.

If you have something specific to say about any of those things -- say it.

............................

Frank Apisa wrote:

[
I do not "believe" anything.

............................

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't need any data. It definitely is my guess – my sense – my thinking.

............................

By the way, how does one include an icon under one's moniker when one posts?

Just to add a new wrinkle, once you think you know the cards, another one gets dealt ...

A new theory of time

ican, I see you managed to find your way over here and brought a whole slew of new acronyms with you. <sigh>

I'm on a borrowed computer and haven't read the all of the stuff posted since I left, but would like to add a conjecture regarding time.

If there is no "stuff" such as matter and energy with an underlying structure (space-time, branes, quantum foam, physical laws, or whatever) that can change, there is no way to distinguish one moment from another. Time has no meaning without change. The function of clocks is to measure change, and by knowing the rate of change we determine how much time has passed. (A clock can be mechanical, atomic, cosmic, biological, etc).

If you postulate a non-material intelligence that could function as a clock, it must still have some component that is subject to change. If it does, then "something" exists.

THEORY: PROBABLY IOU INFLUENCES THE EVOLUTION OF OOU AND PROBABLY IOU ITSELF.

(Note: The word <probably> as used here means <more likely than not>)

What if SATOOU contained or contains:
(1) zero stuff for zero time;
(2) zero stuff for finite time;
(3) zero stuff for infinite time;

[A SATOOU with zero stuff cannot influence the evolution of OOU and IOU]

(4) finite stuff for zero time [zero influence on the evolution of OOU and IOT];
(5) finite stuff for finite time [requires a first cause];
(6) finite stuff for infinite time [requires all that stuff to have consolidated into a point];
(7) infinite stuff for zero time [zero influence on the evolution of OOU and IOU];
(8) infinite stuff for finite time [requires a first cause];
(9) infinite stuff for infinite time [indeterminate].

(5) and (8) require a first cause. A valid candidate for that first cause is IOT. If (5) or (8) ever existed or exists, then IOU or better existed or exists.

(6) is a candidate for a first cause of OOU.

(9) is indeterminate because it is impossible to determine whether the infinite stuff consolidated into a point in infinite time or not. The idea of infinte stuff for infinite time smacks of the current mythology that all things are possible. How can we possibly know that? We don't even know or can know <all things>. Also, the idea of something having infinite stuff for infinite time is similar to many popular definitions of God! YOU DECIDE!

I think the above analysis is valid and probably true. If valid and true, then it is sufficient to study only OOU to determine the true nature of its evolution. SATOOU, if it exists at all, provides only the first cause of OOU and little insight into the subsequent influences of the evolution of OOU.

CURRENT DATA

Possibly the evolution of human life on earth occurred within a trillion years by Undirected Chance + Natural Selection (UC+NS). For the probability that assumption is true to be greater than a googolth [i.e., 10^(-100)], there must be more than a moogol [i.e., 10^1,000,000,000] number of life evolving planets in OOU. Clearly, while admittedly immense, a moogol is a finite number.

A preponderance of Cosmologists assert that the age of OOU is 10 to 20 billion years. Their estimate is based on the amount of redshift of light (visible and invisible to the human eye) from distant galaxies, whose actual distance from our telescopes is estimated from the relative intensity of light from "standard candles" in those galaxies. Generally, there is a direct proportion between the amount of redshift and galactic distance. This proportion implies that OOU began from a point 10 to 20 billion years ago and its stuff has been separating ever since. More recent observations of galaxies more than 10 billion light years distant, implies that the speed of separation is accelerating. While it is a long time, 10 to 20 billion years is a finite time.

A large majority of cosmologists have estimated that:
1. The total number of galaxies in OOU is less than a trillion trillion.
2. The average number of stars in a galaxie are less than a trillion trillion.
3. The average number of life evolving planets per star are less than a trillion trillion.

From this, I infer that the total number of life evolving planets in OOU is less than a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (i.e., 10^72). Clearly 10^72 life evolving planets is much less than 10^1,000,000. So the probability that UC+NS is sufficient for the evolution of human life on our planet is much less than a googolth [i.e., 10^(-100)] and is even less than a moogolth [i.e., 10^(-1,000,000)]. That then implies that the probability that the evolution of human life was influence by Directed Chance + Natural Selection (DC+NS) is greater than (1-a moogolth), a PRACTICAL CERTAINTY.

IMPLICATION

Let IOU = DC+NS.

Then our theory is probably true.

Does that mean that IOU is God?

Define <God>.

Then you decide.

I think IOU is NOT God, at least NOT God as I define God.

LET'S ASSUME FOR NOW THAT IT IS A PRACTICAL CERTAINTY THAT DC+NS IN OOU WAS NECESSARY FOR THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANS. LET'S SEE WHAT THIS ASSUMPTION IMPLIES AND WHAT PATH IT SUGGESTS WE TRAVEL.

Some of us think OOU can, because we can readily infer from the evolution of humans that UC+NS is probably an insufficient cause for the evolution of humans. The sufficiency of UC+NS has a probability of less than a <moogolth> [i.e., 10^(-1,000,000)] of evolving humans within a trillion years. It is alleged that OOU is only 10 to 20 billion years old. The probability of our evolution in 10 billion years is one hundreth that of evolving in a trillion years.