@Alan. "Planets" is just an interpretation in your consciousness for social interactions between consciousnesses that you cannot even imagine. In the same way that this writing on the screen is your interpretation of there being a "Cosmin Visan" supposedly somewhere.
On Monday 30 September 2024 at 09:57:26 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 12:50:56 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > @Alan. No. Is simply the truth. When reality is simply the sum of > interacting consciousnesses, then whatever patterns might be produced will > simply be produced by the free wills of consciousnesses engaging in social > relations. The more primitive a consciousness is, the more predictable the > pattern of its activity. The more complex a consciousness is, the less > predictable its pattern. That's why there appear to be "laws of physics", > because those "laws of physics" are nothing else than patterns of > interactions of primitive consciousnesses (consciousnesses that you cannot > even imagine). Then when you get to chemistry, biology, human society, > consciousnesses become more complex and the patterns become more elusive. > > > So the planets move in their orbits because of the free will of social > relations among consciousnesses? AG > > > On Monday 30 September 2024 at 04:09:59 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 2:58:08 PM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > @Alan. That's like asking me how from the functioning of the transistor I > can give you the formula for the fireball in World of Warcraft. Is > impossible. The higher level world is an interaction between the free will > of the consciousnesses involved. You will have to feel what those > consciousnesses feel to understand why "the universe is expanding", etc. > > > Aristotelian logic. AG > > > On Sunday 29 September 2024 at 15:49:24 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 6:14:05 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > @Alan. If you don't start a theory from the correct facts of reality, you > get nowhere. Sure, some approximations that you make might work in > particular cases, but the more you stretch the theory the less likely is to > be meaningful. Only because Newton theory worked on Earth, it didn't mean > it worked on the solar system. Only because Einstein theory worked on solar > system, it didn't mean it worked on the galaxy. And so on. These are all > approximations. The more you go outside their domain of applicability, the > less likely they are to provide answers. The only way to receive correct > answers is if you start from the correct fact of reality. And that is > consciousness. > > > There's nothing you write that indicates in any way, how starting from > your perspective is helpful in any way. And don't tell me I need to read > your paper. If your perspective is so enlightening, you should be able to > point a way to solving some problems I raise. As for the professor who > thinks the universe might be infinite but has no clue what that implies, > it's obvious he's not as smart as he thinks he is, and has probably fallen > in love with his illusion. And that's MY explanation of his behavior. AG > > > On Sunday 29 September 2024 at 07:06:05 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, September 28, 2024 at 11:58:23 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > What about Santa Claus ? Is Santa Claus infinite in expansion ? Argument: > He can bring presents to all the children in the world in just 1 night. > > > Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts, unless you can > seriously contribute to answering the questions I pose. Your philosophy or > theory might be correct, but it doesn't offer any operational value in > solving the issues I raise. Good bye and good luck. AG > > > On Saturday 28 September 2024 at 19:13:23 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 11:56:47 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 20, 2024 at 9:09:17 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: > > Proof by Contradiction: If the universe is infinite in spatial extent, and > came into being, that would be a type of singularity where it would have to > *instantaneously* expand infinitely in spatial extent. Such a process is > unphysical. Therefore, a universe infinite in spatial extent cannot come > into being, and is therefore uncreated. AG > > > A more direct way of understanding my claim: If you don't believe the > universe can instantaneously expand to infinity, it must be finite in > spatial extent, since no progressive expansion, no matter how fast, or for > how long, can be infinite in spatial extent. Therefore, given the premise, > the universe must be finite in spatial extent and cannot be flat. QED. AG > > > I sent the physicist/cosmologist at Case Western a short email reminding > him that if he assumes the universe (presumably, the unobservable part) is > infinite in spatial extent, it always was, since there is no transition or > evolution from finite to infinite, or vis-versa, he was also implicitly > assuming that the universe began with an *instantaneous* transition to > infinite in spatial extent at T=0. No reply. No thank you. As expected. AG > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0c8665fb-4062-4c8f-b0bf-3da040fcb047n%40googlegroups.com.
