Is The Universe Infinite Or Finite ?

[force5]

My take on this question;

The cosmos is a closed system with a limit on expansion due to conservation of energy.
Current thinking states that space/time was created at the time of the BB which to me implies
That space/time is finite.

Personally, I think the creation of space/time preceded the so called BB which followed some
Time later.

Yes, all of this came after the BC. (which reclaimed space/time)

John

[MJA]

Lloyd.
---So to go back to the intelligent discussion of paradox, instead of us acting like kids going, “Is”, Is not”, “Is”, “Is not”, I will ask the question(s) again:
***Form 1: Does light and dark compliment each other at all times and in all contexts or do they have contradictory aspects pertaining to the other’s existence?
***Form 2: Is there any times, in any contexts, when light and dark don’t compliment each other?
---Instead of complaining about the questions being a certain way, how about you just answer the question(s) honestly.

I'll Try,

But first I'll rephrase the question if you don't mind.

Is the brilliance of the light of a star complemented by the surrounding darkness of space? It's essential to me.

But on the contrary light does not complement the darkness of space, such as city lights, when I wish to see the brilliance of that same star.

And at night when I wish to sleep I find light does not complement the darkness at all, and absolutely contrary to the darkness I find best.

Does that work?
Got any better ones?

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd.---I see that you still don’t want to answer the question(s). Does this mean that you are afraid of being wrong in your beliefs and less than what you believe you are, if I prove to be right?

You err again, in stating beliefs about me. I do not believe. I either know what I know, or I know what I do not know, and do not know other things. I have no fear of admitting what I do not know, which is much, but I will not answer silly, convoluted questions... Belief is for the simplicity of lay people. Any scientist, of merit, would certainly prefer logic and empirical evidence. Here's a quote I've been throwing around other posts: The "faith" of lay religious simplicity, crucifies complex scientific understanding... This has been know by philosophers, for centuries. Kierkegaard stated it as; "Faith's crucifixation of understanding." The same applies to you adding beliefs, into science investigations of the facts...

The paradoxibles is a fool's paradise...

Lloyd

[futrethink]

MJA.

---I appreciate your take on how light and dark both compliment and contradict each other, depending on the context.
---What I am trying to do is get Lloyd Gillespie to admit that there are contexts in which light and dark don’t compliment each other. To get him on the path to admit that something he believes is right, might not be.
---The problem, like most self-dishonest persons, is that he doesn’t want to let go of his belief that; being right as the most important thing in science, whether you are or not in actuality.
---If I can get him to answer the question(s) honestly, I might be able to show him an aspect of reality that will allow him to have a better understanding of what reality is, isn’t, both at the same time and is neither.

[futrethink]

Lloyd.

I have no fear of admitting what I do not know, which is much, but I will not answer silly, convoluted questions...

---The question(s) is/are not that convoluted. If you are for honest and objective science as much as you say you are, you would have either a simple, “Yes” or, “No” answer.

Belief is for the simplicity of lay people.

---Belief is an aspect/a needed part of your life even as you read this. Take for instance; do you believe that your computer will always be on, as you are using it? If you leave the switch in the on position, you logically use empirical evidence that it will be so.
---What happens to your logic, when a power blackout occurs?
---Every existing being/singularity believes/has faith/guesses that their next moment of the future will be a certain way. It is only when that actual future arrives and becomes the ‘now’ and then the ‘past’ is it a hard scientific fact and not a belief/faith/guess.

Any scientist, of merit, would certainly prefer logic and empirical evidence.

---Yes, they would prefer it. It is safer for their lives/mental state that way. It doesn’t make that way of thinking, the entire way for to understand reality though.

This has been know by philosophers, for centuries.

---Most philosophers. The evidence, which I have read about, is there that the minority don’t. I will have to take the time to think about/google/reread for their names, but I am sure that you can think of their names faster than I. I am guessing that; you just prefer to think of them as ‘wacko’ or should be ignored philosophies.

[futrethink]

Lloyd.
---I must correct an error in what I wrote pertaining to the previous post.
---Previous sentence:If you are for honest and objective science as much as you say you are, you would have either a simple, “Yes” or, “No” answer.
---Edited sentence:If you are for honest and objective science as much as you probably believe you are, you would have either a simple, “Yes” or, “No” answer.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd.
---I must correct an error in what I wrote pertaining to the previous post.
---Previous sentence:If you are for honest and objective science as much as you say you are, you would have either a simple, “Yes” or, “No” answer.
---Edited sentence:If you are for honest and objective science as much as you probably believe you are, you would have either a simple, “Yes” or, “No” answer.

You see Futrethink, when you add "probably believe", in your statement, you leave the purely logical scientific side of intelligence, and enter the spiritual emotional side of intelligence. I am not one who states that only the scientific exists, just that the scientific exists as the only scientific explaination and understanding possible, of science. You are using two separate concepts, and trying to join them through falsifications of both. I do admit the concept of spiritual intelligence exists, just as much as I admit the concept of scientific intelligence exists. We couldn't even do science without the concept of spiritual logical intelligence, that's a given. But, when one tries to join the two concepts of all being's two understanding levels, one only destroys the intelligent understanding of both. Godel mentioned the "concept of the concept", as where we should possibly look for the ability to understand these two concepts, as a truer concept of both. He did not succeed in his valliant efforts. All we are trying to do, here at ToeQuest, is develop the linguistic understanding to ferrit out the "Concept of the Concept." I accept the intelligence of both concepts, in their own fields, but see no-one correctly joining our understandings, of the two concepts... All I ask, is how can a proper linguistics be developed, to achieve the total understanding of all ideas, without destroying the understanding of all ideas...?

Spirit, without science, destroys all understanding. Science, without spirit, is impossible... IMO, the intelligence of both must be understood, separately, until the linguistics uniting the simplicity and complexity of both is developed... Where is it...?

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Perhaps understanding that spirit was conjured by the fact that the invisible forces of nature were mistaken as such, Lloyd. Whether we call lightning, "the lightning god" or simply "lightning" doesn't change the fact that it is not known exactly what light is.

Spirit is nothing more than the invisible part of the "scientific" spectrum.

[futrethink]

Lloyd.
---As usual, you didn’t understand.
---My error was in saying that, “as you say you are,” I don’t find any evidence that you have posted anything about how honest and objective you are about science. Anything about that, on my part, was merely conjecture about you personally.
---I was not trying to start a discussion about mind, brain, intelligence, spirit and how any of them works.
---I am still waiting for you to answer the simple question(s).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd.
---As usual, you didn’t understand.
---My error was in saying that, “as you say you are,” I don’t find any evidence that you have posted anything about how honest and objective you are about science. Anything about that, on my part, was merely conjecture about you personally.
---I was not trying to start a discussion about mind, brain, intelligence, spirit and how any of them works.
---I am still waiting for you to answer the simple question(s).

Keep waiting... I gave my answers...

Regards,
Lloyd