[futrethink]

Lloyd Gillespie. (Or do you prefer just Lloyd?)

---There are some points in your posts that I disagree with.

the universe has no paradoxes,

---I know that this was a part of an entire concept that you were trying to get across, but I have a problem with this point.
---Existence/the universe not only has paradoxes, but it is one. Nonexistence is also a paradox.
---The concept of Existence is a subjective thing, an objective thing, it is both at the same time and it is neither one. It comes down to the perception and scale of how you are looking at it to understand how it is all four at the same time.
---You will have to excuse that language I put forward for this sentence: Nonexistence is a subjective non-thing, an objective non-thing, it is both at the same time and it is neither one. It comes down to the perception and scale of how you are looking at its absence to understand how it is all four at the same time.
---For me to explain the above two descriptions of existence and nonexistence will take time. It is something that I have tried to explain to others on other boards and, if you wish, will try here as well.

Faith and or belief in ideas is not knowledge. True knowledge is based in scientific fundamental facts, and nothing else is true knowledge.

---I agree. The only thing is is that without faith/belief/guessing there is no way to acquire knowledge. And the only way to have faith/belief/guessing is to have knowledge to base those things upon.

Einstein stated his position as an unbounded finiteness, which to me, translates to infinity.

---It doesn’t translate into infinite. It translates into unbounded finiteness or infinitely finite or unlimited limits. Or whatever other words (in whatever language) you wish to use to describe a paradox.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by futrethink

Profpat.
---You do notice that it was your starting point, as well as the crumb’s? You may have come to your starting point and call that the end, but was that the end of the path that you walked upon?
---You are placing your limits upon the Mobius’ lengthwise plane. When you are walking that path, tell me where you would find the end of it? Not the point where you would stop, but the point where the path would stop.
---Yeah, I already mentioned those, “but only as long as you don't move away from the strip and see the edges/boundaries/limits of the strip's existence or you don't tear the strip apart or it degrades due to entropy or..or...or,,.”
---Want to explain why; you are pointing out something I have already shown that I know? Or are you like most individuals I converse with and you skip the entirety of the post and just skim it?
---It’s ok with me, if you don’t want to see the paradox.

I wasn't ignoring you futrethink, what is your question? I think we just have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not going to try to argue my stated position.

Did you do any research that would support your claim? If you find something wonderful, but really I don't care if it's a paradox or not.

Best to you,

Pat

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Einstein stated his position as an unbounded finiteness, which to me, translates to infinity. Linguistics is such a nasty little bugger...

An unbounded, finite universe is not the same as an infinite universe. For example, consider the surface of a three dimensional sphere. This is a two dimensional surface that is finite and unbounded. A 3d unbounded but finite universe would then be topologically equivalent to the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere (i.e. S^3).

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by futrethink

---It doesn’t translate into infinite. It translates into unbounded finiteness or infinitely finite or unlimited limits. Or whatever other words (in whatever language) you wish to use to describe a paradox.

As i mentioned in the post above, but I should reiterate here for clarity, there is no paradox associated with a finite unbounded universe. See my example of the two dimensional finite yet unbounded surface above.

[futrethink]

Profpat.

I think we just have to agree to disagree on this.

---I do agree that we will have to disagree on this.

Did you do any research that would support your claim?

---My research is simply being honest in my observations and my logic: A paradox is any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature. A contradiction in nature is something that has a statement or proposition or is something that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
---In essence, something that has two complete opposites as a part of its existence. Two opposites that should cancel each other out.
---Whether or not those two things cancel each other out, is the difference between an existing and a nonexistent paradox. If the two opposites find a balance, then the concept is a part of reality/an existing paradox and can be sensed in some manner.
---You can or cannot describe it as a paradox, but it will still have those two contradictive, balanced mass energies as a part of its existence. It just is what it is.

---What is happening here is the same thing that I find usually happens in most conversations with others, a failure to accept the objective: the mobius is a paradox, it isn’t a paradox, it is both at the same time and it is neither one.
---To say that only one of those objective facts is the truth and the others are false, is to not have enough self-honesty.

[futrethink]

Neutralino.

As i mentioned in the post above, but I should reiterate here for clarity, there is no paradox associated with a finite unbounded universe.

---I understand the point that you are putting forward, but I disagree that there is no objective paradox associated with a finitely infinite existence.
---See my post to profpat above concerning the mobius strip. ( Rather than me posting a duplicate post.) It is a smaller scale/perception that can be expanded to any degree wished.
---Existence is a paradox, it isn’t a paradox, it is both at the same time and it is neither.

[Profpat]

I don't know futrethink;

Now you have a paradox as a paradox, which isn't a paradox.

Far beyond my limited brain to comprehend. But that's OK I am an accounting professor who has problems doing his own taxes.

Best to you and your quest,

Pat

P.S does your theory stand or fall on the mobius being paradoxical?

[futrethink]

profpat.
---Not really. I just subjectively use the word, it doesn't change what is. It does include the concept of 'paradox' and falls upon the collapse of reality into the singularity.
---A hypothesized something that does and doesn't exist. Except upon the same idea of, " I perceive myself." Which part of that question, if you asked yourself it, is objective or subjective, both or neither?

---Here is a link to the last discussion that I had concerning my hypothesis ezboard.com
---You can just google my name, in connection, with the phrase describing my hypothesis and you will find the others. I always use the same name online for everything that I do.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by futrethink

Neutralino.
---I understand the point that you are putting forward, but I disagree that there is no objective paradox associated with a finitely infinite existence.

Nowhere did I say anything about a finitely infinite existence!!

---See my post to profpat above concerning the mobius strip. ( Rather than me posting a duplicate post.) It is a smaller scale/perception that can be expanded to any degree wished.
---Existence is a paradox, it isn’t a paradox, it is both at the same time and it is neither.

But the Moebius strip is a bounded, finite surface. You are talking about the paradoxes of an unbounded finite surface. These are clearly different things that are not comparable. Thus, I don't understand how you draw from the Moebius strip that an unbounded infinite surface is paradoxical.

[Profpat]

Hi futrethink;

Well I agree with reality collapsing into a singularity,
I believe the cyclic theory of the universe. And since I believe reality inflated and expanded from a singularity, I have no problems with time reversal in this case.

In fact it might restore the T in the CPT symmetry violation of the current big bang model.

Since all reality is filtered through my eyes we'll always have subjectivity, but I think objectivity is also a part of my interpretation of the universe.

Decartes said "I think therefore I am "
I would state "I think, I think but I'm not sure.

Best,

Pat