ah okay this clarifies it better for me thanks :)

If we ever know everything, then the question 'what's possible' will no longer be valid as we will know the answer — universeness

In mathematics factorial represents a function of all possible combinations. If you know everything (a set) you must also know every recombinant or “rephrased” question (the set of this set) then you must know the set or the set of that set and so on into an infinite regress. Knowledge and information can always be rehashed from a new perspective. If it couldn’t then lateral or creative thinking and imagination wouldn’t not be possible. This I believe to know everything is infinitely impossible

There are some options with problems, and I see that nobody has voted for any of them yet.
Most do not solve the problem of original cause of existence. I mean, my parents are my original cause of existence, but they don't solve the problem since their cause also needs explaining.

So for instance, "Some form of fundamental consciousness or god created the universe" lacks an explanation for the creator's existence. It is usually hand-waved away with the always-existed reply, but that just reduces that choice to the eternal model without a beginning, listed as a different choice.

Multiverse - universes “give birth to eachother” or all possibilities must exist. — Benj96

While a level 2 multiverse has this sort of property, as do some theories about black holes being those other universes, in both cases, there must still be a first cause, left unexplained.

Nothing is real. We live in some form of simulated universe

Living in a simulation would very much constitute being real, and it doesn't explain the origin of the simulation.

Big Bang - some singularity was the original cause. Physics once complete fulfills an explanation

The big bang theory is a theory of how the universe evolved from the dense singularity. It offers no explanation of the origin of that singularity.

Other options - please elaborate.

I take more of a relational view, like RQM (Rovelli). The question in the OP is meaningless as worded. Existence is a relation, not a property/predicate. Nice thing about that view is the problem you're pondering isn't a problem anymore. X exists relative to Y iff Y measures X. But there is no meaning to X exists or Y exists since it isn't expressed as a relation.

a well-known science acronym? — 180 Proof

It's well-known? Well, I have never heard of it.

That's precisely my point. YOU assume it is KNOWN to EVERYONE because it's known to you.

It's well-known to the scientifically literate as the link provided shows. Stop whining, man; I'm not here to spoon-fed that much.

I'm not here to spoon-fed that much. — 180 Proof

Fair enough. One thing to ponder, though: If you are trying to communicate an idea to someone else, would it not be more CONDUCIVE to your cause to make the other person understand you "with" the least possible effort, on the path of the least amount of obstacles to the other "person's" comprehension?

Your's is the first suchcomplaint, gmba. I'll keep that in mind (especially in our) future discussions. :wink:

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.

What does the above mean, anyone?

I've pondered the liars paradox before and understand the paradox, but how and in what sense can it be true, within a particular instance of time?

Also, if it can be true within a particular instance of time, what philosophical or scientific implications does it have?

Thank you, 180. I've known you for your magnanimity on these forums. I got carried away, but if something positive came out of my rants, then perhaps it was worth it.

To be frank, I've been forever angry about others using abbreviations that were unclear to me. That anger triggered by a long line of occurrences of the same kind over a long period of time, never subsided; in fact, it always increased with every new occurrence.

That's why I never established a family.

I am sorry, and I apologize, for putting you through this. My only defense is that I get incredibly annoyed by this habit of others.

Again, I apologize for my misbehaviour, and I am glad something will change in the future for the better.

:halo:

No worries, my friend.

My mind wills not the world I see,
Nor did it will itself to be.
Something else 'bove both must be,
That willed it so for you and me.

If we know the basic fundamental workings of nature, couldn't we say then what things would be impossible to do? — EugeneW

Yes, but only impossible due to the natural constraints/rules/laws that appear to be 'impossible to defy.'
It is impossible for mass to travel at light speed within our Universe. If you have no mass then you can travel AT the speed of light but not faster than it. So, the human IMAGINATION, which to me, is just a form of 'speculative thought,' (but still perfectly valid thought) will come up with 'sci-fi' solutions.

Bend a piece of paper and you can touch two points together. This thinking manifested in the idea in Star Trek of folding/warping space. So will it be technically possible, say, millions of years in the future, when we are transhuman to the extent that we can exist as pure energy and can that energy be placed in 'superpositional' states that allow us to be in more than one place/planet/galaxy at the same time.
Will we discover that space really does have layers? Subspace, Hyperspace/ Wormholes etc and will we be able to 'conquer distance' by such or other means.
This is only some of the musings of current sci-fi Imagineers. Look at what human science has achieved in the tiny period of time it has had so far.

My current statement towards all those 'impossibility' claims and the list of 'things that humans can never know and will never be able to do,' is simple. "Give us a chance!"
We do have a lot of time before any of the end scenarios for the Universe occur.
We are still little fledglings in our wee nest called planet Earth, we have only tipped our toes in the vast cosmic ocean.

So a statement can be false and true? The electron has mass but its essence has not? — EugeneW

I cannot totally defeat all the 'logical dilemma's/impossibilities,' proposed by philosophical or mathematical logic but I can offer some thoughts that may nibble a little at their claimed 'impenetrability.'

'What is the beginning and end of a circle?' Well, it can be anywhere on the circle YOU DECIDE it to be.
Every point on the circle can be its beginning and its end. Human will seems to have dominance here.

Can a statement be false and true, well, 'this statement is false,' can by human will, be declared as true.
I think it is more important to ask, what are the consequences of making this statement true for a particular instant of time? Again by human will, we can decide to make it false after that instant of time and then analyse the consequences of doing that.
A simple example would be 'This exploding nuclear bomb won't kill us so let it explode.'
If we decide this is true or false then the possible outcomes are we die or we survive.
To me, that's not what matters, what matters is that we can choose. The choice may be bad or good but we can choose.
We have dilemmas like the barber's paradox but IN REALITY, every barber can get a shave, despite the logical paradox of 'a barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves, so who then, must shave the Barber?'
Human will, can break a paradox by making a decision regardless of logical rules. This must be true as in real life all barbers can shave themselves despite propositional logics position that they should not do so.

'This statement is false.' Ok! I think that is true, oh! now I think it's false, oh!, now I think it's neither true nor false and in this instant of time, I label it a 'paradox.'
Well, that's all fine and dandy, so what do we do now?
Do you see what I mean? The real consequence of such thinking is that the Universe continues regardless of such musings, as does our daily lives, despite all enigmas.
It is that fact we must understand and celebrate.
We can continue to try to answer all questions and try to identify new ones.
Human will, allows me to live a happy, meaningful, useful, positive, contributive life and enjoy thinking about these impossible enigmas in the process of doing so. What happens when an irresistible force meets the immovable object?
In this instant of time, I think it's a BIG BANG and the creation of a new Universe or a new Fred....... but I could be wrong!......

In mathematics factorial represents a function of all possible combinations. If you know everything (a set) you must also know every recombinant or “rephrased” question (the set of this set) then you must know the set or the set of that set and so on into an infinite regress. Knowledge and information can always be rehashed from a new perspective. If it couldn’t then lateral or creative thinking and imagination wouldn’t not be possible. This I believe to know everything is infinitely impossibl — Benj96

Your musings are as valid as mine. You have added mathematical set theory to your musings to strengthen your posit. Mathematics is a powerful tool of logic.
I assign great value to everything mathematics and logic (as we currently understand it) dictates but I personally, don't like words like 'impossible' and 'infinite.'
I fully accept the Universe does not care what I like or don't like but I counter that position with the claim that as far as we currently know, the Universe has no inherent ability to care, other than through lifeforms like me and you. I think human willpower, in its individual and collective form can have a seriously significant effect on the Universe. I don't mean this in any supernatural way. I don't mean that if I could only focus my will strongly enough, it would overwhelm the laws of physics or rules of mathematical set theory. I just mean that my will can allow me to keep believing that it might be possible that in some transhuman form in the very distant future we may be able to traverse and interact with the Universe in ways similar to how consciousness exists within the human concept of 'self.' Perhaps this will allow the possibility of all questions being answered.
I am much more attracted to this form or projected naturalism than I am to any concept of theistic entities which already exist.

Science normally considers the appearance of an infinity, as a failure in some aspect of the mathematical approach used. I think if an 'infinite regress' shows up then the thinking behind it is
flawed. It's easy for me to say this, I appreciate that, especially when I can't offer anything better than 'I don't like infinities.' But perhaps we will have better answers in the distant future.

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.
What does the above mean, anyone?
I've pondered the liars paradox before and understand the paradox, but how and in what sense can it be true, within a particular instance of time?
Also, if it can be true within a particular instance of time, what philosophical or scientific implications does it have? — Watchmaker

I can feel your incredulity and your protest but your last sentence is my main point.
If you personally decided, within an instant of time, that 'this statement if false,' is true then indeed, what philosophical or scientific implications would your decision have? Some philosophers and some scientists would say you are wrong, others might say you are inaccurate and it's more accurate/more useful to science and philosophy to say it's a paradoxical statement. Is it's more useful to say it's paradoxical or it's true or it's false? I don't think it matters much for now, when we consider the current borders/limits/purview of science and philosophy
My simple point is that we need to celebrate the 'thinking' and not get bogged down or disheartened by the enigma. I am pointing out that significant science has only had a few thousand years out of the proposed 14 billion. Perhaps we will be able to fully explain paradox in the future.
It's the same for the origin process of the Universe. Give us at least another million years to work on the problem.

So will it be technically possible, say, millions of years in the future, when we are transhuman to the extent that we can exist as pure energy — universeness

You think we can èxist as photons? Don't think so. We would have no substance and feel no passage of time.

Will we discover that space really does have layers? Subspace, Hyperspace/ Wormholes etc and will we be able to 'conquer distance' by such or other means — universeness

Wormholes like in interstellar don't exist. Wormholes are a fantasy due to the non-pointlike character of particles.

It is that fact we must understand and celebrate. — universeness

Now we're getting somewhere! Take of your hat and throw it 6 miles up! Screaming! I don't think understanding can get better. What I don't understand why physics forums are so unwilling to see that quarks and leptons are not fundamental. I asked on stack exchange, both the physics and philosophy site, and the question was closed almost instantly. Though philosophy took some longer.

In this instant of time, I think it's a BIG BANG and the creation of a new Universe or a new Fred. — universeness

Don't let yourself be fooled by Fred... The universe has not become self aware.

I fully accept the Universe does not care what I like or don't like but I counter that position with the claim that as far as we currently know, the Universe has no inherent ability to care, other than through lifeforms like me and you. I think human willpower, in its individual and collective form can have a seriously significant effect on the Universe. I — universeness

So you think the universe, via us, has become self aware? If we know certain things about it, is that the universe knowing? No, it's us knowing.

But perhaps we will have better answers in the distant future. — universeness

That distant future is now. But I don't think it makes me omnipotent.

You think we can èxist as photons? Don't think so. We would have no substance and feel no passage of time. — EugeneW

Photon is merely a label. Is a thought made up of massless constituents? I don't think we know yet.
can a human consciousness exist in the future as a non-corporeal form? Maybe.

We would have no substance and feel no passage of time. — EugeneW

I have always found this one very interesting. I think that a non-corporeal human conscience can still be destroyed. Star trek suggests possible answers to your physics problems. If mass and energy are merely different states of the same material then the question becomes, can a way be found to convert from one to the other and back again, like in star treks transporters/holosuites/food replicators.
The time/age problem is solved by traversing distance in something like a 'warp bubble.' Total sci-fi at the moment and perhaps you will understandably say "Yes, and such abilities will always be total fiction," and you might be correct but I simply prefer the sci-fi conjecture of shows like star trek compared to the god sci-fi.

Now we're getting somewhere! Take of your hat and throw it 6 miles up! Screaming! I don't think understanding can get better. What I don't understand why physics forums are so unwilling to see that quarks and leptons are not fundamental. I asked on stack exchange, both the physics and philosophy site, and the question was closed almost instantly. Though philosophy took some longer. — EugeneW

We all get frustrated sometimes by our lack of knowledge and our treatment by others, some of whom we consider as very learned. I don't think such experiences will stop someone like you from continuing to ask the questions you wish to ask. I celebrate human tenacity as well.

So you think the universe, via us, has become self aware? If we know certain things about it, is that the universe knowing? No, it's us knowing — EugeneW

We are part of the Universe so I think reference to an object is a reference to all of its parts.
The Universe is not yet self-aware as we do not yet know how to combine into a single collective mind of individuals. We would also have to confirm that we were the only such lifeforms in the Universe. I think a self-aware Universe could only be realised as a 'thought combination' of all lifeforms within it.
Fully panpsychist. I am not saying this is definitely possible, I am saying, it might be and I am further saying I am more attracted to that projection of naturalism than I am attracted to dualism or theism.

That distant future is now. But I don't think it makes me omnipotent — EugeneW

How can it be now, when there are unanswered questions?
No omni's are possible if we have unanswered questions.

How can it be now, when there are unanswered questions? — universeness

Well, and I know it maybe sounds psychotic or cranky, couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? To actually prove it, you'll need a looooot of energy though. But it proves that theories precede practice, though they're rooted in it at the same time (true and not true at the same).

Well, and I know it maybe sounds psychotic or cranky, couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? — EugeneW

Well do you mean only you? from a religious style 'chosen one' perspective or as a random happenstance or as the Universe's deliberate 'reasoned' decision? or just as a result of your own musing about the Universe rather than any direct contribution from the Universe to you personally.
I think the first three such claims are traditionally risky from the aspect of (and I think of no gentle way to put this,) mental stability. That would not make such claims wrong (if you are indeed making any such claim) It would just make them unadvisable in general discussion groups.
I think it would be simply better to say that you are convinced that your idea of the basic structure and working of the Universe are correct.

To actually prove it, you'll need a looooot of energy though. — EugeneW

Do you mean to experimentally demonstrate that your picture of the Universe is true would require a vast amount of energy input, more than is available by any current scientific technology?

But it proves that theories precede practice — EugeneW

This is often the case, yes but sometimes discovery is by accident or repeated practice causes a general theory to form in the mind of one who repeats the practice 'ad nausea.'

though they're rooted in it at the same time (true and not true at the same). — EugeneW

So you mean theory is rooted in practice as well as preceding it, I can understand what you mean by this


Btw here are the Roger Penrose vids I mentioned:
The first one is the debate with William Lane Craig and is about 1.5 hours long.
The second is where he suggests what might have happened before the big bang.
It's not the more detailed one I watched where he talks about different epochs of time for each big bang but it introduces his basic idea and it's only 17 mins long. I am in pursuit of the other one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLtCqm72-Y

https://youtu.be/ypjZF6Pdrws

Well do you mean only you? from a religious style 'chosen one' perspective or as a random happenstance or as the Universe's deliberate 'reasoned' decision? or just as a result of your own musing about the Universe rather than any direct contribution from the Universe to you personally. — universeness

I think I understand your name now. Universeness. We all have it. I think Fred shows itself to everybody. To all creatures. Not only me.

I think the first three such claims are traditionally risky from the aspect of (and I think of no gentle way to put this,) mental stability. That would not make such claims wrong (if you are indeed making any such claim) It would just make them unadvisable in general discussion groups. — universeness

What three claims do you mean? Doesn't the mental has to be unstable for the fighting of standard models, which bear mental stability?

This is often the case, yes but sometimes discovery is by accident or repeated practice causes a general theory to form in the mind of one who repeats the practice 'ad nausea — universeness

Serendipity is almost omnipresent in science or technology. The pigeon shit on the reflector (leading to CMB radiation detection), the photographic plate left in the drawer by Becquerell (I suspect though he knew about radioactivity from his dad who, when B was a kid, saw radioactivity already, but he didn't know; B did and set it all up for Nobel prize money; the sneaky bastard!). Or Fleming, the discovery of teflon, of graviton strings, Feigenbaum universality (on his pocket calculator...), serendipity elements in PDE's, Archimedes, the 7 bridges of Koningsberg, the microwave oven, etc. etc. What discovery doesn't involve it?

Thanks for the link. Iconoclastic thinkers tend to be unstable by nature almost...

What three claims do you mean? Doesn't the mental has to be unstable for the fighting of standard models, which bear mental stability? — EugeneW

Iconoclastic thinkers tend to be unstable by nature almost. — EugeneW

Its often said that genius and madness are close siblings. There are many examples of very talented people who were also slightly mad. The music/film/book world has many examples. Science and philosophy have many examples as well, from Pythagoras to Nikolai Tesla. I am not suggesting such people have never made serious contributions to their field but I just feel more comfortable with what I see as 'rational discourse.' I would accept an accusation of personal bias or narrow-mindedness on this however.

The three claims I was trying to highlight were:
1. The religious chosen one or christ complex. Real People from Joan of Arc to Aleister Crowley and Rasputin have claimed to be 'chosen to know what the rest of the human race does not know.'
2. A 'conscious universe' choosing an individual at random to reveal its workings and structure to.
3. A conscious universe choosing an individual as a 'reasoned' choice to reveal its working and secrets to.
I cannot prove that these are not true claims and that anyone who makes such claims are slightly mad, but I do think such claims are highly umlikely.

I am not saying you fit into any of these three descriptions in accordance with your words:

couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? — EugeneW

I was just asking you to explain your words above, with a little more detail.

I prefer terms like 'thinking outside the box,' 'lateral thinking,' 'creative thinking, etc' rather than the image of a Universe that can reveal its workings to individuals. But maybe I am being rather conventional.

Serendipity is almost omnipresent in science or technology. The pigeon shit on the reflector (leading to CMB radiation detection), the photographic plate left in the drawer by Becquerell (I suspect though he knew about radioactivity from his dad who, when B was a kid, saw radioactivity already, but he didn't know; B did and set it all up for Nobel prize money; the sneaky bastard!). Or Fleming, the discovery of teflon, of graviton strings, Feigenbaum universality (on his pocket calculator...), serendipity elements in PDE's, Archimedes, the 7 bridges of Koningsberg, the microwave oven, etc. etc. What discovery doesn't involve it? — EugeneW

Yep, all good examples of serendipity in science but I don't think serendipity is involved in every scientific discovery but I haven't read every word regarding how maxwell arrived at his equations or how Boyle arrived at his law. You may be correct that at some point each would say 'I was lucky here because......

I think I understand your name now. Universeness. We all have it. I think Fred shows itself to everybody. To all creatures. Not only me — EugeneW

Ha Ha, you always seem to get a wee 'god' image in there somehow!

Yep, all good examples of serendipity in science but I don't think serendipity is involved in every scientific discovery but I haven't read every word regarding how maxwell arrived at his equations or how Boyle arrived at his law. You may be correct that at some point each would say 'I was lucky here because...... — universeness

Would be a good new thread. Are all discoveries pigeon shit? Even Maxwell's? It's only when the theory is worked out rationally that it seems invented or discovered while searching for it. Reality is more complex that methodology books want it to be.

Ha Ha, you always seem to get a wee 'god' image in there somehow! — universeness

Haha! Well, I don't eat my panties for them! Fred is the universe. God is Stephen hiding in it... How can the universe exist without a kind of intelligence that has blown or screamed it into existence? The same can be asked of gods, but an eternal intelligence seems more plausible than intelligence evolving in a non intelligent universe. How can the laws of nature and the stuff in it obeying them have come to be by themselves?

I prefer terms like 'thinking outside the box,' 'lateral thinking,' 'creative thinking, etc' rather than the image of a Universe that can reveal its workings to individuals. But maybe I am being rather conventional. — universeness

But if the universe wants to become self aware, wouldn't it be best to show herself to us?

How can the universe exist without a kind of intelligence that has blown or screamed it into existence? The same can be asked of gods, but an eternal intelligence seems more plausible than intelligence evolving in a non intelligent universe. How can the laws of nature and the stuff in it obeying them have come to be by themselves? — EugeneW

These are tough questions. I think we need that million years of scientific thinking that I mentioned, at least, before any answers that are more than pure conjecture become possible.

I am currently, personally more convinced of intelligence evolving/progressing within a Universe that had no intelligence for most of its proposed 14 billion year existence than I am convinced by the posit of an intervening omniscience who write tablets of commandments, dictates contradictory stories to chosen ones and parts waters.

As I said, If God/Fred is an emergent omniscience in this Universe by way of the combined intellect of all lifeforms wihin it networking with each other when all questions have been answered, and this has all happened before, and our Universe is actually a reproduction of another omniscient universe/God/Fred, and reality is actually a multiverse of omniscient Fred's all reproducing, then fair enough. Perhaps this even gives some value to a monotheistic deist position. Again, such musings, are all pure conjecture.
We and many many others will think about this stuff until we die but I predict that every human alive today and their children and their children and..... will be dead before we get anywhere near the answer. Perhaps when the transhumans arrive then who knows if that will speed things up or not.

But if the universe wants to become self aware, wouldn't it be best to show herself to us? — EugeneW

I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will."

I missed an intended few sentences, so:

I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will. So, if the Universe could do as you suggest then it already would have, but not just to one of us, as that would be rather inefficient. It would have 'shown herself' to all of us, in the same way as the theist god would appear to all of us if it existed and could.