Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . .

On 28/10/2024 04:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
 >
 >
 > On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 >
 >> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 >>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
 >>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
 >>>>
 >>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
 >>>> that state ...
 >>>
 >>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
 >>>    about a week before elections.
 >>>
 >>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
 >>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
 >>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
 >>>
 >> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
 >>
 >> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
 >> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
 >>
 >> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
 >> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
 >> proven true or false.
 >>
 >
 > The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
 > ago. Here's a hand!
     Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
   that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
   see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
   bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
   Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.
 

Yes. That is the underlying basis for the views of Plato, Kant,. Schopenhauer et al.
Its Reality Jim, but not as we know it...

   We are PRODUCTS of The Universe, but each product must
   have its own special perspective.

There is a stronger case for saying the Universe is a product of us. If by Universe you means a comprehensible external reality.
Materialism claims  E=f(R) (experience is a function of an external reality)
Idealism claims E=f(M)  (experience is a function of the Mind)
Transcendental idealism combines  the pair into
E=f(M,R) (experience is a function of 'what's really there' as interpreted by the mind).
Unfortunately whilst this solves many problems it introduces an idea that is anathema to the Realists - namely that Mind is an independent variable neither part of the real world nor the perceived world.
Of course this used to be simply accepted. It was the soul, or the holy spirit. or holy ghost.
Today we talk about 'consciousness' and the 'problem of consciousness' which is simply the inherent circular reasoning that comprises the realists world view, such that an emerging property of something becomes able to comprehend the thing it is an emergent property of.

   In more computer terms
   it's like The System trying to eval/evolve itself. Even at
   best, the eval CHANGES the System, so it's a never-ending
   task. Yea, kinda 'quantum' in some respects - don't LOOK
   or you change what you're looking at.
 

Exactly.  It's recursive.  And recursion leads to paradox. You have to introduce another independent variable to break out of the loop.
Does the set of all sets contain itself? No, It is of a different *order* to all sets. It neither contains nor does not contain itself, it is in fact congruent with itself. Russell was a tosser.

   It's reality's "Fuck You !"  :-)

Well it does in the limit expose the limitations of our current metaphysics.
And cause us to question exactly what it is that our science is investigating.
--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.
Sir Roger Scruton