Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism)

On 03/02/2025 09:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:42, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 03/02/2025 08:18 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
>

Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the
redshift
distance
relation because the latter is exactly the same in every
direction so
the former would place us at exactly the center of the
universe.

>
Do you still not understand that we are in the exact
centre of
the observable universe?

>
He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of
the
universe

;)

(even at big bang an infinite universe is still a
possibility)

>
>
Here is Piet Hein's take on it
>
>
THE CENTRAL POINT
A philosophistry
>
I am the Universe's Centre.
No subtle sceptics can confound me;
for how can other viewpoints enter,
when all the rest is all around me?
>
>
Hard to argue with that,
>
Jan
>

>
"I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".
>
is a line from a song with these lines:
>
"When I was three /
I thought the world revolved around me /
I was wrong."
>
Infant

>
Piet Hein is never wrong,
>
Jan
>

>
In his own little world

>
That is not an answer.
(except perhaps in your little world)
>

Us stronger mathematical platonists have
a bit more thorough grounding where
we're all right.
>
And not "not even wrong".

>
Platonism has no relation with reality.
If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

>
JJ locuta! Causa finita!
>
>
>

>
"Amicus Plato, finito"
>
>
A strong mathematical platonism, that the
objects of mathematics are quite real,
and a stronger logicist positivism,
that we have a science about it,
combines the best of both the idealistic
and the analytic traditions.
>
Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
that sort of put together, best, then though
there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.
>
>
So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
variables of the real wave equation", has that
it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
ideal, quite real.
>
>
Axiomless natural deduction

>
>
No such thing again.
>
>
>
, a spiral-space-filling

curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
and so on: amicus Plato.
>
>
Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
and theory of science to go along with a merest
teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
together make a theory where foundation is
pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.
>
>
The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
the sky survey continues, it makes an older
Big Bang theory.
>
>
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
>
>
>

>

>
Oh, Hegel has one.

>
Hegel has one what?
>
>

>
Nope, wrong.
>
Philosophy had long arrived at that there

>
Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
game and it requires axioms, because without
them the words are meaningless.
Yes, right.
>
>

>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgoRuwa2Zcs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-
POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=5
>
The idea of Comenius language is that
the true words already exist, then we
discover them, to disclose them, the a-letheia,
that mathematics is discovered not invented,

>
So the idea of Comenius language is hopeless
wishful thinking.
>
>

 No, it's an _ideal_ that we may _attain_ to.