Mr. Sammi

CFGAUSS,

In your consideration of the set of all numbers, you failed to consider that this set of numbers is known to exist, what else is known about this set, is that it is time consuming to fully construct, perhaps even impossible to totally construct.

Can you logically say that the largest number never imagined exists in the universe. NO, you cannot. This number has no existence in the universe, and never will, because it will never be imagined.


Your cat has no point... as you say doubtless these things are in the universe. These are things predictable due to our knowledge, they do not exist per se. They have a possible existence, and which is why knowledge of them allows us a greater chance of survival.

There is something you are missing in your cerebral imprint concerning, existence, possible existence, and known existence, because all we can factually say of the universe, when we define it, can only comprise of known existence and possible existence.

* * *

Of course CFGAUSS can label the universe according to his or her professors definition BUT when I speak, I posit independent thinking, as one who thinks for himself and acts accordingly.


Sammi Na Boodie (waiting for your apology)

cfgauss

Sammi:
I would call that an argument from arrogance. Mind making a reasonable explanation instead of just repeating yourself?

Your argument that the universe is all that we know is clearly invalid. It implies that the universe expands in content. For example, the Native Americans and the Romans, according to you, would live in different universes, but on the same planet. Or that when the Europeans discovered the Americas, suddenly they "popped" into existence! Perhaps I should have called it an "argument from insanity."

Mr. Sammi

Of course the universe expands in content, the universe also expands through an expansion of itz contents. For example the physical universe seems to be expanding, and if we ask the question what was the difference between a static universe and an expanding universe, the sole sane answer would be itz contents, whether space or additional planetary materials, or some other additional physical material which had undergone changes.

I may be speaking over your head, because I can switch between the physical universe and the mental universe using the same concept. You have probably tied yourself down to the physiccal universe and have neglected to account for the mental univere.

In my accounting of the universe, I have carefully considered the physical aspect of the universe and the mental aspect of the universe.

Yes Romans and native Americans live in their own universes which I esteem as local universes BUT I should probably use the standerd term - world. One has to properly account for the differences between these two worlds which exist in the infrastructure of the universe but posess a mental life of their own. These are worlds apart - seperate worlds. I account for them as local universes.

The implication of a local universe is it is part of the infrastructure of the universe but has itz own mental universe, and llocal environmental conditioning.

To sum things up, the universe consists of an infrastructure and an intrastructure. Most participants in this discussion seem to have been hung up on the infrastructure and itz scientific definition AND have neglected the intrastructure of the universe, namely those who live in the universe AND expand our universe through mental concepts.

My definition of the infrastructure of the universe as scientifically proposed IS : where the demonstratable laws of physics are universal. This has an implication of those who live in the universe enjoy the same benefits of itz infrastructure.

Finally, cfgauss, before you ever call me insane again - you must posess clarity of thought tethered with a completness algorithm.


Sammi Na Boodie (waiting for your AD homo to go away)

Ted Hoffman

Mr Sammi,
Scope. The word universal is misused all the time.
Universal Justice, Universal court, Universal Laws of Physics (note the anthropic element of that phrase) etc.

Thats the ambiguity and dearth of meaning that I am avoiding.

wade-w

Is that you, Amos?

Mr. Sammi

wade-w,

(ha ha), calling out in the wilderness for an answer?

Intensity,

what i intend to mean about the use of the word universal, is to impart a connotation of where ever the laws of physics as we know them are the same.

An interesting point to note, is IFF we discover another universe where the laws of physics are completely different from the ones we are accustomed, and we can access this universe and have demonstration of the other set of laws, then our universe expands to encompass this other universe.and the universes collapse into worlds to give rise to 1 known universe.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

cfgauss

Mr. Sammi:
You do realize that what you're saying is complete crap, and no scientist, of any kind even remotely considers your insane definition. And you can't randomly change words around and pretend that they mean the same thing. "World" and "universe" are completely different, you might as well interchange the definitions of "street" and "path!" Learn physics, not mindless philosophy.

And before *you* call *me* anything, it may do you good to recall that I'm majoring in theoretical physics, am a genius, started going to college the summer of my sophomore year of high school, and I *might* know something about what I'm talking about!

(deleted insults. Keep it above the belt, guys. No personal attacks. Focus on points, not the person.

This goes to Sammi as well, and to everyone else.

- Wyz_sub10)

beausoleil

Gee, I guess excessve humility is about your only failing.

Point of information: I am a scientist, and I can see Sammi's point.

I came across this quote somewhere that seems appropriate...

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- Charles Darwin

cfgauss

I see his point too, but it's crap! You don't *get* to argue with a definition!!!!

Shadowy Man

What semester are you in?