Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:24:49 UTC No. 16237958

>>16237956
The universe is not moving away from us. That's not what "space is expanding" means. Ask ChatGPT for more info; I don't have the patience to explain it this early in the morning.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:27:10 UTC No. 16237963

>>16237958
ChatGPT can't tell us if we are scary though

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:38:39 UTC No. 16237973

>>16237963

New Barkon at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:42:57 UTC No. 16237978

Then I better fart

Prrrrrrrrbnnnnsssssssnnnnneeerrr

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:44:17 UTC No. 16237981

>>16237956
Nothing that leads to logical inconsistency is "confirmed by evidence". Expansion leads to logical inconsistency analytically. To wit, if there were something outside reality that were sufficiently real to contain the "expansion" of reality, it would be contained in reality. That's a contradiction; ergo, the hypothesis is false.
The overall size of the universe is externally undefined and can only be defined intrinsically (as curvature), the sizes of objects change with respect to this curvature.
The cosmos can’t be expanding in any absolute sense, because there’s nothing for it to be expanding into. Therefore, we must invert the model in a way that “conserves spacetime”; the total “amount” of spacetime must remain constant. When we do so, the cosmos ceases to resemble a balloon inflating (extending outward) over time, and instead becomes an inward superposition of sequentially related states. The best way to think of it is in terms of a cumulative embedment of Venn diagrams (of state) on the inside surface of a sphere of extrinsically indeterminate size.
"Intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then it has to be expanding *with respect to* a fixed referent, and if it is, then it has to be extending into an external medium with respect to which the fixity of the referent has been established. On the other hand, saying that something is shrinking relative to that which contains it presents no such problem, for in that case, nothing is really "expanding". An inclusive relationship, like that whereby the universe includes its contents, can change intrinsically only if its total extent does not change; where its total extent is just that of the inclusive entity, this means that the extent of the *inclusive entity* cannot change. Ergo, no expansion; it's logically analytic. Reason in any other fashion, and the term "expansion" becomes meaningless.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:48:19 UTC No. 16237984

>>16237981
The Universe is shrinking. Mind = blown.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:51:35 UTC No. 16237989

>>16237981
>if there were something outside reality
t. doesn't understand metric expansion

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:58:29 UTC No. 16237993

>>16237989
If there were something outside reality that were real enough to topologically contain it, it would be intrinsic to reality (and therefore contained within it). We can make a similar statement regarding matter: if there were something outside matter that were material enough to contain it, it would to exactly that extent be intrinsic to matter. In order to accommodate matter, space must be potentially identical to it... must "share its syntax". In other words, matter doesn't "displace" space, but occupies it in perfect superposition...intersects with it. So space consists of material potential and is thus a "potential phase of matter". Denying this leads to a contradiction.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:59:11 UTC No. 16237995

>>16237993
>If there were something outside reality
t. still doesn't understand metric expansion

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:01:05 UTC No. 16237997

>>16237995
Your “theory” is defined by creating a new version of set theory, whose axioms are never stated, and whose specific goal guarantees that it will be an unsound theory. Unsound mathematical theories are useless: every possible statement is provable in an unsound theory.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:09:53 UTC No. 16238006

>>16237997
Assuming you're the same anon, you're either schizo, retarded, or just really really uninformed about the topic. Pauli would've said you're not even wrong.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:15:31 UTC No. 16238010

Any scientific paradox can be reduced to a logical paradox of the generic form "X = ~X" (or "X and not(X)"), and thus requires a logical resolution which restores consistency by restoring the tautology "not(X and not(X))" to uniform applicability on all scales of inference. This logical resolution may, or may not, be "scientific" in the sense of falsifiability.
If reality is not ultimately closed, then entities outside reality can be incorporated in real structures and processes; but in that case they are real, and thus inside reality. This contradiction implies that reality is ultimately closed with respect to all real relations and operations, including the definition operation as applied to reality itself. Hence, reality is ultimately semantically closed with respect to its own definition, and the closure must hold. (Q.E.D.)

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:17:28 UTC No. 16238015

>>16238010
Schizo, most likely. Signing off now.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:20:11 UTC No. 16238018

That which has no complement is indistinguishable from its complement and therefore contains zero information. But if logic has no informational value, then neither does logical consistency. And if logical consistency has no informational value, then consistent and inconsistent theories are of equal validity.
For example, since observing that something exists is to rule out its nonexistence - existence and nonexistence are complementary states, provided that we conveniently classify nonexistence as a "state" - such observations distinguish existence from nonexistence and thus have positive informational value. On the other hand, that to which no information at all can be attached cannot be said to exist, and is thus indistinguishable. Because this applies to consistency and inconsistency, it also applies to logic and nonlogic.
Logic and nonlogic can in fact exist in the same model, e.g. a nondistributive lattice, provided that nonlogic does not interfere with logic in that part of the model over which logical syntax in fact distributes, e.g. the Boolean parts of the lattice. That the non-Boolean parts of the lattice approximate poorly-understood relationships among Boolean domains is irrelevant to the value of such "non-logical" models, as we see from the fact that nondistributive lattices permit the representation of real noncommutative relationships in quantum mechanics.

New Barkon at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:21:30 UTC No. 16238022

>>16238015
Schizobabble

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:26:52 UTC No. 16238026

>>16238022
Wrong. The set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets)."

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:42:01 UTC No. 16238297

>>16237956
You're not scary. I am.