Recent content by Catastrophe

Gibsense, in fairness, I have only addressed the analogy of a flatlander inhabiting the curved surface of a sphere. At first, I considered the 'radius' as representing time, but, latterly, I prefer the surface representing the entire (2 dimensions + time, i.e., flatlander observable universe)...

I did not SAY that. I QUOTED that from AI summary. If this place is already dead, there is no point in commenting further. Cat :)

What more can I add? I am mortified. Nevertheless, I would like to thank all those who have made the forum possible, for all their work in keeping it running to date. Cat :)

Just to flesh it out a little, Google provided the following. First, what proportion of stars are like our Sun? Of these, the following might be considered habitable: So, around 2% of planets in our galaxy might be habitable. This can only be considered as very approximate. But, don't...

Habitable by what? Unless you are defining what can do the inhabiting very widely indeed, most definitely to include the simplest microorganisms, and also to include planets which have been subjected to the most extensive modifications, the above is untrue. It is certainly not the case, that...

It is 'words' - or our use of words, which deceives us. Words are just combinations of alphabetic characters. We confer these combinations with unreliable variable 'meanings'. Cat :)

This is just agreeing with "There is no objective ;Universe" - only "observable universes". Cat :)

At the risk of repeating (Korzybski) "The Map is not the Territory". Words are only abstractions. "words" are not "reality". Cat :)

QUOTE QUOTE English allows such evident accuracy, but still contradictory statements. promytius has it exactly correct. Full BUT, full OF A certain colloquialism comes to mind, which I will not repeat here Cat :)

The title of this thread (#1 by Gibsense) is Expansion isn't happening with time, Time is happening due to Expansion -True or False? I did not SAY this, I quoted the thread title. Thus your thread post #30 is confusing. If you Google "temporal progression" you will find: "Temporal progression...

See also your post #275: Cat :)

Harry, has this something in common with my ideas on expansion/contraction within an observable, universe, perhaps many such within a larger "observable universe? For example, within a Flatland analogy, expansion/contraction of multiple (flatland) observable universes within a (D+1) observable...

Seems like the answer might be 'yes'. Cat :)

I find this to be a useful summary: Cat :)

Is this just a semantic, silly waste of space, or am I missing something? If there were no (conscious) observer, there would be no knowledge as to whether "it" existed to be observed. Hence, there would be no one to talk about "it", whether "it" was there or not, indeed, no one to know whether...