The cosmic regional block

[SaStrike]

Because as you said, it's a concept.

A pretty easy MADE UP concept. No one is claiming it exists somewhere (in reality, not the wacky "outisde our reality/universe "logic") nor that they've counted to infinity.

[GrandizerII]

Limitations only exist in this finite dimension.
That doesn't mean that we are bound to exist in this finite universe for ever.
Smart people in all ages did found the answer of how to exit this finite dimension.
They found out that the only way is to become one with the master of the dimension.  

According to my faith; I don't believe anybody ever went there; i.e exit our current finite dimension.
All claim, and none provide enough evidence after returning from the "journey".

Take N.D.Es for example; or dreams, or alcoholic intoxication fantasies. It's always big claims that can be explained with a simple Whiskey shot.

We are stuck here according to what I believe.

---

Can both of you just accept reality of permanent death and stop this magical nonsense?

Why? give me one reason to believe you.
I disbelieve in this opinion, for the same reasons atheists disbelieve in theism.

---

Light from some areas of this finite universe will never reach us. The universe is that damned huge. Plenty to keep us busy in contemplation without making shit up!

Big enough to keep ego fooled. And big enough to make someone thinks, too:

Sura 57, The Quran:
( 20 )   Know that the life of this world is but amusement and diversion and adornment and boasting to one another and competition in increase of wealth and children - like the example of a rain whose [resulting] plant growth pleases the non-believers; then it dries and you see it turned yellow; then it becomes [scattered] debris. And in the Hereafter is severe punishment and forgiveness from Allah and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion.

---

Suppose we do live in an ultimate infinity of sorts, but that this local universe we occupy is just a finite part/portion of the infinity. What is the problem again?

Thinking in terms of mathematics: 1, 2, 3, and other natural numbers are finite numbers, yet altogether comprise an infinity of numbers.

Assumption is never a problem. The author can always assume what they want; and it will never change reality.
Reality is only decided through facts. That's the problem with infinity: there is no example for it existing or being there.

So I take it Allah's existence is not based on facts? After all, isn't Allah an example of infinity?

---

Because as you said, it's a concept.

A pretty easy MADE UP concept. No one is claiming it exists somewhere (in reality, not the wacky "outisde our reality/universe "logic") nor that they've counted to infinity.

Although we can't say for sure that infinity can be actual, I wouldn't say that it's a made up concept. Logically, for reality to make sense, there has to be an infinity of some sort.

I mean, if space ultimately is finite, what is beyond space? No space? What does that even mean?

[AFTT47]

Maybe this isn't strictly scientific but the track record has been that it's a bad bet to go with human intuition over the math. Indeed the further we go, the least reality seems to conform to human intuition (or common sense). The deeper we probe, the less the hard-wired common sense seems to apply. It shouldn't be surprising, really. Our day-to-day existence doesn't involve the macro scale of the entire universe or the tiny scale of the quanta. Why should we expect either to conform to what we experience routinely at our scale?

As to the OP however, this disconnect shouldn't be seen as a license to invoke everything from pixies to demons to gods. Why would you do that? It's an argument from ignorance and it's invalid.

It's true that there is a shitload we don't know but there is also plenty we do know. What we don't know cannot contradict what we do know. And what we do know exposes primitive beliefs in primitive superstitions like the Abrahamic religions in a very poor light. They are child-like in light of our current knowledge.

They are even childlike in our philosophy. An angry, vengeful god? How silly. Even we very limited humans can see how childish such negative emotions are even as we struggle to overcome them with our limited intellect. A God who cannot overcome them? Please. Why would we have any respect for such a being even it did exist? So much more powerful and intelligent and knowledgeable than us but making even less progress than we are in growing up?

Come back when you have something better.

[GrandizerII]

Maybe this isn't strictly scientific but the track record has been that it's a bad bet to go with human intuition over the math. Indeed the further we go, the least reality seems to conform to human intuition (or common sense). The deeper we probe, the less the hard-wired common sense seems to apply. It shouldn't be surprising, really. Our day-to-day existence doesn't involve the macro scale of the entire universe or the tiny scale of the quanta. Why should we expect either to conform to what we experience routinely at our scale?

In case you were responding to me here, I do agree with you. Human intuition is utterly unreliable when it comes to attempts to figure out the metaphysics of this existence, and quantum mechanics is a prime example of that. I put much more trust in logic (albeit still not 100% trust), and it's this logic (or, rather, how I employ it) that keeps nagging at me that "beyond space, there is just more space" and that "before/after time, there is just further time", so when I say something doesn't make sense logically, I am not saying that it doesn't appeal to my limited human intuition. I'm saying that how I'm using logic cannot ever lead to such a conclusion. I actually don't consider actual infinity to be intuitive, but it still seems like that for existence to be logical, it has to comprise an infinity of some sort (and probably even more sorts).

[SaStrike]

Because as you said, it's a concept.

A pretty easy MADE UP concept. No one is claiming it exists somewhere (in reality, not the wacky "outisde our reality/universe "logic") nor that they've counted to infinity.

Although we can't say for sure that infinity can be actual, I wouldn't say that it's a made up concept. Logically, for reality to make sense, there has to be an infinity of some sort.

I mean, if space ultimately is finite, what is beyond space? No space? What does that even mean?

The universe might be finite (has an actual distance) or it might be infinite (conceptually goes on forever). Still figuring it out (might not even be possible to figure out)

But space doesn't NEED to be infinite for reality to make sense. At the end of space, that "no space" could be named something else (if it's ever reached). Take the "old sky" (earth's atmosphere) for example. Hundreds of years ago that could be thought as of going on forever. What is beyond the sky (earth's atmosphere)? Non sky? Humanity was able to find the end of the atmosphere. Now i know it's a stretch to say "no space" can exist but for now i guess I'll just accept that it is out of our capacity and toolset to find the edge so we are sort of forced into 50/50 infinite/finite universe.

I still think it's just a human made concept because of the mathematical nature. But yeah as you said philosophically it might actually, sort of exist.

[GrandizerII]

The universe might be finite (has an actual distance) or it might be infinite (conceptually goes on forever). Still figuring it out (might not even be possible to figure out)

It seems like, scientifically, this particular universe we happen to inhabit is finite, but currently still in the process of expansion. But existence is more than just one local universe, and it's this ultimate existence that I am pondering rather than just our local universe.

But space doesn't NEED to be infinite for reality to make sense.

How are you defining space? I hope you're not just referring to what we call "outer space".

At the end of space, that "no space" could be named something else (if it's ever reached).

That's my point. It's just more space. You may call it anything you like, but it's still conceptually more space.

Take the "old sky" (earth's atmosphere) for example. Hundreds of years ago that could be thought as of going on forever. What is beyond the sky (earth's atmosphere)? Non sky? Humanity was able to find the end of the atmosphere.

More space beyond the sky, yes. It seems you and I are thinking of different senses of the word "space". Space, for me, is like a position that can be occupied by something else. It doesn't have to be literally empty of other stuff to be space.

Now i know it's a stretch to say "no space" can exist but for now i guess I'll just accept that it is out of our capacity and toolset to find the edge so we are sort of forced into 50/50 infinite/finite universe.

If you believe there is still something beyond the "edge", then this does indicate more space. We don't have to know, at this point, what it is exactly, only that it is something rather than literally "nothingness".

[WinterHold]

Because as you said, it's a concept.

A pretty easy MADE UP concept. No one is claiming it exists somewhere (in reality, not the wacky "outisde our reality/universe "logic") nor that they've counted to infinity.

As far as I know, it's pretty essential even for finite computations.

---

Maybe this isn't strictly scientific but the track record has been that it's a bad bet to go with human intuition over the math. Indeed the further we go, the least reality seems to conform to human intuition (or common sense). The deeper we probe, the less the hard-wired common sense seems to apply. It shouldn't be surprising, really. Our day-to-day existence doesn't involve the macro scale of the entire universe or the tiny scale of the quanta. Why should we expect either to conform to what we experience routinely at our scale?

As to the OP however, this disconnect shouldn't be seen as a license to invoke everything from pixies to demons to gods. Why would you do that? It's an argument from ignorance and it's invalid.

It's true that there is a shitload we don't know but there is also plenty we do know. What we don't know cannot contradict what we do know. And what we do know exposes primitive beliefs in primitive superstitions like the Abrahamic religions in a very poor light. They are child-like in light of our current knowledge.

They are even childlike in our philosophy. An angry, vengeful god? How silly. Even we very limited humans can see how childish such negative emotions are even as we struggle to overcome them with our limited intellect. A God who cannot overcome them? Please. Why would we have any respect for such a being even it did exist? So much more powerful and intelligent and knowledgeable than us but making even less progress than we are in growing up?

Come back when you have something better.

If I wanted to represent the strange facts happening in the quantum world; I would directly and straightforwardly mention that it rings a very strong bell concerning the idea of different dimension.

Actually we just became "able" to see another dimensions, that's the quantum world in a nutshell.

If that is true, then why is God and the idea of him existing be strange?
It is an argument from ignorance. Nobody claims to have seen God or demons or angels. That's why the "design" is stressed on to be the motive behind the belief: everybody is ignorant; to be honest. Investigating the design though leads to belief in God.

I would say that the design is enforcing itself; that's why I think about God. "Rings a bell".

You hate religion because you see the ugly face of many of the religious in it. Many people are nasty, from Catholics to Jews to Sunni/Shiite Muslims; their actions are nasty and their logic is nastier. Focus on them; and their logic becomes what you remember when God is mentioned.
Nothing is wrong with the idea of God; but everything is wrong with the ideas of the religious institution.

[GrandizerII]

Because as you said, it's a concept.

A pretty easy MADE UP concept. No one is claiming it exists somewhere (in reality, not the wacky "outisde our reality/universe "logic") nor that they've counted to infinity.

As far as I know, it's pretty essential even for finite computations.

---

Maybe this isn't strictly scientific but the track record has been that it's a bad bet to go with human intuition over the math. Indeed the further we go, the least reality seems to conform to human intuition (or common sense). The deeper we probe, the less the hard-wired common sense seems to apply. It shouldn't be surprising, really. Our day-to-day existence doesn't involve the macro scale of the entire universe or the tiny scale of the quanta. Why should we expect either to conform to what we experience routinely at our scale?

As to the OP however, this disconnect shouldn't be seen as a license to invoke everything from pixies to demons to gods. Why would you do that? It's an argument from ignorance and it's invalid.

It's true that there is a shitload we don't know but there is also plenty we do know. What we don't know cannot contradict what we do know. And what we do know exposes primitive beliefs in primitive superstitions like the Abrahamic religions in a very poor light. They are child-like in light of our current knowledge.

They are even childlike in our philosophy. An angry, vengeful god? How silly. Even we very limited humans can see how childish such negative emotions are even as we struggle to overcome them with our limited intellect. A God who cannot overcome them? Please. Why would we have any respect for such a being even it did exist? So much more powerful and intelligent and knowledgeable than us but making even less progress than we are in growing up?

Come back when you have something better.

If I wanted to represent the strange facts happening in the quantum world; I would directly and straightforwardly mention that it rings a very strong bell concerning the idea of different dimension.

Actually we just became "able" to see another dimensions, that's the quantum world in a nutshell.

If that is true, then why is God and the idea of him existing be strange?
It is an argument from ignorance. Nobody claims to have seen God or demons or angels. That's why the "design" is stressed on to be the motive behind the belief: everybody is ignorant; to be honest. Investigating the design though leads to belief in God.

I would say that the design is enforcing itself; that's why I think about God. "Rings a bell".

You hate religion because you see the ugly face of many of the religious in it. Many people are nasty, from Catholics to Jews to Sunni/Shiite Muslims; their actions are nasty and their logic is nastier. Focus on them; and their logic becomes what you remember when God is mentioned.
Nothing is wrong with the idea of God; but everything is wrong with the ideas of the religious institution.

The thing with God is, that at this stage of knowledge, there just isn't a good reason to consider its existence. We have various science-based reasons to consider multiple universes, but not one for any entity that may be rightly called "God" (unless we're talking pantheism, perhaps).

You bring up design, but nothing in what we know suggests an intended cosmic design, only that it feels like this is all designed. But beware your biases when you argue that this universe is designed just because you think so.

[WinterHold]

As far as I know, it's pretty essential even for finite computations.

---

If I wanted to represent the strange facts happening in the quantum world; I would directly and straightforwardly mention that it rings a very strong bell concerning the idea of different dimension.

Actually we just became "able" to see another dimensions, that's the quantum world in a nutshell.

If that is true, then why is God and the idea of him existing be strange?
It is an argument from ignorance. Nobody claims to have seen God or demons or angels. That's why the "design" is stressed on to be the motive behind the belief: everybody is ignorant; to be honest. Investigating the design though leads to belief in God.

I would say that the design is enforcing itself; that's why I think about God. "Rings a bell".

You hate religion because you see the ugly face of many of the religious in it. Many people are nasty, from Catholics to Jews to Sunni/Shiite Muslims; their actions are nasty and their logic is nastier. Focus on them; and their logic becomes what you remember when God is mentioned.
Nothing is wrong with the idea of God; but everything is wrong with the ideas of the religious institution.

The thing with God is, that at this stage of knowledge, there just isn't a good reason to consider its existence. We have various science-based reasons to consider multiple universes, but not one for any entity that may be rightly called "God" (unless we're talking pantheism, perhaps).

You bring up design, but nothing in what we know suggests an intended cosmic design, only that it feels like this is all designed. But beware your biases when you argue that this universe is designed just because you think so.

When I personally judge the design; consistency is what impresses me. That consistency is what made "science" possible in the first place: the laws of physics for example. If we looked at them in the universe in more details it's just a matter of "changing values"; it's the same repeated theater elements but with different values.

Science's accuracy in measuring the variables around us, is not an indication that it will be accurate when applied to "different" variable types. Quantum Mechanics are my example: physical laws failed in that dimension.

[GrandizerII]

When I personally judge the design; consistency is what impresses me.

This is what to expect in an existence that is logical. If existence were not logical, it wouldn't make sense to exist. So it's not just that something has to exist, but something logical has to exist.

It's not an indicator of design. You see design because of the way you are wired, but it doesn't mean intended cosmic design is a thing.

Science's accuracy in measuring the variables around us, is not an indication that it will be accurate when applied to "different" variable types. Quantum Mechanics are my example: physical laws failed in that dimension.

I don't know about whether physical laws do fail at the quantum level. I think it's more like there's a gap in knowledge there, which is better left to the proper scientists to fill using the proper means to attain reasonable math-based or evidence-based knowledge.