Einstein calculated black holes. Then he said, to a newspaper, that they could not exist, they were paradoxical.
Everyone gets confused by their own egos. I do no believe that paradoxes can exist off metaphysics. Bis belief can also be my ego getting in the way

Regarding paradoxes of metaphysics, are you familiar with Kant's antinomies of pure reason?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies

More or less. I don´t "fancy" Kant. I´m a Nietzsche and Heidegger guy :) I read the Critique of Pure Reason and truly i though he was taking steps beyond his knowledge. Don´t think we can assume unproved "truths" just because we write well and our thought is perfectly organized.

The universe is as a spring wound up that is now slowly unwinding, this giving it 'oomph'; so, something had to have piled up, due to the meeting with some limit, and then the universe came forth, and long it will last, until all the stars have gone and all the photons are far apart. — PoeticUniverse

The quantum foam is believable, it being confirmed by QCD predictions and measurements, plus noted by Casmir's plates being drawn together. It is as a Sea of Possibility. In the quantum foam, virtual particles pop in and out, always in pairs of matter and anti-matter. They appear but must then go away very quickly, this somehow satisfying the debits and credits on the ledger of nature's thumbnail account.

Something went out of kilter.

The quantum foam can't go away; it is still with us today.

OK, but I am referring only to his antinomies here. The point of these is to show that if we try to reason answers to the questions they are based on, then we will come up with two incompatible or contradictory answers that both seem right and are both laden with their own aporias. So, for example in regard to the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite; if we say it is finite this leaves us with the question of what lies beyond or outside its boundary. If we say it is infinite, then that is something we cannot get our heads around, we just can't imagine it.

On a separate and perhaps off-topic tack, I'm interested to know where you think Kant took "steps beyond his knowledge". The one place I can think of is in regard to the "transcendental subject or ego", which is, in my view, in light of his own philosophy, an illicit thinking of the noumenal.

As for there being other universes, the term is left completely undefined.
For instance, the region of space centered 100 billion light years away is 'another universe'. It is as detached from us as the parallel world where the dinosaurs still live today.

Does that distant universe exist? Does it have a defined state? I say no, it doesn't, because to say it has such a state is a couterfactual statement. I personally have rejected the principle of counterfactual definiteness and thus pretty much would not say that such places (like the universe separated from us only by distance) exist in any meaningful way.

About Kant, and how i think i can deconstruct his though (this is highly presumption, i reckon!)

In the finite/infinite universe antinomy (all antinomies are describe as a "big" Antinomiy). Either if it is or not finite, Kants' conclusions do not seem consistent.

- If it is finite, we still got a lot to discover, and there are no boundaries that divide the universe, it might or not exist something else (or Kant did not defined the universe correctly or does not defines boundaries correctly - there is no Canada beyond its' boundaries/frontiers);

- If it is infinite, is it obliged to be understood? Or more, can´t human perception development also not be infinite, and thus open the possibility that it might be understood? Or is it that Kant limits human understanding by its' mind understanding?

Continuing this line of though, have you ever read/considered Sartre, or Camus. Or even better, Henry Miller and Bukowski. Or going harder on Kafka, Dostoevsky and Goncharov?

Kant is so insipid...it is just formality...I´m sorry, just my opinion. And i think you are eager and full of life, and deserve other perspectives...
No disrespect meant ;)

sorry again for my bad english!

After all, there is no other way for a universe to be perceived. It can't be seen or experienced but it's within the reaches of thought surely. — Razorback kitten

Conceptualuzations of the universe and the universe are two different things. To take the perspective of the universe is to jump over the impossible. Conceive all you want but at the end of the day that is all it is when you are contemplating the universe as a whole. We can only conceive of the universe in a very specific way. We see things from the human scale, physically and metaphorically.

The Universe is infinite time, space and matter. Meaning that space extends forever and the Universe has always been here - it had no beginning - and there will be no end.
Gravity is created by matter and it only effects matter - it has no effect on space or time.
Time is a constant - it does not / can not, slow or stop.

My interpretation of the antimonies is that reason is limited by experience (not to say that reason is derived from experience), so one cannot through reason or experience determine the truth of the thesis or the antithesis. I may be wrong.

Perhaps it would be better to accept that the nature of the real cannot be captured, but only glimpsed, in thought; which should not be all that surprising when you think about it. — Janus

Though what do we do with this. Does this idea of yours preclude getting more information/comign to a closer model of reality? If it does't then how do we use the idea? How would one know you are correct, that we have reached the limit already`? How do know what future evidence will or will not refine about our knowledge and models?

Continuing this line of though, have you ever read/considered Sartre, or Camus. Or even better, Henry Miller and Bukowski. Or going harder on Kafka, Dostoevsky and Goncharov?

Kant is so insipid...it is just formality...I´m sorry, just my opinion. And i think you are eager and full of life, and deserve other perspectives...
No disrespect meant ;) — James Pullman

No problem. I have read Sartre's Nausea, and some of Being and Nothingness and Camus' L'Etranger and The Rebel as well as several of Dostoevsky's, Kafka's and Henry Miller's works many moons ago when I was 17, 18 and have also revisited some of them from time to time in the intervening 45 odd years. Never really read much of Bukowski or any of Goncharov. None of those writers bar Sartre I would consider to be serious philosophers, anyway.

Kant is not a poetic or literary kind of writer, but I would say his work is very far from insipid. To each his own, I guess.

Though what do we do with this. Does this idea of yours preclude getting more information/comign to a closer model of reality? If it does't then how do we use the idea? How would one know you are correct, that we have reached the limit already`? How do know what future evidence will or will not refine about our knowledge and models? — Coben

My thoughts are often aligned with Janus’. I love Kant.

We can always learn more about the physical world as it is presented to our reason, but reason cannot give us the things in themselves, or noumena. The noumenal world is inherently out of bounds from our perceiving minds.

Though what do we do with this. Does this idea of yours preclude getting more information/comign to a closer model of reality? If it does't then how do we use the idea? How would one know you are correct, that we have reached the limit already`? How do know what future evidence will or will not refine about our knowledge and models? — Coben

I haven't proposed any limits or that we have "reached" any limits. We can develop ever more elaborate models that we may think are "closer to reality", but how would we really know? I have said that we may have good reason to think that reality may be "glimpsed". If so, then there is nothing to stop us gaining more comprehensive glimpses. Even if we knew that our models do reflect reality (whatever we might think that means) how could we ever know how comprehensive they are? In any case I am not recommending curtailing inquiry or speculation; they are integral parts of what enriches life, and the concern about the supposed "veracity" of our models is more or less irrelevant anyway, except when it comes to empirical matters.

The noumenal world is inherently out of bounds from our perceiving minds. — Noah Te Stroete

Exactly! It is so by definition. We don't even know what it definitively means to say there is a "noumenal world", but at the very least 'noumenal" signifies what is beyond the limits of our knowledge. To say there are no inherent limits to discursive knowledge would be absurd and hubristic.

I haven't proposed any limits or that we have "reached" any limits. We can develop ever more elaborate models that we may think are "closer to reality", but how would we really know? — Janus

Physicists seem to think there are ways to confirm or at least add evidence there are parallel universes. Cosmologists in general don't see themselves as simply making up models that cannot be tested.IOW our knowledge could continue to expand and not just be
They see cosmology and physics as expanding the models over time, and including empirical suport I do agree more with the idea that it would be hard for us to be certain we were finished.
That there was nothing beyond what we have modeled and confirmed.

Even if we knew that our models do reflect reality (whatever we might think that means) how could we ever know how comprehensive they are? — Janus

Sure, it seems, from my limited perspective, that there would always be a chance there was something beyond all we have modeled. Like even if we confirm empirically Tegelmarks's Level 4 Multiverses in fact exist, perhaps there's even more we still don't know. Though I find speculating about what we cannot know or will never know, well, speculative....:razz:

If we look back in the history of science the idea that there are other galaxies, which we have pretty darn well confirmed, which provides part of a greater model, etc., would have been beyond the speculations, even, of most people. And if someone explained to an early Enlightenment scientist about the Big Bang, they might have been skeptical we could ever gather any evidence of things that happened billions of years ago. IOW what seems like we might or might not even glimpse, might become clearer as time goes on.

But I am more aligned with your point about being sure we have the final, now we know that there's nothing beyond these/this. I just think that up to that, we might get much more than glimpses, models we can be very confident in, if not even visting other parts of the new larger whole.

We see thing on far more scales than just the standard human perception. Since the invention of the telescope/microscope, we see much deeper. Know more than our physiology would allow on its own. As we have become more and more technological, I believe our ability to conceive of thing is growing with it. Saying it's impossible is akin to giving up.

Gravity is created by matter and it only effects matter - it has no effect on space or time.
Time is a constant - it does not / can not, slow or stop. — gater

What is time dilation then? Clocks in different frames of reference tend to disagree. I'm assuming you have a different approach as it's not really debatable wether it happens or not.

Time dilation is the effect gravity has on devices that measure time - gravity effects matter, it has no effect on actual time.

Time dilation is the effect gravity has on devices that measure time - gravity effects matter, it has no effect on actual time. — gater

How do we know what "actual" time is, if it's distinct from what we can measure?

If it is finite, we still got a lot to discover, and there are no boundaries that divide the universe, it might or not exist something else (or Kant did not defined the universe correctly or does not defines boundaries correctly - there is no Canada beyond its' boundaries/frontiers); — James Pullman

The reason Kant says the universe cannot have a boundary is that a boundary can only be perceived between two distinct entities. Do you disagree with that?

- If it is infinite, is it obliged to be understood? Or more, can´t human perception development also not be infinite, and thus open the possibility that it might be understood? Or is it that Kant limits human understanding by its' mind understanding — James Pullman

When Kant talks of the universe in the context of his antinomies, he means the physical universe, i.e. the universe that humans perceive. Since humans cannot perceive infinity, the universe cannot be infinite.

The universe is as a spring wound up that is now slowly unwinding, this giving it 'oomph'; so, something had to have piled up, due to the meeting with some limit, and then the universe came forth, and long it will last, until all the stars have gone and all the photons are far apart.
— PoeticUniverse

The quantum foam is believable, it being confirmed by QCD predictions and measurements, plus noted by Casmir's plates being drawn together. It is as a Sea of Possibility. In the quantum foam, virtual particles pop in and out, always in pairs of matter and anti-matter. They appear but must then go away very quickly, this somehow satisfying the debits and credits on the ledger of nature's thumbnail account.

Something went out of kilter.

The quantum foam can't go away; it is still with us today. — PoeticUniverse

Continuing pre Bang scenarios…

Some matter had to have avoided being annihilated by anti-matter. There are a billion photons now for every proton, so that means that at least 2x10**9 pairs did so right away. The Bang was so great and perhaps there was inflation, too, and so many pairs of virtual particles had to have been driven apart so quickly that they couldn't annihilate, which is fine, but we are more concerned with what made the Bang.

Time dilation is the effect gravity has on devices that measure time - gravity effects matter, it has no effect on actual time. — gater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

If reality has different times in relation to the distance from the gravitational source, then time is different. There is no other time than the time that reality is following. From a physicalists perspective you are falsely making time transcendent.

When Kant talks of the universe in the context of his antinomies, he means the physical universe, i.e. the universe that humans perceive. Since humans cannot perceive infinity, the universe cannot be infinite. — Echarmion

Also, the antithesis that the universe is finite cannot be perceived. That is what makes it an antinomy.

Actual time is a constant - Time dilation is the effect gravity has on devices that measure time - devices are matter - gravity only effects matter. By taking in the effect of gravity on devices we get more accurate GPS readings.

Since humans cannot perceive infinity? - Why not? Infinity is simple, it means forever, not a difficult concept.

Since humans cannot perceive infinity? - Why not? Infinity is simple, it means forever, not a difficult concept — gater

'Infinite' refers to a sequence or an extent, 'Eternal' refers to time. Neither one can complete, and so neither one is an actual that can be accomplished.

Einstein's great insight was that time had to give, and so it had to become a variable.

Since humans cannot perceive infinity? — gater

Humans can conceive of infinity. No one can perceive infinity.

If reality has different times in relation to the distance from the gravitational source, then time is different. There is no other time than the time that reality is following. From a physicalists perspective you are falsely making time transcendent. — Coben

The concept of time stems from our perception of change, and time is defined relationally. For instance I might say "time runs slow today", because compared to other days I perceive today to be longer than other days. Usually we compare our perception of a process with that of another perceived process, which we call a clock, and which we define to be a reference process.

So in order to say that a clock runs slow, we can't say that in an absolute sense, we have to compare it to another reference process, so another clock. So when we talk of gravitational time dilation, we're fundamentally saying that a clock in a given gravitational environment runs diffently compared to a clock in another gravitational environment.

It is usually assumed that all processes in the vicinity of the clock are affected and not just the process of the clock, but experiments that test gravitational time dilation make a comparison between specific reference processes, they don't test all processes, so strictly speaking tests of gravitational time dilation have only shown that different gravitational environments affect specific processes differently.

In all this there is no "time" that runs slower in some places than in some others, people sometimes say that clocks run slower because time is dilated, that's a fallacy of reification, of treating time as having an existence independent of how we define the concept through our measurements. Which links back to what gater said, that gravity has an effect on devices whose measurements we call time, gravity has an influence on processes, not on some reified "time", in that sense I agree with him.

But then he talks of "actual time" that remains "constant" and is not affected by gravity, but that's a reification or a tautology at best, if we want we can define the reference processes as clocks in a space far from any gravitational source, but then these clocks aren't affected by gravity by definition. If we define "actual time" as the measurement shown by clocks not affected by gravity, then by definition gravity doesn't affect these measurements, so saying gravity doesn't affect "actual time" is a tautology, whereas implying "actual time" is something other than the measurement shown by these clocks is to make again the fallacy of reification, or to treat it as some transcendent entity, so in that sense I agree with you.

We perceive change, and change is relational, no need to talk about "actual time" that exists independently of that, what we call time is how we choose to measure that relational change, it's not some concrete external entity that flows.