An interesting idea but would such not mean that the cosmological principle was not true a.k.a a homogenous and isotropic universe would be untrue? — universeness

I think this is another one of those "yes and no" answers, haha! The cosmological principle could still hold (since it is often stated with a condition of "on average/on large enough scales" etc.) if the anisotropies, however rare, are fairly evenly distributed throughout the universe. And the cosmological principle is a rational assumption you need to make to start investigating the universe, but is still an assumption, so I think it's not a death nail in this weird idea if it implies that the principal holds for almost every observable behaviour, but not quite all of them. :)

Is the idea of different laws of physics applying to different regions not part of the basis of the many world theory and the 'bubble' universe as a label for 'conceptually' different universes in a multi-verse or different 'regions' in an alternate use of a label such as 'Cosmos?' — universeness

I don't think so - that it's not the basis, at least - but tbh, there are so many different multiverse formulations that this is probably true for some of them. The breadth of those theories is probably something that you know more of than me, since my experience, if more technical, is much more focussed.

The first multiverse theories (namely, Everett's) were founded wholly on the goal of finding some interpretation of quantum uncertainty that did not result in genuine randomness being a feature of nature. I. E. Reinterpreting quantum randomness not as randomness in the outcomes of physical laws, but in seemingly-randomised measurements actually giving every possible result by bifurcating our universe at every such measurement point, and the true randomness being just in which one of those universes we "observers" happen to be in.

I think that most multiverse theories involving different physical laws/constants have those arise from their breadth of "all possible universes", and include that kind of diversity on that basis. However, I think the last part you refer to - multiverses where the "bubble" universes are spatially or otherwise traversable - probably are defined by this kind of thing. But if that idea were combined with my weird hypothesis, we would probably see indications of inhomogeneity when we look to different sides of the observable universe, which I don't think we do

And I applaud your exploration of directly emailing those physicists! I do like to repeat/repost that thing about most scientists being happy to talk or share articles - especially if you come up against a paywall in seeking their research - but I've never done so myself (probably mostly because I could usually just directly ask people I know, but most of them are in quantum foundations and none of them are string theorists). But it might be worth making use of Sean Carroll's AMAs - I feel like he kind of owes me one anyway since I was obligated to buy his astrophysics textbook twice because Pluto's demotion happened during my undergraduate degree.

(IMO Zeno should be dead and buried) — jgill

I am not sure if you only recently edited your comment to say this, or I only just noticed it, but I was very happy to see it.

(IMO Zeno should be dead and buried) — jgill

I second that emotion! Especially when we all know that you can get from point A to point B, despite Zeno's rather boring thought experiment. All Zeno did, was the very trivial finding that the concept of infinity is problematic. No shit Sherlock!

Wife & I are still registered Democrats. You might be surprised at where we would agree on politics. For example, I have always felt there should be free education all the way to professional degrees and PhDs, and there should be free health care for all. I firmly support Medicare and Social Security, along with defined benefit retirement plans. — jgill

That's some good and wide common ground we are on sir! I would be proud to stand firm beside you in any fight on any of those issues. — universeness

That is very relieving to read! I accidentally found your identity while briefly researching more detail on the questions you asked me (which I would not mention if it weren't clear that you aren't trying to hide it), and was already preparing to accept/avoid discussing the "moderate conservative" thing with justifications about what I'm here for and the demographical differences in our Overton windows (apologies for that), and I am very grateful for the knowledge that we are much closer than I first thought in our political positions.

To both you and , I may as well show my own hand too, and say that my own political position is in support of all the policies you have both stated you are, and is probably a bit more to the left of both of yours in terms of the other policies I support. (I struggled to find the least wanky way to summarise that, but that was the best I could do.) A higher-level summary is that I support most of the goals of socialism, oppose most of the goals of capitalism, but think that both of those approaches focus too much on using politics as a means towards economic goals, and I think we are in dire need of an approach that, instead, uses economics as a means towards political goals (I stole this rhetoric from Hannah Arendt, but have developed it further in my own life). I think democracy should be something ingrained in and emerging from our society itself, rather than just a tick-box exercise we partake in for a single day every four years.

Anyway, I hate to be cryptic, but I also don't want to spend too long talking about my expansive political opinions in this particular thread! I just wanted to join the equal ground in declaring them, not write a manifesto.

and is probably a bit more to the left of both of yours in terms of the other policies I support. — Jaded Scholar

I doubt it, but would probably have even more political common ground with you than with jgill, (I also only base that on his 'moderate conservative' dalliance.) if you are very left wing. I am a democratic socialist and I fully support such tenets as:
'To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry and full control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.'
'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.' etc, etc.
I am totally against all 'free market economy' on a national, international or global scale (but I am ok with it at a controlled local scale). So I am fully against any form of unfettered capitalism.
No billionaire's or multi-millionaires allowed in the system I would favour but I am okay with small localised capitalism and I support personal freedom and entrepreneurialism as much as such can be supported within an socioeconomic system that is as fair as it can possibly be to all stakeholders involved.

I support UBI for now and an eventual conversion to a money free resource based global economy within a united planet.
I would like to see the end of the notion of 'countries.'
I would like to see the end of all party politics. You vote for a person, not a party!
I was very politically active in my youth, and was a member of left wing political groups, Young Socialists, The UK Labour party, The Co-operative Labour party, etc.
The Tony Blair years made me leave the labour party and I have been against party politics ever since.
I am currently a member of progressive political groups such as 'Compass,' from where I live in Scotland, in this Ununited Kingdom.
Sorry JS, my rant does sound a little like a political manifesto, but at least it helps make our political positions clear and we can get back to our science chat.

I feel like he kind of owes me one anyway since I was obligated to buy his astrophysics textbook twice because Pluto's demotion happened during my undergraduate degree. — Jaded Scholar

:smile: I bought Sean's book Space, Time and Motion. I am working between that and my second reading of Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, which I first read around 15 years ago. I have also started a wee book called 'The little book of Philosophy,' by Rachel Poulton. :grin: So far, so good!
I intend to buy Sean's next two books in this series of 3.
My 86 year old mother, who stays with me, is not doing well at the moment however, so I have to dedicate a lot more of my time to her needs. Such is the way of things.

But I will read up on it more thoroughly and get back to you. — Jaded Scholar

Good idea! Time for you to read a bit ,instead of spouting your mouth off in ignorance. Regardless of whether you hold the degree you claim, it's never a good idea to make assertive claims of certainty about that which you know not. Like I've pointed out, this attitude of conceit has already led you to "change your tune" significantly, concerning the problem which mathematicians have and have not resolved.

However, I am going to stick to my other stated principles and am now going to do my best to ignore you until after I have time to fully reply to universeness and jgill, because they seem, like me, to be primarily motivated by the desire to learn, instead of your objective of, like, pwning noobs or whatever it is. — Jaded Scholar

Your "other stated principles" are nothing but insults. Now I have one for you. You are a pompously conceited ass hole. And unlike your use of ad hominem, mine is fully justified and true.

"Pwning noobs", haha I like that. Maybe I should change my moniker to "Noob pwner". I bet if we met in a real lounge, with a couple of real drinks we'd turn out to be best of friends, instead of meeting here where it seems like everyone has to pretend to be what they are not.

Merry Christmas!

The first multiverse theories (namely, Everett's) were founded wholly on the goal of finding some interpretation of quantum uncertainty that did not result in genuine randomness being a feature of nature. I. E. Reinterpreting quantum randomness not as randomness in the outcomes of physical laws, but in seemingly-randomised measurements actually giving every possible result by bifurcating our universe at every such measurement point, and the true randomness being just in which one of those universes we "observers" happen to be in. — Jaded Scholar

Start reading boss. "Indeed, the uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics." There is a fundamental incompatibility between a describable state of "being", and an active event of "becoming", which is well demonstrated by Zeno in his arrow paradox. This produces an appeal to "infinite" in any attempt to reconcile the difference, bridge the gap. This is what creates the need for an infinite rate of acceleration at the moment when an object changes from being at rest to being in motion, which I referred to.

Especially when we all know that you can get from point A to point B, despite Zeno's rather boring thought experiment. All Zeno did, was the very trivial finding that the concept of infinity is problematic. No shit Sherlock! — universeness

I would not be so adamant with such a misleading statement universeness. Of course, it appears to be an obvious truth, "we all know that you can get from point A to point B. However, we cannot truthfully model this procedure, getting from being at one point to being at another point, mathematically. That's exactly what makes Zeno's paradoxes so compelling, the mathematics cannot represent what appears to be so obvious to us.

"Change" has elements which are fundamentally unintelligible, and cannot be represented by human mathematics. This casts the doubt of skepticism on the description of "change". To begin with, we can ask whether it's really true to say that one is at point A, or at point B. And then we see that this is just an over simplification, an approximation. The physical principles of relativity are premised on the proposition that we cannot know anything to be at any specific point. Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B.

Now, I'll leave you noobs to your useless ponderings, based in false premises, and your senseless pandering, and instead indulge myself in some good old fashioned Christmas cheer.

Good idea! Time for you to read a bit ,instead of spouting your mouth off in ignorance. Regardless of whether you hold the degree you claim, it's never a good idea to make assertive claims of certainty about that which you know not. Like I've pointed out, this attitude of conceit has already led you to "change your tune" significantly, concerning the problem which mathematicians have and have not resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are a flim flam artist, all smoke and mirrors and no substance. @Jaded Scholar has tried and tried again to clarify his points to you and imo, all you do is release more smoke to hide in. Again, all you do is point out what science does not know for sure yet, and you imagine that in some way, that means you know what you are talking about. Science follows where the evidence takes it, you follow your imaginings and think that will lead you to the truth of all things, instead of merely leading you right back to your own imaginings. You type like a deluded diva. You need a long holiday from your own conceit.

This is what creates the need for an infinite rate of acceleration at the moment when an object changes from being at rest to being in motion, which I referred to. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet another example of the absolute BS you offer. There is no infinite rate of acceleration. When I move from A to B I do not need to infinity accelerate to get there, or else I would never get from my seat to the toilet! As I am incapable of infinite acceleration, so stop positing absolute piffle!!!!!

I would not be so adamant with such a misleading statement universeness. Of course, it appears to be an obvious truth, "we all know that you can get from point A to point B. However, we cannot truthfully model this procedure, getting from being at one point to being at another point, mathematically. That's exactly what makes Zeno's paradoxes so compelling, the mathematics cannot represent what appears to be so obvious to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's only misleading in YOUR imagination sir! I don't need to model that which I can DEMONSTRATE!!!!
Zeno's paradoxes may be impressive to your esoteric thinking but I don't find any paradox compelling, just like I don't find any placeholders compelling like, god, infinite, nothing, omnipotent, omniscient or any other omni, supernatural, etc, etc. I can decide to amuse myself by thinking that I am thinking that I am thinking that I am thinking that I might not be really thinking or I can settle for I think therefore I am and move on. You can exist amongst the parade of available paradoxes if you wish to but please try to stop attempting to infect others which such staid thinking.

Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover

I create purpose and I create meaning so I can assign point A and point B.
So, Yeah, nae bother pal!, and on the way to your funny farm, you can always try to find out what it's like to BE the spoon rather than just accept that there is no spoon or else perhaps you could just use the spoon to eat yer cornflakes and stop typing esoteric, woo woo pish!

Again, all you do is point out what science does not know for sure yet, and you imagine that in some way, that means you know what you are talking about. — universeness

All I'm talking about here, is what science does not know. I have no pretense of holding the solutions to these unknowns. Therefore it looks like I really do know what I'm talking about, as you say, I have accurately pointed out what science does not know. But I have no idea of what you're talking about. Your words are not making very much sense.

In no way has Jaded Scholar shown me that all the problems in mathematics which have been labeled, have been fixed. That is what JS claimed. And, I've provided a multitude of references which demonstrate that the uncertainty principle is a problem which is a result of the mathematics employed. This problem is clearly labeled "uncertainty". Therefore the evidence is quite strong that I have gone ahead and proven JS to be wrong in those assertions made.

Yet another example of the absolute BS you offer. There is no infinite rate of acceleration. When I move from A to B I do not need to infinity accelerate to get there, or else I would never get from my seat to the toilet! As I am incapable of infinite acceleration, so stop positing absolute piffle!!!!! — universeness

Your seat is a seat, and your toilet is a toilet. Neither is a "point", so this in no way qualifies as moving from point A to point B.

I create purpose and I create meaning so I can assign point A and point B. — universeness

You can define "point A" and "point B" in any way that you please. But if you stray from the mathematical definition of "point", then you argue by equivocation, because problems of mathematics is what we are discussing here. Therefore your argument is bogus, and irrelevant, as being nothing but an equivocation fallacy.

Hey, you did some research! — Jaded Scholar

I should have addressed this as well. What I did was not "research", but a matter of "Google search" to produce references for what I already knew, due to past research. There is a big difference between researching to expand one's knowledge, as i did in the past when I wanted to better understand the uncertainty principle, and searching to find authorities to support one's prejudice. Now, I will continue to support my prejudice, since conventional knowledge seems to agree with me, and the research I did, which created my current prejudice, seems to have served me well, according to the references from my Google search. And you have provided nothing but hot air, toward making me want to reconsider.

You it appears, like to make all sorts of assertions concerning things you know nothing about, holding up a card with an embossed "PhD in Physics", to create the illusion of authority.

I suggest you would be happiest moving in this direction in your future studies. You might find it more akin to your reality.

:rofl: :rofl:
That's gold.

MU is not worth your learned time or effort. He is a fully cooked noodnik, who does not accept any scientific findings about the origin, structure and workings of the universe, based purely on the fact that science cannot prove every woo woo conjecture about the origin, structure and workings of the universe wrong. He just points at ever reducing gaps and exclaims 'look! everyone! look, look look! gap there, gap there, gap there! I must keep screaming, gap there! Why won't the world recognise my genius for telling everyone about this!! GAP THERE!'

He just points at ever reducing gaps and exclaims 'look! everyone! look, look look! gap there, gap there, gap there! — universeness

Most people appreciate having the gaps in their thought pointed out to them, that's a sign of healthy intellectualism, and the route to self-improvement. Unfortunately, some do not appreciate this; they turn away, attempting to deny the reality of the gaps which are obvious. Some may even insult and ridicule the one who is pointing to the gaps. That is a symptom of conceit, which I mentioned above.

There was another quantum physics guy on the forum a couple of years ago, @Kenosha Kid. He said he left physics to make his fortune playing the guitar. Well, actually he chuckled at the "fortune" bit. He was a transactionist.

In my naive fantasies I wonder if our macro world is indeed a simulation wherein the creative mechanisms are intentionally hidden from us in the quantum realms. With math we are able to manipulate results down there to some extent but remain puzzled at non-locality - a feature of that realm where scales of measurements and dimensions might be easily manipulated by our overlords. :roll:

In relativity theory it seems there is possible the passage of time without any physical change. Time being completely independent of change seems peculiar. This, unfortunately, puts me somewhat in MU's camp: we don't truly understand either time or space. But I am old and have lost brain cells. :chin:

This, unfortunately, puts me somewhat in MU's camp: we don't truly understand either time or space. — jgill

So do you think that a point in spacetime designated A and another point in spacetime designated B is not scientifically rigorous? and we should accept that in mathematical terms, the distance between A and B cannot be traversed unless 'infinite acceleration' is a real thing? If you do then sure, sometimes your thinking is imo, unfortunate. But I don't think anyone could accuse you of being anti-science, whereas I think that is a fair criticism of MU and his woo woo.

Most people appreciate having the gaps in their thought pointed out to them, that's a sign of healthy intellectualism, and the route to self-improvement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, if it's pointed out by those who are working hard to close/narrow such gaps, but not when it comes from the 'na na na na na,' crowd of noodnik thinkers who do nothing to help and everything they can to hinder because they are so envious of the real experts that they utterly failed to become.
What significant academic quals do you hold MU and what field of expertise do you have that others may benefit from? Would you rather stay under the covers?

What significant academic quals do you hold MU and what field of expertise do you have that others may benefit from? — universeness

I don't brag about owning titles. If I was charging you a fee for my work I would show you credentials so that you'd feel confident in paying me. But I'm not, and I offer you my work on a take it or leave it basis, the choice is yours. You'll have to judge my work for yourself however, or else you just demonstrate prejudice, and this judgement requires critical analysis which you are showing a lack of in your rejection. Either that or you haven't read it and your judgement is just common prejudice. Did you even take the short time required to read the references which justify the position I'm arguing?

Here, I'll explain in simple terms for simple minds. Zeno's arrow paradox shows that there is an incompatibility between occupying a space (having a location), and being in motion. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its common representation, says that the more accurately a particle's position (location) is known, the less accurately its momentum (a property inherent to its motion) can be known, and vise versa. Do you see the resemblance between these two? Zeno said that the arrow cannot be both moving, and also have a location, at the same time, because this is contradictory. The uncertainty principle validates this, because it shows that if we know one of these, either the particle's position, or the particle's motion (momentum) with a very high degree of certainty, we cannot know the other at all.

The mathematics of calculus with the Fourier series provides a system of balance between these two, as explained in my reference above.

This is where the uncertainty principle steps in. Instead of pursuing infinite accuracy in either frequency or time, we can harness the uncertainty principle, allowing us to gain insights into both quantities at a reduced resolution, all the while maintaining balance. — https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953

It is clearly not the case that the mathematicians have resolved Zeno's arrow paradox. They have produced a workaround which is adequate for many applications, but the consequence of this workaround is the uncertainty principle. The very problem which Zeno pointed out more than 2000 years ago persists today as the uncertainty principle.

I don't brag about owning titles. — Metaphysician Undercover

The way you put that sentence, seems to me like an attempt to conflate a title such as doctor or professor with a title such as Earl, Duke or Lord. So I just include this sentence to dilute that possible conflation as much as possible. Doctor or professor is a merit based title, Earl, Duke, Lord or Knight, never has been imo, and never will be. Just saying!

If I was charging you a fee for my work I would show you credentials so that you'd feel confident in paying me. — Metaphysician Undercover

What field of expertise can you offer service in which is worth anyone paying for?

I offer you my work on a take it or leave it basis, the choice is yours. You'll have to judge my work for yourself however, or else you just demonstrate prejudice, and this judgement requires critical analysis which you are showing a lack of in your rejection. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you do realise then that I already rejected your so called 'work,' ages ago. You are now just trying to special plead that I consider it more fully on threat of you thinking that I am prejudiced against you and i have not critically analysed your viewpoints to YOUR satisfaction. Perhaps you now know what I meant when I suggested that you were a bit of a deluded diva.

Here, I'll explain in simple terms for simple minds. — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol: This from the guy who does not engage in ad hominem.

Zeno's arrow paradox shows that there is an incompatibility between occupying a space (having a location), and being in motion. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its common representation, says that the more accurately a particle's position (location) is known, the less accurately its momentum (a property inherent to its motion) can be known, and vise versa. Do you see the resemblance between these two? — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol: What is laughable, is that you really do think you are making a really important statement here!
Any uncertainty principle shows a current problem that we have no current solution to Sherlock. It does not mean that science is absolutely incapable of ever finding a work around or a direct solution to such issues. You make mundane points that most on TPF are already very familiar with and you think you are being deep and profound. The uncertainty principle does not stop me from traversing a distance without any demonstration that I need infinite acceleration to do so, under some mathematical model of an ancient like Zeno, who lived during a relative mathematical infancy.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not an impenetrable impedance to all future scientific attempts to progress in our understandings of the origins, workings and structure of the universe.

It is clearly not the case that the mathematicians have resolved Zeno's arrow paradox. They have produced a workaround which is adequate for many applications, but the consequence of this workaround is the uncertainty principle. The very problem which Zeno pointed out more than 2000 years ago persists today as the uncertainty principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what? Who cares? We keep going ya muppet! (since you have let ad hominem back in)
We have progressed from Zeno to Heisenberg. Do you really think our scientific findings will end there?
Get with the program you surrender monkey!

and we should accept that in mathematical terms, the distance between A and B cannot be traversed unless 'infinite acceleration' is a real thing? — universeness

:lol:

But, in Minkowski spacetime it seems progression in the time variable requires no movement in space. I think of time as being in some ways linked to movement - a philosophical perspective. Just a feeling. JS might be able to address this issue, which is probably a triviality on my part.

I was doing some reading up recently on the Minkowski model of spacetime and the Euclidean model and trying to again get a fuller understanding of the reference frames involved and the difference between the two models. Trying to drill in much deeper than surface understandings such as Minkowski space includes a time coordinate as part of every point in space. Trying to gain a clear understanding as to its handling of time dilation and length contraction with associated factors such as the Poincaré group, Lorentz transformations etc, is not easy for a non-expert in physics and maths.

I found this from wiki, an interesting point of pause and consideration:
Minkowski, aware of the fundamental restatement of the theory which he had made, said

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth, space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
— Hermann Minkowski, 1908, 1909[6]

Though Minkowski took an important step for physics, Albert Einstein saw its limitation:

At a time when Minkowski was giving the geometrical interpretation of special relativity by extending the Euclidean three-space to a quasi-Euclidean four-space that included time, Einstein was already aware that this is not valid, because it excludes the phenomenon of gravitation. He was still far from the study of curvilinear coordinates and Riemannian geometry, and the heavy mathematical apparatus entailed.

So does:
In mathematical physics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) combines inertial space and time manifolds with a non-inertial reference frame of space and time into a four-dimensional model relating a position (inertial frame of reference) to the field.
That combines a non-accelerating reference frame with a reference frame that does consider acceleration fully hold up, if spacetime is curved?

But, in Minkowski spacetime it seems progression in the time variable requires no movement in space. — jgill

But the space itself is expanding within any duration of time. Is it more accurate to say that every 4D coordinate is moving away from its adjacent points during every time duration or that 'new' 4D spacetime coordinates are being formed in Minkowski spacetime, within any instant of time duration? So what is 'no movement in space,' really referring to. I will understand If I am making some physics or maths 101 errors here. I appreciate your tolerance, if that is the case and I hope I am not causing you too much exasperation.

What is laughable, is that you really do think you are making a really important statement here!
Any uncertainty principle shows a current problem that we have no current solution to Sherlock. It does not mean that science is absolutely incapable of ever finding a work around or a direct solution to such issues. You make mundane points that most on TPF are already very familiar with and you think you are being deep and profound. — universeness

What makes you think that I believe myself to be making a really important statement? That's an unjustified conclusion, and this is the lounge. I am actually making, and believe myself to be making, a statement of trivial fact.

The bizarre thing is that there are people here who incessantly deny the truth of such a trivial, yet basic, fact of reality. What could be the motivation for such a denial? Denial of trivial fact does not advance one's knowledge, nor does it advance one's social status. So how could it be becoming of one who holds a title, to deny the reality of a basic, trivial fact?

The point was that Jaded Scholar insisted that these problems pointed to by Zeno had been solved by mathematics. The uncertainty of "the uncertainty principle" demonstrates very clearly that the problem described in "the arrow paradox" has not been solved.

We have progressed from Zeno to Heisenberg. Do you really think our scientific findings will end there? — universeness

Same problem, different name. Now if the PhD's in Physics of the world deny that the uncertainty principle is a problem, and thereby refuse to develop an understanding of that problem, then yes, scientific findings will end there. No physicist would ever develop a true understanding of the real relation between space and time. Then the issue would no longer be trivial. In this way, the matter of "denial" turns a very trivial fact into a substantial problem.

Merry Xmas, Lads.

But the space itself is expanding within any duration of time — universeness

My understanding is that two objects move further apart with time; space itself (whatever it is) doesn't change. Some of this stuff is assumed axiomatically.

Hope you enjoyed/are still enjoying, any celebrations, get-togethers you had with family and friends!

I don't think there is anything left in the tube for you to squeeze out, regarding our exchange on this thread or the exchange you have had with @Jaded Scholar
My opinion remains that he shot you down in flames, and you have been trying to pick up little trivial pieces since. Your anti-science stance, or perhaps a more accurate description would be, your negativity / lack of confidence, towards / in, scientific findings, rate of progress and future projections, hold almost no value or significance for me. I am sure you will find others on TPF who can find some more common ground with you than I can, or am ever likely to.

My understanding is that two objects move further apart with time; space itself (whatever it is) doesn't change. — jgill

However, I don't think it is proper to call this "motion" because the activity known as spatial expansion is not consistent with our conceptions of "motion", and the physical laws which describe "motion".

My opinion remains that he shot you down in flames, and you have been trying to pick up little trivial pieces since. — universeness

I think we'll just have to wait to see what JS says after reading up on it more thoroughly. JS already said "The 'problem' you describe was solved by calculus". But I suspect that JS will be changing tune again, as the uncertainty of the uncertainty principle clearly demonstrates that the 'problem' is yet to be resolved.

Remember, JS's tune has been changing ever since we first engaged. First JS said, "Whatever the gaps are, they are not what you described - if we could label them, we could have fixed them by now". But then what was said was: "I challenge you to point out one such problem that has been labelled, and is not something that modern mathematicians want solved...". Obviously there is a big difference between 'if they were labeled they'd be fixed', and 'if they are labeled mathematicians want to fix them'.

Remember, JS's tune has been changing ever since we first engaged. First JS said, "Whatever the gaps are, they are not what you described - if we could label them, we could have fixed them by now". But then what was said was: "I challenge you to point out one such problem that has been labelled, and is not something that modern mathematicians want solved...". Obviously there is a big difference between 'if they were labeled they'd be fixed', and 'if they are labeled mathematicians want to fix them'. — Metaphysician Undercover

Only in that he tried his best to show you a little more patience, despite your constant strawmannirg of the points he was making. You have already agreed that the point you made about 'uncertainty' in science is trivial, and it also may be simply down to the currently available tech, methodology or understanding needed to completely solve most or all levels/manifestations of uncertainty.
Despite this, you continue to way overblow the significance of such points and you also hold up esoteric style shinies to distract from your unimportant points, such as:

To begin with, we can ask whether it's really true to say that one is at point A, or at point B. And then we see that this is just an over simplification, an approximation. The physical principles of relativity are premised on the proposition that we cannot know anything to be at any specific point. Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl: I have bolded some of the utter piffle from the quote above, as an example of the type of nonsense shiny you hold up!

You have already agreed that the point you made about 'uncertainty' in science is trivial, and it also may be simply down to the currently available tech, methodology or understanding needed to completely solve most or all levels/manifestations of uncertainty. — universeness

All the points I have been making are trivial, accept the point about JS's denial. The indicated problems are trivial, but denying that a trivial problem is a real problem, turns a trivial problem into something substantial. O, what a tangled web we weave...

Despite this, you continue to way overblow the significance of such points and you also hold up esoteric style shinies to distract from your unimportant points, such as: — universeness

What I have been doing precisely, is to emphasize that the problems I refer to are very real problems, regardless of how trivial these problems are. The degree of triviality of the problem is irrelevant. That the problem is very real is all that matters.

So when truth is replaced with a stand-in, because there is a trivial problem which prevents a statement of the truth, and the stand-in is accepted as the truth, rather than recognized for what it is, a stand-in rather than the truth, then a very trivial problem can develop into a significant problem. That is because we are inclined to forego the search for truth because the stand-in is already accepted as the truth.

I have bolded some of the utter piffle from the quote above, as an example of the type of nonsense shiny you hold up! — universeness

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal, to demonstrate why you think my statement is "nonsense". Clearly, nothing is ever really at point A or point B, according to the principles employed in modern physics. Obviously it's your talk about moving from point A to point B which is nonsense.

My understanding is that two objects move further apart with time; space itself (whatever it is) doesn't change. — jgill

However, I don't think it is proper to call this "motion" because the activity known as spatial expansion is not consistent with our conceptions of "motion", and the physical laws which describe "motion". — Metaphysician Undercover

From BingAI:

Yes, space does expand. The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time¹. This is an intrinsic expansion; the universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it¹.
. . .
However, it's important to note that this is not a generally covariant description but rather only a choice of coordinates. It is equally valid to adopt a description in which space does not expand and objects simply move apart while under the influence of their mutual gravity¹. Although cosmic expansion is often framed as a consequence of general relativity, it is also predicted by Newtonian gravity¹.

Does "simply move apart" imply motion in the common sense? Can something move without motion?

but denying that a trivial problem is a real problem, turns a trivial problem into something substantial — Metaphysician Undercover

Whether a thing is a problem or not is a societal decision. If the vast majority do not consider it a problem, it likely is not.

AI:

So, while Zeno's paradoxes, including the arrow paradox, are not considered unsolved problems in mathematics or physics, they do continue to inspire ongoing philosophical discussions¹³.

The degree of triviality of the problem is irrelevant. That the problem is very real is all that matters. — Metaphysician Undercover

:grin: Well, when it comes to your posts, I agree that there is a very real problem, and it is in the big scheme of things, very trivial. The very real problem, is your irrational worldview of the past, current and future efficacy of all scientific endeavours. You are simply a science pessimist and folks like @Jaded Scholar (and I think, @jgill, at least, most of the time, despite his sometimes protestation that he is too old now (nonsense) to be able to still be a significant mathematical force.) and I, are science optimists or perhaps even science celebrants.

That is because we are inclined to forego the search for truth because the stand-in is already accepted as the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

No science field or scientist (worthy of the label,) would ever, ever, ever do this. To do so would be anti-science. Unlike theists, scientists are 'real' truth seekers who MUST have no 100% 'loyalty' to ANY scientific /theory/principle or law. Again, you are making totally false claims.

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal, to demonstrate why you think my statement is "nonsense". Clearly, nothing is ever really at point A or point B, according to the principles employed in modern physics. Obviously it's your talk about moving from point A to point B which is nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again we see your lies. We all know we can assign point A and B and we can traverse the distance between them. You accept that demonstration but you will not accept that demonstration as proof that your statement of:

Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover

is therefore piffle and nonsense.
This makes you a liar, a fake, a dishonest interlocutor.