During the inflationary epoch, new space was added between all the things in the universe at a rate that made them much farther away from each other in much less time than it would take light to travel that same distance. — Pfhorrest

If two things are moving at whatever speed, or not moving at all, but space is added between them at a speed faster than light, are not those two things being separated from each other at a speed faster than light? If the "space speed" is not part of "thing speed" simply because space is adding, and the things aren't contributing, is there a distinction with a relevant difference? Aren't those two things moving apart faster than the speed of light, if only by the addition of space? Thanks.

ad verecundiam? Or something similar having to do with time?

Are you admitting that time converts to matter? HAHAHAHA. Sorry.

No, what I meant was, your ability to dumb things down for us simple people is wanting. Either you don't know what "the merits" means, or you are just avoiding the schooling of me on Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or, in harkening back to the other thread, self-evidence.

Three thoughts come to mind:

When a mob boss tells his crew "It would be a shame if something were to happen to Louie" I don't think he thinks that. Nevertheless, it was a shame what then happened to Louie, eh?

Second, just because certain charges are not brought does not mean the crime was not committed.

Third, the jury is still out (i.e. the prosecution is not done). That does not mean the crime was not committed.

You're not very good at this. You should probably stick with the smart people and leave us monkeys to throw shit on the wall. (P.S. What was Einstein's position on dreams and reverie? Just curious.)

Probably not. You really have to dumb things down for me.

Same is in the other thread, I was expecting something to do with the merits of why my idea is wrong.

I'm not complaining, so it certainly wasn't my bubble that was burst. In fact, your failure to address the sophomoric shit on the wall with a dumbed-down response on the merits that simple folks can understand leads me to believe you said too much. It must be frustrating for you to be in this arena with the likes of me. I'm surprised you're not back in a lab somewhere doing real work.

I'm new to this board, but I've been fooling around with philosophy for 45 + years. I don't get paid for it but I don't find that relevant (see my definition of philosophy in the recent thread on that point). I also find that philosophy has it's own wall(s). See the recent thread on self-evidence. I begged for help from the smart people, but crickets.

Then I hear physicists struggling with their own walls (dark matter, dark energy, spooky action at a distance, etc.). In fact, one of those walls seems to run counter to the fundamental, underlying principles of logic (a branch of philosophy?). How can this be here and there at the same time? Hmmm. I guess I better break out the calculator that doesn't seem to be working.

I hear about these physics walls in public, and not "pop physics books." I make up my own shit.

Finally, I don't derive anything, because I am not Einstein, a physicist, a mathematician, or anything close. Thus, I cannot provide you with something similar for my conjecture. I can, however, provide you with conjecture. If you can't make anything out of it, or explain it to a lay person, I'm sorry. Welcome to philosophy.

I'll stop throwing ideas on the wall when "your people" quit talking about all the walls they are running into. Discuss among yourselves.

I could live with that. It reminds me of a hypothesis I have:

When I go out on a moonless night and look up into a star-studded blackness, I intuitively know there is a metric shit-ton of light headed my way that I cannot yet see. It’s not that this light has yet to be generated. No, it was generated all right. It just hasn’t got here yet, unlike all the light that I do see, itself having left its star-point of origin so many lightyears ago.

It’s also not that it is the light to arrive shortly, from the same source as, but trailing behind the light arriving now, from a star or whatever. No, the unseen light was already generated from another source (Big Bang?) than what I can see, and its on its way but not yet visible. All the visible light (stars, etc.) are just out front, like us.

Now bear with me here. Scientists have told me that energy and matter can change, one into the other. But these scientists always leave time laying over here to the side, as if it could not likewise convert into energy or matter. But I thought, what if it could?

In that case, I think this light that I cannot see, but which I feel is headed my way, is actually the future (time) in the form of Dark Energy.

I also intuitively know there is a metric shit-ton of matter flying away from me so fast that I can’t see it. It does not and cannot reflect light back to me. I think this matter is the past (time). I think it is Dark Matter.

I also think that maybe this Dark Energy (the future), is not necessarily so far away that I can’t see it yet, but that maybe Dark Energy is, at least in part, blocked from my view from the fleeing past. Maybe Dark matter gets in the way.

But where I am in the here-and-now is the conversion point, where the future arrives and converts into the past, going from Dark Energy to Dark Matter.

To the extent physicists have calculated the amount of Dark Matter in the universe, as a percentage of the whole, maybe Dark Energy, or the future, accounts for the balance of the whole. Maybe we can thus determine the amount of time, or future we have left.

Sometimes it helps my thinking to consider particles. I like the idea of particles. While they don’t, in and of themselves, preclude the possibility of strings or waves, they work well as a tool in this idea of mine.

Where matter and energy can convert, one into the other, so too time and space can be tossed in the mix and likewise convert. The future can become energy, and matter, and now, and the past. Likewise, the past can become energy, and matter, and now, and the past.

So, a star that casts off its own light, say a photon, is looking at the backside of its own photon. It can't see it go, but go it does. If that star could some how run around and get in front of its cast-off photon and look back and see it coming, it would be seeing its own past. But if it got so far in front of its own cast-off photon that the photon was not yet visible, it would be, like us, not seeing the future before it got here.

Now, lets say that photon from that star were headed toward a near miss with the Earth, and I stepped out behind it to watch it whip by, I would see coming but not going. The back side of a photon is invisible. It’s the past that might be remembered but cannot be seen. The front side of that photon is only visible when it gets here, but until then it is invisible. It is the future.

I was a Recon Team Leader in the Marine Corps and sometimes we'd blow shit up. I'd take a brick of C-4 and roll and warm it in my hands until it was a ball. I'd stick a blasting cap in it, attach a fuse and set it off. It made a big bang. I'd imagine (and sometimes I could see) a shock wave. I'd figure there was some aspects of that C-4 on the outside of the ball that would precede the aspects from the center to follow. I knew that the outside stuff would not exceed the speed of the blast, and it would indeed start to slow in advance of the inside stuff. But it was nevertheless out front and the inside stuff had to catch up.

I'm thinking if you had a singularity on it's way to Heat Death, then maybe parts of it are waiting for the other parts to catch up. And when it does! Talk about light! In sum, I think we are all in a singularity, in Heat Death, and everywhere in between, all at the same time, past, present and future. But All is perceiving all aspects of itself. However, those aspects (like us) are regulated to providing our own perspective. So, while we are all together in a singularity, there must be space for all us aspects to perceive in. So we perceive we have space to perceive in. And we do. But from the perspective of All, it's All one; i.e. a singularity. Dark Energy and Dark Matter (the future and the past) hide the singularity from us, creating the perception of space to perceive in.

The idea that the speed of light is some final arbiter of this or that seems rather limiting to me.

So your main point seems to be that we can't help but expect others to work-to-produce so that we ourselves can survive. — schopenhauer1

It's not a fallacy. The fallacy is thinking we are exempt because we are a different species. My main point is that people are natural.

You can choose to NOT put other people in this situation of having to produce to survive in the first place. Is that not true? — schopenhauer1

You can so choose, however, you cannot choose to not benefit from those who chose to do so.

Edited to add: Likewise, you can choose to not be exploited and that will work out for you just like it works out for those who try not to benefit from those who exploit those who produce. There are participants, and there are those who are dead. Nature is not a fallacy.

You make a good argument. The fact that Donald Trump is dishonorable, a coward, and a liar, undermined the insurrection. There is more to why it failed.

Are you saying logic is not a representation of reality? If it is, isn't failure to recognize the difference between reality and logic a logical failure? — T Clark

I'm not saying that, but I will. Logic is not a representation of reality. It's a tool used to understand reality, no matter how reality might be represented. But even if it were a representation of reality, a failure to recognize that is not necessarily a logical failure. If a painting is a representation of reality, a failure to recognize the difference between reality and the painting is not the painting's failure.

We're probably digging to deep into this particular hole. It doesn't seem very productive to me. — T Clark

Agreed. I thank you for your time.

I'm going to cede the floor. I'll check back in once in a while to see if there is anything besides "appearances" or "because I said so" or "a gentlemen's agreement" or "self-evident" or "can't prove a negative" or anecdote as proof in support of the the fundamental principles of logic.

Since you are all about appearances, when QM appears to show a single thing to be in two different places at the same time, then it must be logical that it is so? What if that defies logic? What then? You have a fundamental principle of logic saying "X" and QM saying "Y", and yet "X" has never offered up a proof, other than appearances (and appearances are not proof), so why is the burden on "Y" and not "X"?

I think I'll go back to beating my head on Hegel. At least for a while.

The law of non-contradiction appears to be true. That is, the reason of most people represents it to be true. That's an appearance: a rational appearance. — Bartricks

That is not my understanding of the law of non-contradiction. As I understand it, the law would merely state that a red hat cannot be a blue hat. The law of identity is that a red hat is a red hat and a blue hat is a blue hat. It matters naught what the definition of red is, or how red appears. All that matters is that whatever red is, it is red. It is not blue. X = X and X does not = -X.

I think it might be wise to let you have the last word.

Our evidence they are true is that they appear to be. That isn't a problem. — Bartricks

Apparently that is not a problem for you. I think there is a philosophy for that, but I can't recall what it is. For others, like logical thought itself, they demand proofs beyond appearance.

is the failure to recognize the difference between reality and a representation of reality, i.e. logic, one of the logical errors you are talking about? — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand this. My failure to understand may be due to definitions. Logical thought is a tool set used to aid in understanding reality. Where representations of reality are used, logical thought likewise applies to those representations. If there is a logical error in the tools themselves, then it is a failure of those tools to abide the standards which those tools impose upon everything in reality (or representations of reality) that they are utilized in working on.

No, the proposition 'it is raining and no one believes it is raining' is self-refuting, but not inconsistent with truth. — Bartricks

It is not self-refuting. If I say "1 apple plus 1 apple makes for 2 apples, but Bartricks disagrees" I have not said something self-refuting. The fact Bartricks disagrees with something reflects on Bartrick, not the fact. Otherwise, everything Bartricks disagrees with would be self-refuting. Quite the contrary.

to defend a view is to attempt to show that there is reason to believe it. — Bartricks

Not true. Devils advocates defend views to defeat them. We did it in the law all the time.

What reason do we have to think the law of non-contradiction is true save it appearing to be?
And if that is true, howdoes that not demonstrate that its truth is even more basic? — Bartricks

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle of logic which I have been calling out. I agree with you. Other than it's appearance, what proof is there that it is true? It is a basic, fundamental principle of logic whether it is true or not.

Well likewise the principle of phenomenal conservatism is more basic than the law of non-contradiction for we are not justified in believing the latter unless the former is true. — Bartricks

That is not logic. The fundamental principles of logic hold themselves out as truth, notwithstanding observation.

In my opinion, you run afoul of the admonition that you agree is wise. You said "His point is that knowing that you do not know a particular thing makes one wiser than someone who does not realize that they do not know it." Yet you claim to know what you do not know. You jump from that which you allege to be a fact, to an admission that it is merely your belief, and that you think your belief is well founded. Then you jump back to the truth of it as proof that he never said it.

If I thought I knew that I didn't know whether he said them or not I would be unwise, not wise. It is not wise to disbelieve something under circumstances where believing it would give you knowledge. — Bartricks

I believe you would be very wise to know that you do not know what Socrates did not say. It's not a matter of you knowing that you don't know. It's that you don't know. You weren't there and you have not kept a record of every word uttered by Socrates. You have not received knowledge by claiming you know something you do not know. Quite the contrary. It is unwise to do so.

To assume you know Socrates never said something when you have no proof that he did not, makes your "belief" no better than a lover of maxims. It is assumed Socrates was wise. That does not mean he didn't say something that you don't know he did not say.

His point is that knowing that you do not know a particular thing makes one wiser than someone who does not realize that they do not know it. — Bartricks

So when you say "The simple fact is that Socrates never said it", what you really meant to say is that we have no evidence that he said it, nor would he have said it if he were wise.

Would one not be be wiser to admit they don't know that Socrates didn't say something?

But what Socrates says there is not at all equivalent to "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing". The simple fact is that Socrates never said it. — Bartricks

Would you be so kind as to draw a distinction with a relevant difference between what Nickolas said and that which is attributed to Socrates which apparently he never said? How are the two "not at all equivalent"? Thanks.

What makes our universe more real than the others — TiredThinker

It is and it isn't. To the extent it is, everything, something, and/or nothing makes it more real.

or what makes us sure ours is the real one? — TiredThinker

We are and we are not sure. To the extent we are sure, everything and/or something makes us sure. Ours is and is not the real one, and to the extent it is, everything and/or something makes it the real one.

And if all equally really, what makes our free will actions significant if we are merely balancing an equation and our choices are just the leftovers that weren't played out elsewhere? — TiredThinker

Our actions are and are not significant. To the extent they are significant, everything and/or something makes them so.

As to the question what "something" might be, why it might be anything. Anything at all. In fact, something is everything you can think of, and nothing at all.

Where "All" exists, it must and must not, and sometimes, only sometimes, necessarily account for the absence of itself. That is uncomfortable for some, but not really, not always.

The QM scientist stands in his lab and sees a patent violation of "X" sitting right there on the table in front of him. This patent violation of "X" is called "Y".

Where Logic says "X" and QM sees "Y", and where QM is a disciple of Logic, QM has a problem.

QM can continue to search for why "Y" is wrong, or QM can make Logic prove "X". After all, Logic is the proponent of "X" and therefor, by Logic's own rules, Logic has the burden of proof. So far, the best Logic has come up with is this:

""X" is self evident, and I can't prove a negative. You must not question me. Rather, you must continue trying to figure out why "Y" is wrong and you must use "X" to do it."

The law of noncontradiction applies to logic, not to reality. There is no restrictions in reality, but restrictions in logic. Logic is all about restrictions. — Yohan

Hi Yohan. Can you extrapolate on that for me. It sounds metaphysical, or like metaphysical realism. Maybe an example?

If I sincerely say "it is raining, but nobody believes it is" then my statement is self-refuting, but it is not inconsistent. — Bartricks

I perceive two problems with this. First, if a statement is self-refuting it is inconsistent with the truth. Second, I believe there is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum or something like that. The fact nobody agrees with you about the rain matters naught to the truth of the matter asserted.

How would the principle of non-contradiction possibly have more rational authority than the principle of phenomenal conservatism? — Bartricks

Because the latter is dependent upon subjective observation, while the former is based upon what logic would claim to be empirical truth ("A" cannot = "-A").

Night night.

That is false. It is self-refuting. Note, that claim - that the burden of proof is upon the proponent - is itself something you (or someone) is proposing. And thus they have the burden of proof. — Bartricks

I got the principle from a logic professor 40 years ago who taught me that logical argument places the burden of proof upon the proponent. This was followed by the practice of law based thereon, where the burden of proof is upon the proponent. The "someone" who proposed it is not me, or the professor, or the law. The "someone" who proposed it is logic itself, or more particularly logical argument. I didn't get it from the internet. In fact, the internet did not even exist when I got it.

Regardless, even if it were not a principle of logical argument, that would not in itself make it self-refuting. To be self-refuting it would have to be inconsistent. Placing the burden of proof upon the proponent is no more self-refuting than what appears to be a gentleman's agreement, without proof, regarding the law of identity or the law of contradiction. Logic makes those proposals, not me.

The basic principle of intellectual inquiry is that the burden of proof is on the one whose claim conflicts with appearances. It's known as the principle of phenomenal conservatism or sometimes the principle of credulity.

Note, it is not self-refuting, for it itself appears to be true. And thus we have reason to believe it is true and the burden of proof is on the person who thinks that principle is false. — Bartricks

It would seem the "principle of phenomenal conservatism" or the "principle of credulity, or what "appears to be true", while not self-refuting, are certainly no more authoritative than the even more fundamental and credible principles of identity or non-contradiction. In fact, these principle you cite are weaker, in that they smack of anecdote and the idea that "because once, always." They, at their best, would be a corollary and further down the road even than the fundamentals. But I don't believe even logic would cite them for any starting point. Check that! Maybe it would if it was trying to distract, or hide from an assault on it's principles. Maybe a principle of logical argument is different from the basic principle of intellectual inquiry?

I don't see the fundamental issues in physics as logical errors. Somebody tell me I'm wrong. — T Clark

You may be correct, but I'm not talking about the fundamental issues in physics as logical errors. I'm talking about the fundamental principles of logic being in error. I assume physicists are logical, no? If not, then bingo! There's my answer. Now all I need to do is learn how physics got around logic and explain that to logicians how their fundamental principle(s) is flawed.

Physics doesn't prove or disprove logical principles. I don't think it can, by definition. It uses them as tools. — T Clark

I don't think physics proves or disproves logical principles either. I think physics uses logical principles to make physical proofs. I'm asking about the tool (logic), not the machine (physics) that is being worked upon.

Physics would be important to philosophy (the logical branch thereof) if a cadre returned from an assault on logic having found it to be wanting. Likewise, they would be important to philosophy (the logical branch thereof) if they returned with a sock the logicians had never found. In the latter case, the logician might simply say "I told you so." And that is true, they did. Be they did not prove it. The mode of travel can matter. I used to be jealous of those people who, after my long cognitive slog to a place, I find already there, having arrived on the wings of intuition. But then I remember I have found along my way; the truth is often counterintuitive. While others may wonder what took me so long, I’d rather arrive knowing what I don’t know. We may be in agreement; we may be in the same place. But if I must have company, I choose those who arrive by foot.

Do you know enough about physics to know whether the evaluation you are discussing is already being done? Do you know what the fundamental principles underlying current physics are? I guess what it comes down to is, do you know enough about modern physics to be able to ask the question "What's the matter with modern physics?" — T Clark

Would you recognize a sock if they showed you one? — T Clark

Physics is not the question. The question is logic. I'm assuming physicists are abiding science, and it's traditional adherence to the fundamental principles of logic. It is the principles of logic that I question. If I am wrong on that, and physicists have found a sock, then yes, since it is a logic sock they would have found, I would recognize it. But I've not heard of it. I came here, to a logic forum, in search of it. So far, no joy.

On the other hand, if physics or any other study for that matter, had disproved a fundamental principle of logic in pursuit of their own inquiries, I think it would have been Earth-shaking news that rocked the world. Again, I've not heard of it. I suspect I would not have to come here looking if it existed. But crickets.

I've always appreciated the cartoonist and their ability to reduce a complex issue to one or a few cells. I cannot draw for the life of me. But if I could, I would imagine this: A parade down the middle of a boulevard, the leader of which would be a King, a crown on his head and scepter in hand, buck-naked and the word "Logic" on his crown. All the many people line the way, with high acclaim for his wonderful clothing. A little boy points and asks "Momma, why is the King naked?" To which his mother responds "But he is not! He has a beautiful, regal outfit!"

Edited to add: It could be any area of study, not just physics. I chose physics because their inability, but desire to marry two theories is, I think fundamentally important to philosophy.

You've lost me a bit. Is this cadre going back to reevaluate the underlying assumptions in order to find why we can't reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics? — T Clark

Yes. That's what I would like to know is being done. If there is a group of smart people going backwards, instead forwards, to the very beginning, with the goal of launching an all out assault on the fundamental principles they thought were in stone, re-testing to make sure they are indeed in stone, and infallible, and that their comrades at the front, pushing forward with physics, are still on the right track, then I would sleep better at night. I'd prefer if these people were some of those who have been to the front, and who have run into a contemporary wall in physics, so they can know their exercise is not merely academic. I want their heart in it.

I know I am certainly not qualified to do more than simply say "prove it" when logic trots out "self-evidence" or "can't prove a negative" as it's sole response to my challenge. I would hope that people smarter than me would either upend the principles or, if the principles are sound, then at least come forward with something better than anecdote, or something akin to "Well, Jim, if you don't agree, I can't talk to you any more."

To hearken back to a previous post, if the principles hold, I would hope they'd at least return from their ventures and show me a sock. And in anticipatory argument, that sock would be a proof, and that proof would not merely be anecdote; and that proof would not merely reference to how frustrating, difficult, or impossible life would be if we had to place chess with those who don't know our rules.

Maybe I'm lost again. Those entities - matter, time, particles, etc. - are physical phenomena we have observed or at least are trying to observe. They are not logical entities. What rules are you throwing out again? — T Clark

Those physical phenomena are aspects of the two theories that, to date, have not been wed. I'm suggesting the failure to wed them could be, at least in part, due to the approach to the phenomena being based entirely on logical entities (gentlemen's agreement) that have not yet themselves been proven and which could thus be inadequate to the task. Maybe the rules being used really aren't the rules.

What if the frustrating place we find ourselves is due our having adopted a premise that should not have been agreed upon in the first place? As an analogy, Socrates' (Phaedo) discussion of the corporeal versus his discussion of the perfect soul; it's not unlike logic being corporeal (of this world), whereas the perfect soul is "All" and not so limited. Maybe reality is the opponent moving chess pieces around the board in violation of all the rules the body thinks it knows. Perhaps those who fail to play by corporeal rules know multiple, infinite worlds that we have not fathomed. It would seem to me the answer *might* start with the all out assault on what we think we know and how we got here.

Your advice on quotes, and how to do them, was much needed. I had early on thought to educate myself on this but I was too intimidated or lazy to research the features of the board and how that was done. Your concise placement here is greatly appreciated.

In conclusion, I just came here looking for a sock.

When reading the OP, I could not help but to think of Mother Nature. My mind did not run to "people on people" or any evil that might be seen arising from exploration of each other. Rather, it seems that Nature imposed upon us, and every other living thing, long before we stood upright, the need to produce. When you say "no one chose" then I guess yes, no "one" chose if by "one" you mean people.

However, Nature chose. You don't produce, you die, and in death you will produce for that which consumes you. The fact that we may likewise impose upon each other to produce is, well, natural. I don't see evil in it. And to resist that imposition is also natural.

"Enlightened self-interest" is supposed to check any evil, just as it does in Nature. Apparently, to date anyway, bread and circuses have stayed the hand of lady razor. But she, or Nature, will catch up when self-interest is no longer enlightened enough to protect itself.

We fancy ourselves above Nature. Well then, we must enlighten ourselves, or Nature will do it for us.

It's probably been said before, but I'd say a real philosopher is a lover of wisdom. I'd say wisdom is curiosity, and curiosity manifests itself as a question. A real philosopher loves questions, and the true essence of philosophy is a tolerance for answers, but only so long as they raise more questions.

Edited to add: I have a spiel about toxic masculinity that talks about strong/weak and wise/stupid. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll talk about wise/stupid. I say that it is impossible for wise to complain about stupid. When one who is perceived to be wise is complaining about someone he/she perceives to be stupid, they are exhibiting stupidity. This is toxic.

In the academic environment, it is the teacher who, through Socratic dialogue, encourages a student to walk himself into a corner where he slaps himself for everyone's entertainment. This is using logic as a weapon. It can also be used in non-academic environments.

Whereas true wisdom asks each and every single question with a sincere intellectual curiosity, in the hopes the answer might be enlightening and lead to more questions. Thus, while degrees and pieces of paper might represent investment of time and resources, it is the motivation behind the next question which controls, in my mind, whether or not one is a philosopher.

Thanks, T Clark. That was an enjoyable and enlightening read.

When I say "I think the failure of physicists to marry General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is due to their stipulation to the Principles of Logic which they think are required to allow them to converse", my thought is not based on specific knowledge, or even a perfect understanding of how physicists converse, but, rather, on supposition. I assume that physicists abide the advice of tim wood, above, regarding tools and the proper use thereof. And I assume that abidance is the cause of their failure.

In following tim wood's advice, I've tried to go back to the beginning (the fundamental principles of logic) and check to make sure they stand up to more than a simple "gentleman's agreement" made to allow us all to make our way in this world, unhindered by uncomfortable, counterintuitive truths.

I was taught that in logical argument, the parties must chase all the premises back to that point upon which everyone is agreed before they can go forward (i.e. the beginning or a fork in the path). I'm simply refusing to agree with logic's premise, and demanding that it meet its burden of proof with more than a "because I said so." Perhaps I'm just not a gentleman.

I get there because I always get a "Duh!" feeling in my gut whenever I hear how quantum theory has come up with some new idea, like spooky action at a distance, for example. It seems to me that if my a priori truth (as you defined such truths above) were to be accepted, if all the tools were tossed, and all the rules were broken, and we started anew with my understanding of All, then "Duh!" would be the wedding of the two camps.

One might argue such a definition of All would have our brains fall out in open mindedness; we could not converse or make our way in the world. Even if that were true, I see no harm in assigning a small cadre of physicists to look into it. After all, it seems to be their camp which is frustrated. While they are skipping along their investigative way forward, they might send a party back to make sure they didn’t get off the trail at the beginning. Of course, by my definition of All, there would be nothing wrong with that if they did. Indeed, it would be necessary. It would not even be a waste of time to waste their time.

But if my definition of All were correct, I don’t think it means our brains would fall out or we couldn’t converse. I just think people smarter than me (physicists) would have some “AHA!” moments we could all enjoy and benefit from after the dutiful dumbing down for public consumption.

All the foregoing, and my tossing out the rules, had me generating what I thought were interesting opinions on particle physics, singularities, matter, dark matter, energy, dark energy, and time. But I’d sure like to nail down why I’m wrong about my foundation before I continue building on it.

Anyway, thank you for your gracious and understanding response. It is impossible for wise to complain about stupid. And, while you might have made fun of me and I’m just too stupid to know it (not saying you did; it’s just that it flew over my head, as it was probably supposed to, if indeed you did), at least you didn’t complain. A soft broke horse is a better horse.