In your previous writings you state that the universe is both infinite and eternal. On what do you base that? 

So why you make dogmatic statements like the infinity of the universe?

1) Precisely, how is the universe known to be infinite/eternal? It seems to me that whether this is known purely through ‘common sense’ reasoning without a PCE or whether it takes a PCE to become obvious is unclear. 2) Can I know merely by using common sense (without a PCE) that the universe is infinite/eternal – despite the currently prevailing scientific theories? If so – how could I know it? 3) Could I have a PCE and it still not be completely evident that the universe is infinite/eternal?  Do I have to somehow turn my attention to that fact in a PCE – or is it always a datum of experience in the PCE?

I don’t actually care whether a creator exists or whether the universe is expanding, or whether it originated with the Big Bang or whether it has always existed and will always exist in steady state. All of these possibilities are perfectly consistent with what I have experienced in PCEs and ASCs, and to tie the value of a PCE (and Actualism) to a particular model of the universe is just stupid, from where I stand. If time, space and matter originated in the Big Bang, Actualism is no longer relevant? PCEs are no longer valuable? There is no longer a possibility of freedom from the ‘human condition’, of liberating the human mind from the bonds of the instinctual passions that keep us living in confusion and misery? No longer a possibility of delighting in being here, and doing nothing to prevent another person’s delight in being here? It’s just plain silly to tie Actualism up to a particular world view.

Richard, an uncluttered space in which to clarify some key issues: What is your basis for claiming that the universe is infinite and eternal? With regard to attaining ‘actual freedom from the human condition’, does it matter whether the universe is infinite and eternal? If time, space and matter had begun with a ‘Big Bang’, would PCE’s still be possible? Would ‘actual freedom’ from the human condition still be possible?

I am still at a loss to understand how or why a relativistic universe and a universe in which space and time are absolute would present themselves any differently to the human senses. Regardless of whether one is having a PCE or not, if there is no discernible difference between the ways in which a relativistic and non-relativistic universe would present themselves to the senses under ordinary circumstances here on Earth (and indeed that is what relativity would predict), precisely what faculty is it that allows an actualist to say with certainty: space and time are absolute?

Concerning the distinction between ASC and PCE and taking into account that you experientially (via direct perception) know that this Universe is infinite, I wonder if it is not consciousness that let you know this to be a fact. I don’t think you have arrived at this thanks to one of your senses. I do intellectually understand that the universe is infinite (the spear analogy) but I also experientially know the limits of our intellect.

Another point is that you are saying that the universe always was existing. So you are speaking about something that has not being created but although always existing. So you reject the law of cause and effect for the first time in human logic. Not even something create it’s own self, because this is absurd, for something to create it’s own self must exist prior of it’s own creation, which is absurd. Where is space for oblivion then?

How about the infinite always being a finite concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and a negation? (Look at your own proof of the infinity of the universe.) How about Olbers paradox? These two things just for starters.