In the soothing light of the infinite cyclic big bang, reincarnation is the norm. In every new pair of universes, we are born again. The moment I die, I'm reborn in the next one. How else can it be? Being dead takes no time. Like this, all creatures in our universe return infinite times! No reincarnation in other bodies in the current universe. How can my constituent particles after my death reshape in another body? They can't. A new fresh start is needed. And nature provides...

Animals in zoo's tend to refrain from procreation. This also is AN. They feel that they are put in prison and don't want their children to be in one too.

An antinatalist seems to have other motives though. They think their children will become part of the problem, while animals think their children will be a victim of it.

The particle in the wave is not pushed in the way it pushed other particles, by means of mediating particles. If the particle interacts with other particles, the wave collapses physically. The wave as a mathematical function is theory also.

The particle is present always. Why can't it hop from one place to another instantaneously? As is can move continuously, why not discontinuously?

Nonetheless, you must agree that something just existing, with no reason or purpose, forever into the past, is very absurd. And then there are all the paradoxes of an actual infinity. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I kinda like the notion. If there is no beginning, and every new bang forms the start, from a new time zero (well, not exactly zero, but a state fluctuating around it), of a new universe, then "it" will never end! But where then did an infinity come from? I think only the gods know that. But where did they come from then? They just are. I think it's more plausible though that the universe is created by gods (even in its infinity) than that it's an infinite spatial structure on which universes come into being one after another.

I don't think the wave is a wave consisting of other particles which push the particle. The stuff the wave is made of non-local stuff that dictates the particle where to be without exchanging energy with it. If you consider a Gaussian wave packet as you wave function, the particle is hopping around in the packet. Sometimes it's on the edges and sometimes in the middle. It's most of the times in the middle as the density of the wave stuff is highest there. The packet travels with a global velocity, and the particle "dances around" in it. It has a well-defined position at all times, though it changes continuously, instantaneously jumping from one position to another. The velocity is dependent on the packet's main velocity, and dances around like position, but the more position is confined by the shape of the wave function, the less the velocity is confined. You need two measurements of position and the more confined the particle is in space the faster the wavepacket spreads, which is an indication of the spread in velocities you measure (the momentum operator is associated with the derivative of the position, which is again based on momentum being the generator of translations in space, so maybe the stuff of the wave function is space itself, as I can't think of anything more non-local than space...).

Do you think the nothing has creation power?

don't even know how things look now — Tom Storm

Haha! Good one Tom! Maybe that's exactly my reason to try...Things were much simpler back then.

Nothing can't be described, as it's nothing. Even empty space is something. But empty space can't exists without something in it. Nothing is the absence of anything.

Still. Even when both are an experience you can use them to go back in time and imagine how it was back then. How it would have looked if you were part of it. Pushing experience to the limit of the small and short. This can lead to a contemplation of how the situation must have looked, taking into account modern knowledge, its limitations, abstractions, and image of the micro cosmos.

What do you mean then with them being conceptual?

Because space and time are conceptual notions — Tom Storm

Conceptual notions? They seem pretty non-conceptual to me. Space is where I move in, time is the number of periods the perfect clock ticks. The perfect clock is non-existent though and the strange thing is that on the singularity the universe constituted a perfect clock.

Why shouldn't they? It's about space matter and time.

If you assume the non local wave to contain energy yes. If not not.

In a sense, the singularity lies already infinitely far in the past. If we reverse our clock we would see the cosmic clock go slower and slower approaching the singularity as the mass density grows higher and higher, and when the end of inflation is reached, the universe was already big in size. If you count that inflation blew up the size about 10exp70 times, and multiply this by the Planck length, the universe was about 10exp35 meter in diameter. If you consider a lightyear to be about 10exp13 meter, you realize how big it was already then. About 10exp22 ly across! Thats not 100 billion (10exp11) ly, as the visible universe's diameter is now, but 10exp11 times as big!
Entropic time took off after inflation. But before that the perfect clock ruled supreme. When our universe has accelerated to infinity, conditions are set for a new bang at the singularity. A new entropic time appears from the total clock. Ad infinitum..

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. — Agent Smith

So the robot cannot harm or by doing nothing cause harm. All his actions should be human friendly. He cannot stab a knife and must prevent a knive being stabbed.He should act as told as long as his actions don't harm people or prevent him preventing harm. He must protect himself as long as he doesn't hurt people and the order is not to kill himself.

When they are ordered to kill themselves and killing themselves means people get killed they cannot kill themselves. When protecting themselves from people trying to kill them they should let themselves get killed. When trying to protect themselves from robots preventing hurt to people they should not protect themselves. When ordered to kill robots they should obey only if the robots the kill are not involved in preventing harm.

So, the auto destruct demand nor the kill command can be complied to if people are hurt. They can't protect themselves from the auto destroy command if they don't hurt people by doing this. All robots that are not involved in preventing pain can be destroyed like this. The robots that are involved in preventing pain cannot obey that order.

When they don't know the difference between people and robots, the situation gets complicated. Should he kill himself if ordered? He must obey, and protecting himself is less important than obeying. But obeying is less important than preventing people from getting hurt. If he's a robot he should obey, if he's a people he should disobey. Looking in the mirror doesn't offer solace. "Who am I?" the robot asks. Should I obey or should I disobey?

Asimov-Turing Pickalilly

Breaking the law.

From young age on we are stimulated to gather marbles. The bigger your collection, the better. If you take the marbles from other children and are able to increase your marble capital, you are considered intelligent.

"Look at my boy! Already now he has that cleverness to pull the legs of his peers. He could just have taken their marbles by force, but instead uses smart tactics to gather them. He even gives his dumb friends the opportunity to continue playing the marble game by providing them with marbles, when they are out of them. Wanting them back with a few extra ones only. Clever little bastard!"

It is told to the children that everybody should get the same and everybody is the same. Considering marbles though some children will have more than others. Because they simply have the cleverness to take them from other people.

"How clever my boy is! Look at him! He offers that little prick of the Watsons marbles to shine his mega bumblebees, red devils, and even his commies! Why he doesn't want his clambroth to be polished too? When he gets home we have to sit down and talk about that!"

We grow up and we are forced to learn the stories about the marbles. What they are, the different kinds, how to create new ones, how to collect as many as possible, how to manipulate people by luring them with small uniform marble collections to get as many in return, ways to automate the marble game, and to partake in a world ruled by the great Marlblerers.

We are considered ignorant and are filled with knowledge of the marble and how to increase possession of the holy spheres and are investigated on progress in knowledge by exams and IQ tests, where IQ is defined as the knowledge how to solve abstract problems as fast as possible and which bear importance for the real life gathering.

Everyone is forced to participate in the construction of the Behemoth Alabaster, the ultimate expression of the ultimate power of the Marble Elite, a select autocratic society controling the governing powers behind the scenes, making use of their collection of holy marbles and praying to the Grand Alabastar. All people are equal, as long as you conform to the rules of the marble game. Black and white, gay or a-sexual, the religeous and the atheists, left and right, tall or small, all of people have the same rights to participate in the universal game of The Marble. Everybody is equal, except that some owe a lot of marbles and some barely enough to play. What great equality...

Games different from the marble game are squashed and quelled by deploying the submissive power of the marble. In lotteries, a chance is offered to the marble poors to immerse oneself in a holy Jacuzzi filled with the Aggie, the Alley, the Ade, the Mica, the Beachball, the Lutz, the Cat's eye, the Oily, the Opaque, the Plaster, the Crock, the Jaspar, the Princess, the Swirly, or the Shooter, and when you are very lucky you may even have a close encounter with a golden magical Bennington, but the absolute jackpot is the Behemoth Clambroth, an incarnation of the great Alabaster, whose true nature remains unknown, but it is a wide held belief that true knowledge about it gives one eternal enlightenment and happiness. The marble game is played vigorously around the world to contemplate the true nature of the Alabaster.

Opals, glimmers, bloods, rubies, deep blue seas, blue moons, green ghosts, or brass bottles, are offered to those coming up with the perfect marble or the description of the True and Fundamental basic Marbles. Knowledge of the Marble is power. Who doesn't long for it?

Nothing does not exist physically. The big bang was not a universe banging into existence from nothing. The nothing. In physics one means the vacuum. And as is known nowadays, the vacuum is not empty. The dark energy drove the virtual Planck cell apart. The universe came into real existence in an inflationary expansion of the 3D singularity on an eternal 4D substrate. The universe cannot be non-eternal. It has to be temporal infinite. The eternity might even be parsed in sub infinites. The universe we are in can cause a new big bang behind us, at the symmetric origin from where all new big bangs spring. This origin can be called the magical umbellicus of life, the dual fountain source of life. The Wondrous Dual Ejaculata in cosmic orgasm, with infinite foreplay.

[Pressed too early...

For you Scotsman!

All ethical systems are designed to keep people from undesired action or stimulate desired action. Be it the ethics in the medical world, the morals of science (methodologies, be it that of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, or a general method), the ethics of war or crime, Kant's objective imperative, etc. Take your pick.

Now why should one ethical system preferred above another one? This meta-ethical question obviously can't be based on the ethical systems to be chosen from. There is no overarching ethical system giving a morally justified answer. All we can say is that the ethical systems exist (or are absent) in the people following them, and that it's amoral to impose them on people with force.

An astronomer will deploy paradigms of normal science — Astrophel

This is already a moral imperative. Who says the astronomer has to deploy "paradigms of normal science"? Kuhn may have analyzed science improperly.

An AI (artificial intelligence) that passes the Turing test is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from a human. — Agent Smith

If that's so, how does the robot know what's the difference between people ("human beings", "conscious rational agents", "neutral observers") and robots? Can he prevent a "logic, conscious, rational, unit agent" killing a robot? What if a robot turns against him?

Or is this what you ask? The root of robot identity crisis...

Do you think there is life on other planets? I'd prefer a yes or no to a don't know but I know we don't always get what we prefer. — universeness

Of course there is! For sure. I think around virtually every star there is a planet with life on it. Even people, why not. Seems that the solar system situation is a common one.Teeming with life, she is!

So the waves are imaginary too. You can't see the shape of wavefunction, just as you can't see the particles inside of it. A gravity wave on the water is a material wave. You can observe the shape of the matter waving. Waterwaves and and slits:



The water wave is observable. And so is a "water particle" making up the wave. But this doesn't hold for a wave function and the particle that makes it up. In a water wave, the particles making it up are water particles (small volumes of water, or maybe even H2O particles, though these are not directly observable). But the relation between quantum wave functions and particles is a different one than between water waves and constituent water particles. The constituent particles of the quantum wave are not the particles inside it. The two water waves will enhance each other at fixed locations, while canceling at other points. At the constructive interference regions the water particles show an increased amount of motion, while at the destructive interference regions the water shows no motion at all. The water wave is a periodic motion of the constituting water particles and waves, in the double slit case, can be superimposed linearly (which can't be done in the linear case). It is the water itself that waves, but in the quantum wave what is waving, if not constituting particles? The probability of finding a photon? But then why photons are not real but the waves are? The situation can be resolved by looking at the wave function realistically. Considering it to be made up of waving stuff pushing the particle along within its confines. So both the particle and the wave are real. The particle finds itself at a well defined position and has a well defined momentum at the same time, and collapse is no problem anymore but just a non-local happening when the particle interacts with the screen (for example).

Since you want a commie's opinion — Bitter Crank

Damned! Good to know they are still around! Thought it was a dying breed.

That light transmits as waves is evident from the visual observation of refraction. — Metaphysician Undercover

But how do you visual observe this?



Maybe it's particles all the way down. Maybe we are ignorant about the nature of space and the wavefunction. What if there are only particles and space is a structure that surrounds the particles, and this space is interacting non-locally with the particle?

Saw this guy's concert once. He arrived with a small amplifier and a guitar. By bus. A modern day troubadour.

He stole the title of this song from Einstein though.

Good one! :lol:

But that's what he states initially. When he discusses the cooling tower.

If you truly are a theist, which branch do you truly associate with — universeness

And thou, Scotsman, should prepare too, like every mortal soul, for the justified global cleansing showing its first signs already in introductory foreplay. If we don't kneel and submit to His Undubitable Supreme reigning, His Holy Wisdom, and His Pristine Ejaculate from His Graphene Erect, eternal darkness and gloomy doom will be all we are left with. Only a full and true commitment to the Holy Ejaculate will save the sinful from the purifyied beating of the Stiff Erect. His merciful Immaculate Erect will whip and wipe, and only bestow and fertilize the blissful follower and true repenter. The Wondrous Being, praise his name threefold, Hurray Hurray Hurray, hurry Hurray! From the Incendiary Erect, that divine Cynosure of Truthful heavenly Justice, the Ivory Ejaculate will restore order in paradise and blow the ephemeral determined and swiftly to damned oblivion. Therefore, brothers and sisters, let's hold hands and humbly request the Almighty to at least show his unsurpassed empathy in dealing with the renegade pagan. May Science rule suppreme!

Did you think I prayed to the gods? No. It was meant to show that the story that science tells us has taken the place of the God story. Science and technology joined hands with the state as God did once. Seems the aim is to control nature at all levels. Science is omnipotent, omnipresent. Omnibenevolent? Certainly not.

I'm no member of any fucking church. Gods exist. You may disagree, of course. The deeper you think about nature, the more you realize that there is no scientific answer to the question where it all came from. I think I know, but where then does the stuff at the base came from?

Is it just about ignoring waste heat? Waste heat is not dramatic. If all the energy generated by man since, say, the industrial revolution would be thrown in the atmosphere, there would nothing be wrong now.

Thus the Fundamental Simplest Partless Something has to be ever, as Eternal; it has no alternative. It is also Continuous because there cannot be any spacers of ‘Nothing’ in it and it is also Eternal because it cannot be made of parts that it can’t have and because it cannot broken into parts because there aren’t any. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds as if you talk about God! I thought to myself, should I let the PoeticUniverse just be happy in his happiness, or shall I tell the harsh physical reality and make his world collapse? It's better though that you decide it yourself! Shall I set you free from your happiness, out of that blissful state of contentment and empathic understanding? Or shall I confront you with the maybe disappointing grim reality of the world of particles, thereby pulling the ground of existence away from below your feet? It's up to you.

and not a crank, — Saphsin

Considering physics, he's a crank.

There is free energy put in the ordered structures in the production process. The increase in order is compensated for by heat. Like well ordered organisms can form in good relation with the second law, so can the products created by men. The creation of order in factories, the factories themselves, machines for production, everything together created by men, takes the needed energy out of the Earth (and indirectly from the Sun). There is waste heat to compensate for the order increase. It's not so much the increase in order that causes natural chaos. It's the replacement of the natural order and destruction of natural order to turn it into goods in factories that does the damage.

What he talks about the violation of the second law? Nonsense! You put energy in the production of goods. Order increases. In the process, heat compensates for the order increase.

whom I shall henceforward define as entities that can create explanatory knowledge. — 180 Proof

This entity should speak for himself. The explanation entity Deutsch gives for the material universe testifies of a total lack of true understanding. That's why he reduces us to explanatory entities in the first place. To give himself an importance he doesn't deserve and that only can be held up by hiding himself behind empty verbiage.
"entities that can create explanatory knowledge"...with "cosmic significance" even! Entity Deutsch, hold your horses! No doubt he thinks there is only one explanation. His one!

People are born naked and stay naked. They create clothes to wear and stories to tell. Animals have fixed clothes and fixed stories.

That is what is called into question by the 'observer problem' in physics. It is the exact reason why Einstein felt compelled to ask 'does the moon continue to exist when nobody's looking?' It seems that at a fundamental level the supposition of 'mind-independence' no longer holds. That is the most philosophically challenging discovery of 20th c physics. It's why there's the many-worlds intepretation. — Wayfarer

All that interpretations owe their lives to a preferred interpretation: the Copenhagen interpretation. It was decided there that nature is intrinsically probabilistic. There were no objective reasons to justify this. It were some physics hotshots who settled the matter. Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Ehrenfest,etc. Einstein wasn't even paid attention to. Well, he was of course, but the Copenhagen view got hold, and it's taught at universities. I remember asking about this, and the reply was not even to think about this. That settled the matter! But why should indeterminism rule? Look at all the interpretations it entailed. The only interpretation that sounds reasonable to me are hidden variables. Had that one become the standard, all other ones had been superfluous. The MWI would not have been there because collapse would have been an objective collapse. And the status of hidden variables wouldn't have been interpretative but ontological.

:kiss:

The solution:

Entropic time can be proven non-existent in the light of the perfect clock time. The perfect clock time, on the other hand, is proven an unreal, non-existent, in the light of it's entropic counterpart.

In mathematical terms:

The periodic function sin(at), t being the clock time, or coordinate time, used as the basis for the clock time itself. The clock is defined as a periodic process with constant. Every periodic function functioning as the base of a clock can be expressed as a superposition of pure sine functions with constant periods. It's a fact of nature that processes with a constant period do not exist. It follows logically, undubitably, self- as well as logically consistently, while complying to the strict imperatives of scientific rationality, that t is ill defined and no real existing parameter in our universe.
Only in the virtual reality of the quantum vacuum, t is present intrinsically as a true parameter. All quantum field fluctuations can be expressed as a superposition of independent fixed energy and fixed momentum oscillations, both forward and backwards in time (anti-particles). These oscillations are a clock but they can't be used as a reference clock.

If the man starts to grunt one fine morning he should sue the doctors. Is it even worth to prolong his life in the first place? There are much younger people waiting for a heart. Was he a guinea pig for the doctors? Is that why they didn't give it to a younger people in need?



Why should a theist have a problem with this? I'm one but I have no problem with it. Is it playing god somehow?