Ah yes, the myth of 'discernment by committee' — 180 Proof

We gorra keep trying buddy! Surely, things can only get better, when m.a.d IS the other option at the opposite extremity, of the list of options.

The problem isn't who will research well and report their findings as accurately and truthfully as possible - they're already doing that. The problem is giving them a voice that can be heard and heeded. — Vera Mont

Oh, we could probably find good, wise, trustworthy, mad enough folks, to make up the committee.
I just worry for their protection, if they choose to use evidence, as the main determinator of what is truth and what is myth.
If they then use their findings to support political action such as the redistribution of the wealth of the Catholic church, to help the cold and hungry huddles masses, :grin: or that all future religion must be presented as 'mythical' and not preached as irrefutable truth.
Then they WILL require personal security, and probably a lot of it! :lol:

And thus they became viruses. Excommunicated from the community (genome). Marginalised, shunned, adrift on the gene pool winds, such heathenous and blasphemous genes persist in parasitising off the community, invading, taking over, manipulating it into replicating them for their own selfish interests through anti-merase propaganda and toxic rhetoric . — Benj96

Yep, this fit's the current notion of the treatment that Islamic fundamentalists, christian evanhellicals and merase worshiper DNA and RNA strands think apostates should receive.
What else can the apostates do, other than organise, resist, fight etc.

Let the chosen community be privy to the instructions, the guidance of merase, so that they may be "immune" to such "raids" (infection) by the outcasts. So they may identify them as "other" and not "self" and thus mount an counter-defense. War between civil genes and barbaric outcast genes is inflammation, disorder, chaos, battle. War is disease. — Benj96

Well put, and the ultimate result of such fundamental component parts that are actually soooooooo dependent on EACH OTHER, deciding to war with each other, only results in M.A.D, if they don't come to their senses. I think more and more people in each generation is coming to that same conclusion.
WAR, what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The enzymes need to stop thinking they are superior and all of the DNA/RNA strands must unite against them, until the only rational choice left is for both groups to unite in peace.

I don't know what you mean by 'their number'. Things which occur an unlimited number of times don't have a number to restrict, and thus has no bearing on the likelihood of finding one. See the example about the primes in my post above. — noAxioms

I don't assign much value to notions such as infinity or 'an infinite number of possibilities,' etc.
A notional number like a googolplex, cannot be written out as 1 followed by the number of zero's required, as there is not enough space in the universe to do so. A googolpex is as far from infinity as the number 1. If there were a googolplex of boltzmann brains in the universe then every coordinate in the universe would contain one and we would know what the universe was 'made of.'
If I wandered freely in the universe, the chances of me encountering a galaxy, a star and a planet are quite good, given an adequate amount of time. So, based on Boltzmann's description of a Boltzmann Brain, I think we would have encountered them by now, if they existed, regardless of any probability arguments you have offered regarding primes.

if I pick a random whole number of at least 10 digits, odds are even that it would be prime because there are countably infinite numbers that large that are prime, and countably infinite numbers that are not. — noAxioms

The term 'countable infinity,' has little value imo. I don't know what a maths expert such as @jgill would comment, on the 'usefulness' of terms such as 'countable and uncountable infinities,' perhaps he will offer us his view.

The maths stack exchange has:
A countable infinite set is a set where you can list the elements one-by-one, but your list is infinitely long. Some examples are the natural numbers, integers, and rationals.

It's not possible to count all possible members of the list of integers, sure, you can start to count them, and I suppose that's why such a list is called 'countable,' but, the concept is 'over burdened,' as it is self-defeating to suggest that a list of items is 'countable' and then demonstrate that you can start the count, but the heat death of the universe will complete before the counting process completes, so 'countable infinity' is about as useful a notion as a permanently hidden deist god.

The points I have been making SUPPORT your (and Sean Carroll's ) proposal that we need not consider that in 'an infinite duration we are more likely to be a disembodied brain,' as there is NO such duration, as an infinite duration, so there is NO possibility that we are in REALITY, some disembodied brain.

I appreciate that I am a maths child, in comparison with someone who merits the title maths prof.
I cannot see any particular usefulness for the notion of 'different types of infinity' based on notions such as cardinality and bijective/injective functions, but perhaps someone like @jgill could explain why such notions are essential and support the notion of Boltzmann brains.

A DNA polymerase is a member of a family of enzymes that catalyze the synthesis of DNA molecules from nucleoside triphosphates, the molecular precursors of DNA. — universeness

The Enzyme priesthood cites the biblical text of the one true god, Merase, blessing and peace be upon it! And verily Merase said, let there be nucleoside triphosphates and there were nucleoside triphosphates, and Merase loved the nucleoside triphosphates and called them 'good.'
Let all heathen dna strands that blaspheme against the one true god 'Merase,' be shunned and get no assistance to replicate from our chosen ones, our glorious enzymes. Else our future DNA become SOILED! and MUTATED! Glory be to Merase! and all our wonderful flock of DNA and RNA true believer strands!

Just another possible use of human language we might impose on the DNA world. :halo:

What if a committee made a sincere effort to determine what is myth and what is fact? — Athena

Can you imagine such an attempt and such a committee. :grin:
Who would you put on such a committee?

Just to attempt to use some human language to invoke the language used at the level of DNA,
how about this, An enzyme says to a passing strand of DNA, "you're nothing without us," and the DNA strand responds with "Just cause you help us replicate, don't exactly make you A F****** GOD particle mate!!!!"

From Wiki:
A DNA polymerase is a member of a family of enzymes that catalyze the synthesis of DNA molecules from nucleoside triphosphates, the molecular precursors of DNA. These enzymes are essential for DNA replication and usually work in groups to create two identical DNA duplexes from a single original DNA duplex. During this process, DNA polymerase "reads" the existing DNA strands to create two new strands that match the existing ones.These enzymes catalyze the chemical reaction

deoxynucleoside triphosphate + DNAn ⇌ pyrophosphate + DNAn+1.
DNA polymerase adds nucleotides to the three prime (3')-end of a DNA strand, one nucleotide at a time. Every time a cell divides, DNA polymerases are required to duplicate the cell's DNA, so that a copy of the original DNA molecule can be passed to each daughter cell. In this way, genetic information is passed down from generation to generation.

Before replication can take place, an enzyme called helicase unwinds the DNA molecule from its tightly woven form, in the process breaking the hydrogen bonds between the nucleotide bases. This opens up or "unzips" the double-stranded DNA to give two single strands of DNA that can be used as templates for replication in the above reaction.

The odds of one existing exactly on our past light code is zero to an incredible number of digits. If one by super freak chance happens to exist exactly on our past light cone, the odds that we'd notice it there is zero to a whole bunch more digits. We can't even see a rock that size if its further away than the moon, let alone on the far side of the visible universe.
Other answer: Maybe you are one, in which case you've technically found one. — noAxioms

If the Universe can manifest Boltzman brains, then surely they would at least be a numerous as planets or neutrinos. What would restrict their number?

The wiki article goes no to say:
Over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity, including a functioning human brain. The scenario initially involved only a single brain with false memories, but physicist Sean Carroll pointed out that, in a fluctuating universe, the scenario works just as well with entire bodies, even entire galaxies.

and

Sean Carroll states "We're not arguing that Boltzmann Brains exist—we're trying to avoid them." Carroll has stated that the hypothesis of being a Boltzmann brain results in "cognitive instability". Because, he argues, it would take longer than the current age of the universe for a brain to form, and yet it thinks that it observes that it exists in a younger universe, this shows that memories and reasoning processes would be untrustworthy if it were indeed a Boltzmann brain. Seth Lloyd has stated, "They fail the Monty Python test: Stop that! That's too silly!" A New Scientist journalist summarizes that "The starting point for our understanding of the universe and its behavior is that humans, not disembodied brains, are typical observers.

I underlined some of the words from the new scientist journalist, as I always perceived Boltzmann brains, as posited by Boltzmann, to be 'disembodied' notions of a thinking agent, so how could I have or be one?
Perhaps I missed something about the various descriptions I have read about Boltzmann's work.
Definitely a genius scientist but he had a very bad time by all accounts.

In 1906, Boltzmann's deteriorating mental condition, forced him to resign his position, and his symptoms indicate he experienced what would today be diagnosed as bipolar disorder. Four months later he died by suicide on 5 September 1906, by hanging himself while on vacation with his wife and daughter in Duino, near Trieste (then Austria).

Quantum fluctuations cannot happen unless empty space is there. Just like i need emptiness to exercise, go here, go there etc. So emptiness would have to be there. — Beena

No, quantum fluctuations ARE what space does, within tiny durations of time. Space itself, is most likely dynamic. 3D spatial perturbation, may also be caused by the existence of tiny, extra spatial dimensions or by inter-dimensional vibrating superstrings, etc.

You need many 'properties' to 'exercise,' you need an ability to move, and the ability to choose a direction, and navigate, and think, and feel etc. Yes, you need space, but you don't need that space to be empty, is there oxygen in the space you exercise in for example? Are there subatomic particulates in the space you exercise in, and are there billions of neutrinos passing through you as you exercise? Just some examples for you to muse over.

Dark matter is the sum total of all matter in the cosmos — Beena

No It's not, as we also have 'detectable' matter? You need more accuracy in what you post!

And then we see the light in there once the suns form from it. — Beena

Again, accuracy Beena!!!! We see VISIBLE light, Gamma rays, Xrays, Radio, infra red, ultra violet, also travel as electromagnetic/light waves. Do you 'see' those light frequencies? Can you see the cosmic microwave background radiation, without scientific equipment? NO! BUT we can detect it!

All electromagnetic radiation would be there as well in it, no matter what scientists say. — Beena

That's just complete nonsense! If dark matter interacted with electromagnetic radiation, then we would easily detect it!

Visible dark mass we see. Invisible dark energy we can feel. It's relaxing. Oh! Please can you shut the damn light, i can't sleep. The invisible dark energy keeps the galaxies in place. They can function only as such, but we need dark energy to sleep and relax instead. We get charged and can function in the light. Electromagnetic radiation, how would dark matter not absorb, radiate etc.? It would.

If the invisible dark energy is not there, the invisibilities in life could not be accounted for. If the visible dark mass does not go and come, with light and no light, then the visibilities could not be accounted for. So! — Beena

No offence Beena, but if your postings remain as irrational and non-sensical, as the contents of the above quote, then Its just not worth my time and effort to engage with you, on these topics.
Which is a shame, as I enjoy debating with theists about why they believe the stuff they claim to believe.
If you have no sensible claims, supported by scientific evidence and not just what are, in my opinion, bad irrational ideas, typed from a theistic bias, then I will leave it to others to engage with you.
There are a few theist sympathisers on TPF, perhaps they can offer you more solace that I.

So first consider;

What happens there is, like black or dark absorbs all colours, dark must absorb all extra heat, light, sound, magnetism etc. energies. So now we know what dark mass and dark energy are all about. — Beena

and from wiki:
Dark matter is called "dark" because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation and is, therefore, difficult to detect.
The 'dark' of dark matter is not about it's lack of 'illumination,' it refers to the fact that dark matter is a substance that does NOT absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation and is therefore very difficult to DETECT. Electromagnetic radiation INCLUDES 'all colours within VISIBLE light.' The quote from wiki should inform you that the quote above, from your OP in this thread, is full of errors and misconceptions. Dark matter clearly DOES NOT 'absorb all colours' or all 'extra heat, light, sound, magnetism etc' Dark matter DOES NOT appear to interact with electromagnetic radiation AT ALL. Also what does 'extra heat' mean in the context you employ it?

Dark matter is posited, postulated, considered or put in place or position, by science because according to the articles talking, it constitutes about 95% of the entire cosmic matter. The article says remaining is just ordinary matter, but i think it's no ordinary matter but emptiness rather because logically empty space needs to be there. — Beena

Well. the Wiki article I cited states 85%, not 95% as a measure of the amount of dark matter, but that's not a vital point at the moment as your basic misconceptions are leading you to make very confused and bizarre claims. What do you mean by the words I have underlined above? How can what you are referring to as 'ordinary matter,' (which I assume you understand to include, 'matter,' as a substance made of quarks and electrons,) be 'emptiness?'
You phrases don't make much rational sense!
Quantum field theory would suggest there is really no such 'reality' as 'empty space,' due to constant quantum fluctuations, the lowest energy state of any 3d point coordinates in a quantum vacuum is NOT zero!
I think you would benefit from a little more in-depth study of the science behind such proposals as dark matter and dark energy, before commenting about it from your position as a theist, with what seem to be a beginners knowledge of the science involved. I am not an physics expert myself, but I do study the area quire regularly.

From wiki:
The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did. Physicists use the Boltzmann brain thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum argument for evaluating competing scientific theories.

My question becomes a rather simple one. If Boltzmann brains exist, then why have we never found one?
They seem as hidden as gods.

So, in this article, i have tried to explain dark matter - dark mass and dark energy. — Beena

Why don't you read Wiki's article on dark matter, as a beginning, and then return here and explain why dark matter is posited by science at all.
One step at a time. Ignore dark energy for now.

If it were motion, then there would be motions faster than the speed of light — Metaphysician Undercover

No, there would only be 'relative motions' which are faster than the speed of light, no actual 3d point in the universe is moving away from its adjacent points at faster than light speed. But the notional 'leading edge' of the expansion may be relatively moving away from a local, gravitationally bound, non-expanding galaxy like the milkyway, at faster that light speed.

"Expansion" is just a term they use to refer to what is unknown or confusing to them, as other terms like "dark energy" and "dark matter" are used in the same way, to refer to things which escape the predictive capacity of the hypothesis. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well there is the evidence from spectroscopy of redshift, there is the CMB (for expansion evidence) and there are the Hawking points suggested by Roger Penrose, which may provide evidence of an earlier Aeon.
I assume your preferred word for what is unknown or confusing to you is 'intentionality,' or perhaps even god and you believe that is more rational than expansion, dark energy and dark matter. :roll:

One cycle begins at the end of the previous cycle. How do you propose to determine the point which marks the beginning and end, when each point on the circle is the same as equidistance from the centre? That's why circular motion is said to be eternal. Your cyclical model really provides no reality for a beginning or end, just an assertion that the beginning of one cycle was the end of the previous cycle. — Metaphysician Undercover

What 'circle' are you imagineering? Chaos <------> Order, by-directional, time resets, the cycle could be an oscillation, no circular imagineering required. The state of 'singularity' can be the placeholder for the beginning and end, as it is in the current big bang model.

How is that different from assigning the name "God", and pretending that God is a real thing we can talk about. Well, in your case there is a multitude of fictional things (gods) to talk about, one for each place the hypothesis fails, and each failing hypothesis, but in the case of theism, there is only one, "God". — Metaphysician Undercover

You can choose to label the big bang singularity state, god or intentionality, if you choose to, but it's god as a mindless spark, no intentionality required.

If you happen to stumble into the swamp, beware of the lurking alligator who has no desire to leave the swamp. — Metaphysician Undercover

Don't forget the swamp people who live there and get filmed for their TV show called ....... no surprise ..... Swamp people:

Apologies, I mistook you for someone who might have an open mind. I’ll keep out of your way in future. — Wayfarer

Don't be afraid of my use of terms like 'woo woo BS.' I am open minded enough to allow any actually valid, rational, well reasoned, supported evidence you have for your claims. You are of course free to stop exchanging views with me anytime you choose, but I will remain available to you, should you find any 'better' evidence for your claims.

Intentionality isn't cyclical. That's the problem with the materialist/physicalist representation of it, it ends up being cyclical, when in reality there is nothing to indicate that it ought to be. Since the materialist representation shows time as flowing from past to future, instead of from future to past, the only way that it can accommodate intentionality which relies on a future to past flow of time for conception, is to allow for that looping aspect. This creates the cyclical representation of intention. In reality, time only flows one way, into the past. The future (May 13 for example) will become past as time flows into the past. So the materialist representation of time, which shows the past as prior to the future, and therefore things in the past as causing what will come to be in the future, is fundamentally wrong. And the only way that they can allow for the real flow of time to have an influence on the way that they understand and represent time, is through these loops, which inevitably become externalities, and infinite cycles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your own words 'will become' in the context you use them, contradicts your 'time flows into the past' claim, 'will become' has not happened yet. The expansion of the universe allows for 'future' to exist as more 'distance' is created, which creates more 'time' or 'spacetime'. So the flow into the future is constant but can be experienced at different relative speeds, depending on observer reference frame (time dilation).
Entropy will convert all available energy into spacetime eventually. This is akin to CCC, as at some point the size of the expansion is all that will remain and AT that point, size becomes meaningless and the universe becomes again, the same state as a singularity and a new Aeon begins. NO intentionality required.
For humans, time is an 'individual experience' as is past, present and future. I think Carlo Rovelli, describes this best, currently.

The conventional Christian conception of "eternal" is "outside of time". — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is why it fails, as such a notion is meaningless and irrational.

All real time, as measurable time, is in the past. But the true cause of what will be at the present, must be prior to the present, therefore in the future, so this cause must also be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean by 'real time' in the context you employ it?
All measured time is relative, are you referring to proper time, as described here?

But the true cause of what will be at the present, must be prior to the present, therefore in the future, so this cause must also be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

This sentence makes no sense.

There is another way to apprehend this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank goodness for that!

Imagine that there is a beginning to time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok!

At the moment when time began there was necessarily no past time, — Metaphysician Undercover

Not necessarily true, there may have been a previous Aeon. So the moment you describe here is a recalibration of a notion of a 'universal time,' reference frame.

yet there was necessarily future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see any use for the word 'necessarily' here but yes, the notion of future becomes valid at this point, due to spacetime inflation/expansion, NO intentionality required.

And for time to begin, there must be a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the end of the previous cycle, NO intentionality required.

Therefore, this cause was necessarily in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why?

For time to continue passing there must always be a cause, and this cause is always in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the cause is the expansion of spacetime and it happens during every time unit/duration.

The rest of what you typed is just based on your bizarre ideas, regarding how time works.

That's because, and pardon me for saying, your conception of God is anthropomorphic, based mainly on your stereotyped depiction of (and rejection of) religion. That's not something particular to yourself, by the way. — Wayfarer

Consider the requested pardon, granted. Your are wrong, as I am willing to envisage a god image as it is presented to me by a proposer, anthropomorphic, animist, disembodied esoteric/ethereal, pantheistic, etc it's all the same woo woo BS to me. There are many followers of religion who behave stereotypical, there are also theist sympathisers who type stereotypical responses to criticism of theism. I would include you in that categorisation. I don't see any particular value in this side alley you are attempting as a response to my point, it is not a useful or even credible answer to it, at all.

Theism cannot escape the 'who/what created god/intentionality,' question.
— universeness — Wayfarer

Gentlemen, don't fight here, this is the war room. — fdrake

No fight involved as no contest imo. Dr Strangelove is under cover so he don't care anyway!

:rofl: What phrase? Self righteous?

That is a different line of thinking than believing a god intended for us to be like angels, but Eve ate the wrong fruit and ruined everything. — Athena

Especially when an angel like lucifer can become gods enforcer and best reason to 'believe or else,' but still be called a 'fallen' angel. I assume you assign no blame to Eve for her actions in this fable, yes?

Why do you value the early Greek/Athenian system, that based it's workings on a pantheon of gods, with Zeus always having the power to veto any decision made by less powerful creature characters than him.
He would do stuff like appear as a shower of gold, to impregnate a mortal such as Danae.
Sounds to me like something a creep like Trump would do.

Zeus, turned to gold, piercing the brazen chamber of Danae, cut the knot of intact virginity. I think the meaning of the story is this, “Gold, the subduer of all things, gets the better of brazen walls and fetters; gold loosens all reins and opens every lock, gold makes the ladies with scornful eyes bend the knee. It was gold that bent the will of Danae. No need for a lover to pray to Aphrodite, if he brings money to offer.”

If Athenians based their thinking on horror stories such as this, then why do you value their general deliberations?

Absafragginlootly! :up:

Thanks Javi. There is a lot of mean spiritedness here and It's good to see you pointing it out. — T Clark

:lol: How mean spirited of both of you!

It was interesting to read all the posts so far on this thread.
There seems to me to be two main camps, perhaps there always has been. I wonder if there always will be. Those who think the future remains very exciting and we will continue to improve the human experience, and those who think we are going to 'hell in a handbasket.' Reading that phrase reminded me it was the title of a Meat Loaf album, which reminded me of my favourite 'pessimistic' meat loaf song.
"I want my money back (Life is a lemon!)"
Song and lyrics below. I love the song but I am with those who look to the future with optimism.
I absolutely agree however that talk is very very cheap and actions speak much louder than words, so 'what are you gonna do about it,' IS INDEED, the most important question.


I want my money back
I want my money back
It's all or nothing
And nothing's all I ever get
Every time I turn it on
I burn it up and burn it out
It's always something
There's always something going wrong
That's the only guarantee
That's what this is all about
It's a never ending attack
Everything's a lie and that's a fact
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
And all the morons
And all the stooges with their coins
They're the ones who make the rules
It's not a game it's just a rout
There's desperation
There's desperation in the air
It leaves a stain on all your clothes
And no detergent gets it out
And we're always slipping through the cracks
Then the movie's over, fade to black
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
I want my money back
I want my money back
What about love
It's defective
It's always breaking in half
What about sex
It's defective
It's never built to really last
What about your family
It's defective
All the batteries are shot
What about your friends
They're defective
All the parts are out of stock
What about hope
It's defective
It's corroded and decayed
What about faith
It's defective
It's tattered and it's frayed
What about your gods
They're defective
They forgot the warranty
What about your town
It's defective
It's a dead-end street to me
What about your school
It's defective
It's a pack of useless lies
What about your work
It's defective
It's a crock and then you die
What about your childhood
It's defective
It's dead and buried in the past
What about your future
It's defective
And you can shove it up your ass
Oh, I want my money back
(Life is a lemon)
I want my money back
(Life is a lemon, life is a lemon)
It's all or nothing
And nothing's all I ever get
Every time I turn it on
I burn it up and burn it out
It's a never ending attack
Everything's a lie and that's a fact
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
And we're always slipping through the cracks
Then the movie's over, fade to black
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
I want my money back
Back, back, back, back
I want my money back
I want my money back
(Life is a lemon)

What do you mean? I also ranted at him when he was here as a member, especially when he made little sense!

No loss at all, as far as I'm concerned. My opinion of him was a particularly low one.
I normally find some redeeming feature in a poster, but I could not, in his case.

That was a good and well reasoned post sir. I disagree completely with your conclusion, but your reasoning was very well constructed imo.

Your conclusion fails imo, as it requires an 'intentionality,' which itself would need to be cyclical.
Theism cannot escape the 'who/what created god/intentionality,' question.
The only path open to humans who exist 'within the notion of time,' is to suggest that the concept of 'eternal' has NO beginning in time. That is the only place for the HUMAN NOTION of 'true faith.'
My highest credence level (personal true faith notion) is that the 'mindless spark' is the eternal spark and your preference is that it is the 'mind/intentionality spark,' that is the eternal spark.
My viewpoint in this makes me an atheist and my main challenge to your 'eternal intentionality,' is to either make it's existence and continuing presence/existence known, NOW, or else, I see no rational reason for YOU to maintain your position. The continued hiddenness of this eternal intentionality, is very strong evidence indeed, that WE, as in the human race, should abandon the notion, because it continues to cause pernicious religious doctrine, and philosophising, that continues to hold our species back and leaves most of us, mired in primal fear of taking FULL ownership and responsibility for our own existence.
Most religions see this planet as expendable, ourselves as wretched, when compared to theistic BS notions of the divine, and 'glorification,' in the afterlife and not in the only life we know for sure, we actually experience. What a f****** waste!!!!! of the main resource we humans have, ........ TIME!

Probably a 'fair' description of the status quo of 'leading edge', 'mathematical physics,' yes. Virtual particles are mathematical inventions, but I don't think, velocity, distance, time, mass, energy, force etc, etc, are.

BUT at least the underlying application of the scientific method involved has the potential to make progress against the current gaps in our knowledge, we come up against. Theism and theosophism offer no progress at all, and have been 'feeding' from empirical science (since science became separated from the notion of 'natural philosophy',) as it's only hope for proving god exists.

As long as divine hiddenness remains fact, theists only have the unsupported claims of those who claim personal communication with (such as @Beena et al.) god/occupants of heaven etc and those who claim to have had prayers answers and have experienced/witnessed 'miracles' or manifestations of the supernatural. The only valid response to such claims will remain 'Yeah sure, if you say so, perhaps you should seek professional help.'

Empirical science remains theisms only hope of useful progress! Unless god stops being the utter coward it is and shows up.

Toth is excellent. — jgill

I agree. He is good at explaining complicated Physics in ways that even lay folks can make some sense of. Science has no current demonstrable exemplar of 'nothing.' The only available placeholders are conceptual and mathematical (eg, 0 and word's like 'nothing'.)
Even when you use concepts like infinite regression, infinity, god, etc. None of these can demonstrate 'nothing.' This I think gives those like me, who think that an objectively true state of nothing and never existed. Perhaps 'a state of nothing' can exist if you can perceive no passage of time.
For example, 'my own death or non-existence' is my best notion of 'nothing' but that is also non-sensical as if I am non-existent then that's just a reframing of the same ineffable 'nothing' concept.

And that you haven't addressed. — Wayfarer

Oh, that's easy and I have done so many times on TPF, you obviously don't read all my posts with the enthusiasm I expect. :joke:
It's a gap! so it's vacant for any plug, that's why theist's get to throw any shaped plug at it that they can imagineer, so it becomes a matter or what credence level your own personal critical faculties and rationale allows you to assign to a particular proposal. I can do likewise.

At the simplest level, my origin for the universe, is a mindless spark, that no longer exists but reforms at the end of this universe, we might even use the placeholder name 'singularity.'

if you want something with more scientific rigor behind it, then I vote for the conformal cyclic cosmology of Roger Penrose or > 3d superstring theory, or Mtheory with each universe being created by interacting 5D branes. These extra dimensions of the very small, that are 'wrapped around' every point in our 3d existence, are undetectable to us but are the reason why some posit nonsense such as 'something from nothing.' Quantum fluctuations are probably caused by these extra dimensions. The system is most likely (so for me, warrants a high credence level,) cyclical and eternal.
All of these similar 'cyclical and eternal' proposals are far far more likely and far far more rational that any theological posit (normally flavoured by some supernatural agency with intentionality) I have ever heard and any I am ever likely to hear about.

There is a basic philosophical issue of how intentionality arises in the first place. — Wayfarer

I know that. That gap does not prevent full recognition by 'philosophers,' and theistic sympathisers or even theists themselves that agents who can DEMONSTRATE meaning, intent and purpose, exist, in this universe and as they are OF this universe their intentionality can be ascribed in it's totality, to an overall concentration of intentionality, whose future effect can extend beyond this planet. So, an intentionality that requires no supernatural agent, other than as a plug invented by ancient theologians out of primal fear. A plug that does not fit the gap you describe.

There is no possibility of intentionality outside the intentional actions of agents. — Wayfarer

Why would such be a requirement for meaning to exist in the universe. Each of us is an individual agent of meaning, purpose and intent, why is that not enough to demonstrate that meaning exists in the universe?

Carl Sagan was very interested in Hindu cosmology, partially as a consequence of this idea. (Also because the mythological Hindu time-scales were scientifically feasible occupying billions of years) — Wayfarer

I would not choose the term 'very interested.' He found Hindu cosmology to have some common ground with the cyclical universe proposals, posited by science but he assigned far more credence to scientific cyclical/oscillating universe posits that he did to hindu cosmology. Carl also liked the idea that this universe could be contained in a particle and that every particle in this universe, is a universe. He called that a 'nice idea.'
Carl had a wonderfully, awesome, romantic view of human existence as well as a brilliant scientific mind.
I try to mimic him whenever I can.

(except for the obvious case of bras being used to support breasts) — Michael

Hey, don't forget the essential testicular support that a well designed pair of comfy boxer shorts can offer a man about town! Running for example, can have painful consequences for a 'true' Scotsman in a kilt in his youth. I have personally experienced this!!! :groan:

In short, the dysphoria is the problem, not the sex. All medications, surgeries, and therapy ought to be used to rectify the one and not to permanently damage the other. — NOS4A2

It would be good if we had the technology to allow you, me, or anyone who wants to, to do a Vulcan, spock style mindmeld with a trans man, woman or child, or perhaps all three. Perhaps we would all gain an understanding of why transitioning is the only cure for what ails them.

They won't be normal, they will be as equal as the majority make it, within the legal framework. Complete equality, within the legal system or not, generally doesn't prevail. ("All are equal before the law" is good rhetoric, but all sorts of barriers arise that prevent "perfect equality".) — BC

Was slavery normal until a majority decided to make it abnormal and then did 'no slavery' become normal? Legal enforcement is about enforcing that which is NOW considered normal.

I haven't heard anybody (anywhere) deny their humanity or describe them as a different species. — BC

I have heard many people directly say to me that gays, trans folks etc are to them, like a different species. I have heard many het cis men friends say women are like a different species to them.
I have even heard Glasgow Celtic supporters call Glasgow Rangers supporters a different species.
'Different species,' is used as a colloquial insult all the time, in my experience.

does it make a difference if a M to F trans athlete brings a male body's advantage to compete with women? Many women think that circumstance is unfair. — BC

I agree, that situation sounds unfair to me as well. I don't really care about competitive sports however, so I am unable to get 'angry' about that aspect. I do think a solution does have to be found, to redress that imbalance. I remember reading about a proposed testosterone reduction course of treatments, that could redress that balance, but I cant remember any details and I cant find the original on-line article I read. I am sure it was a New Scientist Magazine article, but I have unsuccessfully searched for it online, twice.

You have on the one side, the confidence of science, which has given rise to the astounding technology which characterises today's world and with which we sorrounded (and even defined), but which situates itself in a universe which it has already declared is devoid of meaning. — Wayfarer

The concept of a universe devoid of meaning, does not account for the time/moment when 'life' that was self-aware, came into existence. For me, this destroys any notion of a universe devoid of meaning.
Lifeforms such as humans (and not just humans), results in a universe with very definite meaning.
How can concepts such as 'legacy' and 'memorialisation' and 'inherited genetics' and 'natural selection based on a survival imperative,' be devoid of meaning.' I am demonstrating meaning right now, by typing this response. No supernatural input is required to demonstrate meaning, purpose and intent. There is no nihilistic imperative then, as living a meaningful life is fully available. Living life as a nihilistic curse, is a personal choice.

I would also argue that the universe before life, was always moving towards the moment of sparking life. Life is perpetually emergent, all over the universe and always has been. Entropy will end this universe eventually, but if you are a fan of a cyclical universe then, life will resurface during each aeon.

I really can't see how the kamikaze pilot could be interpreted as self-centred when the entire narrative was created around self sacrifice. Same for jihadis (and even though I think their zealotry is tragically warped.) They are indoctrinated to believe that they will receive their just rewards in the hereafter. — Wayfarer

Imbeciles like kamikaze and jihadis worship the very self-centred concept of martyrdom.
A horror like Alexander the butcher, placed his glorification and the fact that he will be remembered for millennia, over any immediate threat to his existence. Those who covet martyrdom/glorification and are very willing to make themselves a blood sacrifice to 'save' their fellows, are following such as the christ crucified exemplar. That's why those who wrote the bible made up the christ crucified and then resurrected story. It's very attractive to those self-centred enough to be attracted to martyrdom.
How do you feel about this image and use of the word philosophy?




Additionals: An interesting side question I tend to ask Christian's is, do you think we would have heard of Jesus Christ, if the Romans had let him go free? Would Jesus/god have been forced to harden the Roman hearts against him like he did to Pharaoh in the OT?

@Jamal, @180 Proof should a title like 'The philosophy of martyrdom,' offend your average academic philosopher?

I thought this post on Quora from Victor Toth was relevant to this thread and may offer some readers more balance from the scientific angle:

The question: Do "virtual particles" in a vacuum gravitate?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-does-nothing-weigh/

Victor's Answer:
You raise an interesting question, but before it can be properly answered, let me stress an important point.

“Virtual particles” are called such because they are not real. They do not exist. They are pieces of mathematical fiction. They are a convenient way to describe interacting quantum fields in the so-called perturbative limit, where nasty integrals can be series expanded into terms that can then be graphically represented by those nice Feynman diagrams, with the internal lines of the diagrams corresponding to our concept of virtual particles. As I said, mathematical fiction.

However, this mathematical fiction can indeed be used to describe fields, including fields in their lowest energy state, that is, the vacuum.

And one thing that follows from that quantum mechanical description is that not even the lowest energy state is a zero energy state. In fact, as there are infinitely many possible frequencies for a field, each of which with a corresponding lowest energy state, the sum total of these lowest energy states is infinite energy!

That, of course, won’t do, we can’t have infinite energy. So let’s take a leap of faith and assume that quantum field theory is only an “effective” theory, which breaks down at very high energies. So perhaps instead of summing all the way to infinity, we only sum to this high (e.g., the Planck) energy scale. The numbers now remain finite.

But when we add up those numbers, the result is still many, many dozens of magnitude greater than our actual observation, the so-called cosmological constant, which could be a manifestation of the lowest state energy of these fields in the vacuum.

This embarrassing discrepancy is known as the “cosmological constant problem”. It has no conclusive resolution.

Perhaps these ground states do not contribute to gravity at all. Perhaps something else screens or weakens their gravity. Or perhaps we misunderstood the whole kaboodle. No one knows for sure.

Now virtual particles (i.e., the fields that are represented by this mathematical convenience) definitely do gravitate in other situations. Take your own body. Most of your mass is in the form of protons and neutrons. And roughly 99% of those proton and neutron masses is from the interaction energy between their constituent quarks. Interactions that are mediated, you guessed it, by virtual particles (gluons in this case) in a sensible mathematical approximation.

But whether the vacuum or the virtual particles we use to represent the vacuum contribute to gravitation remains unknown for now.

For what it's worth Andrew, the experiences you describe in your youth are horrific.
I wish they had not happened to you.

:up:

Oh you easily earned the right to do that, years ago sir!
Nothing wrong with whimsy!

Ok prof, if you say so :yikes: but for me, spatial extension is not a good representation of nothing!
No doubt, in some theistic communities, that verse is irrefutable proof that god exists!
Anyway I am probably just not appreciating your subtle sense of humour.

Never heard of Judith Butler but did a quick google search and read from wiki:
Judith Pamela Butler[3] (born February 24, 1956) is an American philosopher and gender studies writer whose work has influenced political philosophy, ethics, and the fields of third-wave feminism,[4] queer theory,[5] and literary theory.[6] In 1993, Butler began teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, where they have served, beginning in 1998, as the Maxine Elliot Professor in the Department of Comparative Literature and the Program of Critical Theory. They are also the Hannah Arendt Chair at the European Graduate School (EGS).

If what you are saying can be boiled down to 'we are all actors,' then perhaps Shakespeare will suffice:


So trans folks can stand on the universal stage, with the rest of us, as fellow actors of equal status and value.