@Nickolasgaspar types words like a petulant child, please don't waste your energy defending me to him. I really appreciate your attempt but he is not even a minor itch.

In the terminology of quantum field theory, a ghost, ghost field, ghost particle, or gauge ghost is an unphysical state in a gauge theory. Ghosts are necessary to keep gauge invariance in theories where the local fields exceed a number of physical degrees of freedom.

If a given theory is self-consistent by the introduction of ghosts, these states are labeled "good". Good ghosts are virtual particles that are introduced for regularization, like Faddeev–Popov ghosts. Otherwise, "bad" ghosts admit undesired non-virtual states in a theory, like Pauli–Villars ghosts that introduce particles with negative kinetic energy.

Unphysical states. — Hillary

Your physics knowledge is beyond mine in this area. I have only associated the term ghost particle with neutrinos. I would need to study the details behind the content of what you typed here.
Maybe someone else on the forum has the physics to debate you on what you are talking about here.
I know a little about virtual particle exchanges during interactions but not the detailed quantum mechanics involved. I have never heard of Faddeev-Popov ghosts.

lol....that must be a new low for you...but then again moving your finger to others while falsify accusing them of things just to hear your voice is right there — Nickolasgaspar

So much for your big loud "YOU ARE DONE," gasbag gaspar. You deflate more and more.
You will insist on staring into the mirror. Take a wee lesson from the theists. Pride is a deadly sin.
Wash it off your face and your mirror will reflect something less offensive.
Learn how to be less of an arrogant *****.

No. Its not for the public. They are found in qft books. What are they? — Hillary

Its the public who they are trying to sell the books to.
Neutrinos are often called ghost particles because they pass through us and the Earth etc.
Like a ghost can, it's just meaningless emotive terminology.
neutrinos are also sometime called WIMP as they might be Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.
WIMP is also used in Computing, Windows, Icons, Pointer, Menus. Just convenient labels.

Well that seems a great deal to ask about!
I assume he allocates a certain amount of time to answer a single question in his monthly podcast.
Perhaps he felt he could not do your question justice within the allocated time.
Maybe he had other reasons I don't know but I would suggest that none of his reasons would be invoked by any personal bias against you or your hypothesis. I can't claim I know that for sure but if he is like that then yeah, forget him and try to communicate a little more with Mr Harari.

Ego dragon, bovine manure? If anyone offers cinstructive comments it's universeness! Not sure about you... — Hillary

:smile: :up: Thanks Hillary!

You call everything I say against science playing. Tell me, what about ghost particles? — Hillary

Well, its a descriptive nonscientific term used for the benefit of the public, is that what you are asking me about? Their use of the term ghost or are you asking me about my opinion on the validity of the science behind ghost particles?

No, that's not what I said. I said that he answers only things he can answer and are not suggesting something else and better. I have sent him five emails now and Im done with him. He's not really interested in truth, as you call it. Just in promoting his own ideas, which are false.i dont think he likes it I pointed him out. — Hillary

5 is a lot, maybe he considered that 'pestering,' under the netiquette guidelines.
Maybe you are correct and he didn't want to promote your idea as it was contrary to his.
Maybe but maybe not, perhaps his reasons were less sinister than that.
Do you think Mr Harari would react well to 5 emails in succession?
Don't get so annoyed at these people, you get a lot of pleasure out of your pursuit of scientific truth regardless of those currently at the top of the science community, dont you?

I am addressing an arrogant sophist who make ups accusations and projects them on others just to hear his voice — Nickolasgaspar

Maybe you should stop staring at your own reflection in the mirror!

I exposed your patronizing urges and your bovine manure on a discussion you never read.... and I said 'YOU ARE DONE".
Do you have unknown words in that sentence or you are still riding your ego-dragon?
You are done....finished — Nickolasgaspar

I did read it, don't throw more toys out your pram you will have none left to play with.
"YOU ARE DONE!" :lol: :rofl: :lol: Yeah done with who? Baby gaspar gasbag!

Sorry, Uni! I thought you write the parental thing... sorry again — Hillary

:rofl: Nae bother man! In true theistic tradition, 'I forgive you!'

Obvious books do not fit where your head is located... or you don't have enough light up there, try ebooks.lol
When you ever decide to address the actual technique and example I used, then send me a msg.
I am not here to satisfy your parental urges.

If you don't change your behavior...then you are done.
You can always play with Hillary sparky. — Nickolasgaspar

As I suggested, an arrogant ***** who trips over his own sense of personal significance.
Go pick up those toys you :naughty: little tinker!
You can always ask for a reassuring hug from mommy or a substitute mommy.

He came up to me because I was clad in black I suppose — Tobias

I would have asked you if you were a Jonny Cash fan! Unless you had a wee white flash in the middle of your shirt collar as well.

What about good and bad ghosts in quantum field theory? The point is, science itself is a fantasy look on reality. — Hillary

Your playing again! Do you also think the 'God particle' label for the Higgs boson infers that all the scientists at the LHC are theists?

Yes, I know brother Uni. But I sent him a private mail. He could at least have the decency to answer. Like professor Harari. — Hillary

I agree, he should have, but he has not committed an unspeakable act against you.
He will have his own criteria for choosing which questions he wants to answer as he does not have enough time to answer them all. I understand your disappointment but I think your reaction to such examples are OTT (over the top)!
Not every scratchcard is a winner! You pay your money and take your chance. I am not a great fan of such a system but I don't get too angry if I choose to participate and I lose.

Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see... — Tobias

Use as much of your fantasy capabilities to assist your musings about reality as you like.
Science fiction often results in science fact, I was not rejecting that. I was referring to the fantasies of theism being presented or manifested as religious fact to the human race.

Yes, I did some private tutoring too. But that's because they offer it. It was asked — Hillary

So Sean Carroll is required through the 'business' called Patreon to ask for a small amount of money to get him to consider answering your question. That's how many such sites work.
I doubt Sean himself will become rich based on the actual cash money he will get out of it.

Ah, brother Uni, it's actually completely irrelevant if you believe in gods or not. It's living life that counts. If gods add some for me, why not? If they don't for you, okay! What's the difference? — Hillary

All truth seekers, seek the truth and remain unconvinced by pure conjecture.
Evidence-based is the only way to progress. Fantasy is only for entertainment.

Did you ask your students for money. — Hillary

Their parents pay through their taxes and many teachers also take pay for private tutoring.

I only taught teeners who came to me and offered money — Hillary

Eh! have you not just contradicted yourself?

The rest of what you typed just seemed a bit to emotional on your part for me to respond to with anything other that, 'well fine, if thats how you feel about it, the god free Universe continues regardless.'

with an obvious false assumption — Nickolasgaspar

You are being rather naive here, you would be surprised how well your words could be used against you very successfully when offered to others in an 'out of context,' manner. Please continue and find out in time.
It also might be true that you are in fact a secret misogynist as that was the example you choose to use in what you claim was metaphorical.

I will help you a bit by saying this. — Nickolasgaspar

Now you reveal your more base arrogance. An ingredient in those who are manipulative.

Why are you hiding behind generalizations — Nickolasgaspar

You invoke images of others hiding from you. Does that make you feel powerful? Hah! such attempts to intimidate are laughable and amateur.

Just because both can be placed under the label of trickery...that only makes your claim a fallacy of Ambiguity, not a legit evaluation of my tactic to expose bad reasoning — Nickolasgaspar

Of course, it's easy for you to cry foul and raise your own contrived fallacy claim rather than admit to your own shortfalls when attempting to engage in productive dialogue. Stop throwing your toys out of your pram because I don't approve of all the methods you employ in discourse with others.

I can construct a situation where killing an other individual can be the most moral thing to do. Does it mean that it was a trickery or the legal term (Murder) of killing other people should color all acts that have the same outcome? — Nickolasgaspar

Perhaps you should proofread what you type a little more, your second sentence makes little sense in the above quote.

Not really we allow ignorance and irrationality to be included especially in philosophy and we then get mad with people's ideologies....that is a fact — Nickolasgaspar

Not a fact, it's merely one of your interpretations.

Again that is an irrelevant statement. It doesn't support your wrong accusation of being dishonest because I exposed someone's irrational standards through a specific example on questionable values — Nickolasgaspar

I am not surprised you would type that, There is equally no surprise that I disagree!

I don't know why do you insist with this patronizing attitude when you were ignorant of the details of my interaction and you reject to correct your critique after I provided all the necessary information of my simple technique.
I guess we are done here — Nickolasgaspar

No, I agree that you don't know why.
I have no idea who you are. You could be engaging in all sorts of sophistry as any poster on this site could be, including me. I suggest you don't pose as a misogynist again as it's a bad idea.
I don't give a shit if you choose to ignore that advice.
Your last sentence is further evidence to me that you are an arrogant ***** so who cares.

All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

Well said! :smile: :clap:

An example that is designed to "shock", provokes thinking and expose the gaps in an argument has nothing to do with the value of "right/wrong" or "role playing" or "hate speech". Its a tool that shifts the argument made by the interlocutor to a different topic where his previous biased do not apply — Nickolasgaspar

Sounds to me that you are trying to justify attempts to manipulate people by stealth. This is one reason why few of us trust politicians anymore. Even the ones who are in truth, genuinely trying to be part of the solutions.

After all I was pointing out again and again that it was just an example on why arbitrary assumptions can not be used as a basis for any philosophical inquiry — Nickolasgaspar

For what it's worth, I believe you, but if you practice 'trickery,' then you might get to like it too much if it achieves the results you personally desire. There are only very very rare cases in my opinion when the end justifies the means.

Even if I dislike hate speech, your statement has some issues.
Why are we ok banning mysogynistic/racist etc statements but claims that ignore objective knowledge and Basic Logic? — Nickolasgaspar

I have no problem regarding debate on exactly where the red lines should be. It's probably got to be on a case by case basis and it has to be related to such situations as those experienced within concepts such as the 'realpolitik,' of the times. I do think that viewpoints which I personally find abhorrent have to be aired and debated somewhere, somehow and by some people or else they fester and some compromised individual can 'explode' or become very resentful and hateful and can band together and create hate groups etc. I never said it is easy to accommodate all human varients of thought within a healthy and progressive 'society,' but that must remain the goal.
We are still left with the situation that we want to allow individual freedom, personal security and personal sense of significance but NOT ALSO allow your freedom to compromise someone else's freedom and sense of personal security and significance. Very hard to achieve for every person at all times on the whole planet.

So why treating the symptoms, not the cause? — Nickolasgaspar

We must do both! Education is the best tool for prevention and dialogue/debate is the best way to combat symptoms but we still can't let individuals go around inciting violence against others they don't like in a 'free for all.' If we had developed system of checks and balances in society that could allow for an individual to be as 'crazy sounding' as they liked but we could rely on the 'education,' level of the vast majority to be able to prevent such an individual from gaining any significant power and influence then we might be able to allow completely unfettered free speech but we just don't have such a reliable global human population. A crazy, narcissistic, fruit loop can currently become president of the united states, prime minister of Britain, or premier of Russia. The nefarious prove time and time again that you don't need to fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the people, some of the time, is good enough, for them to gain real power and influence.

My point is that an Example, independent of it bold content doesn't make one guilty of hate speech and it doesn't mean that he is involved in "role playing".
It is only a classic demonstration of the useful tool of Argument ad Absurdum — Nickolasgaspar

I think it's better to be honest with people, especially with those who you find out are being dishonest with you. Call them out and suggest they could become a better person than they currently are and then if you can and they are willing, then help them do so. Otherwise, do your best to protect others against them.

Who in the hell asks money to answer questions — Hillary

I was paid a state teacher's salary for over 30 years!

This explains why he wasn't triggered that much by my "example". I rejected all his claims based on my Assumption that "women are inferior to men".
He demanded from me to justify this assumption and he tasted his own poison.
Since he feels like he doesn't have to justify his god assumptions...I don't really have to justify mine.
Now that I know he isn't a female....I need to find a new "excuse/assumption" for rejecting your unfounded assumptions! — Nickolasgaspar

I have little interest in engaging in stealth and roleplay. I endeavor to be as honest in the opinions and viewpoints I post as I can, even on a relatively anonymous site such as TPF. If others want to play dress-up then that's up to them. If you roleplay as a misogynist to counter @Hillary's tendency to obfuscate then I think two wrongs don't make a right.
This site has moderators. It's their task to decide where the red lines lay.
Anyone who is a chiseled misogynist/evanhellical/racist/ or general f***wit should be BANNED.
I am an advocate for individual freedom but I think this must be tempered. You cannot ever be free to shout 'I have a bomb in my pocket,' at an airport and then be free to leave the area peacefully after you shout soon after 'only joking.' You reap what you sow in this life, If @Hillary or you or any other poster on this website cries wolf too much then there will be a price to pay because you can't fool everyone always. Let's all keep it real and then we can all benefit from genuine exchanges of opinion and viewpoints. Leave fakery to complete f***wits like Donald Trump or Boris Johnstone supporters(only imho of course.). It's an individual moderator call but I would assume that any female member of this site would complain to the moderators if they thought a poster was a 'dyed in the wool,' misogynist. A small bitter & twisted flavour can be debated but a full bitter & twisted flavour is too much for the taste of most people I think.

Maybe you need to do the aboriginal walkabout. Keep walking until you meet yourself!

I live them all! All nice people, but so damned self-righteous, while being wrong! Try to tellem that! — Hillary

Your main battle is still with the man in the mirror!

It's alright! I did no roleplay. I never said I am a woman. What makes you think Im a man? You assume I play polytheist roleplay or panto because you can3understand it and by calling it roleplay you try to make it understandable. — Hillary

I won't indulge you with your roleplay hats on by taking the bait.

Disagree with what? — Hillary

With my description of some of your real reasons for some of the irrational posts, you make regarding theism.

It's evidence that one of them answered. And be honest, wtf should you ask money for a question you not intend to answer? Carroll is just a nefarious atheist who is not interested in science and knowing but only in promoting his own fallacious ideas and he doesn't welcome ideas contradicting that! Like most of them. While it's all so clear. But who cares? I know Im right, and mr. Harari is on my side. At least he offers constructive critique — Hillary

You should read what you type and think about from the aspect of an independent arbiter with no vested interest. In my opinion, you would be found to be bitter.bitter, bitter and perhaps even a little twisted.

No universeness... Nice rational interpretaion but that's not my reason to be polytheist. The fact that the physics community tramps on me is not the reason. Instead of them trying to develop my model ( Harari is a great help by the way) they withdraw in their safe conventional shells. I don't even try anymore. I have a fair part translated in math (the particle's geometric structure is quite difficult though, and virtual gravitons rotating in spacetime while forming it, indicates that something else from ordinary virtual fields, like the photon field, is going on; if a mass couples to virtual gravitons, the spacetime around the mass is curved, the metric changes, and this can only be described by gravitons if the act on space, so not only on other masses). — Hillary

Well, I did predict you would disagree. As I said to you before, you need to learn to love the cosmologists again and then you can stop scapegoating nonexistent gods or look to them for recognition of your scientific abilities.

Atheist traitor! :lol: — Hillary

Oh, sorry! Were you enjoying your roleplay as a female irrational polytheist with @Nickolasgaspar?

Yes, a nice response, a good letter. Evidence that most established scientists will respond to questions from the public but they can't answer everyone who sends a question.

I think it's your incapacity of understanding gods and the reason they exist. Dawkins has the same problem. Like your hero Sagan. They are scientifically kind of uneducated and by hailing science try to be scientifically uprated. But they don't have the genius for it! — Hillary

Not exactly the best demonstration of a balanced, well-reasoned viewpoint.
You continue to post opinions which imo seem bitter and imbued with unfettered emotion.

It's a very old internet story, isn't it.
You can be unfortunate enough to be exchanging/communicating with a seriously sinister character or an organised group with their own fixed, perhaps even nefarious agenda.
Imho, @Hillary is not in either of those categories and I think there are more sinister posters on this site than him but I do also think their numbers are very few.

@Hillary, is male!
We have had many exchanges.
He will employ stealth tactics but I don't think he is malevolent or is a TROLL (perhaps a little bit of a troll, at times).
I am personally convinced that he roleplays as a polytheist to attempt to annoy atheists as his real love is science but the science community has not returned his love/respect for them in an adequate fashion for him, so he is pissed off at them in general and cosmologists in particular.
He does and will continue to deny my conclusions about him and I do accept that these are merely my opinions based on my exchanges with him.

The gods just look like all life in the universe — Hillary

So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? — universeness

No, there are just a whole lot of gods — Hillary

You don't seem to need to apply any kind of consistent logic in the points you make.

Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true.
— Hillary
What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself — universeness

Yes. Why not? — Hillary

Because I understand English and your sentence above makes no sense in English.

Yes, all of it. They fly, crawl, quack, speak, yell, roll over, run, fight for a banana, philosophize, the watch sun go up, watch the heavenly stars, etc. But they let heaven exist in it's paradise state. — Hillary

:rofl: You really do just make it all up as you toddle along.
Well. this is all very entertaining and it's always good to know how deep the theistic worms can burrow into an individual psyche.
I think the evidence that theists just make shit up has been strong since before the fable of Gilgamesh.
If the lies grow enough they often create a new religion, so that some of them can con a living out of manipulating the primal fears of some easily duped people.
Theism is not worth the time anymore. Mere fables for human fearties.
I think I will save my energy for combatting those theists who are actually in the business of draining money, resources and the wits from innocent, duped fools.
That should leave the majority of my time left for the pursuit of more important goals.
Individuals with a 'personal theism,' who don't preach or try to convert others are harmless at worse and a curious entertainment at best.

The gods just look like all life in the universe, — Hillary

So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? Like the Dominion on Deep Space Nine?
Which story first put that notion in your head? Did you see polymorphs first in a story about Zeus turning into a shower of gold to impregnate a mortal or was it an earlier fable about gods turning into animals and back again?

The eternal heaven is not build. It's an eternally existing state. — Hillary

Did it exist before its inhabitants or were they both magicked at the same instant?

Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true. — Hillary

What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself?

Their bodies function not just like ours. — Hillary

So do your gods eat, drink, tire, sleep, itch, sweat, etc? Do they have a bodily waste disposal system?
Do your gods experience joy, sadness, loss, fear, hope, love, hate, suffer pain?

Although I must admit that I don't know how humans on other planets look like. Probably just like us. And that's because humans have evolved into beings that look like the heavenly god beings. — Hillary

So did the gods look like humans 13.8 billion years ago?
So the Adam and Eve fable is more likely then than the whole time-consuming evolution through natural selection story?

They just want to act life as was acted in heaven — Hillary

Did they build this 'heaven' place you mention or did they command it to exist and from where did they issue this command? Did/do their bodies function like ours.

They just want life to live life. And watch it. — Hillary

but they get embarrassed if they see people building churches and bowing to them. They just want us to live. And that's why life is a miracle. — Hillary

You seem to claim to know a little about what these gods want, so do you also know if their bodies function like ours or have they kept that a secret from you so far?

Hello Hillary. You could have just answered with NO, you know of no other source for the god posit than humans. I think it's true that god needs humans like you to assign it value, in the same way that all fictional characters need human authors. No point in humans dressing up as Santa if kids no longer believe that the stories about him are true.

The gods in heaven would still be living their normal life. — Hillary

Do you know of any god posit or worship from a non-human source?
If we have no existence then gods have no existence ad we created them.

This is a kind of mathematical reasoning. I was talking in an existential way. Besides, with your reasoning we obtain the paradox that, if evil is needed to make possible good to be distinguished, then evil is not evil; however, it is evil, because it makes a difference from good; so, the logical conclusion is that, in order to make good distinguished, we need something that is evil and is not evil at the same time. — Angelo Cannata

I think that's the problem with an existential approach to such musings, They are often poorly grounded in the everyday real-life experiences of humans.
I see no paradox in my reasoning. Up and down only exist for species such as humans in a relative sense but up and down are a very important part of everyday human life. Good and evil are more nuanced than up and down, in everyday human life. There are exemplifications of what almost every human would consider a truly evil act but we still cannot call any act as objectively evil as there can always be extenuating circumstances.
The labeling of a particular act as evil, is often quite subjective and some will support the application of the label in a particular instance and others won't but the fact that the two categorisations exist and can be used as 'extremities' from a range between good/bad, right/wrong, love/hate desirable/undesirable etc seem essential to the human condition.

Actually, this contradiction comes out because you are applying some sort of mathematical logic to the ideas of good and evil. But in strict logic good and evil just don't exist: we cannot say that 2 is good and 3 is evil. The ideas of good and evil come from a human, subjective, emotional, psychological experience, so, it is nonsense dealing with them with a theoretical logic that says that something needs an opposite to make it distinguished. — Angelo Cannata

I think the contradiction you suggest is of your own creation and is not based on any logic that I recognise as having any significant value. I am presenting good and evil as comparator labels.
The two labels are very valid to the human condition. You try to dismiss the two terms by suggesting they have no significance to what you are calling 'strict logic' or to a Universe that has no such lifeforms as humans in it. It is this suggestion that is nonsense. This thread is asking about humans choosing to live as opposed to choosing nonexistence. So the way we perceive good and evil seems essential to me when considering the OP.
You are suggesting that good/evil and it would follow that hunger, fear, love etc have little significance because they have no REAL objective reality but that's just BS. Humans need hunger to enjoy eating, fear to enjoy feeling secure and love as a comparator for hate. It's why heaven as traditionally described by some religions makes no sense, as a place of eternal pleasure would soon become hell for humans.

There is nlo reason why evil should exist in this world. Actually, the existence of evil makes the worl impossible to understand, to conceive. — Angelo Cannata

So how can we know what good is without evil (or not good) to compare against?