:ok:

I hadn't looked at it that way yet. I had an equality of masses in mind, but your example shows what it actually is. Literally a balance! The numerical values are equal, but the stuff on one side is different from the other indeed. Balanced but not equal. M(feathers)=M(steel). Equality=Balance...

Yes. One after another. For example, if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity, that a new one originates behind us. And then again for that one, etc.

The alternative is something coming from literally nothing. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The alternative is repeated starts from zero.

ITER is saying 'five years and we'll have cracked it' - but IMO - they never will. I do not believe fusion can work in earth gravity. — karl stone

Then why they still trying? You can make it happen in a bomb, so why not in a plant?

If you have less energy, then everything gets more expensive — karl stone

Or you can consume and produce less.

That's one way to go, but do you really want to disenchant people who believe in God as part of their identity and their purposes - but who have no power to craft energy policy? Are you going to look a little old ladies in the eyes and tell them - there's no such thing as God? And even if you are willing to be that cruel - how do you know there isn't a God? I don't know if God exists, and I know I don't know! — karl stone

:100:

Like Al-Ghazali's orbiting planets, it's not necessarily logically impossible, just counter-intuitive — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's a physical impossibility. The 2nd law of TD requires a beginning in time.

Fusion could already have been economically if only enough effort had been put in it. Solar cells can get more economical still. You can put them on every roof top or even in the dessert. Hydrogen can be made with the aid of that energy and truly green cars pproduced. On my birth island in Italy, magma heath is used for saunas. Who knows what will happen if you tap magma energy for the whole Earth? Nobody.

The best solution: lower the energy consumption.

No, it doesn't. To see what philosophy in modern times looks like, read some actual philosophy, e.g. here: — SophistiCat

It does. You just have to actually know something about science and mathematics. Jgill does.

Magma energy technology is possible, and could supply the world's energy needs and much much more, without greenhouse gas emissions. So it's not technology per se - it's putting national economic interest ahead of scientific truth. — karl stone

Without scientific truth, economy wouldn't have grown as devastatingly as in the modern world.

For my part, I'm talking about solving climate change by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, and trying to understand why we haven't done that already — karl stone

You can harvest the wind too. Or solar energy. And use hydrogen to store the energy and make it portable. Only water will be waste.

Not to mention fusion energy.

When two things which are different, are said to be equal, the difference between them has already been excused in that judgement of equal. So we now have a second level of excusing differences for the sake of symmetry, the excuse which exists right at the level of producing the equation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. Equality in number doesn't mean equality in nature. The numbers are balanced but the masses that are labeled by these numbers are different in nature, and have to be so for the equality not to be trivial.

That's the quite terrifying unifying power of math. It equalizes what is not equal in nature.

This thread illuminates what it is to be a philosopher in modern times when all the sciences have progressed to the point that philosophical inquiries in them mean scientific speculation — jgill

Which means to be a scientist as well? Or better, a mathematician? :roll:

It is claimed that the unidirectional nature of time is mysterious. Isn't this, on the contrary, a prerequisite? You can say if one isolated particle moves forward or backward in time. But what about the evolution of a one-particle wavefunction?

Yeah, well, what's more to say about it. You might consider technology an art, the material expression of knowledge, and assign high value to state of the art technology, but it is embedded in a larger reality. It's a fact that if the presence of technology increases, and knowledge grows, they will reinforce each other exponentially, a fact supported by economic growth models. You might have a clean energy source, say the Sun, fusion, or magma, like on Island (where the world's first hydropen pump station opened up), you might recycle all you use, but if technology's presence grows exponentially, no technology in the world will be sufficient to restore the disturbed balance. Only a stable presence of tech can prevent disaster. Maybe a technology that doesn't grow but changes.

Emmy Noether's work on mathematical symmetry (doesn't look like she's talking about mirror symmetry) became the basis for (derivation of) the conservation laws in science. — Agent Smith

She talked about symmetries generated by "charges". For example, the "momentum charge" generator generates translations in space which leave a system unchanged, hence momentum conservation. The energy charge generator does the same for time translations: energy conservation. The electric charge charge generator for local gauge transformations: conservation of electric charge. What other conservation laws can we think of? The one associated with rotations. The generator for rotations is?

It's no coincidence that good and God differ one o. Doing good is, in a sense, doing God. God is omnibenevolent. Eve ate the apple of knowledge of good and evil, and only by reading and accepting His words the evil can be undone by cutting it's roots out, thereby removing the existence of the knowledge of evil, so devilish implanted by that cunning snake. By tempting the naive Eve to bite the apple. The word of God was received by Mozes (devarim). The Ten Commandments are the base of fighting the evil snake amidst us. The evil snake is wicked and constantly planning and looking for entrance in our being. Beware of the wicked!

Ever met anyone with schizophrenia? — Tom Storm

I saw one in the mirror! She thought she was me... I told her not to talk nonsense.

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. — karl stone

That's still technology.

I can't be measured but it exists. $ds^2=-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$, for flat space. The distances between particles change, so time changes accordingly. If distances change, there will be a corresponding change of the hands on the clock.

Distance doesn't exist in the Universe, as it is something that occurs through time. — pfirefry

Distances between particles exist every moment in time, even if we can't measure them. If they change, time changes.

Indeed, to measure a distance, you have to walk with an odometer or, for distances in time, look at the clock. Ýou can even calculate changes in distance by knowing the change in time. $s=\frac{1}{2}at^2$.

You are talking nonsense! ( :wink: ) Change is everywhere!

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse — karl stone

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology.

I don't get it. Why can't it exist? What is it in its supposed eternal ticking that makes it impossible to exist? — god must be atheist

The second law of thermodynamics.

What does change are distances. A change in spatial distance is a change in time.

"There is thinking and a world that I perceive. I stands between them. I is the body."

There is a pattern on my face toò. A math structure with a laugh? What's the structure made up?

Some structures though don't even have an approximation. What's the functional form of the motion of gas particles that carry the information òf a piece of music? The particle oscillates at the rythm of the music. It can't be reduced to sine terms. Is a particle a mathematical structure?

someone's innate method — Bitter Crank

How do you know there is an innate methodology?

Yes. In one comment I quoted you for having used two t's, t1 and t2. I thought you had seen the light. Apparently, you hadn't. Of course, the image doesn't change in time. All dx/dy is invariant wrt time. I don't dispute that. I dispute that do arrive at dx and dy you don't need time. It takes time to perform the analysis. The picture is embedded in time. A change in x and y has to be accompanied by a change in t, dt. dx/dy is independent from time. In relativity, $ds^2=-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2$. So for both dx and dy a dt is involved but they cancel upon dividing. So the use of time is implicitly present but hidden.

It's the same problem that's encountered in the Wheeler-de Witt equation. No time involved, the whole block universe is laid out in advance. Problem is:how do things move on worldlines then?

But why is that relevant — InPitzotl

Because the picture you look at can't exist without time.

My point is, adhering to a spelled out methodology constraints the furthering of knowledge.

It doesn't need to be spelled out — Bitter Crank

No, it doesn't. It doesn't need to be conscious either. But we all are conforming to "a methodology". Like we all are, consciously or not, obeying to the laws of God...

Your innate methodology — Bitter Crank

My "innate methodology"? Are you serious?

t is irrelevant; it doesn't matter if you "keep it constant" or not. Banno's image doesn't change over time — InPitzotl

The very observation that it stays constant in time needs time in the first place.

Yes. And there is no single methodology involved in any of the kinds of knowledge you mentioned. And certainly not one that's spelled out.

love the absurdity of arguing against fairy tales and ignorance by telling fairy tales and embracing ignorance. — pfirefry

You should learn to read. I write:

"I'm more interested in the knowledge itself."

Doesn't sound like embracing ignorance.

Then I write:

"We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality."

By which I mean the method sold here. A fairy tale. Who tells fairy tales? Not me.

Now it is very clear that the fields change into birds. And further, that this happens over distance, not over time. — Banno

Only when your eyes gaze over Escher the day turns into night. Escher even predetermined you gaze and perception. You have to stop time first. Only then the partial derivative makes sense. The changes in space, dx/dy, pertain to constant time. How you stop time?

A particle is no concept. It's a reality.

Of course you will use and manage your knowledge, all the stuff you have accumulated over the years. You could avoid it by falling into a deep coma. — Bitter Crank

But not according to any method, so certainly not to the fairy tale propagated here. I'm not bound to any method. I don't mind that someone wants to gather knowledge methodologically sound, why should I? We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality.

To make this your bedrock of knowledge is turning knowledge into a slave. I'm more interested in the knowledge itself. Who cares how you arrive on it? The ignorant, maybe...

"Of course you will use your knowledge." If I don't wanna use it I don't use it. I like knowledge for what it is. Knowledge. Falling in coma will indeed avoid me from experiencing that.

From sticks and stones to clashing hydrogen.

and then finds itself at (2,1,1) at some different t coordinate t2, — InPitzotl

Sorry! Didn't see this! :smile:

Which means time is involved in the change in color.