This is just a naked/textbook argument from ignorance. From the fact that we do not presently have a non-theistic explanation for some X, it does not follow that it therefore has a theistic explanation. — Seppo

Well, it depends on how deep the explanation goes. If there is nothing left to explain, then the last question is: where did the reality I describe come from. What else than gods can be the answer? How can such ingenious structure exist by itself?

Why I tend to think people here are much younger than they are? I thought the same of universeness, who was a computer teacher. Nice that you intend to learn that still! I have read quite some stuff of you here. Sounds fresh and young, breaking with the "established" science. Anti-matterialistic (I'm a materialist myself, but I think all matter is litterally charged with unexplainable stuff). Keep it up!

My initial encounter with computers was a graduate math course in numerical analysis taken in 1962. We wrote short programs, turned them in to someone behind a window where IBM cards would be punched, and finally after a day or so, run through a machine the size of a large room. Then we would find we had made a mistake, and would repeat the process over several days.

It was not a pleasant experience. — jgill

And you can do this at home nowadays? Progression can be great!

Its just a bad idea in general to tether one's religious/theological views to scientific facts, since scientific facts are provisional and subject to change. Once we extend our scientific picture past the earliest stages of the Big Bang, where will the theist insert god next? The inflaton field? That's the problem with gods-of-the-gaps: gaps have a tendency to get closed. — Seppo

Ah! I thought "theter" means the opposite of what it actually means, so I see now (English is not my native tongue). You mean God is litteraly placed in the inflaton field? As the Great Pusher"? Yes, once the inflation gap is closed how much space is left for him? Is God a Planck bubble or the surrounding space igniting it? Haha! Who knows, but I put my money on a creature outside of it. Maybe they can make contact by hidden variables or show themselves in clouds... :smile:

So, is what you just said true in that it is the case regardless of whether I agree or not, or whether anyone else knows it or not? Are you describing your world bubble (subjectivity) or the world outside your bubble where everyone else exists (objectivity)? — Harry Hindu

There will be agreement and disagreement. There is no overarching world bubble which is the same regardless of all subjective bubbles. Of course, all subjects will think their own bubble is a measure for all. And rightly so. I want my theory to have objective existence. I want to know how reality looks like. But it will always be a theoretical picture. It's hard to leave the idea of one true reality, an idea that was formed in ancient Greece and found its way in western society. I think it's a dangerous idea. Of course, I have my ideas about the universe, where it came from, the triplets of massless particles giving quarks and leptons, etc. And I think these things really exist, also when I'm not there. But that by itself is a subjective idea. It's hard to give in to such relativism, but I think that's how it is, objectively...

Which doesn't mean that just every fantasy is right, considering science. At the moment there is no proof for quark and lepton sub-structure. But still I see it, because it offers great perspectives.

If what you see is different than what others are describing that they see, how do you know that you're both talking about the same thing? You'd run the risk of talking past each other — Harry Hindu

The risk exists, but I think we can explain what we see. We can talk and articulate what we think we see. We are all people who look at a world. Nò world stands separate from other worlds. People don't exist as isolated entities.

cosmologists seem to be more or less in agreement that the Big Bang "singularity" is merely an artifact of general relativity breaking down when gravitation becomes significant on the quantum scale: it does not represent anything real or physical. Candidate theories of quantum gravity like loop quantum gravity and string/superstring/M-theory remove this singularity (as well as the gravitational singularity in black holes). — Seppo

Exactly. The singularity was a Planck-sized 3D volume wrapped around a 4D mouth of a 4D wormhole connecting two 4D structures. Particles are no point-like structures but slightly extended structures. When six large space dimensions are curled up to circles you get an Euclidean product, S1xS1xS1, moving in 3D bulk. The circles have a Planck diameter, so they fit exactly on the tight mouth of the wormhole and they prevent a sing ularity to form in a black hole.

Its just a bad idea in general to tether one's religious/theological views to scientific facts, since scientific facts are provisional and subject to change. Once we extend our scientific picture past the earliest stages of the Big Bang, where will the theist insert god next? The inflaton field? That's the problem with gods-of-the-gaps: gaps have a tendency to get closed. — Seppo

The inflaton field is imaginary. There is no particle field causing negative curvature. It's virtual fields that cause this. All that was present back then were two basic virtual massless fields, the basic ingredients of all particles. And their virtual interaction fields (six of them). These fields cause the negative curvature of the 4D space in which these 3D virtual fields inflate away on. All particles we see in our universe are bound on the 3 dimensions of space but are accelerating away from each other on a 4D space.

So the universe is infinite spatiotemporally. Gods, standing outside of this spacetime, created this infinity. Who else,?

Atheism is god playing hide and seek with himself. Solipsism is doing the same but with other people.

I think this means either God ceased to exist at the moment of creation, or God created herself — Real Gone Cat

Gods exist outside of spacetime. Only by means of non-local hidden variables they can intervene.


Elementary particles have charge. They long for other charges or want to move away from them. I don't anthropomorph them. They morph to be anthropo.

"Chalk powder in his hair... an encounter in a classroom... red stains on shoes... forgot to close the strawberry jam jar... mint odor... brushed teeth... false mustache... trails of omnipotence... small indication of omnipresence... seems a nice guy... must be triplex o..."

There is what is the case independent of theory (think of what was the case before humans evolved to make theories about what was the case before their existence) and then there is the case of me asserting my theory. Truth is the relationship between what my theory states and what is, or was, the case independent of my theory. — Harry Hindu

Of course. Everybody wants his theory to be objectively true. Or be constantly falsified by observations. Or established in research programs. We observe the theory though. The theory is subjective. So what we observe is dependent on theory. There is no theory independent reality pulling the theory in the right direction. Well, there is, but only after the theoretical reality has been introduced in the first place. Where some see quark like point particles, I see triplets of geometrically extended structures.

Combining the sentences isn't what makes them make sense, or meaningful. What makes them meaningful is whether or not what they refer to is the case or not. — Harry Hindu

But what's the case depends on your theory. Or better, is your theory. Observations are not theory-laden, the observations are the theory.

Are you arguing just to be contrary? — Real Gone Cat

I don't want to get into an argument about that...

Of course those. They are the only two you mention. And subsequently dismiss. So list what explanations you do find compelling. — Real Gone Cat

God's mind lays outside the universe, though they might show themselves. Point particles are mathematical constructs. They don't have a physical counterpart. Particles only seem points. There is a lot of space between 10exp-20 (minimum distance explored so far) and 10exp-35, the Planck length. Quarks and leptons are not elementary, and we can consider particles as 6D structures of which 3 are curled up in 7D space to form 3D structures, loaded with charge (the nature of which still perplexes all of us). We can consider the wavefunction as space itself. We can't know the nature of a particle except that already at the fundamental it's love (attraction) or hate (repulsion). We know though what it feels like to be a particle though.

[Not the OOO God (absolute deity), but the ooo god (relative deity)] — Agent Smith

I can't see much difference between OOOGod and Ooogod. Except between OOG and oog. What's the difference between OG and og?

You do not actually think those are valid alternatives — Real Gone Cat

What do you mean by "those"? God's mind and point particles?

And I caution my philosophy-minded friends to be careful invoking quantum physics. Its an abstraction (i.e., mind-generated construct) — Real Gone Cat

Why can't it be a description of material reality? Particles on the micro level are not that different from their macro counterparts. They wavefunction embracing them is more apparent and particles interact by means of virtual particles. Virtual does not mean not-real though, but the term "virtual" is used for contrast with on mass shell. On mass shell is real, off is virtual.

Best solution: beginnings in time that follow each other up:

$[0-10^{-43}]_{CT}\rightarrow \infty_{TT}$

$\rightarrow$

$[0-10^{-43}]_{CT}\rightarrow \infty_{TT}$

$\rightarrow$

$[0-10^{-43}]_{CT}\rightarrow \infty_{TT}$

The symbolic representation of a serial, non-cyclic, worlds universe.

The emperor of Japan was considered a deity, untill people actually heard him speak on the radio, to declare Japan's surrender. How disappointed they must have been!

I understand your frustration, I feel it too, we cant answer your question yet but that feeling of frustration is a driver that makes us continue to seek an answer. So far, if Cosmology is correct, we do understand the 'How,' back to the inflationary moment. We have no idea about the ultimate why? YET! — universeness

Well, my point is, I think I have such a self consistent, coherent, explanatory, you name it, theory/model. I can see no more encompassing theory to embrace it with. It accounts for phenomena like mass (there are only basic coupling strengths between two massless truly basic matter fields, the absolute minimum), a finite speed of light, dark energy, the whole shebang. Now what? Where did it come from?

You keep on hammering on magma energy but is it indeed the safe answer to all our energy problems? How do you know the magma gods won't turn against us? In iceland it works, but there live only half a million of people. That's about 20 000 times less than the global population! Magma in Iceland resides under a thin surface. That's not the case for many countries, just like the Sun doesn’t shine everywhere to turn into usable energy.
Isn't the hammering too frolic?

I refer you to the answer I gave some time ago. — karl stone

Knowing which technology is right or wrong usually comes after the fact.

Finally, a solution to the Great Filter — pfirefry

What is the Great Filter? Is God a filter?

We can, faithfully to both science, as seems to be imperative in modern society, and God, say with 100% certainty that there is a god or even more (the latter seems to be the actual case). They are absolutely there. How else can it be? Where did our universe or the laws governing it come from? Exactly! Not from natural laws. Stephen Hawking wanted to know the mind of God. He wasn't able to read it yet...

Ooo my God!

No. You should fuck everything up and become extinct! — karl stone

That's exactly what science has almost done!

Resposnsibility to scientific truth is the only way to secure a propsperous sustainable future. — karl stone

Holey cow! So we all should bow to the tyranny of science?

Hold a map upside down and see if you get where you wanted to go. Lies don't work. — karl stone

In Australia there are upside down maps. Still they know how to navigate faithfully to the truth. Up and down are remnants of a colonial past, when the Borealis world was considered the first world ruling over the rest.

Despite the odds we currently face, I do think that there are many good people out there who do want to make the world a better place — DA671

I agree 100%. Hansje Brinker, Mary Mapes Dodge's creation, in her Silver Skates book certainly has real life counterweight. There is a Hansje in every one of us.

No matter how dark the night seems, the dawn will eventually come. — DA671

But what will the light of dawn show us?

Human beings are miserable, selfish, mendacious and quite often malicious. — karl stone

Speak for yourself...

They won't struggle to secure human existence, firstly because they themselves are mortal - so who cares, and second, because they view existence as a chore! — karl stone

Again, speak for yourself.

They won't look beyond their own sad selves, recognise a responsibility to truth, and act to secure a prosperous sustainable future - nor see beyond, to the concievably cosmic potential of human intelleigence. They'll lie, cheat and steal unto oblivion; finding vindication in being entirely worthy of non existence! — karl stone

I look beyond my own sad self, though I'm not always sad. You should show some responsibility to truth here! I wonder sometimes even about the beginning of our universe and beyond.
I agree we have a cosmic potential. though lying and cheating is no vindication of non-existence. On the contrary, it is a confirmation of existence: Mentior ac fallere ergo sum.

They might! You're misrepresenting my position. — Agent Smith

I acknowledged your position! Only I didn't mention it were lepidopterianticons from the evil planet Zoq...

Lepidopterans cause climate change. Alright then...

Wèll, the only signal we got from an outside universe was the signal received at the singularity to bang into existence.

There is no mìnd of God nor are there point particles. You can know the nature of the stuff around you because you are made of it. You look at it from the outside and you feel it on the inside. The mind.

If you say God doesn't exist then you make the same judgement as when you say That I don't exist. In both cases you ignore a person.

[

If there is an Inside and an Outside to existence, then physicalism holds (or at least dualism does). It doesn't matter what form the Outside takes - whether it be atoms, or points, or the mind of God. These are just different names for a thing we can never truly know, but acknowledge must be. The only alternative is solipsism. — Real Gone Cat

Why is that the only alternative. The mind of God does not reside in our universe and points neither. We know the outside and the inside we experience because we are the stuff we see the outside of outside of.

And in any case, the atheist isn't judging a being (divine or otherwise), but a concept or proposition: the concept of God/proposition that he exists — Seppo

You don't exist. But I'm not judging you, as a being...

Matter is now defined by ideal mathematical Points — Gnomon

This assumption is the reason for many difficulties in fundamental physics. Strings are a small improvement but not sufficient. Particles must have a dimension of the full dimension of space, which can only be if a particle is a 6d geometrical structure of which 3 are curled up in a circle. Space and particle are thus interconnected. It can even be thought that the 6d space is somehow a subspace of a 7d one. Then it can expand in that space and dark energy will be a natural outcome. But now I'm drifting very far in the borderlands of physics... :smile:

But that is all that it is. — god must be atheist

It's enough for me!

The philosophical question is not where Mind resides, but what is Mind? If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial — Gnomon

Ha! Nice picture. The mind in my brainy neurons sees a laughing mouth. The eyes look grim though! :smile:

Of course, on the macro level of reality, those patterns are always associated with physical things. But on the quantum scale that common-sense association breaks down. — Gnomon

I'm not sure what's so special about the quantum scale. That's matter as on the macro level. There is a wavefunction, which constitutes space, tickling the particles, which are here, then there, then over there, etc. This behavior is not seen on the macro level. Particles can even send out other particles to reach out. It's pure love or hate: attraction or repulsion. Particles form aggregates to create holistically refinements. The can even form faces!

In the menatime, we can continue on your claim "When all mass has accelerated away to infinity". What do you mean by this? a speed? an increase in mass? or a distance — god must be atheist

All mass in the universe tends towards chaos globally. As we see ordered structure time cannot have existed forever. We would see a state nowadays that will only be seen in the far future. All mass will be evaporated into photons then. Maximum entropy. This state will be the trigger for a new bang at the singularity at the origin. Two new universes will come into being. A new dawn of time. A new life...

Once all of existence will be nothing more than a timeless and massless memory, diluting into the oblivion on the waves of pure energy rushing into infinity, the sign is given for new life to burst into ull massive existence.

Okay...

Indeed. I can see no heat differential in your function.