Observations on arrival times of distant star photons show that space is not quantified (different wavelengths show no different arrival times, which would be the case if space is quantified). How could it? What determines when the Planck time is over? If everything is frozen for a Planck time, how can it continue? I think measurable time, like distance, is limited. If spacetime is quantified, how can a particle move from A to B in the first place? Which is not to say that the metric can't be quantified, like in quantum gravity, by gravitons informing it (explaining how spacetime gets its curvature, which general relativity doesn't explain)

Ah yes! Thanx for the link. Indeed I read about an indestructible indivisible reality (I dont agree with changeless). So they argued from contra, so to speak?

I've found atheism to be very aesthetically pleasing, just as much as theism — Gregory

It's you who should be Gregory A...

Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work? — Joe Mello

No Crazy Mello Joe. It logically reveals that there is a higher dimensional space, a non-simply connected space, consisting of two separated sub-spaces, connected by an ultra thin wormhole, the central source singularity. The gods created it, together with love-and-hate-loaded particles, to let two universe come into being periodically and eternally. One for each kind of god, a rough distinction into which godkind can be divided. They watch the heavenly theatre eternally now, realizing the sapiens-gods fucked up in their unified efforts to create and develop the so badly needed particles to give them two eternally repeating universes which they can watch contently relaxed. Only those strange foolish lunatic nee gods... They are looking for ways to communicate with us. I got some message recently. You wouldn't believe me! Keep on tuned, for the final revelation! You have been fooling yourself, Crazy Joe Mello!

Today, this "unmoved mover" can be explained in more scientific terms, without the need to address what brought space and time into existence. — RussellA

If we would consider the omnipresent virtual particle fields residing in the vacuum of nature the eternal unmoved prime mover, we would still be left with the question where that came from.

If our intelligence were God given, as you say, this would have to be treated as an empirical fact about the world, but I don't see any evidence as to why this should be believed. — Manuel

Maybe the very empirical fact that we intelligently investigate and assess the world is evidence. In a dream the reasons and existence of gods can be revealed. Would such a revelation count as evidence?

Someday I'll start a thread "T Clark Finally Puts an End to All This Philosophy Bullshit" — T Clark

I hope you don't post it before I post the thread that makes all of modern philosophy redundant or superfluous... The final truth will be told once and for all.

I was only talking about what I thought you needed to do to call yourself a philosopher, — T Clark

Can one buy their way in?

Why are things the way they are? — Luke

It depends on the objective reality one lives in. In the context of killer whale-gods, wasp-gods, red ant-gods, bonobo-, and even homo sapiens-gods, things are the way they are because they were fed up with eternally making love and hate. They created and developed very special particles to lay back eternally in their heavenly pastures to watch the creatures developing from them in a universe they created for them. The heavenly heavens can be considered a giant cinema screen.

About scientific law:

A piece of the context, from Feynman:

"You might ask why we cannot teach physics by just giving the basic laws on page one and then showing how they work in all possible circumstances, as we do in Euclidean geometry, where we state the axioms and then make all sorts of deductions. (So, not satisfied to learn physics in four years, you want to learn it in four minutes?) We cannot do it in this way for two reasons. First, we do not yet know all the basic laws: there is an expanding frontier of ignorance. Second, the correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean. No, it is not possible to do it that way. We can only do it piece by piece. Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected."

So we know that what we don't know all the laws yet. And therefore, everything we know is an approximation only. There is an expanding frontier of ignorance, and I think he means the frontier that exists when looking to small scales. Of course every expanding sphere of knowledge brings a frontier along. Separating what's outside that sphere and inside of it. There are more things outside of that domain than inside, and maybe each new piece of the domain of nature has its own laws.

We can't know everything, but it's imaginable that when we look to smaller and smaller scales, some ultimate truth can be found (Popper would call such a theory non-scientific, but how can you falsify something if you have hit rock bottom so to speak?).

You can't, obviously, just state the laws of nature. You have to grow into these laws, and once you're in you have to realize that what you've learned is an approximation only. Again, I'm not sure if he means the laws at the bottom or higher level laws, which are approximations always. They are still laws and they can operate quite independently of the laws deep down.

The laws on the smallest scale, which are what we call fundamental laws, can't be exactly right yet and we know it, according to Feynman. So we must let go what we have learned, or at least correct it and see it as an approximation to the deeper theory.

I'm not sure if he thinks that a final theory is possible. I don't see why not, and when we think we have found one, it will always be nature that makes the final call, like in all physical laws we create or find out about.

Is objectivity just another word for Lasègue–Falret syndrome and/or mass hallucinations? — Agent Smith

The more I read here, the more that seems to be the case! Reality seems to be touched upon sporadically, like a fly probing the steamy pile. The pile itself just steams on, giving us the fine odors of ñature we all secretly long for. Only by submerging ourselves, we can only hope to arrive at the essence.

See what I mean? I was scrolling and a text rolled up. I couldn't see the poster yet. But already after one sentence (about liquidity) it became clear!

I think we should be skeptical of drawing too much massive conclusions about QM. It's true that the particle-wave phenomena is strange and utterly unintelligible to us - to the extent that some even postulate other universes to make sense of it. — Manuel

I'm not sure it's utterly unintelligible. Our intelligence is god-given and they were pretty confident and intelligent enough to cook up the basics of the universe.

The universe doesn't need an observer to be realized but it surely needs them to become aware of it.

A philosopher should pay their philosophy dues. — T Clark

Some though, by clever tactics and strategies, try to ride along for free or are way overdue.

Rumor: Philosophers looooove isms, language, and fancy
words
Fact: The rumor is true

don't know what "in time" means. Oscillations are changes. How fast (how much time) does one thing oscillate? You have to compare it to another change to find out. Time is the comparison of change. The direction of some change only manifests itself when comparing the change to another change. — Harry Hindu

The period time is a Planck time. The amplitude a Planck length. That's the maximum length the virtual particles had to oscillate. They don't oscillate in time but constitute time themselves. If you hold a virtual clock beside it though, you would see the hand of that clock go back and forth.

Space changes too. — Harry Hindu

Yes. And both the changing of the metric and real particles moving asymmetrically (thermodynamically, irreversibly) constitute time. Thermodynamic time. The virtual motion of virtual particles on the pre-inflationary era constitutes the non-directional, fluctuating time. A perfect pendulum, an eternal circular motion of which you can't say it's going back or forth. It's going to and fro, waiting for the right circumstances to kickstart it in one direction. Or better, two. The universe and a mirror version. But the wait is timeless in the sense of having no direction yet. The big mystery is why it all doesn't have the opposite direction. And another mystery is who brought this eternal sequence of big bangs, with two ensuing universes, into existence.

We're sorrounded by the products of applied maths and physics. The very devices we're using to conduct this conversation rely on quantum physics ( — Wayfarer

That's the usual defense in favor of the view that scientific, mathematical reality is a real one. We use it to construct technology with. But we can turn that around. We constructed a very limited reality, a subset of a more comprehensive one. Which we have transformed, broke up and divided by math and experimentally constructed as to conform to this image.

Occam's razor, :kiss: Men are simple folk. Women, no, they remind me of Rube Goldberg machines, they do! — Agent Smith

Men being a straight line is having a great privilige. Woman, in their curvy appearances, are anorexiously in search of the right metric, leading to creepy Kardashian-like appearances.

Oops, soory! Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

Not cryptic enough! You're not yourself! — Agent Smith

Must be because I'm married 10 years today! Creepy...

Anyway, I didn't know Plato was the Christopher Hitchens of the Hellenistic world! Do you have any supporting documents, señorita?

How do you know math is "only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death"? :chin: — Agent Smith

That's what Plato thought. He loved Xenophanes who disliked the many gods. They, unknowingly, were the progenitors of western scientific monotheistic thinking. Plato conjured a unique unreachable math heaven (Popper!), X did the same in the religious sphere.

An obvious metaphysical development after that is pure monotheism and then some type of universalism. It has practical advantages over the previous stages of religion because it overlaps more properly with reality — Shwah

On the other hand, the more proper overlapping is the result of hypothesizing a reality consistent with monotheism. Which means, an unreachable unique reality to be approximated by science and math only, is compatible with a monotheism positing a unique OOOO-god, non-imaginable, and maybe approximately reached by meditation or prayer.

What does all that have to do with the mathematical pattern: many to one...to...zero? — Agent Smith

Plato's afterlife world is math-heaven. Only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death. Math approximates. We can't imagine though. Xenophanes reduced the poly to mono. Plato continued. From 1 to zero.

I could be mistaken, but it seems you are fascinated by Lady Mathematica. Her curvy lines are seductive indeed. Her power to break things up, pull things apart, and divide, is quite frightening though. Be warned, Agent...

I'm going out for a stroll. — Agent Smith

Don't take it personal, Agent! I just picked two arbitrary examples from the story sent to me last week. Stroll along well!

Religion and psychopathia are mixed frequently, by theists as well as atheists. Atheists, while meaning it well, use it as an excuse to stick to their unshakable belief. A diversion is easily get rid of by calling it an pathia, i.e, pathetic. Theists, not meaning anything at all, use it in their defense of their one OOOO-god. I have good proof for this assertion.

Rest assure AgentSmith. Like panther god told woodlouse god: sit back buddy, lay back and enjoy the play.

The late Christopher Hitchens said (paraphrasing), the transition from polytheism (many gods) to monotheism (one god) should be regarded as progress as it means we're getting closer to the true figure (zero gods). — Agent Smith

This is a typical note of the late descendants of Xenophanes and Plato, who started the trend towards a unified, unreachable being or reality. X didn't like the many gods. P didn't like observable reality. The result can be seen around us. Why can't many (objective) realities or many gods co-exist?

Hai III! Yes, I thought so too, and wrote, for the sake of the story, that I actually didn't check. For the proper context. But last three weeks see an unusual (?????) activity about these things. Or do I see pregnant wives everywhere? Like a pregnant wife does? Time for a check. You made me curious. Still love your way to express! Keepem cooooming, dooz frash wints!

Before not too long, the revelation the gods were finally able to communicate to me, in an almost incredible, unbelievably vivid and lucid dream, will be exclusively revealed, here on this forum. Is it a coincidence a lot of talking and buzzing about gods, religion, good and evil, omni-everything, free will of God, determinism, elementary particles, (a)theism, JC, the bible, etc. to be heard? I will revelreveal before not too long.

Things that are observed are not in superposition, they have distinct values. Superposition is pre- observation — Count Timothy von Icarus

Before the observation they are in superposition. Then the observation project the state on one of the eigenstates. The measurement of position collapse the wavefunction to a limited domain in space. In the hidden variable picture this collapse is a true, non-mathematical non-local happening. There are experiments planned to discern between the classical standard approach and this hidden variable theory. They give tiny empirical differences but modern equipment can't measure these differences yet and it's very expensive.

The cat in the cage is never in a superposition with the poison device. This happens only in the standard interpretation.

Curious. Is this more of an intellectual or an emotional dissatisfaction? Is it your mind that demands a metaphysics or your heart that demands divine empathy? — lll

That's a good question! I think both. Something mysterious is missing from them. Something unexplainable. The universe is explainable. Be it by physics or Dawkins. But the mystery of eternal gods, being tired of eternally making love and war, creating together these elementary love particles, massless preons with the right basic charges, basic love and hate, evolving into a world resembling their own, except the human gods having fucked up in that creation, lets the wonder return. That's more or less what the short story is about. Gods being tired and bored of making love and hate eternally, longing to lay back in heavenly jungles to watch us play out the story they played so long themselves.

I don't think we are the heads of some universal hydrabeast, using us to masturbate in its attempt to spawn new universes as it can't find a female companion. Or us being part of a universe retroactively collapsing the wavefunction and bringing itself in existence. Mind you, this would be even more outrageous than gods or dead particles only.

The meanings we assign are enough but not without that divine underlayer.

My theory is that we'll always be left with some unexplained 'it' in our grand narratives. It seems to me that you are willing to take certain eternal gods for granted, untroubled by the issue of where they came from. — lll

Yes. I take them for granted. But there is something very different between taking an eternal universe for granted (and I do take that for granted, as it's there, complete with all matter and creatures, all developing according to their own laws) and eternal gods whose intelligences created this. Only an eternal universe, without eternal gods having created it, seems meaningless. Despite all meaning we can internally assign.

be more logically an energy originating from an omnipotent power or from a finite power? — Joe Mello

From co-working finite powers, with creation ability.

Isn't inserting god/s into that hole what you do when you don't have an answer? — Tom Storm

If the hole, the gap, is closed, what else can you conclude? That it's just there for us? How can it be there just for us? Somehow it's more reasonable that intelligences created the universe, even when they are an eternal mystery just the same.

Question: Would the recent scientific discovery of dark energy, which is the mysterious force behind our universe expanding outward from a single point at an ever-increasing speed, be more logically an energy originating from an omnipotent power or from a finite power? — Joe Mello

It is an energy proving we are expanding in a higher dimensional infinite space, created by eternal gods to gìve room for the eternally re-inflating universes from the source, the central singularity. It is proof of their being fed up with playing the eternal game of love and hate. They started a research program to create and develop love and hate particles situated in a very special unique space. The universe is that unique result. Now they just watch us. The virus god, the squirrel god, tree god and whale god. Human gods contributed too, but fucked up a bit.

Is this a euphemism? — Tom Storm

Taking your temperature is the euphemism... What if the hole is closed? Can I still put the thermometer in? Don't ever trust a priest asking you this!

Child: Why is there a universe?

Theist Father: The universe was created for you. Now go to sleep. Your brain’s neurotransmitters need to slow down for a time.

Atheist Mother: The universe just showed up for you, darling. It is a wonderful place for you to live and play. Go to sleep, now. You’ve had such a busy day. I love you.

P

Isn't inserting god/s into that hole what you do when you don't have an answer? — Tom Storm

Sorry Tom, I'm sticking different things in that hole when I don't have an answer...

Dont you laugh!

Isn't inserting god/s into that hole what you do when you don't have an answer? It's using a mystery to explain a mystery? — Tom Storm

No. That's not what you do if you don't have an answer. Though I have to admit, eternal gods are a mystery. But at least they explain the universe, and how people managed to fuck it up locally. Maybe they did better elsewhere in the universe, but I doubt it.

I wonder why people think we have answers to the question, why is there a universe? — Tom Storm

Because there is an answer! And you inspired my answer.