Yes it is 'necessarily determined,' we have shown how we can MAKE it happen in our genetic manipulation of dogs, sheep, cows etc. — universeness

The difference being that if we make it happen the organisms aren't determining it for themselves and we are basically playing for god.

think you are trying to constantly give the kiss of life to this limited and singular example of the use of the word 'dogma' in a science paper that you have found. You also ignore the fact that dogma is the foundation of all religions. I think the score remains scientific dogmatism:0, Theistic dogmatism: big BIG number! — universeness

The point is, it addresses all of life. All! Based on an unproved yes even improvable dogma. It's just stated organisms don't influence genes.

What??? Please quote where you think I was being helio/geocentric?
We have had no contact from other lifeforms yet. We may be the first but I think that is highly unlikely — universeness

Well, here I hesitated to write that actually. But you take Earth life as a comparison. And probably it's everywhere just the same. Which maybe makes me the heliocentrist, but I think it's the same in the whole universe. Why not?

You are one of the most unconvincing theists I have encountered. You are role-playing, for your own reasons. That's the only logical conclusion I can make. I think you just enjoy taking the more esoteric viewpoint. I can't help seeing you try to convince yourself with 'I do believe, I do I do I do believe, I Do I DO I DO. But I am not convinced you do. — universeness

What roleplaying? You think I fake to be a theist? To receive votes against it, which is my intention? That would be refined but I don't cos play. In fact I think I'm the toughest theist you have encountered. Dawkins and the likes are so easily de-masked. They just can't understand the concept and by going against theology try to consolidate their position in the church in science.

Your play...

Though it's hard for me to admit, some damned good anakysis! The bartricks analysis...

The middle child has the least problems...

What if the tall guy were a white boy and the small a black boy (but equal heights). If the white boy gets the jobs easier than the black boy, how should the boxes be interpreted to establish equity or fairness?

Can there be time without clocks? — noAxioms

Yes. Clocks measure time. Put a clock next to an irreversible process (which are all real particle processes) and you can measure how many periods it took. Which always is an approximation, as perfectly periodic motion is reversible and such process doesn't exist, the exception being the motion of virtual particles, being the only presence in the 3D space of the pre-inflationary era, "waiting" to be set in thermodynamic unidirectional motion before the sign is given by two previous 3D universes accelerating away from the 4D circularity.

The time used in relativity is an ideal, reversible clock, of which you can't tell it's going forwards or backwards.

I don't think relativity requires a (semi) block universe. One physicist once declared us to be climbing along our worldlines, experiencing life on the way. This supposes the worldlines laid out for the material world to climb into. Like an intricate network of iron rails guiding the paths of particles into increasingly ordered structures while new stretches of rails spring off to harbor increasing entropy. The initial rail at the big bang is a closed rail guiding particles along to circle in spacetime (virtual particles), connected to a previous railwork of a previous big bang. Why don't the particles move in the opposite direction on the rail systems?

You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you? — Alkis Piskas

Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)?

Have you seen his other works? Out of this world! Seems he had an encounter with the gods, high up those mountains he bouldered!

It's a great image! Telling about everything about fairness, equality, equity (fairness?), sharing, etc. I don't even think the words are needed.

Wolfram is physicist also. Interesting stuff! I don't agree with it all, luckily!

The dog pulled my arm. Luckily she didn't take puppy course. She is always eager to go to the park. Pulling me along (which I'm fine with, it shows life!). Knowing I'm gonna swing away the biggest treetrunks! With that same right arm she's pulling... Something in my shoulder is stretched too long, I guess... Time heals everything, I hope! :wink:

I guess it pales in the face of your accident about 35 years ago...

, Haglund also makes a mistake by categorically stating that atheists can't feel comfort, because they lack religious considerations. — god must be atheist

Where did I say that? If you feel good without them, that's fine by me. I only explained why it feels good for me. Damned, these Jehova witnesses were right all the time! Though their god is very different from my gods!

Equity is heat-death; fairness is its antithesis. — Banno

The antithesis of heath death is total order. Fairness and unfairness lay between them. Between the heat and the cold. Between day and night. Between sleep and wake. Between the Moon and the Sun.

What is fairness in the first place? You could just as well switch the "equality" and "fairness" signs in the great picture you showed. And call the first "unfair".

Typically human. Already in heaven the human gods were something else...

Haglund has also made the mistake for claiming that only religious considerations can make one feel their life has meaning, purpose — god must be atheist

It makes me feel my life has meaning. Scientific meaning, which is the alternative you suggest, gives me an uneasy feeling. I am no product of randomly started particles or genes and memes directing life for the sake of replication. You can describe life like that, I mean, there are genes, memes, particles and time appearing by inflation from virtuality at a central 4D wormhole singularity if two previous 3D universes have inflated away from each other, etc. It's nice to know. But that's not the reason it's all happening. It must have been made by gods. They made a copy of heaven and the only moral we should conform to is not to fuck up what they created. But science is doing exactly that. So no moral how we should be, what we should be, or about stealing and murdering..The gods in heaven steal and murder too. Are good and bad, fair and unfair. And the human gods in heaven aren't given a chance to fuck up heaven and kill parts of heaven in the name of some heavenly science, as the matter they made the universe with was not present yet, letmetellya! They were involved too in the creation of the universe. But no other gods payed attention to them in the preamble to creation... They should have.

Now that is just another part of the inconsistency of the notion of god. So much the worse for theism. The various attempts here to make god appear moral are inadequate — Banno

[Why should god(s) be moral examples?

If so it's not a tv show, it's a movie, and I'm in a romcom. — chiknsld

:lol:

Weirdo! — chiknsld

I winked at you! In all fairness... :wink:

Life is not fair because the gods are not fair. Why should your hypothesis about one omni god be correct? If we view life in the light of different creators, fairness and unfairness gets a new meaning. Why should you view god as one omni creature? The God?

Btw, what the heck is going on with all the winking around here? — chiknsld

:wink:

Who says that I'm no milk pisser or that I don't steal? If someone pisses in my milk I steal some new at the local supermarket and some honey along with it. When I come home, I listen to the theme of Interstellar and realize all life is just a copy of the life in heaven. We're not going to a hell or to heaven. Life just eternally starts over again. In endless variations. Good and bad included. We should thank the gods for that. Thieves and murderers are creations of the gods too. Excesses though appear if we distance ourselves from paradise which has succeeded already...

What if you never did something wrong and when you wanna drink your milk you see someone pissing in it while putting your honey jar in his plastic bag to take it from you, grinning atya while doing it?

We gotta face it. There are sneaky bastards among them gods...

Some have difficulty accepting this because they're already convinced that they're loveable good people who deserve nothing but milk and honey. — Bartricks

So they should accept it as fair that someone pisses in their milk and steals their honey once in a while or even the major part of their life?

By hypothesis God is omnibenevolent. 'God' with a capital G denote a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. — Bartricks

That's another hypothesis than mine. I consider beings with true creation power as a god.

If you consider a beginning at time zero as a creation and that beginning is embedded in a larger whole and that larger whole causes time to start than the cosmos, that larger whole, can be said to cause the smaller part, the time start at zero. Self creation? Not sure.

This again is incoherent. A 2d surface is a flat plane. To give that plane any type of curvature requires a third dimension. You could give a line (1D) curvature, with a second dimension, but then what you get is a circular plane. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is intrinsic curvature and Gaussian curvature. A 2d spherical surface can be curved without a third dimension its in. The inside of a 2d torus, has negative Gaussian curvature, if embedded in 3D. It's intrinsic is zero, like that of a circle or cylinder.

First, prove the universe exists ... — 180 Proof

What's your obsession with proof? Why should I proof what's obvious? You are like a teacher opening a model skull and taking a model brain out to proof the 7- or 8-year old they have a mind...

@Universeness

And still, your future view is a nice one. Fusion energy, space travel, new worlds to discover. Living 300 years, no diseases, new inventions, hyper computers, new technologies, new synthesizer drugs to experiment with the mind, clean cars, etcetera, you name it. But can we do that at the expense of nature. Isn't it better to cultivate the inner world, instead of stuffing up the world outside with our inventions? To be happy with paradise as it is, instead of trying to establish an artificial impoverished copy version?

God is dead but the gods live!

There may be other base lifeforms in the vast Universe. — universeness

That's the same heliocentric (or geocentric) worldview all over again. Why should Earth be special wrt the evolution of life. It's more likely it's based on the same stuff everywhere, around every star. And if interaction is important to consciousness, it's likely that dead matter contains the seed of consciousness. Not that the universe contains god, but it carries their imprint. Who knows what's the nature of the basic stuff they created? It's divine! :starstruck:

So yes, humans are lucky to be here and not be extinct but the reason they are still here is due to their evolutionary path. — universeness

Yes, but that path isn't necessarily determined by genes accidentally mutating in a way that the organism changes and the best adapted survives. That's what the dogma of molecular biology tells, but there is zero evidence for that (which is exactly why it's a dogma).

What do you mean by 'to program consciousness?' — univ [quote][/quote]

To make consciousness appear by programming a computer.

Perhaps you could give an example of this future 'transhuman' system you are trying to describe here?
Start with a human close to death. What transhuman scenario do you think would not be possible based on your vague description above? — universeness

I'm not describing a transhuman system. I'm describing the impossibility of these. Transhuman creatures can not be made by man. The emergence of conscious creatures is a slow process taking place in the course of evolution. Its not a programmed process, a process driven by a stored program driving the material in a programmed way. A natural process unraveling, developing, is just different from a programmed process. There is no program executed after start button in the brain is pressed. You can't turn the brain on and off. Well, lots of off buttons actually... But you can't turn it on again...

The situation you describe above is possible imo but will most likely take the lifespan of the Universe to achieve. I have only ever suggested a future situation when all questions have been answered as a comparator with the god omnis or an emergent panpsychism. — universeness

Of course lots of questions can be answered. We can ask nature and she answers. A lot of these answers are given in artificial experiments. Which by the way exactly is the reason I consider science an art! Look at these beautiful experiments done! Einstein-Bose condensates, muon g2 experiments, the discovery of DNA (Watson and Crick didn't mention the female share!), all kinds of models of the unvisible world, the Webb telescope, the upcoming Roman, the parity violation experiment, etcetera, etcetera. An ode to human intelligence and invention. At the same time we know so little of the whole. I mentioned isolated succeses, of which there are plenty, but the natural processes can't be known by definition. The gods are no generally no help in getting to know what they created, but they give a reason science can't provide, and actually, thinking about it, if you know the gods you know the lives they made. And my cosmology is even inspired by them. One big bang is not enough for them.

Human brain storage capacity has been estimated by neuroscience at around 2.5 petabytes. — universeness

Yes, that's true. But I mean the dynamic memory. The memory in the brain is not a static one, like on chips. By the Bekenstein limit, every volume of space can only contain a maximum of information. But the brain can harbor as many processes as there are in the universe. Implicitely. You can engrave zillions of patterns in it and each neuron is involved in all of them.

Is that you, listening to Spinal Tap?

Are we just characters in a heavenly TV show?

Yeah, God's a fuckin' righteous peach — Tom Storm

Thou blasphemous pagan!

That's only one of them! The peach tree god.

Do we know the will of this god to know if we are doing the right things to the world they created? — TiredThinker

Good question! I wonder about that myself too. Do they oblige us to follow morals? Do they punish with hell or reward with heaven? Don't think so. I think the just recreated heaven by creating the universe. They had good reason to do so. If you consider all life having a god counterpart part in heaven, so not only human beings, and consider the universe and life in it as a collective creation, after a collective heavenly effort (so not an effort of some aliien, so-called technological advanced culture, which posits the creation myth within the universe itself and assign unrealistic power to universal life, namely the creation of life), then all of life should deserve a fair chance. You might ask if modern humans reflect their counterparts in heaven in destroying nature to a considerable extent. If the natural world resembles paradise is it wrong to destroy nature? How did the humans exist in nature? Were they eager to know everything as they are in the modern day, thereby breaking apart the very thing they want to know everything about? Well, there wasn't a universe to know things about in the first place, as the created the basic stuff to let it evolve into life resembling heaven. But I think the human gods are somewhat different from the others. Did they maybe played some faul game in the preambles to creation? Didn't the other gods watched them properly. Did something just go wrong accidentally? Dunno, but in heaven they wouldn't stand a chance to mess things up. From where comes this desire to understand the workings of the universe? Why not just live and act like is acted in heaven? That would be a good life, which trancends good and evil and morals. Good and bad were part of heaven, so they are part of the universe too. A world in which the bad is not allowed to exist is worse than one in which it can exist. Many bad things emerge from a way of life withdrawn from nature. Like fighting with atom bombs instead of body and teeth.

Reality (i.e. ineluctable limits, facts-of-the-matter, facticity) is independent of faith.

Truth (i.e. truth-bearer plus truth-maker) is independent of feelings.

A "meaningful life" (i.e. optimal agency), at minimum, consists in striving daily to overcome habits of maladaptive judgment (e.g. faith-dependent expectations of reality (biases, superstitions, delusions)) and maladaptive conduct (e.g. feelings-dependent motives / decision-making (vices))

Divine reality (i.e., the ineluctable limits of the gods, their facticity) is independent of scientific faith.

Truth (the gods plus their creation) is independent of anti-religious feelings.


A "meaningful life" (i.e. optimal agency), besides the minimum, i.e., striving daily to overcome habits of maladaptive scientific judgment, means acknowledging faith-dependent expectations of reality (biases, superstitions, delusions) and maladaptive conduct (e.g. feelings-dependent motives) as the only viable grounds of for reason and meaning. It acknowledges scientific reality as contingent and fun, being part of the larger meaning of life in a universe resembling heaven, where life is still the miracle it ought to be.

I couldn't have said it better. :smile:

Not sure if that variant is selected by anyone. Or maybe that virus is more intelligent than we know. It could be that information flows both ways. It's still a dogma in biology on which that view on evolution is based...

Asking questions are not the symptoms of delusions of grandeur — Harry Hindu

Just look at CERN.

To select implies intent already. I guarantee you that you can't randomly select 10 marbles out of a vase with red and white marbles. Approximately random, maybe... Quasi-random. Even if you take one gas atom at a time out of a gas mixture of oxygen and helium gas (equal amounts of both atoms) it's still tricky.

I can point to observations and reason as evidence for our existence — Harry Hindu

The evidence for our existence is not hard to give. But that's no reason for existence. The big bang is not the reason for existence.

When you can I am willing to change my mind — Harry Hindu

I consider the existence of the universe as proof of the gods. I can give you a description of the singularity the universes inflating from it into existence periodically, etc. but that doesn't explain the universe. For me it's the opposite. I believed in god when a kid, university took that away (I even had to sign I was a Christian...), and now I can only conclude there are gods. So from theist to atheist (always arguing with Jehova witnessnes who always know to find me) back to theist.

How can you speak for Haglund? If you tell me that you are not comforted by knowing there was a motive for creating the universe when you cannot know what the motive was, I can only believe you. By the same token, I'm not sure how you can tell someone else they are not comforted when they've told you they are. — Hanover

:up: