A worthwhile mention while I’m at it: Heraclitus, despite his philosophy of cosmic flux - and despite his fragments being open to interpretation - held a belief in a singular, absolute governing force that stands apart from all else - what we could nowadays label a belief in “the Real” or the Absolute — javra

It is worth noticing that in it's contemporary incarnation this absolute governing force could be the omnipresent timeless quantum vacuum from which real particles emerged and which is used (by coupling to it) by these real particles to interact

Is there any sense of differentiation in the womb? Interesting question but hard to answer, I'd say. — Janus

Well, what I know , is that the visual cortex in the evolving brain is stimulated by the retina. There are moving concentric patterns, moving over the retina, sent to the brain. So formal structures are imparted. But not from the outside world. In preparation for it though. A priori?

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely — universeness

How can you know if you dont understand my ToE. I have shown the basics, very carefully not to get banned, but the only counter offered was none or ban, or reference to what's the standard, which is perfectly circular. But I understand them. They have a career to care about and esteem to be worried about. Luckily there are exceptions. Fir example, Cosmas Zachos, writer of a book on QM in phasespace, simply says he simply doesnt know.

Expose any sentient being other than a human to experience, and they're not going to learn to speak, — Wayfarer

I don't agree. Rats in empty cages for long time have less evolved brains. Which I could have told without the actual experiment (which actually has been done! :scream: ). Maybe a growing child without other people acquires other modes of expression than language. The scream of loneliness or boredom. Language is a social phenomenon. But making sounds is not.

See The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss, Neil Ormerod. — Wayfarer

I which we can read:

There is a certain desperation apparent in the attempts of various authors to eliminate God from an account of the origins of the universe. For, at bottom, what motivates such attempts is the desire to overcome the very incompleteness of the scientific project itself - I call it anxiety over contingency.

This anxiety is perhaps nowhere better exemplified than in the recent work of Lawrence Krauss, who is attempting to do for cosmology what Darwin did for biology: remove the need for God as an explanatory cause. The muddle that Krauss' most recent work illustrates will help bring us to a fuller account of the need to recover the significance of intelligence and reason in relation to reality.

How frustrating for the atheist scientist. They just can't figure out how the hell it's done...

But that is where the observer effect in physics has put a cat well and truly among the pidgeons, as it attributes to the act of observation a fundamental role in the experimental outcome — Wayfarer

Which is only the case in the standard QM. Of course does our consciousness projects onto the dark physical world, but it has no causal power. Observing doesn't collapse a wavefunction. Just had to mention this, cause you present a questionable, and probably wrong premise.

I mean, you can try to make real video look fake, or a deep fake look real. But I always can tell the fake identity from the real. It is thought that in 5 years, 90% of visual information is deep fake. Neighbor girls projected in porn videos by the local computer nerd. What has the law of identity to say about this?

My point all along has been that so-called synthetic a priori judgements come after experience — Janus

A neonato is pooped into the world with a priori knowledge. Aquired in the womb but still.

Epistemic priority is not necessarily temporal priority. It's not as if human infants are born with the ability to reason — Wayfarer

A baby's cry sounds reasonable to me though.



Janus, you think I dont get tired? Just face the facts. Two or 47 electrons are two or fortyseven electrons. With lost identitities while having identities. Love kills! I wont repeat it again!

1.It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe. — Philosophim

It is not necessary something is self explained. The universe can't explain it's own existence. Gods, being eternally intelligent, don't need an explanation. Gods are the only reasonable reason for the universe's existence.

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely — universeness

The point is, you don't understand what my theory is about. And you can call in the physical infantery, the "hot-shots", but they dont have a true counter. And WTF means highly unlikely? More likely that they are right? Oooookaaaaay.... woowoooooooo... kedeng kedeng....woowoooo!!!

Logically, if there are two electrons. then they are not the same. Perhaps you mean that there is only one electron that appears as two electrons in superposition. You can't have it both ways. — Janus

There are two electrons in a superposition. That's the object used in quantum computing. There have been made superpositions of 100 of them even. The electron's identities get mixed up totally. There is no logic applicable. Love and hate are completely crazy and illogical. Not to mention irrational.

I have the feeling, mr. Gill, that you and I, despite a considerable difference in age, we're quite alike. You try (tried...) to pull yourself to the top of the boulders by your arms (!), I try a kind of same thing with the boulders of physics. I have the chalk and technique. I know what's on the top. It's a beautiful view. But there are little other people. They rather stay safe down in town. So to speak.

I wanna become a "Disciple of Gill"...

And don't forget the 6 color charges. Which are maybe even more important to consciousness.

In fact. A human particle with arms, legs, a face, charged with electric load. Reaching out to other such particles, while destroying a major part of the animal particles and flower particles. Breaking them apart to try to understand them.

In fact, I had that coffee mock in mind! But the vase is not changed in a fork then. The vase is just gone. Something can only change if it keeps its identity. I can change from laughing to crying.

Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary — Philosophim

A god, better, lots of them, are logical necessary to provide final closure. If the final gap is closed, only gods offer reason. A logical conclusion. You can't argue gods away by logic.

A photon is an energy packet, not a billiard ball, of course, it can be absorbed. What's happening in photosynthesis if energy cant be absorbed? — universeness

It's a particle just as an electron. The electron is made if three massless particles. The difference between the massless photon and the massless sub is that the massless sub contains pure kinetic energy and the photon pure potential energy.

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely. We all have our subject specialisations. I — universeness

Which only goes to show you dont know much about it. I know enough about the brain. Computers dont interest me even one mm.

So. It's potential energy that's absorbed. Not the photon containing it. When delivered, it returns in the vacuum.

Well, being an electron, eeehh, sorry couldn't resist!

Seriously. Okay. I think the wave is real. Ala de Broglie or Bohm. Who both were just put aside without reason (just ordinary powerplay). If you consider the wave made from hidden particles (which could be the make up of space itself!), then the electron hops non-locally and instantaneously within the bounds of the wavefunction, spending most times where the "density of space" is highest. So both the particles as the waves are real. No collapse problems, measurement problems, many worlds interpretations, etc. If only at Copenhagen...

How can a vase change into a fork? It truly can't, lemme tellya! In cartoons...yes. But life is no cartoon. Only if a face, eeeh, vase, puts on fork clothes this can be done. I think you over estimate the power of thinking (which is exactly where you excell in, so that's understandable). Which probably is why you think there are laws of thought. Which there are not. QM is prove that we are indeed bound to classical thinking. Which is to say, if you accept the bounds. Which I don't. I think non-local, like an electron! I'm an electron! :wink:

I’ve extended that indefinitely as I regard you as a troll and/or manic. — I like sushi

I consider that as a compliment! :kiss:

So a thing can only be itself if it's itself. A vase can't change into a fork because then the vase is not the vase anymore, unless the fork is a vase in disguise. The two electrons in a superposition are themselves and not themselves (namely, the other electron) at the same time. A is A and not A. Nature doesn't follow established modes of thought. QM is weird. But fully comprehensible, if we accept non-locallity as a feature of nature. The electrons have split identities. Is itself and the other at the same time. Love operates at fundamental level already! :heart:

The supernatural, by definition, is something that defies the natural order of things. — I like sushi

But that natural order of things is not known, generally.

Ten june... I know, I know...

What's paradoxical about the twin paradox? Wouldn't it be a paradox if the twin astronaut returned with the same age to his brother on Earth? Is the paradox time dependent?

Niiiice! :grin:

What do you mean by Supernatural? I would think that means actions of God. — Jackson

I had the same thought. Is talking between minds, without talking, supernatural? If it can be done, no.

I just have to look at my dog to know they have mores, moral. She comes by close, while we don't watch, takes a piece of food that's mine, and runs of fast to hide under the bed with the stolen piece of chicken.

They even know how to act. I turned my attention to another dog and she dropped to the ground just like that. Crying like a baby. Her poor hind leg... She bit me when I tried to help (not hard). The jealous bitch!

Question : Is the mind separated from the body?
Philosophical answer : Probably not, because it would cause a lot of problems if it was. — Skalidris

This question is easily resolved when we consider mind an unseparable part of matter, like electric charge in an electron. In that view we are an incredibly complicated material particle with a mental charge (which, in fact, is an incredibly complex electric charge, running around on the incredibly complex neuronal network of the brain). What exactly is that charge? No one knows. The gods out it in matter. Inside of a Planckian 3D hypersphere.

We don't know what it is, but we can feel it inside.

Which is a philosophical statement about science.
— Hillary

Yes it is. — Tobias

Can that statement be confirmed or falsified? Is it really what science does? Relgion seems to do the same.

I do not think philosophical concepts are 'stronger' than scientific ones, they concern different things — Tobias

Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division?

Oh! Sorry! I'll leave the two of you... just saw it now...

Sciences maps what the world is like — Tobias

Which is a philosophical statement about science.

The whole theory he offered was a collection of ckicks, maximally entropized with Gibbs measure. He prijected the apparatus of QFT and the second law of thermodynamics on experiment. No wonder QM followed (Born rule). Be put it in it at the start! Except QG...

was just trying to be as ridiculous as you were being.
You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons.
I tried to explain to you that I found your suggestion as ridiculous as suggesting that everything in the Universe was made from the 4 elements the ancients believed made up the Universe.
32mReplyOptions — universeness

You lost me. Who talks about water fire air and earth. You! Still dont understand why you write universum with a U...

Your point here is moot as I am not challenging your physics with mine, I am challenging your physics with what other physicists say. — universeness

But you dont understand other physicists. What then do they say? Quote please! you make things up!

I gave examples of profs who agree. Where are the arguments of the experts you refer to? Please, evidence instead of "the expert says".

You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons. — universeness

How else if you envision it as absorbed? The photon just stays the photon. If two electrons have couple by means if the photon, the photon gets closed from a line to a circle again. Return to the quantum bubble.

Well, I was just suggesting that if we all just accept that everything in the Universe is 'stuffed' with some combination from earth, air, fire and water based on your accusation that I am claiming electrons are stuffed with photons, then your physics T.o.E might become more popular and people will accept the final sentence you will be compelled to write in your physics paper when it's finally ready to be published. — universeness

You totally and utterly seriously lost me here... woowoooooo!

So based on all the evidence I have cited in this paper my final conclusion is, gods did it all, — universeness

Exactly! If they have a better theory from where the TD timeless 5D quantum vacuum came.... But they dont! Woooowoooooooo!!! :party:

What's your problem with theism? Man, you're worse than the watchtower preachers. The witnesses...

If you had some knowledge of physics I would accept that. But you havent! :lol:

All such monkeys are too busy trying to type out the full works of Shakespeare! — universeness

Shakespeare a con. What about life being tortured in the name of science? And they even get a medal for it. Not the monkeys...

Woowoo to you too! do you like old steam train whistles?
now — universeness

Woooowoooooo! :lol:

And what about the monkeys to know, in the name of science...