Why? if there are no gods then all mysteries currently belong to intelligent lifeforms.
I go back, we don't need the supernatural as the natural is sooooooo super! — universeness

Yes, I agree. The natural is super. And the gods give it mystery. Without the gods it's all explainable by science, except the fact it all exists in the first place.

One fool can ask more questions in a minute than 12 wise men can answer in an hour. — Vladimir Lenin

Are you the mad fool? He hasn't been seen here since you showed up...

Yes. I should have written Physica. All forms of matter and their magic ingredients: physical charges (hypercolors, colors, electrics). It's all a crazy dance of charged massless entities!

Yes, the set of integers is a countable set (unlike the real numbers). But the problem I'm referring to is that a temporal counting process would never end - it cannot reach infinity. — Relativist

So?

We have no need to, if, as I BELIEVE, they don't exist, so no mystery to solve! — universeness

But no mystery gained either.

Rumi

as I BELIEVE, they don't exist — universeness

Shake my virtual hand brother Uni!

We can't look directly into the Sun (God) but we can look at places which the sun (God) illuminates, giving us the real picture of reality. — SpaceDweller

Great one! Reminds me of a Persian poet.

You are right :up: I guess we should see time as pure forwarded pathway to walk through — javi2541997

We don't walk through time. The walking itself is time.

I believe Kant has it correct. Time is a descriptor, not an actual river — Philosophim

Kant was wrong. The flowing river is time.

Incoherent means that something is difficult to understand because it’s not holding together. — universeness

"Difficult to understand". Can we ever understand the heavens and the gods in it? It's an eternal mystery. But partially we can understand by looking at the universe and life in it. Plato!

Makes no sense to me! — universeness

Ah! Look. That's something different than not coherent.

And that's exactly the rationale of Dawkins et. al. They don't understand why gods are needed.

Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent — universeness

Coherent in what sense?

And that seems to satisfy your rationale but you also accept that it absolutely does not satisfy many many others, including me, yes? — universeness

I don't force you to be satisfied by gods. For me they do give satisfaction. The final closure, so to speak.

I assume you have watched some of the atheist/theist debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and De-Souza, William Lane Craig etc. They very rarely throw any kind of personal insults at each other and are respectful towards, but strongly disagree with, the viewpoints of their interlocutor. — universeness

Of course they don't. They gotta stay civil. But meanwhile...

Harris is a self righteous guy. Dawkins too.

They absolutely don't know that's why they propose — universeness

They do. To explain the universe (eternal inflation) and explanation of QM. Both are wrong. Eternal inflation in an infinite eternally inflating space is not what happens. Neither the branching in the MWI.

They absolutely don't know that's why they propose but it is emotive theism to suggest that such scientific proposals are put forward from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is a word with too many connotations to use in the context you use it.
2m — universeness

It's not emotive theism but scientific knowledge that makes me reject it. What do gods have to do with it? If gods made many worlds, then so be it. But obviously they didn't. The MW are totally irrelevant and one world can explain it all. If you know its workings.

would not merely call them ignorant unless I used the word in anger because they were evanhellicals or had seriously pissed me off. — universeness

And rightly so!

A bit harsh towards the theist if you ask me. I would rather ask a theist about why they need the god posit. What role does it play in their day-to-day lives? — universeness

Yes, but that's because you are a welcome exception to the rule!

Its acceptance of the fact that I don't know for sure but I think your 'ignorance' word is too emotive and it has nothing at all to do with belief in the sense of faith. — universeness

Which doesn't do away with the fact that many worlds are introduced because they don't know. I.e., ignorance.

Its acceptance of the fact that I don't know for sure but I think your 'ignorance' word is too emotive and it has nothing at all to do with belief in the sense of faith — universeness

The same word "ignorance" is used if theists are considered. It is said they use gods out of ignorance...

lol mr Hillary is asking evidence for a claim......the irony! — Nickolasgaspar

In science, evidence is very important.

Did you not BELIEVE me when I already stated that I don't believe in the many-worlds theory, I assign it a credence level. — universeness

That's what you believe. Assigning credence level to non-existent worlds is a confession of ignorance.

No, I don't associate the term belief with science in any rigorous manner. — universeness

But you believe there are many worlds outside ours. I believe in only one heaven!

Is that your emotive or venerated opinion? — universeness

It's the truth. They are used to explain happenings in the observable universe, such as non-unitary collapse of the wavefunction and the measurement problem.

The multiverse is not a belief, it's a proposal based on projection of what we know, or think we know — universeness

Which is, on ignorance. It's invented for the unitarity problem in QM.

As I thought. So you reason just the same as theists but with a different belief.

The multiverse is not a belief, it's a proposal based on projection of what we know, or think we know and in my opinion, it is much more viable than your personal polytheistic beliefs — universeness

My believes in gods don't need proof, the many worlds do. I accept the burden of proof in science but not in gods affairs.

Why you write universe with capital u?

The multiverse is not a belief — universeness

Believe me, brother Uni, it's a belief based on ignorance.

"I've got the bullets!"

Metaphysics is not just about words and their meaning. It's about the truth value of words. It's about what the words stand for. It applies to physics as well theology. Metaphysics and metatheology are quite alike.

Your second, pretty good argument! :rofl:

Not entirely out of the realm of possibility; in fact it's likelihood is > 50% and that's a conservative estimate vis-à-vis my abilities to recognize experts/authorities. — Agent Smith

I can sniff so-called experts and authority from a mile! They have a distinct smell. Instinct distinct.

By applying what I consider rational thought — universeness

But many worlds are an irrational thought, a believe... But you're free to think it! Don't get me wrong. If it gives you solace. The many worlds are just worlds, gods, of the gaps. Totally unnecessary if you know the truth.

I don't force you to dance! I just say you believe things just like theists. And even in the scientific realm!

Your playing again! — universeness

You accuse again of playing! The usual approach. Everything you don't like is considered play. But Im serious. Now call this play again! :lol:

I think that the movement now is towards the idea that particles don't exist at all and its all about fields and field fluctuations/disturbances/excitations/perturbations etc — universeness

There are no "disturbances" or "perturbations" of fields. Only fluctuations or excitations. Fluctuations are virtual particles and excitations are real particles. Perturbations are used in calculating cross sections or scattering amplitudes. For bound states like protons, the perturbation approach can't be used. Discrete spacetime calculations in QCD are involved (Monte Carlo....). Took days, for a computer, to compute the spin of a proton!

I KNOW — universeness

Finally the universeness has seen the light! You're promoted to real universe! :lol:

No. You belief in many worlds. But where is the evidence?
— Hillary

No I dont, I assign the posit a credence level. — universeness

Many worlds just don't exist. So how can you assign them a credence level?

Why you think Im American? Because my last name is Hillary?