'Objective' means pertaining to the object"
— Nickolasgaspar

'Objective' means pertaining to the object
— Tobias

Gracias! I didn't know that! — Agent Smith

:lol:

Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation... — Relativist

Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. Of course you can say that's because we don't know but I think we can know. So the three combined give reason, sacredness, and an vision of how gods and heaven look like (like life and the universe) And a reason why they created the basics in the first place. And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred.

Data can be stored in both our knowledge and primarily emotions. For example: Imagine you get burned by touching a hot pot. After suffering the wound of burning yourself, you create a special data of not doing again.
This can be related to the basic principles of empiricism — javi2541997

Every process in the world leaves traces in body and brain. But only in a living body with brain they come alive. You can't see Einstein's field equations by inspecting his dead brain. Like you can when stored on a static computer chip.

Now that's the first convincing argument from your side! :rofl:

This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs. — Relativist

What you mean by justified? Evidence? The universe and life in it is evidence. The gods are no superman fantasies. And who knows divergent QM observations are made. Or other dreams seen...

This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs. — Relativist

Of course it's speculation. So what? It offers reason for the material universe. Only for claims about the material universe, inside of it, evidence is required. And maybe the interaction is by means of hidden variables in dreams. I think it's like that.

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right". — Relativist

No. But for life they are right.

The "fire in the equations" (sounds like something Vilenkin said) is based on a platonic view of laws of nature: equations existing in platonic heaven that mysteriously affect the objects to which they apply. Law realists (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, Sosa) view laws of nature as physical relations, part of the physical structure of the world, existing exclusively in their instantiations . e.g.the attraction between electron and proton reflects a physical relation between them. — Relativist

Yes. Hawking said that. The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them.

Then where are the data stored and how?

What do you mean by "right qualities"? — Relativist

The right coupling strengths of particles, which determines interaction, and are just numbers and determine the relative strengths of vertex factors, The right speed of light. The right Planck constant. The dimensionslity of space, though for three dimensions there are as many translational as rotational degrees of freedom. They could be interrelated though but still. Where does it come from? What blows the fire into the equations?

Why do you assume there are QM hidden
variables? Does quantum indeterminacy unsatisfying? — Relativist

I just don't believe in non-determined, "empty" chance. Hidden variables offer a solution for all problems in QM, and offers a very nice understanding of what's going on on the micro level. They can even function as the Lorenz invariant substance of space. And non-local as the are (and space by definition is) they offer an explanation for spooky effects...

You agree something exists that is uncaused. Do you also agree that it didn't "come into" existence? — Relativist

Yes. The gods are eternal without a cause. I think.

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)? — Relativist

Because them gods are the non-material forms of life, as heaven is the form of the universe. Without the evolving into beings...

that was an uncalled strawman when I have already explain the direction of the source!
Our empirical interactions and observations are the direct source of the information we need to identify the value of a practice(objective verification).
We don't need to assume external systems... Even our imagination is shaped by our empirical experiences...Imagination doesn't create things magically out of thin air...right? we agreed on that. — Nickolasgaspar

You do rely on magic just the same. Without an angle, perspective, frame, reference, vision, subject, etc. the objective reality has no real shape yet. It's us, or other organisms, projecting on reality. Any claim on objectivity is subjective. Where you might see a continuous material, I see a discrete structure. Where you see no gods, I see gods. I can even make it clear to you what I mean with them.

"END OF DAYS 
Nostradamus made chilling prediction of WW3 in 2023 after ‘correctly foreseeing’ Ukraine conflict this year"

So, we at least have another carefree summer!

DOES NOT COMPUTE! — Agent Smith

But the computer does! It computes big X times as fast as we do. On big Y times as many data we do. Simulating intelligence. The brain is a universe in small. Everything there is in the world, we can resonate with. While walking the streets you constantly resonate with the world and your inside world, and yourself (body) on their turn, shape the world. From conception to last breath, no from big bang to last breath, one ongoing process. No on or off button. Well, a final off button maybe...

Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist.
— Hillary
What makes you think that? — Relativist

Just try to imagine how particles, virtual ones, or real ones, and the space the move in (which can be made of the hidden variables of QM) can come into existence. With all the right properties (or a mechanism to include all possibilities, which isn't the string landscape, and why not simply posing that they have the right qualities.). From nothing. I can't explain that. And the direction in which they move, towards the greater entropy, is an indication too.

In my humble opinion, any noncomputational model of mind reads like gobbledygook. Maybe that's just me, I'm not smart you see — Agent Smith

The brain doesn't compute. It simulates. The mind computes.

Isn't a computer Go world champion?

That would mean, (a) Nostradamus could've been a time traveller i.e. he died in the future and was reborn in the past: his "predictions" were actually memories! — Agent Smith

Memories of the future he traveled to, like us, and then returning to the past? Just travel to the past? That's difficult, AS. But out of curiosity, did he say anything about WW3? I know he rightly predicted the Iranian revolution too.

Which by the way means we will never go to heaven! We're doomed for eternal recurrence in every big bang! But every time differently.

Yes, more than likely. You should agree, since you believe there are gods. How could you possibly determine their properties? — Relativist

Well, I can account for that too (Im terrible!). We can know the gods and heaven by looking at all life. All living beings have a counterpart as god.

Sounds like a special pleading. You acknowledge that something exists without explanation, and we agree on that. IMO, the notion that it is something as complex as intelligent beings seems absurd. — Relativist

Yes, it's a special pleading. Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist. Why should eternal intelligence need one too? They are different things. I think the fact (if you dont mind me calling that) that the gods are unexplainable comforting. There must be mystery!

But the phenomena did manifest itself in a detectable way.

If there is a god, it is probably not directly detectable. If one is open to that possibility, one should be open to the existence of other non-detectable things — Relativist

Well, maybe the gods can influence the hidden variables, as proposed in one interpretation. The chance-like character of QM offers a means for that.

Remember, I wad responding to this:

I think everything can actually be known.
— Hillary — Relativist

Not sure I follow you here... You mean not everything can be known?

Why exempt god(s) from requiring a reason for existing? — Relativist

Because they are different from the material universe. They are eternal intelligences, without the need for explanation. At least, not for me. BTW, Im absolutely no Christian or other monotheist. And I don't adore or worship them selfish bastards! :grin:

It's weird in the sense that no one would have proposed it based on everyday experience of the world. The behavior did, at least, have an experimental manifestation. But there could be weirdness that doesn't manifest itself this way. We don't know what we don't know. — Relativist

That's true. But the everyday world was not looked at in the experiments. Of course the macroscopic results were everyday life results. But the microworld has different particle properties. Which are still particles. But point particles are not the solution. They mean trouble in paradise. Singularities or renormalization. All because of point particles.

We may not be able to explore deeper, but that doesn't mean this is truly fundamental. We used to think protons and neutrons were fundamental. — Relativist

But I mean, if there are 2 basics, you can't go deeper logically. Two basis particles is the minimum. It can't be one.

I assure you, Dawkins believes the processes are deterministic (perhaps with some influence from quantum indeterminacy). Genes are not making choices based on some sense of self-interest. The descriptions are terms of art. — Relativist

Of course. But he could have called it the altruistic gene as well then. Though he literally claims to have found the absolute truth of organisms being vessels of selfish genes and memes. Based on a dogma. Now what a view on life...

That's an assumption you make. There is no objective basis for the claim. — Relativist

No. But neither is there not to claim. And I think the incapacity of physics to find the cause of it's ingredients, elementary particles, pretty good reason for such assumption.

The constants are what they are, and the universe has evolved accordingly. Fine tuning arguments assume there was a design objective and remark at the improbability of meeting the objective. The exact state of the universe today is grossly improbable, — Relativist

Yes. But they could have been different. Only if the coupling constants have the ratio they have, and the speed of light and Planck's constant are what they are, life evolves. Redirecting the problem to a landscape, a stringscape, with many possible ratios isn't sufficient. Among the 10exp500 possibilities you already put the right ratio in.

OK, for example, let say not everyone is dead, but let's say that you were put into a box, and buried under the ground with no clocks or watches or phones or anything - you had years of supply of water and food and the air to breath. You are in total darkness and no sounds or lights on your own for a few months. Would your be able to know how much of time has passed when you tried to guess? — Corvus

I would count sheep. 3600 sheep an hour, 72 000 twenty hours, etc. In sleep that's difficult though. But one thing would be sure. It will be later than when I went in!

Or more extreme example, if you were put in the box since your birth up to now, would you know what time it is now? Would you be able to tell how long since you have been in the box? Would you even know what time is? — Corvus

It's the question we would survive, but I guarantee you that time would move like a snail, and we probably be bored to death. I read that they once put rats in an empty cage from birth. To compare with a rich surrounding. (speaking of torture...). It may come as no surprise their brain, the connections between neurons, and their size, was less. I could have told them that from the start! You would now no clock, of course not. Time, on the other hand... Just throw a guitar in the box and time flies! :smile:

I like the tones of these standing waves (getting lower when you lay your finger closer to the box hole).

Defining is a habit of atomisation maybe? On forums like this it is often necessary not to assume your take on some seemingly mundane concept/idea is the same as someone else’s. Then it is a matter of playing between being overly pedantic and overly vague. The ‘hits’ you get you know yourself. Sometimes just one hit helps you move forward and sometimes multiple hits just means you are just saying what other people say. — I like sushi

I'm not sure if atomisation is involved, but I certainly agree that it's false to assume that other people know what you are talking about without further ado. A clear explanation of one's ideas is required, to reach sharpened-pencil-point-like precision.

As you rightly pointed out, no definition is perfect except maybe mathematical and scientific ones — Agent Smith

:chin:

Quantum mechanics is weird - had we not been able to measure the weirdness (eg double slit), no one would have proposed such an odd model. Physical reality may very well have weirdness that doesn't expose itself to us. There would be no way to know. — Relativist

It's not so weird if you understand it from a certain angle, contrary to what Feynman said. It's actually very easy if you get used to it. Okay, classical particles are different, but you can use them to understand the quantum domain. The quantum apple bitten is sweet and we remain innocent!

How could we ever determine the nature of the "bottom layer" of reality? Even if a model were developed (something like the standard model of particle physics), we could never know that there isn't something even more fundamental. — Relativist

Two basic massless particles, beneath the standard model seems the bottom. You logically can't go deeper. Or can we?

There is a psychological phenomenon called "the need for cognitive closure." — Relativist

Exactly! I said that earlier somewhere. When the gaps are closed, gods provide the last closure.

My issue is that "purpose" suggests intentionality, and intentionality implies an intelligence directing it. Theists often reply, "of course there is!", but that's not a deduction, it's an interpretation from a theist point of view — Relativist

But so is Dawkins' interpretation of evolution. The selfish genes or memes testify and this is based on a dogma even: The central dogma of molecular biology.

It can't be denied there is purpose in biology, but the purpose as suggested by Dawkinskians is just a consequence. The passing on of genes and memes is not the purpose but a consequence. Not a cause but an effect. It can't be denied it happens but his interpretation is wrong. That is, wrt to my interpretation, which views life as a mortal, finite, material copy of eternal, non-material life in heaven. And of course, some of that non-materialness is contained in the universe too. It's simply physical charge, like electricity or color, or hypercolor (gravity is a separate case, as mass is no real charge).

A question popular among theists is: "why is there something rather than nothing?" But this assumes there is a reason - so to ask the question implies one assumes there is intentionality behind it all. Similarly, fine-tuning arguments assume there's a reason (or design objective). — Relativist

The question is asked because there has to be a reason. And the fine-tuning argument is a good indication for the reason. The coupling constants (electric, color, and hypercolor charge, and to some extent mass) need to have a fixed ratio. In the string landscape 10exp 500 possibilities are offered but in the face of infinity this is small. We can also look at the geometric shape of a particle (so not strings or branes but something more sophisticated).

Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise?
— Hillary

The OP says "it is better to live." That's why I would be too scared to make the statement you made above. The geek army will get medieval on you for such sacrilege. As a polytheist, you should know better than to blaspheme like that. — universeness

Picard is captain on the Enterprise of life and is grateful for that!

If you dream and them pesky gods try to set up a comlink, Spoiler alert! trust me!! it's just a dream! — universeness

Haha! Ill ask them...

Yes, I heared them. I saw a reference made to the best timetravel movie ever made, for 7000 dollars! Can't remember the name, but sounds interesting. "Primer", its called! But it ranks nr. 15 in this list. And now Im really gonna nap for a few hours! :wink:

Have you watched the full 3.5h podcast for April? — universeness

Not all, but fragments. I will look and see what needs clarification or whatever. He believes in a mirror universe too but differently from "mine". The CPT theorem is differently used. So, let's see. Maybe we can privately exchange and discuss a new thread. But first Im gonna sleep for a few hours. Eyelids dropping...

Tennyson, quite possibly, had never lost in love or suffered in life. — Agent Smith

Oui! C'est comme' ça! Probablement!

Oh you heathen!! Captain Picard on Star Trek Voyager!! Only your gods could make that happen!
Yeah, I remember the episode you are talking about. It was Star Trek the next generation.
All about the nefarious leader of a very African-looking tribal group and his intrigues to hold on to his power base. The fight was between the Enterprises security Chief Lieutenant Yar and the female suitor of the guy who was second in command to the black leader. — universeness

Yes, that's the one! You are a real Trekkie(?)! I saw it on Netflix, last night. Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise? I saw a nice documentary about the history of the series. Very interesting! The ship was designed by just putting a model upside down.

I know a lot of the atheist phone-in YouTube stuff is through Patreon.
I intend to watch this month's podcast in full at some point but 3.5 hours is as long as a lord of the rings movie! — universeness

The video is very interesting. Maybe we can use it as a starting point for a discussion and see where the road takes us.

I followed the instructions in the podcast, and you will encounter the quest for payment with the message that answer is not guaranteed. You can ask on many websites for free, like here or physics fora. What money it costs Carroll to answer? Why did Harari respond, while others didn’t? Because I like his model?

Maybe somewhat off the beaten track, but do you know if new ST movies are planned? Is Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness something? Seems great!