My spine tingles at this revelation! I can carry out my experiments on Mars. — jgill

:lol:

If the particles are circles on a cylinder, how close can they approach. Whats the distance between two circles?

On a cylinder, aren't the length direction and the circumference direction perpendicular? :cool:

Tanx for sharing the light! Dunno about sublimation... sublimize crime in sophisticated spectacular and intelligent bank robberies or jewel thefts from museums?

I would take more of a cognitivist anti-realist position on morality: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. I don't think the universe instantiates any "good" or "evil". — Bob Ross

A moral interpretation of the phenomena implies that phenomena have inherent morals, as interpretations are phenomena. So if a phenomenon is interpreted as good or bad, that interpretation instantiates the good or bad.

good" and "evil" are essentially the projection of subject's onto the world. — Bob Ross

That means that there are no goodness and badness in people or other creatures, which is contradicted by the phenomena.

What one annihilates today as "evil", is only an annihilation of what they considered "evil": there's nothing objective to annihilate that instantiates evil. — Bob Ross

In practice though, what is interpreted as good or bad, can be annihilated. History is full of examples. The question is, should we allow irrational annihilation of the interpreted evil? Isn't annihilating interpreted evil even bigger (and objective!) evil than the evil being annihilated?

I don't think the universe has some sort of plan to restore "the balance" — Bob Ross

Still, it seems to be happening. The path of western man away from nature seems a path away from a natural moral. The digression from this moral translates in natural chaos and chance of natural annihilation.

because suffering, in contrast to "happiness", is objective in so far as it is factual what deprivations & harms, fears & losses render (almost) every individual of a / our species dysfunctional or dead, that is, whatever is not good for a / our kind, and, therefore, that it can be known whether or not "gratuitous suffering" is foreseen and, if so, prevented or mitigated or reduced. — 180 Proof

Likewise:

because happiness, in contrast to "suffering", is objective in so far as it is factual what opiates, sex, dance, ecstasy, love, food, touch, render (almost) every individual of a / our species functional or alive, that is, whatever is good for a / our kind, and, therefore, that it can be known whether or not "gratuitous happiness" is foreseen and, if so, stimulated, or intensified, or increased"

Dear brother Gregory is no longer with us, regrettably. It appears he said something wrong. About the evil left or something like that. So allow me to answer. In my humble opinion, it's absolutely no weakness not to believe in a reason for existence. If people want to live an irrational life it's completely up to them. It's not a question of being weak or strong and it might even be, get this, a sign of strength to choose for irrationality! So, no worries.

How could we possibly do anything about it, if it is, as you claim, "an undeniable part of us? — baker

Well we shouldn't kill it, for sure. That means killing everyone.

Eh — baker

You heard me...

And the mystery deepens. No cigar. — jgill

The mystery deepens but the Planck length is made Lorenz invariant! :nerd:

Lorenz invariance of the Planck length

Let's consider, to get the taste, the simplicity of the early universe. Consider particles to be geometrical hyperspherical structures. Three dimensions of a 6D space curled up to Planck circles forming a tiny 3D closed structure, like a circle on a cyilinder forms a closed 1D spherical structure. The 1D circle moves in 1D only. Likewise, the 3D spherical Planck volumes move in three dimensions, the space around us. We can fill the Planckian volumes with physical charge. Seven kinds of them. The nature of charge is a great mystery in the world of physics. No physicist has an idea, and can't have an idea, of what it truly is. Let's call these charges mind charge. The vacuum is filled with virtual particles. Two kinds. Those used for the two basic massless matter fields, charged with various kinds of mindcharge. The compete set of charges can be specified but that go to far for a filosophy site. Suffices to know that their are two (again, the dual!) kinds of charges, attractive and repulsive. Mindcharge couples to the omnipresent virtual spectrum messenger particles. These contain mindcharge themselves, like the colored and supercolored charge, present in gluon messengers and supergluon messengers, or are mindcharge free, like the photon messenger. The two real basic massless mindcharges couple to the virtual messenger field (which can couple again to the two virtual basic massless matter mindcharge particles, which can couple again to the virtual messengers, etc. a bootstrap kind of interplay) to reach out to likes or anti likes.

To be continued. In the next episode we'll focus our attention to the origin of the real mindcharges in the primordial thermodynamically timeless (but filled with fluctuating time) 5D quantum vacuum to understand how TD time emerges together with a 3D time, and we'll try to get a better understanding of the duality.

Seeeeeeya next time! And remember, the gods are watching you! Make them laugh, make the cry, either way, you try!

I really do not need statistics for that assessment. Reading your posts is enough. — Tobias

Which only goes to show your level is very low.

Yes and what are the odds that we see Hillary up there? You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton? — Tobias

If you understand my cosmology you will see I belong in the row properly. Proper properly and not like most others claim, believe me...

The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware — Tobias

Dear mother of gods...

Yeah careful, we're coming, be prepared. — Skalidris

The dark forces are gathering Skalidris... Dark clouds are seen in the West... We should consult the great wizard...

In each other? Cosmic romance. — ucarr

:grin:

That's an even better view! Ying and Yang hopelessly lost in each other. The new unifying dualism. Presented her on Tee-Pee-Fee...eeehh.... Tee-Pee-eeF!

Get the picture? Both Ying and Yang would be hopelessly lost.

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias

Not many. Newton, Galilei, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Smolin, Strominger, etc. to name a few all worked quite independently and were trendsetters.

If I count the odds than my assessment is that you dream of coming up with one but will not do so. — Tobias

Besides the syntactically wrong sentence, your assessment is wrong. How do you know? Statistics? Don't make me laugh...

So... you've solved the hard problem. This is good news. Please share your solution with us. — ucarr

Letmme give it a shot. The problem arises directly in the monist approach and indirectly in the dualist approach. The problem in the monist approach seems obvious. If we choose either mind or matter the fundamentals of reality, it's hard to explain their opposites. Impossible actually. Very hard!

We get somewhat closer to the truth if we combine the two monisms to form a powerful double, the dual. But new clouds rise in the dual blue sky. The clouds that block the Sun tell their rainy tale. We have rightly posited two monisms to be the basis of nature, but wrongly put them together as separate. If we consider them simply as belonging to the same elements, we see the Sun breaking through and a rainbow appear. The pot with gold shining is the magic stuff we were looking for! It explains consciousness, matter and their interconnectedness. Matter depends on mind, mind on matter.

Finite or infinite do not seem the same as saying there is no beginning. — Jackson

Doesn't finite say there is a beginning?

When I figure that one out, I shall let you know. :)

Probably the hardest question in the world. — chiknsld

A very astute observation. Why would, should, or could gods be proven in a "scientifically rigorous" way? It's not hard to answer though...

According to the second law of thermodynamics, if time had no beginning, the state of the universe would be thermal equilibrium. As we see an orderly world, past time is finite.

What is the logical contradiction in the universe having no beginning? — Jackson

It must have a beginning, for if not, we would see chaos only.

As a process. Not merely a function of the physical. — Jackson

Consciousness is not the process itself. Its the content

Same with humans — Jackson

The brain processes are not programmed. There is a free rolling process going on. Only connection strengths are varied.

No, it learns and is not just repetative. — Jackson

AI is programmed. It appears to understand, learn, be creative, feel, think, or be intelligent because of a programmed series of hyperfast operations on collections of data.

You are brilliant! Did they something that I missed? I saw the video of Hawking saying that the universe is eternal and nothing is surrounding it? Goodness they try so hard don't they — chiknsld

It feels like voices of ancestors are cheering!

They try much to hard... keeping the epiphanic glorious image from beeing seen! Damned I'm good! :joke:

I totally agree! There is no calculation going on in neurons in the first place. No written program. Even if you could compute non-linear processes, it would still be a programmed simulation of a neuron. Not really a fresh wind blowing into your brain!

Thanks Hillary, but you know it's all due to the glory of Chance. Thank Chance that I was able to come up with that incredible logic. Were it not for the little chance molecules in my brain, I would have definitely made an error — chiknsld

:lol:

The gods had it all arranged for damned well.... Every new pair of universes inevitably inflating to our lifes. Next life it will be me being told I'm brilliant!

Yeah I forgot to mention that in some cases IS dogmatic! And good it does. If science shows Earth isn't flat and some still believe it is, well yeah good then that science doesn't leave any space to such nonsense. — dimosthenis9

Likewise, there are flat-spacers. In the case of the central dogma though, a whole vision on nature might turn out to be a mass hallucination. There is no proof of the conjecture. Yet Dawkins uses it in his selfish gene scenario. And there are more dogmas...

It's this point that I believe makes computer consciousness a logical impossibility — Daemon

We don't need arguments for that. Just point at the impossibility to create even a single neuron from scratch.

Chalmers invented a weird game. He proposed that if you replace each neuron with a tiny computer computing the right exit signals based on the input, you wouldn't notice that your whole brain was replaced by this procedure...

So what? — dimosthenis9

How you know the so desired truth then?

How is that relevant to "argument to death" or "banning" others as you say? — dimosthenis9

Because science pretends to search for truth, while in reality it's objective is far more obscure. Take care.

Real science is never dogmatic — dimosthenis9

Central DOGMA of molecular biology

Reason created the world. Yea that makes total sense.

God must have made the world but not for any particular reason, therefore Chance created the world.

Since Chance created the world then there is no reason to worship God, you see, because at first God created the world, but then we figured out that Chance actually created the world. — chiknsld

Brilliant! :starstruck:

Can you tell how inspired I am? I am reverberating deep, and profound insight! — chiknsld

Yeah! Perfectly reverberated! (Had to translate, so new word learned! )

:up:

when we get to more complex beliefs like creation myths or morality how are these understood without language?
— Tom Storm

They are not. But those are not problematic for Rorty. Nor are they prelinguistic. The prelinguistic true beliefs negate Rorty. — creativesoul

This confuses me. Prelinguistic ideas exist without language. They negate Rorty, who assumes these ideas are language dependent. So no problem for Rorty. Can't creation myths be understood without language?

Look what I found on Quora. An excerpt:

If you mean someone who will come up with a revolutionary theory, I am not sure there will be one. The first requirement is NOT to work in a large group. Large groups need funding, and funding does not go to people playing in left field, and worse, large groups require group think.

A telltale...(is that the right expression?)

OK, I have my chuckle for the day. — Rocco Rosano

:snicker: (a snicker!?)

I've completed my doctorate studies, and I just cringe when Karl Popper is mentioned. IF you understand Popper, THEN you are a level beyond me. — Rocco Rosano

His basics are easy. Science must be falsifiable, which is coupled to a Platonic realm of a world only approximately to be known, so without actually touching it. It's the ides most scientists cling to but in reality real scientist don't conform to this neurotic idea of a never ending search. At some point you say "this is true".

Again: that's true and great philosophy! And it's funny also! Keel it comiiiing! :lol: :up: :victory: :ok: , more fingers I aint got!

You're truly have the better hand here, chiknsld (chickensalad? chiknslud?)! Keep it coming! :joke:

Am I the good that is left when the evil is removed or is the good what is left when I am removed? — unenlightened

Wow! That's a good one! :clap:

I have music in my mind almost all the tim — Metaphysician Undercover

Have you seen a doctor? :lol:

No, the sane dont hear the music. And so are mad!