:up:

I'm struggling still with some things you offer, brother ucarr. But at least you offer something new and interesting. That's how philosophy should be! I'll be back! There's a little lady dog staring me in the face with asking eyes. "Wanna walk daddy!" Woofwoof!!!

Maybe you could start providing claims (the more the better) that others can then go out and check? — jorndoe

How can others check the experience? I can only tell it. And the tale told was pretty convincing though the wish might be the father of the dream. Anyhow, it was a wonderful dream.

Slap Trump in a dream, check if he has a bruise the next day, don't forget to apologize? — jorndoe

If only I had access... :lol:

didn't merely say it exists at all times it exists. I said it never DOESN'T exist. There is no time prior to its existence, and it never ceases to exist. — Relativist

But there are two different kinds of time. The emergent causal thermodynamic time and the non-directional, fluctuating time state before that. It doesn't make sense to say the TD timeless state exists in time. That timeless state doesn't need time to be created. It doesn't exist in your time-framed way. It's in direct contact with heaven. Though here I maybe go a bit to far.

You sentence does not even make sense syntactically — Tobias

Oh dear mother of god... This shows even clearer your seriously distorted and hopelessly confused ignorant attitude towards a discipline you cowardly conforming reduce to a set of prescribed standard rules with with you measure to eagerly show fallacies, syntax errors, logical flaws, contradictions, inconsistencies and incongruencies, non sequiturs, and other made up gimmicks to proof your inherent superiority. I leave it here. Nothing to be gained here. Neither philosophically, scientifically, or theologically. Goodday...

Huh? — Tobias

Then whose is it?

You're free to believe whatever, but you're not going to convince anyone else by this methodology. — jorndoe

The difficulty is that the inner experience, the dream, is of another quality than experiences in the sciences. We can all see the stone falling to Earth or the diffraction pattern behind the double slit. At the same time, mass psychosis can rule supreme in the sciences and one sees what one wishes for badly. How can we establish a theological methodology, like a scientific methodology?

Example – Complex Motion – Two Atlases, real strong men, are tossing back and forth a tv that’s turned on, displaying moving pictures. These guys never drop the tv, so the game of toss has some complex motion going on as follows: — ucarr

I haven't seen such powerful example of an accelerated reference frame before!

Hit the canvas! Show them theists!

You proved nothing. You just related an experience. Since I do not have that experience you proved nothing. — Jackson

Ah, because you didn't experience that. Well then, what more can I say...

I do not understand this sentence — Jackson

You say that if I tell you I saw gods in my dreams showing heaven and the reason for creation is no proof. I ask you to reconsider. Why is that no proof? Because I can lie about it?

Clearly, that is what I meant. — Jackson

That the experience is no proof? Then you need to reconsider your proof.

Well, my bet is that the person versed in metaphysics will write something more interesting than the chemist. She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff. — Tobias

Why would that be more interesting? It completely depends. Who tells the best story. That doesn't need to be the metaphysician.

A proof is not the mere telling about one's experience. — Jackson

The mere telling is no proof no. But the experience is.

Ethan Siegel: Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore (Oct 13, 2021) — jorndoe

I could have told him that two years ago already.

Therefore it is not a proof. — Jackson

For you not. For me yes. No, for you too. If I have seen gods in my dream, how you proof it's not directly from the gods. I can proof it is. Because they showed me the true reality of nature.

Philosophy is different from the currently popular but vapid 'having my own philosophy'. It is just a fancy word for 'opinion' in this case. — Tobias

Every philosophy is one's own. There is no independent true philosophy hanging around somewhere with objective standards of what good philosophy is. The fact that you're hopelessly confused that philosophy is about arguing makes this seriously clear.

Wins what? A philosophical argument? Not at all. This just shows you are pretty hopeless at philosophy. — Tobias

I don't mind. I'm not into arguing.

To you, yes. For me no.

You can see them in dream epihany. Quantum mechanis offers the possibility. There are no laws contradicted. You might hear them speak. I consider that proof.

I don't care, it's just semantics. My fundamental point is that it's coherent to say material reality exists at all times and this precludes it being caused. — Relativist

It's not just semantics. Existing at all times is not existing eternally. Of course something exists as long as it exists so at all times there are. How else can it be.

That's the nature of all "proofs" of God: they depend on debatable metaphyical assumptions, made conveniently by theists to convince themselves they've "proven" God. — Relativist

Not all proofs of god assume the gods before.

You're one step ahead. Wanted to ask the same!

"To get the picture".

The schizophrenic is drowning in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight. — Joseph Campbell

The mystic hears the music in the water and swims while dancing. If you can't hear the music it's hard to dance.

You can do it very well without doing philosophy — Tobias

Every physicist has his/her (unconscious) philosophy on nature.

She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff. — Tobias

That depends on the chemistry. If she points at the chemistry of patterns in spike potentials and the chemistry involve in firing motor neurons, their relation and the chemistry of motion and perception, added with the chemistry of emotions, memory trails, and the happenings in a mushroomed brain, she wins.

Allright!

I gave a lot of answers last night. And I asked the question right now. I posted but not questioned. Only a short question will do. I dont get the system yet. Ill try again.

thought you had posted lots of questions on Quora but I could only find examples of your answers to questions posted by others.
When I searched for you under 'questions,' I got no hits. — universeness

Like I said, no fiat for the question. Im still waiting. But Ive given the question as an answer!

I never understood why he didn't get the Nobel prize for general relativity. He made that on his own! Of course the math was there, and the Lorenz equations. Coming to think of it, he only said the speed of light is constant in every frame... leading to curvature of space.

Ah, found it!!!!
I didn't put the pieces together till now. Using the FULL search criteria, I found your question.
Away to read it. Will post back later! — universeness

We're truly brothers. Just managed to find the link.. But Ill leave it... Hope you like it@

But anyway, it was not about this man, your example does not prove anything in the context of geniuses of community — Tobias

Yes you're right. The example was not well chosen. What about Einstein in his clerk office? A romantic idea?

I'll try to find a link. I have the app on my phone. No link adres visible. I searched my name. It popped up!

but that has nothing to do with the supernatural. — universeness

How do you know that? QM offers a possibility for them to interact with the mind. They cant show up in macro but certainly in the micro.

I got no reply after several emails. Then I tried on wetenschaps forum and got banned. But its conspicuous that galaxies without dark matter have been found and the bullet cluster contains two separate DM volumes. You could ad hoc change the theory, but his room to move gets smaller and smaller. His claim is that information on a surface comes first. Which is the wrong way round. I wont write him again. Small black holes arethe simplest solution.

As I said, no rationale! — universeness

Why not? The wormhole vision popped up to show me how you can big bangs let emerge. The image was pumping like a heart, sending away two universes on opposite of the mouth. And I thank the gods for that image.

As I said, no rationale! — universeness

Not one you understand!

Jesus brother Uni! You know my name! M...?

And I suspect you have published your critique of his work in a physics journal — Tobias

No. I addressed at him personal and on a physics forum here.

You have tried to but I still see no rationale which you claim connects your physics to your polytheism — universeness

The gods life eternally. No first reason necessary. Eternal intelligence itself is reason. My serial big bang is inspired by the divine longing to watch eternally to their creation. The torus vision I saw in that divine dream.